ON THE THEORY OF SOLUTION. 319 
ideas of the relative stability of various bodies, and with the principle of 
the conservation of energy. Of course we know that each ion when dis- 
sociated is not supposed to be permanently dissociated, but to be continu- 
ally combining with its neighbours and separating again from them as in 
every other case of dissociation; but at any particular moment a very 
large proportion of them is supposed to be free; a proportion which, accord- 
ing to the very results under discussion, must be very nearly, if not quite, 
100 per cent. of the whole ; and we have to settle whether it is probable 
or possible that a decomposition such as this could have been effected by 
introducing the compound into water. And how can we regard it pro- 
bable that compounds of sucn stability and compounds formed with such 
a development of heat as sulphuric or hydrochloric acid should be thus 
entirely dissociated by water; still less that these, and all the most stable 
compounds which we know, should be thus demolished, while all the less 
stable ones—such as hydrocyanic, sulphurous, boric acids, &c.—remain 
intact? How can we admit that the more stable a body is, the more prone 
it is to be dissociated ? 
And if such a dissociation has occurred it must have been without any 
absorption of heat, and, consequently, energy must actually have been 
created. Take one of the simplest instances, that of hydrochloric acid. 
If anything at all is certain about atoms, it is that the atoms in an 
elementary molecule are united very firmly together, and that therefore 
in separating them a very large absorption of heat would occur. To 
separate 2HCl into 2H and 2Cl would absorb far more than the 44,000 eal. 
which we know are absorbed in separating 2HCl into H, and Cl,. Yet 
the supporters of the dissociation theory would have us believe that this 
separation has actually taken place, not only without any absorption of 
heat, but actually with a development of 34,630 cal.; that is, that 
44,000 + 34,630 + cal. have been created, and that, too, through the inter- 
vention of the water, which has ew hypothesi no action whatever. 
This difficulty is realised by the supporters of the physical theory, but 
the way in which they meet it does not appear to me in any way to 
overcome it. ‘T'o explain the non-absorption of heat in the dissociation 
of the salt they suppose that charges of electricity combine with the 
liberated atoms, and in doing so evolve an amount of heat exactly equi- 
valent to that absorbed in the separation of the atoms from each other ; 
and a later development of this theory is, [ believe, that the atoms, 
thongh separated, are still held together by means of these charges, so 
that the net result is the supplanting of the chemical bond by an electric 
bond of precisely the same value. It appears to me that nothing sub- 
stantial is gained by such a substitution, and that its occurrence is not 
merely hypothetical, but impossible. Whence come these electric 
charges, and by what agency are they brought into play? On what 
grounds can it be maintained that a charge can combine with matter so 
as to evolve heat, and that the heat so liberated is exactly equivalent to 
that absorbed in the decomposition of the compound? And, if this 
equivalence exists, how can we account for the force which develops the one 
overcoming the equal force which develops the other? Or how, again, 
can we account for the heat developed in the act of dissolving? If, on 
the other hand, the heat of the combination of these charges is supposed 
to be equal to that of the combination of the atoms plus the heat of dis- 
solution, we are met by the objection that the latter is often negative, and 
that therefore the heat of combination of the charges must often be less 
