dust of alchemy, only substituting Acids, Alkalies, and Fermentations, for _Salt_, _Sulphur_, and _Mercury_, fell easy victims to his satire. Dr. Charles Perry, in 1741, propounded a mechanical view of the action of Mercury and Arsenic. He thought that the particles of the former, being round and heavy, were able, when shaken about in the vessels, to break up and to annihilate those crude acrid humours which were the causes of disease; and that Arsenic acted as an irritant by the sharp and pointed nature of its atoms. He attributed the occasional poisonous effects of Mercury to the presence of Arsenic or some such substance as an impurity.[9] Dr. Mead, in 1751, states that the administration of Mercury is dangerous in cases where there is carious bone, as there is a fear that its ponderous particles may break the weak lamellæ.[10] He was the Court Physician in the reign of George II. He accounted for the poisonous nature of the venom of serpents by asserting that it consisted of pointed particles, which pierced and destroyed the globules of the blood. Dr. Perry conceived that some medicines, such as Steel and Antimony, did not act by their mere bodily presence, but by certain subtle vapours which emanated from them, and affected the vital spirits. This was a very misty notion. He stated that he borrowed this idea from a great philosopher of the German nation. This was probably Boerhaave, who lectured at Leyden in 1707. Among those who regarded with favour the mechanical hypothesis, were Fourcroy and Hecquet in France, Van Swieten and Huygens in Holland, and Bellini in Italy. Excepting perhaps the case of external irritants, these explanations of the action of medicines have been universally condemned by scientific men at the present day. Doubtless these old authors were in the wrong, both in applying one hypothesis to the action of all remedial agents alike, and still more, in carrying their theories into such minute details, where it is impossible that they should be verified. And yet we may go too far in our condemnation of all such ideas. It does not seem to me to be so impossible, or even improbable, that the operation of some medicinal agents, particularly those which act on the nerves, may depend in some way on the shapes of the atoms of these substances, as related to those of the tissues which they influence. At least, there is no other possible explanation of the power of such substances. We know that the nerves are very much under the influence of mechanical impressions, upon which depend the phenomena of two at least out of the five senses, those of hearing and touch, as probably also of the other three, if we understood them better. We know also that if we accept the Atomic theory, by which so many chemical phenomena are cleared up and explained, we must admit a certain definite and peculiar arrangement and shape to the ultimate particles of every compound body. These considerations render it possible that the ultimate