Liverpool Standard, October 14th, 1843. - "From want of space we are pre"vented from giving a detailed account of Dr. Collyer's philosophical lecture."

On all and every occasion I met committees of medical men, who witnessed my experiments. On one occasion - the investigations continuing for weeks -a resolution was unanimously passed, "That the experiments of Dr. Collyer were not to be accounted for on any physiological principle known to them."

The writer in the Lancet has, however, made one error which cannot be excused -namely, that of deliberate misrepresentation in reference to the congestive state of brain. Not content with the mistake made, he actually adds a note to bring it specially forward to notice; and adds with apparent innocence, "Recent research has led to the opinion that during sleep and insensibility produced by artificial means, the brain is probably deprived of blood rather than congested."

Now my words in 1842 and 1843 are "nervous congestive state," in contradistinction to congestion produced by an increased flow of blood to a part.

I had actually anticipated in 1842 what "recent research" has only now discovered!

In fine, there is a hidden mystery about this error or singular mistake which time will perhaps unravel. The philosophy of the nervous fluid being in excess causing a "nervous congestive state of brain," was the special topic of the lectures delivered in 1842, 1843, and 1844.

In 1840 I delivered a series of lectures and experiments in Baltimore with the nitrous oxide gas.

The fact of having performed surgical operations during an anaesthetic state in 1841 - prior to the publication in 1843 - is the strongest confirmation that my mind was occupied with that idea - namely, the application of anaesthesia to surgical operations. If mesmerism could be generally applied, and most people were susceptible of its influence, no one can doubt but it would be universally adopted in preference to every other mode of producing anaesthesia. No one ever heard of a death having been produced by the nervous fluid of a second person.

It was absolutely necessary to discover how far the mesmeric agency was applicable before resorting extensively to the use of alcoholic vapours. In fine, had the writer in the Lancet nearly caused the death of his own brother by causing him to inhale the fumes of Indian hemp and alcoholic vapours, as occurred to myself, he too might have paused before denouncing an original pioneer, who was comparatively groping in the dark without any prior experience to guide him. Even after the long experience of millions of cases, do we not now, in 1871, find chloroform and bichloride of methylene producing instantaneous death? These facts should cause critics to be careful and prudent in thus summarily denouncing an original investigator; or if not exactly denouncing, "damning with faint praise."

Dr. Collyer simply represents a constantly repeated figure in the history of "human effort. He is Prince Rupert to the life, not to mention other men of "similar impulsive genius in other ages and on different fields of labour."

It is impossible to discover the purport of this comparison. Most people, no doubt, would feel their vanity much flattered at being compared to a prince of any sort. Who was Prince Rupert? It seems that he was third son of Frederick, King of Bohemia, born in 1619, and received a military education. He commanded the cavalry of Charles I. of England during the Civil War, and on various occasions manifested the most daring valour; but his impetuosity and imprudence more than counterbalanced the effects of his bravery. At length, having surrendered Bristol to General Fairfax, the king dismissed him from his service. Prince Rupert became a naval commander, and during the reign of Charles II. obtained several decisive victories over the Dutch. After this he retired from the public service, and devoted himself to scientific pursuits. He invented "Prince's metal," improved the composition and strength of gunpowder, discovered the mode of fusing blacklead, and discovered the art of engraving in mezzotinto; besides this, he became Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company.

So far as the inventive part of his character is concerned, there may be points of similarity; otherwise there is not the least resemblance. "Comparisons are odious" at the best of times. Still, if the writer in the Lancet had chosen a person like Roger Bacon, it might be accepted as a compliment; but, of all men in the world, to be compared to a prince was an ill-chosen comparison. To shine by another's light proves you have not much of your own. The writer in the Lancet seems to have got into a muddle when he says: - " Our own opinion is, that Collyer, a man of impetuous perception, im"pulsive action, open nature, and unrestrainable fluency of speech, did originally "seize such analogies as exist between the so-called hypnotic condition from "mesmerism, and the rapid narcotism produced by narcotic vapours; that he "laid himself out publicly to announce these analogies; that he succeeded in "securing a violent opposition, which made his peculiar views familiar to those "who were living near to the scene of the controversy; that he cried first hail "on a beat which he did not follow up efficiently.

We have further no doubt, "that had he given up the mesmeric idea and proceeded systematically with "his plan of making the body insensible by inhaling the vapour of alcohol, "he would have had no one to dispute with him in priority."

Who is it then that disputes the priority?

It cannot be Wells or Morton, as their experiments were in December, 1844, and September, 1846, whereas the alcoholic inhalations were from 1839 to 1844. It is a fact which admits of no dispute, that in May, 1843, these words were published in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, and re-copied in the Liverpool and London newspapers: - "That the inhalation of narcotic and stimulating vapours produced an insensible and unconscious state." Also, that from 1839 to 1844, all sorts of surgical operations were performed. At no time, regardless of trouble or expense, was an opportunity lost of demonstrating publicly the practicability of producing an anaesthetic state, so that surgical operations could be painlessly performed. The whole ground of anaesthesia was gone over years prior to every other claimant. It seems that the writer in the Lancet indulges in theories, speculations, and comparisons which have no value because not in accordance with the facts as they occurred. He seems to have a playfully innocent manner of "putting one up, so as to more effectually knock one down." He actually seemed alarmed at his own temerity.