Dr. Chamberlen's account of his secret.

HE is not content with amusiing, confound­ing, nay, and abusing the Midwomen, at the same time he makes a shew of teaching them, but also serves the Midmen the same sauce; by telling them he has a secret, which will do won­ders, i. e. It will save many children's lives, which, they who do not know it, (or something as good,) must destroy; but cannot in honour (notwithstanding it might save thousands of lives) [Page 10]discover it even to them, because it might preju­dice the personal interest of his father and two brothers, who only, in all Europe, know it: But what they may do in Africa, Asia, &c. this deponent sayeth not. His own story is as fol­lows: ‘My Author, lib. ii. cap. 17. justifies the fastening hooks in the head of a child that comes right, and yet because of some difficulty or disproportion, cannot pass; which I confess has been, and is yet the practice of the most expert artists in Midwifery, not only in Eng­land, but throughout Europe. But I can neither approve of that practice, nor those delays;’ (Pray observe how long he was in attempting to deliver that woman at Paris, vid. M. M. obs. 26. quoted below; ‘because my father, brothers, and self,’ (tho' none else in Europe as I know,) Pray had not Sir David Hamilton more business, and as good, if not better success, in the practice of Midwifery than he? May we not then reasonably suppose, that he either knew his secret, or had one of his own, tho' he never made any noise about it, which answered as well? ‘have, by God's blessing, and our iudustry, attained to, and long practised a way to deliver women in this case, without any prejudice to them or their infants; tho' all others (being obliged, for want of such an expedient, to use the common way) do, and must endanger, if not destroy one or both with hooks.’ Pray would it not have been a grateful return, for God's blessing them with so useful a secret, to have communicated it to the rest of the Midmen, whereby the destruction [Page 11]of so many women and children, might have been prevented? ‘By this manual operation a labour may be dispatched, (on the least difficulty)’ so that on the least difficulty, either to Midwomen or Midmen, we must immediately run for one of the Nostrum-mongers. ‘with fewer pains, and soon­er, to the great advantage, and without danger both of woman and child.’

HE is not content with having thus acquainted us with the great value of his secret, and who be­sides himself are possessed of it, in his epistle, but also mentions and recommends it over and over, ad nauseam usque, through the whole of his remarks on this work, for fear the Midwomen should at­tend Mr. Mauriceau so much, that they should for­get his Nostrum, E. G. Mr. Mauriceau, pag. 176. ‘If there be any case, wherein a Surgeon ought to make the greatest reflection, and use most precaution in his art, it is this; to know whether the infant be alive or dead?’ Dr. Cham­berlen remarks, ‘This caution is not so necessary to those practitoners which can fetch a child coming right, or with the Arm, without hooks or sharp instruments, as the translator of this book, and his father, and his brothers can.’

Mr. Chapman in his essay on Midwifery, 1733. says, Dr. Chamberlen's secret was the Forceps. Then makes the following quaint observation on the fore-mentioned remark: ‘Here is some­thing very odd methinks, in applying this secret to both these cases, as equally service­able to either, the cases differing so very [Page 12]widely, and requiring a quite different method: For the head presenting, and far advanced, is to be taken hold of by the Forceps, and ex­tracled; when a child which presents an arm, is to be turned, and so brought away by its feet;’ i. e. without either hooks or sharp in­struments.

WHENCE its evident, Mr. Chapman did not apprehend the Doctor's view in applying his secret to the arm as well as the head. It was undoubted­ly the better to puzzle the cause, the better to con­ceal his Nostrum, that he applies it to two cases, between which there is not the least analogy. He might as well have said, it would be of great use in extracting the stone, or in drawing teeth.

MR. Mauriceau, pag. 204. ‘The arm is to be twisted off, if the child be dead.’ Dr. Chamberlen, ‘Good if the child be dead; but it may be always done without.’ Undoubt­edly it may be often done without twisting it off, but not with his Forceps. Mr. Mauriceau, ibid. ‘Before you use the Crotchet, be sure the child is dead.’ Dr. Chamberlen, ‘this caveat is un­necessary to those who understand the art aright.’ i. e. only the Nostrum-mongers. Dr. Chamber­len, ‘The use of the crotchet may be con­nived at when the child is dead; but because the most careful may often times be mistaken, it cannot be approved of; as appears in the translator's epistle to the reader.’ Dr. Chamberlen, pag. 226. ‘Tho' the Crotchet cannot hurt a dead child, yet it may endanger the woman by slipping:’ So may a Lancet, Traphine, or any other instru­ment [Page 13]in the hands of those who don't know how to use them.) ‘Wherefore the translator of this treatise cannot approve of it, having an easier and safer way to do this operation, as he men­tions in his preface to this book.’ Dr. Chamber­len, pag. 227. ‘All this (viz. the use of the Crotchet) were to no purpose, if others had the art to do it, as the translator can, and mentions in his preface to this book.’

DR. Chamberlen, pag. 229. ‘Those instru­ments are very unsafe for the woman;’ (un­doubtedly, when in unexperienced hands, other­wise they are not at all dangerous;) ‘and having a better way, I cannot pass them without mani­festing my dislike.’ Mr. Mauriceau, pag. 194. ‘It's a great question, whether a living child ought to be destroyed to save the mother?’ Dr. Chamberlen, ‘This question is out of doors, for the reason given in the foresaid preface.’ I'm afraid this will prove but a very bad reason in some cases, notwithstanding it's laid down with such a magisterial and dictatorial air, as I shall prove at a more proper time. Mr. Mauriceau, pag. 195. says, ‘It is always better of two evils to choose the least, so we ought always to pre­fer the mother's life before the child's.’ Dr. Chamberlen, ‘This chapter might be very well spared, if every practitioner had the art the translator professeth in his epistle, of fetching a child, when it comes right, without hooks, or turning it.’

IF turning will do, there is never any occasion for hooks, or for his secret either. Thus you see [Page 14]with what fulsome repetitions, what nauseous re­commendations of his Nostrum, he has stuffed his remarks; but has not made one remark, that can be of any advantage to our Midwomen; and seems to have had nothing elfse in view through the whole, 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.

OUR translator, like all the rest of the Secret­mongers, has given a better character of his No­strum, than I fancy it deserves. E. G. He has taken a great deal of pains, and used all his art to persuade us, that he, &c. can fetch a child, which presents right, at all times, and in all circumstances, without hooks, or turning, &c. but how this qua­drates with the two following cases, (one of which is translated by the Doctor himself, and the other is recorded in Mr. Mauriceau's 26th observation,) I leave the reader to judge.

MR. Mauriceau, pag, 198. tells us, that ‘in the year 1660, while he practised Midwifery in the Hotel Dieu, one of the Deputies had a wo­man whose Child she could not posibly bring forth further than its head; therefore called the head Midwife to her aid; who likewise used her utmost skill but in vain: And when they had both thus tir'd themselves in pulling the head, I came in accidentally, and they desired me to examine, and find the cause why the child could not be drawn forth with all their strength, which was sufficient to have drawn forth the shoulders, if they had been as big again as they were; which having considered, I immediately [Page 15]conceived the difficulty to proceed from some­thing else: I then put my hand into the womb, up to the child's shoulders, which seemed small enough to pass with ease, therefore I concluded that the hindrance was not there.’

‘After that, I put my hand farther up to­wards it's belly, which I found very much swel­led by a dropsy. I therefore told them that it was impossible ever to deliver the woman, until the water was emptied by piercing the belly: But not having a Crotchet in my pocket, I sent to another Surgeon of the same hospital, and told him the story, adding withal that the child could not be born, unless an orifice was made to empty the belly: but he would not take my advice, imagining he could extract it with his hands; but he soon separated the head from the shoulders, the Midwives having almost done it before. Afterwards he fell to work with his Crotchet, and in about three quarters of an hour brought away both arms, several ribs, heart, and lungs, and tired himself heartily, yet in all this time, he had never opened the Diaphragma, nor Abdomen, which I advised him to do every moment, without which it was impossible to draw forth the rest of the body. Then he gave me the Crotchet, telling me I might weary my­self as well as he had done; which I willingly accepted, knowing very well, that instead of amusing myself, as they had done, by pulling it, I ought only to pierce the infant's belly to let out the waters, after which all the rest would easily follow. I then introduced my left hand as far [Page 16]as the side of the infant's belly, and then with my right guided the Crotchet upon it, to the same place, then turned its point, and struck it into the infant's belly, so that I made a hole big enough to receive the ends of my two fingers, with which I stretched the orifice, and the wa­ters gushed out, so that with one hand I easily drew out the rest of the body, to the astonish­ment of this Surgeon, whom I could never persuade that the infant was so full of the dropsy. I filled the belly afterwards, through the hole I had made, and it held about five quarts. I have set down this story, that other Surgeons may know how to behave on the like occa­sions.’

PRAY what could Dr. Chamberlen have done with his Forceps in this case? But the following story will more clearly shew, that he himself has been foiled, SECRET AND ALL.

Mr. Mauriceau's observation xxvi.

‘Of a woman who died with her child in her womb, which could not be extracted by an English Physician who undertook to deliver her.’

‘ON the 19th of August, 1670. I visited a little woman, about thirty-eight years of age, who had been in labour of her first child for four days, the membranes being broke the first day of her illness, and yet there was hardly any dilatation of the mouth of the womb. I ordered [Page 17]her to be blooded, and in case that did not encrease her pains, to give her a decoction of Senna, in order to excite them; which succeed­ed so well, that next day the womb was suffi­ciently dilated. Nevertheless, it was nor possi­ble to deliver her. The infant presented it's head, but could not advance into the passage, because of the straitness and bad formation of the bones of the Pelvis, which made it impossi­ble for me to introduce my hand tho' I have a very small one, or any other instrument where­with I could deliver her. I therefore declared to the good women, that it was not possible to deliver her at all, except by the Caesarian section, which I did not care to meddle with, &c. But soon after I left her, there was an English Phy­sician, named CHAMBERLEN, recommended by somebody to visit her.’

