it would resemble 'a fine metallic web,' penetrating the lac in
every direction. But the fact is that it resembles the wax of black
sealing-wax, which surrounds and insulates the particles of
conducting carbon, interspersed throughout its mass. In the case of
shell-lac, therefore, space is an insulator.

But now, take the case of a conducting metal. Here we have, as
before, the swathing of space round every atom. If space be an
insulator there can be no transmission of electricity from atom to
atom. But there is transmission; hence space is a conductor. Thus
he endeavours to hamper the atomic theory. 'The reasoning,' he says,
'ends in a subversion of that theory altogether; for if space be an
insulator it cannot exist in conducting bodies, and if it be a
conductor it cannot exist in insulating bodies. Any ground of
reasoning,' he adds, as if carried away by the ardour of argument,
'which tends to such conclusions as these must in itself be false.'

He then tosses the atomic theory from horn to horn of his dilemmas.
What do we know, he asks, of the atom apart from its force?
You imagine a nucleus which may be called a, and surround it by
forces which may be called m; 'to my mind the a or nucleus vanishes,
and the substance consists in the powers of m. And indeed what
notion can we form of the nucleus independent of its powers?
What thought remains on which to hang the imagination of an a
independent of the acknowledged forces?' Like Boscovich,
he abolishes the atom, and puts a 'centre of force' in its place.

With his usual courage and sincerity he pushes his view to its
utmost consequences. 'This view of the constitution of matter,'
he continues, 'would seem to involve necessarily the conclusion that