A REPLY TO Mr. Douglass's Short Account of the State of MIDWIFERY in London and Westminster.

WHEREIN His trifling and malicious Cavils are answer'd, his Interestedness and Disingenuity impar­tially represented, and the Practice of Physick, but particularly the Character of the late Dr. CHAMBERLEN, vindicated from his indecent and unjust Aspersions.

By EDMUND CHAPMAN, Surgeon and Man-Midwife, in Orange-Street, near Red Lion-Square.

Invidiosus sibi semper Molestus.

LONDON: Printed for T. COOPER, at the Globe in Pater-Noster-Row; and Sold by JOHN BRINDLEY, at the King's Arms in New Bond-street; JOHN CLARKE, under the Royal Ex­change; and CHARLES CORBETT, at Addison's Head over-against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet. 1737.

(Price One Shilling.)

A REPLY TO Mr. Douglass's Short Account of Midwifery, &c.

MR. Douglass his short Account of the State of Midwifery in London and Westminster, in which he has endeavoured to cast a Cloud of Reproach over the Characters of those that practise this noble and necessary Branch of Physick, but particularly my own, need not have remain­ed so long unanswered, could I have per­swaded myself it had deserved it.

Malicious Productions are generally best despised; but lest Silence should be look'd upon as an Argument of Guilt, as in these Cases by the Weak it sometimes is, and Mr. Douglass should be encourag'd to deal farther in Calumny and Aspersion, I am at length induced to give him a Reply, which I shall at once enter upon, without farther Preface or Preamble.

To begin then with his Dedication: The only Motives of Dedications seem to be, either to submit one's Performance to a proper Judge, to make some small re­turn of Gratitude for Benefits receiv'd; or else to curry Favour. Now, as the Ho­nourable and worthy Lady, to whom Mr. Douglass has dedicated his Book, cannot possibly be supposed to be a Judge of its Merit; and, in all probability, never con­ferr'd the least Favour upon the Author, the Reader cannot well be mistaken in con­jecturing what was Mr. Douglass's true Drift in his Dedication.

His Quibble, how a Man can be a Wife, without being an Hermaphrodite? Whether a Maid may not be taught the Art of delivering Women, and yet be no Wife? That Widows lay Women, and yet are not Wifes, and his Query about Girl-Midwifes, are too low and trifling to deserve [Page 5]a serious Answer, and seem rather to be the product of a pert Sufficiency, than a sound Judgment. They are rather Indica­tions of one who was willing to cut him­self out Work for criticising at all Events, than of a cool and sober Reasoner.

In answer to his, I shall beg leave to put the following Queries.

  • 1. If the Term Midwifery is properly ap­plied to the Practice of that Art, when in the Hands of either Sex, why may not either Man or Woman so practi­sing, be in Propriety of Speech call'd a Midwife?
  • 2. Is not the Word Midwifery rather ex­pressive of Practice on a Wife, who on­ly is presum'd to want the Assistance of a Man or Woman in the present Case, than of the Sex of the Person practising?
  • 3. On receding from the common Form and Custom of Speech in this Case, is not the supposed Absurdity exchang'd for Unintelligibility? That is, what Idea can be fix'd to, what Etymology found for the new Term Midman and Mid­woman?

The Word Midman, he owns himself, is not an over-neat Expression, and it cer­tainly [Page 6]carries (to use his own Words) more Nonsense in the very Front of it, than the Term he has endeavoured to explode. Custom or Use hath always the Effect of a Law;

Quem penes arbitrium est & jus & norma loquendi.

Hor.

And what is Language but a customary and receiv'd use of Words? So that we may see the Term Man-Midwife may be de­fended, both from Custom and Propriety, and will doubtless be in use long after Mr. Douglass himself shall be forgotten.

In Page 3. Mr. Douglass falls very foul on the Character of the celebrated Dr. Chamberlen, representing him as puzzling and confounding the Art he profess'd, to the Advantage of most of the greatest Families in this Kingdom, rather than im­proving it; and very indecently, and un­justly too, brands him as an artful and insinuating Translator. He says, he rather darkens, than explains his Author's (Mau­riceau's) Meaning; and confidently affirms, all the additional Knowledge he was the Author of, to be only to tell the World, that He, and his Family, can assist Women in Labour better than any body else, and gives him the mean Epithet of a Nostrum­monger. (Page 4.) He pronounces every thing with an ipse dixit, like a second Aristotle, and sets himself up at once, [Page 7]both for Judge and Jury. The late learn­ed Dr. Friend, in his Epistle to Dr. Mead, about Purging in the Small Pox, gives Dr. Chamberlen a very different Character from Mr. Douglass, speaking of him as one most skilful in the Art he profess'd; (Hist. 5.) Whence we may plainly see, how different the Character of the same Person is, when drawn by real and pretended Judges.

P. 5. He taxes him with perverting Mr. Mauriceau's Design by his Translation, and having his own Literest at heart more than that of the Midwomen, as he ridicu­lously terms them.

He accuses him of coaxing the Mid­women, and yet in the same Sentence coaxes them himself, and pays a fulsome Compliment to the Qualifications of the Town Midwomen above those in the Coun­try. P. 5. The Town Midwomen may possibly (some of them) become his Pupils, when he gives his intended Lectures, and so ought in Prudence to be well spoken of. But those in the Country being too remote for this extraordinary Advantage, will, for aught I can see, in his Opinion, still labour under the Imputation of being unqualified ('till his Scheme for having Mid­men to instruct the Midwomen in Country places can take Effect) unless their Affairs can permit them to take a Journey to Lad [Page 8]Lane, where, it seems, the only Person pro­per to instruct them is to be met with.

Upon Dr. Chamberlen's saying, ‘"that in Countries and Places where Advice is not seasonably to be had, Midwifes are compelled to do their best, as God shall enable them (P. 5.)"’ which is a common Expression for a conscientious discharge of their Duty, according to the best of their Abilities. Mr. Douglass takes occasion here, to cut a very indecent Joke upon the Deity, by asking, if God has any where promised to give any more Assistance to a Country, than a Town Midwoman? In the next place, he substitutes God and the Doctor acting as two equal Beings; and then, to prove that the Divine God­head will reward us with the Knowledge of any useful Art, in Proportion to our own honest Diligence and Assiduity, which in holy Writ he has assured us he will; or, which is the same thing, to prove a point of Revelation, he quotes a Passage from a Heathen Poet; Dii laborantibus om­nia vendunt: thereby making mention of false Gods in the plural Number, for what the true and one God only can perform. Risum teneatis? Upon Dr. Chamberlen's advising the good Women not to blame those who are not backward in dangerous Cases, to desire Advice, lest it cost them dear; he indecently asks: If it does not [Page 9]always cost them dear when they do? Al­luding, I presume, to the Gratifications u­sually given in such Cases; notwithstanding he advances, a little farther, that a SUR­GEON ought to be well satisfied for any Improvement in, or Invention relating to, a manual Operation, P. 20. Is not De­livery, wherever the Help of either Man or Woman is required, in the strictest Sense a manual Operation? And if so, why must not a Physician be rewarded for his Trou­ble, as well as a Surgeon. But Self, like Oil, will be always uppermost.

In the same Page (the 7th.) the Plot of Mr. Douglass's whole Performance begins to open, when he says, that the Midwomen's want of Knowledge is more their Misfortune than their Fault, because they have not yet had such proper Opportunities of informing themselves as they ought to have. But now it must hereafter be their Fault more than their Misfortune, if they are not bet­ter qualify'd, after knowing where the Source of all Knowledge in Midwifery is to be found. This is the first Act of Mr. Dou­glass's Farce; and in the succeeding ones the Plot will unravel itself more and more, so as to be well understood by the dullest Reader, unless I am much mistaken.

He asking (Pag. 8.) ‘"Whether Physi­cians don't always make a sad Out-cry, [Page 10]and are not alarm'd as if their Craft was in danger, when Surgeons use Pen and Ink, except in PAUPER Cases,"’ is an indecent and false Reflection on the Gentlemen of the Faculty. Herein he brands Physick, that glorious Science, with the ignominious Name of a Craft; as if it were only a knavish Combination of Men to get Money, and at the same time openly taxes them with Covetousness, and Hardness of Heart, in denying their Ad­vice to Paupers. It is well known, that all the Gentlemen of that Profession, whose Advice is worth having, are very charitable, and willing to relieve the di­stressed Poor, without any View or Ex­pectation of Gratification. And where he can give me an Instance of one Surgeon's curing a Wound, setting a Fracture, or re­ducing a dislocated Limb, for nothing, I'll undertake to bring him five Physicians in this Town that have attended in the most noisome and contagious Distempers, without the least Desire of Reward: Nay, so far from it, they have relieved the Poor they have thus generously cur'd, with Money and other Necessaries out of their own private Bounty. But I shall leave this to the Resentment of those to whom it belongs.

In the same Page he says, that the Doctor allows Midwives are compell'd to [Page 11]do their best, as God shall direct them; to which he replies: Now supposing God should direct one of them to make use of a Crotchet, in a fit Case, and after a proper manner, must she be try'd for her Life for it? Which is another shocking Joke upon the Godhead, equal, if not superior to that before observed.

Here too is another Coax to the Lon­don Midwomen, that the hardiest of them would tremble, upon his Belief, at the very thought of a Crotchet, unless they were fully instructed how to use it. But poor unfortunate Country Midwomen! he cannot pretend to answer for them: They are at too remote a distance from Lad Lane to come to his Lectures; and if upon this melancholy occasion I may be allow'd to borrow a Scrap of Latin from him, proh dolor! O lack! Olack!

Page 9. Mr. Douglass asks, if Dr. Cham­berlen's Cobweb is not easily seen thro'? Now, were I disposed to Ill-nature, with how much more Justice might I apply this Saying to his own?

