[Benjamin Franklin Drawing Electricity from the Sky c. 1816 at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, by Benjamin West](By Benjamin West - uwE3TyGK4QGScg at Google Cultural Institute maximum zoom level, Public Domain, Link)
Willingness to talk about the emergence of electricity. But not about the grant of its receipt, but about the place of its origin. The point is that electricity can not exist independently or separately from matter. Only in matter or in matter, which indicates that electricity is one of the properties of matter, at the level with the property to radiate all substances by light.
The second moment is charges. It is worth noting that charges, just can not exist on their own. They take place only in the presence of matter and arise only in pairs, as we call negative and positive. The only negative charge can not be, there must always be a multi-valued positive charge, which suggests that this is one "thing", not two, but under different eyes, but then ...
[Title page of his 1759 book](By Franz Aepinus (1724-1802) - Google books: https://books.google.cat/books?id=pYY_AAAAcAAJ, Public Domain, Link)
Let us return to the question of the origin of electricity. It's not in my rules to criticize something, but the modern classification of substances on conductors and insulators is not clear to me. Such a classification is correct from the standpoint of the products produced and their properties, but not from the position of division according to the nature of the substance.
Very accurately and accurately the substances were categorized as early as when only such a phenomenon as electricity was discovered and began to be studied. At the time of Franklin, Epinus and Moushenbreck, the substances were named quite differently and had a different meaning. Source "Description of some new experiments as an explanation of the electrohydraulic perspective" 1761. ("Descriptio ae explicatio novarum quarundom experimentorum electricorum" v. IV 1761)
In the very way other bodies act on the particles of the electric fluid, there is a notable difference. Some of them are distinguished by the property that electrical matter moves in their pores with extreme ease and without encountering any resistance, passing freely in both directions; on the contrary, other bodies are of such a nature that they hardly tolerate such movements and prevent its free movement: usually bodies of the first kind are called non-electric in nature and the latter are electric in nature.
Now I will explain the logic. Electric bodies are bodies by which one can receive electricity. It is glass, wood, fabric, resin and so on. It is enough to unite and disconnect them and they become electrically charged. Such bodies are in fact the source of electricity in physical nature. Non-electric bodies can not be recharged. These are metals and other conductors. With their help, electricity can not be obtained, but they are excellent conductors of electricity. Therefore, with their help, it is possible to deliver electricity to any place.
Electric bodies are the source of electricity, that's why they are called. Electricity does not produce electricity. Even considering chemical electricity, where the source of charge is all the same electrical bodies, and conductors are not electrical.
Since the 18th century a lot of time has passed, and science has not stood still, we have learned how to produce electricity in new and different ways, but they are all based on the old classification of the nature of matter. And we do not use such concepts and divisions. The lack of such a classification has taken us away from the understanding of the origin of electricity as such. Now we understand what is the source of electricity - this substance or body.
[An early 20th-century illustration of a Leyden jar.](By Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Originally from Newton Henry Black (1913) Practical Physics, The MacMillan Co., USA, p. 257, fig. 217, Public Domain, Link)