‘WHEN he came and heard how it was, and what had passed, he seemed exceedingly sur­prized that a Man of so much experience, as I was reputed to have, could not deliver her; yet, for all that, he assured them, that he would deliver her in less than half a quarter of an hour, let the diffi­culty be what it would: Accordingly he set a­bout the work, but instead of finishing it in half a quarter of an hour, as he had promised, he worked above three hours, (SECRET AND ALL) without any intermission, except to breath a little now and then. And at last, having spent, to no purpose both his strength and art, and seeing the poor woman ready to expire in his hands, he was obliged to give it up, and [Page 18]declared also, that it was not possible to deliver her. The poor woman died with her child in her belly about twenty-four hours after he left her: Upon opening the body, I found the womb pierced and tore in several places, by the instruments that Physician had blind­ly used without the guidance of his hand, which being much larger than mine could not be introduced. Nevertheless this Physi­cian had come from England to Paris, about six months before, in hopes of making his for­tune. He gave it out that he had a particular secret for delivering children when the head pre­sented; and bragg'd that he could lay the most troublesome and dangerous in half a quarter of an hour. Nay, he had even proposed to the king's first physician, that if he would give him 10000. crowns he would discover his se­cret. But the bad success of the fore-mentioned case put him so much out of humour, that he returned a few days afterwards to England.’

DOES not this story shew how little dependance there is upon secrets, tho' never so positively re­commended? Does not this shew how cautious people ought to be in believing of them? Does not this shew, that, tho' they may be really use­ful in some cases, yet they are not so in all, as they commonly pretend?

PREFACE. ‘I shall now take leave to offer an apology for not publishing the secret I men­tion we have to extract children without hooks, where other artists use them, viz. there being my father and two brothers living, that practise [Page 19]this art, I cannot esteem it my own to dispose of,’ (a pretty and reasonable excuse indeed!) "nor publish it without injury to them; (but there was not a word of this when he was bargaining with the French king's first Physician,) ‘and think I have not been unserviceable to my country, altho' I do but inform them that the fore-mentioned three persons of our family, and myself, can serve them in these extremities, with greater safety than others.’

IF Ward's Pill, or any other quack medicine, was found by experience, to be generally of use in this, that, or t'other disease, it may be sent with proper directions, to all parts of the kingdom; so that the most distant inhabitants would have almost the same benefit of it, with those among whom Mr. Ward lived; and consequently Mr. Ward might very justly say, that (notwithstanding he would not discover what his medicine was com­posed of, because it would be worth so much year­ly to him and his successors,) yet his country was obliged to him, for telling them where they might purchase so beneficial a remedy.

BUT how few in the whole community could be the better for all the manual operations in Mid­wifery, four Men could perform? Can four Men deliver all the good women in England, who want their assistance, supposing they were to ride post night and day after them? Is there any proportion between the benefit the publick would receive from the quack medicines, and the secret manual opera­tions of four Men? What service is it then to the country in general, for the Doctor to tell them, [Page 20]that he and three others can serve them with great­er safety than other Men?

NEVERTHELESS I'm 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, except they are fully and distinctly explained,) should always communicate Gratis the fruits of his labour and expence. No! they ought to be hand­somely rewarded, not only for the real service they have done, but to encourage industry in others.

BUT the Doctor offered to discover this secret to the French for ten thousand crowns; pray why did he not make the same offer to his country? Had not his country better have given each of them ten thousand crowns, than exposed so many thou­sands of beautiful women, and innocent children, to the danger [...] hooks, sharp instruments, &c. the Doctor exclaims so much against? Surely yes.

Dr. Chamberlen. pag. 221. says, ‘The Author, viz. Mauriceau,) you see was only a Surgeon.’ Pray what would he have him be? a Doctor, an Apothecary, or what? Are not these operations merely chirurgical? who then can be so fit to per­form them as Surgeons? Are not the Superioris sortis [...]i, who never delivered one of them, as capable of directing for them, both before and after delivery, as any Doctor or Apothecary who had laid several? No doubt of it! they are much more capable! and it's very surprizing they don't assert their own right, and ours? What then can [Page 21]Dr. Chamberlen mean by this sneer, this sarcasm? Especially when Mr. Mauriceau is then talking as much to the purpose, as ever he, or any body else did, on that subject, viz. that when a woman has a violent flooding, &c. the best way to serve her, is to deliver her as soon as possible, whether at full time or no? Prove the contrary who can.

IN pag. 172. he explains himself a little more plainly. Mr. Mauriceau says, ‘A Surgeon ought always to endeavour to bring the chil­dren alive.’ Upon which the Doctor makes the following most insolent remark, ‘And therefore undertake what he can safely perform, and what he cannot, leave to others that may,’ (pray who be they, Doctors, Apothecaries, Sha­vers, or Nostrum-Mongers?) ‘for life is not to be played with.’

IS not the good which Surgeons do their patients as evident as the Sun? E. G. When they cut for the stone, when they perforate the scull, reduce a luxa­tion, &c. neither of which can be affected only by the strength of nature. But as the learned and honest BAGLIVI frankly owns, ‘It's often doubtful whether the cure, supposed to be performed even by Physi­cians of the first rank, was mostly owing to na­ture, or the medicines, &c. which they directed.’ E.G. "In fevers, small pox, consumptions, &c." What ground had he then to charge the Surgeons with playing with life? The Doctor owns, pag. 14. ‘That Surgeons only practise Midwisery in France;’ and so they do, or ought to do, every where else.

BUT how far the Doctor went out of his own ken, when he talked to Surgeons in such a magi­sterial [Page 22]and dictatorial way, in matters merely chi­rurgical, the three following cases will evidently demonstrate. Case 1. Mr. Mauriceau, pag. 344. says, ‘That children's gums ought to be cut with a Lancet, tho' Nurses sometimes do it with their Nails.’ Yet our commentator says, ‘A thin groat (a small piece of silver) is as good or better than either.’ Whence it's evident, our translator was only a Doctor. Notwithstanding he takes upon him to direct the Surgeons in such an imperious and dictatorial way; yet in this observa­tion, he betrays himself, and plainly shews, he did not understand this very little part of Surgery, even so well as the very Nurses. The method he proposes is so far from being better than Mauri­ceau's, he takes upon him so freely and publickly to correct, that it is worse than that used by the old women, as will appear at sight, to every pro­per judge. Case 2. Mr. Mauriceau, pag. 227. says, When by the first fastning of the Crotchet, ‘the head is drawn a little lower, you may loosen it out of the first place, to fasten it further up, that stronger hold may be taken and so suc­cessively removing and fastening of it till the head is quite born, &c. Dr. Chamberlen, "This is needless and dangerous, in case Crotchets be used, unless they lose their hold.’

CAN any thing expose a Man's judgment more than finding fault in the wrong place? Would not this remark convince any Man that he had never used a Crotchet, nay, that he did not know how to use it? The Doctor himself allows, that Crotchets are absolutely necessary in some cases, and considering [Page 23]his large share of practice, it's impossible but some of these very cases must fall in his way. Pray what did he do then? Did he use the Crotchet himself? or did he send for a Surgeon to use it for him? Case 3. Of a violent Flooding. Mr. Mauri­ceau, pag. 89. ‘The woman being put into a proper posture, the Surgeon having well greased his hand, introduces the end of his fingers into the mouth of the womb, then opens them gent­ly to dilate it,’ (i. e. by little and little, with­out either great violence or hurry,) ‘wide enough to admit his whole hand; then, if the mem­branes are not broke, let him break them; then, tho' the Head presents, let him search for the feet, and draw it forth by them, because there is bet­ter hold, and more easy to deliver by them, than by the head, or any other part of the body.’ Dr. Chamberlen, ‘Without it could be done without hooks, as mentioned in the preface of the translator.’

IF this is not puzzling the cause, if this is not amusing and confounding people instead of instructing them, pray what can be called so? Is not bringing the child out by the feet, as Mr. Mauriceau directs, bringing it out without hooks? Besides, don't every body know, that it may be quicker brought away by the feet than by the head; and that the sooner the woman is deli­vered, the sooner the flooding will stop? Is not this making good, bad? Is not this finding fault where there is none? Don't this prove that Mr. Mauriceau was a good and faithful Surgeon, and that Chamberlen was only a — Doctor.

THUS, upon the whole, I think it's evident, that Dr. Chamberlen's main design, in his preface, and notes upon Mr. Mauriceau's book, was to puz­zle, rather than instruct the Midwomen or Mid­men, to persuade them, that he, and the rest of the Nostrum-mongers, could serve them better than any other artists; and to represent Physicians, tho' unacquainted with almost every other part of Surgery, as fitter persons to deliver women in la­bour than Surgeons, &c.

In 1734. Dr. HODY published 225 Cases in Mid­wifery, written some years before by the late in­genious and experienced Mr. WILLIAM GIF­FARD, Surgeon and Man-midwife. In which he has given the following account of the IGNO­RANCE of the Midwomen, and its fatal conse­quences.

CASE I. ‘I Was fetched to the wife of a chair­man, and found one arm of the child sunk down without the outer orifice, and the shoulder and side so engaged, and sunk so low, that I could neither return the arm, nor with all my strength move the other parts to fetch it by the feet. Another Man-midwife — had been there before me, who at first would not attempt any thing without a sum of money was laid down; (a great piece of inhu­manity too many are guilty of,) but upon assu­rances that he should be paid, he worked upon the poor woman, and left her in a worse con­dition than he found her. (Thus you see Mid­men [Page 25]are not all witches any more than the Midwomen.) However this was the state I found her in, which gave me occasion to re­primand the Midwife, telling her she had not sent for help in time, and not till she had work­ed upon her, which had occasioned those parts to be funk so low, and so strongly engaged, that I could neither return the arm, nor pass my hand (the whole passage being stopped up on every side) to fetch it by the feet; which might have been very easily done had I been sent for in time. The case being so desperate at first, I was at a loss where to begin: Her pulse was very languid and low, and she was in cold sweats, so that I fear'd she would die un­der the fatigue and pain she must of necessity undergo. Then he twisted off the arm, and with great difficulty extracted the rest, of the infant with his Crotchet; yet after all this woman recovered.’ Q. 1. Whether one in fifty recovers after such a job? Q. 2. Whether this bad posture of the child, the great suffer­ing and danger of the mother, might not have been prevented, nay, and the child's life saved, had a skilful Midwoman attended?

