466 Dr. R. Hare's Objections to the Theories severally of 



of an imaginary tertium quid are perpetually separating only 

 to reunite? (8.) 



16. In cases of complex affinity, where four particles, A B 

 C D, are united into two compounds A B, C D, it is easy to 

 conceive that, in obedience to a stronger affinity, A shall 

 combine with C, and B with D : but, without any extraneous 

 agency, wherefore, in any one compound, should a particle A 

 quit one particle B, in order to unite with another particle of 

 the same kind ; or wherefore should any one, B, quit one A, 

 in order lo combine with another A ? 



17. That such a process should take place in consequence 

 of the inductive agency of a similar process already established 

 in a magnet or galvanized wire were difficult to believe; but 

 it would seem utterly incredible that the most transient in- 

 fluence of such induction should be productive of such per- 

 manent electrolytic gyration as has been above specified. 

 Moreover, it is inconceivable that the particles of any matter 

 should, as required by this hypothesis, merely by being put into 

 motion, acquire a power of reciprocal repulsion or attraction 

 of which it were otherwise destitute. 



18. The vortices being assumed to take place about each 

 atom, cannot severally occupy an area of greater diameter 

 than can exist between the centres of any two atoms. Of 

 course, the gyratory force exercised about the surface of a 

 magnet by the aggregate movements of the vortices, cannot 

 extend beyond the surface more than half the diameter of one 

 of the minute areas of gyration alluded to. Wherefore, then, 

 do these gyrations, when similar in direction, from their con- 

 currence approach each other; when dissimilar in direction 

 from contrariety, move away, even when situated comparatively 

 at a great distance? 



19. I should consider Ampere's theory as more reasonable, 

 were it founded upon the existence of one fluid; since, in that 

 case, vortices might be imagined without the necessity of 

 supposing an endless and unaccountable separation and re- 

 union of two sets of particles ; not only devoid of any pro- 

 perty capable of sustaining their alleged opposite gyrations, 

 but actually endowed with an intense reciprocal attraction 

 which must render such gyrations impossible. But even if 

 grounded on the idea of one fluid, this celebrated iiypothesis 

 does not seem to me to account for the phasnomena which it 

 was intended lo explain. If distinct portions of any fluid do 

 not attract or repel each other when at rest, wherefore should 

 they either attract or repel each other when in motion? 

 Evidently mere motion can generate neither attraction nor 

 repulsion. Bodies projected horizontally gravitate with the 



