Medical evidence relative to the duration of human pregnancy, as given in the Gardner Peerage Cause, before the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords in 1825-6 / With introductory remarks and notes by Robert Lyall.

Date:
1826
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Medical evidence relative to the duration of human pregnancy, as given in the Gardner Peerage Cause, before the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords in 1825-6 / With introductory remarks and notes by Robert Lyall. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    50/136 (page 18)
    I)r. William Hunter rightly, the last clause of it is this,—that he has known one woman who went fourteen days heyond nine calen¬ dar months, and he believes that there were two who went beyond ten calendar months*. Have you investigated those cases?—I have at home a manu¬ script copy of Dr. William Hunter’s lectures. Mr. Tindal submitted that this was not evidence; that the exa¬ mination must he confined to the general opinion of the person referred to. Mr. Adam submitted, that if Dr. William Hunter’s opinion was to be received, founded as it Avas on two instances, those two instances ought to be inquired into. The counsel were informed, that the note in Coke on .Littleton Avas supposed to be a note of Dr. Hunter; but that could be knoAvn to the Avitness only by report; that the question ought to be put on the supposition of such being stated, whether he knew what was the fact. (Mr. Le Marchant.) Within your experience, has any case hap¬ pened of a Avoman going in gestation beyond ten calendar months? —1 have never known one go ten months; and though I have looked over the reports upon the subject, I have never read [of] one, the internal evidence of which was satisfactory proof; I have never met one that approached it. The greater number of those on record are on the very face of them absurd ; cases of three years pregnancy ! Did you ever hear of a case of nine months and a fortnight? — I never met with one. The only one on record, which I remember at this moment, is the one alluded to by Dr. William Hunter, in his note. What case is that?—I know nothing more of it than what Dr. William Hunter mentions in the note. (By a Lord.) Suppose a woman bore a living child fourteen days later than nine calendar months; how do you reconcile that with your statements?—I have never witnessed a thing of the kind ; and in order to satisfy myself about it, I should like to know the grounds on which Dr. William Hunter stated that fact; for after all, he says, “ I know of one, and believe there were two;” by what means he could know of this one I am at a loss to under- * As this note is of importance, we think proper to insert it.—“ We were curious to know the general sentiments of that eminent anatomist, Dr. Hunter, on three interesting questions. These were, What is the usual period for a woman’s going with child ?—what is the earliest time for a child’s being born alive ?—and what the latest ? The answer, which he obligingly returned through a friend, we have liberty to publish; and it was expressed in the words following :—1. The usual period is nine calendar months; hut there is very commonly a difference of one, two, or three weeks. 2. A child may he horn alive at any time from three months; hut we see none born ivith powers of coming to manhood, or of being reared, before seven calendar months, or near that time. At six months it cannot he. 3. / have known a woman bear a living child, in a perfectly natural way fourteen days later than nine calendar months, and believe two women to have been delivered of a child alive, in a natural way, above ten calendar months from the hour of conception.”—Paris and Fonblanque’s Medical Jurisprudence, vol. iii, p, 218 ; as taken from Hargrave’s Jurisconsult Exer- citations.