﻿102 Prof. W. A. Norton on the Fundamental 



mately associated with matter, and that no successful attempt 

 has yet been made to account for the simplest of these phenomena 

 on any other hypothesis. Some physicists, it is true, are stri- 

 ving to do away with the supposed electric fluid — prompted by 

 the conjecture that nature must operate by some simpler method, 

 and work out all her wonderful diversity of phenomena by one, 

 or at most two forms of matter. Shall we wait until these 

 physicists have realized their aspirations, at their discouraging 

 rate of progress ? or, guided by the indications of nature, strive 

 to link all natural phenomena together by a few recognized 

 principles ? A theory that shall accomplish this is the great de- 

 sideratum. Even should such a theory not rest upon the highest 

 and fewest possible mechanical principles, still the generalizations 

 embodied in it must have their counterparts in certain physical 

 truths, to the knowledge of which it will be likely to lead. It 

 is by following the ascending grade of generalizations that spe- 

 culative science has hitherto progressed. Preconceived notions 

 of what matter must be in its essential nature, or by what form 

 of matter or varieties of method nature must operate, have thus 

 far contributed little to its advancement ; and in fact, when we 

 consider that we positively know and can know nothing a priori 

 with regard to the essential nature and condition of matter, and 

 its means and mode of operation, such notions are entitled to 

 little credit. 



Oar author implies in the remarks above quoted that the ex- 

 istence of an electric sether is not only not an " established truth," 

 but is to be ranked among those questionable notions that have 

 been received without serious examination . This implication is 

 obviously unjust. Besides, the serious examination that he has 

 given the subject only leads him to confirm the substantial truth 

 of what he would here seem to discredit ; for, as we have already 

 seen, his " repulsive envelope " is essentially my " electric at- 

 mosphere/' 



Why should we admit two sethereal fluids which are both repul- 

 sive and only differ in subtilty ? 



Professor Bayma and myself agree in admitting the existence 

 of two kinds of matter, attractive and repulsive ; and, as we have 

 seen, three forms of matter. Is it inherently any less probable 

 that two of these should be repulsive and one attractive, than, as 

 he assumes, that two should be attractive and one repulsive ? 

 viz. gross matter and the sether of space attractive, and the 

 elements of the " repulsive envelope " repulsive. In the 

 supposition that the two sethereal fluids differ in subtilty, 

 nothing more is essentially implied than that a considerable 

 number of atoms of the one occupy the interstices between the 



