“London Cyclopaedia of Practical Medicine,” article Puerperal Fever, 1833.

Mr. Ceeley’s Account of the Puerperal Fever at Aylesbury.  “Lancet,” 1835.

Dr. Ramsbotham’s Lecture.  “London Medical Gazette,” 1835.

Mr. Yates Ackerly’s Letter in the same Journal, 1838.

Mr. Ingleby on Epidemic Puerperal Fever.  “Edinburgh Medical and Surgical
Journal,” 1838.

Mr. Paley’s Letter.  “London Medical Gazette,” 1839.

Remarks at the Medical and Chirurgical Society.  “Lancet,” 1840.

Dr. Rigby’s “System of Midwifery.” 1841.

“Nunneley on Erysipelas,”—­a work which contains a large number of references on the subject. 1841.

“British and Foreign Quarterly Review,” 1842.

Dr. S. Jackson of Northumberland, as already quoted from the Summary of the College of Physicians, 1842.

And lastly, a startling series of cases by Mr. Storrs of Doncaster, to be, found in the “American Journal of the Medical Sciences” for January, 1843.

The relation of puerperal fever with other continued fevers would seem to be remote and rarely obvious.  Hey refers to two cases of synochus occurring in the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, in women who had attended upon puerperal patients.  Dr. Collins refers to several instances in which puerperal fever has appeared to originate from a continued proximity to patients suffering with typhus.

Such occurrences as those just mentioned, though most important to be remembered and guarded against, hardly attract our notice in the midst of the gloomy facts by which they are surrounded.  Of these facts, at the risk of fatiguing repetitions, I have summoned a sufficient number, as I believe, to convince the most incredulous that every attempt to disguise the truth which underlies them all is useless.

It is true that some of the historians of the disease, especially Hulme, Hull, and Leake, in England; Tonnelle, Duges, and Baudelocque, in France, profess not to have found puerperal fever contagious.  At the most they give us mere negative facts, worthless against an extent of evidence which now overlaps the widest range of doubt, and doubles upon itself in the redundancy of superfluous demonstration.  Examined in detail, this and much of the show of testimony brought up to stare the daylight of conviction out of countenance, proves to be in a great measure unmeaning and inapplicable, as might be easily shown were it necessary.  Nor do I feel the necessity of enforcing the conclusion which arises spontaneously from the facts which have been enumerated, by formally citing the opinions of those grave authorities who have for the last half-century been sounding the unwelcome truth it has cost so many lives to establish.

“It is to the British practitioner,” says Dr. Rigby, “that we are indebted for strongly insisting upon this important and dangerous character of puerperal fever.”