reported from the Committee appointed to examine the Physicians who have attended his Majesty during his illness, touching the state of his Majesty's health, and to report such Examination to the House, That the Committee had examined the said physicians; and had directed him to report such Exa- mination to the House. Which Examition is as follows:

REPORT.

The COMMITTEE appointed to examine the Physicians who have attended his Majesty during his Illness; touching the State of his Majesty's health; and to report such Examination to the House:—Have, pursuant to the order of the House, proceeded to examine the said Physicians: Which Examination is as follows:

Veneris, 14 die Decembris, 1810.

Dr. HENRY REVELL REYNOLDS called in; and examined.

Question—Is the state of his Majesty's health such, as to render him incapable of coming in person to his parliament, or of attending to any kind of public business?—A. Certainly, he is incapable.

What are the hopes you entertain of his Majesty's recovery?—I still entertain very confident hopes of his Majesty's recovery.

Do you found the opinion, given in your answer to the previous question, upon the particular symptoms of his Majesty's disorder; or, upon general experience in other cases of the same nature; or upon both?—Upon both; and for this reason: with respect to the particular symptoms of his Majesty, they are favourable, from the circumstances of the soundness of his constitution, preserved by simple and temperate diet, and the regular habits of his life; and also because his memory is as strong and as correct as ever it was, his perceptions as acute, (his judgment is perverted, and he has lost his discretion at present), and also because I have seen his Majesty recover from three attacks of the same disease, in some parts of which I think he has been even worse than he is at present.

Whether, in that particular species of the disorder his Majesty has fallen into, it has been found from experience, that the greater number of persons so affected have been cured?—I believe much the greater number.

Can you form any judgment, or probable conjecture, of the duration of his Majesty's illness?—No, I cannot: our hopes and expectations of a speedy recovery have fluctuated with the fluctuations of his Majesty's complaint; but nothing has hitherto prevented me from thinking favourably of the ultimate termination of the disease.

As far as experience enables you to judge, do you think it more probable that his Majesty will, or will not recover, so as to render him capable of attending to public business?—Yes, I have no doubt; there is such an integrity of mind about his Majesty, that when once his aberrations are gone, he will recover perfectly; how soon, it is impossible for me to say. I suppose some vestiges of complaint may remain when the principal part of the disease shall be removed; but I have no doubt of his being able to discharge his functions just as well as ever.

What degree of experience have you had yourself, in this particular species of disorder?—In the course of upwards of forty years practice, I have seen several instances of it; many.

Has any amendment already taken place in the course of his Majesty's disorder, and does the appearance of such amendment continue at present?—There have been fluctuations; his Majesty has sometimes been better, and sometimes again he has been worse; there have been paroxysms; there have been times when he has been apparently going on well, and then something suddenly has thrown him back: amendment has certainly taken place, but then it has been transient, and he has been a little worse again, and then he has been better again. He is much better now than he was at several periods of the disease.

What is the state of his Majesty's disorder at present, as compared with what it was when you were examined before the privy council?—I perceive but very little difference from what it was at that time.

Can you ascribe his Majesty's disorder to any particular cause?—I understand that it came on from the anxiety of his mind upon the illness of his daughter, the princess Amelia; I believe there can be no doubt of that: those gentlemen who were in attendance upon her, I believe, will satisfy the committee upon that subject; but from their report, I have no doubt it originated from that cause.

When were you first called in?—On the 3d of November.

Who were the physicians in attendance at the time, you were called in?—Dr. Heberden, sir Henry Halford, and Dr. Baillie.

Were they the only physicians in attendance?—They were.

Was there any other confidential me- dical person in attendance at the same time?—Not at the time I went.

Who are the physicians in attendance now?—In addition to those gentlemen and myself, Dr. Robert Willis.

When was Dr. Robert Willis called in?—To the best of my recollection, on Tuesday the 6th of November, in the evening.

Is there any other confidential medical person, now in attendance, besides the physicians?—Mr. Dundas has attended his Majesty: Mr. Battiscomb is his apothecary, and of course, is there occasionally; but there is no other medical person.

Have you had opportunities of seeing the King, from time to time, since your attendance upon his Majesty in the year 1788?—Yes; I saw his Majesty in his illness in the year 1801, and also in his illness in the year 1804.

Have you been called in to attend his Majesty, or have you had any opportunities of seeing his Majesty, in the intervals between those illnesses of 1788, 1801, and 1804, up to the time of your being called in, in this present illness?—I have had few opportunities of seeing his Majesty, except in those illnesses. I have had occasion to see him two or three times on my own business, when he did me the honour of appointing me his physician extraordinary, and then his physicion in ordinary; but not medically.

You have stated that the greater number of patients, labouring under this same sort of infirmity as his Majesty, who have come under your observation, have recovered; do you mean in the greater number, to include patients of the age at which his Majesty has now arrived?—It has not occurred to me, to see any persons at that advanced period of life, labouring under this disease.

Do you know that medicalpeople in general consider, that as life advances, after a certain period, recovery is deemed more improbable?—Yes, I believe that is the general opinion.

Then, in the greater number of patients who have recovered, as stated by you, all those patients were in a class of age below that of the King?—I think so; there was one whose age I do not recollect precisely.

Have you been in the habit of attending any of the public hospitals for the reception of patients under this disease?—No, I have not been in the habit of attending any hospital appropriated to the reception of such patients.

You have stated, that you entertain a very favourable opinion of the King's ultimate recovery; and you have stated one of the reasons of your opinion to be, the soundness of his Majesty's constitution; in those patients whom you have attended, have you not found that very sound constitutions have often been afflicted with incurable maladies of this nature?—No, I do not know that I have often found that.

Have you found it in any instances?—I have seen people who have not recovered.

With very sound constitutions?—Not with such constitutions as the King; probably I should have had great hopes of them, if they had. But I cannot charge my mind now with every patient of the kind I have attended during forty years. The general impression made upon my mind, does not authorize me to answer that question decisively.

When the constitution is so sound, as to afford the medical attendant no reason for the mental infirmity as arising out of that constitution, do you think that the probability of recovery is more or less from that circumstance?—More, certainly from a sound constitution.

If you cannot trace any cause for the infirmity?—If I cannot trace any cause, if there is no hereditary taint, or any obvious cause for it, no external injury, or any thing which looks like organical affection of the brain; I should apprehend a sound constitution affords much the greatest probability of recovery.

You have stated, as another reason, the extreme accuracy of the King's memory; in patients labouring under this infirmity, is not extreme accuracy of memory very frequent, and sometimes what may be called morbid?—I never observed that.

You have also accounted for the probability of the King's recovery, by observing the strict, simple, and temperate diet the King has always used; when patients have come under your observation, Whose habits of life have been exactly the reverse of the King's, has not the reducing them to that strict and temperate diet and life to which the King has been accustomed, afforded the best ground of hope, for medical men, of their recovery?—When excess in the habits of life has been too much indulged, the removal of that excess and the subsequent adoption of a temperate and rather a more sparing regimen, has been frequently attended with success.

What do you mean, by the integrity of the King's mind, at the present time?—I mean, that his memory is entire, his perceptions are entire; and his acuteness is considerable, which appears from every now and then a comment on any thing that is said. His judgment I have said was perverted, and that at present his discretion is asleep at times; though every now and then there are gleams of both, but they are transient.

In detailing the present state of the King's mind, as to his memory, his perceptions, the aberrations of his judgment, and his loss of discretion, is not that state of mind common to all persons labouring under the same infirmity, or are they particular symptoms belonging to the King?—I do not know that I ever saw exactly a case parallel to the King's; the disease is modified by his peculiar constitution, and perhaps in some measure by his peculiar station.

You have mentioned your expectation, that the King will recover, and be able to transact public business again, but that some vestiges of the complaint may remain; do you mean to say, that the recovery will be, in your opinion, complete to the transaction of public business, while vestiges of the complaint remain?—Yes, I should have no doubt there might be times when his Majesty might be perfectly competent to every thing; and that now and then, a little hurry, or something, might for a quarter of an hour, or an hour, agitate him, but that it would all subside again. I understand that was the case in his former recoveries, for a time; I did not learn when it ceased; I did not see the King in any of his illnesses, after he had been declared quite well; I understood it did not last above a month or two, or a few weeks; but I only speak from hearsay in this respect.

Then in fact, you ceased to visit the King, in his former illnesses, after he was declared quite well?—Yes.

And you have heard that, subsequent to that declaration, there were occasional paroxysms of the disorder, though slight and short?—They could hardly be called paroxysms; it was more a hurry of manner than any thing else; as I understood from those who saw his Majesty.

Were you a party to the declaration, in the three former illnesses, that the King was perfectly well?—Not in the three former instances; at the time that I declared the King to be well, in the year 1789, I then thought the King well; that was, I think, in the beginning of March, 1789.

Were you a party to the declaration, that the King was perfectly well, in 1789?—I was.

In 1801, were you a party to the declaration, that the King was perfectly well?—No; in 1801, after the King was so much better, that the bulletins ceased in the morning, I withdrew: the King was going then to Kew; and I thought the King was so well, I did not apprehend it be necessary for me to attend any longer. The King had a relapse, I understood, at Kew; but I did not see him in that relapse.

Can you recollect the date of the last bulletin, that was signed by you, in the year 1801?—No, I have no memorandum of it.

Who were the medical attendants upon the King, on his relapse at Kew, in 1801?—I believe the late Dr. Gisborne, and Dr. John and Dr. Robert Willis. I do not know whether Mr. Dundas might see him; but they were the only physicians attending him at that time.

Were you a party to the declaration, that the King was perfectly well, in the year 1804?—Yes, I think I was at that time.

Was there any relapse after that declaration, in that illness?—Not any, that I understood; I did not see his Majesty after that; but I never heard of any afterwards.

When you withdrew in the year 1801, was it in consequence of any difference of opinion with the other medical attendants?—None in the world; it was merely because I thought that the King was a great deal better, and that my attendance was no longer necessary at that time.

You have mentioned, the King's com petency to business, in the intervals of periods of flurries which may occur after the disease has in a great measure ceased; during those periods of flurry, do you think that the King would be competent to transact any business public or private?—I cannot answer that question from my own knowledge; but what I understood was this, that if the King was from any little opposition, rather in a flurry, if he was told there was any business to transact, it composed him directly; that was the testimony that was given to me by several persons who saw him at the time.

Who were the persons who gave you that testimony?—I cannot tell exactly now; it was those who were about him at the time; I think I heard something of that kind from Dr. Heberden, but I do not mean to rely upon my quotation.

In 1801 there was a relapse?—Yes.

But after the complete recoveries in 1789 and 1804, those flurries occurred?—Yes. I did not understand there was any relapse in the first illness, nor in 1804. I believe, as far I can recollect, taking the whole together, that illness was shorter than that of the year 1788 and 1789; even taking in the period of the relapse the whole of the attack was shorter, because in 1788 the complaint commenced in October, and we did not declare the King well till the beginning of March, In 1801, it commenced in February; and I think the King was well before the end of May, and that includes the period of relapse.

At the time you ceased to attend the King in 1801, was there any declaration made, that he was completely recovered?—No declaration was then made, that he was completely recovered. I do not recollect what the last bulletin was; but I know that I thought the King so well, that I could take my leave of him with propriety, and I did it; seeing the King getting better, and understanding that he was soon going to Kew, I thought that it would have a good appearance to the public, that I had withdrawn; that it would be a confirmation to the public that the King was getting well.

Did you esteem the King well, at the time you withdrew your attendance upon him?—I should rather think that I did think him well at that time; I thought him so nearly so, that I could very safely withdraw.

You wished the public to understand, from your withdrawing from attendance, that the King was well?—I wished so, because I thought so myself. But I do not recollect the precise terms of the last bulletin; but I am sure I never signed any thing that I did not think.

The Committee is to understand, that the complete recovery of the King is the same as the complete recovery of any other person of the same disorder, to be intrusted with any thing he may have to transact, whether public or private?—I think so.

There is no difference, in your estima- tion between the recovery of the King and that of any other person?—None, in my estimation.

Is the present age of his Majesty likely more to affect the duration of his illness than his age at the respective periods of his former attacks of this disorder?—I can only answer that question by saying, that age seems to have made very few depredations Upon his Majesty. He is apparently younger and stronger than many persons much younger than himself, and therefore much better able to resist the effect of disease, than several persons, younger than himself would be.

You will, in your answer, compare his Majesty, not with other persons, but with himself only; does his present age, more or less affect the probability of the duration of the disorder, than his age at the former periods of attack?—I should apprehend that it must have some effect; though I do not see that he has at present suffered from his age.

At the period of his Majesty's former attack, in 1804, was his Majesty's sight as much affected as it is at present?—No; I did not observe that his Majesty had any defect of sight at that period.

Is his Majesty's sight now become very defective?—Very defective.

Is that defect of sight likely to have any influence upon his Majesty's ultimate recovery from the disease, or likely to have any influence upon the duration of the disorder, supposing him ultimately to recover?—During a certain period of the disease, and under certain circumstances, his being blind, is rather a beneficial circumstance, because it intercepts some sources of irritation; but at another period of the disease, it will be adverse to him, because it also intercepts some sources of amusement.

Computing, then, the different tendencies of the defectiveness of his Majesty's sight, do you, upon the whole, conclude that the defect of sight is favourable or unfavourable to the ultimate recovery of his Majesty, or tends to shorten or to prolong the duration of his illness, supposing him ultimately to recover?—That is a question I can hardly make up my mind to; I see it operate sometimes for his benefit; and there are times when I think that the loss of sight will be a grievance, by preventing the amusing him and abstracting him from himself; but what effect it will have upon the protracting or accelerating his recovery, is a great deal more than I can give a definitive answer to.

