Translation

But, to put this proposal as strongly as possible, let us recall the experiment that we had the occasion to make ourselves, after these days which have just been described, on a quite large number of wounded whom we considered would have been covered by the rule that would have condemned them to amputation without preparation.  [This experiment was done] in the hope that we would have a less equivocal success and also in order to affirm the principles by tests repeated sufficiently to overcome the disbelief of the most prejudiced.  Ten English wounded, out of a number of about one thousand who had been taken to the hospitals of Douay after the battle of Fontenoy, were therefore set aside.  Their wounds were such that amputation was essential in most of them because many of them had been wounded by cannon-shot: it was simply a question of whether the amputation was carried out sooner or later.

Translation

The following are ten cases very suitable for supporting the principles that we are setting out here (a).  Though, using the ordinary method, one sees so many amputees perish, I had the good fortune to save the ten [patients] I had reserved, by preparing them for amputation.  Had this experiment been carried out on only one, two, or even three wounded [men] who were recovered by this method, that would even so have been a favourable indication of its reliability.  But it seems to me difficult not to be impressed by an experiment repeated ten times and always with the same success.  This is particularly so in the type of wounds in question which required three amputations of the arm, including one through the [elbow] joint, two of the thigh, three of the leg and two of the forearm.

(a) I have as witnesses of these ten cases Messrs. Majaut, père et fils  who both signed the account that I sent to M. de la Peyronie; Messrs. Dufour & Henri, surgeons working at the Hôpital de Douay; & M. Delaire, Surgeon-aide Major of the army, who visited the wounded to report on them to M. Andouillé, Surgeon-Major.