Page 12. He seems to own my Obser­vation on Dr. Chamberlen's Secret just. But I was unwilling, like Mr. Douglass, to make any farther Remark upon it; and thought, [Page 12]what I said sufficient, without an unman­nerly Freedom.

Page 13. He bestows upon Dr. Cham­berlen the ignominious Title of a ma­gisterial and dictatorial Writer.

Not content with this, in the next Page (14.) he very candidly calls him, a ful­some Repeater, a nauseous Recommender of his Nostrum, a Writer that has not made one Remark to the Advantage of Mid­women, and one who seems to have had nothing else in view, but to tell them when they ought to send for him, and to let them know, that he, &c. could serve them better than any body else. All which may be reckoned as Proofs of Mr. Douglass's want of Candour and good Manners. And now to make use of his own Words, utrum horum, p. 54.

Page 20. He owns, that Surgeons who have made any considerable Discovery in manual Operations, which cannot be made universally useful, as Medicines may, and really are, unless they are fully and di­stinctly explain'd, should always commu­nicate gratis the Fruits of their Labour and Expence. No, says he, they ought to be handsomely rewarded, not only for the real Service they have done, but to [Page 13]encourage Industry in others. Why then does he accuse me for keeping the use of the Fillet a Secret, which is in the strictest Sense a manual Operation, and one that cannot be made universally useful, as Me­dicines may? Indeed he has here spoke my own private Sentiments; in this we en­tirely agree: and I presume he will hard­ly hereafter ask me, why I don't com­municate it? He himself, it seems from his own Words, cannot expect it gratis; so that he must first tell me what he will be pleased to offer, before, we can come to any other Terms. However, for his Comfort, I promise him to be more rea­sonable than he says Dr. Chamberlen was with the French King's Physician, p. 19. and to be contented with less than Ten thousand Crowns; tho' in Proportion to the Superiority Mr. Douglass always seems to think Surgeons have over Physicians, I ought at least to insist upon Twenty thou­sand.

Page 21. He says Dr. Chamberlen is in­solent, and there very candidly ranks Do­ctors, Apothecaries, Shavers, and Nostrum­mongers, all together; but has wisely left the Surgeons, and consequently himself, out of the Number, as being superioris sortis (still to borrow a little more of his Learn­ing) to Doctors and Apothecaries. And now the Town has been informed of their su­perior [Page 14]Merit, I hope no body will dare, after this publick Notification, to refuse them their proper Homage, upon pain of Mr. John Douglass's Displeasure.

In the same Page he puts a Question which no body ever denied: Whether the Good which Surgeons do their Patients be not as evident as the Sun? E. g. When they cut for the Stone, perforate the Scull, reduce a Luxation, &c. But it is doubt­ful, it seems, from Baglivi, whether the Cures suppos'd to be performed by Phy­sicians, even those of the first Rank, are mostly owing to Nature, or the Medicines, &c. which they directed. No one, that I know of, has ever question'd the Good which Surgeons do in their own proper Profession; but I am afraid, when they go beyond their Last, they'll doubly ve­rify Baglivi's Saying of the Physicians, and do more Harm than they are capable of foreseeing. Surgeons, he observes, only practise Midwifery in France; and so, says he, they ought to do every where else. What then in his Wisdom he will propose to be done with such Physicians as are en­gag'd in this Profession, I know not, un­less he will generously procure them to be promoted to the Dignity of Shavers (among which he just now chose to rank them) for which the Faculty ought doubt­less to be extreamly thankful.

A little after, he accuses the Doctor of going out of his Ken; but why? Only because he pretends to advise the Surgeons. And in the next Page (22.) to be even with him for this Presumption, affirms, that the Doctor did not understand that very little part of Surgery, the Method of cutting Childrens Gums, so well as the very Nurses.

In the same Page he hints, as if the Doctor was not appris'd of the use of the Crotchet; and in the next Page (23.) concludes, that Mr. Mauriceau was a good and faithful Surgeon, and Chamberlen only a — Doctor, with a long Dash before it. It is to be hop'd, Mr. Douglass may so far overcome his Modesty, as in the next Edition of his elaborate Performance, to fill up the Blanks that are in this. If the Antithesis here is to hold good, and Mr. Mauriceau was a good and faithful Surgeon, which I will not deny, the contrary Cha­racter must necessarily fall upon Dr. Chamber­len as a Physician. But how far Mr. Dou­glass is capable of judging of the Qualifi­cations of a Physician, or who set him up for a Censor, I must leave the Faculty to determine.

Page 24. He sums up the whole he has to say in relation to Dr. Chamberlen, [Page 16]in telling us, that his main Design, in his Preface and Notes upon Mr. Mauriceaus Book, was to PUZZLE, rather than in­struct the Midwomen or Midmen; and to persuade them, that He, and the rest of the Nostrum-mongers, as he ignominiously calls them, could serve them better than any other Artists.

Now, is not this a very fine Character of a Physician, who was allow'd by all proper Judges, to be a Man of great Ho­nour and Abilities? If what he would in­sinuate be believd, must not the Doctor appear viler than a common Pick-pocket or Street-robber, wilfully to puzzle and mis­lead People in Matters relating to Life and Death? But what seems to stick most upon Mr. Douglasss Stomach, as a thing he can no ways digest, is the Doctor's re­commending Physicians as fitter Persons to deliver Women than Surgeons. Will Mr. Douglass pretend to say, that the Surgeons have more Knowledge, Learning, and Abi­lities than the Gentlemen of the Faculty? If not, how come Surgeons to be more qualified for the Art of Midwifery than Physicians? But Self is here to be con­cerned; and Mr. Douglass seems inclind for the common Good, to turn those il­literate People the Physicians out of Pra­ctice, pointing out the Occupation he thinks [Page 17]them most fit to be employ'd in, under the laudable Profession of SHAVERS.

From Dr. Chamberlen, Mr. Douglass pro­ceeds to Mr. Giffard, Surgeon, another late Writer in Midwifery; for it seems they must all feel his critical Lash. But as I shall leave the Defence of Mr. Giffard to his Publisher, and Reviser, the ingenious Dr. Hoddy, who is much more capable of doing it than myself, I shall be short in my Remarks on this Head.

First then, upon Mr. Giffards ingenuously relating, ‘"That a Man-Midwife had work'd upon a poor Woman, and left her in a worse Condition than he found her,"’ he makes this paultry Witticism, in a Parenthesis, That Mid­men are not at all Witches any more than the Midwomen.

Pag. 25. A little after, upon Mr. Giffards saying, that the Fate of those Children, whose Placenta offers first, is Death, if a proper Person be not at hand to deliver them immediately, he subjoins, who can be so proper, or likely to be in the Way, as a skilful Midwoman? and yet at the same time he observes, that as long as they want Skill to perform it, the Child must die be­fore a Midman can be brought. Now where the good Women are to meet with this extraordi­nary Skill, the Reader will see in the Sequel.

Again, upon Mr. Giffard's candidly saying, ‘"That Mischiefs may be prevented by a [Page 18]skilful Operator, if sent for in Time,"’ he replies, but much better if a skilful Operatrix attended; thereby giving the Old Women the Preference before the Surgeons, which, as it does not seem to have been Mr. Douglass's Drift, must be look'd upon as an unwary Con­cession.

Pag. 28. He asks what signifies finding fault with the Midwives in every Page with­out attempting a Remedy? And Pag. 33. affirms, that it is our Way to haul the Mid­women in HEAD and SHOULDERS, guilty or not guilty. To which I shall only reply, that one, if not the only, Method of attempt­ing a Remedy, is, to find fault where they de­serve it, and strictly, without Favour or Pre­judice, to shew them their Errors; without which, they will never be much improv'd. But that we haul them in, as he expresses him­self, Head and Shoulders, guilty or not guilty, is what Mr. Douglass ought first to have prov'd, before he had so roundly and uncharitably chargd us with it.

Pag. 30. He asks if our Women are not as capable of being taught as the French Women? I answer in the Affirmative, and beg he would tell me, who ever made a Question of it?

Pag. 36. Upon Mr. Giffard's observing, what indeed is but too true, that the Men-Midwife's being sent for, so late, too often pro­ceeds from the Ignorance or Self-sufficiency of [Page 19]the Midwife, he excuses them, by affirming, that it is oftener from the Modesty of the Wo­men, Covetousness, or real Poverty of the Men, &c. Thus you fee his Pupils, the Midwomen, are infallible, and the Saddle is to be plac'd on any Horse rather than the right one. Had Mr. Douglass long practis'd the Art of Mid­wifery, he would have been sufficiently sensi­ble, that many Men-Midwives have been hin­der'd from being sent for in Cases of the ut­most Extremity, where the Sufferers were wil­ling enough to have had superior Advice, and the Husbands neither covetous nor poor.

Pag. 39. He says, it is true that Women may be taught the Method of touching with very little Trouble. Now if he makes the same Concession in relation to the other Branches of Midwifery, it is to be hop'd his Lectures may be heard at a very little Expence, which is a Consequence possibly he was not aware of.

From Mr. Giffard, Mr. Douglass advances to take notice of my own Essay upon Mid­wifery, first publish'd in 1733. and after I have dwelt so long in defending the Character of the two fore-mention'd Gentlemen, whose Shades are no way able to answer for themselves, I hope I shall not be thought too partial if I should now endeavour to defend my own, against Mr. Douglass's trifling and unjust As­persions.

In the first place, he charges me with com­plimenting the Midwomen, because I wrote a Book for their Improvement, and thought that all the Treatises, hitherto written on this Sub­ject, were calculated more for the Instruction of my own Sex than the other. Pag. 41. This he affirms to be a Mistake, because, he says, Madam Du Tertre composed her Book for the Use of the Midwives Apprentices in the Hotel Dieu, and Madam Lovys Burgeois's Book was translated into English, and put forth for the sole Use of Midwives. Now as to the first, I presume it never was translated (from his own Pretensions to undertake it) and I do not pre­tend to understand the French Language. As to the other, I never saw it, or heard of it before.

Upon my saying, ‘"That I have daily, dur­ing the Space of above twenty Years Prac­tice, seen many fatal Mistakes committed by Midwives,"’ he asks, what Sort of Midwives these must have been, who committed fatal Mistakes, every Day, for above twenty Years together? By Daily, I did not think I should be understood every particular Day, but that I had frequently seen such fatal Practices, as himself doubtless would, had he ever been conversant in the Practice of that Art he would have the World believe him so expert in. Nor can I help observing in this Place, that Mr. Douglass cannot be a proper Person to instruct others, as not being Master of [Page 21]the Art himself. He then puts a Quere, how are the civil Magistrates to be appriz'd of their Mal-practice, if the honest Testimonies of such as are call'd in upon them, and are Wit­nesses and Judges of it, are not to be regarded? How are the Women themselves to be made sensible of their Errors if their Superiors are denied the Liberty of reproving them, when faulty, and freely professing the Truth? If the Men are to be blam'd for their Integrity and Impartiality, and accus'd of hauling the Wo­men in Head and Shoulders, guilty or not guilty, whenever they blame the Midwives for their Faults, Mr. Douglass's Quere, in relation to the civil Magistrates, is like for ever to re­main unanswer'd.

Again, upon my delivering it as my Opi­nion, ‘"That such Mistakes could not have happen'd had they ever read a Treatise so properly adapted to their Capacities, and at the same time so full and plain as I hop'd my own to be,"’ he asks, with his wonted Candour, whether, if they had read Madam Du Tertre's little Book, they would not have found it more properly adapted to their Capa­cities, as full and plain, and her Sentiments more accurately expressed? To which I reply, as having never seen, nor been able to under­stand her Book, if I had; that I cannot tell. Tho' at the same time I must, in justice to my­self, observe, that I cannot see what relation this has to the Matter in Dispute; nor can Madam Du Tertres little Book, being as full [Page 22]and plain, or more accurately express'd, than mine, hinder mine from being full and plain too, which is all that I have asserted.

Besides, if forty Persons, as well as Madam Du Tertre, had made the same Improvements and Observations in Practice, and wrote them in a Language I do not understand how does that detract from, or lessen any thing I ad­vance? A candid Person would think that it rather confirmd it.

In the next place he taxes me with having the same Aim he has the Assurance to assert Dr. Chamberlen had; namely, to tell the Mid­women, when, and in what particular Cases to send for my superior Advice, and not to instruct them how to give better Assistance themselves. After the very indecent Freedom he has taken with the Character of Dr. Chamberlen, I can­not wonder at any he can take with mine, as most willingly owning my own Inferiority. But before Mr. Douglass had tax'd me with this un­charitable Way of proceeding, he ought to have been better acquainted with me than he seems to be, and to have prov'd, that I have not laid down any Rules for the Improvement and Advantage of Midwives. Will he affirm that I have advanc'd nothing towards their In­struction? If so, let him ingenuously prove it, not by low and impertinent Cavils, but cool and sober Arguments, and not arrogate to him­self the Offices of both Judge and Executioner, in a Cause wherein he appears only as an Ac­cuser; [Page 23]and I doubt not, but that before I have done pleading, the Court of impartial Readers will look upon his Prosecution as entirely mali­cious, and readily grant me a Copy of my In­ditement. Does not he own that Madam Du Tertre and myself have advanc'd the same Me­thods of Practice? And does not he highly extol many Things in her Treatise which are found in mine? Since then we have liv'd in different Ages, and have never had the least Knowledge of one another, how can that Practice be esteem'd bad in me, which is reckon'd so extraordinary in Madam Du Tertre?

Pag. 43. He accuses me of first coaxing, and then threatening the Midwives, as Dr. Cham­berlen did before me, because I say, ‘"I have ever found the most experienced Midwives the most ready to call in farther Assistance, and that they find their Account in it; whilst it is quite otherwise with those, who, from too great an Opinion of their own Judg­ment and Abilities, run great Hazards, or at the best call us in too late, and so lose their good Name, and justly suffer in their Reputation. That the best Midwives send early for Advice upon Appearance of Dan­ger and Difficulty; the suffering Fair readily consents to it, and by this means both Lives are sav'd."’ Pray who can see any thing in this Passage like coaxing or threatening, or in­deed any thing else, but plain and known Truth? I would desire to know, who coaxes [Page 24]the Women, when he immediately asks, ‘"if the suffering Fair would not have been much more oblig'd to her Midwoman, if she had perform'd the Work herself, and thereby sav'd both the Uneasiness and Expence of superior Advice."’ Of the first Part of this Accusation then, he appears to be guilty him­self, and the Reader need not be at a Loss for the Reason of it. But as for threatening, that was not Mr. Douglasss Intention at a Time when he was bespeaking them for his Pupils; for it must be a very silly Bird indeed, that, according to the Proverb, bewrays its own Nest. He likewise desires to know, ‘"If these two Speeches were not pick'd out of Dr. Cham­berlen's Preface?"’ I answer, No; but must beg leave to subjoin, that I shall never have the worse Opinion of myself for thinking alike with so great a Man, notwithstanding Mr. Douglass is pleas'd to give him the Title of a puzzling, confounding, insinuating, insolent Nostrum-monger.

Upon my faying, ‘"That I have an In­vention of my own to extract Children when the Head presents and sticks in the Passage, with the Fillet, which I must beg leave to be silent in, as the great Dr. Chamberlen was before me, in chusing to conceal the Method whereby he could extract Children in this Case without Hooks, where other Artists are forc'd to use them,"’ he adds, was there ever such an Excuse beard of? Because the great Dr. Chamberlen, says he, acted a very [Page 25]ungenerous Part in this Affair, therefore Mr. Chapman must be excus'd for doing just the same Thing. Then he asks, whether I might not as well have said, That the Doctor had been guilty of Simony or Sacrilege, and was not punish'd for it, and therefore I might, for the same Reason, expect the same Grace, in case I should ever take it in my Head to commit the same Crimes? Not remembering his former Decla­ration, Pag. 20. Of his being far from thinking that the Publick has any Right to expect, that every private Man (who at a considerable Ex­pence, and assiduous Study, makes any considera­ble Discovery in Manual Operations which cannot be made universally useful, as Medicines may, and really are, &c.) should communicate gratis the Fruits of his Labour and Expence. Besides at the same time that I keep the Fillet a Secret, I frankly own the Forceps to be preferable, for which I give my Reasons. How then can the Concealment of the former be an Injury to any?

A little after, Pag. 45. he taxes me with being mistaken, in affirming, that I was the second Englishman who wrote originally and professedly on this Subject. Now I never affirm'd that I was the second Englishman, &c. only said, if I was not mistaken, &c.(a) This I afterwards was sensible of, and accordingly candidly own'd it, in my second Edition, in this following Words,(b) When I publish'd the [Page 26]first Edition of this Work, I thought myself, at least, the second Englishman, who had written professedly on the Subject; I have since found I was mistaken, &c. so that Mr. Douglass himself is here guilty of a Mistake, if not a wilful Misrepresentation. Tho' whether I was right or wrong in this, 'tis nothing to the Subject Matter, and at best but a low and trifling Cavil.

Upon my saying, if the Child offers any other Part than the Head, be it what it will, the Hand is to be pass'd gently into the Womb, the Feet are to be search'd for, the Child to be turn'd, and that Way brought forth; and Pag. 20. Having farther observ'd, that a Child, presenting with its Head, is often to be turn'd and deliver'd with the Feet first, and in all other Postures whatever always with the Feet first, Mr. Douglass proceeds, But suppose a Foot, or the Feet present, what need have we then to pass the Hand into the Womb to fetch them? And suppose the Buttocks present, and are so low in the Passage that they cannot be push'd back without Dan­ger, is it not much easier and quicker to slip the Fingers over the Bend of the Thigh, or over the Ossa Ilia, and draw it forward in that Posture, than to run the risque of forcing them back to come at the Feet? And then trium­phantly concludes it to be plain from these Quotations, That I, notwithstanding my 25 Years Practice, was perfectly unacquainted with this Case, tho' Madam Du Tertre describes it [Page 27]very accurately. I have said in my first Edi­tion, except when it presents with the Feet, &c. And, in my second, have mention'd the Buttocks, and when the Child may be brought away in that Posture. Pag. 11. I own there (by ma­king that Case an Exception) that this had slipp'd me in the first, so that nothing is more plain, than that I was not unacquainted with the Case, tho' Mr. Douglass is pleased, with his usual Candour, to accuse me of being perfectly so. No Person can possibly imagine a Case of that Nature should never happen to me in twenty seven Years extensive Practice. And tho' I forgot to take notice of it in the Essay, yet I have sufficiently mention'd it in my Treatise. So that if the former had been much more im­perfect in this respect than it is, yet as it stands corrected in the latter, it must certainly be very unfair and ungenerous to fix upon any but the last Edition.

Upon my giving an Account of having with my Finger dilated and cast back the Mouth of the Womb, and so releas'd a little Prisoner, he asks, if Madam Du Tertre's Fin­ger would not have released the Prisoner as soon, and as safely as mine? Pag. 47. Upon my saying again, that more than two Inches of the String itself, from the Navel, is unnecessary, whereas I have commonly known Midwives leave five or six, he adds; that Madam Du Tertre likewise advises the String to be tied two Inches from the Child's Navel, and then [Page 28]triumphs in the following Manner, Where now is the mighty Secret he makes such a FUSS about? Is it any thing more than an OLD WOMAN told us before he was born? Pag. 48. Upon saying too, that it is my constant Practice to pass my Hand immediately after the Birth, in order to extract the Placenta; he enquires what there is so extraordinary in it, that it deserves to be noted so emphatically, as my constant Practice is? And then asks if Madam Du Tertre, &c. did not so? Pag. 56. Again, he twits Dr. Mau­bray, as well as myself, with Madam Du Tertre, as likewise in Pag. 59. And lastly, Pag. 61. Upon my declaring my Unwillingness to put a Person upon her Labour too early, which God knows is too often done, he asks if Madam Du Tertre would not as carefully have avoided putting her upon her Labour before her Time, as I did?

As for Madam Du Tertre and myself being of the same Opinion, I cannot possibly see how he can fairly turn that to my Disadvan­tage, since what is right in Madam Du Tertre can never be wrong in me. So that instead of doing me an Injury, which I think was plainly his Intention, by such trifling Insinuations, he has paid me a handsome Compliment, in own­ing my Practice to be the same with Madam Du Tertre's whom he seems to be so very fond of.

To return; Pag. 47. After repeating what I have said in relation to the Folly of dipping [Page 29]the Infant's Hand, when hanging out of the Womb, in cold Water, rubbing it with Ice, or touching it with a wet Cloth, which some ignorant Midwives practise, he desires to be inform'd, ‘"how many Midwives I have ever known guilty of these Fooleries?"’ I answer too many; and it is probable, had Mr. Douglass long practised the Art of Midwifery, he would have, met with the same.

A much greater Instance, of his being but little conversant in this Art, he gives us in the very next Page, where, upon my saying that few Midwives are sufficiently appriz'd of the unhappy Symptom there mention'd, viz. a violent Flooding, he declares, that he differs so far from me, in this Assertion, that, in his Opinion, there is not one Midwife in a thousand who knows not, that a violent Flood­ing will either occasion Abortion or Death. I confess few, if any Midwives, can be so totally ignorant, as not to know that Flooding will occasion Death if no Stop be put to its Fury. Yet many are apt to flatter themselves, that the Sufferer may be deliver'd by her natural Pains, till it is too late, as appears from several Cases I have cited (few to what I could have given) which shews they were not sufficiently appriz'd of the Danger. And I hope I may be excused being so full on this Head, as many have been before me, since it is a Thing of such vast Consequence in Practice.

But to return back to Mr. Douglass's Ob­servation in relation to what I advanc'd about the Navel-string, Pag. 48. I thought it proper to mention what I have there said, as I had very often found the leaving so much of the String to be a common Practice, and indeed the Custom, of most Midwives in the Country. I never once mention'd it as a Secret; so the FUSS about it, as he elegantly words it, is with himself.

Again, as to his Quere, whether it is not every Body's Practice to pass their Hand immediately and examine if there are any more Children, and if no more, to fetch the Placenta? I answer No; not even among the Assistants of my own Sex, much less with the Women, for I assert that few of them take this Method.

Few Midwives, even in this Town, pass their Hand (if I may give credit to their Declara­tion, and my own Experience) and fewer yet in the Country. So that the Woman in whose Case this is mention'd had really stood but a bad Chance; had an ignorant Midwife been call'd in upon her, as I have there affirm'd. Here Mr. Douglass has certainly burnt his Fingers, and taken hold of one of the best Observations in my whole Book; which may serve to shew his extraordinary Judgment. That few Mid­wives in this Town do pass their Hand is an [Page 31]Affirmation I dare submit to the Chief of the Profession. Pray whence comes it that we are so often sent for to extract the Placenta?

Is not what I have wrote on this Subject Matter of Instruction to Midwives? And there­fore as it is against my own Interest, it must be judg'd to be honest at least, which, I trust will have no small Weight in my Fa­vour.

If I have written any thing that will not stand the Test, but that my Herculean Anta­gonist does not pretend to, why do not proper Judges disprove me? If nothing but what will stand the Trial, why must I be loaded with such trifling and malicious Cavils? Really I think no one more unhappy, than he who snarls, and shews his Teeth, yet cannot bite; and I at once despise and pity such a Person.

All Midwives are not Du Tertre's; and why I should not say, this is my constant Practice, I know not; nor do I see wherein I could offend any Person thereby (and nothing surely but Calumny and Ill-nature could ever have sug­gested a Censure from this.) How wrongfully then does he accuse me of having condemn'd the Midwives unjustly, because I affirm, that if an ignorant Midwife had been concern'd in the Case abovementioned, who had only taken the first Child and After-birth, the last would pro­bably [Page 32]have been left behind, and either violent Flooding, or a bad Fever would have ensued; and, as the Woman was before ill, and ex­treamly weak, it would very likely have cost her her Life? Is not what I have said true? Can what is here spoken, of an ignorant Mid­wife, belong to a good one? And would not one, ignorant of her Profession, have occasion'd in all Probability the Misfortune I there men­tion? For I say again, that few do pass their Hand. Upon the whole then, I think I may with most Justice retort his own Words upon him, and apply what he says of the Midwives to myself, viz. That, guilty or not guilty, 'tis all one, I must be haul'd in, and condemn'd for an imaginary as well as a real Fault. Pag. 50.

Pag. 51. He relates the Case of my being sent for to a Gentlewoman who kept a Tavern at Ipswich, viz. that the Child was dead, and the Mother flooding; that when two Midwives and a Surgeon, just then set out in the Profession, had all us'd their Endeavours to little or no Purpose, I was call'd in, and deliver'd her in a Minute; that I left her under the Care of Dr. Beeston, but that she died in six or seven Days. Upon this he very candidly observes, that I have not indeed told this young Gentle­man's Name, tho' I have describ'd him so well that he doubts there's not a Man in all Ipswich, nor perhaps twenty Miles round, but can tell who I mean; and then craftily insinuates, What Injury might not such a Tale do a worthy [Page 33]young Fellow? And twits me with being incon­sistent with myself, in relation to the Advice I gave in Pag. 114. of my first Edition; namely, that we should not take an unkind Advantage of a Slip or Accident that may happen to befal a Brother in his Practice.

I hope I cannot fairly be charg'd with being inconsistent with myself, or taking an unkind Advantage of a Brother, whereas the Publica­tion of my Essay was many Years after the Case referr'd to, and the young Surgeon there mention'd, had in all Probability, either given up that Branch of Practice, or was well esta­blish'd in it.

In the next Page he cites a Passage from my Preface, wherein I say that the Dignity of this Art will appear to every Person in a much more advantageous Light, if we reflect on the Learning of the Professors of it, and then ig­nominiously subjoins, E. G. Dr. C—, Dr. M—, Dr. W—, Dr. G—, Dr. A—, Dr. B—, Dr. Gregoire, Tota notus in Urbe! &c. It is much to be wish'd that Mr. Douglass had condescended so far as to have fill'd up this formidable Catalogue of Blanks, that the Gentlemen, he there reflects upon, might have a fair Opportunity of defending themselves from such scurrilous Treatment. Is this being con­sistent with himself, to charge me with de­tracting from a young Surgeon's Character, in so favourable a Manner; as not to give even the initial Letter of his Name; when in the very [Page 34]next Paragraph, he uncharitably and malici­ously insults the Reputation of no less than seven Physicians, as he himself seems to own, by giving them all the Title of Doctor; but if by this he would only aim at those who would willingly impose themselves upon the World as such, he should have told us their real Names, that Gentlemen of Learning and Character may not suffer thereby; there being several Physicians of Reputation in this City, the initial Letters of whose Names are the same he has thought fit to set down.

Upon my saying, that the Improvements these, great Men have made in this Art, have effectually wip'd away the Load of Slander and Ignominy, with which this Profession was formerly branded, he has the Assurance to ask, for I can call it nothing else, if ninety nine in a hundred (a pretty large Proportion truly) of these great Men I talk of, have not kept their Im­provements to themselves? With this insinuat­ing Doubt, if ever they made any.

Now if this be not scurrilous Treatment, I know not what can possibly be so. But this is not all, he proceeds farther, and asks if most of them now, as well as myself, don't pretend to have Secrets? And if they don't endeavour to puzzle, at the same time they make a show of instructing others? Don't they, says he likewise, very seldom, if ever, consult together, as they always ought to do in difficult or [Page 35]dangerous Cases? And then asks, What can hinder them, except the Fear of discovering the Insignificancy of their pretended Secret, or their REAL IGNORANCE? What intolerable Usage is here? What Opinion must By-standers have of the Profession, when one, who would im­pose himself upon the Town as a Judge, represents the Professors of it as a Set of crafty, puzzling, ignorant People? How far his Fellow Citizens are to thank him, for deterring, by false and malicious Hints, those who are already (from a mistaken and blameable Modesty) too averse to the Assis­tance of Men-Midwives, in Cases of Extre­mity, where a faithful Wife, or hopeful Heir may perhaps be lost, is what I think every reasonable Man may determine. But I shall leave him to the Resentment of those worthy Gen­tlemen he has so much insulted, and only ob­serve farther on this Head, that I well hop'd, (and still with Reason do) that the late, and present Practitioners, had wip'd off the Load of Scandal that was us'd to blacken this Pro­fession, and design'd a just Compliment to them. But nothing can stand good where Envy and Ill-nature meet. And indeed if they have not done it, I can only be accus'd of being too complaisant; which is a Fault I must do Mr. Douglass the Justice to own he has no where in his Book been guilty of, unless once to his Friend and Countryman, Dr. Mitchell, as will presently be made appear.

