Thus far I have drawn a very imperfect sketch of what I saw at Nancy with Drs. Liebeault and Bernheim, and I must now leave them. When parting, M. Bernheim gave me a few words of advice, kindly and emphatic. He said that he had taught me all he could within the limits of my visit, and that he could teach me no more unless I remained with him for three or four months. ' You must now learn,' he said, ' the rest by your own experience. Remember, above all, that suggestion is the basis of the new departure. You must learn to dominate by your will-power those whom you treat. When you can hypnotize them (and with perseverance you can do so with much the greater number) your capacity to benefit your patients will grow proportionately.'

I not only believe him, but have found untold value in his instructions, and also the solution of much that was previously quite inexplicable. The present is no fit place to dilate upon his idea, but I cannot avoid hinting that it elucidates much that has been hitherto mysterious. For example, the effects of metallo-therapy, homoeopathy, electro-homceopathy, ' faith cure,' and so forth. I now believe that suggestion, plus receptivity, is the foundation of all.

I regret that from want of space I dare not attempt here to open up the wide field of deeply interesting study offered by the marvellous effects of suggestion, autosuggestion, hypnotic and post-hypnotic suggestion. The more I have studied these problems, the more convinced I have become that at present we are quite unable to define the power and limits of suggestion, both in medicine and outside of it.

From Nancy I betook myself to Paris, and there followed the clinical teaching of Drs. Luys, Auguste Voisin, Guinon, and Berillon. I found each most instructive in its special line, and particularly that of Dr. Berillon.

But it is time for me to close this little introduction to Dr. Lloyd Tuckey's work. I must not trespass on the reader's patience by details of all I witnessed in Paris. Those who wish can see them in a paper I read before the Medical Section of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, April 17, 1891, and which was published in the Dublin Journal of Medical Science, May 1, 1891.

On my return home after my studies in Nancy and Paris, and ever since, I have practised hypnotism in the cases which appeared to me suitable, and in a large proportion of them with most satisfactory results. I have already mentioned my success in a bad case of dipsomania, in conjunction with Dr. J. J. Murphy. This is only one of many. I have also referred to the remarkable cure of kleptomania in a schoolboy, and of a fixed neuralgia of some standing. I have succeeded also in many cases of insomnia; in the correction of various bad habits; in cases of nerve crises, such as fear of crowds, and so forth; also in various cases of nerve troubles, physical and mental, and in the relief of pain, even when due to organic disease. In one case I succeeded in curing a surgeon of a nervous condition which disabled him from operating. This patient was sent to me by a medical friend of his who had failed to cure him by drugs. The cure has been perfect and permanent. In a case of diabetes I found marked reduction of the excretion of urine and sugar follow hypnotism and suggestion. Doubtless this was a case in which the neurotic element predominated.

In two cases of somnambulism the effect was striking: one was completely and permanently cured; the other is under treatment still, and remarkably improved, though it is of very old standing.

As already stated, I have practised hypnotism since 1891, adopting M. Bernheim's doctrine that it is the duty of a physician to do all in his power to cure his patient (see p. 131 of this work). If he understands hypnotism, he will meet many cases in which it is invaluable. It has often struck me that most successful physicians practise hypnotism - at least, that element included under the term 'suggestion' - unconsciously. When I was very young, I frequently met two great Irish physicians, who used to impress on me the importance of a cheerful, confident manner, and I recollect one of them saying to me: 'Remember that to inspire a patient with hope and confidence is as valuable a stimulus towards recovery as half the drugs in the Pharmacopoeia.' Now that I am old, I understand how right and wise he was. This was treatment by suggestion.

When I read the paper mentioned before the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, I was earnestly and kindly warned to abandon a dangerous subject, and the example was held up of a great London physician who, years ago, met his ruin by espousing the kindred subject of mesmerism. However, I felt no misgiving. I had learned a new means of treating a class of disease quite beyond the reach of drugs, and I refused to give it up. I had no interest or purpose to serve, save truth and the relief of suffering. I have had no reason to regret my decision. So far from injuring me, the result has been exactly the reverse. The modern mind has expanded with the advance of science, and, although conservative and slow, has outlived many prejudices. If my time permitted me, I would practise hypnotism far more freely than I am now able to do.

We are upbraided occasionally by weak-minded folk who say that hypnotism is sometimes allied with quackery and charlatanism. Be it so. It is all the more the special duty of the physician to rescue it from such evil surroundings, and to place it in its true position. As we make it, so it shall be.

It may be well now to consider the objections which are occasionally raised against hypnotism.

These may be classified as -

(a) Those of a physical nature, and

(b) Those based on moral grounds.

(a) As regards the former, we have the evidence of experts of large experience, such as Liebeault, Bernheim, Forel, Voisin, and others, and they assure us that such objections are groundless. If accidents have arisen, it was only in the hands of unskilled non-medical operators. So far as I am aware no case has been recorded of injury to a patient's health where hypnotism was used by a skilled physician.

(b) Passing on to the objections which may be urged against hypnotism upon the score of morality, I feel that I tread upon delicate ground. There is no doubt that it is a very serious matter to submit our free-will to the domination of another, and, as it were, to confide ourselves into his hands. Nevertheless, we freely consent without hesitation to do this every day when we take anaesthetics, such as chloroform, ether, methylene, or nitrous oxide gas. The reason we do not shrink is because we always make sure to entrust ourselves to those in whom we have full confidence. Why should not the same precaution justify us in submitting ourselves or our patients to hypnotism?

Even granting, which I do, that the surrender of will and action in hypnosis is greater than in the case of ordinary anaesthetics, the decision must be similar, and is summed up in the sentence, 'Take great care whom you allow to hypnotize you.'

Bernheim lays down three rules which seem to include all needful precaution on the part of the hypnotizer. Let me quote them:

1. Never hypnotize any subject without his or her formal consent, or the consent of those in authority over him or her.

2. Never induce sleep except in the presence of a third party. Thus any accusation or trouble may be avoided.

3. Never make any suggestions to the hypnotized subject except those necessary for cure.

It seems to me that the very dangers which might arise by the use of hypnotism in evil hands should impel all physicians who naturally wish to use this potent remedy honestly and for the highest ends to take up its study and practice, and carry it out with due honour and fidelity to a great trust. Satisfied as I am that hypnotism is a reality, a potent means towards cure, one which can never be crushed by ignorant and baseless criticism, I hold that it is our duty - imperative duty - to do it justice, and rescue it from unworthy hands. As we use it, it will be good or evil. I have treated this aspect of the subject fully in my essay of 1891.

It is very gratifying to find that due honour has been paid by the citizens of Nancy to their great townsman, whose worth they have immortalized by naming after him the Rue Bellevue, the scene of his labours and triumph. It is now the Rue Liebeault.

When espousing hypnotism in 1891, I was quite prepared to find my statements received with incredulity, and even derision. Had I not studied the subject practically, I should have been sceptical myself. I am rejoiced to see that a society has been inaugurated in England especially devoted to psycho-therapeutics, and that its first President is, most wisely and justly, Dr. C. Lloyd Tuckey.

All this looks well, and I think justifies my advice to those who are in doubt (as I once was) to do as I did, and to go and study the subject practically where it is worked out on a large scale. Then they will be capable of forming a just judgment.

FRANCIS R. CRUISE, M.D.

Dublin,

March, 1907.