Case II. ‘The child was born dead, which is generally the fate of those children whose Placenta offers first,’ (Madam du Tertre, head Midwoman in the Hôtel Dieu at PARIS, and Au­thor of one of the best books on this subject, pub­lished in 1677. says, the Placenta offering before the child, is the most certain sign of its being [Page 26]dead,^*) ‘if a proper person be not at hand to de­liver them immediately.’ Who can be so pro­per, who is so likely to be in the way as a skil­ful Midwoman? But as long as they want skill to perform it, the child must die before a Midman can be brought.

CASE III. ‘The Midwife informed me, that the navel-string was thrust into the Vagina, be­yond the Os internum, but could not inform me what other part presented. Many Mid­wives are ignorant of the method of TOUCHING, which oftentimes occasions very great misfor­tunes both to mother and infant, and sometimes is the death of both, but most commonly of the child (Is not destroying one bad enough?) which being for some time engaged in a wrong posture, and the waters gone off, the Uterus is so collapsed, it gives great trouble to the opera­tor, much more pain to the mother, and very often, as I said before, occasions the death of the infant; all which may be prevented if a skilful operator is sent for in time.’ But much better, if a skilful operatrix attended.

CASE IV. ‘I visited a woman who had been some days in labour, and the Midwife affirmed that the waters run off the preceding day, and that she thought a foot presented, but upon my touching I found it to be the hand bent back­wards [Page 27]wards in the passage, and protruded out of the inner orifice up to the shoulder.’

CASE V. ‘The Midwife told me that one hand and the arm was sliped down into the Va­gina, and that it had laid so for some hours, and the waters, she said, were gone of several hours before the hand was protruded. I rebuk­ed her (as he very well might) for not sending sooner; she alledged, for excuse, that her labour might have succeeded in time: Then I told her that it was impossible, in the posture the child presented, it could ever be born.’

CASE VI. ‘The Midwife told me, that one child had been born, and another remained be­hind, that the membranes, with the waters, pres­sed forwards, and were very tight at every pain; but the woman having flooded very much after the birth of the first child, the Midwife could not tell me what part of the second pre­sented. I Blamed the Midwife for not sending for me sooner, &c. Whereupon I passed up my hand, and found the membranes much extend­ed with the waters, and the legs of the infant (which the Midwife knew nothing of, not knowing how to touch) pressed forward into the Vagina.’

CASE VII. ‘Upon examining the Midwife, at my first coming, how the child presented, she answer'd, &c. This convinced me of the Mid­wife's ignorance in the method and knowledge of touching, and I could wish it was not too common. I have generally found them igno­rant in this point, which often occasions the [Page 28]death both of Mother and infant,’ (Why did not he do his endeavour to amend this great evil? What signifies finding fault with them in every page without attempting a remedy?) ‘and gives a great deal of pain to the Man-midwife.’

CASE VIII. ‘I was sent for to a woman, whose child was brought out to the shoulders, where it had stuck for about three hours; the Midwife not knowing how to draw out the arms and the head. They had also sent for ano­ther Midwife before I got there, but she knew not how to extricate the child out of this snare. Then I extracted it, but the child was dead, which could not otherwise be expected, since it had been so long held in that posture.’

CASE IX. ‘I first enquired of the Midwife, how matters stood in general, but she giving me no satisfactory account, I descended to particu­lars. I then asked her if the membranes were broke, and if so, how long before; to which she could not give a ready answer, so that I found her thoroughly Ignorant. I next enquired how long the navel-string had been fallen down; Her answer was, several hours. I told her, i. e. rebuked her, &c.’

CASE X. ‘I was sent for to a person, whose child was born, and the Placenta left behind. Upon my coming there, the Midwife told me that she had attempted, by all methods she was mistress of, to fetch it, but could not succeed: Wherefore, considering the length of time, from the bringing of the Foetus to my coming, I thought no more time ought to be lost; and immediate­ly [Page 29]put up my hand, and found the inner orifice so much contracted, that at first I could scarce pass up the ends of my two fore-fingers, but af­ter some time I dilated it so much, that I was able to pass my hand, &c.’

‘This Case will shew us, what difficulties people often fall into from the Ignorance of the Midwife, in not knowing how to pass their hands as soon as the Foetus is protruded.’

CASE XI ‘I found the Scalp was extended and separated from the Cranium. This I judged to have proceeded from the Midwife's top rudely handling the head.’

CASE XII. ‘The Midwife being very igno­norant, was not able to give me a satisfatory account of the case. I found the Labia Pudendi very much swell'd, &c. wherefore Irebuked the Midwife, telling her, that when she had done all the mischief she could, then she persuaded them to send for me: This is a common fault amongst them, not being willing to have further help, 'till matters are come to the last extremity.’

CASE XIII. ‘I thereupon passed up my hand into the Vagina, and found the parts somewhat swell'd, by the Midwife's too rudely handling them.’

CASE XIV. ‘Upon passing my hand, I found the Midwife had been too busy, for the arm was sunk low, and much swell'd; not knowing better, she had endeavoured to bring it away in the posture it presented; whereupon I Rebuked her, telling her, that by her so doing [Page 30]she had made bad work, and shew'd her, that it was almost (he might have said altogether) impossible to bring it away in the posture it came in.’

CASE XV. ‘This case should be a caution to Midwives to send for help in time, when a child comes Footling, and not to venture (unless they are very skilful) to bring it forwards.’ But whose fault is it they are not all very skilful? Why are they suffered to practise, who are not very skilful? Would not Madam du Tertre have laughed at any Man, who should have told her, she must not venture to bring a child forwards when the feet presents? Are not our women as ca­pable of being taught as the French women?

CASE XVI. ‘I came, and the Midwife be­ing a Novice in her profession, was not capable of giving proper directions. She should have advised the labouring woman to have, kept back, as much as possible, her throws, and not forced downwards, and she ought to have passed her hand up, and pressed against the child's buttocks, to retain it from slipping down, when­ever the pains pressed forwards;’ (or, which would have been much more to the purpose, put up her hand, laid hold of the feet, and brought it a­way by them;) ‘but the Midwife neglecting to give this advice, or to act in this manner, I found the hip of the infant, with the Scrotum, sunk low into the Vagina, and strongly engaged between the bones of the Pelvis, so that I could not move it by any means.’

CASE XVII. ‘I found things very bad, which in a great measure proceded from the Ignorance of the Midwife; I therefore rebuked her for her carelessness, &c.’

CASE XVIII. ‘I enquired of the Midwife, if the waters were broke, how long they had been gone off, and what part presented; She told me that the waters had been run off some hours, but what part presented she knew not. I soon perceived her Ignorance; for upon passing my singers, I found the membranes protruded by the waters beyond the Os internum, into the Vagina, about the bigness os a pig's blad­der, so that the waters were not gone off, as she said, for some hours, and being Ignorant of the method of touching, it was impossible she could tell what part presented.’

CASE XIX. ‘I was call'd about six in the morning, and the Midwife told me, that the Membranes were broke, and the waters flowed off about twelve o'clock at night, and that the first part which presented was the elbow. I Re­buked her for staying so long before she sent for help, and I soon discovered her Ignorance; for she told me that she had delivered several children where the arm came first, in the same posture, and some were born alive, &c. The child was born dead, which I imagined to pro­ceed from its lying so long in the posture I found it, and the Midwife's too rudely pulling the arm when it first fell into the passage, in hopes, as she thought, to have brought away the child in the posture it presented. By her [Page 32]violent pulling she had almost separated the arm from the shoulder.’

‘THIS is one amongst the Many inconve­niences that occur from the ignorance of Mid­wives: Had I been sent for as soon as the mem­branes were broke, and before the shoulder, by reiterated pains, was so strongly locked between the bones of the Pelvis, most of my trouble, and the child's life might have been saved.’ Undoubtedly! or if she had had skill enough to have done it herself.

CASE XX. ‘When I came I found the child protruded to the hips, which hung out beyond the Labia Pudendi, the Midwife told me that the waters run off about an hour before; that the child presented with the feet first, and that when she had brought it to the buttocks, it stuck there, nor could she bring it any further. I re­buked her for not sending at first, when she found it to present in a wrong posture; but she in excuse, as is usual amongst them, told me, that she had brought out many children offering in that posture.’ (She must indeed have been a very ordinary Midwife if she had not.) ‘The child from its having lain some time so pressed, was dead, which, I told her, was very probably ow­ing to her neglect, in not sending sooner, when she was satisfied the child presented wrong.’

CASE XXI. ‘Upon examination of the child's head, I found a Tumour, about the bigness of a pigeon's egg, on its upper part, arising, as I judged, from the Midwife's too rudely hand­ling it, or (which is much more probable) it's [Page 33]lying so long locked between the bones.’ But it's their way to haul the Midwomen in, head and shoulders, guilty or not guilty.

CASE XXII. ‘I Rebuked the Midwife for not sending sooner, telling her the danger she had exposed the poor woman to by her delay: She in excuse, answered me, that she had never had such an accident before, altho' she had been a Midwife above eleven years; however I found she was very ignorant.’

