Her claim to have given birth to various animal parts prompted the arrival of John Howard, a local surgeon, who investigated the matter.

He delivered several pieces of animal flesh and duly notified other prominent physicians, which brought the case to the attention of Nathaniel St. André, surgeon to the Royal Household of King George I. St. André concluded that Toft's case was genuine but the king also sent surgeon Cyriacus Ahlers, who remained sceptical.

By then quite famous, Toft was brought to London where she was studied in detail; under intense scrutiny and producing no more rabbits she confessed to the hoax, and was subsequently imprisoned as a fraud.

The scandal left a lasting impact on public trust in the medical field, contributing to widespread scepticism about the competence and ethics of physicians during that era.

others are angry at the Account, and say, that if it be a Fact, a Veil should be drawn over it, as an Imperfection in human Nature.The 'poor Woman', Mary Toft, was twenty-four or twenty-five years old.

This neighbour then showed the pieces to her mother and to her mother-in-law, Ann Toft, who in contemporary accounts of the affair is named as a local midwife despite not being officially listed as one in the parish register or the list of women who received a Bishop’s license [9] It is possible that Ann, who had twelve children, unofficially assisted local poorer women with childbirth on the basis of her knowledge and experiences.

[11][12] Some of the letters he wrote to Davenant to notify him of any progress in the case came to the attention of Nathaniel St. André, since 1723 a Swiss surgeon to the Royal Household.

[14]By the middle of November the British Royal Family were so interested in the story that they sent St. André and Samuel Molyneux, secretary to the Prince of Wales, to investigate.

[17] Convinced the affair was a hoax, he lied, telling those involved that he believed Toft's story, before making his excuses and returning to London, taking specimens of the rabbits with him.

Upon closer study, he reportedly found evidence of them having been cut with a man-made instrument, and noted pieces of straw and grain in their droppings.

[20][24][25] Printed in the early days of newspapers, the story became a national sensation, although some publications were sceptical, the Norwich Gazette viewing the affair simply as female gossip.

[28] Rabbit stew and jugged hare disappeared from the dinner table, while as unlikely as the story sounded, many physicians felt compelled to see Toft for themselves.

The political writer John Hervey later told his friend Henry Fox that: Every creature in town, both men and women, have been to see and feel her: the perpetual emotions, noises and rumblings in her Belly are something prodigious; all the eminent physicians, surgeons and man-midwives in London are there Day and Night to watch her next production.Under St. André's strict control, Toft was studied by a number of eminent physicians and surgeons, including John Maubray.

He was reportedly happy to attend Toft, pleased that her case appeared to vindicate his theories,[31] but man-midwife James Douglas, like Manningham, presumed that the affair was a hoax and despite St. André's repeated invitations, kept his distance.

Douglas was one of the country's most respected anatomists and a well-known man-midwife, whereas St. André was often considered to be a member of the court only because of his ability to speak the king's native German.

When Manningham informed him of the suspected hog's bladder, and after he examined Toft, he refused to engage St. André on the matter:[33] To be able to determine, to the Satisfaction and Conviction of all sorts of Persons, other Arguments were necessary, than Anatomy, or any other Branch of Physick [sic], could furnish.

Convinced he had enough evidence to proceed, in a letter to physician Sir Hans Sloane he wrote that the affair had "almost alarmed England" and that he would soon publish his findings.

[7] The British Journal reported that on 7 January 1727 she appeared at the Courts of Quarter Sessions at Westminster, charged "for being an abominable cheat and imposter in pretending to be delivered of several monstrous births".

Mist's Weekly Journal of 24 December 1726 reported that "the nurse has been examined as to the person's concerned with her, but either was kept in the dark as to the imposition, or is not willing to disclose what she knows; for nothing can be got from her; so that her resolution shocks others.

In February 1728 (recorded as 1727 Old Style), she gave birth to a daughter, Elizabeth, noted in the Godalming parish register as her "first child after her pretended Rabett-breeding.

William Hogarth published Cunicularii, or The Wise Men of Godliman in Consultation (1726), which portrays Toft in the throes of labour, surrounded by the tale's chief participants.

[53] The timing of Toft's confession proved awkward (and unfortunate) for St. André, who on 3 December had published his forty-page pamphlet A Short Narrative of an Extraordinary Delivery of Rabbets.

[51] On this document the surgeon had staked his reputation, and although it offers a more empirical account of the Toft case than earlier more fanciful publications about reproduction in general, ultimately it was derided.

[54] Ahlers, his scepticism justified, published Some observations concerning the woman of Godlyman in Surrey, which details his account of events and his suspicion of the complicity of both St. André and Howard.

[60] The damage done to the medical profession was such that several doctors not connected with the tale felt compelled to print statements that they had not believed Toft's story.

On 7 January 1727 Mist's Weekly Journal satirised the matter, making several allusions to political change, and comparing the affair to the events of 1641 when Parliament began its revolution against King Charles I.

[63] With publications such as St. André's Miscarriage (1727) and The anatomist dissected: or the man-midwife finely brought to bed (1727) satirists scorned the objectivity of men-midwives, and critics of Toft's attendants questioned their integrity, undermining their profession with sexual puns and allusions.

Poking fun at her illiteracy, it makes a number of obscene suggestions hinting at her promiscuity—"I wos a Wuman as had grate nattural parts, and a large Capassiti, and kapible of being kunserned in depe Kuntrivansis.

"[66][67] The document also ridicules several of the physicians involved in the affair, and reflects the general view portrayed by the satirists that Toft was a weak woman and the least complicit of "the offenders" (regardless of her guilt).

The ballad opens with the following verse:[69][70] Most true it is, I dare to say, E'er since the Days of Eve, The weakest Woman sometimes may The wisest Man deceive.