In persons labouring under the disease under which his Majesty now unfortunately labours, do not the persons attending them, address their countenances and manner, very frequently, very much to the eye of the afflicted person?—Yes, undoubtedly.

Does not the eye afford, to the persons attending persons afflicted as his Majesty is, when in its perfect state, a means of control over the afflicted person?—I have understood that sometimes, that effect has been produced, but I cannot say that I ever saw any remarkable instance of it.

Was not Dr. Simmons called in to attend the King at the commencement of his presentillness?—I understood he was? but that was before I was there.

He did not continue in that attendance?—He did not see the King.

Are you more or less sanguine in you hopes of the King's ultimate recovery than you were when you were examined before the privy council?—I am not less sanguine of his ultimate recovery, than I was then.

Have you experienced any disappointment, in the expectations you entertained when you were examined before the privy council as to his Majesty's recovery, as to the time of it?—His Majesty's relapse after the examination of the physician before the privy council, certainly distressed us, and put the prospect of immediate recovery to a greater distance, but I do not think of ultimate recovery.

Are you of opinion, that a person, having had, with an interval of several years, repeated attacks of this malady, is on the last attack more or less likely to recover, than a person who has not been so previously subject to attack?—I should rather think that the circumstance of his having got well before, from similar attacks, is a foundation of hope, that he will from this.

Does advanced age, coupled with prior attacks of the same disorder with which his Majesty is now afflicted, make any difference, in your calculation, as to a probability of his recovery?—It would in any other case; but there is something so peculiar in the King's, I do not think it has shaken our confidence.

What are the peculiarities which take the King's case out of your general observation?—Those circumstances to which I have alluded before, the vigour still of certain faculties of his mind, and there being no mark of fatuity about him.

You have stated, that you understood the cause of his Majesty's present malady to have been his anxiety about the princess Amelia; have you been informed what were supposed to be the causes of the attacks his Majesty had in 1788, 1801, and 1804; or whether those attacks were referred to any known cause?—I do not know that the first attack was referred to any known cause; in 1801 I did understand there was a cause; I did not understand that in 1804 there was any assignable cause.

When you were called in, on the 3d of November, did the Physicians, who had been previously in attendance, inform you when the first symptom of his Majesty's present complaint was observed by them?—I think they told me on the 25th of October.

Have any of the royal family seen his Majesty, since you have been in attendance?—No.

Has any person, other than the physicians and the attendants under their inspection, seen his Majesty since you have been in attendance?—The Lord Chancellor saw him the day before yesterday.

Did the lord Chancellor apply to you, asking your opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of seeing his Majesty, before he saw him?—Yes, he did.

Had any of the royal family, previously, applied for permission to see his Majesty?—Not that we understood.

Was it with the unanimous concurrence of the physicians, that no injury could arise to his Majesty's health, that the lord Chancellor was permitted to see his Majesty the day before yesterday?—There was no absolute dissentient; there was a discussion on the subject, and there was a doubt on some of our minds, whether it would do him good or irritate him; but his Majesty had been informed the Chancellor was to be there, and it was then decided amongst us, that as that was the case, and he seemed to have made up his mind to the seeing the Chancellor, there was more chance of irritation by preventing it, than there was by the Chancellor's seeing him; and therefore the Chancellor saw him with the unanimous concurrence of all, after that discussion.

By whom was his Majesty informed, that the Chancellor would be there, and was that information given to his Majesty with the knowledge and consent of all the physicians in attendance?—I believe sir Henry Halford was the person who informed his Majesty the Chancellor was to be there.

With the knowledge and concurrence of all the physicians?—Not at the time; sir Henry Halford was alone with the King at the time he told him, and we did not hear of it till afterwards.

Then the day before yesterday, in consequence of such information conveyed to his Majesty, you and the other physicians had none but a choice of evils to choose from; that was, whether he would be irritated by seeing him, or more irritated by not seeing him?—That was not exactly the case: we had some hopes that the seeing the Chancellor might give the King more self-possession, and I do not know that it did not for a time, because, we had known before in former illnesses, that it had done so. But there was no evil to be apprehended from it, except there might have been a little momentary anxiety about the King. We doubted whether it would be right or not, in our discussion among ourselves; but there was nothing of clash or of opposition of sentiment; it was a temperate discussion; there was no dissention at all; it was not apprehended that it was a choice of two evils.

Had you been consulted by sir Henry Halford, whether he should inform his Majesty, in the manner he did, as to the Chancellor's attendance, would you have agreed to his Majesty being informed?—That would have depended entirely on the state in which I might have seen the King at that time.

Have you, within the last fortnight, seen the King, at any time, in such a state, that you thought it desirable the Chancellor should visit him?—I do not know that I should of myself have mentioned it; at the same time I do not know, that I had any objection to it. I do not think the King Kin was quite in the state in which I should have expected much benefit to have resulted from it.

When the Chancellor consulted the physicians, on the propriety of seeing his Majesty, did the physicians agree on any stipulations, as to speaking on subjects of business or otherwise?—Yes, they did; they desired the Chancellor to avoid any thing that might create discussion. One principal reason why it was suggested that it might be right for the Chancellor to see the King, was, that parliament might not take the state of the King merely from the representations of his physicians. In the first attendance I had upon his Majesty in the year 1788, for that reason, I desired that the Chancellor would see the King, and that Mr. Pitt would see the King; and at my desire they both saw him.

At what period of the King's illness was that?—It was within the first month, for it was while his Majesty was at the Queen's lodge at Windsor; it was in the latter end of the month of November 1788; lord Thurlow went in, and Mr. Pitt also saw the King at that time before his Majesty was removed from Windsor to Kew.

Do you recollect whether any advantageous effect was produced on his Majesty, by seeing Mr. Pitt and lord Thorlow?—In both instances a beneficial effect ensued.

In what way did those advantages show themselves?—The King became more composed, and he was more manageable afterwards; at that time we had no other persons in attendance upon the King, but his pages.

Has his Majesty been bodily indisposed once or twice within the last fortnight?—Yes; there has been at times considerable accession of fever about the King.

Do you attach any importance to such bodily indisposition as his Majesty has been subject to for the last fortnight?—I attach considerable importance to any accession of fever; and there was accession of fever within the last fortnight; we had no alarm on account of any other indisposition.

In using the word 'fever,' do you mean an accession of the mental disease, or of bodily indisposition?—Of bodily indisposition, when we have made use of the word fever; the King had fever, though accompanied with an aggravation of the mental disease; yet it was independent of that.

Was it at the suggestion, or at the request of the lord Chancellor, that he saw the King; or was the Chancellor, upon his arrival at Windsor, to enquire after his Majesty, informed that it was settled that he should attend upon him?—It was not at the suggestion of the Chancellor, and his lordship said that he was not even prepared to expect such a circumstance; it was rather at the recommendation of the physicians in attendance.

Whets lord Thurlow and Mr. Pitt saw the King in his former illness, were any of the physicians present at the same time?—Yes, I was present.

Were any physicians present when the lord Chancellor saw him the other day:—No.

Nor any other person?—Not any person was in the room but the Chancellor; sir Henry Halford introduced the Chancellor to the King, and then retired; and no other person was in the room.

You have stated, that one of the inducements to the Chancellor's seeing the King was, that Parliament was to meet the next day; did the physicians desire the Chancellor to see the King because they were aware that Parliament was to meet the next day?—I do not know whether that was not one of the reasons; but it was not done with any disrespect to Parliament, only with a view, as it had been in the former case, in the year 1788, that Mr. Pitt and the Chancellor might both have to say, that they did not take the state of the King merely from the representation of his medical attendants.

Has there been at any time, in your opinion, any connexion between the defect subsisting in his Majesty's sight and the mental disorder under which his Majesty at present labours, or at any former period laboured?—No, I do not apprehend there is.

You have said, that you are not less sanguine of his Majesty's ultimate recovery, than you were when you gave your evidence before the privy council; are you less sanguine of his Majesty's speedy recovery than you were at that period?—Yes, of his Majesty's speedy recovery; from the relapse which took place immediately afterwards, we certainly have not so fair a prospect.

Can you state any probable time for his Majesty's ultimate recovery?—No, I cannot indeed: I think the King is very much in the same state that I saw him in the latter end of the year 1788, and the beginning of the year 1789, but it varies so, there are so many fluctuations, that when we see the King a little better, and going on a little better for two or three days, we are sanguine, and if there comes a relapse it throws us back again; there are such fluctuations, it is impossible to give any positive and decided opinion; and indeed in this case there is no definitive time in the nature of the malady; you can very seldom say; when men have a common fever, after the symptoms have been formed three or four days, one can form a pretty good judgment as to the duration of the disease; but in this, I believe, nobody has ever been able to ascertain any precise time.

Then I understand, from the nature of the malady, it is impossible for medical skill to ascertain the time of recovery, as in a fever or other ordinary disease?—Just so.

Are you of opinion, that that difficulty is increased by his Majesty's advanced age, and by any other infirmity that may have attached to his Majesty?—The King's is a green old age; there is so much apparent integrity of constitution about him, that I think that that certainly does not operate upon my mind; and I believe not upon the mind of any, so much as it would in the case of any other person.

Do you know how long the Chancellor remained with the King!—Very little more than a quarter of an hour; I think sir Henry Halford said he minuted him, and that it was 18 minutes.

You have stated, that when lord Thurlow saw his Majesty in 1788, and when Mr. Pitt saw his Majesty about the same time, you were present at those interviews?—I was present when Mr. Pitt went in, and I think I was once present when lord Thurlow went in.

Nobody was present the day before yesterday, when the lord Chancellor went in?—No.

Was the absence of the physicians, upon this occasion, at the physicians' own suggestion, or at the request of the lord Chancellor?—At the physicians' own suggestion, that the Chancellor should form his own opinion.

Did not the duration of his continuance depend upon the opinion of the physicians?—Entirely: the stipulation of the physicians was, that he should see his Majesty for a quarter of an hour.

It was of sir Henry Halford's own motion, that he proposed to the King to see the lord Chancellor, and having so proposed, to the King, he communicated to the other physicians that he had so proposed, and they after some discussion consented to it?—Yes.

But it was not first of all proposed to the physicians as a measure by sir Henry Halford?—It had been discussed among us some time before, and sir Henry Halford at that time thought he saw the King in such a state in which we all said if we had seen him we should have wished it: there was no blame in the world attached to sir Henry Halford.

When his Majesty's physicians, occasionally, in their daily reports, describe his Majesty as being better, do they mean to confine themselves exclusively to his mental disorder, or to combine with it any considerations of his bodily state?—To combine them; when they say he is better, they mean both.

Fever, in the bulletins, means not merely fever, but the mental disorder aggravated by fever?—At those times the King has had fever, and it has perhaps been the most prominent part of his disorder; there have been periods when the King was very seriously ill with fever.

Withdrew.

Dr. MATTHEW BAILLIE called in; and examined.

Acquaint the Committee whether the state of his Majesty's health is such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his Parliament, or of attending to any kind of public business?—The state of his Majesty's health is such, as to prevent his attending Parliament, or attending to any kind of public business.

What are the hopes you entertain of his Majesty's recovery?—I think it very probable, that ultimately the King will recover.

Do you found the opinion, given in your answer to the previous question, upon the particular symptoms of his Majesty's disorder, or upon general experience in other cases of the same nature; or upon both?—Not upon general experience, but upon the likeness that I understand the present indisposition of his Majesty bears to the other three indispositions of the same general character.

In that particular species of the disorder his Majesty has fallen into, has it been found, from experience, that the greater number of persons so affected have been cured?—I really cannot give a very satisfactory answer to that question from any experience of my own, for that has been very limited; but I understand the greater number of cases of that kind have recovered for the time, although in many instances there are returns of the indisposition in the same individual.

Can you form any judgment or probable conjecture, as to the duration of his Majesty's illness?—I can form, no satisfactory conjecture at all; the only ground of comparison is, by regard to the former illnesses of his Majesty, and that might be very deceitful; but that appears to be the only ground on which we can form any conjecture with respect to the probable duration of his Majesty's indisposition.

As far as experience enables you to judge of his Majesty's disorder, do you think it more probable that his Majesty will, or will not recover, so as to render him capable of attending to public business?—I should think it much more probable, if his Majesty was to recover, he would recover with the full power to transact public business as before his present illness.

What degree of experience have you had, yourself, in this particular species of disorder?—My experience has been very limited, certainly; I have now been about twenty years in business, and I have occasionally seen patients affected with an illness of a similar character; but not in any great number.

Has any amendment already taken place in the course of his Majesty's disorder, and does the appearance of such amendment continue at present?—His Majesty is certainly better now, than he has been in some periods of his present indisposition; I do not think that of late there has been an appearance of much improvement.

Can you assign the disorder of his Majesty to any particular cause?—I have no doubt in my own mind that his complaint arose out of the great affection that his Majesty had for his deceased daughter, and the great affliction that he felt during her long and tedious illness.

When were you first called in, to see the King?—I believe it was the 25th of October.

Were you in the habit of attending on the King before this illness?—No, not at all.

Did you ever visit the King, as a patient, before this illness?—No, never.

In ordinary cases, would you suppose that a patient was more likely to recover from a mental malady, having been affected with mental malady three or four times previously, than if he had never been so affected?—I do not know very well what answer to give to that question: I think it bears two ways; it appears to me, that where a person has had an indisposition with certain symptoms three or four times, and has recovered, it always gives a considerable presumption, provided the constitution is not much weakened in its powers, that the person will recover again; at the same time it may be said, that the susceptibility to disease is increased by the number of attacks, and in that point of view the person might not be so likely to recover. I think, however, that the other reasoning has more power altogether than the last, and therefore I should say, that if the constitution is not much weakened, it gives a presumption, if a person has recovered from a similar disease three times, that he has a considerable chance of recovering the fourth time.

When you talk of the King's recovery, and competency to public business, you mean, the complete recovery, as you would speak of another patient, to be competent to the management and direction of all his affairs?—I think so. I do not say that the King might not fall back and be liable to any future attack of a similar indisposition; but as far as I can judge of it, it is most probable, that if he does recover, he will recover with the same power of performing his duties as a Sovereign as before.

Have any of the royal family seen the King, since his indisposition?—Not as far as I know; I believe at the time he was beginning to be hurried at first, his family saw him; but since the disease established its character, I believe, none of the royal family have seen him. I believe nobody since the 25th of October.

Is the hurry of which you speak, to be understood as subsequent or anterior to the 25th of October?—He was certainly very much hurried on the 25th of October; but I believe there were little marks of the same sort before that; and that they were observed by his family, before they were observed by strangers.

Did you observe any symptoms of it before the 25th of October?—I think once or twice I observed a little, but it did not strike me much; on the 25th it was very well marked. I saw the King twice a day, before the 25th, to give an account of his daughter.

Did you make any observation, on the state of the King, on the 24th of October?—I have no recollection of making any particular observation.

Can any persons have any access to his Majesty, without the knowledge and consent of the physicians?—I believe not; there are certain persons of course established about his Majesty, but there is no stranger; occasionally one or two of his confidential pages have come into the room for an instant, but I do not know that any body else has.

Has any person, other than the royal family, or his pages, or attendants, seen the King, since you have been in attendance upon his Majesty?—Yes, the lord Chancellor saw his Majesty the day before yesterday.

Were you consulted on the propriety of the lord Chancellor's seeing the King?—It made a part of general conversation, among the physicians, the day before the lord Chancellor saw the King; and it was thought upon the whole, perhaps, that it would be more satisfactory that the Chancellor should see the King, so as to give an account of him from his own observation.

Was that a matter that suggested itself to the physicians in their medical capacity, or was it thrown from any other quarter?—It was not thrown out from any other quarter so far as I know.

From which of the physicians did the first suggestion come, of the propriety of the Chancellor seeing the King?—I believe it was from Dr. Heberden.

What reasons did Dr. Heberden assign, for wishing the Chancellor to see the King? There was no reason assigned, but that I have assigned now, that it was thought desirable parliament should have, not simply the report of the physicians, but the report of the lord Chancellor, from his own observation.

Did the physicians consider it any part of their duty, to discuss what would be most satisfactory to parliament?—I really do not know, whether they may not have gone beyond their duty; I do not pretend to say whether it was wise or not.

Do you know that his Majesty had been informed, previously to such consultation among the physicians, that on that day the Chancellor would be at Windsor?—Yes, he was informed.

By whom was he so informed?—I believe by sir Henry Halford.

Was such information communicated by sir Henry Halford to the King, in consequence of any discussion amongst the physicians?—There was no discussion, as far as I recollect, by which sir Henry was empowered to make any communication to the King; and the fact is, I believe, it was thought afterwards better, that the communication had not been made.

Has his Majesty been subject to any bodily indisposition, within the last fortnight?—His body has hardly been at any time perfectly free from indisposition.

Do you attach any importance to the indisposition to which his Majesty has been subject, in the course of the last fortnight, as affecting his general health?—I should not, I think, attach much importance to it; the idea that naturally occurs to the mind, in considering a small defect of bodily health, is this, that as the King during the whole of this indisposition, has had more or less of bodily indisposition, though sometimes very little, yet it becomes an additional though a slight proof that he may probably recover, that he has that bodily ailment: If there was precisely the state of mind which the King, has without bodily ailment, we should say, there was altogether a less chance of the King's recovering, than, if he had the bodily ailment just stated; at the same time, I think it right to say, that sometimes that bodily ailment has been very little.

Does the King's age render his recovery more or less probable, than if he were a younger person?—It certainly renders it less probable; at the same time, age is a relative term; the King, at 72, is stronger and younger, if one may use that expression, than many persons of 62, and therefore may have a better chance than most persons would have at the same period of life.

Does the King's defect of sight at all influence, in your opinion, the probability or improbability of the King's ultimate recovery?—I have really no experience at all, and therefore what I shall say to the Committee must be considered as a conjecture, and therefore probably of little value. I should conceive that, in the earlier periods of an indisposition like the King's, blindness would probably be an advantage; that it would lessen the excitement; but when a person, afflicted like the King, goes on towards recovery, I conceive that the want of sight would be a disadvantage, because he would be deprived of many amusements that would occupy his mind and assist in the complete recovery. I conceive, that when a person, similarly situate with regard to complaint as the King, has got into a state of convalescence so as to be able to take exercise, perhaps the having sight would be then a disadvantage again, because he would be roused by a great many objects, and take violent exercise, which might possibly bring back a return of the complaint. What I say now, however, is altogether conjecture.

Do you think that the King's defect of sight is less likely to have an influence upon the ultimate recovery of the King, than upon the duration of his disorder?—I should think it less likely to have an influence upon the positive recovery of the King, than upon the duration of his illness.

Can you, under the circumstances which peculiarly attach to the King's situation, his defect of sight and his age, form in your own mind any conjecture, at all satisfactory to you, as to the probable duration of the King's illness?—I really cannot. I can only give the answer I have done before; we can only conjecture, and there is no other ground of judgment I can perceive, than that of comparing the present with his Majesty's former illnesses; at the same time, I think, the circumstances are such, as to render it likely that the present indisposition will be a longer indisposition than some of the former.

Have you ever known an instance of a person, of the King's age, and deprived of sight, recovering perfectly from an attack, such as his Majesty now labours under?—I have never known, so far as I recollect, but one person who was affected with this disorder, who was as old as the King, and that person saw; but that person did not recover.

Have you a more or less sanguine expectation of his Majesty's ultimate recovery, now, than you had at the period when you were examined before the privy council?—I have rather a less sanguine expectation; but the difference in that respect, I ought to say, is very little.

Have you a more or less sanguine expectation of his Majesty's speedy recovery, now, than you had at that, period?—I never thought it likely that his Majesty would recover soon; if there is any change in my sentiments now, it is most probably that it will be longer than I thought at one time.

What has made you somewhat less sanguine of the King's speedy recovery, than you were, when examined before the privy council?—That there has been another attack since I was examined; and I think the remission since the attack has been hardly so complete as some of the former ones were.

Having stated, in the earlier part of your examination, that you believed his Majesty's affection for the deceased Princess, and grief during her illness, was the cause of his Majesty's indisposition, will you state whether, in your opinion, the circumstance of such a cause being assignable, is favourable or otherwise, with regard to the prospect of his Majesty's recovery?—I can only answer that question by conjecture; but I should say, upon the whole, it was rather favourable. It is better to know some fixed cause for the complaint, and it is better likewise that the cause should have ceased, which it has done in the present instance.

Withdrew.

Sabbati, 15° die Decembris, 1810.

Dr. WILLIAM HEBERDEN, called in; and examined.

You are desired to acquaint the Committee, whether the state of his Majesty's health is such, as to render him incapable of coming in person to his Parliament; or, of attending to any kind of public business?—It is.

What are the hopes, you entertain, of his Majesty's recovery?—I entertain the greatest expectation of his Majesty's recovery.

Do you found the opinion, given in your answer to the previous question, upon the particular symptoms of his Majesty's disorder; or, upon general experience in other cases of the same nature; or, upon both?—I found my opinion upon the symptoms of his Majesty's case, together with the knowledge of what has happened in his Majesty's previous indispositions of the same kind.

In that particular species of the disorder his Majesty has fallen into, has it been found, from experience, that the greater number of persons so affected have been cured?—I believe it has.

Can you form any judgment or probable conjecture of the duration of his Majesty's illness?—I can form no judgment of any particular period, which is likely to be the termination; but the experience of his Majesty's former illnesses, of the same kind, induce me to expect that it will not be very distant.

As far as experience enables you to judge of his Majesty's disorder, do you think it snore probable that his Majesty will or will not recover, so as to render him capable of attending to public business?—I think there is every reason to expect, that his Majesty will recover, and be perfectly competent to transact public business.

What degree of experience have you had, yourself, in this particular species of disorder?—I have had very limited experience of my own.

Has any amendment already taken place in the course of his Majesty's disorder; and does the appearance of such amendment continue at present?—There has been a considerable amendment; and the amendment continues at present.

State your opinion upon the present state of his Majesty's health, as compared with that at the time you were examined before the privy council; do you conceive him to be better or worse, or in the same state?—I should conceive him to be very much in the same state. It would be right to add to that answer, that his Majesty has not continued uniformly in the same state, since I was examined before the privy council; but has been worse for a few days and since then has been better again.

When did you last see the King?—I saw the King yesterday morning.

What was his state at that time?—I understood that his Majesty had passed a very good night; but previous to my seeing his Majesty in the morning, it had been mentioned to him, that his physicians, or some of them, were coming to town for the purpose of being examined; and I believe it was owing to that cause, that his Majesty had a little hurry upon him at the time I saw him: I conceive it was owing to that cause, because his conversation was directed to that subject.

By whom had the communication been made to the King, that his physicians were coming to town to be examined?—I understood it to have been made by Dr. Reynolds.

Did Dr. Reynolds make that communication to the King, by the advice and with the concurrence of the other physicians, or with their knowledge?—Dr. Reynolds meaning to come to town sooner than the other physicians, had seen his Majesty earlier, and mentioned it to him, I believe, when he was by himself, and previous to any communication with the other physicians.

Will you have the goodness to define what you mean by the word hurry?—Talking more rapidly, and with quicker transitions from one subject to another.

Is the Committee to understand, that you mean to express an incoherent talking?—No.

As you presume that the communication made to the King, had occasioned the hurry you witnessed, do you mean to in- form the Committee, that, after having had a good night, the King has been, in the present illness, invariably better than when he has passed a sleepless night, or a night with very little sleep?—He has, very generally, been better after passing a good night.

Has that always been the case?—It has not always been the case.

When you state that you expect that the King's recovery will not be very distant, what limitation of time do you apply to the words very distant?—I can apply no distinct limitation; but in his Majesty's last illness I was called to attend him on the 12th of February 1804; and his Majesty first presided at a council I think on the 23d of April following: I should expect his illness, in the present case, to follow nearly the same character as in that illness; and, what I understand to have been the case in his former illnesses.

Do you expect, that, dating from this day, his Majesty is likely to be so far recovered within one month, as to be able to preside at a council?—I cannot possibly give any distinct answer to that question; there is nothing that makes It impossible, and there is nothing that leads me to say it will be so.

Have you seen such symptoms of his Majesty's disorder, since you were examined before the privy council, as to lead you to hope his recovery will be more speedy, than you did hope at the time you were so examined?—I think there are no circumstances to lead me to expect it would be more speedy, than when I was examined before the privy council.

Have there been any circumstances, which have induced you to abate of your hopes and expectations of a speedy recovery?—No circumstances to induce me to abate my hopes of his ultimate recovery; and no other circumstances to make me doubt of his speedy recovery, than there having elapsed another fortnight, without his being at present forwarder than he was at that time.

Have his physicians been disappointed, in their expectations of the fluctuations in the King's disorder, since the 29th of November?—They have not been disappointed in their general view of the case; at each particular period of remission of his Majesty's illness, they have entertained a hope that it might go on to a nearer approach to recovery than it has done.

When were you first called upon to at- tend the King, in your professional capacity?—On the 12th of February 1804, I began a regular attendance upon his Majesty. He may have occasionally asked me some things, on the subject of his health, before that; but not as a consultation of a regular physician.

When did the King first begin to ask you any questions, respecting his health, before you became a regular attendant upon the King?—I never was consulted by his Majesty, as a physician before; when I have seen his Majesty, he has sometimes mentioned circumstances of his health to me, but not having sent for me as a physician.

Did you give opinions to the King, or advice, or prescribe, in consequence of those questions being asked you?—I never wrote a prescription, I believe.

Did you give advice, or prescribe, verbally?—No: questions that his Majesty may have asked me (and I really am not sure that his Majesty asked me any questions before) that have been merely in conversation.

You began to attend the King, regularly, on the 12th of February 1804?—Yes.

Did you attend the King, during the whole progress of that disorder?—Yes, I did.

Did you refer that disorder to any assignable cause?—Yes.

Do you think that a patient who has been afflicted with mental derangement, frequently, during his life, is more or less likely to recover from the disorder under which he may labour at the present time than if he had never been so afflicted?—I should conceive it must depend upon the effects apparently produced by each attack of the disorder.

In the case of the King, do you think, that his having been afflicted three times previously with the same disorder, makes him more or less likely to recover from the present attack?—More likely.

Do you take his age into consideration, when you answer that question?—I do.

You have stated, that the greater number of patients, as far as your experience and information have gone, have recovered from attacks of a similar nature; in speaking upon that subject, do you include patients of the age at which the King has now arrived?—No; the cases that I know distinctly of, respecting persons of the King's age, have been too few for me to speak particularly to that effect.

Have you known any cases of patients above seventy years of age?—I have known cases of derangement of persons above seventy years of age; I have known no case similar to his Majesty's, in any person of that age.

In those cases of derangement of patients above seventy years of age, have any of them recovered?—In derangement, if the delirium of fever may be so called, certainly many have.

Do you, speaking medically, consider the delirium of fever to come under the description of derangement of mind?—It certainly does not come under the general character of insanity; no more does his Majesty's case.

What description would you give of his Majesty's case; is it merely the delirium of fever?—No, it is not merely the delirium of fever; nor is it any common case of insanity; it is a derangement attended with more or less of fever, and liable to accessions and remissions.

Has it at times happened, during your different attendances upon the King, in disorders of this nature, that the King has been affected with fever?—Through the whole course of it, his Majesty has not uniformly been affected with fever; the beginning of the last attack, and the present attack, which is all I can personally speak to, have been attended with fever; and fever has occasionally occurred during the course of them.

