It is from this principle, that, with so fair a field for raillery, often not the least forcible of arguments, I have, against those who are such advocates for the use of _anatomy_ in _midwifery_, abstained from laying any stress on the famous imposition of the Rabbet-woman of Godalmin, upon professors of anatomy. I am so far from attacking anatomy, that I aver, every good midwife ought to know _enough_ of it to assist her practice. This would not however constitute her an anatomist, nor is it requisite that she should be one. Footnote 25: “Il faut d’abord placer convenablement la malade, c’est-à-dire, sur le bord de son lit; les cuisses élevées et écartées, les pieds rapprochés des fesses, et maintenus en cette situation par des aides dont on soit sûr.” _Levret_, UTILITÉ DU NOUVEAU FORCEPS COURBE, p. 161. Footnote 26: “Si on s’arrêtoit au précepte général, le _forceps_ seroit un instrument de pure spéculation et non de pratique.” Lev. p. 161. Footnote 27: The term _imaginary_ is here far from an unjust one, and why should not the honor of a deliverance, effectuated by Nature, be as well given to a being of flesh and blood as to a stone? The virtue of the _ætites_, or Eagle-stone, has currently passed for abridging the pains of labor, and accelerating parturition. A French consul in Egypt, ordered one of those stones to be tied to his wife’s thigh, who was in a lingering labor. The stone in this case, more innocent than probably a man-midwife would have been, who would have used means to hurry the birth, or perhaps have gone to work with his _forceps_ at least, suffered Nature quietly to go her own pace. What was the consequence? The lady was soon after happily delivered, which there is no doubt but she would equally have been if a brick-bat had been tied to her thigh. But Nature lost the thanks so justly due to her: the stone ran away with all her merit; and this case was added to the catalogue of the miraculous operations of the stone. In how many cases might it be said, that the stone here represents the man-midwife, if to the stone it was not so much more innocent and less dangerous to have a recourse? Footnote 28: See La Motte, p. 646, of the quarto edition, Leyden. Footnote 29: See La Motte, p. 262. lib. v. chap. 2. Footnote 30: If these _best_ operators had been examined touching their opinion of midwives; they would most probably have told you, they were a parcel of poor insignificant ignorant creatures. Footnote 31: Dr. Smellie seems to countenance this practice, where he says, p. 232. “_We have already observed_, (p. 229) _that if there is no danger from a flooding, the woman may be allowed to rest a little, in order to recover from the fatigue she has undergone, and that the uterus may in contracting have time to squeeze and separate the placenta from its inner surface._” Footnote 32: