and he is thus enabled to clear up the doubts which might be supposed to embarrass its history; the fact is, that _both the children were born perfect_, the first therefore _could not_ have been a six month’s child; and with respect to the _distressing circumstances_ which attended the delivery, _Dr. Granville_ appears to have fallen into an important error; he speaks of them as having “brought on the premature contraction of the womb, so as to expel _part_ of its contents in November,” whereas upon referring to the particular expressions used by _Dr. Maton_ in the paper alluded to, we shall soon perceive that they by no means support the assumption of the labour having been _premature_, nor that it was _brought on_ by distressing circumstances; on the contrary, we find upon farther inquiry that the distressing circumstances to which the author alludes were the natural consequence, not the active cause of the labour; indeed the fact, as we learn from _Dr. Maton_, stood thus,—the lady could not obtain better accommodation at the time; that the labour, although quick, was not sudden, for the accoucheur was already in attendance; and that it was not premature, for the natural period of utero-gestation was supposed to have been completed. We must not omit to state that all the particular circumstances of the case were communicated to _Dr. Maton_ by the husband of the lady, and as he could not have had any particular theory to maintain, or any private interest to serve, there cannot exist any good reason for questioning the veracity of his testimony, or the justness of our conclusions.