Has there been, at any time, in the King, during the course of these disorders, derangement without fever?—Yes.

During the periods at which derangement has occurred without fever, how would you then describe the disease?—I can give it no other term than derangement.

Have you seen patients, above seventy years of age, who have laboured under derangement without fever?—I have seen cases of insanity in persons above seventy years of age.

Have those patients recovered?—No.

Have those patients, or any of them, whom you have seen labouring under insanity, and above seventy years of age, been attacked after the age of seventy?—I believe not.

Were they patients, or any of them, who had experienced attacks of insanity in the earlier parts of their lives, and had intervals of sanity between those attacks, or were they patients who had been afflicted with one continued insanity?—I can only speak decidedly of one case where there have been intervals of sanity.

Is the patient now dead?—Yes.

How long was it from the time of the last attack on that patient to his death?—I did not see it at the beginning, but I believe four or five years.

Do you know how long previous to the age of seventy the last attack which terminated only in death had commenced?—I believe very much about the age of seventy.

What is the present state of the King's bodily health, in your opinion?—There is no material injury that his Majesty appears to have suffered in his bodily health.

Is his Majesty's constitution what may be called perfectly sound?—Perfectly.

Do you think a perfectly sound constitution co-existing with a complete mental distemper, a favourable symptom towards recovery from a mental disorder?—In such cases, where the mental disorder has been attended with any affection of the bodily health, I should consider the soundness of the constitution, and a perfect state of health, to be material to a person's recovery.

You would have greater hopes from the circumstance of a sound constitution and bodily health?—In cases where the mental disorder had been connected with any affection of the body.

In the King's present disorder, do you attribute that disorder to any bodily derangement?—Not originally.

Does it now depend upon any bodily derangement?—It is connected with his bodily health; his bodily health has been affected by his disorder.

Has that affection of his bodily health produced such a reaction as to account for his present state altogether?—I do not consider his Majesty's bodily health to have been the origin of his disorder; but his Majesty's bodily health has been affected along with the disorder, and made part of the disorder.

Are there any symptoms now attending his Majesty's buddy health, by the removal of which you think that the recovery of his Majesty's reason would be attained?—His Majesty has a tendency to fever, sometimes existing, sometimes not existing, the removal of which tendency would contribute to his Majesty's restoration, in my opinion.

Has there been, during the present illness, at any period, a total absence of fever?—Yes.

During the total absence of fever, in the present illness, has, at any time, the derangement of mind continued?—I believe never, in a great degree.

In any degree?—Yes.

You have stated that it has happened, that the King has had some hours sleep in the course of the night, and has not been better after that sleep; do you reckon that a favourable or an unfavourable symptom, in regard to the King's recovery?—I should think it indifferent, in regard to his ultimate recovery.

Would it lead you to suppose, that his recovery was not likely to be so speedy as if sleep produced its desired effect?—It would not lead me to form any certain conclusion, with regard to that effect.

When you attended the King, in the year 1804, did you sign the bulletins at that time?—Yes.

Do you recollect the last bulletin that was put forth to the public?—No.

Was it intended that bulletin should convey to the public that his Majesty was completely recovered?—I apprehend that the bulletin must have been intended to convey an idea that his Majesty was perfectly recovered, so far as regarded a competency to transact public business.

Are the Committee to understand, that when you apply the words "perfectly recovered" to the King, you apply them in the same sense as you would to any private individual, that he was perfectly recovered, for the transaction of any business, public or private, which might belong to him, and to the entire management of his affairs?—Yes.

The Committee then are to understand, that at the cessation of the bulletins, in the year 1804, the King was so completely recovered?—I apprehend so.

After the cessation of the bulletins, did you visit the King as his physician, in 1804?—After the cessation of the bulletins, his Majesty went out of town; I was not with him out of town; he returned to town at no very long intervals, and then his Majesty's physicians attended him. I believe it was in the month of August that his Majesty went down to Weymouth, and from that time till the end of October sir Francis Millman and myself were one of us always with his Majesty; for the greatest part of the time, I was with his Majesty.

Were you and sir Francis Millman the only attendants upon his Majesty at Weymouth?—Yes.

At any period subsequent to the bul- letins in 1804, did you perceive in the King any flurried manner which excited your attention?—His Majesty was more liable to hurries; but I believe that at any period of any day he was perfectly competent to transact business.

Do you consider the hurries, of which you have been speaking, to have been any vestiges of or at all dependent upon the King's malady?—I do.

You have said, that fever has accompanied the King's malady, and that that fever has been intermitting during the course of his malady, but that you did not consider the fever to be the cause of his malady; do you conceive the cause of his malady to have been the affliction of the King for the illness of his daughter?—I do.

You have said, that you do not consider the King's to be a case of ordinary insanity?—I did.

What is the cause in your opinion subsisting in the King's constitution which renders him liable to these attacks of mental derangement?—It is a peculiarity of constitution, of which I can give no distinct account.

Can you give any distinct account of the cause of the accession of fever which sometimes attends the mental derangement of his Majesty?—In the disorders which his Majesty has had similar to the present, and in the present disorder, the whole frame has been more or less disordered, both body and mind.

Can you form any opinion of the cause of that fact?—I conceive, with reference to the present case, that the cause was certainly owing to his Majesty's anxiety on the subject of his daughter's illness; that cause produced, from the peculiarity of his Majesty's constitution, the derangement both in body and mind which constitutes his present disorder.

Are you able to afford the Committee any information as to the peculiarity of that constitution, in what it consists?—I conceive the peculiarity to be simply, that his Majesty has appeared liable to attacks of disorder similar to his present; but the cause of his being liable I cannot at all assign.

Has the remission of the fever, after the last considerable access of the disorder, been as entire and complete as after any former attack, in this now subsisting indisposition of his Majesty?—I consider the present remission to bear date from the evening of the 10th of this month; during that interval, from the 10th to the time that I left his Majesty yesterday morning, I should conceive the intermission is as perfect as during the same number of days in any former intermission of his present illness.

Do you conceive the defect of his Majesty's sight to be a circumstance favourable or unfavourable to his ultimate recovery?—I should consider it as a circumstance of inconvenience, but not a circumstance at all prejudicial to his ultimate recovery.

Do you conceive it to be a circumstance having any influence upon the duration of his illness, and tending either to prolong or to shorten it?—I should not consider it likely either to prolong or to shorten his illness to such a period when his Majesty was described, in my answer to a former question, to have been considered capable of transacting public business; after that period I should conceive it of use to his Majesty, in preventing the subsequent hurries that were alluded to.

Is the Committee to understand you as saying, that you consider the defect of his Majesty's sight as a circumstance neither likely to retard nor likely to accelerate the period of his recovery, so as that his Majesty shall arrive at that state which you call a fit one for the discharge of business?—I conceive it to be an indifferent circumstance, as to that.

You have stated, that since you were examined before the Privy Council, his Majesty has been worse for a few days, and since then better again?—Yes.

Is the Committee to understand from that, that since the examination before the Privy Council, his Majesty has had a relapse?—Yes.

State whether, since that relapse, or in consequence of that relapse, you have the same confidence and expectation of a speedy recovery that you had before?—It would not alter my opinion of the probable time of his Majesty's recovery, though I can hardly pronounce it speedy.

Do you know whether during the former attacks of his Majesty, after any remission of the disorder, there was any renewed increase of his illness?—There have been several.

Has the apprehension of a recurrence of mental malady in the mind of any patient, after repeated attacks, any and what effect in producing the renewal of such attack?—I should conceive, an apprehension in the mind of the patient would not tend to produce any recurrence of the disorder.

Does the advance of his Majesty's age, since his first attack in 1788, increase or diminish your expectation of his Majesty's ultimate recovery?—Abstractedly considered, his Majesty's greater age would certainly be considered an unfavourable circumstance; but when I have regard to the peculiar circumstances of his Majesty's disorder, I think his advanced age does not alter my own expectation of his ultimate recovery.

Would the greater pressure of public business now than in the year 1788, have any and what effect, in your opinion, as to accelerating or retarding his Majesty's complete recovery?—I really am not competent to give any distinct answer to that question.

Do you think more or less favourably of the probable issue of his Majesty's malady, from there being such an assignable cause for that malady as you have stated?—I should think more favourably.

Withdrew.

SIR HENRY HALFORD, Bart. called in; and examined.

You are desired to acquaint the Committee, whether the state of his Majesty's health is such as to render him incapable of coming in person to meet his parliament, or of attending to any kind of public business?—I think his Majesty is incapable of coming to his parliament, or of attending to any public business.

What are the hopes you entertain of his Majesty's recovery?—I have very high expectations of his Majesty's recovery.

Do you found the opinion, given in your answer to the previous question, upon the particular symptoms of his Majesty's disorder, or upon general experience in other cases of the same nature, or upon both?—Upon both.

Whether in that particular species of the disorder his Majesty has fallen into, it has been found from experience, that the greater number of persons so affected have been cured?—I think so.

Can you form any judgment or probable conjecture of the duration of his Majesty's illness?—No, I cannot.

Whether, so far as experience enables you to judge of his Majesty's disorder, you think it more probable that his Majesty will or will not recover, so as to render him capable of attending to public business?—I think it is more probable that his Majesty will recover, so as to enable him to attend to public business.

What degree of experience have you had yourself, in this particular species of disorder?—I have been in practice nineteen years, and during that time a very considerable number of cases have fallen under my notice.

Whether any amendment has already taken place in the course of his Majesty's disorder, and whether the appearance of such amendment continues at present?—A very considerable amendment has taken place in his Majesty's disorder since its commencement. I do not think his Majesty has made much progress within the last fortnight.

When did you last see the King?—This morning.

What was the state of the King, at that time?—His Majesty had had a quiet night, and was composed in his conversation.

Do you think the King was better to-day than he was yesterday?—I think he was quite as well to-day as he was yesterday.

Do you think there was any amendment to-day from yesterday?—No; I think the King was much the same to-day as he was yesterday.

What symptoms were there to induce you to think the disorder was in the same state as it was yesterday, when the King had had a quiet night, and was composed?—That was the case the greater part of yesterday, though there were occasionally moments of discomposure.

Was it the case yesterday morning, that he was composed?—No, not in the early part of the morning.

When you say that the greater number of patients afflicted with this distemper, according to your experience have recovered, do you include in that persons of the King's age?—The cases of the same age with the King, must be very few indeed; I think they are generally at earlier periods.

Have you seen any patients of the King's age, afflicted with the same malady?—Not precisely under the same circumstances with the King; the King's case must be in some respects peculiar.

In what does the peculiarity of the King's case consist?—More in the circumstances of the management.

Is there any thing omitted in the management of the King's case, that would be applied to that of any other patient?—I believe not.

Is there any thing added to the management in the King's case, which could not be added to that in the case of any other patient?—I believe not.

Then in what does the difference of the management consist?—I conceive the King is more capable of being excited by external causes, from not being in the habits of being contradicted or opposed through his life.

Are your hopes of recovery more faint in the case of the King, from the circumstances you have described, than they would be in the case of any other patient mentally circumstanced as the King is?—Not of ultimate recovery.

Are your hopes, of the speedy recovery of the King, as strong as they were on the 28th of November, when you were examined before the privy council?—I had not hopes of his speedy recovery at that time.

Have you hopes of his speedy recovery now?—Not of speedy recovery.

Can you limit any time, within which it is probable the King may be recovered?—I cannot.

Have you had any patient under your care mentally deranged, at or above the age of seventy?—I have seen people deranged, above seventy years of age; but do not recollect that I have had a case under my own care.

Of those persons whom you have seen in such a state at that age, have all or any of them recovered?—I cannot speak with confidence to that question;—because as they have not been people under my own care, I do not know the result.

Do you not know the result of any of those cases which you have seen?—I cannot speak confidently to the recovery of people above seventy-two years of age.

Then you cannot take upon yourself to say, whether any patient at or above seventy years of age, whom you have known to have been mentally deranged, has or has not recovered?—I cannot speak confidently to that point.

Do you know any one who has recovered?—I do not speak of my own knowledge, but I have heard of recoveries.

Do you recollect the circumstances of those cases?—No.

What is the present state of the King's bodily health?—Not perfectly good.

What are the symptoms of disorder in bodily health?—He has feverish symptoms.

Have those feverish symptoms conti- nued, from the time that you were first called in to visit him, to the present time?—His Majesty has occasionally appeared almost free from fever; but I think I can hardly say that he has at any time appeared entirely so.

Do you attribute his mental derangement to any bodily complaint?—I should conceive there were two causes of this complaint; the body must be predisposed by indisposition, to receive the influence of such a cause as produces the King's symptoms.

When you say that the body must be predisposed, do you mean to say that in all cases, derangement of mind is accompanied by indisposition of body?—I am speaking of the King's case in particular.

Do you mean to say, that there must in all cases be an indisposition of body, when there is a mental derangement?—I think it probable there must be so.

Have you ever had under your care, or ever seen persons in a case of mental derangement, where it was impossible for the physician to trace bodily indisposition?—I think I have generally been able to trace bodily indisposition.

Do you think that the King's mental derangement depends upon the present state of his bodily indisposition?—Not entirely.

When were you first called in, to visit the King in his present illness?—His Majesty asked me some questions, respecting the propriety of taking medicine, on the evening of the 25th of October.

Did you, then, perceive any symptoms of mental derangement in the King?—The King's conversation and his manner was hurried.

Was that such, as to amount, in your opinion, to a state of mental derangement and incapacity for business?—I think not, at that time.

Had you opportunities of seeing the King, before the 25th of October?—Yes; I saw his Majesty every day, three times, from the 3d of October.

Did you, in the interval between the 3d and the 25th of October, perceive any symptom of indisposition about the King?—I sometimes thought his Majesty's manner agitated; but there always seemed an occasion of this, in the report which was made respecting the princess Amelia.

Was that agitation of a nature to excite any particular apprehensions, in your mind, with regard to his Majesty's mental health?—No, not at that time.

Not at any time, between the 3d and the 25th of October?—No.

You have said, that on the 25th of Oct. the King was not so much mentally indisposed, as to incapacitate him for business, or amount to mental derangement; and you have said, the King is so indisposed now; when did the symptoms become so urgent as to amount to incapacity for business and to establish a character of mental derangement?—His Majesty's symptoms increased rapidly on the 28th of October.

In point of fact, did his Majesty transact any public business, to your knowledge, between the 25th and 28th of October?—I do not know.

Up to the 28th, was his Majesty in a state to transact public business?—I think so; I think the King could transact public business.

Are the Committee to understand, that, up to the 28th of October, and on the 29th of October, his Majesty was in such a state as, if he had been a private individual, he would have been intrusted with the transaction of any thing in the management of his own concerns?—I think you would not have been justified, in taking from any individual, the power of transacting his own business, if, under the circumstances that his Majesty was, I think I might say, to the night of the 27th of October.

Has the treatment of his Majesty, in your opinion, in every respect, both as to the introduction of persons, and the system of management, as well as the system of medicine, been perfectly proper?—I believe so.

You have been acquainted with the system of management, in the most minute particularity?—Yes.

And have known of every person introduced to the King?—Certainly.

And every thing in the system of medicine, and the introduction of persons to the King?—I believe so.

There has been no person introduced to the King, whose introduction has excited any aggravated degree of indisposition?—Certainly not.

What is the state of the King's mental health to-day, as compared with the state of his mental health on the 25th of Oct.?—He is by no means so well as he was on the 25th of October.

What is the state of the King's health to-day, as compared with the state of his health on the 28th of October?—I think, not quite so well as it was on the 28th of October.

You have stated, that there is an amendment in the King's health?—Yes.

If he is not so well as he was on the 25th, nor so well as he was on the 28th of October, with what period do you draw your comparison of the present day, when you say there is a state of amendment?—The first week of November more particularly.

Has the King had, what may be called, a relapse, since the examination of the privy council?—The King has had, what we speak of in medical terms as, a paroxysm, since that time.

Has that paroxysm been one of a violent nature?—It has been one of a violent nature; but not of so long a duration as the previous ones have been.

Has the remission, since that paroxysm, been so complete, as it had been subsequent to other paroxysms of the same nature?—I think not quite so complete.

Has sleep the desired effect upon the King, generally and constantly; when he obtains sleep, does he appear to be more refreshed, and to be more composed in consequence of it, than when he has passed nights without sleep?—Certainly; always to be more composed after sleep.

Invariably?—I think so.

Have any of the royal family seen the King, since the 25th of October?—Yes.

Since the 27th?—Yes; I think the last time the Queen saw the King, was on the 29th; and her Majesty was the last of the royal family who has seen the King.

Have any other persons, except his medical attendants, and those introduced by his medical attendants, for the purpose of administering to his medical health or comforts, seen the King?—Yes.

At what period?—The Chancellor has seen the King, twice, and I think Mr. Perceval has seen the King.

When did the Chancellor first see the King, subsequently to the 25th of Oct.?—I think it was on the 29th of October; but I am not quite certain, that the Chancellor saw the King on that day.

When did the Chancellor see the King, the second time?—Last Wednesday.

Were you present at the first interview between the Chancellor and the King?—Yes.

Was it, by his Majesty's desire, that the Chancellor was introduced to him the first time?—Upon mentioning to his Majesty, that the Chancellor had come to Windsor, to enquire after him, the King expressed a desire to see him.

Was the King informed, always, of the arrival of the Chancellor, or persons of that eminence at Windsor, to enquire after his health?—Not always.

Was it by the Chancellor's desire, the King was then informed of his arrival at Windsor?—No, I believe not.

Who informed the King?—I think I did myself, but I am not sure.

You, of your own motion, without being desired by any body; informed the King, the Chancellor was arrived at Windsor to enquire after his Majesty's health?—Yes; my colleagues were acquainted with my intention of informing his Majesty, that the Chancellor had arrived at Windsor to enquire after his health.

Did all the physicians concur, in the propriety of giving his Majesty that information?—Yes.

You were directed, by the physicians, to give that information?—It was agreed upon, amongst us, that that information should be given.

Did you consult the other physicians, before you introduced the Chancellor, in consequence of the King's request, that he might be introduced, on hearing that he had arrived at Windsor?—Yes.

Did they concur in the propriety of the interview, between the King and the Chancellor?—Yes.

After that consultation of physicians, did you, yourself, introduce the Chancellor to the first interview?—Yes, I did; the other physicians being present.

Were all the physicians in the room at the time?—I think they were; if they were not, the door was open, and they were in the next room.

Were you, yourself, in the room?—Yes.

What effect had that interview upon his Majesty?—The King expressed great satisfaction at seeing the Chancellor.

Had it a beneficial effect upon his Majesty's mental health?—I do not think it made the least difference.

At the second interview, to which the Chancellor was admitted, did you communicate to the King, that the Chancellor was arrived at Windsor?—Yes.

Did you propose, to the King, to see the Chancellor the second time, or did the King desire it?—I must state the circumstance: On the preceding morning (the Tuesday) I found the King involved in a great many errors and misconceptions; and I took the liberty of using the Chancellor's name, entirely as a medical expedient. It occurred to me, that the men- tion of his name, would extricate him from those errors; and it had that effect. In consequence of this, I ventured to say, that it was probable the Chancellor would be at Windsor within a day or two; feeling convinced, that the temporary restraint under which his Majesty would hold a conversation with the Chancellor, might be of use in the future conduct of himself. On that ground, I proposed that his Majesty should see the Chancellor when next he came.

To whom did you propose that he should see the Chancellor, when next he came?—To the King himself.

Did you consult your colleagues, before you made that proposal to the King?—No; I took this entirely on myself; finding the King under the circumstances I have stated above, it was the determination of the moment.

When did you communicate to your colleagues, that you had made this proposal to the King?—Shortly after; on the same day.

Did they concur in the propriety of the interview taking place?—No objection whatever was made.

When did you inform the Chancellor, that you had made that proposal, or that the interview was to take place?—The Chancellor arrived on the following day, and it was then communicated to him.

Who introduced the Chancellor, to the second interview with the King?—I did.

Who was present in the second interview with the King?—Nobody but the Chancellor; I left the room, when I had introduced the Chancellor to the King.

Do you know whether the restraint, you hoped would be produced on the King's mind, by an interview with the Chancellor, was in point of fact produced?—I have very good reason to believe so.

Have you found, by experience, that any beneficial effect has resulted from that interview?—I really think it has.

Have you, in consequence of that beneficial effect having been produced, advised the renewal of the interview?—No.

Compared with the state of the King's health on Tuesday, is his Majesty better to-day than he was on Tuesday?—I think he is much the same.

How long did that beneficial effect continue?—The King, throughout the day, alluded to the conversation with the Chancellor several times, and seemed to be a little less under the influence of those errors; he seemed to be rather more easily dispossessed of those delusions.

How soon was that benefit lost?—I do not think it is altogether lost now.

When did Mr. Perceval see the King; on, or since the 25th of October?—I think it was on the 29th of October.

Was Mr. Perceval introduced to the King, at his Majesty's desire?—His Majesty expressed a great desire to see Mr. Perceval; having understood that he had come to Windsor, to inquire after his health.

Did you communicate to the King, that Mr. Perceval also was at Windsor?—Yes, I think so.

Was that, by the request of all the physicians?—With the knowledge of all the physicians.

Did they know, that Mr. Perceval was to be introduced to the King, before he was introduced?—Yes; and concurred in the propriety of it.

Were you present at the interview between Mr. Perceval and the King.—Yes.

How long did it last?—I should think about six or seven minutes.

Was any beneficial effect, or otherwise, produced by that interview?—No injurious effect, certainly; I do not know that I could state, that any beneficial effect was produced by it.

When was Mr. Perceval admitted to an interview, the second time?—I do not recollect that any second interview took place.

How long did the first interview with the Chancellor last?—About eight or nine minutes.

Was the King under any self-restraint, at the first interview with the Chancellor?—Yes, I think he was.

And yet, no beneficial effect was produced from that interview?—I do not remember that any particular good was derived from it.

From the second interview, at which you were not present, you think beneficial effect was produced?—I do.

Do you know whether the King was under any greater degree of self-restraint at the second interview, than he was at the first?—It is hardly fair to make a comparison between the circumstances of the King on the first interview and the second; it was at the distance of six or seven weeks; the symptoms were not the same.

You having been present, and the other physicians either present or in a room immediately adjoining, with the door open, when the Chancellor had his first inter- view with the King, and when Mr. Perceval had his interview with the King; how came the physicians to leave the room entirely, when the Chancellor had his second interview with the King?—It seemed desirable that the Chancellor should form his judgment of the state of the King, uninfluenced by the presence of any other person.

Judgment, for what purpose?—No particular purpose; in the first interview with the Chancellor, it seemed very desirable that the Chancellor should be able to state to parliament, what the state of the King was.

Did the Chancellor, himself, express a wish to see the King, for the purpose of being able to state to parliament, what the state of his Majesty was?—I do not remember that the Chancellor expressed such a wish; I think it was rather the wish of the physicians in the first instance.

In the second instance?—In the second instance, I had taken upon myself to use the Chancellor's name, for the particular medical purpose I stated before; and having made that intimation to the King, all the physicians were of opinion, that it was not proper to run the risk of the irritation, which a dissappointment in the King's expectation might occasion.

What led to any idea, that a disappointment to the King was likely to occur, after you had made the proposal, communicated that proposal to the other physicians, and that proposal had met with the concurrent assent of the other physicians?—We have always thought it proper to observe our promises to the King religiously.

What led to any idea, that that promise would be broken, in this instance?—When the Chancellor arrived, and I intimated to the Chancellor, that I had given such an intimation to the King, and that the King had seemed satisfied with the expectation of seeing him, one of the physicians expressed an apprehension, that it might be injurious to the King to see the Chancellor.

Which of the physicians expressed that apprehension?—Dr. Robert Willis.

Did he concur, ultimately, with the other physicians, or was he over-ruled?—We found, on enquiry, that the King was in anxious expectation of the Chancellor; and it was thought better, under those circumstances, that the King should sea the Chancellor.

Did Dr. Robert Willis, then, express an opinion, that if he had known before, that the proposal was to be made, he should have objected to it?—I heard the objection for the first time, when we were with the Chancellor.

Was that the first time that it was communicated to Dr. Robert Willis?—No; Dr. Robert Willis, I believe, knew the fact before.

Did Dr. Robert Willis know the fact, on the Tuesday, at the same time as the other physicians?—I believe he did.

Was it discussed, in the presence of Dr. Robert Willis, with the other physicians?—Yes.

Did Dr. Robert Willis take any part in the discussion?—He made no objection, certainly; it was not too late at that time, to have prevented the interview, had any objection been made by any one of the physicians.

Has Dr. Robert Willis any particular charger of the King's person, more than the other physicians?—I think not.

Have you observed that the King is under more restraint before Dr. Robert Willis, than before the other physicians?—I think not.

Are there any persons, before whom the King is under more restraint than others, of his medical attendants, or attendants upon his person?—I think not.

Do you conceive the circumstance of the defect of his Majesty's sight, to have any influence of any kind, upon the present state of his disorder?—I think hitherto, it has been an advantage, that his Majesty is without his sight; because we have been able to conduct him with less irritation.

Do you think it will continue to be an advantage, and will tend to promote his ultimate recovery?—When his Majesty begins more decidedly to recover, I think it will be a disadvantage, by precluding certain sources of amusement.

You have said, that you never thought his Majesty's recovery would be speedy; what particular portion of time is within your calculation, when you use the word speedy?—I speak of some weeks.

How many weeks?—I cannot pretend to say.

Can you form any thing like a satisfactory conjecture, of the duration of his Majesty's illness?—No, I cannot.

Do you think his Majesty's recovery as near now, as you thought it the day you were examined before the privy council? —I do; I do not observe that his Majesty's faculties seem in any respect impaired by the continuance of his disease; so far his Majesty's perception is clear and keen; his memory, which is the first faculty usually observed to be influenced and to be injured by this disease, and which is the first to feel the effect of age, is sound and strong; his judgment is in eclipse.

Has his Majesty had any fresh access of the disorder, since you were examined at the privy council?—I stated, before, that his Majesty had had, what we consider another paroxysm, of the disorder; the disorder prevails in paroxysms; and I stated, that that was a severe paroxysm, but of shorter duration than the others have been.

I think you also stated, that the recovery from that paroxysm had not been quite so complete?—Not quite so complete.

Has the remission of the disorder continued as long, as the remission of the disorder that took place after other paroxysms?—Yes; but has not been quite so complete.

Does that circumstance influence your opinion at all, with respect to the probable duration of his Majesty's illness?—It gives me reason to think, that the illness will be still of some duration.

Do you feel yourself quite unable to declare, of what duration it is likely to be?—I do.

You have stated, that the memory is one of the first faculties which fails, under this disease; have you not seen patients, who have never been cured, whose memory has been retentive to the greatest possible degree, and even more retentive or more vivid than during the periods of mental health?—I do not know that I can recollect an instance of that kind, at this moment; I speak of it as usually the case.

Supposing the King to be in the same state, in which he was between the 25th of October and the 27th at night, would you feel yourself justified in declaring that he was competent to the transaction of public business?—I believe so.

You would deem that a perfect mental recovery?—I think there is a difference, between the commencement and the termination of an illness; you would require something more in the one, than in the other. I wish to express, what I have done in a former part of my evidence, that I conceived the King competent to the transaction of public business, till the 27th at night.

