“In former times the necessity of Baptism to new born infants was so rigorously taught, that for this reason they allowed lay people and even women, to baptize the declining child, where a priest could not be immediately found; so fondly superstitious in this matter, that in hard labours the head of the infant was sometimes baptized before the whole delivery; this office of baptizing in such cases of necessity was commonly performed by the midwife; and tis very probable, this gave first occasion to midwives being licensed by the bishop, because they were to be first examined by the bishop or his delegated officer, whether they could repeat the form of baptism which they were in haste to administer upon such extraordinary occasions. But we thank God our times are reformed in sense and in religion.” (Watson’s Cler. Law, c. 31, p. 318.) The concluding sentence appears to be somewhat ill placed, for a few lines before the reverend author says, “And Note, that a child baptized with water in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is sufficiently baptized, although not baptized by a lawful priest, as may be collected from the Rubrick; and so it is if the child be baptized by other form, yet the person baptizing not being a lawful priest is punishable, like as a lawful priest baptizing by other form than is set down by the Book of Common Prayer is punishable;” and a few lines after, he says, that a Clergyman “ought not to bury the corps of any person dying unbaptized:” surely if the baptism of a child by a lay person is good, and the body cannot have Christian Burial without it, there is nothing senseless or irreligious, and we will venture to add nothing morally or legally wrong, in the performance of this provisional ceremony. If there were no other object than to satisfy the anxiety of the mother at a moment when the calmness of her feelings is vitally important, it ought not to be omitted whenever the danger of the child and the absence of a priest appear to render it necessary.

Burn says, “By several constitutions, the minister was required frequently to instruct the people, in the form of words to be used in such cases of necessity,” (2 Burn’s Ecc. Law, p. 469,) and the oath administered by the bishops to licensed midwives, (See Appx. 160,) though, it does not command, implies that baptism may be administered by other than a priest. “You shall not be privy, or consent that any priest or other party shall in your absence or in your company, or of your knowledge or sufferance baptize any child by any mass, latin service or prayers, than such as are appointed by the laws of the Church of England:” here the prohibition is to the form not the person.

Whatever may have been the origin of the bishop’s license, his jurisdiction does not appear to have been sanctioned by the law. “If there be a suit in the Spiritual Court against a woman for exercising the trade of a midwife without license of the Ordinary, against the Canons, a prohibition lieth: for this is not any spiritual function, of which they have cognisance. Buskin and Cripes, Tr. 9, Ch. BR and a prohibition was granted accordingly.” (2 Roll Abr. 286. 2 Burn, Ecc. Law, Tit. Midwife.)

In the reign of Charles the first, a Doctor of Physic attempted a project to procure the sole and absolute power, either to license or approve of all the midwives practising in and about London, before their admittance; they presented a petition to the President and College of Physicians, (for which see Goodall’s Pro. 463,) in which it appears that a petition on the same subject having been presented to the King, his Majesty referred the same to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London, in whose jurisdictions and by whose authority, it is stated, that they had always been licensed; the object of the petition to the College, was to obtain their certificate of the competent skill of the petitioners, for which purpose they alleged that other practisers in midwifery had been examined upon the like occasion, by command from King James; the physicians by their answer, (for which see Appendix) discouraged the scheme of the would-be licencer, and the matter thereupon appears to have been dropped.

We have before noticed, that there is some probability that both the College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons will decline all future interference with this branch; if so, it will be necessary that some new authority should be instituted for the purpose of examining and licensing candidates for practice; the duty to be performed is by far too dangerous and delicate to be left to the hands of any who would assume it; yet such is at present the case, and not without fatal examples of the errors and imperfections of our lego-medical system.

We do not of course include in this censure, the private Institutions for the instruction of midwives, in which the want of a public provision is endeavoured to be compensated; but the operation of such societies must be of necessity very limited and utterly inadequate, not only to the demands of the empire, but to the magnitude of the metropolis.