The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-12 00:00:00

THE KING.

,(From the London Medical Gazette, June 12.)
-We have received numerous requests to afford
some particulars of the King's illness. It is
obvious that were we in possession of the infor-
mation required, it would be indelicate and im-
proper to enter into details. Neither, indeed, is
there any thing remarkable in his Majesty's
case, or different from other instances of organic
disease in the chest ending in dropsy ; unless,
indeed, it be the manner in which the Royal
patient has several times rallied when the fatal
result seemed to be imminent ;—a circumstance
chiefly to be attributed to the skill of his at-
tendants, and the unremitting attention with
which 1,.e is watched. We understand that the
most powerful diuretics have failed to produce
the desired effects, and the serous effusion con-
tinuing to accumulate, in spite of the artificial
means adopted for its exit—the permanent diffi-
culty of breathing has increased to a most dis-
tressing extent, and become attended with great
anxiety and exhaustion. Every means which
science can suggest has, of course, been adopted
to relieve the Royal sufferer : among these, the
most successful in procuring sleep and intervals
of ease, have been opiates, and, we- believe,
among others, morphia ; while the more violent
paroxysms of impeded respiration have been in
some degree mitigated by the volatile alkali, and
other diffusible stimulants.

HIS MAJESTY'S' PROFESSIONAL ATTENDANTS.

We would not mix up our notice of the royal
patient with any allusion to the infamous attacks
which have been made upon his medical attend-
ants ; but the honour of our profession re-
quires that we should not suffer them to pass
unanswered.

It was asserted in the Lancet last week, and
the statement was copied into several newspapers,
that one of the physicians had signed the Bul-
letins without seeing his Majesty, and of course
without being personally acquainted with the cir-
cumstances to which he certified ; in, short that
Sir Matthew Tierney, although his name
has regularly appeared, was not consulted by,
nor even did see his Majesty, for nearly twelve
days."
It is difficult to conceive a graver charge than
this, or one made with more circumstantial or
deliberate minuteness of detail than appears in
the paper from which it is taken. Yet do we
pronounce a contradiction, as strong and une-
quivocal as words can make it--that the accu-
sation is a gross and malignant falsehood, which
the general tenor of the article which contains
it leads us to fear is intended to serve some in-
triguing party and personal purpose. This story
comes from the same quarter, and has precicely
the same claim to our belief, as that about Sir
Astley Cooper, which we proved, as well by the
official statement which we published last week
as by the letter of the distinguished surgeon
alluded to, to be " without any foundation in
truth ;" and with regard to the present calumny,
we pledge the character of our journal for our
accuracy, in asserting that it is wholly without
foundation, and as false in statement as it is
scandalous in design.
We would also willingly remove the idea
which the Lancet has been anxious to propagate,
under the flimsy pretence of respect for his
medical skill—that some slight has been shown
to Sir Astley Cooper. Now we would remark,
that when, on the 6th of June, 1829, we find
Sir Astley compared to " Dr. Eady, of
Church-street, Soho," who is represented
as skewing professionally "an example
worthy of speedy imitation to the Serjeant-
Surgeon of our King ;" and when, on the sth
of June, 1830—being precisely one year after
—we find the same writer speaking of the dis•
tioguished Baronet in terms of eulogy which
form such a contrast to the unmeasured insolence
of his former lucubrations—we say, that when
we observe this extraordinary contrast, we may
fairly question the sincerity of a writer whose
opinions have undergone so great a revolution.
Here, however, our principal object is to correct
the error, because it has appeared in several
respectable papers, and among others in the
Courier :—lt is not correct to say that Sir
Astley Cooper has been superseded, for he has
not recently been in attendance. In fact, Sir
Astley has not been consulted by the King since
he was elevated to the rank of " Serjeant-Sur-
geon ;" at which time Mr. Brodie and Mr. Ward-
rop were appointed " Surgeons to the Body." It
is the specific duty of the Serjeant-Surgeon
to attend the King when he goes to battle, and
hence the military turn of the phrase—while it
is the business of the surgeons to the body to
visit him on ordinary occasions. His Majesty's
present malady is one of those which is allotted
to physicians, but which happens to require the
assistance of a surgeon to carry some of the ne-
cessary measures into effect :—and it is remark-
able, that while Mr. Wardrop was supposed to
be in attendance, the Lancet was perfectly satis-
fied with the arrangement. Had his Majesty's
case been surgical, then, of course, more than
one eminent surgeon would have been consulted,
and their names would have been attached to
the Bulletins. Probably, under such circum-
stances, Sir Astley Cooper's assistance might
have been required ; but his holding the office
of Sejeant-Surgeon does not, by any means,
make this smatter of course ;—the late Sir P.
Macgregor, for instance, who held the office of
Serjeant-Surgeon, never was consulted by his
Majesty.

(From the Lancet.)

The nation is unanimous in demanding why the mediC.7l I
attendants of his Majesty, who daily sign the Bulletins, ad-
here with so much pertinacity, if not impertinence, to the
vague and unmeaning expressions which they employ,
relative to the distressing condition of our revered Sove-
reign. Still is the public insulted, still are the feelings of
the people derided, by such expressions as better "night,"
" little sleep," " distressing day," and " refreshing sleep ;"
and the Royal sufferer really appears, from the repetition
f the phrase "embarrassed breathing," to be twitted with
that effect of his malady while at the very verge of the
grave. It is of course the object in issuing the Bulletins,
to convey information ; and if this be acknowledged, why
are these documents so scandalously, so ambiguously
framed ? By the constitution of this country, the people
have a right to insist upon the fullest information at all
times respecting the bodily health of their Sovereign. It
is alleged as an excuse for the absence of all information
in the Bulletins, that they are inspected by, or read to, his
llajesty before publication. Good f,t'od ! is it possible
that the same system of delusion which has been so long
practised upon the people, is in furl operatiou upon the
mind of his Majesty at this critical moment ? Is it i.Ofi-
sible that he who holds the seeptre of this nation, and
who, unhappily,is labouring under a lease from which,
ass we stated in our last, there is not a singia instance of
vacavery upon record,—is it possible, we say, that our
loveivign, thus circumstanwl, is each day told by hisl
confidential medical advisers that he has merely passed a
t‘had night," a " better night," a good night ;" that
bia " symptbins" are " alleviated," that his " embarrass-
snot of breathing" is less! Now the magician and his
'satellites de 4aere placed upon the horns of a dilesama,
from whies €o iescape, without disgrace, or something
svcirie, its uttifeimpossible. They either are acquainted,
cithey.tiro4iot acquainted, with the disease of his Ma-
,jeoty, agd the danger to which be is exposed. If the former,
then tbt are guilty of having wilfully withheld the re-
* See Lancet of that date page 309