Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 15.djvu/343

 which he published in 1719, shows a very practical application of anatomical knowledge, and he is candid enough to leave out the description of the parts of the brain, because, he says, ‘their practical uses are not yet known.’ He relies largely on the performance of operations on dead bodies for the acquirement of skill, and declares that he will not regard ‘authority,’ for ‘no man nor no body of men have any right to impose particular methods of making operations upon us when it can be made appear from reason and experience that another way is preferable.’ But his independence afterwards became exaggerated into conceit and quarrelsomeness, and he was engaged in a number of controversies, out of which he by no means came scatheless. He is entitled to credit in connection with his performance and advocacy of the high operation for stone, which he claimed as essentially his own, though he admitted his indebtedness to several foreign surgeons; but his operation was soon eclipsed by Cheselden's brilliant success with the lateral operation. Douglas afterwards vented his spleen by criticising abusively Cheselden's ‘Osteographia.’ A more creditable performance is his advocacy of the administration of Peruvian bark in cases of mortification. He also wrote a book against the growing employment of male accoucheurs, and advocating the better training of midwives; but even this book was largely inspired by spiteful feelings at the successful practice of Chamberlen, Giffard, Chapman, and others. He died on 25 June 1743.

Douglas's principal writings are: 1. ‘A Syllabus of what is to be performed in a Course of Anatomy, Chirurgical Operations, and Bandages,’ 1719. 2. ‘Lithotomia Douglassiana, or Account of a New Method of making the High Operation in order to extract the Stone out of the Bladder, invented and successfully performed by J. D.,’ 1720; second edition, much enlarged, with several copper plates, 1723; translated into French, Paris, 1724, into German, Bremen, 1729. 3. ‘An Account of Mortifications, and of the surprising Effects of the Bark in putting a Stop to their Progress,’ 1729. 4. ‘Animadversions on a late Pompous Book intituled “Osteographia, or the Anatomy of the Bones,” by William Cheselden, Esq.,’ 1735. 5. ‘A short Account of the State of Midwifery in London, Westminster,’ &c., 1736. 6. ‘A Dissertation on the Venereal Disease,’ pts. i. and ii. 1737, pt. iii. 1739. He proposed to publish an ‘Osteographia Anatomico-Practica,’ in quarto, 1736, but the project came to nothing. In Anderson's ‘Scottish Nation,’ ii. 57, several other works are incorrectly ascribed to Douglas, being either by his brother, James Douglas, or by another John Douglas.

In connection with Douglas the following pamphlets should be consulted: ‘Animadversions on a late Pamphlet intitled “Lithotomia Douglassiana,” or the Scotch Doctor's Publication of Himself,’ by Dr. R. Houstoun, 1720; ‘Lithotomus Castratus: or Mr. Cheselden's Treatise on the High Operation for the Stone, thoroughly examined and plainly found to be “Lithotomia Douglassiana,” under another Title, in a Letter to Dr. John Arbuthnot,’ by R. H., M.D., London, 1723; ‘A Reply to Mr. Douglas's “Short Account of the State of Midwifery in London and Westminster,”’ by Edmund Chapman, 1737.

[Douglas's works; Eloy's Dict. Historique de la Médecine, i. (1728); Chambers's Biog. Dict. of Eminent Scotsmen, ed. Thomson.] 

DOUGLAS, JOHN (1721–1807), bishop of Salisbury, born on 14 July 1721, was the second son of Archibald Douglas, merchant of Pittenweem, Fifeshire. His grandfather was a clergyman of the episcopal church of Scotland, who succeeded Burnet in the living of Saltoun. John Douglas was at school in Dunbar till in 1736 he was entered as a commoner at St. Mary Hall, Oxford. In 1738 he was elected to a Warner exhibition at Balliol, where Adam Smith was his contemporary. He graduated as B.A. in 1740, and, after going abroad to learn French, took the M.A. degree in 1743, was ordained deacon in 1744, and appointed chaplain to the third regiment of foot guards. He was at the battle of Fontenoy, 29 April 1745. He gave up his chaplaincy on the return of the army to England in the following autumn, and was elected Snell exhibitioner at Balliol. In 1747 he was ordained priest, and was successively curate of Tilehurst, near Reading, and of Dunstew, Oxfordshire. He next became travelling tutor to Lord Pulteney, son of the Marquis of Bath. In October 1749 he returned to England and was presented by Lord Bath to the free chapel of Eaton Constantine and the donative of Uppington in Shropshire. In 1750 Lord Bath presented him to the vicarage of High Ercall, Shropshire, when he resigned Eaton Constantine. He only visited his livings occasionally, taking a house for the winter near Lord Bath's house in London, and in the summer accompanying his patron to Bath, Tunbridge, and the houses of the nobility.

He was meanwhile becoming known as an acute and vigorous writer. In 1750 he exposed the forgeries on the strength of which William Lauder [q. v.] had charged Milton with plagiarism. His pamphlet is called