If the King were, now, in the same state after his illness, in which he was for some days previous to the 27th of October, would you state that he ought to discharge his public functions?—I should conceive the King was competent, to transact public business.

Of every kind, without any exception?—Yes, I think so.

What do you mean, when you speak of his Majesty's manner being hurried?—His conversation is more rapid, and his thoughts occur more quickly in succession one upon another, than in a state of perfect health; his conversation connected, but too rapid.

Not wandering from one subject to another?—No.

Do you think that his Majesty's increased age, since the period of his last attack, renders final recovery more or less probable, than it did at the period of the foregoing attack in 1804?—I cannot compare the circumstances; but there is no apparent failure in his Majesty's constitution at this moment.

Has increased age, any influence upon the probable final recovery of a patient in his Majesty's circumstances?—I should think so; that it was rather more disadvantageous; but there does not appear, in his Majesty's case, at this moment, any vital failure in the constitution.

Has increased age any influence upon the probability of a speedy recovery; does increased age tend to afford a probability, of either a retarded or a quickened recovery?—It would tend to a more tardy recovery.

Do you think the apprehension on the mind of a patient, of the recurrence of mental malady, after repeated attacks, has any and what effect in producing a renewal of such attacks?—I should think, it would make the patient more susceptible of the influence of such external causes, as would produce the disease.

Was it on the same day, that the lord Chancellor and Mr. Perceval saw the King, which you have stated to be, according to your recollection, the 29th day of October?—It was not the same day; I do not recollect the day precisely.

You have said that you entertain very high expectations of the King's recovery; state the grounds on which those expectations are founded.—I find no injury done to the King's faculties, by his disease, hitherto; and I do not observe any failure in his Majesty's constitution. [Withdrew.

DR. RORERT DARLING WILLIS, called in; and examined.

Acquaint the Committee, whether the state of his Majesty's health is such, as to render him incapable of coming, in person, to his parliament, or of attending to any kind of public business.—His Majesty is incapable of coming to parliament, or of attending to any public business.

What hopes do you entertain, of his Majesty's recovery?—I entertain confident hopes of his Majesty's recovery.

Do you found that opinion, upon the particular symptoms of his Majesty's disorder; or, upon general experience, in other cases of the same nature; or, upon both?—I found it upon both.

In that particular species of the disorder his Majesty has fallen into, has it been found from experience, that the greater number of persons, so affected, have been cured?—I believe the greater number of persons are cured.

Can you form any judgment, or probable conjecture, of the duration of his Majesty's illness?—No; I can form no judgment of its duration.

As far as experience enables you to judge of his Majesty's disorder, do you think it more probable, that his Majesty will, or will not recover, so as to render him capable of attending to public business?—I think it more probable, that his Majesty will, recover, so as to render him capable of attending to business.

What degree of experience have you had, yourself, in this particular species of disorder?—I have had very considerable experience in this particular species of disorder.

Has any amendment already taken place in the course of his Majesty's disorder; and does the appearance of such amendment continue at present?—A considerable amendment has taken place, from the commencement of his Majesty's disorder: which still continues.

What difference is there, if any, between the state of his Majesty at present, and that in which he was, when you were examined before the privy council?—It is extremely difficult to measure degrees of a complaint of this sort; the character of it has, in some measure, changed; but I think his Majesty, upon the whole, full as well now, as when I was examined before the privy council.

Did you ever attend his Majesty before, in complaints of this kind?—In the year 1801.

Is the character of the present complaint the same as that in the year 1801?—In the commencement, it was exactly similar.

How in its progress?—In its progress also.

Do you conceive, that his Majesty's increased age, since that period, is at all likely to influence, one way or the other, his ultimate recovery?—Judging from the symptoms of the case, I have no reason to think the age will have any influence.

Do you think, the defects of his Majesty's sight, will have any influence, one way or other, on his ultimate recovery?—I think it may be the means of retarding his recovery, but not of preventing the ultimate recovery.

Do you think that his Majesty's increased age, will have any influence upon the duration of his disorder?—I do not consider that, in this instance, the age will have any influence upon the disorder.

Have you ever met with a case, in your practice, that you consider as parallel to that of his Majesty?—If age is necessary to make up the parallel, perhaps not.

Have you ever known a person, as old as his Majesty, and with the same defect of sight, recover from a derangement of mind?—I have never seen a person, at his Majesty's age, labouring under a similar complaint to his Majesty's, taking all the circumstances of the complaint together.

In the general run of cases, which have come within your knowledge, in the course of your practice, has increased age, in your opinion, had any influence upon the recovery of the patient, or otherwise?—Not, where the case was exactly similar to his Majesty's.

I understood you to say, you had never met with a case exactly similar to his Majesty's.—Taking age and other circumstances of his Majesty into consideration.

In the general run of cases, which have come under your observation, do you conceive the age of the patient to have had any influence upon his complaint?—It may be difficult to answer that question, without stating the particular species of his Majesty's complaint: his Majesty's complaint does not appear, to me, to be connected with age; it is a complaint, produced, by an accidental circumstance, which would have produced that complaint, at any time, in his Majesty, during the last twenty-two years. There is no mark of age in the symptoms; there are none of those symptoms, which usually attend complaints of that description, arising from age; and it appears to me, therefore, that his Majesty is as likely to recover, notwithstanding his age, from this complaint, as he would from any other accidental complaint he might labour under.

Have you known several instances of persons, who have laboured under derangement of mind, at particular and different periods of their lives, with intervals between the dates of derangement?—Several.

Have you considered such persons, as more or less likely to recover, in consequence of advanced age?—The opinion must depend upon the symptoms of the case at the time.

Do you, then, consider increased years, as a circumstance not bearing, in itself, or carrying, in itself, any influence upon a complaint of this nature?—Generally speaking, age would have a considerable influence; but no symptoms, which in general arise from age in other persons, have made their appearance in his Majesty: I therefore conclude, that age will have no effect here.

Do you conclude, that age, in an unbroken constitution, has no influence upon the probability of recovery, or otherwise, from this disorder?—Provided I saw no symptoms of the effect of age in the individual, I should say not.

Can you at all contemplate in your own mind, any period in which you think his Majesty's recovery likely?—No.

You attended the King in the year 1801, for the first time?—Yes.

Did you sign the bulletins that were issued in that illness?—No.

Did you see the bulletins that were issued in that illness?—Yes, I did.

Did you concur in the propriety of those bulletins, as expressing the real state of the King's health to the Public?—Yes, I did.

Did you concur in the opinion, expressed to the Public by the Physicians, by the cessation of the bulletins, that the King was perfectly recovered?—To the best of my recollection, the King was recovered, and fully capable of doing business; there were some little remains of hurry about his Majesty; nothing further, that I have any recollection of.

Do you mean to say, that those marks of hurry about his Majesty, were apparent at the time the bulletins ceased, and the Physicians thereby announced to the Public, that his Majesty was perfectly recovered?—The symptoms of hurry, certainly, occasionally remained.

Were the symptoms of hurry such as to create a necessity for any restraint upon his Majesty, after the bulletins ceased?—Not till a relapse took place.

A relapse, then, did, in point of fact, take place, after the illness in the year 1801?—A relapse took place, after the bulletins ceased.

What interval was there, between the cessation of the bulletins and the relapse?—I have no means of ascertaining, at this moment, when the bulletins ceased.

What length of time, do you conceive, took place between the cessation of the bulletins and the relapse?—I have a perfect recollection of the relapse, but I have no recollection when the bulletins ceased.

Between the cessation of the bulletins, and the relapse, did his Majesty transact public business with his servants?—His Majesty's servants had access to him.

Had they access, after the usual manner, without the presence or permission of any medical attendant, or any person deputed by any medical attendant?—Certainly.

Nobody was ever present, at the time the interviews took place between his Majesty and his servants?—Not to my knowledge.

When, and where, did the relapse decidedly shew itself?—At the Queen's house, on the 14th or 15th of March.

By whom was it first perceived?—I really cannot call that to my recollection.

Had you been in the habit of visiting the King, occasionally, from the time of the cessation of the bulletins, to the period of the relapse decidedly taking place?—I had not ceased to see the King, daily.

When did you, yourself, perceive the symptoms of a decided relapse in the King?—I presume, either on that evening or the next morning.

How long did that relapse continue?—But a very short time, with any violence.

How long was it, before his Majesty was restored to the state, in which his Physicians had reported him to be perfectly recovered?—It is impossible for me to charge my memory with the number of days, at this distance of time; to the best of my recollection, a few days only.

When did you discontinue your attendance upon the King, altogether, in the year 1801?—On the 3d of June.

Had the King's hurry, which you have described, entirely ceased, before you ceased attending upon the King?—I think, not entirely.

Do you conceive those hurries, were vestiges of and dependent upon the mental complaint of the King?—Certainly.

When you speak of the King's recovery, for the purpose of transacting public business, do you understand it in the same way, as you would, the same words applied to an individual, that he was competent to the transaction of all his business, public and private, and the complete management of his affairs?—Most assuredly.

Since you ceased to attend the King, in June 1801, when were you since called to his Majesty?—On the 6th of last month.

Did not you attend the King, in the year 1804?—No.

Since you have been called in, to the King, do you recollect having objected to any proposal, made for an interview between the King and the lord Chancellor?—Yes.

Had you known, that it was intended to propose to the King, to see the Chancellor, should you have objected to his being told of it?—I should, certainly, have objected.

Do you think that any beneficial effect was produced, to his Majesty's mental health, by the interview between the King and the Chancellor?—No.

Has any prejudicial effect resulted from it?—I am not aware that any prejudicial effect arose.

On the night of the Chancellor seeing the King, did you see any effect, good or bad, produced, that you attributed to the visit of the Chancellor?—Not that I could attribute to the visit of the Chancellor.

What was the reason assigned, by the physicians, for wishing the King to see the Chancellor?—Some of the physicians had formed an idea, that the Chancellor would have some influence on the King's mind.

In point of fact, was the King worse that night, than he had been the preceding night?—The King had a remarkably good night.

When did you last see his Majesty?—This morning, about eight o'clock.

What was his state at that time?—Nearly in the same state that the King has been, for the two or three last days.

Had he passed a good night?—A tolerably good night; not equal to the preceding.

Do you esteem it an Unfavourable circumstance, that sleep should not be attended with its natural effect of refreshment and composure, in a malady of the nature of that, with which the King is affected?—It only marks the stage of the complaint. It uniformly takes place, early, in complaints of this description, that sleep does not benefit the mind, it only recruits the constitution at large.

Does sleep, now, benefit the King's mind, more than it did in the earlier stages of this disorder?—Most undoubtedly.

Does it benefit his mind, as much as it did in the corresponding stages of his disorder, heretofore?—I am scarcely able to discover the exact parallel situation.

Have you now, or had you lately, under your care, any patients of the age of the King?—Not affected exactly as his Majesty is.

Have you had any patients, mentally deranged, of or about that age?—No, I think not.

Have you had patients, mentally deranged, of about the same age, under your care?—I have had persons, under states of insanity, of the King's age; not perhaps under mental derangement similar to the King's.

What is the distinction, between mental derangement, and insanity?—The Committee must be aware of the extreme difficulty of giving a definition, unpremeditated. I will describe the character of the different states: I consider the King's derangement, more nearly allied to delirium, than insanity; whenever the irritation, in his Majesty, arises to a certain point, he uniformly becomes delirious. In delirium, the mind is actively employed upon past impressions, upon objects and former scenes, which rapidly pass in succession before the mind, resembling, in that case, a person talking in his sleep. There is also a considerable disturbance in the general constitution; great restlessness, great want of sleep, and total unconsciousness of surrounding objects. In insanity, there may be little or no disturbance, apparently, in the general constitution; the mind is occupied upon some fixed assumed idea, to the truth of which, it will pertinaceously adhere, in opposition to the plainest evidence of its falsity; and the individual is acting, always, upon that false impression: In insanity, also, the mind is awake to objects which are present. Taking insanity, therefore, and delirium, as two points, I would place derangement of mind somewhere between them. His Majesty's illness, uniformly, partakes more of the delirium than of the insanity.

Do you mean to say, that the King is at any time unconscious of surrounding objects?—When I first saw his Majesty on the 6th of November, he was perfectly unconscious of surrounding objects.

Was that his state on Tuesday last?—No.

Was there derangement on Tuesday?—There was derangement on Tuesday.

Then, on Tuesday, did his Majesty's disorder bear the characteristic of insanity, and on the 6th of November of delirium?—It has never borne the characteristic Of insanity; it never gets beyond derangement, according to the scale I have just laid down.

Does this apply to the illness of 1801, as well as to the present?—Strictly.

What is the present state of the King's bodily health, in your opinion?—The King is far from being in a good state of health, at this time.

Are there symptoms of bodily indisposition, sufficient to account for all the derangement of mind, which is perceived in his Majesty?—Fully sufficient to account for the present symptoms of the state of his mind.

Is there a greater absence of sleep now, than there was a fortnight ago?—For six days, there was more regular sleep, than there has been for some days past; when I say a fortnight, I am perhaps not quite accurate to the time.

Do you attach any, and what importance, to a patient, having previously had repeated attacks of mental disorder?—Provided I see no consequences arise from the repetition of the disorder, I should attach no importance to it.

In his Majesty's case, have you observed any consequences of the kind you allude to?—I have observed none.

Did not the Chancellor know, before he was actually introduced to the King, that you concurred, upon the whole, in thinking it would be better he should see the King, than that he should not?—Having started the objections, which I did, to the Chancellor's admission, I proposed going over to the King, to see in what state of expectation his Majesty was; knowing, that he had been apprized of the Chancellor's visit to Windsor. I found him, then, in such a state of expectation, that it was a doubt whether as much irritation would not arise, from keeping the Chancellor away, as from admitting him; and I therefore assented, as a choice of evils, that the Chancellor should go in.

