A particular narrative of what has happened relative to a paper published in the 51st vol. of the Philosophical transactions, entitled, An account of a remarkable operation on a broken arm, &c. In which the principal facts are proved by evidence. By Charles White, White, Charles, 1728-1813. 51 600dpi bitonal TIFF page images and SGML/XML encoded text University of Michigan Library Ann Arbor, Michigan 2012 November 004797764 T26356 CW106803281 K032085.000 CW3306803281 ECMS 0059501200

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

A particular narrative of what has happened relative to a paper published in the 51st vol. of the Philosophical transactions, entitled, An account of a remarkable operation on a broken arm, &c. In which the principal facts are proved by evidence. By Charles White, White, Charles, 1728-1813. [2],17,35,[2]p. ; 8⁰. printed for and sold by Mess. Hitch and Hawes: and T. Anderton, Manchester, London : 1762. With a half-title and a final advertisement leaf. Reproduction of original from the British Library. English Short Title Catalog, ESTCT26356. Electronic data. Farmington Hills, Mich. : Thomson Gale, 2003. Page image (PNG). Digitized image of the microfilm version produced in Woodbridge, CT by Research Publications, 1982-2002 (later known as Primary Source Microfilm, an imprint of the Gale Group).

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng

A PARTICULAR NARRATIVE OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED Relative to a Paper publiſhed in the 51ſt Vol. of the PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS, ENTITLED, An Account of a Remarkable Operation on a broken Arm, &c.

In which the PRINCIPAL FACTS ARE PROVED by EVIDENCE.

(Price One Shilling.)

A PARTICULAR NARRATIVE OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED Relative to a Paper publiſhed in the 51ſt Vol. of the PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS, ENTITLED, An Account of a Remarkable Operation on a broken Arm, &c.

In which the Principal Facts are proved by Evidence.

By CHARLES WHITE, F. R. S.

Member of the Corporation of Surgeons in London, And Surgeon to the MANCHESTER INFIRMARY.

LONDON: Printed for and ſold by Meſſ. HITCH and HAWES, Bookſellers in Pater-noſter-Row: And T. ANDERTON, Bookſeller and Printer, in Mancheſter.

MDCCLXII.

ADVERTISEMENT.

THAT this diſpute may be the better underſtood, the reader will find prefixed the caſe of Robert Elliot, as it was publiſhed in the 51ſt vol. of the Philoſophical Tranſactions; Mr. J. F's Letter, incloſing Mr. Burchall's firſt printed account of this affair, extracted from the Britiſh Chronicle of Sept. 7, 1761; my reply, taken from the ſame paper of the 25th of that month; and his rejoinder, dated October 24, 1761, but not inſerted in the Chronicle till the 10th of March 1762.

An Account of a remarkable Operation on a broken Arm; by Mr. Charles White, Surgeon at Mancheſter, communicated by George Lloyd, Eſq; F. R. S. Read March 27, 1760.

ROBERT ELLIOT, of Eyam, in Derbyſhire, a very healthful boy of nine years old, had the misfortune, about Midſummer, in the year 1759, by a fall, to fracture the humerus, near the middle of the bone. He was immediately taken to a bone-ſetter in that neighbourhood, who applied a bandage and ſplints to his arm, and treated him as properly, as, I ſuppoſe, he was capable of, for two or three months. His endeavours, however, were by no means productive of the deſired effect, the bones not being at all united. A ſurgeon of eminence, in Bakewell, was afterwards called in; but, as ſoon as he found he could be of no ſervice to him, and as the caſe was very curious, he adviſed the lad's friends to ſend him to the infirmary at Mancheſter: He was accordingly brought thither the Chriſtmas following, and admitted an inpatient. Upon examination, we found it to have been a ſimple oblique fracture, and that the ends of the bone rode over each other. His arm was become not only intirely uſeleſs, but even a burthen to him, and not likely to be otherwiſe, as there was little probability that it would ever unite, it being now near ſix months ſince the accident happened.

Amputation was therefore propoſed as the only method of relief; but I could not give my conſent to that; for, as the boy was young, and had a good conſtitution, it was hardly poſſible that it could be owing to any fault in the ſolids or fluids, but that either nature was diſappointed in her work by frequent friction, while the callus was forming; or rather, that the oblique ends of the bone, being ſharp, had divided a part of a muſcle, and ſome portion of it had probably inſinuated itſelf betwixt the two ends of the bone, preventing their union: Which ever of theſe might be the caſe, I was of opinion, that he might be relieved by the following operation, viz. to make a longitudinal inciſion down to the bone, to bring out one of the ends of it (which might be done with great eaſe, as the arm was very flexible) and cut off the oblique end, either by the ſaw or cutting-pincers; then to bring out the other end of the bone, and cut off that likewiſe; afterwards to re-place them end to end, and then treat it intirely as a compound fracture.

The objections made, by the other gentlemen concerned, to this propoſal, were, 1ſt, The danger of wounding the humeral artery by the knife; 2dly, the laceration of the artery by bringing out the ends of the bones; and, 3dly, that we had no authority for ſuch an operation. As to the firſt, that was eaſily obviated, by making the inciſion on the ſide of the arm oppoſite to the humeral artery: The place of election appeared to me to be at the external and lower edge of the deltoid muſcle, as the fracture was very near to the inſertion of that muſcle into the humerus; the danger of wounding the veſſel not only being by that means avoided, but after the operation, while the patient was confined to his bed, the matter would be prevented from lodging, and the wound be eaſily come at, to renew the dreſſings. The ſecond objection will not appear to be very great, when we conſider, that in compound fractures, the bone is frequently thruſt with great violence through the integuments, and ſeldom attended with the laceration of any conſiderable artery; and, as this would be done with great care and caution, that danger would appear very trifling. The third and laſt objection is no more than a general one to all improvements.

