evidence in its favour, and have, we trust, tended not a little to diminish the frequency of perforation. On the Continent it experienced a very different reception, being regarded as immoral, barbarous, and unjustifiably endangering the life of the mother and her child. In France, although at first successfully adopted by a few practitioners, (_Sue_,) its farther progress was completely stopped by the powerful opposition of Baudelocque, and by the plausible though erroneous objections which he made against it. A similar course was pursued by Gardien and Capuron, and even by the celebrated Madame la Chapelle, all of whom have taken a singularly incorrect view of it and assign it a totally different object to that which is intended: the very name which they have given to it of _Avortement artificiel_, plainly shows how little they have understood of its real character. Among his objections, Baudelocque states, that "the neck of the uterus at seven months has seldom begun to open; it is still very thick and firm. The pains, or the contractions of that viscus, cannot then be procured but by a mechanical irritation pretty strong and long continued; but those pains, being contrary to the intentions of nature, often cease the instant we leave off exciting them in that manner. If we break the membranes before the orifice of the uterus be sufficiently open for the passage of the child, and the action of that viscus strong enough to expel it, the pains will go off in the same manner for a time, and the labour afterwards will be very long and fatiguing; the child deprived of the waters which protected it from the action of the uterus, being then immediately pressed upon by that organ, will be a victim to its action before things be favourably disposed for its exit, and the fruit of so much labour and anxiety will be lost. Premature delivery obtained in this manner is always so unfavourable to the child, that I think it ought never to be permitted except in those cases of violent hæmorrhage which leave no chance for the woman's life without delivery; the nature of the accident also disposes the parts properly for it." (_Baudelocque_, transl. by Heath, § 1986, 1987.) All this plainly shows that Baudelocque did not rightly understand the real objects and nature of artificial premature labour, to which, in fact, his objections do not apply, but to the _accouchement forcé_ of the French practitioners, where, on account of the sudden accession of dangerous symptoms, such as hæmorrhage, convulsions, &c. &c., the os uteri was rapidly and violently dilated by the hand, which was then passed into the uterus, the feet seized, and the child forcibly delivered, an operation which is now rarely performed in Germany and never in this country.