Upon my saying, in the second Edition of my Book, that I did not send my Papers to the Press till I had got a Friend to revise and correct the Diction, which I believe is not an usual thing, he desires to he inform'd, if I can be a tolerable Judge of Diction myself, who have suffer'd my Friend to write Woman-Midwife, Women-Midwives, &c. and then blames me, or my Corrector, for calling Dr. Maubray an ingenious and laborious Author, endeavouring, at the same time, to set the Doctor in a very ridiculous Light. Now al­lowing Dr. Maubray to be as silly a Writer as Mr. Douglass would have him, he must own at least, that I have some Good-nature in me (to which Mr. Douglass seems to be a Stranger) to allow him a Character he did not well deserve. I shall always endeavour to speak with Modesty and Respect of my Superiors; not following Mr. Douglass's Example in recommending and puffing myself to the Town, as the only Dicta­tor left in my Profession.

After Mr. Douglass has vented his Spleen upon the Doctor, he triumphs in the following Manner. ‘"Pray does such a Writer as this deserve the Epithets of ingenious and labo­rious? Wherein does his Ingenuity appear? Wherein is his Labour of any Use? Pray can any thing expose a Man's Judgment more than laughing or hissing, praising or finding fault in the wrong Place" Pag. 56.

Without doubt Mr. Douglass has Penetration enough to avoid those Sands in which he sees others sink; and so great a Reformer as himself can never be suspected of being guilty of those Faults he so vehemently reproves in others. But to judge him now by his own Words. He reprimands me for calling Dr. Maubray, an ingenious and laborious Author, and at the same time gives the late Dr. Mitchell the Epi­thets, of a just, tart, reverend, and learned Writer. After what I have advanc'd above, in relation to Mr. Douglass's very ill Usage of the Gentlemen of the Faculty, it may seem odd perhaps, that I should here question the Re­putation of any Gentleman myself; nor should any thing have induc'd me to it, had I not here a very fair Opportunity to display Mr. Douglass's great Partiality. In order to which I appeal to all the Physicians in this Town, to whom the LEARNED Dr. Mitchell, as he calls him, was but too well known, whether he was not the great Physical-fool of the Age? The standing Jest of all his Acquaintance? Tho' some Men of Sense thought him too low even for that, And as for his SOOTER­KIN DISSECTED, wherein, Mr. Douglass says, he has so JUSTLY and TARTLY reprimanded Dr. Maubray (who certainly deserv'd it for such a false and credulous Surmise as the Exis­tence of the Suyger or Sucher, had Dr. Mitchell been able to have done it) it is too well known, for its execrable Stupidity, to need any Exa­mination in this Place. For the Truth of which [Page 38]I'll stand by the Determination of the most partial Reader that ever perus'd this extraordi­nary Performance, excepting only Mr. Douglass, who, if he went thro' it with a grave and com­pos'd Countenance, is, I believe, the only one that ever did. Mr. Douglass too assures us, that he was, Utriusque Medicinae Doctor. P. 55. Greatly to the Honour of both the Professions no doubt! Pray was not desiring him to shew his Diploma, which some Gentlemen of top Reputation thought to be a sham one, a stand­ing Jest at Child's? Was it not always pro­duc'd with the utmost Shame and Reluctance?

Now to retort Mr. Douglass's Words upon himself, which may be done with the utmost Justice; pray does such a Writer as this deserve the Epithets of just, tart, reverend, or learned? Risum teneatis? Wherein does his Tartness or Learning appear? Pray can any thing expose a Man's Judgment more than laughing or hissing, praising or finding fault in the wrong Place? And pray who would think Mr. Douglass a Judge of Learning himself, who calls such a Writer as this, a LEARNED one?

But to return; what had I to do with Dr. Maubray's Treatise, beyond what belong'd to my Subject? He might be very learned and laborious, yet erroneous too; as I prove he was in relation to the Forceps, in which being ob­lig'd to be close upon him, I thought I could do no less than do him Justice where I found him right. I had no Business rudely to rake into [Page 39]his Ashes, neither was I answering or writing against his Book. Besides, I shew'd him the more Respect, from hearing him well spoken of by better Judges than Mr. John Douglass, or myself. Nor could I imagine a Piece of just Civility would ever have been made so ill­natur'd an Use of by any, much less by the Doctor's own Countryman. Had I treated Dr. Maubray with the ungentlemanlike Free­dom Mr. Douglass has Dr. Chamherlen, he might then, and I doubt not would, have fallen upon me for that too. So that civil or uncivil, guilty or not guilty, I must be haul'd in, as he says the Midwomen are, by the Head and Shoulders. Pag. 55. He hopes I will explain the Doctor's Account of Men being chang'd into Women, in my next Edition, for he owns, as it stands in the Doctor's Book, it is far beyond his Comprehension; and that the Account he gives of it is so sublime, that it rather puzzles than instructs him. But in the Name of Won­der what is all this to me? What have I to do to explain in any Author that which is foreign to my Subject. If I am to answer for all the silly or wrong things that are advanc'd in Au­thors, I shall have enough to do with a Wit­ness.

He says I make a great SPLUTTER (elegant indeed!) about breaking the Membranes of the second Child, in Order to bring it away by the Feet, as if I had discover'd something new. But however, to make me some amends, he [Page 40]immediately pays me a great Compliment, by observing that Dr. Maubray's Words on this Occasion, which, he says, are perfect NONSENSE, are very different from mine; which, as it is the only Place in his whole Book wherein he seems to have any tolerable Opinion of me, I would not be thought so ungrateful as not to take some notice of it. I never imagin'd that in this Case I had discover'd any thing new; and what I there said was for the Information of Women, who most of them, if not all, leave the Birth of the second Child to Nature. So that I think his own very genteel SPLUTTER might have been as well omitted.

In the same Page he asks, ‘"Who ever call'd the Flowing of the Waters a Flooding, but myself."’ And observes, that every body else means a dangerous Flux of Blood by a Flooding. I never did call the Flowing of the Waters a Flooding. It's a base and false Charge. Pray have not I taken notice, that the Flowing of the Waters was wrongfully call'd a Flooding? What Mr. Douglass then has here said might have been let alone. I could as easily have call'd it NONSENSE as himself.

Again, because I honestly and earnestly re­commend the careful Extraction of the Placenta, which can never be left behind without the greatest Danger, he observes, Pag. 57. after his Laconick Manner, that I make a great ROUT about it for three Pages together, as if no body had known any thing of the Matter before; [Page 41]and upon my saying that I am glad to find Dr. Maubray recommending so safe a Practice, he asks, ‘"If I can find any body who does not recommend it, as well as Dr. Maubray and myself?"’ Let who will recommend or dis­recommend it, I'm sure I have found several that don't practise it, to the endangering of their Patients Lives; and to prevent such ill Consequences for the future, Was the Reason of my making such a ROUT about it, or rather so faithfully and earnestly recommending it.

I still assert that the Placenta is often left by Midwives, and for their Instruction alone, it was I spoke so much about it. How-then can what I have said be call'd a ROUT? But Mr. Douglass must necessarily be elegant if he writes at all.

He affirms in the same Pag. 57. That I have censur'd Dionis, which I think, I have done with a deal of Justice, for saying, ‘"That the Placenta in an Abortion of two or three Months may be left to come away of itself,"’ and then replies, That undoubtedly this may very often be done without ANY Danger, tho' he adds, that it is certainly SAPER to bring it away at first, if sent for in Time, &c. which seems to me to be Nonsense; for if it he safer to bring it away at first, how can it be left without any Danger? Does not the Word safer naturally imply a1 Danger in its being left behind? If not, how can one Practice be safer than the other. If the Child has been come away some Time, [Page 42]he says, he should give himself no Trouble about it till a Flooding appear'd, and affirms, that he knew it once left whole (by the Obsti­nacy of the Mother, who could by no means be persuaded to have it taken away) between the fourth and fifth Month, and yet she did very well. Whether the Words, I knew it once, were here meant to signify his own prac­tising of this Art, I cannot determine; but he himself seems to think this Practice wrong by blaming the Woman with Obstinacy, for not consenting to have it taken away. Indeed, as he says, she might notwithstanding this have done well; but then it was certainly great odds she might not, and her Recovery was doubtless more owing to good luck than any thing else.

He says the experienc'd Mr. Giffard is also of the same Opinion, when he observes, ‘"That of two Evils the greater ought to be shunn'd, there being less Danger in leaving Part of the After-birth, which will very often, with­out doing any great harm, come away with the Lochia, than in using any force in ex­tracting it, by which we very often hurt the Womb."’ Without doubt of two Evils the lesser ought always to be chosen; but I think Mr. Giffard's Words are here to be taken with great Restriction. For his saying that the re­maining Part of the Placenta will often come away with the Lochia, implies that it will not always do so; and that it will do no great harm plainly intimates that it may do some. The Womb to be sure is never to be hurt, [Page 43]in extracting the Placenta; and when it cannot be got away, without doing more harm than the Retention of it may occa­sion (which I believe but seldom happens) it must doubtless be left behind. But then this is nothing to the Necessity of its being always taken away, which is what I have so earnestly recommended. Will Mr. Douglass affirm, that it is ever safer to have it retain'd, than extracted? I hope he will not pretend to give this Advice in his Lectures, lest Mankind should be but little indebted to him, and the State of Midwifery, after his mighty Endea­vours to reform it, be left in a much worse Condition than he found it. This ought to be look'd upon as one of the most certain Maxims in Practice, that, where it can possibly be done, the Womb ought to be clear'd, and nothing suffer'd to be included in it, lest a Fever or Flooding should ensue, which are but too com­monly the Consequences of such a Neglect.