CASE XXIII. ‘This case (viz. the Placenta being lest behind, occasioned a flooding) should be a caution to all Midwives not to delay send­ing early, and not depend too far on their own skill and experience; for it's plain this poor woman died a Martyr to either the Midwife's Ignorance, or vain Opinion of her own Self-sufficiency, which too much prevails amongst them.’

CASE XXIV. ‘Passing my hand into the Vagina, I found the arm bent and broke, by the Midwife's too rudely handling it. The child was born dead, which proceeded, as I judged, from its long lying in so uneasy a posture, and from the Midwife's Ignorance, in not knowing how to keep up the arm, &c.’

CASE XXV. ‘Men-midwives frequently find great difficulty in passing their hand into the womb, when, from the Ignorance of the Mid­wife, they are obliged to fetch the Placenta after the child has been born some time, the Os inter­num being upon these occasions generally very [Page 34]much contracted.’ Pray is not a Midwoman's hand easier passed at first, than a Midman's at last.

CASE XXVI. ‘One foot presented; but the Midwife (thinking herself capable of delivering the woman, being in her own opinion very Self-sufficient, altho' she was very ignorant,) would not at first send for assistance, &c.’

CASE XXVII. ‘As soon as the Midwife found that the hands presented, she sent for me. This is what Midwives seldom do;’ (a black swan indeed!) ‘trusting too much to, and depending upon their own Sufficiency, which very often occa­sions the loss of the child, and sometimes of the mother.’

CASE XXVIII. ‘The Midwife's Ignorance, in not knowing how to pass her hand, occasion'd this uneasiness.’

CASE XXIX. ‘This is one among the many misfortunes that attend a Man-midwife, when he he is sent for too late, proceeding from the neg­ligence, supineness, ignorance, or self-sufficiency of the Midwife; which last prevails in most of them, and is very often the occasion of the loss either of the mother or child, or sometimes both.’

CASE XXX. ‘The Ignorance of the Midwife, in not knowing how to keep up the womb from being forced before the head so low into the Va­gina, was what added so much to my difficulty in delivering this woman.’

CASE XXXI. ‘When I came, I found all but the head was protruded beyond the Labia Pudendi, but that stuck above, altho' the Mid­wife [Page 35]had pulled so strongly, that she had near separated the body from the head. The Mid­wife, being Ignorant, did not take care to turn the child's face towards the Spine of the mother as the body advanced. However, I brought it out in a minute's time, this surprized all that were present, because the Midwife had been working above an hour, without making any advance. Had I been there early, I might very probably have saved the life of the child, but Self-sufficiency, join'd with an idle Notion that they suffer in their character if they send for a Man's assistance, generally prevents most Mid­wives from sending early, by which they too often endanger the lives of both mothers and children, and give no small trouble to the Man­midwife.’

CASE XXXII. ‘The Midwife could not fetch the Placenta, for as she was ignorant in the me­thod of passing her hand into the Uterus, up to the body of the Placenta, to examine whether it adhered to it, she had only pulled by the end of the string which hung out, and so had very near broke it close to the Placenta; she had made no Ligature upon the end of the string, therefore a Hemorrhage had ensued, and the woman had lost a great quantity os blood. Mid­wives very often depend too much upon their own judgment, and think themselves Self-suffi­cient, so that they postpone sending for help in time, whereby the poor women become Victims to their Ignorance or Self-conceit.’

CASE XXXIIL ‘The Child's arm presented several hours before I was sent for; upon which I rebuked the Midwife for not sending sooner; but she, to justify herself, had the Assurance to to tell me, that she had brought out several children presenting in that manner; whereupon I shewed her the impossibility of it, and advised her for the future always to send for help, as soon as she should find the hand to present first, and not, by pulling the hand, draw it further down, and engage the shoulder in the passage, as she had now done.’ Pray would it not have been much more seasonable advice to have shewn her how to pass her hand, and get hold of the feet, &c.

CASE XXXIV. ‘The Nurse came and told me the child was born, but the Midwife was soiled in her attempts to fetch away the Placenta. I went, and found the Midwife was both igno­rant of the cause of its being retained, and the method of passing the hand to extract it; yet I brought it away whole in less than half a mi­nute's time, which much surprized both the wo­man and the by-standers, the Midwife having spent so much time without being able to effect it.’ Sometimes a Man gets more credit by do­ing nothing than by a difficult operation!

CASE XXXV. ‘The Man-midwife's being sent for so late, too often proceeds from the Igno­rance or Self-sufficiency of the Midwife, (but oftener from the modesty of the women, covetousness, or real poverty of the men, &c.) who either not knowing how to behave in difficult cases, [Page 37]or fearing she should suffer in her character should she desire assistance, puts off the calling in of a Man-midwife to the last extremity, so that the mother and child too often become vic­tims either to her negligence or ignorance.’

CASE XXXVI. ‘The Midwife depending upon her own Sufficiency, (altho' she was very ignorant) had let the child advance too far, without taking care to turn and bring the face backwards towards the Os Sacrum, and had for some time endeavoured to bring out the head, but to no purpose; wherefore I was at last sent for, and found the parts very dry, and some­what swelled, by the rude Handling of the Midwife.’

CASE XXXVII. ‘The woman had been in labour forty-eight hours; the Midwife being very Ignorant, could neither tell me how the Child presented, nor at what time the mem­branes broke, but answered me, according to her dialect, that it was a dry labour.’

CASE XXXVIII. ‘The child was brought into the world all but the head, where it had stuck two or three hours before I came; the Midwife being very Ignorant, was not able to do the business herself, nor would she send for assi­stance in time, so that the child was lost, and the mother narrowly escaped.’

CASE XXXIX. ‘The Midwife, in attempt­ing to bring away the Placenta, had inverted the Uterus, for I found the whole body of the Uterus, with the Placenta, adhering to it's Fun­dus, hanging out beyond the Labia Pudendi; [Page 38]I Rebuked the Midwife for not sending sooner, and told her, that she, thro' her Igno­rance, was the immediate cause of this woman's death. Before I examined her, the Midwife told me, that the Placenta was partly brought out, being ignorant that she had also pulled out the womb, &c.’

CASE XL. ‘But the Midwife by pulling the Navel-string too rudely, had broke it off near the Placenta, which was left in the womb. As soon as I came, I passed up my hand, where I found the Placenta entirely separated from the Uterus, and partly protruded into the Vagina, so that I readily brought it away, and in so short a time, that the people that were present were greatly surprized. Had the Midwife under­stood how to have passed her hand, she might easily have brought away the burden before; and for want of this knowledge, some women fall into violent floodings, whence faintings, convulsions, and death.’ A wonderful opera­tion indeed! But does she deserve the Name of a Midwoman who could not have extracted it as quick as he?

CASE XLI. ‘Had I been sent for before the membranes were broke, the waters passed off, the arm slipped down, and the back part of the shoulder so rivetted, I might not only have pre­served the Child, but prevented the Mother's suffering so much pain, and have likewise saved myself much fatigue and trouble.’ Without doubt!

IT'S too true, that many Midwives are Igno­rant "of the method of touching," (and it's as true they might with very little trouble be taught;) ‘and therefore are incapable of judging in what man­ner the Child presents, until an arm, or some other part is protruded into the Vagina, which is often so locked between the bones of the Pel­vis, that it is scarce possible to remove it; and too often they depend so much upon their own sufficiency, and delay sending for assistance in time, that both the mother and child, but more frequently the latter, die martyrs to their pre­sumption.’

CASE XLII. ‘I was sent for about two in the morning, the Midwife had delivered the Child about six the evening before, but not be­ing able, notwithstanding all her endeavours, to bring away the Placenta, she at last left the woman, telling her, that it would in time come away, and that she had known it retained four­teen days without any inconveniency; but as this was a doctrine I was a stranger to, and be­ing on the contrary well satisfied that inconve­niencies might attend, should it not be speedily drawn away; therefore —.’

CASE XLIII. ‘The child's arm was slipped out into the Vagina, which, as soon as the Mid­wife observed, who was first sent for, she pro­posed that a Man-midwife should be sent for, telling those that were present, that it was not a Midwife's business; whereupon another Midwife was sent for, who pretended to do the work of a Man-midwife, and at first gave them assurances [Page 40]that she would deliver her, but after she had worked upon her for half an hour, or longer, puting her into several postures, as kneeling, standing, &c. she left her in a much worse con­dition than she found her; for being ignorant of the method of delivery, when a child offered in the manner this did, she truly had endeavoured to draw the child forward in the same posture it presented, whereby she had drawn the hand out, and part of the arm, beyond the Labia Pudendi, and almost separated it at the shoulder. The temerity, joined to the ignorance of this Mid­wife, very much encreased the difficulty of lay­ing her. If I had been sent for in time, I might with much more ease have delivered the woman, and withal have saved the Child. I have meet with some Midwives, who have had the igno­rance and assurance to tell me, that they have deliver'd children thus presenting, without turn­ing and bringing them by the feet.’

In 1733. Mr. Chapman published, "An Essay on "the improvement of Midwifery." wherein he compliments the Midwomen as follows.

Preface. ‘I Was induced to write the following Essay on the improvement of Mid­wifery, because I found that all Books hitherto written on this subject, were calculated more for the instruction of my own sex, than the other.’ This had certainly been a very reasonable induce­ment, had it not been a mistake. But the fore-men­tioned Madam du Tertre, says she composed her book for the use of the Midwives apprentices in the Hotel Dieu^*. Madam Lovys Burgeois, whose book was translated into English, and published in London 1698. says, she put it forth for the sole use of the Midwives. Is it possible these Midwo­men, and many more who might be mentioned, could have the instruction of the Midmen chiefly in view? Why would not he believe their own de­claration?