Having stated, that his Majesty's com- plaint is more nearly allied to delirium than insanity; will you have the goodness to state, whether, in your opinion, it is on that account, more easily cured?—On that account, I think it much more easily cured.

In your opinion, has the apprehension on the mind of a patient, of the recurrence of mental malady after repeated attacks, any, and what effect, in producing a renewal of such attacks?—It must depend, very much, on the nature of the mind of the individual, no general reasoning could be formed, on that question.

Do you think it has on the mind of his Majesty?—I have no reason to think it has.

Are relapses more to be apprehended, on the recurrence of the malady, than after the period of the first attack?—I do not know that it is, necessarily, to be looked for; it has, certainly, taken place in this instance.

If a patient had been under your care more than once, would you not expect the return of that patient, more than after the first attack?—Certainly. [Withdrew.

Lunœ, 17 die Decembris, 1810.

Dr. MATTHEW BAILLIE, again called in.

The following Extract, from the former evidence of DR. BAILLIE, was read:

"When were you first called in, to see the King?"—"I believe, it was the 25th of October."

.—I wish to state, that I find it was the 26th of October.—I spoke to his Majesty on the 25th; but not formally, although it was about his health.

On the 25th, when you attended the King, not in the capacity in which you subsequently attended him, did you observe any thing particular in his Majesty's manner?—He was hurried in his manner. That is the observation that I have made in my memorandum; that his pulse was at 90, and his conversation was hurried, and a little desultory; that is, passing from one thing a little rapidly to another: that was at three o'clock.

On the 26th, the Committee is to understand, the King's malady was established?—I saw him formally, as a physician, on the 26th: his conversation then was certainly very much hurried; but I see, in my memorandum, that it was not irrational although hurried, and not very well connected. I should not have trusted to my memory for that, but I find that in my memorandum book on that day.

Did you think on the 26th, from what you observed in his Majesty, that he was capable of conducting business?—I really cannot give a very accurate answer to that question; I should rather think that he was not capable, but I would not take upon me to say that that is a perfectly accurate answer.

The following extract from the former evidence of DR. BAILLIE, was read:

"Have any of the royal family seen the King since his indisposition?—Not as far as I know: I believe at the time he was beginning to be hurried at first his family saw him; but since the disease established its character, I believe none of the royal family have seen, him; I believe nobody since the 25th of October."

.—I wish to state, by way of correction, that the Queen and three of the Princesses saw the King on the 27th of October. The Queen, by herself, (that is, without the Princesses) saw the King for a little time on the 28th of October; and I understand likewise upon the 29th, for a short time.

Since you have been in attendance, in whose custody has the King been; and in whose custody do you apprehend his Majesty to be now?—I should consider that the King was principally in the custody (if I may use the phrase) of Dr. Robert Willis. If I am asked, whether he is exclusively in the custody of Dr. Robert Willis, I should say, No; that he takes in a great measure the management of the persons that are more immediately about his Majesty's person; but sometimes directions have been given by the other physicians.

When were you first in the habit of seeing the King?—I first saw the Princess Amelia on the 26th of December last; and every time that I saw the Princess Amelia, as far as I recollect, I was with the King afterwards, so as to have a good deal of conversation with his Majesty.

From the period at which you began to be honoured with conversations with the King on that subject, did, you at any time before you were consulted by his Majesty on the 25th of October, perceive any of that hurry and particularity of manner which you have described yourself to have noted down on the 25th of October?—It occurred, I believe, two or three times, but not in any very strong degree; enough for me to remark it; but I understand it was more remarked by those who knew him better, than it was by me, not being so perfectly well acquainted with his na- tural manner as those who had been in the habit of living with him a great deal.

At what periods were those remarks first made by you?—I think only a few days before the 25th of October.

In the course of that month?—Yes: his Majesty's manner is never a very quiet manner, but I do not recollect any thing that struck me, except two or three days, perhaps, before the 25th of October.

Did you communicate to any body the remarks you had so made, previous to the 25th of October, upon the King's manner?—I believe there was no particular communication; but Sir Henry Halford, and Mr. Dundas, and myself, who had the audience of the King, might say, "I thought "there was a little hurry to-day," or something to that purport.

When did you last see the King?—I saw the King this morning.

What was the state of his Majesty's health?—He was, upon the whole, a little better, I thought, this morning; his pulse was less frequent than it has been for the last two or three days; and I thought him much less hurried, and what he said, was more connected, more like ordinary conversation. Upon the whole, I should say, he was a little better this morning.

The following extract, from the former evidence of DR. BAILLIE, was read;

"Has any person, other than the royal family, or his pages or attendants, seen the King, since you have been in attendance upon his Majesty?"—Yes, the "lord Chancellor saw his Majesty the day before yesterday."

.—I wish to add, that the Lord Chancellor saw his Majesty also on the 1st of November; and that Mr. Perceval saw him on the 29th of October.

Do you recollect whether Mr. Perceval saw the King on any other day?—I can not call the circumstance distinctly to my recollection.

From any thing you have seen since you were last before this committee, can you form any conjecture as to the period of the recovery of the King?—I can form no conjecture whatever, in consequence of the distance of time between the two examinations. I think fully as favourably of the King to-day, as I did, when I was examined before.

Can you form any distinct opinion, of the period of the King's recovery, now?—No; I cannot. [Withdrew.

On the motion, That this Report be read,

observed across the table, that from the great length of the Report, it would be inconvenient that it should be read at length by the clerk. On this suggestion, it was read short, and was ordered to be printed.

then addressed the chair to the following effect:—Mr. Speaker, when last I had the honour of addressing you, I stated it to be my intention, should the report of the Committee appointed to examine his Majesty's physicians be delivered this day, to propose that the said report should be taken into consideration by a Committee of the whole House on Wednesday next: and that a subject so important should receive all due consideration, I then moved that on Wednesday the House should be called over for the purpose of insuring a full meeting. During my attendance, however, upon the Committee above stairs, this morning, I was given to understand that from the length of the report it was probable that the interval between this and Wednesday might be found insufficient to enable the printer to complete his task. Conceiving, therefore, that it will be much better to fix on Thursday for the approaching discussion, with the certainty that it will take place on that day, than to allow it to remain on the journals for Wednesday, with at least some little uncertainty as to the possibility of preparing by that period the necessary materials, I mean, Sir, to move that on Thursday the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the State of the Nation, with a view on that day of referring the report which has just been brought up to the consideration of the Committee. I take this opportunity Sir, of stating to the House that on Thursday I propose to submit to the Committee three preliminary Resolutions, similar to those which were adopted by both Houses in the year 1788, and which resolutions are in the recollection of most of those who hear me.—The first will relate to the state of his Majesty's indisposition, and to his incompetence to discharge the royal functions; the second will declare the obligation imposed on the two Houses of Parliament to supply the deficiency in the executive authority thus occasioned; and the third will regard the manner to which the substitute for the royal authority is to be provided, by way of bill. On these three pints, it is indispensably necessary that each House should know the opinion of the other, before either can submit to the other the precise method which may be deemed the most expedient to meet the exigency of the occasion. It is my intention, Sir, on the same day, to take the liberty of stating to the House, the general outline of the plan of conduct which I mean to recommend for their adoption, under the present melancholy and calamitous circumstances. I trust that the House will not consider me as disrespectful towards them in contenting myself with having given this distinct notice, and in forbearing at the present moment, from entering into any detail or explanation of the plan which I intend to submit to their consideration. Not thinking it necessary further to occupy the attention of the House, I move, Sir,

"That this House do on Thursday next resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the State of the Nation."

expressed his acknowledgments to the right hon. gent. for the notice which he had given of his intentions, as far as that notice went. On his part he felt obliged to communicate to the right hon. gent. his sentiments on the propositions which he had just stated he should submit to the House on Thursday. With regard to the first resolution, respecting the unfortunate indisposition of his Majesty, and his inefficiency to discharge the regal functions, there could certainly be no difference of opinion. With regard to the second resolution, declaratory of the duty of the two Houses of Parliament to supply the deficiency in the executive authority, it was a subject for consideration, and the resolution itself might possibly require some amendment. But with regard to the third resolution, which the right hon. gent. had declared, that in, conformity to the proceedings in 1788, it was his determination to propose, he would candidly state, that to such a proposition, the right hon. gent. must expect from him the most strenuous opposition. As the right hon. gent. had not thought fit to enter into any detail at present of the plan which he was about to submit to the consideration of the House, neither did he (Mr. P.) think fit to enter into any detail at present, of the reasons by which he should be influenced. He would content himself with briefly stating, in reference to the proceedings in 1788, that he for one, would never consent, by an imitation of those proceedings, to offer a fresh violation to the fundamental principles of the British constitution.

complimented the fairness with which the right hon. gent. opposite, and, his right hon. friend near him, had severally stated their respective intentions. He was far from regretting that an additional day was to pass before the discussion of this important subject. This delay would afford to the right hon. gent. opposite an interval for the re-consideration of the mode of proceeding which he had announced it as his intention to adopt. Even if the right hon. gent. had laid out of his consideration all the difference of circumstances between the present case and that of 1788, yet, in his opinion, he ought to prefer another and a more constitutional mode of proceeding. He conceived it impossible that the right hon. gent. could have adverted to all that passed on that calamitous occasion—that he could have adverted to the arguments urged in the debates at that period—that he could have adverted to the Letter of his royal highness the prince of Wales, of the 2d of January, 1789, in answer to the proposition which had been made to his royal highness—a letter, the doctrines maintained in which did his royal highness the highest honour. He was convinced that the right hon. gent. could not have looked at that letter without perceiving that the arguments which it enforced were unanswerable. There were two objects which under the present circumstances, it was indispensable to effect; the one, do supply the deficiency in the regal authority occasioned by the calamitous state of his Majesty's health; the other to do this, accompanied by the fullest security to his Majesty of the restoration to him of his undiminished rights whenever the prayers of the nation should be answered by the restoration of his Majesty's health. These objects might be obtained by two modes, and he thought it but fair to declare at this early period, that in his opinion (the opinion strictly of an individual) they might be obtained by a mode more simple, more secure, and more constitutional than that suggested by the right hon. gent. There was a precedent, which since the Union with Ireland it was equally proper for this House to look up to, the precedent of the Irish parliament in 1788, which voted an Ad- dress^* to the prince of Wales, requesting his royal highness would be pleased to take upon him the government of this realm, and expressing the confidence of both Houses of Parliament, that the Prince would consent to exercise and administer according to the laws and constitution of the kingdom, all regal powers, jurisdictions and prerogatives to the crown and government thereof belonging. At the time of the Revolution, the representative convention proceeded on this wise principle. They addressed the prince of Orange, expressing their desire that his highness would take upon him the sovereign power, for the preservation of the religious rights, laws and liberties of the subject. That mode of proceeding which had been adopted by the best patriots, in order to maintain the rights and privileges of the people, might surely be again resorted to in order to maintain the rights and privileges of the Sovereign. By pursuing such a mode, the most hearty unanimity would be secured; the character of the royal power would remain undegraded; no unmerited stigma would be cast on his royal highness the prince of Wales, and the principles of the constitution would be preserved pure and inviolate.

^* The following are copies of the said Address, and his Royal Highness's Answer thereto:

To his Royal Highness George Prince of Wales.

The humble Address of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled.

"May it please your Royal Highness,

"We, his Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons of Ireland, in parliament assembled, beg leave to approach your Royal Highness, with hearts full of the most loyal and affectionate attachment to the person and government of your Royal Father, to express the deepest and most grateful sense of the numerous blessings which we have enjoyed under that illustrious house, whose accession to the throne of these realms has established civil and constitutional liberty upon a basis, which, we trust, will never be shaken; and, at the same time, to condole with your Royal Highness, upon the grievous malady with which it has pleased Heaven to afflict the best of Sovereigns.

"We have, however, the consolation of reflecting, that this severe calamity hath not been visited upon us, until the virtues of your Royal Highness have been so matured as to enable your Royal Highness to discharge the duties of an important trust, for the performance whereof the eyes of all his Majesty's subjects of both kingdoms are directed to your Royal Highness.

"We therefore beg leave humbly to request, that your Royal Highness will be pleased to take upon you the government of this realm, during the continuation of his Majesty's present indisposition, and no longer, and under the style and title of Prince Regent of Ireland, in the name, and on the behalf of his Majesty, to exercise and administer according to the laws and constitution of this kingdom, all regal powers, jurisdictions and prerogatives to the crown and government thereof belonging."

His Royal Highness's ANSWER.

"My Lords and Gentlemen,

"The Address from the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons of Ireland, which you have presented to me, demands my warmest and earnest thanks.

"If any thing could add to the esteem and affection I have for the people of Ireland, it would be the loyal and affectionate attachment to the person and government of the King, my father, manifested in the Address of the two Houses.

"What they have done, and their manner of doing it, is a new proof of their undiminished duty to his Majesty, of their uniform attachment to the House of Brunswick, and of their constant care and attention to maintain inviolate the concord and connection between the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, so indispensably necessary to the prosperity, the happiness, and liberties of both.

"If in conveying my grateful sentiments on their conduct, in relation to the King, my father, and to the inseparable interests of the two kingdoms, I find it impossible adequately to express my feelings on what relates to myself; I trust you will not be the less disposed to believe, that I have an understanding to comprehend the value of what they have done, a heart that must remember, and principles that will not suffer me to abuse their confidence.