A little after, he says, I give one Instance of a Child I deliver'd with the Buttocks fore­most, and then asks, how does this quadrate, with what I say, Pag. 11. of the same Book. ‘"If the Child offers any other part than the Head, the Hand is to be passed into the, Womb, the Feet search'd for, and the Child, to be turn'd, and brought forth by them."’ Here he wilfully omits an Exception I make in the very next Line, thus: But there is one Case to be excepted, viz. when the Child presents the Buttocks, and is far advanc'd in that Posture, [Page 44]even beyond the Labia; it is then to be extracted as it lies: which I should chuse to perform by passing a Finger or two of one Hand, or if possi­ble of both Hands to the Groin, and thus bring the Child away, rather than attempt the FEET: This however can be done only when the Child is small, or the Woman large; otherwise the Woman is to be laid on her Back, with her Hips rais'd, and her Shoulders low, and then the Child to be return'd, so as the Feet may be commanded.

In the same Page, after having repeated what I said, in Case of a Child that was ex­tracted with its Face lying towards the Os Pubis, Pag. 174. of my second Edit. ‘"That I was unwilling to have recourse to Art." He proceeds, "Is it not the Art of Midwifery, which the Midwomen have been taught, the only thing which distinguishes them from other Women? Are not they oblig'd to make use of their Art at every Labour they are call'd to? Why then does he so often make use of the Words Art and Artists, and only apply them to himself and some other Men? Won't any one, who reads Madam Du Tertre's little Book, be convinc'd, that she has shewn more Art, and better Diction, than either Dr. Maubray, or — Does her being a Woman make it improper to say, she had Recourse to Art, or that she was an Artist?"

I shall only observe here, that all the com­mon Assistance was before given; and as all Artists well know, the Expulsion now lay wholly upon Nature, except the taking hold of the Head, which I was unwilling to come to, if Nature would have finish'd her Work herself. But what harm there is in making use of the Terms Art and Artists, I profess myself utterly uncapable to comprehend. As to his Query, why I keep the Fillet a Secret, after I have own'd it to be neither so speedy nor so secure a Method as the Forceps? Pag. 59. I shall only answer, That I was fairly and honestly resolv'd to own as much, and that I had al­ready done it in the Body of my Treatise. So how insignificant this Remark is, will appear to every Reader.

But in relation to his charging me with the Cut of the Forceps being but an indifferent one, Pag. 60. I think I am not to answer for the Fault of the Engraver, since the Form and Di­mensions, the Use and Advantage are the same, whether well represented or not?

Again, as to his asserting that I endeavour to fob him off with saying, that all other People's Fillets are for the Foot, and mine only for the Head, I heartily disown it. I never yet said that all other People's were for the Foot, &c. but only that I did not believe the manner of passing it over the Head to he so universally known and practised. Which I still have as [Page 46]much Reason to believe as ever; and if so, why must not I have the Liberty to mention it?

Pag. 62. After repeating two Instances wherein Mr. Giffard and myself have com­plain'd of Mal-Practice, he subjoins, ‘"Could a Turk believe there were any wholsome Laws in a Country where such Barbarities were not severely punished?"’ To which I shall only reply, as I have once before observ'd, how can the guilty be punish'd for them, or how can their Faults ever come to the Cogni­zance of the Publick, if those who are Wit­nesses of them, and candidly relate them, must have a Noise and Clamour rais'd against them, for so doing, and be represented as a Set of partial designing Men, hauling in the Women by the Head and Shoulders, and accusing them whether guilty or not?

In the Instance of Mal-Practice there men­tion'd, I have observ'd, that a Physician was sent for, who had lately taken upon him to practise Midwifery, but was so little acquainted with the Art, that he neglected the only thing ne­cessary in that Case, viz. a speedy Delivery by turning the Child; which Words, mark'd here in Italick, he reprints in capital Letters, as pointing out, I presume, my indecent Usage of a Gentleman or the Faculty. But if such a Representation of bad Practice, as this, de­serves to be distinguish in Capitals, where shall we find Letters or Paper large enough to [Page 47]display his own gross Usage of Dr. Chamberlen, and other Physicians?

Pag. 63. Mr. Douglass makes a very ungen­tleman like Reflection on many great and worthy Gentlemen of the Faculty of Physick, and asks where these Doctors could be admitted to their Degrees? Must it not, says he, have been in some Popish Country, where Orthodoxy is reckoned a better Recommendation than the Knowledge of Diseases? Where visiting Chapels three or four times a Day is thought more con­ducive to the making a good Physician, than frequenting the Hospitals as often? Among the rest he here ungenerously reflects on one, who when he wrote this had the Honour to be related to (I mean his own Brother, lately dead at St. Christophers) who, I have been told, took his Degree in France. But what has the Religion of a Country to do with Art and Science? Have not several extraordinary Men in the Profession, nay some of the greatest Or­naments of it, taken their Degrees in Popish Countries. To mention no more than his favourite Baglivi, whom he justly stiles incom­parable?

I shall dwell no longer on this ungenerous Subject, than whilst I put the following Queries to him;

  • 1. Whether his witty Reflections on Degrees taken in a Popish Country, are not a mon­strous [Page 48]Mixture of Impertinence, Ill-manners and Falshood?
  • 2. Whether a Man is better qualified for Prac­tice in England, who has been complimented with a Degree from Leyden, a Scots Univer­sity, or by the Prince's Nomination when at Cambridge or Oxford, than some Gentlemen I could mention who studied in foreign Countries, were regularly graduated, and are even licenc'd by the College at London?
  • 3. Whether visiting Churches is incompatible with visiting Hospitals? Are well tim'd Acts of Devotion lawful Objections against the Qualifications of a Physician?
  • 4. Where did he know Degrees confer'd on the Account of Orthodoxy, preferable to other Qualifications?

Page 64. He asks if we don't want a proper School for Midmen as well as for Midwomen? By which at least he intimates that Midwomen do; and now the Plot begins to open. But if Men want a proper School, as well as Women, how comes it that Mr. Douglass won't conde­scend to instruct them too? Why does he pub­lish Proposals for Midwomen only. Pag. 75? Thereby excluding the poor unhappy Men from the Benefit of his Assistance. Surely the Reader will not be so unmannerly as to suppose, what he does in relation to the Physician-Midwives not consulting together, Pag. 52. [Page 49]and think that it is the Fear of his discovering the Insignificancy of his pretended Lectures, or his own real Ignorance? Utrum horum.

Upon my relating that a Woman had been twice or thrice deliver'd by a Man, of Chil­dren that always presented with the Head, which the Operator took a fatal Freedom with, viz. using the Hook, he asks, ‘"How I could tell, who was not present, but that all these Children were dead?" So that in one Place he blames me for not finding fault with People where they deserve it, Pag. 58. and now he condemns me because I do, and endeavours to excuse the Person in a Fault, tho' he was not present himself, and consequently can know nothing of the Matter. Is this being consistent with himself, as he asks me, Pag. 5? So that to use his own Words, Does he expect to fob the Reader off so (Page 60.) and must not he think him very weak and illiterate if he believ'd him? A little farther he asks, ‘"If a Man ought not to be very sure, before he accuses another after this Manner?"’ To apply which to him­self, ought not he to have been sure of the Truth of what Dr. Chamberlen, Mr. Giffard, and myself had asserted, before he had accus'd us of condemning the Women, guilty or not? Who does he expect should inform him? Will the Women be ingenuous and honest enough to confess their own Mal-Practice? And how can he tell, who was not present, whether we have accus'd them unjustly or not? As for his [Page 50]thinking me to blame for not saying, whether this fatal Freedom-taker was a Doctor or an Ayothecary Midman; probably I may bethought much more culpable, when I tell him that it was a SURGEON Midman; but as to the Truth of this Relation, I have all the Reason in the World to believe the Children were living, if Credit may be given to no less than three Matrons who were present at the several La­bours, and all asserted the Fact. This indeed was that Person's constant practice to Children in that Case, viz. to fetch them with the Hook, whether living or dead.

In the same Page he excuses me in a great measure, tho' perhaps not intentionally, for having slipp'd the Mention of a Child's ad­vancing with the Buttocks in my first Edition, by observing that Dr. Nicholls has omitted the it in the following remarkable Passage, In omni malo situ, ut & in rebus desperatis, pedi­bus extrahetur Foetus. Compend. Anat. Now if Dr. Nicholls, whom he very justly stiles excellent, has forgot to animadvert upon this Particular, surely I, who am so much his In­ferior, may be excus'd the same.

Having thus, as he thinks, triumph'd over Dr. Chamberlen, Mr. Giffard, and myself, he proceeds to make what he calls Deductions from the Premises; and after expatiating upon the Havock that is oftentimes made among his Majesty's Subjects, by the Ignorance of Mid­women, [Page 51]he asks, if calling of Names, such as rude, rough, negligent, ignorant, foolish, ob­stinate, &c. which we have so liberally bestow'd upon them, will make them more prudent or judicious, or enable them in any degree to give better Assistance themselves, and then replies in the Negative. Where Midwives are really rude, rough, negligent, obstinate, ignorant, &c. ought they not to be properly reprov'd and reprimanded for it? How will they otherwise know their Faults? Surely this open Treatment of them is a very improper Method of getting them all at our BECK, as he craftily insinuates; and I heartily agree with him, Page 66. That nothing can better deserve the Attention even of the Legislature itself. But how is the Legislature to be inform'd of the true State of their Practice, if we are not to have the honest Liberty of professing and asserting the Truth? Will the Midwomen, as he stiles them, come and accuse themselves, or is the Legislature to provide a Remedy for an Evil, of which they have no Knowledge or Information? The Ver­dict of the regularly instructed, experienc'd, and knowing Professors of this Art is likely to be much set by in the Eye of the Legislature, if Mr. Douglass's Opinion of them is to be of any Weight, who has unjustly and maliciously represented them as a Set of designing, puzzling, crafty, covetous, hard-hearted, insolent, ignorant Nostrum-mongers. Is this remedying die Evil he so loudly complains of, to deter our Wives and Daughters from regular Assistance, by his [Page 52]calumnious Insinuations, and make them fling themselves into the Hands of Women only, the Ignorance of whom he himself, a little after, confesses to be undoubtedly the principal, if not the sole Cause of these dire Events, (Pag. 68.) Is it Charity and Humanity, which he pretends so much to profess (Pag. 66.) that has induc'd him to this? Surely no! (P. 66.)