PREFACE. ‘I have daily, during the space of above twenty years practice, seen many fatal mistakes committed by Midwives,’ Pray what sort of Midwives must these have been, who committed fatal mistakes every day, for above twenty years together? Ought they not to have been restrained from practising? Nay, even punish­ed by the civil magistrate? — ‘which I think [Page 42]could not have happened had they ever read a treatise so properly adapted to their capacities, and at the same time so full and plain, as the following.’ Q. 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?

‘MY greatest aim in it is faithfully to instruct, and point out to them, those dangerous Rocks on which many have been cast away; that they may either be able to give better Assistance themselves, or at least to see the danger time enough to call in superior advice.’

NOTWITHSTANDING this formal declaration, &c. I'm afraid his greatest Aim will appear to be much the same with Dr. Chamberlen's, viz. to tell the Midwomen when, and in what particular cases, to send for his superior advice; and not to instruct them how to give better advice themselves.

‘I have met with several Midwives, espe­cially in this Metropolis, that are extremely well qualified. However, (well or ill qualified) I must beg leave to give them this one piece of advice, viz. That where any material difficulty occurs, they would readily, and in time, call in our assistance; as when a child presents with it's head, but does not, with a proper degree of pain, fall any lower; when the posture happens to be wrong, and consequently the child requires turning;’ (May not the posture be wrong, and yet not want turning? E. G. when the fect or hips pre­sent. May not the posture be wrong, and the [Page 43]Midwoman as able to turn it as any Midman?) ‘but more especially that they would not delay to send for a Man in case of Floodings, or other threat­ning Symptoms.’

PRAY can this be called instructing them faith­fully, as he proposes in his Exordium? or telling them when to send for superior advice? Is it not plainly, declaring, as the Doctor had done be­fore, that in his opinion, they know no more of the matter, than to receive a Child which comes away, as it were of itself, without any the least diffi­culty? Would he not, had he designed to have in­structed them Faithfully how to give better assi­stance themselves, explained to them, how, and after what manner, to remove all these difficulties, and threatning Symptoms he supposes, instead of only telling them to send speedily for superior advice? But pray what are the poor Midwo­men to do in places where no superior advice, i. e. no Midmen, are to be had? He has made no provision for them, as Dr. Chamberlen did, pag. 5.

AFTER giving his directions when he thinks they should send for superior advice, he first coaxes, and then threatens them, as the Doctor did above.

‘I believe this advice will not be thought im­pertinent by the most experienced Midwives, who, by the by, I have ever found most ready to call in farther assistance; and indeed 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 [Page 44]hazards, or at the best call us in too late, and so lose their good name, and justly suffer in their reputation. The best Midwives send early for advice upon the appearance of danger and difficulty; the suffering Fair readily consents to it, and by this means both lives are saved.’ Pray are not these two speeches both picked out of Dr. Chamberlen's preface? Pray would not the suffering Fair have been much more obliged to her Midwoman, if she had performed the work herself, and thereby saved her both the uneasiness and expence of superior advice?

NAY in the following paragraph, he takes off the mask, and plainly tells them, he has got a Se­cret which he must keep to himself. Pray is keep­ing of Secrets consistent with his former declartion, pag. 42. viz. My greatest aim is faithfully to in­struct them?

‘WHEN the head presents, and sticks in the passage, it can only be extracted, with safety to the child, by a Fillet, or the Forceps. The former of these I must beg leave to be silent in, as being entirely an invention of my own,’ (sub judice lis est.) ‘nor shall I, I hope, be cen­sured for my so doing, any more than the Great Dr. Chamberlen was, for his choosing to conceal the method, or secret, whereby he could extract children in this case without hooks, where other artists are forced to use them.’

WAS there ever such an excuse heard of? Be­cause the Great Dr. Chamberlen acted a very un­generous part in this affair, therefore Mr. Chap­man must be excused for doing just the same thing. [Page 45]Might he not as well have said, the Doctor had been guilty of Symony, or Sacrilege, and was not punished for it; therefore he might, for that reason, expect the same grace, in case he should take it in his head to commit the same crimes?

IN pag. 71. he says, ‘Here I only passed a Fillet over the Head, and thereby delivered her of a living child. This method of extracting with a Fillet is an art known but to very few; (I doubt not, he'll find himself as much mis­taken in this assertion, as he was when he affirmed, that he was the second Englishman who wrote originally and professedly on this sub­ject; and that all Books hitherto written on this subject were calculated more for the instruction of the men, than of the women, &c.) "nor should it ever be attempted, but by a very skilful ope­rator.’ Such as —

PAGE 8. he says, ‘If the child offers any other part than the head, be what it will, the hand is to be passed gently into the womb, the Feet are to be searched for, the child to be turned, and that way to be brought forth.’ Pag. 20. ‘A child presenting with it's head is often to be turned, and delivered with the feet first, in all other postures whatever always with the feet first.’

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 sunk so low in the passage, that they cannot be pushed back without danger; is it not [Page 46]much easier, safer, 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 risk of forcing them back to look for the feet?

THO' it's plain from these quotations, that Mr. Chapman, notwithstanding his twenty-five years practice, was perfectly unacquainted with this case; yet that good old woman, Madam du Ter­tre, &c. describes it very accurately, viz. that, when the buttocks present low in the passage, the child should be extracted as it offers^*.

PAGE II. ‘Sometimes the pain shall be strong and true, the head of the child very low, and bearing forcibly down every pain; yet the mouth of the womb (loth as it were to open) shall be but very little dilated, even after many hours pain. E. G. I visited a woman, who had been many hours in labour, the head of the child lay in the Vagina, so low in the pains, that the unskilful Midwife, (who had never touched the mouth of the womb, which lay more than ordi­nary backwards) had given hopes of delivery the very next pain. Here I did no more than [Page 47]with my finger dilate and cast the part (viz. the mouth of the womb) back, and so in a few mi­nutes opened the door, and released the little prisoner.’ Pray would not Madam du Tertre's finger have released the prisoner as soon and as safely as his did? That there has been great difficulties oc­casioned by the lothness of the mouth of the womb to open, viz. in elderly women, when callous, schirrous, &c. no Man will will deny. But there is not the least sign of any difficulty or lothness of the mouth of the womb to open, in this case Mr. Chapman brings, to prove that the pains may be strong and true, &c. and yet the mouth of the womb, loth as it were to open, shall be very little dilated. The difficulty in his case consisted only in the unnatural situation of the Os Tincae, which prevented the head's pressing directly on it, other­wise it would have opened with all imaginable ease and speed; as you see it did when he touched it with his finger.

PAGE 29. — ‘Dipping 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 practice, &c.’ Pray how many Midwomen did he ever know guilty of these fooleries?

PAGE 30. ‘I once delivered a woman, where the child's arm had been eighteen hours in the world, and much swelled by the long time, and Ignorance of the Midwife, who pulled violently at the arm every pain; not knowing that it was impossible to deliver a full grown infant by that method.’

PAGE 40. ‘Or perhaps pull down the Fundus Uteri, and so invert the Matrix; which is a case I have several times met with, after rough and ignorant Midwives; which may serve as a warning to others how they pull at the string, &c.’

PAGE 41. He says, ‘That most Midwives tie the string at too great a distance from the child's belly, which occasions Ruptures, &c. afterwards. It is very certain however, that more than two inches of the string itself from the Navel is unnecessary; whereas I have com­monly known Midwives leave five or six.’

HERE Mr. Chapman again fancies he has told us a secret, but if you look into that good old woman, Madam du Tertre, you'll find these words, "Elle nouera le cordon, ou ombilic à "deux doigts du nombril de l'enfant, &c. i. e. she must tie the string two inches from the child's Na­vel. 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?

PAGE 49. ‘Few Midwives are sufficiently ap­prised of this unhappy Symptom.’ viz. A vio­lent flooding.

I differ so far from Mr. Chapman in this asser­tion, that in my opinion, there is not one Mid­woman in a thousand who knows not, that a vio­lent flooding will either occasion abortion or death.

PAGE 56. ‘I was called to a woman, who had lain ten or twelve hours with the head of the child born; but the Midwife being Ignorant of [Page 49]the pains going off; suffered the infant to stop there.’

CASE of a violent Flooding, pag. 64. ‘One of her friends was of opinion that she ought to be delivered; but the Midwife resisted, and said, that she never yet had forced a labour, and that she would hot begin then; terrifying the unhappy sufferer, by telling her, that if she was delivered she would certainly die.’ And so she did, because she was not delivered.

PAGE 69. ‘I was called to a woman whose Vagina came down before the head of the child, hanging far out of the body. This by an igno­rant Midwife, was taken for a water, and ac­cordingly she had scratched and endeavoured to break the Membrane, as she foolishly thought it.’

PAGE 81. ‘I attended a woman who was deli­vered by natural pains in about two hours; upon passing my hand, as my constant practice is, immediately to fetch the Pla­canta, I found another child, which I soon brought away, with two distinct Placenta's.’ Pray is it not every body's practice to pass their hand immediately, and examine if there is any more children, and if no more to fetch the Pla­centa? What then is there extraordinary in it, that it deserves to be noted so emphatically, viz. as my constant practice is? Did not Madam du Ter­tre, &c. do so^*.

‘Now had an ignorant Midwife been con­cerned in this case, who had only taken the first child and After-birth, the last would probably have been left behind;’ (but suppose an ex­perienced Midwife had been concerned, how would it have been then? Was there any such great Feat done by him in this case, which she could not have done as well?) ‘and so either violent floodings, or a bad fever would have ensued; and, as the woman was before very ill and extremely weak, it would very likely have cost her Life.’ Thus you see, let a Midwoman be present, or not pre­sent, guilty, or not guilty, it's all one, they must be hauled in, and condemned, for an imaginary, as well as for a real fault.

