reston?ig the Action of the Lungs in apparent Death." 63 



to show objections, if any were to be found ? He says, " I con- 

 fess that I am not a little surprised at a communication by 

 Mr. John Moore junior, in your Number for March last: with 

 sufficient selt-coniplacency this correspondent considers the 

 plan he proposes for restoring the action ot" the lungs as more 

 complete than my invention," I would ask Mr. J. Murray 

 what was the reason he stopped at his invention; was it be- 

 cause, by not publishing the reason I gave for my conclusions, 

 he tliought to gain a trifling advantage? He writes, I consi- 

 der my plan the best, " with sufficient selt-complacency:" ought 

 he to be angry because I felt a pleasure in what I then was 

 writing, M'hen the same feelings, I have no doubt, induced him 

 to publish his invention ? 



Mr. Murray says that " Mr. John Moore junior is pleased 

 to adopt the form of the syringe which I had done long before ; 

 aye, and constructed and published too." I deny having 

 adopted the form of Mr. Muri'ay's syringe ; for my plan was 

 shown to some of my friends some years ago: but my first let- 

 ter to one of them in London, relating to the apparatus, is dated 

 Februaiy 1819. His favour to me in reply, 9th October 1819, 

 which is about two years before I saw Mr. Murray's descrip- 

 tion. 



Mr. Murray writes, " I never believed myself infallible, or 

 that my invention was incapable of improvement. I hope 1 am 

 not so absurd or unreasonable : but 1 do fearlessly assert, that 

 his improvement, as he insinuates it to be, is one which adds 

 to the complexity of the mechanism without subserving its uti- 

 lity ; nay, rather injures the cause it is meant to serve." 



What proof is there in a " fearless assertion?" Why did he 

 not give unequivocal proof that it was incompetent to per- 

 form that which I had stated it would ? This would have been 

 much better than a " fearless assertion." How can he con- 

 clude that I "insinuated?" I said that I considered my plan 

 more complete than his, stating my reason for the conclusion ; 

 but if I had been a dealer in positive assertions, 1 should have 

 saitl mine was superior to his. 



Mr. Murray says, " Various jilans presented themselves to 

 my mind before I completed my improved apparatus: a struc- 

 ture some-d/iat similar to the one now set forth and vaunted by 

 your correspondent John Moore junior, was inunediately re- 

 jectetl from its complete uselessness." This proves nothing, 

 as he has only asserted it was somewhat similar ; nor docs he 

 tell us in what particular it was ilissiniilar. Was it not in some 

 essential part? or will lie '■J'earlcssttj assert' that mine is com- 

 plete! v useless? 



If 



