8 A letter to Prof. Faraday. 



resulting from the polarization are thus reciprocally compensa- 

 ted ? I must confess, such a concentration of such forces or 

 states, is to me difficult to reconcile with the conception that it is 

 at all to be ascribed to the action of rows of contiguous pon- 

 derable particles. 



Does not your hypothesis require that the metallic particles, at 

 opposite ends of the wire, shall in the first instance be subjected 

 to the same polarization as the excited particles of the glass ; and 

 that the opposite polarizations, transmitted to some intervening 

 point, should thus be mutually destroyed, the one by the other ? 

 But if discharge involves a return to the same state in vitreous 

 particles, the same must be true in those of the metallic wire. 

 Wherefore then are these dissipated, when the discharge is suffi- 

 ciently powerful ? Their dissipation must take place either 

 while they are in the state of being polarized, or in that of re- 

 turning to their natural state. But if it happen when in the first 

 mentioned state, the conductor must be destroyed before the 

 opposite polarization upon the surfaces. can be neutralized by its 

 intervention. But if not dissipated in the act of being polarized, 

 is it reasonable to suppose that the metallic particles can be 

 sundered by returning to their natural state of depolarization ? 



Supposing that ordinary electrical induction could be satisfac- 

 torily ascribed to the reaction of ponderable particles, it cannot, it 

 seems to me, be pretended that magnetic and electro-magnetic 

 induction is referable to this species of reaction. It will be 

 admitted that the Faradian currents do not for their production 

 require intervening ponderable atoms. 



From a note subjoined to page 37 of your pamphlet, it appears 

 that " on the question of the existence of one or more imponder- 

 able fluids as the cause of electrical phenomena, it has not been 

 your intention to decide." I should be much gratified if any of 

 the strictures in which 1 have been so bold as to indulge, should 

 contribute to influence your ultimate decision. 



It appears to me that there has been an undue disposition to 

 burden the matter, usually regarded as such, with more duties 

 than it can perform. Although it is only with the properties of 

 matter that we have a direct acquaintance, and the existence of 

 matter rests upon a theoretic inference that since we perceive 

 properties, there must be material particles to which those prop- 

 erties belong ; yet there is no conviction which the mass of man- 



