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

;F`;clared qdite well ; I understood it did not last
liNe a mouth or two, or,a few weeks : but I only,
peak from hearsay in this respei.
Cf Q. Then, in fad, you ceased to visit the King in
'is former illness, after he was declared quite well ?
vp-A. Yes.

Q. And you have heard that, subsequent to that
ieclsration, there were oCeaSibital paroxysms of the
aiisorder, though, slight attd short:?---A. They could
etardly be called,, aroxysms; it was more a hurry
di manner than any thing else; as I- understood
r irom those who saw his Majesty.

t.
Q. Were you a party to the decimation, in the
'three former illnesses, that the King was perfealy.
well ?=.A. Not in the three former instances : at
i.the time thAt I declared the King to be well, in the
year I 788; I then thought'the King well; that was,
t,
I think, in the beginning of March, 1789.
e Were you a party to the declaration, thatthe
IF.,ing Was perfectly well in 189 ?—I was.
• Q. In 1801, weic you a fi'arty to the declaration,
that the King was perfectly well ?—A. No; in
1801, after the King was so touch 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 to be ne-
cpsiary for me to attend any longer. The King
had a ;relapse, funderstood at Kew ; but I did nut
.see him in that relapse.

Q. 'Can you recoiled the date of the lastbullef in,
that \vas-signed by you in the year 1801 ?—A. N 6,

X have no memorandum of it.

Q.. Who were the Medical attendants upon the
Ktng: on his relapse at Kew in 1801 ?—A. I be-
lieve the late Dr. GiSborne, and Dr. John and Dr,
Robert Willis. Ido not 'know whether Mr. Dun-
das might see 'him but they were the only Phyoi-
ciatwattending him at that tune.
Q: Were-you a party to the declaration, that' the
King Was pettedly well, in the year 18u- VYes,
I thihk-T wa4 al that time:

Q. Vas
.there any relapse after that -declaration
in that illness 1-711.. Not any tbat I uudei'stuoci ; I
did 'not see his Majesty. alter that • but .1 never
beard of any afterwards. ' • - •
la. Wheti yUu withdrew in the year tsat, was
it in consequence of any difference of opinion -with
the, caner Medical attendants ?-11. None in 'the
itror4; it was merely because I thought that tit?.
Was.a great deal better, and that my attend-
ance was tio_l9tigtr nocessary at that time.

have mentioned: the King's competency
to
.btisinesS• in• the intervals of .periods of ti'urries
which may occur att:.tr the.disease has in a rent
measure ceased ; during those,periods (if tigrey, do
yoi think that the King _would be competent to
tratisati ‘my business, public or priva,e ?—A. f can.
riot answeu that qUestion (rum triy own .knowledge;
but what I Understood was this, that if the King
was, from any little opposition, rather
.in a flurry, if
bdWas told there was any business to transact, it
composed hi.m directly : "that was the te,timony
Oa-Was given to: me by several persons who sow
hiM at the time.

Q. WV° were the persons. \N ho gave you that
testimony ?—A. I cannot tell exactly now ; it was
those' who were about l•inn at the time ; I think' I
heard something of that hind from Di.l-Lberden,
but I do not mean to rely upon .my quotntion:
Q. 'ln 1801 there was.a.relapse I—A. Yes.

Q. But atter die complete recover ie3 in 1789 and
1804, tilos:: flurries occurred ?—A. Yes I did not
understand here Was any relapse in the first
nor in 1804. I believe, as lar as 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 at tack
was shorter, because in 1788 the complaint com-
menced in 06tober, and we did not declare the
King welhill 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.
. _

Q. At the time. you ceased, to, attend the King, in
1)30 t, was there any declaration' wade that he was
completely recovered ?—A. No_ declaration' was
then made that he was completely. recovered. I do
not recoiled 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 ;. see-
ing the King getting better, and understanding that
• he was soon guing to Kew, I thought that it would
bave 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.
Q. Did you ,e,iteem the King well at the time
you withdrew your attendance upon him ?—A. I
•shonld ratherthink that, I.clid trunk him well at that
time; I thought :him so 'nearly so-that I could very
safely withdraw.. . .
Q.: You wished the public to understand, from
your withdrawing from. attendance that the King
was well ?—A. I. wished so, , because I thought tor
myself. But I doinot reeolled the precise terins of
the lust ;
_but I am sure I never signed any;
thing that I did not think.
• CI. The Commit teeis. to understand that the comi
plete recovery of. ftie.fOog is Ow same as tile eona-
pjvte recovery of any,other person oi the saine disc
. order, to be intrusted with any thing he may ba„i
to transact, whether public or. private ?11. I
think so.
-U. There is -no diarence, in your estitnation,
betWeeti the teeovery of the King and :that, of any
ether person.'----A. None, in n:1 estiinaLon.
U. is the peesent age of his,Najesty likely more

to atfect:the duration "of his illness wan his age at
the respective, periods of his former attacks of this
disordeq?—A. I can. only answer that, iAuestipri by
saying, that age seems to 'hay.e.made very fevrde--
predations upon his Majesty. ,He is apparently
younger and stronger, than .mapy persons much.
younger that) himselt; sitd;,therelore touch better
able to resist, the effeti of, disease th:a? syveral:per-..
sons younger than himself ,I.yould be,
Q.. You will, in your answer, compare his Ma:

jesty, with ,other persons, but with himself
only ; does his pre Sent agermore or leas/ affea the
probability of the .duration- of the disorder than his
age at the former periods of attach I should
' appreiteud that it must have some eWett, though I
do not see that he has at pres'ent suffered from
laia age.

Q: A the period of his M,jesty's former attack,