This method, which I have been propoſing, was at laſt reſolved upon, and I aſſiſted in the operation, which was performed by a gentleman of great abilities in his profeſſion, on the 3d of January, in the preſent year. The patient did not loſe above a ſpoonful of blood in the operation, though the tourniquet was not made uſe of. When the operation and dreſſings were finiſhed, the limb was placed in a fracture-box contrived on purpoſe, the lad confined to his bed, and the reſt of the treatment nothing different from that of a compound fracture.

The wound was nearly healed in a fortnight's time, when an eriſipelas came on, and ſpread itſelf all over the arm, attended with ſome degree of ſwelling; this, by fomentations, and the antiphlogiſtic method, ſoon went off, and the cure proceeded happily, without any other interruption. In about ſix weeks after the operation, the callus began to form, and is now grown quite firm: That arm is as long as the other, but ſomewhat ſmaller, by ſuch long-continued bandage; he daily acquires ſtrength in it, and will ſoon be fit to be diſcharged.

MANCHESTER, March 17, 1760. C. WHITE.
To the EDITOR of LLOYD'S EVENING POST. —Tulit alter honorem. SIR,

IN your Evening Chronicle of the the 5th of Auguſt laſt, you have republiſhed from the Philoſophical Tranſactions, vol. 51.

Account of a remarkable operation on a broken arm, by Charles White, ſurgeon at Mancheſter, communicated by G. Lloyd, Eſq; F. R. S. Read before the Royal Society.

On ſeeing this title of the caſe, could any man doubt, but that Mr. Charles White, ſurgeon, had performed the operation?—whereas the contrary is well known here, and I would have the truth publickly known, that the ſaid operation and cure were performed and perfected, only, by James Burchall, ſurgeon to the Mancheſter Infirmary, and, that Mr. White had no more to do in it, than any other of the ſurgeons, who attended, as is uſual, at ſuch operations.

It is true, Mr. White does acknowledge the operation was not performed by himſelf, but in a manner no leſs aſſuming to himſelf all the merit. Had his narration been continued in the ſtyle of the firſt paragraph, I ſhould not have taken the leaſt notice; but in his following paragraphs there is ſo much of the Egotiſm, and his propoſals, objections, and his anſwers, &c. that I could not forbear to requeſt my friend Mr. Burchall to ſend me his account of the caſe; and to deſire your impartial favour in giving it a place in your Chronicle, which will oblige

Mancheſter, Sept. 2, 1761. Your conſtant Reader, J. F.

AS the caſe of Robert Elliot, ſo artfully written by Mr. Charles White, and ſent to George Lloyd, Eſq; without my knowledge or conſent, to be communicated to the Royal Society, hath met with a place in the Philoſophical Tranſactions, and ſince been publiſhed in the Monthly and Critical Reviews, and in Lloyd's Chronicle, wherein Mr. White has taken the ſole merit of the cure to himſelf, I think, without apology, I may be allowed to declare the truth, that Robert Elliot was my patient, and was admitted as ſuch into the Infirmary at Mancheſter on the 24th of December, 1759, when, after a previous conſultation (agreeable to the printed rules) it was agreed to try the method, as related by Mr. White in his paper; and accordingly I performed the operation on the 3d of January, 1760, in preſence of him and ſeveral of the faculty (who, as is uſual in capital operations, give their aſſiſtance) by making an inciſion through the integuments, in the Interſtice of the muſcles on the external part of the humerus, and ſorcing the extremities of the fractured bone, out of the wound, which were afterwards cut off with the cutting forceps: I then reduced the bones as near as could be in point of contact, and placed the arm in a fracture-box, afterwards I treated it as a compound fracture. I duly attended him till the cure was compleated, which was about the beginning of April; but for fear of any accident affecting the arm, as the boy was of a very lively and heedleſs diſpoſition, and at a conſiderable diſtance from the place of his abode, he was not diſcharged from the Infirmary till the 5th of May, 1760.

JAMES BURCHALL. Publiſhed in Lloyd's Evening Chronicle, Sept. 7th, 1761.
To the EDITOR of LLOYD'S EVENING POST. SIR,

A Letter from Mr. James Burchall, introduced by another, pretended to be written by a friend of his (both of them publiſhed in your Chronicle of the 7th of this month) oblige me, in common juſtice to myſelf, to give you this trouble. The intention of them was to inſinuate to the publick, that I had miſrepreſented a caſe, publiſhed in the 51ſt vol. of the Philoſophical Tranſactions, entitled,

An account of a remarkable operation on a broken arm; by Mr. CHARLES WHITE, Surgeon, at Mancheſter: Communicated by GEORGE LLOYD, Eſq; F. R. S.

I ſhall make no remarks upon the inaccuracy with which Mr. J. F. has cauſed you to print this title, in which, by the alteration of a point, the ſenſe was entirely ſubverted. I am ready to attribute it rather to his heedleſſneſs, than to any wilful deſign of miſrepreſentation. In theſe letters I am charged with aſſuming to myſelf the ſole merit of the cure. How far I did this, muſt be left to every impartial reader of the tranſaction. The merit I aſſumed to myſelf was only that of the invention; and, if the invention be of any ſervice to the publick, that merit I believe neither Mr. Burchall nor his friend will deny me. The operation I no where called my own; I only aſſerted, that "I aſſiſted in it;" and I ſaid, that it "was performed by a gentleman of great "abilities in his profeſſion." Had I thought that the ſhare which Mr. Burchall had in the operation could poſſibly have redounded to his credit, I ſhould have had no objection to entring into particulars and to the inſertion of his name, eſpecially as I have always looked upon him as a man of honour and knowledge in his profeſſion, and have conſtantly entertained a great regard for him; but I am now publickly called upon, and I think myſelf enjoined to an explanation of the account I have given, leſt the publick ſhould imagine that I have any way miſled a ſociety, which has for a long time been one of the principal ornaments of this nation.

