The Sun.
London, England, 1810-12-19 00:00:00

in 1804, waslis Majesty's sight as.tnue4afreaed as
it is at present ?—A. No; I did not observe that
his Majesty had all.defedof sight at that period.

Q. Is Majesty's sight now become very de-
febtive ?—A. Very (YeTet,ctive.

Q.—ls that defeat of sight likely, to have any in-
fluence upon his Majesty's ultimate recovery , from
the disease", be likely to have any .influence-npon
the duration of the. d,sorder, I;tippoiiiik, him nl2:-
matey to recover ?—A.. During a certain period of
the diseaso, and.under certain cunis tan ces, his be-
ing blind, is rather a beneficial circumstance, be-•
cause: it intercepts some sources of ire itai jou ; but at
another period of the disease, it will be adverse to
bc,cause it also intercepts smile sources of
amusement-

Q. Computing, then, the different tendencies of
the defectiveness of his Majesty's sight, do you, up-
on the whole, c.oicluie teat the detect ot sight is
livoinable or tinfavourable to the ultimate recovery
of his M ijesty, or tends to shorten or to prolong
the duration
.of his illness, supposing him ultimately'
to recover ?—A. That is 'a questioo 'I can baldly
make up my mind to :• r see operate sarnexiines'
for his benefit ; and there 'are times when I think'
that the loss ot sight 14ill be a grievance, by prevent-
ing the amusing him and abstracting hiin from him-
self:' but what effet,l it will have upon the protract'.
ing or accelerating his recovery, is a great deal more
than I can give a definitive
,answer to. -
Q. In persons labouring under the disease under
which his ;Majesty now unfortUnately labours, do
not the pet sons attending them, address their CULL,-
tellalleeS and manner, very frequently, very much
to the eye of the aglided person :Yes, un-
doubtedly.
Q. Does not the eye afford, to the ,peisons. at-
tending persons afilitied as his Majesty is, when ur_
it's perfect state, a means ot control over the aftd-
ed person have understood that sometimes,
that effect ha's been produced, but I cannot say that
I es er saw any remarkable iust:tese ot.it;
Q. Was not Dr:Simmons called in, to attend. the
King, at the coiuwcncement ot his proem ?
—A. I nndeistood he, was; but that was bettAe
was there.

Q. F 1 did not continue in that attendance ?—A.
He did nutsee'►he King.
Q. Are you more or less sanguine in your hopes
of the King's ultuna►e recovery, t han you were
when you were examined before the Privy Council 3.
—A. I am not less sanguine of his ultimate recovery
than I was then.

HaVe you experienced any disappointment, in,
,the expettations you entertained when you weretx-
amined before the Privy Council as to his Maktsty's
recovery, As to the time of it ?—A. INl2jesty's
relapse, after the examination of the physicians be-
fore the Privy Council,: certainly. distressed us, and
put the prospect of immediate recovery to a greater
distance, but I do riot think of ultimate recovery.
Q. Are you of opinion, that a person, having had,
with an interval of severallears repeated attacksof
this. malady, is on the last attack more or less likely
to recover, than a pe'tson who has not been so pre-
viously subject to, attack I should rather think
that the circutnStance of his having got well before,
from similar attacts, is a foundation ol hope, that be
wilt fronl this.

Does advanced age, coupled with prior attacks
of 'lid same disorder, with which his Alajes y is now
afflitted, make any difference in your calculaion, as to .
the pi bbab:lity 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 con-
fidence. . •

Q, What are_ the peculiarities which take the
• King's MC OUt of your general observation
Those circumstances to winch I have alluded before,
the vigour still of certain faculties of his mind,. and
there being no mark of fatuity about him.
Q. You have silted 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 3- or whether these attacks were referred to
any known cause ?—A. I do not know that. the first
attack was referred to any known cause;- in 1.801
did understand there Was a cause ; I did not under-
stand that in 1804 there was any assignable
cause.