PAGE 83. ‘I was sent for in great haste to a woman in labour, but on my arrival found her dead. I conjectured she had died by flooding, but was told she had not; however, the Mid­wife told me, that the After-birth stuck so fast in one part, that she was not able with all her strength to take it from her. Upon which I desired to see the corps, and found, to my great surprise, that the Matrix was inverted, and hung down between her thighs, with the Pla­centa adhering to its Fundus, which I separated before the Midwife, and several Matrons there present, and convinced them all of the dismal accident. This woman had it seems a very good and easy labour of the child; but then she Midwise pulled hard at the Navel-string, and so brought down the Matrix, which as soon as she could take hold of, she did; and then [Page 51]pulled with fresh violence, and not being deter­red by the loudest cries, the poor miserable wo­man fell into Convulsions and Deliquiums, and soon expired. This was a young healthy Mo­ther cut off in the bloom of life, and cast into the cold arms of Death, just as she was about to clasp her First-born in her own.’ A shock­ing case indeed!

PAGE 84. ‘I have been called to three women, where I found the Vagina quite broke through in the back part, by the Midwife's rudely thrust­ing up her hand, in order to come at the open­ing of the womb, which in all these three hap­pened to lie very forwards, under the Os Pubis. Two of these died in a few days after, and the other recovered, beyond my expectation.’

PAGE 86. ‘I was sent for to a gentlewoman, who kept a tavern in Ipswich. The child was Dead, and the mother Flooding. She was at­tended by no less than two Midwives and a Sur­geon, just then set out in the profession. When they had all used their endeavours, to little or no purpose, I was called in, and delivered her in a minute. I left her under the care of Dr. Beeston, but she died in six or seven days.’

MR. Chapman indeed has not told this young Gentleman's name, but has described him so well that I doubt there's not a Man in all Ipswich, nor perhaps twenty miles round, but can tell who he means. What injury might not such a tale do a worthy young fellow? but how consistent this story is with the advice he gives to others, pag. 114. I leave the reader to determine.

PREFACE. ‘But 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.’ E. G. Dr. C—, Dr. M—, Dr. W—, Dr. G—, Dr. A—, Dr. B—, Dr. Gregoire Tota notus in urbe! &c.

‘THE improvements these GREAT Men have made in this art, have effectually wiped away that load of Slander and Ignominy with which this profession was formerly branded.’

PRAY have nor ninety-nine in a hundred of these GREAT Men he talks of, kept their improvements (if they ever made any) to themselves? Don't most of them now, as well as He, pretend to have Secrets? Don't they endeavour to puzzle, at the same time they make a shew of instructing others? Don't they very seldom, if ever, consult together, as they al­ways ought to do in difficult or dangerous cases? What can hinder them, except the fear of discover­ing the insignificancy of their pretended secrets, or their real ignorance? Nay, Dr. Chamberlen himself pag. 91. blames them for this, and very justly observes, even with some regret, this great fault in practi­tioners. ‘It were to be wished rather than hoped for, that practitioners, in difficult and dangerous cases, (whereof they have no certain knowledge) would consult, and not destroy one or more, by under­taking what they cannot well perform, or dis­courage patients from sending for other help or advice; putting life in balance with their reputation.’

I very readily agree with the Doctor, that practitioners in Midwifery should consult together, when any thing very difficult or dangerous occurs, with the same freedom and unreservedness as in other cases of Surgery, viz. Luxations, Fractures, Mortifications, &c. Wherein consists the disreputa­tion of consulting in this, more than in any other case? Are there not more lives concerned in these, than in any other cases? Is not consulting the only way of preserving, instead of losing their reputation, and the patients lives?

IN 1735. Mr. Chapman published a Treatise on Midwifery; in the preface to which he says, ‘I own I had some assistance in regard to the dic­tion; and did not send my papers to the press until that was revised and corrected.’

CAN he be a tolerable judge of diction himself, who suffers his friend to write Woman-Midwife, Women-Midwives, &c. Words used by no body, except the learned Dr. Maubray, who Mr. Chap­man or his Corrector calls, ‘that ingenious and laborious author.’ But to give a specimen, first;, of his Ingenuity: he begins a large book, which he calls the whole art of Midwifery, &c. Thus, Sect. I. cap. 1. Of God, cap. 2. Of Nature, cap. 3. Of Man, cap. 4. Of the Soul. Sect. II. cap. 1. Of Maidenhood, cap. 2. Of Virginity, cap. 3. Of the Virgin-disease, cap. 4. Of Love, cap. 5. Of Copulation, &c. Now! pray what relation, what connection, is there be­tween these out-of-the-way subjects and Midwifery? Might he not as properly have introduced what he had to say about Midwifery, with an account of Rat-catching, Rabbit-breeding, or Sow-gelding?

PRAY does it shew most Ingenuity or Stu­pidity, to jumble several subjects together, which have no manner of relation, connection, or analogy with one another, or with his main design, by way of introduction? Secondly, of his Laboriousness: I cannot but own that every page is laboured, but in such a manner, that he often forgets, in less than a leaf, what he intended to account for or prove, and leaves you as much in the dark as he found you: and that he has spent a great deal of labour upon collecting from Romances, Popish legends, &c. a parcel of idle, groundless, nay ridiculous tales, and tells them with all imaginable gravity, and seeming earnestness; and very seriously undertakes to account for unaccountables. E. G. Page 58. he tells us, "St. Austin" (and who would not believe a popish saint, tho he asserted that he saw a Rabbit kitten Monkeys, Pole-cats, or Foxes? ‘writes of a Man who could sweat whenever he had a mind. And I have like­wise known some persons my self, who could weep and shed abundance of tears at will and pleasure. Utrum horum? "Yea, and farther yet, many learned Authors^* testify, by divers exam­ples, that Women have been turned into Men; which some attribute to the force of imagina­tion. But, tho' I am no ways to question the veracity of what so many excellent men have confirmed;’ (Is there any other Man living, who [Page 55]would not question them?) ‘yet I think we may find more probable reasons for't, than all the Powers of IMAGINATION. Whereof I shall mention that which seems to be the most ra­tional cause, viz. an extinguished or latent FORMING FACULTY,^* which (however) some­times has Exerted itself again, like the BLAZ­ING of a raked or resuscitated Fire.’

I hope Mr. Chapman will explain this ingenious account of this incredible phaenomenon in his next edition, for, I must own, as it stands, it's far be­yond my comprehension, and that the account he gives of it is so very sublime, that it rather puzzles than instructs me. Pray what does he mean by "an extinguished or latent forming Faculty?" And wherein lies the analogy between that, and "the Blazing of a raked or resuscitated Fire?"

HE has been so justly and tartly reprimanded for the absurd and false account of the Sooterkin, de Suyger, or Sucker, by the late reverend and learned Dr. Archibald Mitchel,^† Utriusque Medicinae Doctor, that I shall only add one observation to what he has advanced, viz. that Dr. Maubray had the assurance to assert, in the fore-mentioned book, pag. 376. that he had talked to some of the most learned Men, in the Seven Provinces, about this Sooterkin, de Suyger, or Sucker, and that they ingenuously told him, that it was so common a thing, that scarce one woman in three escaped this kind of strange [Page 56]birth; nay! and that his own practice among them afterwards confirmed it, so much, that he always as much expected the thing de Suyger, as the child itself! Is it not surprising that he did not catch a few of these little Daemons or Moodiwarps as he calls them, and keep them in a cage, rat-trap, or in some other more curious mechanical contrivance, for the conviction of Dr. Mitchel, and other infi­dels? 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?

WHAT a splutter Mr. Chapman makes, pag. 59. about his breaking the Membranes of the second child, in order to bring it away by the feet, as if he had discovered something new. And then he tells us, he's not a little pleased to find Dr. Maubray agree with him exactly in this point, and advise this manner of proceeding, in almost the same words used by him on this occasion, tho' the words used by Dr. M. are very different from his, nay, they are perfect nonsense. E. G. He says, I would fetch the second child by the feet, in case the second Flooding is not yet over, &c. Pray what does he mean by the second flooding? Mr. Chapman an­swereth and saith, that by the second flooding he must mean the flowing of the waters; but who, besides he, ever called the flowing of the waters a flooding? Every body else means a dangerous flux of blood by a flooding. But if he had looked back as far as Madam du Tertre, &c. he would have [Page 57]found that very method strongly recommended, and much better, shorter, and clearer express'd, than either he or Dr. Maubray have done it^*.

HE makes again, pag. 65. as great a rout about extracting the Placenta, for three pages together, as if no body had known any thing of the matter before he taught them. E. G. ‘The Placenta is never to be left to be shut up in the womb, whether the labour has been natural or not; and I have the satisfaction of finding Dr. Maubray recommending this practice.’ A great satis­faction indeed! But pray can he find any body who does not recommend it, as well as he and Dr. Maubray?

HE censures Dionis pag. 68. for saying, ‘That the Placenta in an Abortion of two or three months, may be left to come away of itself.’ Which undoubtedly may very often be done without any danger, tho' it's certainly safer to bring it away at first, if sent for in time; but if [Page 58]the child has been come away some time, I should give myself no trouble about it till a flooding appeared. Because the irritation caused by the fingers, when the Os Tincae is almost closed, may be more apt to cause an inflamation, flooding, &c. than letting it alone; nay, I knew it once left whole (by the obstinancy 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. Nay that experienced Midman Mr. Giffard, is also of the same opinion, ‘Of two evils the greater ought to be shunned, 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.’ Pray can he imagine Mr. Dio­nis did not do the needful, in case a flooding did succeed?

BUT he finds no fault with him, where I think he richly deserves it, when he says,^* the Os Tincae in a violent flooding, is more convenient­ly dilated with an instrument, and the false concept­tion, &c. extracted with a pair of Forceps, than by the fingers. If this is not finding fault in the wrong place, pray what is? Is it not a most dangerous, nay, and unnecessary practice?

PAGE 171. He gives one instance of a child he delivered with the buttocks foremost. But pray [Page 59]how does this quadrate with what he says, 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 searched for, the child to be turned, and brought forth by them.’