Previous to any conſultation, I propoſed to Dr. Mainwaring and Dr. Brown, at their own houſes, the mode of operation which was afterwards purſued: And I muſt here do them the juſtice to declare, that I verily believe it never would have taken place, if they had not ſeconded me in my propoſal. Mr. Burchall was for amputation. It was he that principally made the objections mentioned in the Tranſaction; and though my method was agreed upon, he declared both before, during the time of, and for ſome weeks after the operation, that he was very apprehenſive it could never anſwer. The patient was Mr. Burchall's. He made the inciſion in the place which I had pointed out. I brought out one of the ends of the bone, which he attempted to ſaw off, but heſitated upon finding it to be attended with ſome difficulty, the inciſion having been made too ſmall. Upon this, I cut off the end with the forceps, replaced it, and brought out the other end, which I alſo cut off. The dreſſings and bandage were applied by Mr. Burchall. It was I that contrived the fracture-box; and the firſt being made too large, a ſecond, which was made under my direction, was uſed as long as the patient was confined to his bed. I very frequently attended at the dreſſings; for though the patient did not fall under my immediate care, I was anxious for the ſucceſs of my propoſal, and knew that if it did not ſucceed, I was to bear the blame, as the inventor of the operation.

For the truth of theſe particulars I appeal to every diſintereſted gentleman preſent at the conſultation and operation, and (if I have repreſented any thing wrong) I publickly call upon them to a denial of any of the facts I have related.

Mancheſter, Sept. 18, 1761. I am, ſir, yours, &c. CHARLES WHITE.
To the EDITOR of LLOYD'S EVENING POST. SIR,

THAT the publick may be better able to judge of the diſpute betwixt Mr. Charles White and myſelf, concerning the invention, method of operation, and cure, performed on the arm of Robert Elliott, late a patient of mine in the Infirmary at Mancheſter; I think it neceſſary to ſend you the following hiſtory of the caſe, which I hope you will be kind enough to publiſh in your next evening paper, with my obſervations and remarks on Mr. Charles White's diſingenuous Letter, publiſhed in your Chronicle of the 25th of September laſt. About the latter end of the year 1759, I received a letter from John Wright, Eſq; of Eyam, in Derbyſhire, acquainting me with the unhappy circumſtance of a poor boy, in the ſaid town, who had the misfortune to break his arm ſeveral months before (which, notwithſtanding all the endeavours that had been uſed to unite the bone, ſtill remained as looſe as on the firſt day of the accident) and deſiring my opinion, that, if I thought any thing could be done to ſave his arm, he ſhould be glad to ſend him to Mancheſter to be admitted under my care in the Infirmary; in anſwer to which, I told his ſon-in-law, Mr. Aſhwood, who then lived here, in what manner I thought his arm might be cured, but that, till I ſaw the boy, I could not ſo properly judge of it; accordingly he was brought to Mancheſter on the 23d of December, 1759, and the ſame evening I examined his arm at Mr. Aſhwood's, when I gave my opinion that it might be cured without amputation. The day following he was admitted my patient in the Infirmary, where I again examined his arm, and called on the gentlemen then preſent to do the ſame, who gave their opinions for amputation only; to this I did not aſſent, and the boy's maſter ſtrongly remonſtrated againſt it, ſaying, he could have had that done at home, and deſired I would try all poſſible means, rather than cut it off; upon which I told him to leave the boy, and I would conſider further of the method I had before propoſed, which was the ſame that was afterwards put in execution; to corroborate the truth of which, I beg leave to appeal to two certificates, of which I have given copies at the end of this letter, which are dated the 21ſt of October inſtant, and are ſigned by John Wright, Eſq; and the ſaid Mr. Thomas Aſhwood. Whether or no Mr. White might have heard of my deſign I cannot poſitively determine, but I am the more inclined to believe that was the caſe, from his aſking, upon firſt ſeeing the boy, which was the day after his admiſſion, what method had been propoſed for his relief; on being told none bat amputation, only that I had ſaid I would take him in and conſider of it; he, upon examining the arm a little, immediately replied, that he thought there was a method by which it might be ſaved without amputation, and then deſcribed the method which I had before ſpoke of to Mr. Aſhwood, which was afterwards purſued. Mr. White, in his account publiſhed in the 51ſt volume of the Philoſophical Tranſactions, allows the operation to be performed by a gentleman of great abilities in his profeſſion, but at the fame time aſſumes to himſelf the ſole merit of the invention, and mode of operation; and, in his letter of the 25th ult. in an explanation (as he calls it) of his former account, he not only lays claim to the invention, but likewiſe to the operation and cure, by telling you that I was for amputation, and that "I principally made the objections mentioned in the Tranſactions;" that I was not for amputation, I think I have ſufficiently proved, beſides, in the preſent caſe, that could only be the dernier reſource. The only objection which I made was that of lacerating the humeral artery, by forcing out the ends of the bone, and, as I was to perform the operation, the ſtarting any objection at the conſultation could not be conſtrued otherwiſe than a deſire to have their opinions on ſuch operations. He further aſſerts, that though his method was agreed on, "I declared, both before, during the time, and for ſome weeks after the operation, that I was apprehenſive it would never anſwer;" in contradiction to this, I can prove, that I frequently declared it was the only method, both before and after the operation was concluded on, and the method I had propoſed on the receipt of Mr. Wright's letter. He next ſays, "I made the inciſion in the place he had pointed out;" Pray what occaſion for his pointing out? when, ſeveral days before the operation, he cannot but remember, that as I was ſhewing a young gentleman where I intended to make the inciſion, upon his coming into the room I repeated the ſame to him. He then ſays, "he brought out one of the ends of the bone, which I attempted to ſaw off, but heſitated, upon finding it to be attended with ſome difficulty, the inciſion having been made too ſmall;" I allow that he turned out one of the ends of the bone, but not both, as he hath aſſerted; that upon my attempting to ſaw off one end, which was his propoſal, on finding it impracticable, I immediately called for the cutting forceps, which he very officiouſly laid hold of, and cut off a ſmall portion of the bone; I then took the forceps from him, and cut off ſome more from that end, and afterwards cut off the other end, &c. As the inciſion was found large enough to anſwer my intention in performing the operation, and was not then or afterwards enlarged, how comes he now to ſay, it was too ſmall? Upon opening the arm I propoſed its being placed in a fracture-box, which I thought neceſſary, for the more immediate conveniency of dreſſing, &c. and Mr. White, with his uſual officiouſneſs (whilſt I was otherwiſe employ'd) ſaid, on his going out of the room, if I pleaſed, he would give orders for one: I thinking this a matter of ſmall conſequence, told him he might; accordingly one was brought, which proving conſiderably too large, a ſecond was made leſs, and that not anſwering the purpoſe ſo well as I could wiſh, was altered by my direction, and uſed as long as I thought neceſſary.