Q. When you were called in on the 3d of No-
vember, did the Physicians, who.had been previous-
ly in attendance, inform you when the iitst sytnp-
'tom of bis Majesty's present complaint was observed
by them ?—A.. I think.they 'told me on the 25th of
October.

Q. Have any of the Royal Fathily seen his Ma-
jesiy atnce you havebeen in 'attendance No.
Q. Has any person, other than the Physicians
and the .Attendants under their inspedion, seen his
Majesty sinct you have been in attendance?—A. The
LOrd Chancellor saw him the day before yester-
day.
Q; Did the. Lord Chancellor apply to you, asking
your opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of
seeing his Majesty before he saw him ?—A. Yes,
he

9., Had any of the Royal Family, ,previously
, for permission to.see his Majesty i—A. Not
that we understood; . .
G,/, Was it with the unanimous concurrence of
the PhYsicians;that no injury could arise to his M-
jesty's health, that the Lord Chancellor.-Was.p.eti-
initted to see his Majesty the day.before:yesterday!?
—A. There was no absolute dissentient; .thefe.wAs
3 discussion on. the subject; and there'waS' a doullti
on some of obi milids; whether it would do him
good or irritate him :. but his Majesty had been -in-'
formed the Chancellor, was to•be there, imid it 'wts
then deeidect amongst us,' that as tliat.was the case,
and he 'seetneA 'to- have macre 'his mind to.the.
seeing the Chancellor, there.iwas -mote chanCe of
itritation by-preventing it, than, there vas by the'
Chancellor's seeing'-him and therefore the Chan-
cellor Saw him with the unanimous concurrence 'of
all, after that discussion.
Q.. By whomw was his Majesty inforrned; that. the •
Chancellor would be there, and was that intbrina-
lion g'iven thr'his'MajeSty with.' the.knoWledge and
consent of alt the' Physicians in attendance.
believe Sir Henry Haltord was the person who iu,
turmoil hi. Mlit-!;ty tilt; CbanCellor w;vais to he mere.

Q. W.th the knowlebe and concurrence rif
the Physicians ?—A. Not al the ;line ;.. Sir 'henry.
Halford „was &one •with- the- King .`at the tine
he ,told and we did not hear of it tilt after-

Q. Then.: the day before yesterday, cons&
qttence of such infortnatiop conveyed to his
jestri ycra—and the -other Physieians;:had none,
tin,t a elidice of evils to c ho-su from; that was
whether he would be itri:ated by seing him, or
More irritated by not seeing That was
not eit.attly the case:, we had some hopes that the
seeing the Chancellt.r irtight give the King more
self-potiseSsibO, and I do nut know that it did not
for a lime, becaase we had known before in former
illnesses, that it had done so. But 'there. was no
evil to he apprehended Iron} it, .except there Might
have been a little momentary anxiety about, the
King. We doubted whether it would be right or
uot,, in our discussion among ourselves ; but there
was nothing of clash or of opposition of senti-
ment ; it was a teiopertfie discussion ; there was nu
dissentient at all ; it was not apprehended that it
was a choice of two evils,

U. Had you been cotimtl7.ed by Sir I-Jynry
ford, tvhether he should inintin his Maj sty, in
the manner he did, as to the Chaiti•f-ihn's attend-
ance, vivuld you. have attreed to Ins Abirsly being
informed That wont,' Lave depended eiiiirely
on the state in bich I. ini,4ltt have seen the King
at that time.

Q. Have you, within the last fortnight, seen the
King at any lime in such a state that you thought
it desirable, the Chancellor should uisit him ?—A.
I do not know that 1 should of myself have men-
tioned it; at the Saille lime I do not know that 1
1141 any objection to it. I, do not . think the King
was quite in I.l,le_statu in which. I should have ex-
pected..ninth bencti+ to have resulted from it.

