[7] Mr. Ranby, however, who was one of the surgeons of the British
troops at the time of the battle of Dettingen, lays great stress upon
the bark: It is true, that in one of his cases, having ordered it to
an officer of seventy years of age, whose leg had been amputated, _on
account of his ancle, with the neighbouring parts, having been terribly
shattered by a cannon ball_, it did not keep the sore from growing
worse, or prevent the patient's death. But that we may form a just
estimate of the merit of the bark, and the effects of amputation at
the same time, it will be necessary to compare this case with the one
which precedes it. This comparison will, I imagine, be of use.----I
shall quote the author's own words. “An Austrian officer, who had his
hand miserably shattered by a cannon ball, was, by some accident, left
in a wood near the field of battle, destitute of any manner of help,
from Thursday till the Sunday following, when he was brought to Hanau.
The next morning I was carried to see him, and to assist in taking off
his arm. On viewing it, I found it mortified almost to the elbow, with
a great swelling and inflammation quite up to the shoulder. As it was
by no means adviseable to attempt an amputation in such circumstances,
I proposed giving him the bark; which being no ways objected to, he
entered upon immediately. The next day he was rather better: But, on
the third, was evidently so. The inflammation was less, the swelling
began to subside, and the edges of the mortification were separating.
The arm was fomented and wrapped up in the oatmeal and stale beer
poultice, with theriaca: And the dreadful symptoms which forbad the
operation, were now so much abated, that his surgeons did not at all
hesitate to take it off. But this was done to very little purpose;
for three or four days after the amputation, being attacked with
convulsions, he expired.”