the minds of old women and pregnant ladies; and at the same time, very properly has not omitted to acquaint his readers, that he is a Man-midwife, and also a Physician, and capable of telling Mr. Williamson what he should have done!! and to save the public the trouble of inquiring who Dr. Boys is, he has added the important information that he is a teacher of Midwifery, and that one pupil attended with him when the unfortunate woman was opened, and also, that he lives in Mortimer Street!! It is very extraordinary, that Doctor Boys should address his letter to Sir James Earle, who does not profess to be acquainted with the obstetric art: he might as well have addressed his observations and reflections to the old nurse that recommends him; or, if popularity be his object, why not to the pregnant ladies of Great Britain?

Sir James Earle, as might be expected, has expressed his entire disapprobation of Doctor Boys's publication, and also his surprise, that the learned professor of Midwifery, should presume to address him on the subject; and Dr. Boys has, in consequence, been under the necessity of canceling the first sheet, and omitting the name of Sir James Earle in his pamphlet.

Sir James is a gentleman of great humanity and liberality, and his conduct on this occasion, has proved him to be also a man of penetration. He

сс

discovered, no doubt, something like sinister views; something he could not countenance.

As the case has not been fairly laid before the public, we shall here give a narrative of it as it really happened.

On a Friday morning, Mr. Williamson was requested to visit the patient: on his arrival, he was told by the nurse; that the "membranes had broken," but that Mrs. D. had very little pain. Mr. W. finding that the labour pains did not come on, and that the discharge of the water was preceded by very trifling pains, left her, and desired the nurse to send to him when the labour pains came on. He returned home, and continued there till he was sent for a second time. He then found his patient actually in labour, and on examination, discovered the legs of the child in the vagina, and the os uteris being properly dilated, the child was soon after delivered. One arm of the child was unfortunately bent with the hand in the axilla, so that on conducting the child into the world, the elbow unfortunately slipped into the cavity of the abdomen (the womb, and probably the vagina, being in a morbid state) a considerable hæmorrhage, of course, followed, which induced Mr. Williamson to have recourse to some force, to accelerate the delivery of the placenta, in order that the uterus might contract, and check

the flow of blood. In this attempt, the umbilical cord gave way, and the hæmorrhage in a great measure ceasing, Mr. Williamson thought it most prudent to postpone the delivery of the placenta by manual force, and left it to nature to expel. The patient, the following day, was pretty well, and nothing afterwards occurred to induce Mr. Williamson to hasten the expulsion of the placenta. A portion of the intestines and mysentery having passed through the lacerated part into the vagina, the nurse, on placing the patient over the pot, observed it protruding through the mouth of the vagina, which, she supposing to be the after-birth, immediately sent to Mr. Williamwho finding the vagina full of something, that to the feel resembled the placenta and membranes, endeavoured to bring it away, but on finding it not practicable by a little force, he determined on removing by the scissors so much of it as protruded, in consequence of the nurse insisting that it prevented the evacuation of the urine. This operation being done under the sheets, Mr. Williamson really thought, that he had only excised a portion of the placenta, and under that conviction, did not even examine it, but told the nurse to preserve it, that he might be satisfied when the whole of the placenta came away. He did not even think of concealing it, or forcing it into the fire, to escape detection. Now, as this is

son;

a true state of the case, all Dr. Boys's learned arguments fall to the ground, and we are persuaded, no practitioner in Midwifery in this country, but will pronounce Mr. Williamson a much injured

man.

Doctor Boys observes, that in the practice of Midwifery, no man is at liberty to hesitate, or ask himself what method he shall pursue, but act according to the instructions given him by his teachers!!! This advice may do for practitioners without brains, or not possessing such powers of reflection as Dr. Boys may boast of; however, were this prompt and immediate assistance, which he thinks proper to term it, given in such cases, under all circumstances, we should hear of many more unfortunate cases than we do.

Had Doctor Boys reflected on this case, and the consequences that were likely to follow a popular exposition of the particulars, we think he would have acted more wisely. One would, indeed, have thought, that the evidence he gave on the trial, would have satisfied him. Mr. Williamson, strange to tell, was indicted for no less a crime than murder; and Dr. Boys, in his evidence, left nothing undone to prove him guilty of it. Nearly three pages of the pamphlet are occupied in a kind of advertisement of Dr. Boys and his friends. Mr. Brookes, he informs his readers, is a teacher of Anatomy, a Member of the Royal College of Sur

geons, &c. &c. and lives in Blenheim Street; that Mr. Newby is a very experienced and excellent practitioner in Midwifery: in the same manner, he enumerates ten names, Now, what have the appointments of those practitioners to do with the history of the case? The mere insertion of the names of Mr. Brookes and Dr. Hooper was sufficient. Their characters are well known, and can receive no lustre from any publicity Doctor Boys's pen can give them. We are sorry to see

them introduced in such a work. In the account given of the state of the contents of the abdomen, on dissection, it appears, no examination of the uterus and vagina was made by Mr. Brookes; the state of which, one would have supposed, would have been the first object to ascertain. Indeed the history is so confused, that the reader is at a loss to know, what part of the viscera was left in the abdomen.

Page 14, among the parts that were wanted, is mentioned the uterus; and page 16, this accurate Doctor observes, that after Mr. Brookes had finished his examination, Dr. Hooper requested he would again inspect the parts, to discover whether there was any appearance of putridity!! Doctor Boys then introduced his finger into the uterus, but found nothing like the nature of disease; and yet he states, that there was a fissure in it. Now, had Dr. Boys been ac