From what has been ſaid, I think it appears clearly, that the aſſiſtance which Mr. White boaſts to have given in the operation, was an act of over-officiouſneſs, as the patient was mine, and under my directions. It would be tedious to analize the whole of his letter, and I ſhould not have mentioned theſe particulars, but to ſhew that the manner of repreſenting facts is very different, for different purpoſes: I muſt remark, that if Mr. White's opinion of my abilities, or his eſteem of me as a man of honour and knowledge in my profeſſion, was conſiſtent with his declarations, that he would have conferred with me upon, or at leaſt have informed me of his deſign of communicating that remarkable operation; in which caſe, if I had acquieſced in his relation, he would have been juſtly entitled to the merit he has aſſumed; but as he did not, I, ſurely, cannot be condemned in ſaying, that be has been endeavouring to raiſe a character and reputation to himſelf, on account of that operations, without acknowledging that I was the perſon who had the conduct and management of it.

Mancheſter, Oct. 24, 1761. I am, ſir, your's, &c. JAMES BURCHALL.

I REMEMBER very well, upon the return of Edmund Marſden, from Mancheſter (the maſter of Robert Elliott) to Eyam, he told me, that Mr. Burchall was the only one who was againſt amputation.

Oct. 21, 1761. J. WRIGHT.

I WAS preſent when Robert Elliott was admitted into the Infirmary, and remember that amputation was the only method propoſed by the gentlemen there, except Mr. Burchall, who ſaid he could propoſe a method to ſave the arm, which he had before told me of more than once at my houſe.

Oct. 21, 1761. THOMAS ASHWOOD.
A Particular Narrative, &c.

A Publick diſpute is a taſk of ſo diſagreeable a nature, that nothing but the vindication of my character from the undeſerved aſſaults it has received, could have induced me to appear in the light of a paper warriour.

When an invention has been crowned with ſucceſs, it has been no uncommon thing to ſee others attempting to bear away the honour from it's author. But in the caſe of Robert Elliot, Mr. Burchall did not only defer his claim till the ſucceſs of the method propoſed was evident, but even till the operation had, by repeated publications, received the approbation of the publick. The following narrative will make it evident, that I have done every thing I could, conſiſtently with truth, to prevent a quarrel. That the propoſal of the mode purſued was entirely my own, and that no one particular has been by me injuriouſly miſrepreſented. Mr. Burchall himſelf confeſſes, that I performed a part, and that a principal part too, of the operation, by bringing out, and cutting off, that end of the bone which was firſt attempted. Had I performed even the whole, I ſhould not have aſſumed to myſelf any merit upon that account; the practiſe was ſo eaſy after the method had been laid down, that any Pupil might have readily ſucceeded. I have frequently ſeen Mr. Burchall ſucceſsfully perform much more difficult operations, and cannot therefore help attributing his heſitation in the midſt of this, to his having no good opinion of the contrivance, and to his going about it therefore with a leſs degree of confidence than if he himſelf had been the inventor.

Mr. Lloyd went to London in the beginning of the year 1760; before he ſet out upon his journey I had ſhewn him (in the infirmary) Robert Elliot's arm, and deſcribed to him the mode of operation which had been purſued. Mr. Lloyd was pleaſed with the invention; and, after his arrival in town, accidentally mentioned it, at one of the meetings of the Royal Society, to ſome of the members, who begg'd he would write down into the country for a more particular relation. He accordingly wrote to his ſon, Dr. John Lloyd, to get him an account of the caſe from me; and, as he was then upon the point of leaving London, he deſired it might be ſent by the return of the poſt, that he might have an opportunity of ſhewing it to his friends at the next meeting of the Society.

Dr. John Lloyd called upon me with his father's meſſage on Sunday the 16th of March, 1760, about noon. I was that day ſo much engaged, that I could not begin to write out the caſe till eleven o'clock at night, but finiſhed it, before I went to bed, from notes which I had kept by me ſince the time of the operation. The doctor came to me for it as ſoon as I was up the next morning: As I had wrote in haſte, I deſired he would read it over, and correct any grammatical miſtakes, if any ſuch had eſcaped me. It was then dated; he encloſed it in a letter (which he had brought along with him) to his father; and, as it was near the time of the poſt's going out, it was diſpatched to the office immediately; I had no opportunity of ſhewing it to any perſon out of my own houſe, not even to my father, who was then at home, but three doors from me, and who never ſaw it (as I had not time to take a copy) till it was honoured with a publication in the Philoſophical Tranſactions. Mr. Lloyd gave it to Dr. Birch, one of the ſecretaries, upon the 20th of March, who read it before the ſociety upon the 27th of the ſame month, but not till after Mr. Lloyd had left London.

