IN the first example we see that De la Motte was guilty of three grievous errors. The first, in taking the nape of the neck for the mouth: the second, in having taken the time of the mother’s throw, in which the uterus must have contracted round the neck in all directions, to turn the body of the child, which contributed to twist its neck: thirdly, in having given the body of the child to the husband to hold, with direction to pull it, even tho’ he cautioned him to do it gently. He ought rather not to have trusted him with the body at all, or have absolutely forbid him to make the least motion, his part being only to support it. IN the second example, De la Motte committed no more than the last fault, in trusting a midwife, of whom he might not know all the stupidity: but this was sufficient to produce that accident; an accident which it will not even be hard to avoid, with due management, or hands skilfully conducted. WITH Mons. Levret’s leave (whom I ought to honor, since it is from him I have chiefly taken what he has said against all instruments but his own) I shall then say, that it is against the laws of candor, or of common sense, to seek, from the faults which may be committed in the manual practice, either through ignorance, inadvertence, or want of circumspection, to infer the necessity of instruments. THE point here under discussion turns intirely upon a child extracted by the feet. Now it is extremely rare, that in this case, the head does not follow the body. But if, in exception to this general rule, the head should be stopped in the passage, upon proceeding to disengage it, with all the proper measures and precautions which I have added to those above specified from Mauriceau, the sole aid of the hands will be full sufficient to accomplish the total delivery. But if they were to be ill managed, the risk would be evidently great of detaching the body from the head; and this would change the case from that of the head stuck in the passage, to the one of the head separated from the body, of which I have treated in the preceding section. Without then multiplying cases without necessity, as the reader will easily see, that the first is but the consequence of a mis-treatment of the last, so that, by the same rule, the right management of the last case is a sure prevention of the first, I shall only observe, that it might be shewn, that capable, well-conducted hands are sufficient to guard against both dangers, and shewn, even by Mons. Levret’s own confession, which he so inconsistently contradicts, in favor of his own instrument, without offering any thing like a reason for such a contradiction.