64 A Repli/ lo Mr. John Murray, i$c. 



If Mr. Murray had left out the word " vaunted," it would 

 have been understood as well, and quite as correct. 



Mr. Murray says that his machine was ' injmediately re- 

 jected,' because, until natural respiration returns, the air un- 

 dergoes no change whatever. If it be as Mr. Murray has 

 Stated, that the air undergoes no change whatever, how is it 

 that the individual becomes reanimated ? He says it is absurd 

 to give a continued supply of fi'esh air to an individual, until 

 the natural respiration returns. Will Mr. Murray say that the 

 natural respiration returns fully and at once? because, if it 

 returns by degrees, will not the air be decomposed in propor- 

 tion to returning life? And as the air becomes charged with car- 

 bon as the person continues reanimating, does it not follow that 

 it should be withdrawn, and fresh supplied in its place, un- 

 less Mr. MuxTay can show that fresh air would injure or pre- 

 vent resuscitation ; or that the ' victim' it would keep in ' in- 

 glorious repose?* 



Mr. Murray states, " As to the application of the instru- 

 ment to the purposes of a gas blow-pipe, and the exhibitions 

 of nitrous oxide, I can have no ambition to claim an interest 

 in such an association ; the transitioji from the resuscitation of 

 human beings to a gas blow-pipe, &c. is so entirely ludicrous, 

 that I am astonished such an erratic fancy should be indulged 

 in." Here he has wrong stated my expressions; but even sup- 

 pose they were as he has stated them, would any man in his 

 senses think of ridiculing the mentioning in immediate succes- 

 sion the several uses of a machine ? Perhaps Mr. Murray 

 was indulging in an ' erratic fancy,' or would he not have ob- 

 served, that 1 was describing some mechanism, not the resus- 

 citation of human beings as he has asserted ? 



The remainder of his motley communication does not re- 

 late to me, although lie has headed it " On the apparatus for 

 restoring the action of the lungs in apparent death." 



But the charge, that I endeavoured to detract from the me- 

 rits of his invention, requires for answer, that I have not so 

 done ; I said that I considered my plan more complete than 

 his, and gave my reasons for it. 



In conclusion, I shall merely say, that should Mr. Murray 

 describe an instrument more complete than mine, I shall not 

 be angry with him for it ; for I consider the advancement of 

 humanity and science far superior to individual feeling. 



I remain, sir, respectfully yours, &c. 

 Lawrence Hill, June 20, 18:22. John Moore Jiuiior. 



XII. Oh 