PAGE 174. ‘I was unwilling to have recourse to art.’ (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 obliged to make use of their art at every labour they are called to? Why then does he so often make use of the words Art and Artists, and only apply them to himself or some other Man? Won't any one who reads Madam du Tertre's little book be convinced, 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.) ‘But after two hours trial, finding no advantage from her pains, I was forced to it. I first made an attempt with the Fillet; but the young creature's pulse began to sink, and her pains falling off a little, I chose to take the most Speedy, as well as the most secure Method, viz. the Forceps, and delivered her in about two Minutes.’

PRAY is not this fairly owning, that the Fillet (he makes a secret of pag. 17.) is neither so Speedy, nor so Secure a Method as the Forceps? Why then does he keep it a secret? To what pur­pose can he do it? When he, at the same time confesses the Forceps, (which he has given us a [Page 60]print of, tho' a very indifferent one, and nothing new therein,) to be preferable.

THEN he goes on in the same page 17. and says, ‘But I have been told, since the first public­cation of my Essay, that the Fillet is so far from being an invention of mine, that it its ge­nerally, or at least very frequently used. I own indeed, that it may be commonly used in turn­ing a child, by securing one foot with it, as I have directed; but do not believe the manner of passing it over the head to be so universally known and practised.’

DAVENTER, in the appendix to his Ars Obster­tricandi, published in 1701. describes and very much approves of a Fillet's being passed over the child's head in order to extract it. And I myself have seen eight or ten different sorts of them, con­trived and used by different practitioners. Pray was not Dr. Birch's Fillet put up to be sold for 500 l. by the late excellent Surgeon Mr. Jos. Sy­mond's? Has not Dr. Sandys had one for many years? Nay I hardly know one who has not, in one shape or other, How then can Mr. Chapman expect to fob us off with saying, that all other people's are for the foot, and his only for the head? Must not he think us very weak, and very illiterate if we believed him? Might he not with as much reason assert, that he or Dr. Maubray were the first inventors of breaking the Membranes of the se­cond child, in order to bring it away presently by the feet; or of directing the Placenta to be extracted before the Uterus closed upon it, or of tying the Navel-string within two inches of the child's [Page 61]belly, &c. all which have been told us by Madam du Tertre.

THEN he winds up the foresaid Girl's case, pag. 174. with these solemn reflections on his own good conduct, and the mishaps which would have befali'n this poor woman had not he been with her. ‘Had a Midwife been called to this person some days, not to say weeks, before, when her pains and complaints began to vary, and (as is common with young and unexperienced Mid­wives, put her upon her labour too early, which I carefully avoided) considering the posi­tion of the child, what must have been the con­sequence?’ (Something very frightful undoubted­ly!) And even had a Man been called, who was ‘unacquainted with the use of that noble and safe instrument the Forceps, he must have destroyed the child.’

BUT suppose a knowing Midwoman, such a one as Madam du Tertre, &c. had been with her, in the room of his young and unexperienced one, would not she as carefully have avoided putting her upon her labour before her time, as Mr. Chapman did? And supposing a Man had been there who had no Forceps about him, but was well acquainted with the use of Daventer's, Birch's, or any other Fillet, except Mr. Chapman's Secret, (which he owns himself, pag. 59. would not do,) could not he have extract­ed the child with as much safety as he did with the Forceps?

MR. Chapman, pag. 95. tells us the following story: ‘A fine young lady, in labour with her first child, was seiz'd with a flooding, and the [Page 62]arm of the infant presented. She imme­diately sent for a Physician, 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; and em­ployed restringent or styptick medicines. Af­ter some hours another gentleman was called in, but the lady was now very much weakened, and the artist, apprehensive of her expiring under his hands, or immediately after delivery, which in­deed too often happens, would make no at­tempt, but abandoned her to her approaching fate. She lived some hours after, and then died. Im persuaded it will be allowed by the best judges, that, had she been immediately deliver­ed, her life might have been saved. I received this account from a worthy matron, who was present during the whole time.’

MR. Giffard mentions a case of the same kind, therefore I choose to place them together. ‘I was sent for about five in the afternoon, to a woman at Battersea, who had been deliver­ed of three children about three the preced­ing morning, but the Midwife had left the after­burthens, (monsterous and fatal ignorance) hav­ing broke off two of the strings; she not know­ing how to pass her hand to fetch them, and being called away to another woman, had left her in this condition:’ (Could a Turk believe there were any wholsome laws in a country where such barbari­ties were not severely punished?) Another Mid­wife [Page 63] ‘was sent for, but she would not attempt to bring them away, fearing the woman should die, and her death be laid to her charge; (poor unhapy woman!) so when I came I found the woman in the agonies of death, her whole mass of blood being drained away by the continual flooding, (viz. for fifteen hours) I immediately brought them away, but the woman's blood and spirits were so much exhausted before, that she expired in less than an hour afterwards; so that this woman fell a sacrifice to the ignorance of one Midwife, and the timidity of the other, for had the burthens been brought away at first, before she had lost so much blood, she had been in no danger of dying. They had sent for one Dr. —, at —, who instead of advising them to fetch the burthens away, or coming himself to do it, had sent forcing Medicines, which would of consequence encrease the flood­ing, and so hastened her death. The three chil­dren were all born alive and well.’ Who can read this case without being shocked at it?

HAS any of the fore-mentioned women com­mitted greater Blunders than these Doctors? Is it not evident from these stories, that the Doctor or Apothecary Midmen, are sometimes as ignorant as the lowest class of Midwomen? Pray where could these Doctors have been admitted to their degrees? Must it not 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, [Page 64]than frequenting the hospitals as often? Don't this shew that we want a proper school for Midmen as well as for Midwomen?

MR. Chapman, pag. 31. tells us of ‘A woman who had been twice or thrice delivered by a Man, of children that always presented with the head, which the operator took a fatal freedom with, viz. using a hook,’ (Pray how could he tell, who was not present, but that all these children were dead? That he was obliged to use a hook, because of the large­ness of the child's head, shoulders, or belly? That he was forced to destroy the child to save the mo­ther? Wherein then consists this fatal freedom he talks of? Ought not a Man to be very sure before he accuses another after this manner?) ‘at last sent for me.’ I think he's much to blame for not telling us, whether this fatal freedom taker was a Doctor or an Apothecary Midman?

THAT excellent Anatomist Dr. Nicholls, in his Compendium Anatomicum, published in 1733. and republished 1736. has the following remarka­ble passage, ‘In omni malo situ, ut & in rebus desperatis, pedibus extrahetur Foetus.’ i. e. In every wrong posture, as also in desperate cases the child is to be extracted by the feet.

Now, pray is it not a wrong posture when the buttocks present? And yet the child may be brought away with great safety both to it and the mother when they present, without looking for the feet, vid. pag. 46, 58, &c. The case may also be very despe­rate, and yet not possible to bring the child away by the feet. E. G. When the head is too large and sticks in the passage, when the head is born, [Page 65]but sticks because of the largeness of the shoul­ders, or when the belly is full of water, as in the case mentioned pag. 14. &c.

DR. C—writes thus, 1720. ‘Cum Vagina sit nimis angusta, vel pelvis naturaliter parva, vel Foetus solito major, una nonnuquam continua rima seu scissura ab vulva ad anum, fit, quod valde pe­riculosum est & mulierem, si evadat, in posterum sterilem reddit.’

THIS case I have found, by repeated expe­rience, not to be at all dangerous, in persons other­wise healthy; and am satisfied that it will contri­bute as little to making them barren as a broken leg.

Deductions from the premisses.

THUS you see what a number of children have been lost, what a number of women have suffered great and needless pains, and have been brought into the utmost danger of their lives, nay have actually fallen Martyrs, Sacrifices, or Victims, as they term it, in the very flower of their age, to the imprudence and ignorance of Midwomen, nay, and Doctor Midmen, vid. pag. 62, 63. and these only from the accounts of what fell under the cognisance of two Midmen, viz. Giffard and Chap­man. But pray how high may we suppose the ac­count might have risen, if every Midman, &c. who practised in England, since the end of the last cen­tury, i. e. thirty-five years back, had also made up their accounts? What a black list would it be? Is it not shocking to think on't? Are not these ac­counts [Page 66]of their blunders enough to frighten the women from ever trusting to a Midwoman any more? But if the Midwomen in, and about London and Westminster, are so generally and so grosly ig­norant, as those gentlemen have represented them, what must they be in the country? What havock must they make among his Majesty's subjects? What numbers of fine women and children must daily fall a sacrifice by the very hands, proh dolor! from whom they expected relief? Is not this a me­lancholy and deplorable case? Is it not an evil which demands both a speedy and an effectual re­medy? Can any thing better deserve the attention even of the Legislature itself? But granting their ig­norance to be as great as they suppose, pray will calling of names, such as Rude, Rough, Negligent, Ignorant, Foolish, Novice, Obstinate, Over-confi­dent, Supine, Unskilful, Conceited, Self-suffi­cient, Errand Midwives, &c. or Rebuking, Blam­ing, Checking, and Reprimanding, &c. these gentle­men have so liberally bestowed upon them, make them more prudent or judicious, or enable them in any degree to give better assistance themselves, and thereby put a stop to the great evil they com­plain of so loudly? Surely no!