I now mentioned to ſome few perſons what had been done, and, amongſt the reſt, to Mr. Burchall in the ſurgeon's room in the Infirmary. I did not, however, tell it him in the manner of aſking his leave; for I did not think it neceſſary to aſk any man for liberty to publiſh my own inventions. As to my letting him know the caſe would be publiſhed, it was not in my power; I did not know it would, till I ſaw it had received a place in the Tranſactions: Every paper carried to the ſociety is not favoured with a reading, nor is every reading followed by a publication. In the year 1752 an order, which is ſtill in force, was made, that a committee of the members ſhould be appointed to re-conſider the papers read before them, and ſelect out of them ſuch, as they ſhould think moſt proper for their future publications. The volume of the Tranſactions, which contains the caſe of Robert Elliot was publiſhed in May 1761. It was immediately ſent down, not only to the Publick Library, but to ſeveral gentlemen in Mancheſter, and an abſtract of the caſe was printed in the Critical Review for the Month of June, and in the Monthly Review for July, and the whole caſe was re-publiſhed in the Univerſal Magazine for the month of July, and in the Britiſh Chronicle of the 5th of Auguſt; yet Mr. Burchall never ſo much as hinted (though I ſaw him every week in the Infirmary) nor had I any reaſon to imagine, that the publication had given him umbrage, till we accidentally met in the paſſage leading to the Old Coffee-Houſe in the laſt week of Auguſt. I then told him, I was extremely ſorry he had taken any thing I had done amiſs, but that I thought I had mentioned him with as much reſpect as poſſible. He reply'd, his name was no where mentioned. I anſwered, if I had either ſeen him to have aſked his leave, or had known that the mention of his name would have been agreeable, I ſhould willingly have inſerted it. I repreſented the haſty manner in which the paper went out of my hands, that the omiſſion of his name was only owing to my over caution not to diſoblige; that I had given away the merit of the operation from myſelf, and was deſirous he ſhould retain it; that the caſe was generally known in Mancheſter, and that I had taken every opportunity, wherever I had heard it mentioned, of declaring him to be the operator. He then aſked me, if I was willing to do the ſame in any of the publick papers? I told him, I was willing to do it in any, in which the caſe had appeared. He ſaid, he ſhould be ſatisfied, if I would do it in Lloyd's Evening Chronicle; deſired that I would draw up a paper in a proper form for inſertion, and told me, he would call upon me for it, to ſend it to the Printer: Immediately, upon leaving him, I wrote what follows.

To the PUBLISHER of the BRITISH CHRONICLE. "Sir,

"THE Royal Society did me the honour to publiſh, in the 51ſt vol. part II. of the Philoſophical Tranſactions, An Account of a remarkable Operation on a broken Arm, (which account you have copied in your Chronicle of the 5th of this month.) In it, it is ſaid, that I aſſiſted in the operation, which was performed by a gentleman of great abilities in his profeſſion. I take the liberty of declaring, by the channel of your paper, that the gentleman there meant was Mr. James Burchall."

Yours, &c. C. WHITE. MANCHESTER, Auguſt 27, 1761.

About three days afterwards I accidentally met him in the Smithy-DoorA Street in Mancheſter.; I told him, I had done what he deſired; hoped I had put the paper into ſuch a form as would be agreeable; had left it upon the deſk in my ſtudy, to be ready when he ſhould call, and that, whenever he pleaſed, he might inſert it according to his propoſal. I underſtood him that he would call, and left him, as I thought, in perfect friendſhip. Notwithſtanding this, he never called, never ſent any meſſage, nor made any apology for his omiſſion; but, without acquainting me, wrote the letter of the 2d of September; which, along with one ſubſcribed J. F. was printed in Lloyd's paper of the 7th of the ſame month. I muſt here appeal to the publick, whether my behaviour to Mr. Burchall, whom I had been ſtriving to oblige to the utmoſt of my power, was ſuch as merited the return it met with.

Notwithſtanding this treatment, I was ſtill ſo averſe to an open rupture, that after I had drawn up my anſwer to his and his friend's letter, I deſired Dr. Brown would ſhew it to him before I diſpatched it to the printer. I told the Doctor I was ſo far from having any deſign of diſtreſſing Mr. Burchall, that I ſhould be glad to do him any ſervice I could, conſiſtently with my own reputation; that I did not wiſh him either to contradict himſelf, or ſubmit to any meanneſs; but that my veracity had been called in queſtion by his anonymous friend; and, as his own letter had been printed with his friend's, I could not help thinking him in ſome meaſure accountable for it; that therefore, except he choſe to publiſh ſomething to clear up my character, I ſhould be obliged to print the anſwer which I had ſent him; and that, as his friend's name was no where mentioned, I thought he might with honour ſubſcribe the following.

To the EDITOR of the BRITISH CHRONICLE.

NOtwithſtanding what has been ſaid by my friend J. F. in your Chronicle of the 7th of this month, this is to ſatisfy the publick, that a Caſe entitled, An Account of a remarkable Operation on a broken Arm; by Mr. Charles White, Surgeon, at Mancheſter; communicated by George Lloyd, Eſq; F. R. S. read before the Royal Society March 27th, 1760, and publiſhed in the Philoſophical Tranſactions, vol. 51. part 2d, is a true account, Mr. Charles White being the ſole inventor and propoſer of that operation."

MANCHESTER, Sept. 17, 1761.

Dr. Brown ſhewed my anſwer to Mr. Burchall in die Infirmary, and at the ſame time told him the publication of it would be dropt, if it was either agreeable to him to ſign the above paper, which I had ſent, or any thing elſe to the ſame purpoſe. Mr. Burchall made two objections; one was, that it contained an accuſation of his friend, and the other, that I had laid claim to the ſole invention; for he added, that though I had had the fortune to make the firſt mention of it, yet that he himſelf had thought of it as well as I. After this, Dr. Brown told me, that if I would eraſe the words—His Friend, and the ſole Inventor, he was in hopes he could prevail with him to ſign the paper, and that he had promiſed to ſee him again the next morning. I replied, I ſhould be glad to comply with anything the Doctor thought proper, and made the propoſed alterations; but, upon Dr. Brown's offering the paper again to Mr. Burchall, the latter abſolutely refuſed to ſign it.

The reaſons why I gave Dr. Brown this trouble were theſe; I knew he was perfectly agreeable to Mr. Burchall; that he was thoroughly acquainted with the caſe upon his own knowledge; and that, from his known humanity, I did not doubt but he would do his utmoſt to bring about a reconciliation.

Upon Mr. Burchall's refuſal, my anſwer was publiſhed in the Britiſh Chronicle of the 25th of September, 1761. On its arrival at Mancheſter, I was ſharply attacked by him at the weekly board of the Infirmary, and there publickly charged with having aſſerted falſities. I told him, I was certain I had ſtrictly adhered to truth, but that, if he thought otherwiſe, I was willing to abide by the following propoſal.