- 'Q. 'Whets the Chancellor. consul ed thePhYsi.:
cians, on the propriety of seeing its Maiesiy, did
the Physicians agree on any stipulations a. to speaL.
tug on ,ulbjeets of business or (Abet wise ?—A. Yes;
they did;. they, desired the 'Chancellor to avoid any
thing that might create clisctisiurt. One principal
reason why it was s6ggested 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 representatiOos of. his Physicians.
In the first attendance 1. had upon his Majesty in
the year 178 !or that reason "1 desired that the
Chaneell;ir would see the King, and that Mr Pat
would see the King ;, and .at iny•desire they both
saw him. - • .

Q. At what period Of die Eines. illness wasit hal F.
—A. It w•as within the fir,t month, for it. was
tat the cilleell.S Lodge at 'Windsor. ; it• was in_ the
latter, end, of the mouth of November 1788 ; Lord
Thurlow.wtin in, and, Mr. Pitt also saw the King
at that time, before his M ,jesty Was, reMoved iron)
Windsor to Kew.

, .
Q. Do you recolle& whetter any advantageous
effect was produced on his Majesty, •by seeing Mr.
Put and Lord Thurlow i—A. In bulb instances a
beneficial effect ensued. '

U. In what way did these advantages.shew thetn-
selves ?—A. The lint became more composed, a►ai
he was more ruatrageable afterwards ftt that time
we had no other person in attendance upon the
King but his pages. .
Ilas his Majesty been bodily indisposed .once
or, twice within tie lastitortnight ?-o-; A. Yes, there
has been at -times considerable accession of fever
about the King.
U. Do you attach any importance to such bodily
inclispositiOn.as his Majesty has been subject. to for
the last fortnight I. attach considerable im-
portance to any accession of. fever and there Was.
accession of fever within the last fortnight we
had no alarm on account of any other indispo.i.
tion.

Q. In using the word " fever,'.' do you mean
an accession of. the mental, disease, or of badly
indisposition ?—A. Qt bodily indisposition when
we have made use of the. word fever; the King
had lever, though accompanied with an aggrava-
tion of the mental 'disease,;. yet it was independent
of that. .

Q. 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 in-
quire after his Majesty, informed that was settled
that he should attend upon him ?—A. It was not at
the suggestion of the Chancellor, and his Lordship
said that he was not even prepared to exped such
• a circumstance it was rather at. the recommenda-
. tion of the Physicians in attendance.
Q. When Lord Thorlow and Mr. Pitt. saw the
King, in his 104 wer illness, were any of, the Phy-
sicians present at the same time .Yes, I was
present.

Q. Were -any. PhysiCians present when the Lord
• Chancellor saw .hiin the other day ?—A. No. •
Q. Nor any other person.?---A. Not any person
was in the room but the Chancellor; Sir Henry
Halford introduced the Chancellor to the King, and
thOn retired ;, and, no other parson• was in the
room.

Q. You have stated, thatone of the inducements
to the Chancellor's seeing the. King, was., that Par-
liament was to meet the next day; did the Physi-
cians•desire the Chancellor, to see •the King hecans.ii
they were awarethat Parliament was to tilt...et the net
day ?-I.do not know whether That was not 01le crt
the reason"; but it was not done with any disre-
sped to Parliament, only with a view, as it had
been in the former case, in the year 17d8,1hat Mr.
Pitt and the Chancyllor might both have to say,
chit they did not take the state of the King merely
from the (epresentation of his Medical attendants.

Q., Has there been at any time, in your ()pinion,
'any connexion tietween the defect sub,is:ing in his
Maiesty's sight, and the mental disorder under
which his Majesty at present labours, or at any
:.ketr rtne,rl: period lahc,ure..l ?---A.- No, I do not appre-
hend there is. ,
You have said, that you are not less sanguine
of his Majesty's uhunati? recovery, thin' you were
when you gave )our V*Ttc.i,epc.e. bL,lore. the, Privy
Council; are you less sanguine of Lib Maj,•sty's.
siteedy-feeovery than you wete at that period
A. Yes, of his nijeSty's speedy rcccvery ; front.
the relap.e which took rlace insinudra'tely
wa:Certainly have not so la,r_a_Trosectt.