But I am unable to imagine any change which can admit of 
gradations of intensity, increasing with remoteness. I cannot 
figure to myself any reaction which increase of distance would 
not lessen. Much less can I conceive that such extremes of in- — 
tensity can be thus created, as those of which you consider the — 
_ existence as demonstrated. It may be suggested that the change 
of polarity produced in particles by electrical inductions, may _ 
arise from the forced approximation of reciprocally repellent poles, 
so that the intensity of the inductive force, and of their effort to 
return to their previous situation, may be susceptible of the gra- 
dation which your electrical doctrines require. But could the 
existence of such a repellent force be consistent with the mutual — 
cohesion which appears almost universally to be a property of pon- — 
derable particles? I am aware that, agreeably to the ingenious hy- | 
pothesis of Mossotti, repulsion is an inherent property of the parti- — 
cles which we call ponderable ; but then he assumes the existence 
of an imponderable fluid to account for cohesion; and for the 
_ necessity of such a fluid to account for induction it is my ultimate 
object to contend. I would suggest that it can hardly be expe 
dient to ascribe the phenomena of electricity to the polarization 
of 7 ponderable particles, unless it can be shown that if admitted, — 4 
it would be competent to produce all the known varieties of elec 
tric excitement, whether as to its nature or energy. i. 
__. If Lcomprehend your theory, the opposite electrical state ines 
ag on one side of a coated pane, when the other is directly 
we" ye ay arises from an affection of the intervening vitreous 
_ particles, by which a certain polar state caused on one side of 
the pane, induces an opposite state on the other side. Each vit — 
reous particle having its poles severally in opposite states, they 
are arranged as magnetized iron filings in lines ; so that altern 
opposite poles are presented in such a manner that all of one ki 
are exposed at one surface, and all of the other kind at the ot 
surface. Agreeably to this or any other imaginable view of the 
subject, I cannot avoid considering it inevitable that each pa 
must have at least two poles. It seems to me that the idea 
polarity requires that there shall be in any body gfe ih t 
two opposite poles. Hence you correctly allege that agree 
to your views it is impossible to charge a portion of matter 
one electric force without the other. (See par. 1177.) ‘Bat if 
this be true, how can there be a “positively excited parti 
A _ Aletter to Prof. Faraday. 
: 
: 
Re 
CS 