"But the fortunate change which has taken place in the circumstances which gave occasion to the Address agreed to by the Lords and Commons of. Ireland, induces me for a few days to delay giving a final answer; trusting, that the joyful event of his Majesty's resuming the personal exercise of his royal authority, may then render it only necessary for me to repeat those sentiments of gratitude and affection for the loyal and generous people of Ireland, which I feel indelibly imprinted on my heart."

approved of the precedent laid down by the Irish parliament in 1788, and which had been alluded to by the last speaker.

returned his thanks to the right hon. gent. who had spoken immediately after him, for the fair notice which he had given of his intended opposition. Both parties would now come to the discussion fully prepared to state the different views which they took of the subject. He should also have thanked the right hon. gent. who followed (Mr. Sheridan) for his explicitness, had he contented himself with his statement and spared his argument. He would not, however, be tempted by the example of the right hon. gent. to depart from the forbearance which he had prescribed to himself on the present occasion. When the right hon. gent. stated that the measure which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had it in contemplation to propose, was inconsistent with the doctrines maintained in the Letter written by his royal highness the Prince of Wales, in 1789,^* he must have forgotten that all which it had been stated that it was in contemplation to propose was, to give power to the Regent by Bill instead of by Address. And with respect to his royal highness's Letter, the argument which it contained was directed not against the manner in which it was in 1788 proposed to grant power to his royal highness, but against the particular nature and limitation of the power which it was proposed to grant. He would not be drawn in to state at present the details of the bill which he should have the honour of submitting to the House, but he trusted that no erroneous conceptions would be entertained of its nature and provisions. For the present, he should confine himself to the simple statement which he had made of the mode that it was his intention to recommend. When the details should be laid before the House he should endeavour to persuade them that his measure would not degrade the regal authority, that it would not offer the slightest insult to that royal character, for whom he entertained as high a respect as the right hon. gent., or any other man, and that it would not violate any fundamental principle of the British constitution. On these three points he trusted that he should be able to satisfy the House. He thought he should have it in his power clearly to maintain, that the majesty of the throne, the best interests of his royal highness the Prince of Wales, and the conservation of the true principles of the constitution, would be most effectually secured by the adoption of the course which he meant to propose.

^* The following are Copies of the Letter sent by Mr. Pitt to the Prince of Wales on the subject of the restrictions on the Regent, and also of his royal highness's Answer.

"To his Royal Highness the PRINCE OF WALES.

"Sir; The proceedings in parliament being now brought to a point, which will render it necessary to propose to the House of Commons the particular measures to be taken for supplying the defect of the personal exercise of the royal authority, during the present interval, and your royal highness having some time since signified your pleasure, that any communication on this subject should be in writing, I take the liberty of respectfully entreating your royal highness's permission to submit to your consideration the outlines of the plan

which his Majesty's confidential servants humbly conceive, (according to the best judgment which they are able to form) to be proper, be proposed in the present circumstances.

"It is their humble opinion, that your royal highness should be empowered to exercise the royal authority in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, during his Majesty's illness, and to do all acts which might legally be done by his Majesty; with provisions, nevertheless, that the care of his Majesty's royal person, and the management of his Majesty's household, and the direction and appointment of the officers and servants therein, should be in the Queen, under such regulations as may be thought necessary. That the power to be exercised by your royal highness should not extend to the granting the real or personal property of the King (except

said, that though he admitted that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been sufficiently candid, as far as it had gone, yet he did not think the right hon. gent. had gone far enough, by merely stating, that he meant to move the three preliminary Resolutions of 1788. He said, the question before the House regarded the mode of supplying the present deficiency of the regal power by a regency. Without explaining the nature of the measures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to found upon the concluding Resolution of 1788, it was impossible to understand the question. It was quite clear so far, that the right hon. gent. meant to proceed by a Bill—the unconstitutional course that was adopted at that period. But in order to have the question fairly before the House, it was necessary to know what that bill was to contain, what limitations or restrictions of the prerogative was to be proposed, and every particular respecting them. He said that the true constitutional line of proceeding was by Address, that that Address should be founded on Resolutions; that by this mode of proceeding, as the notice of his right hon. friend (Mr. Ponsonby) clearly conveyed, no restrictions could be intended by him, but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's communication kept the House entirely in the dark as to his future measures, and did not put the matter on a fair footing, so as to give a clear understanding of the subject to those who were to deliberate and decide between the two modes of proceeding. From this imperfect communication the right hon. gent. was obliging the House to take a leap in the dark.—He said, that besides the Resolutions to address the Prince to take upon him the government in his Majesty's name, there would be Resolutions incorporated into, or to accompany the Address, which would secure his Majesty's person being placed under such care, and protected by such regulations, as would ensure the King's return to the discharge of his regal functions the moment that he should be in a capacity to discharge them. When these Resolutions, formed into an Address, were presented to his royal highness the Prince, the securities for the fulfillment of them by future statutary provisions would, as his right hon. friend (Mr. Sheridan) had said, be placed on the very basis upon which the liberties of the people were secured at the Revolution. He had given the fullest consideration to the grounds on which he had acted in 1788, and had reviewed with much anxiety all the arguments, and authorities, which that period had afforded; and he was perfectly convinced now, as he had been then, that Address was the true constitutional course; that all limitations on the prerogative were unconstitutional; that the prerogatives of the crown were trusts for the benefit of the people; and that they could not in the person of a regent, any more than in the person of a King, be abridged, impaired, or limited in one single point, without a violation of that most sacred principle. In whatever shape the question came, he should give such an attempt the most strenuous opposition, and for the same reason he should on Thursday next give his most hearty concurrence to proceed to address the Prince on the plan proposed by Mr. Ponsonby. Mr. Adam said, that it appeared to him to be impossible that when adjournment had succeeded adjournment; that when the right hon. gent. had so much time to reflect on this most momentous subject, he should not, in this the most momentous crisis of English history, have made up his mind upon the whole course of proceeding, as well as upon the Resolutions which he had announced for Thursday. He must repeat, therefore, that the House ought now to be informed of the whole of his plan, without which they were crippled in their opportunity to consider what was fit to be done in a moment of such anxiety, and in a question of so deep and interesting a nature.

as far as relates to the renewal of leases) to the granting any office in reversion, or to the granting, for any other term than during his Majesty's pleasure, any pension, or any office whatever, except such as must by law be granted for life, or during good behaviour, nor to the granting any rank or dignity of the peerage of this realm, to any person, except his Majesty's issue who shall have attained the age of twenty-one years. These are the principal points which have occurred to his Majesty's ministers.

"I beg leave to add, that their ideas are formed on the supposition that his Majesty's illness is only temporary, and may be of no long duration. It May be difficult to fix beforehand, the precise period for which these provisions ought to last; but if unfortunately his Majesty's recovery should be protracted to a more distant period, than there is reason at present to imagine, it will be open hereafter to the wisdom of parliament to re-consider these provisions, whenever the circumstances appear to call for it.

"If your royal highness should be pleased to require any further explanation on the subject, and should condescend to signify your orders, that I should have the honour of attending your royal highness for that purpose, or to intimate any other mode in which your royal highness may wish to receive such explanation, I shall respectfully wait your royal highness's commands. I have the honour to be, with the utmost deference and submission, sir, your royal highness's most dutiful and devoted servant, W. PITT."

Downing Street,

Tuesday night, Dec. 30, 1788.

The Answer of his Royal Highness the PRINCE OF WALES.

Carlton House, Jan. 2, 1789.

"The Prince of Wales learns from Mr. Pitt, that the proceedings in parliament are now in a train which enables Mr. Pitt, according to the intimation in his former letter, to communicate to the Prince, the outlines of the plan which his Majesty's confidential servants conceive proper to be proposed in the present circumstances.

"Concerning the steps already taken, by Mr. Pitt, the Prince is silent—Nothing done by the two Houses of Parliament

can be a proper subject of his animadversion; but when previously to any discussion in Parliament, the outlines of a scheme of government are sent for his consideration, in which it is proposed that he shall be personally and principally concerned, and by which the royal authority, and the public welfare, may be deeply affected, the Prince would be unjustifiable were he to withhold an explicit declaration of his sentiments. This silence might be construed into a previous approbation of a plan, the accomplishment of which, every motive of duty to his father and sovereign, as well as of regard for the public interest, obliges him to consider as injurious to both. In the state of deep distress, in which the Prince, and the whole royal family were involved, by the heavy calamity which has fallen upon the King, and at a moment when government, deprived of its chief energy and support, seemed peculiarly to need the cordial and united aid of all descriptions of good subjects, it was not expected by the Prince, that a plan should be offered to his consideration, by which government was to be rendered difficult, if not impracticable, in the hands of any person, intended to represent the King's authority; much less the hands of his eldest son; the heir apparent of his kingdoms, and the person most bound to the mainteance of his Majesty's just prerogatives and authority, as well as most interested in the happiness, the prosperity, and the glory of the people!

"The Prince forbears to remark on the several parts of the sketch of the plan laid before him; he apprehends it must have been formed with sufficient deliberation to preclude the probability of any argument of his producing an alteration of sentiment in the projectors of it. But he trusts, with confidence, to the wisdom and justice of parliament, when the whole of the subject, and the circumstances connected with it, shall come under their deliberation.

"He observes therefore only, generally, on the heads communicated by Mr. Pitt, and it is with deep regret the Prince makes the observation, that he sees, in the contents of that paper, a project for producing weakness, disorder, and insecurity in every branch of the administra-tion of affairs.—A project for dividing the royal family from each other; for separating the court from the state, and thereby disjoining government from its natural and accustomed support. A scheme disconnecting the authority to command service from the power of animating it by reward: and for allotting to the Prince all the invidious duties of government, without the means of softening them to the public, by any one act of grace, favour or benignity.

"The Prince's feelings on contemplating this plan, are also rendered still more painful to him, by observing that it is not founded on any general principle, but it is calculated to infuse jealousies and distrust (wholly groundless he trusts) in that quarter, whose confidence it will ever be the first pride of his life to merit and obtain. With regard to the motive and object of the limitations and restrictions proposed, the Prince can have but little to observe. No light or information is afforded him by his Majesty's ministers on those points. They have informed him what the powers are, which they mean to refuse him, not why they are withheld.

"The Prince, however, holding as he does, that it is an undoubted and fundamental principle of this constitution, that the powers and prerogatives of the crown are vested there, as a trust for the benefit of the people, and that they are sacred only as they are necessary to the preservation of that power, and balance of the constitution, which experience has proved to be the true security of the liberty of the subject, must be allowed to observe, that the plea of public utility ought to be strong, manifest, and urgent, which calls for the extinction or suspension of any one of those essential rights in the supreme power or its representative; or which can justify the Prince in consenting, that in his person, an experiment should be made to ascertain with how small a portion of the kingly power, the executive government of this country may be carried on.

"The Prince has only to add, that if security for his Majesty's re-possessing his rightful government, whenever it shall please Providence in bounty to this country, to remove the calamity with which he is afflicted, be any part of the object of

this plan, the Prince has only to be convinced, that any measure is necessary, or even conducive to that end, to be the first to urge it as the preliminary and permanent consideration of any settlement in which he could consent to share.

"If attention to what it is presumed must be his Majesty's feelings and wishes on the happy day of his recovery, be the object, the Prince expresses his firm conviction, that no event would be more repugnant to the feelings of his royal father, than the knowledge that the government of his son and representative had exhibited the sovereign power of the realm in a state of degradation, of curtailed authority and diminished energy—a state, hurtful in practice to the prosperity and good government of his people, and injurious in its precedent to the society of the monarch, and the rights of his family.

"Upon that part of the plan which regards the King's real and personal property, the Prince feels himself compelled to remark, that it was not necessary for Mr. Pitt, nor yet proper, to suggest to the Prince, the restraint he proposes against the Prince's granting away the King's real or personal property.

"The Prince does not conceive, that, dining the King's life, he is, by law, entitled to make any such grant; and he is sure that he has never shewn the smallest inclination to possess any such power. But it remains with Mr. Pitt to consider the eventual interests of the royal family, and to provide a proper and natural security against the mismanagement of them in others.

"The Prince has discharged an indispensible duty in thus giving his free opinion on the plan submitted to his consideration.

"This conviction of the evils which may arise to the King's interests, to the peace and happiness of the royal family, and to the safety and welfare of the nation, from the government of the country remaining longer in its present maimed and debilitated state, outweighs, in the Prince's mind, every other consideration, and will determine him to undertake the painful trust imposed upon him by the present melancholy necessity (which of all the King's subjects he deplores the most) in

full confidence, that the affection and loyalty to the King, the experienced attachment to the house of Brunswick, and the generosity which has always distinguished this nation, will carry him through the many difficulties, inseparable from this most critical situation, with comfort to himself, with honour to the King, and with advantage to the public."

observed, that although he had, as he thought, stated his intentions very distinctly on this question, yet his hon. and learned friend appeared to have so much misunderstood him, that he found himself under the necessity of giving some further explanation. His hon. and learned friend must certainly have forgot what he had said with regard to the course of proceeding which he intended to adopt. He had said that he meant to propose on Thursday next the passing of certain Resolutions in the Committee on the State of the Nation, and that it was his intention to lay before the Committee on that occasion the measure which he proposed to found upon those Resolutions, if they passed, as fairly and openly as he should state them when he came to submit to the House the adoption of the measure itself. This he had distinctly stated; and if his hon. and learned friend thought that he should have taken an earlier and a different time for the com- munication, yet his hon. and learned friend would give him credit for having, before he came there, well weighed in his mind what was proper for him to do, and that it was not very likely he should be persuaded to give way at this time to his hon. and learned friend's argument.

remarked, that if the right hon. gent. had made up his mind on the subject, he could not believe that there could be any objection to the desired communication. The only conclusion, therefore, he could come to was, that the right hon. gent. had not yet made up his mind with regard to the course he proposed to take; for it was hardly to be imagined but the right hon. gent. would have communicated it if he could.

then moved, That the order for the Call of the House should be postponed from Wednesday to Thursday, stating, that on the latter day it was intended that the Call should certainly be put in effect. He also proposed that the House should, on its rising, adjourn till Thursday. Both motions were agreed to.