Of the celebrated Dr. Baillie, who occupies pre-eminently the public confidence, and whose contributions to medical knowledge will honour his name to the latest posterity, it would be insulting to offer a defence. Nor indeed are we aware of an implication that either his conduct or that of the other respectable physician, Dr. Sims, was deemed impeachable.
Doctors Baillie and Croft seem to have been in attendance early on the first day, and, in the evening of that day, the latter judged it expedient to have, at immediate command, the counsel of Dr. Sims. This, as a precautionary step, is honorable to Dr. Croft, and will ever shield him against a successful imputation of temerity. It seems probable, however, that Dr. Sims was not introduced to the Princess till after the accouchement; and upon this circumstance, much severity of comment has been indulged.
Advocating, as we have, the moral management of child-birth, we believe, without the slightest reservation, that the arrangements which were made, were best adapted to sustain confidence and courage in a protracted case of natural labor; and that the unnecessary interference of another practitioner would have been improper. It is not certain that Dr. Sims was held merely in reservation; but if he were, on Dr. Croft alone the competency to judge could rest; and whilst experience justifies his competency, a most striking pledge is given that he was not actuated by rashness.
A painful reference was made to the preliminary arrangements; but in us their simplicity excites admiration. There is a certain, and, perhaps, indispensable attendance on the parturient royal female, unknown in subordinate society; but irrespective of this, it seems to have been efficient and not superfluous. Can it be supposed that a privilege was denied to this amiable Princess, which is claimed by every woman in the country; that of selecting her own attendants?—and that no supernumerary solicitous matron should be in waiting—and that no unnecessary fears should be created by needless medical introduction, exhibits a regard to moral influence which should ever be in requisition.
All the lucubrations of censoriousness have not been noticed:—because, by establishing prudence as well as reputation in the more prominent and responsible acts, it may safely be believed that objects of less moment were not disregarded.
To illustrate the cause of death would be indelicate. It was one of those uncontrolable incidents which characterize the precariousness of human life, and which must be referred to the “will of God,” the wisdom of whose providential administration will be developed in a future world.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] “Yesterday, Aug. 6, 1801,” (says the late excellent Bishop Porteus), “I passed a very pleasant day at Shrewsbury House, near Shooter’s Hill, the residence of the Princess Charlotte of Wales. The day was fine, and the prospect extensive and beautiful, taking in a large reach of the Thames, which was covered with vessels of various sizes and descriptions. We saw a good deal of the young Princess. She is a most captivating and engaging child, and, considering the high station she may hereafter fill, a most interesting and important one. She repeated to me several of her hymns with great correctness and propriety; and on being told that when she went to South-end, in Essex, as she afterwards did, for the benefit of sea-bathing, she would then be in my diocese, she fell down on her knees and begged my blessing.”—Life of Porteus, by Hodgson, p. 160.
[2] We recollect a most striking instance of this dexterity. An elderly and most susceptible lady was under the management of a respectable country practitioner, for a complication of nervous diseases. On paying one of his accustomed visits, he was alarmed for the safety of his patient. She had passed a night of unspeakable agitation, and her irritability was then excessive. It was attributed to an idea of having been poisoned by the compounder of her medicine, and she believed herself in the embrace of death. “Madam,” said the gentleman peremptorily, “I was aware of the accident, and brought with me an antidote.” He had immediate recourse to her former medicine, with some little disguise, which she took, and soon became tranquil. It is highly probable, had not some such method been adopted, she might actually have perished. See also a very interesting case in the Quarterly Review for July, 1816, p. 397.
[3] I do not think it inconsistent or irrelative to quote a passage from the Sermon of a celebrated preacher.