To explain the elasticity of a gas was the primary object of the kinetic theory of gases. This object is only attainable by the assumption of an elasticity more complex in character, and more difficult of explanation, than the elasticity of gases--the elasticity of a solid. Thus, even if the fatal fault in the theory, to which I have alluded, did not exist, and if we could be perfectly satisfied with the kinetic theory of gases founded on the collisions of elastic solid molecules, there would still be beyond it a grander theory which need not be considered a chimerical object of scientific ambition--to explain the elasticity of solids. But we may be stopped when we commence to look in the direction of such a theory with the cynical question, What do you mean by explaining a property of matter? As to being stopped by any such question, all I can say is that if engineering were to be all and to end all physical science, we should perforce be content with merely finding properties of matter by observation, and using them for practical purposes. But I am sure very few, if any, engineers are practically satisfied with so narrow a view of their noble profession. They must and do patiently observe, and discover by observation, properties of matter and results of material combinations. But deeper questions are always present, and always fraught with interest to the true engineer, and he will be the last to give weight to any other objection to any attempt to see below the surface of things than the practical question, Is it likely to prove wholly futile? But now, instead of imagining the question, What do you mean by explaining a property of matter? to be put cynically, and letting ourselves be irritated by it, suppose we give to the questioner credit for being sympathetic, and condescend to try and answer his question. We find it not very easy to do so. All the properties of matter are so connected that we can scarcely imagine one _thoroughly explained_ without our seeing its relation to all the others, without in fact having the explanation of all; and till we have this we cannot tell what we mean by "explaining a property" or "explaining the properties" of matter. But though this consummation may never be reached by man, the progress of science may be, I believe will be, step by step toward it, on many different roads converging toward it from all sides. The kinetic theory of gases is, as I have said, a true step on one of the roads. On the very distinct road of chemical science, St. Claire Deville arrived at his grand theory of dissociation without the slightest aid from the kinetic theory of gases. The fact that he worked it out solely from chemical observation and experiment, and expounded it to the world without any hypothesis whatever, and seemingly even without consciousness of the beautiful explanation it has in the kinetic theory of gases, secured for it immediately an independent solidity and importance as a chemical theory when he first