THE DISCOVERY OF MOTOR AND SENSORY NERVE CHANNELS. 301 



V. Conclusion. — In conclusion I submit that Bell's claim to the 

 discovery of the distinction between motor and sensory nerves in so far 

 as it depends upon data relating to the fifth and seventh is (1) not 

 proved by his publications of 18^1-22, and (2) discredited by the un- 

 acknowledged emendations of the text of 1821 in the republished papers 

 of 1824. In so far as his claim depends upon data relating to the 

 spinal roots it is not proved by his privately printed pamphlet of 1811. 

 Magendie alone is entitled to the honour of the discovery. 



The Bell-Magendie issue stands altogether outside and above the 

 ordinary category of priority disputes. The discovery is of an import- 

 ance that forbids its wrongful attribution either to Bell or to Magendie ; 

 and if the honour belongs exclusively to either man, it should not be 

 wrongfully divided between both men. 



For nearly a century it has been customary to attribute the dis- 

 covery exclusively to Bell. Of recent years it has occasionally been 

 attributed to Bell and Magendie conjointly — to Bell as the pioneer, 

 and to Magendie as the follower. Either of these conclusions is, I 

 submit, unjust to Magendie. The plea of patriotism, first invoked by 

 Bell in 1823, and adopted by his partisans in 1833 and 1839 and 1911, 

 is not admissible in a purely scientific issue. 



Yet since that plea has been invoked, and if, as I believe, justice 

 is due to Magendie, it is permissible to hope for the sake of our own 

 self-respect that justice may be rendered to him in our own language. 



It is assuredly right and proper that the British Association for the 

 Advancement of Science, which in 1833 received the statement that 

 ' the honour of the discovery belongs exclusively to Sir Charles Bell,' 

 should, even after many years, be invited to examine the foundations 

 of that statement when it has been seriously called in question. The 

 published documents, ignored in 1833, are still in existence. 



VI. APPENDIX. 



1. Magendie's Reply to Bell. — Magendie's first and immediate reply 

 to the reclamation of priority made in 1822 by John Shaw on behalf 

 of Bell was to print it in full in his ' Journal de Physiologie ' (Vol. II., 

 p. 370). At that time he believed that the allusion to an experiment 

 by Bell in the ' Idea ' of 1811 referred to a physiological experiment 

 made on a living animal, as is evident by his quotation of the passage 

 containing the allusion. .His reply, on p. 371, is as follows: — 



'On voit par cette citation d'un ouvrage que je ne pouvois connaitre 

 puisqu'il n'a point ete publie, que M. Bell, conduit par ses ingenieuses ideas 

 sur le systeme nerveux, a ete bien pros de decouvrir les fonctione des racines 

 spinales ; toutefoie le fait que les anterieures sont destinees au mouvement, 

 tandis que les poeterieures appartiennent plus particulierement au sentiment, 

 parait lui avoir echappe; e'est done a avoir etabli ce fait d'unemaniere positive 

 que je dois borner mes pretentions.' 



Magendie's second reply subsequent to Bell's comments upon the 

 cruel and useless experiments of French physiologists (p. 6) is given 



