Dr. E. J. Mills on the Atomic Theory. 125 



systematic works, and it is the object of the majority of chemical 

 researches to develope formulae in connexion with them. Our 

 modern theorist " explains " the existence of the two bromides 

 (C 3 H 5 Br, C 3 H 5 Br 3 ) on the principle of atomicity; while the 

 latter of their two analogues (I CI, I CI 3 ) is a " molecular com- 

 bination." This is certainly the most pitiful evasion that ever 

 passed under the name of theory. Again, the hypothesis of 

 specific volumes, which represents a natural fact, is now in a 

 languishing state because we cannot determine how many atoms 

 and how much space make up a given volume of a substance. 



It is not difficult to show that the doctrine of atoms involves 

 several important contradictions, in addition to those previously 

 alluded to in this tract. The theory of componnd radicals shows 

 conclusively, in its own way, that whatever componnd radicals 

 may do, is also done or imitated by absolutely homogeneous 

 atoms ; their functions are, in short, the same. Hence by the 

 strict necessity of an inductive logic, as well as by the freedom 

 of our nature, we are driven to deny that the atoms are atoms 

 at all. For if the benzoyl atom (C 7 H 5 0) and chlorine atom 

 (CI) agree in so many of their functions, the probability is that 

 they will agree somewhat in another, namely, complexity. The 

 atomic theorist, however, is too anxious to save himself to allow 

 this conclusion. Reversing history, he takes the chlorine atom 

 first, compares the benzoyl atom with it, and asserts that the 

 radical is a compound atom. To have asserted that the atom is 

 a compound radical, would merely have been to narrate the 

 course of a probable discovery ; to pronounce the radical a 

 compound atom is to state a pure contradiction, which is, by the 

 laws of language, completely unintelligible. 



These are the parts of a system which has been termed, in 

 modern times, an exact science ! It is consoling to remember 

 that the most fanciful period of the phlogistic theory immedi- 

 ately preceded the epoch when that theory was extinguished — 

 when chemists, free for the moment from the fetters of a 

 doctrine which called every operation a combustion, perceived 

 the whole of nature to be open to their inquiries. Such 

 a reform and such a liberation are needed, and may be hoped 

 for now. 



This memoir would be very incomplete were I to leave un- 

 noticed the opinions of some of the more gifted thinkers with 

 regard to the atomic theory. Newton, for example, is often re- 

 ferred to as an authority on the side of the atomist. That phi- 

 losopher, indeed, considered it probable that " God, in the 

 beginning, formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, 

 moveable particles " which never wear or break to pieces, " no 

 ordinary power being able to divide what God himself made One 