That he and I ſhould join in a petition to all the gentlemen preſent at the conſultation and operation, to deſire them to depoſe, before a magiſtrate, whatever they knew concerning the affair; that if he would conſent to this, the depoſitions ſhould be put into his own hands, he ſhould be at liberty to publiſh, or ſuppreſs them, as he thought moſt conducive to his own intereſt, and that this ſhould terminate the diſpute betwixt us. I repeated this propoſal to him three ſeveral times before the board, but he did not accept my offer. There does but one reaſon occur to me why Mr. Burchall ſhould decline this offer, the perſons preſent, both at the conſultation and operation, are gentlemen of probity, and I have good reaſon to believe would at that time have complied with our requeſt, if Mr. Burchall had accepted of my propoſal, as they all of them ſeemed to ſhew a diſpoſition to repair the breach between us.

Mr. Burchall's reply to mine of the 25th of September, dated October 24th, 1761, was publiſhed in the Chronicle of the 10th of March, 1762: In it he ſeems much diſpoſed to play with words; and, indeed, the whole performance muſt appear of a very extraordinary nature to thoſe, who, by their attendance at the Infirmary, can be the only evidences in regard to the caſe, from which the preſent diſpute has ariſen; and, to uſe his own words, muſt have effectually convinced them, that "The manner of repreſenting Facts, is very different for different purpoſes."

He ſays, "Whether or no Mr. White might have heard of my deſign, I cannot poſitively determine, but I am the more inclined to believe that was the caſe, from his aſking, upon firſt ſeeing the lad, which was the day after his admiſſion, what method had been propoſed for his relief, &c." an inference as abſurd as it is falſe, and ſuch a one as was perhaps never drawn from ſuch a queſtion! He goes on with pretty round aſſertions, and appeals, for the truth of them, to two certificates, which by no means come up to the point in diſpute: The firſt is from Mr. Wright, of Eyam, containing no more than a remembrance of what he had heard from Mr. Edmund Marſden; but as Mr. Marſden has favoured me with his own evidence, this teſtimony of Mr. Wright's will, I imagine, be eſteemed of little conſequence. The ſecond is from Mr. Aſhwood, who recollects that amputation was the only method propoſed by any of the gentlemen of the Infirmary, except by Mr. Burchall, who ſaid, he could propoſe a method to ſave the arm. The minutes of the board will teſtify I did not attend it upon the day Mr. Aſhwood mentions, and therefore he cannot include me amongſt the number of thoſe who were for amputation; and I ſhall be able to prove, that if Mr. Burchall did not propoſe amputation in Mr. Aſhwood's hearing, he did it, however, at another time. Mr. Aſhwood does not ſay what was Mr. Burchall's method; and certainly, if he ever had any method except amputation to propoſe, he muſt himſelf, upon reflection, have been convinced of its inſufficiency; elſe why did not he mention it to the boy's maſter, Mr. Marſden, when he was preſſed to think of ſome method to ſave the arm, and told, that if it had been imagined amputation muſt have taken place, the operation might have been performed without the trouble of ſo long a journey? Why did not he propoſe it to ſome of the faculty, rather than to Mr. Aſhwood, who could not be ſuppoſed to be a competent judge in ſurgical caſes? Why did not he propoſe it at the conſultation held in the Infirmary upon the Thurſday after the boy's admiſſion? (the only one in reality held upon this occaſion:) there it was abſolutely neceſſaryThe printed rules and orders of the Publick Infirmary at Mancheſter enjoin,

RULE 51. That the phyſicians and ſurgeons do meet at the Infirmary ever Thurſday at eleven o'clock, to viſit their in-patients, and to conſult upon difficult caſes, &c.

R ••• 53. That no amputation, or other great operatio , except an urgent occaſion require it, be performed without a previous conſultation of the phyſicians and ſurgeons; and that no one ſhall be admitted to ſee the practice of the houſe without their conſent.

Had not I at that time propoſed, and been powerfully ſeconded in, the method which was afterwards purſued, there is the greateſt reaſon to imagine amputation would have taken place, as Mr. Burchall then propoſed that method alone. And I never heard, except from Mr. Aſhwood, that Mr. Burchall ever propoſed any other method.

What danger might be apprehended from the operation I cannot pretend to ſay; I was always clear in my opinion, and often aſſerted, that if the plan which I had laid down was ſtrictly adhered to, there was no more danger to be feared from this, than from any other capital operation in ſurgery.

In my letter of the 18 th of September, 1761, it is ſaid, that I brought out one of the ends of the bone, which he (Mr. Burchall) attempted to ſaw off, but heſitated upon finding it to be attended with ſome difficulty, the inciſion having been made too ſmall. The following is Mr. Burchall's remark, "As the inciſion was found large enough to anſwer my intention in performing the operation, and was not then, or afterwards, enlarged, how comes he now to ſay it was too ſmall?"

When I aſſerted that the inciſion had been made too ſmall, I did not do it in order to throw dirt; for I ſhould be ſorry to have ſaid any thing in this diſpute, to which the caſe did not neceſſarily lead me; I thought my meaning had been ſufficiently clear, but, as it does not ſeem to have been underſtood by Mr. Burchall, I ſhall endeavour to explain myſelf in a more ample manner.

My meaning was, that if the inciſion had been made larger, Mr. Burchall would have had no occaſion to have heſitated when he attempted to ſaw off the end of the bone; and here he allows (though he denies me the reſt of the invention) that the propoſal for ſawing off the end was my own, apparently becauſe this propoſal did not meet with ſucceſs.

To law off the end of a bone is no new practice in compound fractures; it has been performed by others as well as by myſelf; and I believe it will be allowed by every intelligent ſurgeon, that the ſaw, where it can be uſed, is for many, and very obvious reaſons, ſuperior to any other inſtrument.

TheDiſengenuous letter — officiouſly — uſual officionſneſs — boaſts — raiſing a character, &c. warmth of ſome of the expreſſions made uſe of by Mr. Burchall, in his laſt letter, will not, I hope, ever tempt me to retaliation.