PRAY have these Gentlemen Complainants pro­posed 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? Is not this making mere Nurses of the Midwomen, and — of their patients? Is it not telling them plainly, that they neither do, nor ever shall know any more of the matter, by [Page 67]any information they will give them, than (what they knew before) just to receive a child which drops into their hands? Nay it's much worse, it's making mere Jack-calls of them; i. e. They must hunt about in search of Their prey, and then send for Them to devour it. But these gentlemen's scheme, of being consulted upon every little diffi­culty, is, and always will be, impracticable in many cases, even in London it self, and much more in the country, even tho' the Midwomen were as much at their Beck as they themselves could desire? 1. Because some women are so unseasona­bly modest, or obstinate, that they cannot be pre­vail'd on, on any account, to admit of a Midman, until it's too late. 2. Because some husbands are as much against having their wives laid by Men, as they themselves are. 3. Because some people are so very covetous, that they will not suffer a Mid­man to be sent for soon enough to do any good. 4. Because some people are so very poor, that they cannot bear the expence of a Midman. 5. Because some Midmen are so very inhuman, that they won't touch a poor woman, except they are paid first, vide pag. 24. 6. Because sometimes Midmen can­not be got in time, &c. What would They have the poor Midwomen do in these cases? Are They to be blamed for other people's Tempers, Opinions, or Inhumanity? Tho' They have been often to blame, yet they are not always blameable. What then must we do? Must we always employ Men? Or continue to stand idly by, and suffer our wives and children to be thus cruelly massacred by igno­rant and unhallowed hands? Must we never at­tempt [Page 68]the cure of this Malignant and most Pesti­lent distemper, by which such numbers have been, and daily are destroyed, because no body has hi­therto endeavoured to do it? No! We must apply an effectual remedy, if it can be found, Charity Humanity, and the strongest ties of nature (viz. the preservation of our wives and children) oblige us to do it.

BUT how? What Method will, or can, effectually prevent the disasters complained of above, for the fu­ture? The ignorance of the Midwomen is, undoubted­ly the principal, if not the sole cause of these dire events; and their unskilfulness is certainly owing to their want of a proper education, and not to their want of capacity, and consequently is more their misfor­tune than their fault. Therefore, the only method by which this fatal distemper can be cured, and all its bad consequences for the future avoided, is to put it 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 ever they are permitted to practise: (And then they, who did not readily embrace the opportunity, would not only be deservedly blamed, but ought to be punished by the civil Magistrate:) E. G. They ought to be well instructed, 1. In the knowledge of the nature and situation, not only of the parts of generation in women, but also of the circumjacent parts which may be affected by, or may obstruct delivery; and with the nature and use of the Mem­branes, Waters, Navel-string, Placenta, &c. of the Foetus. 2. In the cause and cure of these disorders and accidents, peculiar to women during their [Page 69]pregnancy, and after their delivery. 3. In the art of Touching, (to the want of which, most of the blunders complained of above, were owing, viz. leaving the Placenta behind, Dragging the womb in­side out, Mistaking the arm for the foot, the Hips for the Head, Thrusting their fingers through the Vagina, &c.) whereby they can not only tell the present state of the woman at any time of her gesta­tion, but also even prevent many of the difficult and dangerous labours (being always sent for so early) which now happen; E. G. The membranes be­ing broke, and often before, they may certainly tell by the touch, what parts present, then suppo­sing it is the navel-string, hips, hand, or any other part but the head, advancing in a right posture, they may at first appearance (the parts being then so moistened by the waters) be easily put back, the feet sought for, and the child extracted by them: Whereas, when they have not art and jugement enough to take this favourable opportunity, nature her self offers; the woman is spent with fruitless pains, the child advances in a wrong posture, or too slowly, if in a right one, her body grows dry, the womb collapses, and contracts so closely about it, and the child is so jammed, and locked between the bones of the Pelvis, that it cannot be extracted without the greatest difficulty and danger, by the most dexterous hands. And how many fall under, or soon after such operations, the fore-mentioned cases abundantly shew. Pray is it not much easier and safer to prevent such blunders, than to under­take thecure of them afterwards? 4. In the most rational Methods of delivering women, at [Page 70]any time of their gestation, of a child, false con­ception, or mole, with jugement, dexterity, and expedition. 5. In the knowledge of those cases where instruments are absolutely necessary, that they may send directly for a Surgeon, instead of fatigueing the mother, and endangering both, by needless delays and fruitless attempts. 6. In the method of using them themselves, where no Sur­geon can be had. Prestat anceps quam nullum ad­bibere remedium.

To which method of qualifying themselves, I doubt not the Midwomen will object and say, that they would readily be at any reasonable expence and fatigue, to be so thoroughly instructed in all the parts of their office, as I propose: but it's not in their power, they have no opportu­nity of following this scheme. How can they do it? The Midwomen cannot, and the Midmen won't instruct them. What then would you have them do? Can you blame these good women then, for doing as well as they can, nay as well as their Mistresses who taught them the little they do know, tho' not so well as they would, had they had the opportunities of being instructed, as above-mention­ed? To which I answer, I own their Plea to be just and reasonable, until these opportunities are put in their power.

THE Midmen, I doubt not, will object and say, that the Midwomen want both Capacity and Strength (instruct them as ye please) to perform what I propose. To which I reply, That this is only an artful and groundless insinuation, and do affirm, (ore rotundo, plenis buccis) that it's not want [Page 71]of Capacity, Docility, Strength, or Activity, but merely 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 dexterous Midman; which is evident to a demonstration, from the successful practice of the Midwomen in the Hotel Dieu at Paris, (the best school for Midwomen now in Europe) where they hardly ever want the assistance of a Surgeon, excepting where instruments must be used: Which is frankly owned by Monsieur de la Motte, who says, that during the space of six months, wherein he attended amongst the women in the Hotel Dieu at Paris, there was but one hard labour happened where there was the least oc­casion for a Surgeon, and even that was at last fi­nished by nature; and in that time there were a­bove four hundred delivered, almost all by the Apprentices, and very rarely by Madam du Ter­tre, who was then first Midwife. I have also been informed lately, by a correspondent at Paris, that there are now about two thousand women delivered in that hospital, communibus annis, without the assi­stance of a Surgeon, excepting as above. Would not any person then be deservedly laughed at who should assert, that our women are not as capable of performing their office, had they the same in­structions, as the French women?

BUT this charge of the Midmen will appear still more groundless, if we consider the nature of the blunders they are charged with by Dr. Cham­berlen, Giffard, and Chapman, in the cases before [Page 72]mentioned, viz. of Pulling at the child's arm, In­verting the Matrix, Mistaking the hand for the foot, Leaving the Placenta behind, Being ignorant of the art of Touching, &c. &c. Pray do these charges prove their want of Capacity, Docility, or Strength? Surely no! All that can be reasonably de­duced from them, is, that they want a proper edu­cation, which is their misfortune more than their fault, and what I'm endeavouring to put in their power to have. Pray is there a Midwoman in England so stupid, as not to be easily convinced, that pulling at the arm is wrong and to no purpose; that tugging too hard at the Navel-string, or laying hold of the fund of the womb, instead of the Pla­centa, will invert the Uterus; or, that missing their time to take away the Placenta, when the passage is open, makes it both difficult, painful, nay, and dangerous to extract it afterwards; or that could not with proper pains be instructed, to act rationally in these or most other cases? Pray is there any branch of Surgery in which so many of the family of — have been and are engaged, as in the business of Midwifery? (Yet some of them are very learned and knowing Men.) An affair of such vast importance to mankind.

How can it be made appear, that Doctors, Apothecaries, and the lowest class of Surgeons, who are as little acquainted with the other princi­pal operations of Surgery, as the very women them­selves, are more capable of performing these ope­rations than They, who have much more practice, and many of them as good capacities? Pray where­in consists the secret? It requires no Mathematicks, [Page 73]no skill in Philosophy, no University learning at all, otherwise most of the Midmen would be di­stanced as well as all the Midwomen. Has not all ages produced women who have made a figure in the most sublime parts of learning, and in all man­ner of curious and useful arts; and also illiterate thick-headed Priests, Lawyers, and Physicians? All which is occasioned by nothing so much as having, or wanting, a proper education. Why then, is it not rational to suppose, that they might also be made capable of assisting their own sex, at that time when it is least proper for Men to come near them?

BUT now to come to the main point, viz. How the method I propose for the regular instruction of the Midwomen, can be put in execution? To which I answer: 1. That an hospital be erected, E. G. in London or Westminster (at the publick expence, by donation, or subscriptions, as several Alms-houses, Infirmaries, Hospitals, &c. of far less consequence to the Commonweal, have been and are daily carried on) for the reception of about two or three hundred poor women who are big with child. 2. That a proper number of Midwomen be appointed to attend them. 3. That two Surgeon Midmen be appointed to assist these Midwomen in all extraordinary cases, and to de­monstrate the structure of the parts concerned, ex­plain the art of touching, &c. as above, in set lectures, at least three times a week, to all the Midwomen and their apprentices who please to attend. 4. That every young woman, who designs to practice Midwifery, [Page 74]shall be obliged to attend these courses during her apprenticeship; then go and practise, for a set time, under those expert Midwomen in that Ho­spital: Afterwards let them be examined as to the skill and knowledge they have acquired in their profession, by the two Surgeons, (since our Dom, fac. totum take Midwifery either to be no part of Surgery, or such a trifling part of it, that it's be­low their notice; notwithstanding some of them can distinguish, to a mathematical exactness, how many grains of more knowledge in Surgery is re­quisite for a Surgeon of a first, than of a second rate Man of War,) and six or seven other persons, appointed by his majesty, (because I don't think it reasonable, that so many people's bread should de­pend on the humour and caprice of any two Men only,) and if approved, to receive from them a certificate of their fitness to practise in London or any where else. 5. That, until fit Hospitals can be built and endowed, a Midman be appointed in every city, or county-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.

If this, or same such SCHEME, was put in execution, in the principal town; of the kingdom, I'm satisfied, in a very few years there would hardly be an ignorant Midwoman in England, and consequently the great agonies, most wo­men suffer at the very mention of a Man, would be almost entirely prevented; the great expence they cost saved; [Page 75]and the melancholy scenes above-mentioned, would be no more seen nor heard of. What can be more Desirable? What can shew more Humanity? What can be more Charitable, than to pursue a Design, whereby the lives of so many innocent children, and valuable women, may be yearly, nay daily, saved from destruction?