was made to part with its eledricity with more difficulty than the-outfide received it, the bodies that formed thé circuit would contrad pofitive eledficity and the refuit anfwered exadly my expedations.
l'alto concluded, that, making the interruption. -in
thc m-iddle of the circuit, fince, in this café, thé inlîde would give, and thé outildc reccive, with equal diilkulty, the bodies in the circuit, placed bctween the place of interruption and the inluie of the jar, would be charged pofitively; and thofè placed between the place of interruption and the outfide, would be charged negatively and this'-alfb was venîied by experiment.
In this ltate of things, 1 found, that I could give
the infulated circuit what kind of eleclricity 1 pleaieJ, provided there was any kind of interruption in (orne part of the circuit and conjeéturing that the electricity of bodies placed near the circuit jyould be the fame with that of the bodies that compofed it, 1 lometimes placed the rod that fupported the pith balls near the circuit, and fometimes introduced it into the circuit and found, that, in both cafes, it contraded the fame elediricity. This tended to confirm me in my fuppofition, that, the lateral explofion was always attended with a giving or receiving of eledricity, according to thé nature of the circuit, and the place where it was fituated and I again «ver™ looked the difproportion between the caulë and the effed.
Prefently after this, it occurred to me, that what
may be called the redundant eledricity of the outfide or infide of the jar, feparates from that which is in the glafs, and conflitutes the charge, mu ft have fome