408 
MR. CHERRY’S REPLY TO MR. OLDEN. 
four different descriptions of instruments were used, and the 
avowed object was to ascertain the effect of inhaling the PURE 
VAPOUR of ether. A result that had never before been arrived at, 
and a case more replete with physiological facts of the first im- 
portance, as shewn in Experiment 4, and one which must re- 
ceive its due consideration and retrospection, has never fallen to 
my lot previously to observe. The rupture of the aorta is so pe- 
culiarly expressive of the true action and manner in which the 
ether vapour acts upon the system, that I cannot for an instant 
conceive how its indication can be overlooked. It is a subject too 
important to enter on in a mixed paper, and I must therefore 
defer its consideration till I can prepare an article expressly 
on it. 
Further, neither Mr. Henderson nor myself have hitherto made 
any comments on the results of our experiments. It was not in- 
tended that the “ remarks” at the end of the second communica- 
tion should be more than a summary. We set out with the in- 
tention of noting every thing that occurred, suppressing nothing, 
contorting nothing ; we had no previous dogmas to support; we 
heard many conflicting opinions, but before any really correct 
view could be arrived at, it was requisite to know what was the 
real action and power of the agent employed . Verbal inquiry into 
these points elicited nothing; opinions, it is true, we obtained in 
abundance, but of facts not one ; hence the origin of those ex- 
periments, at that time unique in every sense, and, as far as we 
know, they still exist without rivals. 
It was no “ accident ” in the exclusion of atmospheric air: it 
was pre-determined, the course to be pursued. 
So rigidly was a course of non-comment adhered to, that even 
between ourselves it was not allowed: the symptoms and results 
were alone carefully compared — TRUTH was our object , and that 
we obtained. 
That the horse in Experiment 4 died from suffocation, as that 
word is ordinarily used, I admit has some plausibility ; but, patho- 
logically speaking, it was not the cause of death. On this point 
more anon. 
We were aware that sensation was so far gone before an animal 
falls as to render it insensible to pain ; but our reasons, as given 
in the latter part of the second communication, were founded on 
well-digested reasoning as to probabilities. We have never con- 
demned the exhibition of the ether ; we only expressed our fears 
of its proving less useful than was hoped for. The opinions then 
jointly given, I now repeat and confess, sway my mind more 
strongly upon longer reflection and observation. Mr. Olden’s 
case — for he states but one — only proves the more the opinions we 