Page 67. and 68. he confesses, that our Wives and Children are cruelly massacred by ignorant Hands, and that Numbers have been and daily are destroyed by the Ignorance of Midwives. Have Writers in Midwifery then accus'd them unjustly, and haul'd them in by the Head and Shoulders, whether guilty or not?

Page 66. He desires to know, ‘"If these Gentlemen Complainants have propos'd any other Method, to prevent, for the future, this calamitous, this dismal, this inhuman Practice, except to send for one of them, upon every little trifling Difficulty?" Then he proceeds, "Is not this making meer Nurses of the Midwomen, and — (Fools I sup­pose he means) "of their Patients? Is it not telling them plainly, that they neither do, nor shall ever know any more of the Matter by any Information they will give them, than (what they knew before) just to receive a Child which drops into their Hands?"’

Lastly, he accuses us of making meer Jack­calls of them, to hunt about in Search of our [Page 53]Prey, and then send for us to devour it (P. 67.) Now is not the very Reverse of all this true? Have not these Gentlemen Complainants, as he calls them, propos'd the best Methods to prevent this inhuman Practice? Do not they instruct them faithfully in their Writings, and endeavour to make Midwives instead of Nurses of them? Do they desire the Midwives to send for them upon every little trifling Difficulty? And are they not Cases of real Difficulty and Danger they desire to be call'd in upon? Does not he allow himself (Pag. 70.) that in many Cases Instruments are absolutely necessary, that they ought to send directly for a Surgeon, instead of fatiguing the Mother, and endanger­ing both her and her Child, by needless De­lays and fruitless Attempts. Are we to be blam'd then for informing them, in what Circumstances to send for us? Is it not ra­ther our Duty to do it? Would he have Women Midwives only concern'd in Cases of Extremity? Is instructing them in the most approv'd Methods of Practice, and the Man­ner of turning Children with the greatest Safety, the same thing as telling them, That they shall never know any more of the Matter, than they did before? And is honestly ex­horting them to send for superior Assistance, in order to save a Fellow Creature from an untimely Death, making them like Jackcalls to hunt about for our Prey, and then send for us to devour it? Or rather must not he be besides himself, or at least think his [Page 54]Readers so, to be gull'd by such notorious Falshoods?

But Page 70. Surgeons are directly to be sent for; why not such Physicians as practise this Art? Have not they as much Knowledge, Experience, Charity, and Integrity as the Surgeons? Are they not as capable of attaining to Perfection in Manual Operations, and of using proper Instruments with as much Judgment and Dexterity as the Surgeons? Why then must not they be concern'd too? But as Dr. Baynard says upon another Occa­sion, Oh! Self, Self, what a selfish Thing art thou (a)!

Pag. 68. He says that the Unskilfulness of Midwives, is owing to their want of a Proper Education, and not to their want of Capacity, and asserts, that it is more their Misfortune than their Fault. I think, in many respects, the contrary will hold good. For can it possibly be more their Misfortune than their Fault, that they have not got such Instruction as is in their Power, from Books that have been written for this Purpose? How many are there to be met with, that never give themselves the Trouble of perusing them for their Information? Is not this manifestly more their Fault than Misfortune, and owing rather to their Indolence, and good Opinion of their [Page 55]own Sufficiency, than a want of means for their Instruction?

Mr. Douglass thinks (Page 68.) this fatal Distemper may be cur'd, and all its bad Con­sequences for the future avoided, if it was put in the Power of the Midwomen to qualify themselves thoroughly, and at a moderate Expence, in all the Parts of their most necessary Office, before they are permitted to practise. In order to attain this most desirable End, Mr. Douglass proposes, First, the erecting an Hospital in London and Westminster (at the pub­lick Expence, by Donation or Subscriptions, as several Alms-houses, Infirmaries, Hospitals, &c. of far less Consequence to the Common-weal, have been, and are daily carried on) for the Reception of about two or three hundred poor Women who are big with Child. Secondly, That a proper Number of Midwomen be ap­pointed to attend them. Thirdly, That two SURGEONS Midmen be appointed to assist these Midwome, in all extraordinary Cases, and to de­monstrate the Structure of the Parts concern'd, explaining the Art of touching, &c. in set Lectures, at least three Times a Week, to all the Midwomen and their Apprentices who please to attend. Fourthly, That every young Woman, who designs to practise Midwifery, be oblig'd to attend these Courses, during her Apprenticeship▪ then go and practise, for a set Time, under those expert Women in that Hospital; after­wards let them be examin'd, as to the Skill and [Page 56]Knowledge they have acquir'd in their Profes­sion, by two Surgeons, and six or seven other Persons, appointed by his Majesty (because he does not think it reasonable that so many People's Bread should depend on the Humour and Ca­price of any two Men only) and if approv'd, to receive from them a Certificate of their Fit­ness to practise in London, or any where else. Fifthly, That until fit Hospitals can be built and endow'd, a Midman be appointed in every City, or Country-town in England, to read the foresaid Lectures to all the Midwomen in the County, and demonstrate to them the Truth of their Doctrines on the Poor of the Neigh­bourhood, of which there are plenty every where.

I shall forbear making any Remarks upon this Scheme, lest Mr. Douglass should put a bad Construction on it; and shall only observe, that I shall be as glad to see a proper Hospital erected, or any other Measures concerted for the Improvement of Midwifery, as himself, and shall be as ready to contribute any thing in my Power towards the Instruction of Midwives. 'Twas this Reason alone that induc'd me to write my Essay on the Improvement of Midwifery, wherein I have candidly inform'd them, ac­cording to the best of my Power. And can Mr. Douglass be thought to have the real In­terest of this Profession at his Heart, when he fells foul upon Dr. Chamberlen, Mr. Giffard, and myself, for endeavouring to improve it, and [Page 57]because we reprimand the guilty and ignorant, and desire them to send for superior Advice in Cases of Extremity, and not sacrifice the Life of the Mother, or Child, and oftentimes both to their own Sufficiency? Does not he allow the Midwives himself to be oftentimes very ignorant (Pag. 68.)? And would not he have them instructed as before observ'd (Pag. 70.) in the Knowledge of those Cases where Instru­ments are absolutely necessary, that they may send directly for a SURGEON, &c. Now if there is many times a Necessity for calling in better Assistance, of which no Man in his Senses can doubt, why must we be so much blam'd for honestly enforcing the same Advice? Are we for this to be stigmatiz'd as People who won't instruct them, and represented as a Set of crafty designing Men, who had rather puzzle and confound, than illustrate and improve the Art we profess? Is it not a little surprising that Mr. Douglass should expect the Town to have any Opinion of his Probity, or take any no­tice of his Scheme or himself, who can be guilty of using others in such an unjust and scurrilous Manner. Tho', as I observ'd before, I should be glad to see any Scheme put in Execution for the real Good and Improvement of Midwifery, yet I cannot be so sanguine, in relation to Mr. Douglass's Proposal, as he himself seems to be, viz. That in very few Years there would hardly be an ignorant Midwoman in England, Pag. 74.

The Profession might certainly receive great Advantage; but to extirpate Ignorance, to that Degree, is a very hard Task indeed. When Mr. Douglass has perform'd this wonderful Feat, I would have him undertake to find out the Longitude, and square the Circle.

But Mr. Douglass having some Reason to doubt, whether the Publick would take any notice of this Scheme or not, has propos'd another Expedient in the Interim, and that is, to give a Course of Midwifery to Mid­women only (for the Men it seems are to be depriv'd of this vast Advantage) wherein he promises that the principal Operations of that Art shall be briefly explained (Pag. ult.) And for their greater Encouragement assures them, that he is no less than the Goddess of Midwifery, and the only one that is able to instruct them.

—Dea sum Auxiliaris, opemque
Exorata-fero.

Here Mr. Douglass has openly acknowledged himself to be but an Old-woman; which is the first modest Concession I have met with throughout his Book. How far that threatening Parenthesis in Pag. 68. viz. That they, who did not readily embrace the Opportunity, would not only be deservedly blam'd, but ought to be punish'd by the Civil Magistrate, may influence. Women to come to those Lectures, I must leave.

