474 
TIIE CONSTITUTION OF MATTER. 
are also present, but removed very much further apart, though still related to 
each other by their powers. If the view of the constitution of matter referred 
to be correct, and I may be allowed to speak of the particles of matter and 
of the space between them [in water or in the vapour of water for instance] 
as two different things, then space must be taken as the only continuous 
part, for the particles are considered as separated by space from each other. 
Space will permeate all masses of matter in every direction like a net, except 
that in place of meshes it will form cells isolating each atom from its neigh¬ 
bours, and itself only being continuous. 
“ Then take the case of a piece of shellac, a non-conductor, and it would ap¬ 
pear at once from such a view of its atomic constitution that space is an in¬ 
sulator, for if it were a conductor the shellac could not insulate, whatever 
might be the relation as to conducting power of its material atoms ; the space 
would be like a fine metallic web penetrating it in every direction, just as we 
may imagine of a heap of siliceous sand having all its pores filled with w T ater ; 
or as we may consider of a stick of black wax, which, though it contains an 
infinity of particles of conducting charcoal diffused through every part of it, 
cannot conduct, because a non-conducting body (a resin) intervenes, and 
separates them one from another like the supposed space in the lac. 
“ Next take the case of a metal, platinum or potassium, constituted according 
to the atomic theory in the same manner. The metal is a conductor ; but 
how can this be, except space be a conductor? For it is the only continuous 
part of the metal, and the atoms not ouly do not touch (by the theory) but 
must be assumed to be a considerable way apart. Space, therefore, must be 
a conductor, or else the metals could not conduct, but would be in the situa¬ 
tion of the black sealing-wax, referred to a little while ago. 
“But if space be a conductor, how r then can shellac, sulphur, etc. insulate, 
for space permeates them in every direction? Or if space be an insulator, 
how can a metal or other similar body conduct? 
“It would seem, therefore, that in accepting the ordinary atomic theory, 
space may be proved to be a non-conductor in non-conducting bodies, and a 
conductor in conducting bodies, but the reasoning ends in this, a subversion 
of that theory altogether; for if space be an insulator it cannot exist in con¬ 
ducting bodies, and if it be a conductor it cannot exist in insulating bodies. 
Any ground of reasoning which tends to such conclusions as these must in 
itself be false.” # 
But there has been offered to us a way for escape from the contradictions 
into which we are led by this manner of handling the ordinary atomic theory. 
It is open to conjecture, that matter may be continuous,—of a homogeneous 
not heterogeneous texture,—elastic, not composed of hard particles, and, 
being continuous, consequently subdivisible without limit. According to this 
notion there may be masses of any conceivable smallness, but so long as they 
possess magnitude these are not atoms , i. e. indivisibles. The two theories 
differ in this respect,—the one teaches the existence of particles which are very 
small, but still composed of parts, and possessing a determinate and not 
difficultly-imaginable magnitude. They may be compared to a heap of 
cannon balls, or any other symbol selected from ordinary objects. The 
other theory disregards the shell of the imaginary spheres, and treats only of 
their centres. These points are presumed to be the centres of action of 
radiant forces, under some conditions attractive, under others repulsive. 
Are these two theories altogether incompatible with each other ? It cer¬ 
tainly seems as difficult to dispense with the assumption of atoms as it is to 
manage them in their assumed combinations. But would it not be allowable 
* Phil. Mag. vol. xxiv. p. 136. 
