Thomas Beddoes to the Editor of A Journal of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry and the Arts, 17 April 1800
Clifton, 17th April
SIR
THOUGH I must be too well aware of the causes of variation in medical and physiological testimony, to be much moved by groundless contradiction, yet I own I did expect that competent experimenters would nearly agree in their reports of the effects, produced by respiring the nitrous oxide.
A few days ago, however, I was well informed, that on trial at a respectable institution in London, the gas had fallen far short of what Mr Davy and myself had taught the public to expect. The gentleman who brought this intelligence being at Clifton, it was easy to give him personal proof of our fidelity.
Yesterday my friend Mr William Reynolds, of Ketley, in Shropshire, assured me that he had himself respired the gas at the institution in London to no purpose; and that most others had done the same. The agency of the nitrous oxide is much too distinct and certain to leave a doubt, but that there must be some strange mistake here. On seeing a paralytic patient take it, Mr W. R. was at once aware of the reason (at least, of one sufficient reason) for the failures in town, and on respiring a very small quantity indeed, he felt effects exactly the same in kind, as the agreeable ones described in my notice. He had previously inhaled atmospheric air without knowing it to be such. He expatiated with satisfaction on the sensations now excited by the nitrous oxide, and said he should like another dose. On being asked, if he had felt any such desire after the experiment in town, he answered, no not the least. We are constantly accustomed to the eager expression of this desire. In our ample experience, we have not found the experiment to fail above once in twenty times. With a given degree of accuracy and perseverance, it would, I apprehend, never fail. I do not mean that the result would be always agreeable.
The gas being procured genuine, the lungs should be emptied by a strong expiration, the nose held tight, and the lips exactly closed on the mouth-piece. From 5 to 8 quarts breathed backwards and forwards into the reservoir (a proceeding of which Mr. Davy’s researches will shew the propriety) have proved an average dose. The feelings will determine the time. To the hysterical and the exquisitely sensible, the gas should not be administered.
It is very well to know from actual trial, what the London experiments prove, that interrupted respirations, during which the gas is probably much diluted with residuary air in the lungs, can seldom have effect. This, however, an observer of any sagacity could have predicted.
A laborious analysis, and the result of a vast variety of careful observations, will ere long appear, to correct the misconceptions which may have arisen from loose casual trials. Meanwhile, I beg you to insert this explanation in your valuable Journal. I think it of no small importance to mankind, that there should exist nothing to prevent this great agent from being employed, whenever direct experience or circumspect analogy warrants its use.
I am, Sir,
Respectfully your’s
THOMAS BEDDOES
Published: Journal of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry, and the Arts, 4 (1800), 75–76