When as early as 1840 I first announced to the medical profession of Charlestown, South Carolina, that I had reduced a dislocation of the hip-joint some two months previously near New Orleans, without the patient having experienced the least pain - the patient being in a state of unconsciousness, induced by the inhalation of alcohol vapour - no one gave the least credence to my statement of the fact, or believed it possible that a person could be rendered insensible by inhalation, so that one of the most difficult and painful operations could have been performed without consciousness of the patient.

Having, however, been convinced of the truth of the physiological fact that insensibility was induced by inhalation, the ridicule and incredulity with which my statements were everywhere received had no effect in altering the conviction of my senses, and so far from deterring me, the very opposition induced a fixed determination to investigate the whole subject of anaesthesia. I had already been convinced that a person could be rendered insensible during a comatose state, known as animal magnetism. This fact was not admitted by any one at that period. These circumstances awoke thoughts such as these. Is it possible that truths so easily demonstrated are denied by every one? Surely as they are truths, they must have some beneficial application.

After two years' systematic investigation, I had classified the mode of producing an anaesthetic state under five distinct heads - 1st. The result of great natural fatigue. 2nd. By the transmission of the nervous fluid from one person to another. 3rd. The concentration of the mind on one subject accompanied by muscular action. 4th. By gazing steadily on an object. 5th. By the inhalation of narcotic and stimulating vapours. It was thought by me at the time that these conditions of brain were identical. My opinions have materially changed in this regard.

It must be remembered that I was treading entirely new ground; receiving no aid from any one. On the contrary, my efforts were received with every discouragement from a mocking and scoffing world.

Of course, now that nearly thirty years of experience has been bought, it is wonderfully easy to assume an oracular wisdom, and state what might or might not have been done. Any man can become a Solomon after events have occurred; nor does this ex post facto advice demand much judgment. It is intolerant pedantry for any man to pretend to say what he would have done had he been placed under circumstances so exceptional in their character. After a great principle has been propounded and established, every one seems astonished at the simplicity of the means employed in arriving at the discovery.

It is the old story of Columbus and the egg. "Nothing is more easy when you once know how to do it." After the discovery of the great Continent of

America, nothing was more easy than to discover individual parts. The difficulty was to fight the original battle, to establish the fact that the inhalation of narcotic and stimulating vapours produced an anaesthetic state.

This fact was published by me in May, 1843. Until a prior publication is produced, it would be just as reasonable to state that Galileo did not discover the satellites of Jupiter, or Sir Isaac Newton the laws of gravity, as that I am not the discoverer that the inhalation of narcotic vapours produce an unconscious state. As this matter admits of direct proof, controversy as to priority is out of the question; it is years in advance of every other claimant.

When the writer in the Lancet used these words: "The lectures and works of Dr. Collyer were of a kind, we must candidly say, not calculated to arrest seriously the attention of the profession at the time," he evidently had forgotten that the suggestion of Sir Humphry Davy, forty years prior, had not arrested the attention of the profession. Even when Horace Wells, in January, 1845, made the experiment before Dr. Warren's medical class in Boston, the attention of the profession was not arrested.

It is difficult to conceive what would have arrested the attention of the profession.

I have only to refer to the fact, that when Dr. William Harvey announced to the medical profession that he had discovered the circulation of the blood - it is a notorious fact, stated by contemporaneous history - that hardly a medical man of the time gave his adherence to the discovery.

The history of Dr. Jenner is another example of the curious obstinacy with which new discoveries are received. Vaccination even now, in 1871, has a battle to fight against the perversity and obtuseness incidental to humanity.

It was the wonderful secret and the conjoint patent business of Morton and Jackson, combined with all kinds of the most audacious charlatanry, which caused the medical profession to adopt the principle of producing anaesthesia by inhalation of ether.

It was only on the 20th of December, 1846, that the European public became acquainted with Morton's experiments with ether, which dated from the 30th of September. In fine, ten weeks are allowed to elapse before divulging the secret, and securing letters patent.

That my lectures, as stated by the writer in the Lancet, did not arrest the attention of the profession is so singularly contrary to the fact, that I am forced to republish a few extracts.

Cheltenham Examiner and Looker-on, February, 1844. - "Dr. Collyer's "lecture at the Assembly Rooms on Thursday evening differed essentially from "that delivered at the Literary Institution, which was of a purely scientific and "professional character, for the most part discussing the subject in a philo"sophical spirit, whereas that of Thursday was altogether of a popular kind, "not entering into the rationale of the question."

Liverpool Mail, October 13th, 1843. - "Thus ended the first lecture, the "audience (a great portion professional) expressing themselves as being fully "convinced that Dr. Collyer was master of his subject and capable of throwing a flood of scientific information in regard to departments which have remained "hitherto unexplained."