Those, who pretend to instruct others in any Art, ought, to he Well vers'd in it themselves; and as Midwifery is a Manual Operation, so it cannot well be acquir'd but by a due Course of Practice. Whether Mr. Douglass has been much conversant in this Profession, I will not take upon me to determine; tho', I con­fess, I never heard any Pretensions he had to Midwifery before he advertis'd the printing of his Book. Indeed he tells us in Pag. 58. That he knew the Placenta once left behind, which does not amount to any Proof of his practising himself, for he might know that by Relation, without ever having really exercis'd this Art. But in Pag. 65. he goes farther, and informs us, that he has found the Scissura rimae, ab Vulva ad Anum by REPEATED EXPE­RIENCE, not to be at all dangerous, &c. which he might have experienc'd as a Surgeon, and not professedly as a Man-Midwife, it being com­monly a Surgeon's Business, and for which Mr. Douglass might frequently have been consulted. There is no other Passage to be met with in his whole Book, wherein he gives us the least Hint of his having practis'd himself. From whence I think We may fairly conclude, that Mr. Douglass has bat very lately taken up this Profession; otherwise surely he would not have omitted to have said something of his long Practice and Experience, in order to be­speak the more favourable Opinion of himself among the good Women. Before Mr: Dou­glass [Page 60]had made any Proposals for Lectures to the Town, he ought at least to have clear'd up this Doubt, Whether or no be ever deliver'd a Woman in his Life. If not, the Reader may judge how fit he is to take upon him the Instruction of others. He doubts not, P. 70. but the Midmen will object and say, That the Midwomen want both Capacity and Strength (instruct them as you please) to perform what he proposes. To which he immediately replies, ‘"That this is only an artful and groundless Insinuation, and affirms, ore rotundo, plenis buccis (as he chuses to express himself) that it is not want of Capacity, Docility, Strength, or Activity, but meerly want of fit and full Instructions in all the Parts of their Office, which disables them to perform it in all Cases (excepting where Instruments are necessary) with as much Ease, Safety, and Expedition, as the most dextrous Midman, &c." Must not this Gentleman be in great Want of Matter to shew his Abilities upon, to haul in the Midmen making an Objection they probably never so much as thought of? Before he had proceeded to this, he ought first to have told us, ore rotundo, plenis buccis, as he affects to write, who ever doubted of the Womens want of Docility, Strength, &c. Nor do I see what this Observation was brought in upon, unless it was for the Sake of this paultry Scrap of Latin, that the Women might take him for a great Scholliard, and admire his profound Knowledge in that learned Language, [Page 61]like Scrub in the Play, who affirms, ‘"That tho' he does not understand Latin, yet he thinks there's something very pretty in the Sound of it."’ As to their Want of fit Instructions in their Profession, I have before observ'd, that they have more Opportunities of Information from Books that have from Time to Time been printed for the Improvement of the Art of Midwifery, than many of them thro' Indolence and Self-sufficiency ever made use of; as is very plain from their running counter in Prac­tice to the Rules there laid down. And I am much deceiv'd, if they may not meet with as much or more Information, from Books, for the Value of three or four Shillings, as they will from Lectures of so many Guineas. Besides, the great Probability of what they hear in Lectures slipping out of their Memory, whilst a Book is always at Hand, and ready to give them constant and repeated Instruction, if they will but be at the Trouble of consulting it.

Pag. 73. He asks, if all Ages have not produc'd Women, who have made a Figure in the most sublime Parts of Learning, and in all Manner of curious and useful Arts? (But what Necessity for this Query? Who ever doubted it?) and then subjoins, and also illiterate, thick­headed Priests, Lawyers, and Physicians? But what have the Lawyers and Priests done to disoblige Mr. Douglass, that they must be haul'd in too, by the Head and Shoulders, in a Book of Midwifery? But all it seems must feel his critical Lash;

He hints, Pag. 73. That at the Time of Delivery it is least proper for Men to come near the Women; forgetting that but a few Pages before (Pag. 67.) he blames the Women as obstinate and unseasonably modest, for not being willing to admit a Midman. But great Wits, they say, have short Memories.

But to draw towards a Conclusion; what is all that Mr. Douglass has said, in relation to myself? What has he detected in me that is wrong? Or what has he advanc'd from the Writings of his Old-Woman which I have not?

As to informing Midwives, and directing them when to call in superior Assistance, what have I left unsaid? Or what Direction can be farther given them? Some of the chief of the Profession, of my own Sex, have told me I have been too open; so that I'm found fault with on both Sides. But this gives me no Uneasiness. I have a Satisfaction in doing what I judg'd to be my Duty, and acting the Part of an honest Man which my Enemies can never be able to rob me of. My Way is to walk in the Path which Providence has put me in, as inoffensively as possibly I can; ever to give the Wall to my Superiors, and never to jostle my Inferiors into the Kennel, or to affront any Person. But if a BULLY draws upon me, I never fly, but defend myself, with proper Force.

I never said or did any thing to deserve this mighty Man's Displeasure; and yet spurr'd on by an envious, jealous Fury he has attack'd me: But alas, his Arm is too weak, and his Thrusts are easily parried; not to mention that by too much Heat he has over LUNGED.

Having now laid the whole of Mr. Douglass's Objections before the Reader, I will not suppose that his main. Drift, after all his FUSS and SPLUTTER about the Reformation of Mid­wifery, was purely to set himself up, as the only Dictator in this Profession, and to inform the good Women that he was better able to give them Lectures than any Body else. I shall pass over the artful Methods he has made use of to insinuate himself into publick Favour, by running down and discommending every body else. It seems they are all a Set of puzzling, designing Men, rather confounding and darkening, than illuminating their Profession. But Mr. Douglass has no Design; his Candour, Modesty, and good Usage of all he speaks of, will, not so much as admit of any such Suspicion. To be sure he had no View of throwing a Cloud of Infamy and Ignorance over his Neighbour's Character, that his own might appear to the better Advantage. The Tenderness, he shews for other People's Reputation, cannot fail of endearing him to the Town, and making every body as tender of his. I will not so much as [Page 64]mention what perhaps some People may say, that the Motto in the Front of his Book ought to be inverted, and read, non aliis, sed sibi. But the Justice and Impartiality of this Author are of all his good Qualities the most extraordinary, nor can the Reader well pass over the following remarkable Instances of them. There is for Example, plain Dr. Hody, and the ingenious and experienc'd Mr. Will. Giffard, Surgeon, Pag, 52. the disingenious (Pag. 53.) stupid (Pag. 54.) and absurd (Pag. 55.) Dr. Maubray, and the just, tart, reverend, and learned Dr. MITCHELL Utriusque Medicinae Doctor (Pag. 55.) The puzzling, confounding, artful, insinua­ting, darkening (P.ag 3.) perverting, interested, coaxing, threatening (Pag. 5.) Cobweb-spinning, emusing (Pag. 9.) magisterial, dictatorial (P. 13.) sulsom, nauseous (Pag. 14.) sneering, insolent (Pag. 21.) imperious (Pag. 22.) NOSTRUM-MONGER (Pag. 4, 12, and 24.) Dr. Cham­berlen, and that accurate Anatomist, and con­summate Accoucher (his own Brother) Dr. James Douglass.

Tho' to be serious on this Head, I cannot think his worthy Brother has any Reason to thank him for such a fulsom Compliment. The truly learned are always modest, and a Gentleman, of Dr. James Douglass's well known Merit and Abilities, can never stand in need of a such a paultry PUFF as this.

Mr. Douglass has gone long with this wondrous Birth; the first Account we had [Page 65]of this Gentleman's Pregnancy, was several Months before he was deliver'd, which at Length, on the 29th of April 1736, we had Notice of. Some think it a monstrous, others an abortive Birth; all agree, that it was not come to its full Perfection. But be that as it will, the Mountain was long in Labour, and at length, like that in the Fable, brought forth a MOUSE.

Before I take my leave, I cannot but observe, that this Book is printed for, and sold only by, the Author in Lad-Lane, near Guild-Hall, at the Price of Two Shillings, tho' it contains but 75 Pages, and that in a loose Print; which is only double the usual Price of Pamphlets of that Size. Indeed such a Production, as this, dees not happen often; and it is but fitting, that an extraordinary Perfor­mance should be bought at an extraordinary Price. Which brings to my Mind a remark­able Observation I remember to have read in the Grub-street Journal of May 1. 1735, in relation to Mr. Douglas's Proposals for a new Osteology tack'd to his trifling Remarks, on a Piece upon the same Subject, by an ingenious Author (to whom I am well inform'd Mr. Douglass lay under the highest Obligations) viz. that he was much displeased with him for making Twenty per Cent. of his Money, because he had enter'd into the same Design, with a View of getting Five and Twenty himself, baiting and worrying him with all [Page 66]the Boisterousness of Pedantry and Rusticity, at the same Time that he exposes his own Nakedness.

Thus far I have persuaded myself to pro­ceed in my Remarks on Mr. Douglass's trifling and malicious Cavils; nor would I have him think, because he came off unanswer'd in his paultry Attempt to depreciate that valuable Work (the Author not thinking it worth his while to give him an Answer) that therefore he is always to escape with Impunity.

Mr. Douglass seems to be in haste to dispose of the present Edition of his Book, probably because he has some fresh Observations to oblige the Town with in a future Edition of that elaborate Work.

But lest he should imagine me ready, to answer any farther, such false and dirty Asper­sions as he may think fit to fling upon me, I here assure him, once for all, that I have Affairs of much more Consequence to mind, nor can I give him a better general Answer, than what I am told the aforesaid Gentleman sent him; when being ask'd by an Acquain­tance of Mr. Douglass, if he would not give a Reply, he cooly answer'd, Whenever I have as little Business, or as much Malice as bimself, I will set about it.

FINIS.

Advertisement.

WHilst my Papers were in the Press, I happen'd to meet with a small Book, intitled, THE MIDWIFE RIGHTLY IN­STRUCTED, &c. by J. DAWKES, Surgeon; in which the Author has treated me in so Gentleman-like a Manner, and (wholly dif­ferent from Mr. Douglass) quoted me so fairly and honestly, in the main, that I am sorry, I am oblig'd, in Justice to myself, to take notice of a great Mistake he made, in reading one Part of my Treatise, and giving it in quite different Words than I had made use of, viz. in Pag. 84. he says, ‘"Let any one consider the Difficulty that must attend the getting down the Arms; in doing which, according to Mr. Chapman's Advice, both the Hands must be at the same Time (as well as the Child's Body) in the VAGINA, from which the Woman must necessarily suffer an additional Pain, &c."

My Words are these, Pag. 27. of my first Edition, and Pag. 44. of my second Edition, [Page 68] viz. The Child is to be drawn gently down, till advanc'd to the Arm-pits, or there­abouts, when the Arms are to be fetch'd one at a Time, by the Fingers of the Hand on that Side. Now, this is to be perform'd in a very little Time, and with great Ease: That which he mentions is impossible.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.