I have, in a great meaſure, confined myſelf to facts; and, as Mr. Burchall has friends in the Infirmary, if I have miſrepreſented any thing, there can be no doubt made but I ſhall be ſufficiently refuted.

In the beginning of October 1761, Mr. Bent, who reſides in the Infirmary, gave Mr. Burchall and me each of us a copy of his account, with leave to publiſh it; Mr. Burchall aſked Mr. Bent for liberty to print a part of it, which Mr. Bent refuſed, but again repeated, that he was welcome to publiſh the whole.

As Mr. Burchall did not think proper to annex this account to his laſt letter, I ſhall now myſelf give it to the publick. Whoever carefully conſiders his relation will, I imagine, eaſily perceive what part of it Mr. Burchall has been pleaſed to borrow, and at the ſame time too diſcern, that he has wreſted the facts he has thought proper to give in ſuch a manner as to make them ſuitable to his purpoſe. I am the more induced to believe that this was the real caſe, becauſe Mr. Burchall himſelf told me, he had not kept any minutes of the affairIs it not therefore probable this caſe would have been loſt to the publick, if I had not committed it to paper?. Mr. Bent confirms many things I have advanced, and does not contradict me in a ſingle article. He ſays, indeed, that Mr. Burchall one morning marked out the place he thought the moſt eligible for the inciſion, but at the ſame time tells you, that this was in the interim betwixt the conſultation and operation. I had propoſed the mode, and pointed out the place, at the conſultation held upon the Thurſday.

Mr. Burchall, though he was ſenſible at the ſame time there was no other method of ſaving the limb, did not come into my ſcheme till ſome days after: it was upon his giving his conſent that he marked out the place, agreeable to Mr. Bent's relation, and, upon my coming into the room, he apply'd to me (if I underſtood his meaning) to know if we agreed in regard to the inciſion, to which he received my anſwer in the affirmative. Mr. Bent ſays that, "Mr. White took the forceps and cut off the end, that Mr. Burchall took the forceps out of his hands, either to cut off the other, or to cut off more from that which was cut, but cannot poſſibly determine which."

Upon my aſking Mr. Bent very particularly to recollect what he could, relating to the cutting off the extremities of the broken bone, he told me, he perfectly well remembered, that the firſt end was taken off by myſelf, but that he could not poſſibly recollect who it was that amputated the ſecond; that he remembered Mr. Burchall took hold of the forceps, but could not determine with what view he did it, whether it was to cut off the other end, or to take ſomething more from one of thoſe upon which I had performed the operation. But I muſt here again repeat it; I don't pretend to any merit from an operation which is not a difficult one, and therefore I ſhall not produce any more evidences upon that head. I only mention theſe circumſtances to ſhew that Mr. Bent has no where contradicted any thing I have aſſerted.

Though Mr. Marſden does not poſitively ſay Mr. Burchall declared for amputation, yet he affirms, that Mr. Burchall ſaid, He did not know what could be done; and, when amputation was mentioned, made no objection to the operation. Mr. Burchall, though he was preſſed to think of ſome other method, gave him no encouragement to hope for more favourable treatment, and had he had any other method to propoſe, is it not to be imagined that common humanity would have prompted him, either to have declared his method before Mr. Marſden had left the town, or at leaſt to have given him reaſon to expect the proſecution of a milder practice.

I ſhall not now detain my reader by any more of my own remarks, but ſhall lay before him the evidences I have to produce, and leave him to judge not only who has the beſt right to the invention, but who has taken moſt pains to preſerve that amity which I could heartily have wiſhed to have ſubſiſted, and which ought always to be maintained between gentlemen of the ſame profeſſion.

"Being deſired by Mr. Burchall and Mr. White to give an account of the particulars I remembered relating to the caſe of Robert Elliott, I have wrote the following with the greateſt impartiality and ſtricteſt truth, according to the beſt of my remembrance."

"I Remember that on December 24th, 1759 (the day of Robert Elliott's admiſſion into the Infirmary) that Mr. White was not there, and that Mr. Burchall deſired Dr. Brown (who was then taking in for Dr. Kay, he being at that time ill of a fever) and Mr. Hall to ſee the boy; and I don't remember that I heard any method propoſed, beſides amputation, but that Mr. Burchall ſaid, he would take the boy in for a week or two, in order to call a conſultation, and ſee if there might not be ſome other method propoſed. That Mr. White came the next morning; and, being ſhewed the patient, he aſked what method had been propoſed? I anſwered, I had not heard any, except amputation; and that, after examining the parts a little, he ſaid, he thought there was a method by which the boy might be relieved without cutting off h arm, and accordingly deſcribed that which was afterwards purſued, and deſired it might be told Mr. Burchall, which was accordingly done. I don't remember exactly the anſwer Mr. Burchall made upon his firſt being told this; but I well remember him often repeating, that there could be no other method for ſaving the limb, but that he had an objection which he thought of great weight againſt it, viz. the danger of lacerating the artery, by turning out the ends of the bone. The conſultation, I think, was held about a week before the operation was performed, but don't remember any thing particularly that was there ſaid or propoſed: I remember in the interim betwixt the conſultation and operation, that one morning Mr. Burchall marked out the place he thought moſt eligible to make the inciſion in, by pointing with his finger upon the lower edge of the deltoid muſcle, on the external part of the humerus to me, and that Mr. White coming into the room immediately after, he repeated the ſame to him, who anſwered in the affirmative, that that muſt be the place. I don't remember the particular parts performed by either gentlemen in the operation, but that Mr. Burchall made the inciſion, and attempted to ſaw off one end of the bone, but made a ſtand, upon finding it impracticable, in which interim Mr. White took the forceps, and cut off the end; that Mr. Burchall took the forceps out of his hands, either to cut off the other, or to try to cut off more from that which was cut, but cannot poſſibly determine which. Mr. Burchall was the perſon who had the chief management of the patient; Mr. White frequently attended the dreſſings; and one morning I remember Mr. Burchall mentioned the placing the arm in a fracture-box in a direct line, but Mr. White thinking the ends of the bone did not come ſo well into contact in a ſtreight line, as when the cubitus lay at a right angle with the humerus, ſaid, he could contrive one in which it might lie in that poſition, and accordingly gave orders for the joiner to be ſent to his houſe, which was done, and a box brought the next morning, which proved greatly too large, upon which he ordered a ſecond, which was likewiſe obliged to be altered, the board that went on the inſide of the arm, from the ſhoulder to the elbow, being made too long, and with two hinges, one of which being took off and the board cut ſhorter, the ſame was uſed as long as the patient was confined to his bed. As witneſs my hand,"

JAMES BENT.

