Volume 7 - History of Anaesthesia Society

Mason did not say what those details were. The arms of Coleman's gag
were shorter and more curved and the blades wer 'covered with
vulcanised rubber' but Mason's - as he described late$ - are provided
with a swivel which makes them fit and fix on the teeth more
accurately'. The adjusting mechanism of Coleman's gag was quite
different from that of Mason's - a ratchet on a long a n attached to the
end of one handle to engage with the end oE the other handle.
'It is scarcely necessary to add' - Mason continued - 'and I do so
solely to acknowledge the very friendly expressions conveyed to me by Mr
Coleman, that I was perfectly unaware when I had my gag made, that one
so similar in principle had already been brought to the notice to the
profession' .
However
Mason was rather less effusive about Fergusson's design when he
wrote: co he chief modification of the instrument as depicted by Sir
William is, I think, slightly advantageous, inasmuch as the narrow
blades being curved backwards are, when the instrument is fixed in the
mouth, less likely to hamper the operator'.
Fergusson's modifications were indeed advantageous; his design for the
acutely angled arms and slim blades not only differed appreciably from
Mason's original version but has remained substantially unchanged ever
since. Moreover, Fergusson, unlike Mason, specified the overall length
of his gag (about 7"), warned that the leverage it exerted could
dislocate a patient's jaw and recomnended a smaller size for children.
Fergusson's gag was soon accepted and eighteen months later a report1'
that 'the best gag ... was the later Sir William Ferq~son's' stimulated
Mason to write a long and slightly paranoid letter : '... I believe
there is some misunderstanding as to the origin of the gag sold by some
makers as 'Fergusson's gag. ... The fact is that in the years 1868-69-
70, Messrs Mathews ... were making various gags at my suggestion and,
after repeated Eailures, we ... hit upon a gag which ... became the
model, and included the principle upon which the instrument made for Sir
William was constructed. I used it on two or three occasions ... but
the parts in contact with the teeth were covered with too thick a pad of
india rubber - a small defect easily remedied. The instment ... lay
in abeyance Eor a time; and the next that was publicly known ... was in
... a-paper ... by the late Sir William Fergusson ... . In that paper
Sir Willlam,ll gives me the credit for having devised the instrument
fur he says .. it was chiefly suggested by my friend Mr Mason.. .".'
Mason then sumnarised the correspondence of 1876 and concluded: 'I do
not therefore join issue with Mr Coleman, to whom I willing1 give
suitable precedence .. . but as regards to the gag referred to &n the
report] I venture to think that as Sir William Fergusson himself grants
me the prior claim, it is not too much to expect that others would do
likewise'.
Many later writers d indeed grant priority to Mason but whether
-use of that etter" is less certain: he did not repeat his claim
in his own $okl' on Hare Lfp & Cleft Palate of 1878. However, in his
first letter he had said Messrs Millikins of St Thomas's Street are