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

discussion on the subject, and there was a doubt
on some of our minds whether it would do him
good to 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 had seemed to have made up his
to seeing theChaneellor, there wits more chance of
irritation by preventing it than tilere was by the
seeing him; and therefore the Chan-
cellor saw him with the unanimous concurrence of
all, after that, liscession.
Hy *.whom was his Majesty informed that the
Chaniallor would be there, and was that informa.
- don given to his Majesty with the knowledge and
. i c:onsept of all the Physicians in attendance ? I be-
lieve Sir Henry Halfurd was the person who
in-
formed hii Majesty the Chancellor was to be there.
With the knOwledge and concurrence of all the
Physicians? ~ Not at the time; Sir Henry Milford
was shone with the King at the time he told hint,
• •and we did not bear of it till afterwards. • .
Then the day before yesterday, in consequence
of such information conveyed to his Majatly, you
' and the ether Physicians hail none .but a choice of
Oils to choose from ; that was,' whether he would
be irritated by seeing him, or more irritated by not
• ssieing him ? That was net exactly the cue: •ere
h id some hopes that the seeing the Chancellor might
• give the King more self.possession ; and I do nut
know that it did nut for a time, because, we had
• known before informer illnesses, that it had done
au. But there teas no evil to be apprehended from
it, except there mieht
,Isave been a little.momentary
anxiety about the King. We doebted whether it
would be right or not, 61 our disciiesion 'among
ourselves ; but there was nnthiog.of clash or of -op.
position of 'sentiment; It was a temperate
sloe ; there 'was no disientient at all ; it ,seats not
• apprehended that it was a choice of two evils.
-Hid bolt been consulted by Sir Henry Hal.
fords whether lie should inform his Majesty, lit the
manner he did, as to the Chancellor's attendance,
\kneld you have weal, to her Majesty being in.
formed ? That *add have depended entirely on
the state io which I might have seen the Ring at that
Vine.
Have you, within the last fortnight, seen the
ine.'at any time, in such a state, that you thought
it desirable the Chancellor should visit him.? Ido
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 thick the King 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 sec the King, was, that. Parliament
• • might.not take the state of the Klieg merely from
• the represeufations of his Physicians. In the first
attendance I had upon his Majesty, in the year 1788,
fur that reason, I desired that the Chancellor
e!enld see the King, and that Mr. Pitt would see
the Kink; sad at say desire they both saw him.
,
At what period of 'the King's Mites, was that ? It
seas. within-the fieet month, for it was while his Ma.
*Ay was at the Queen's Lodge, at Windsor ; it
. WAS in the latter end of the month of Nuven.brr,
1788, Lord Thurlow went in, and Mr. Pitt also
3tw the King at that time, before his Majesty was
remossal from
,Windsor to Kew,
, Do you recoil.* whether any advantageous
• effect woe
.producidoo his Majesty by seeing Mr.
Pittend Lord Theriot, In both instances a be-
• , te.:6e141 effect ensued.
in what way did those advantages skew them-
.
Seim The King became more composed, and be
viati MOre manageable afterwards : at that time we
had no other persons in attendance upon the King
but his. pages.' •
Ilse 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.
DI, you attach any importance to such bodily
indispuetion at his Majesty has been subject to for
the last fortnight ? I attach considerable importance
to any secession of fever ; and there was accession
of . fever within the last fortnight; we had dealer=
, on account of any other indisposition.
In using the word " fever," du you mean es tie
cession of the mental demaset or of bodily indispo-
sition ? Of bodily indisposition, when we have
suade 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 en.
enquire after his Majesty, informed it wits settled
that he should attend upon tint I It was not not at
the suggestion of the Chancellor, and his Lordship
said that he was nut even prepared to expect such a
circiensiance ? it seas rather at the recommendation
bf the physicians in attendance. •
When !atoll 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.
Nur any othe person ? Not any person was in
the room hot the Chancellor ; Sir Henry Halfurd,
introduced the Chancellor to the King, and then
retired ; and no ether person was in the room.
Yon have 'toted that ono of the inducements to
the Chancellor's seeing the King was, that Partia...
tnytit was to meet the nee' day ; did the Physicians
desire the Chancellor to ace the King, because they
IA ere aware that Parliament was to . meet the neat

ei ty Idu not know whether that .was one of the
ical1011111; but it was nut done Nith any disrespect to
P.albessent, 'only with a view, as it had been its the
Burnet! ease, in the year 1788, that Mr. Pitt and the
Cbthseellor might both have to say, that they did
itot take the state of the King merely from the re-
presentation of his medical attendants.
Has there been at any time, in your opinion,
any connection between the defect sotbsisting to his
i‘lijest)'s an.l the mental disorder under
kis MigiVsty at Itrasent 131)(JUIll or at any fur.