"WHEN Mr. Barker, of Bakewell, found he could be of no ſervice to my apprentice Robert Elliot, he deſired I would get him into the Infirmary at Mancheſter, under Mr. Charles White's care. Mr. Aſhwood, of Mancheſter, afterwards undertaking to get him a recommendation, contrived to have him admitted under Mr. Burchall, ſaying, he was a perſon he had an opinion of. I brought him to Mr. Aſhwood's houſe on the Sunday night; Mr. Burchall ſaw him there that night, and ſaid he could not tell what could be done for him, but that he ſhould have the opinion of all the other gentlemen at the Infirmary. I took him to the Infirmary the next day to be admitted, and heard the gentleman that was in the chair aſk what could be done for the poor lad? And a perſon that I took to be one of the phyſicians, or ſurgeons, replied, that nothing could be done but taking off his arm. I never heard any other method propoſed, nor had I any encouragement to hope for any thing elſe, though I deſired that Mr. Burchall would think of ſome other method."

EDMUND MARSDEN. FORD, September 25, 1761. Sign'd in my preſence, and to which he ſaid he would give his affidavit, if neceſſary. Witneſs SAMUEL BAGSHAW , One of his majeſty's juſtices of the peace for the county of Derty.

"IN December 1759, being an apprentice to Mr. White, I attended at the Infirmary in Mancheſter at a conſultation held upon the caſe of Robert Elliott, the Thurſday aſter his admiſſion into the Infirmary, where Dr. Brown, Mr. Burchall, and Mr. White, were preſent. As the boy was a patient under Mr. Burchall's care, he ſhewed him to the other gentlemen, and told them what he knew concerning the accident; and, at the ſame time, gave it as his opinion (to the beſt of my recollection) that nothing but amputation could be of ſervice, or words to that effect. Mr. White, upon examining the arm, propoſed that mode of operation which was afterwards purſued. Some objections being ſtarted, Mr. White replied, that if the plan he propoſed did not ſucceed, amputation might be had recourſe to at the laſt. During the courſe of this conſultation, Mr. Burchall never gave any reaſon to believe, nor did it appear to me that he himſelf had the leaſt thought of this method of treatment, nor did he propoſe any other than amputation. And the week following, whilſt the operation was performing, Mr. Burchall ſaid it will never anſwer; which words he ſome days afterwards ſpoke again in my hearing."

WILLIAM STARKIE. MANCHESTER, April 29, 1762.

Mr. Poole, the apothecary to the Infirmary, has often ſaid, the boy owed the preſervation of his arm to me. I imagine the principal facts I have advanced have been very ſufficiently proved by the evidences I have produced; and I hope the reaſons I have given why I did not ſhew the paper to Mr. Burchall previous to its publication, as well as why I omitted the mention of his name, will be eſteemed ſatisfactory: But if any of my readers ſhould be of a different opinion, I deſire they will do me the juſtice to remember, that ſo ſoon as Mr. Burchall made any remonſtrances to me, I readily offered to ſet the affair in a clear light, either in the Britiſh Chronicle, or in any other paper in which the caſe had appeared. This was certainly doing as much as man could do; and he himſelf expreſſed his ſatisfaction at my propoſal. Yet, in a few days after this, he wrote the letter printed in the Britiſh Chronicle of the 7th of September, 1761, without ſo much as mentioning to me that he had altered his opinion. I appeal to the publick whether this was genteel treatment. If the paper I had drawn up had not been ſatisfactory to him, I ſhould willingly have altered it, as far as a ſtrict adherence to truth would have allowed me.

I had an opportunity of ſeeing Robert Elliott, and of examining his arm, about Michaelmas laſt. His maſter informed me, that after his diſcharge from the Infirmary, in May 1760, he went to work as uſual; that he kept well the remainder of the year; but that, in the beginning of 1761, he had the misfortune, by a fall, to break his arm again at, or near, the place of the former fracture; a callus formed, and the lad returned to his buſineſs ſhortly after; but (for want of a due obſervance of the ſurgeon's directions) the boy being of a reſtleſs playful diſpoſition, the arm became crooked, and conſequently ſhorter than the other. I have only related this circumſtance, that I may not be accuſed of concealing any thing from the publick relative to the caſe in queſtion.

I am not ignorant of the arts, which ſome low emiſſaries have made uſe of, to depreciate me amongſt my friends, of the threats which have been thrown out to deter me from publiſhing my defence, nor of the methods which have been made uſe of to prevent my getting evidence, in order to clear myſelf, and maintain my right to the invention: Such artifices I deſpiſe! and ſuch menaces I defy!

A conteſt of this nature no way tends to the advantage of mankind, nor is the publick intereſted in the event. The profeſſion hath but too often ſuffered by differences made publick, whilſt the ſelf-intereſted combatants have only afforded ſubject for the entertainment and ridicule of the ſtanders-by. In caſes like this, an Apology to the Publick is abſolutely neceſſary; but my pardon I hope I ſhall be able to obtain, as it muſt be evident from this Narrative, I have done every thing in my power to prevent an open rupture.

I muſt likewiſe beg leave to make an apology to thoſe gentlemen whoſe names I have taken the liberty of making publick, as no other means were left me of ſetting matters in a proper light.

MANCHESTER, June 2, 1762.
FINIS.