The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-12-20 00:00:00

[Coat &i front our l'apa spiertingl

. • •

Dr., noisEht DARLING irViLLII called in, and
examined.
• Wu any amendment already taken place in the course of his
Majesty's disorder i aidilisei the afipeamace of such amend-
ipeat caatiatte at present I A cuesideratile amendment bar
taken place, from the commencemeatof his Majesty's disoi der;
which still continues.
What difference is there if law, between the state of his
Majesty at present, and that in which.be was, when you were
.exernisted before the Ps ivy Council ? It 6 extremely difficult
to measure degrees of aeompinidt of this sort ; the character
of it has, in seine measure, charged; but I think his Majesty,
°pm the whole, full as well now, as when ! was examined be-
fore the Privy Council.
• Did you ever attend his Majesty before, in complaints of this
kind ? lit the year 1801.
ti the character of the present complaint the same asttrat in
the year 1801 ? to the citnitutocentent, it was exactly similar.
Bow in as progress ? In its progress also.
• Do you conceive- that his Slistesty s increased age, since that
period, it at all likely to inflamer, one way or the other; his
altitnate recover) ? Judging fen the symptoms of the case,
I have no reason to think the age will have any influence. •
Do you think the deforta of his Majesty's sight will have any
influences ,lase way or other, on his ultimate recovery ? I
think it mayWe the Gimps of retarding his re' °vet) „but nut of
preventing the ultimate recovery.
Do you think that his Majesty's increased age will have any
luflueuce upon the durution of the diSordert Ido not conAder
that, io this instance, the age will have any influence twat' the
41sorder.
have you ever met with a cam, in. your practice. that you
altiositler as parallel to that of his Majesty ? if age is 'fleets-,
alMry to make ep the parallel, perhaps not,
'F......Hate you ever known'a person, as old as his Majesty, and
ilrltS the same defect of sight, recover fram a derangement of
id 1 1 have never semi a person, at his Majesty s age. la-
bouring under* &Wile complaint to his Majesty's, taking all
Vetirculastanees of the cuniplaint together. -
In the general run of eases, which have come within your
knowledge, in the course of your practice, -bas increased age,
In youropinion, had any inflitence upon the recovery of the
eat, or otherwise? Not where tuc case 'was exactly simi-
lar to his,,Majesty's.
I understood eau to say, you had never met with a case ex-
actlY similar to his Majesty's ? Taknig age, and oilier circum-
stances of his Majesty. Into Cousideration„
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 opois his complaint ? It may be difficult to
answer that qiiestion, without stating the particillar species of
h 6 Majesty's complaim ; his M ,jesty'S complam: dues not ap-
pear, to me, to hc connected a ith age ; it is a complaint, pro-
duced by an accidental circumstance, which would, Kave pro-
duced that complaiat, at any time, iu his Majesty, dialing the
last twenty-two years. 'there is. no mark of age. in the
there are none of those symptoms which mu-
dahlia of that description, asrisitig Irma age,
me, therefore, that his, Majesty is as likely
tintant.ittg his age,j'rom this compliant, as
other accidental complaint he might labour

-own.several 4:tonere of persons, who have la•
derangement of mint, :it particular and dikrent
ICS, with intervals betweeu the dates of de-
re ral.•
,tiered such persons, al more or less likely to
ituence of iolvancea age ? The opinion must
symptoms of the case at the time.
'insider increased years as a circumstance not
, or carrying, in Itself, any influence upon a
is nature ? Generally speaking nge would
lisle Wetter:cc ; but no symptoms, which in
• age in other persons, have nude their ap-
_
delay therefore conclude, that age will
'have nooffect bete.
1/0 you conclude, that age, in an unbroken constitution, has
no influence upon the probahility of recovery, or otherwise,
from this disinder Provided I saw no syleptonis of the ef-
fect of op in the individual, I should ray not.
Cao you at all cotiteniplate iu your own mind, any period in
which you think liis Majesty's recovery likely ? No.
I Veil attended the King iu the year 1801, for the first time ?
tel.
Did you sign the bulletins that were issued in that illness ?
tfe.
Pit en see the bulletimahat were issued in that illness?
Yes, did.
. Did you concur in the propriety of those bulletins, as ex-
'reliable the real state of the King'a health to the public
Yes? I did.
Urd you concur in the opinion, expressed to the public by
'the Physician., by the cessation of the bulletins, that the
Xing was perfectly recovered ? To the best of my recollec-
tion, the King was recovered, and fully capable of doing hit-
sinew: there e. ere some links, remains of huffy abuut his Mit•
testy; nothing further; that I have any recollection of.
Do you mean to say, that these marks of hurry, about Ms
Majesty, were apparent at the time the bulletius ceased ; and
the Physicians thereby announced to the public, that his Ma-
jesty was perfectly recovered? The symptoms of hurry, co!.
minty, occasionally remained.
Were the symptoms of hurry, sash as to create a necessity
for any restraint upon his Majesty after the bulletins ceased ?
;1104 till a relape took place.
I A relapse, then, did, is point of fact, take place, after the
fitness in the year 18011 A relapse took place after the bul-
letins ceased.
What interval was there, between the cessation of the but-
' kilns and the relapse? I have no lneans of ascertaluing, at
this mement, when the bulletins ceased.
What length of time. do you conceive, took place, between
the cessation of the bulletins and the relapse? I. have h per-
fect iecollection of the relapse, but have no recollection
:when the bulletins ceased.
Between the casmises of the bulletins, end the relapse, did
his Majesty transact public liminess with his 'tryouts ?'
HisM
Majesty's servants had access to him.
Had they access, after the usual manner, without he pre-
sence or permission of any medical attendant, or any petsop
deputed by any medical attendant? Certainly.
Nobody was ever present, tit the tune the interviews took
plagece between his Majesty and his servauts ? Not to my Meow-
When,_ and where, did the relape decidedly shewlf P.
At the Queen's home on the 14th or 15th of March.
By whom was it first perceived ? I really cannot call that
`my recolkctioe.
'• Had you teen in the habit of visiting the King, oceasimially,
from the time of the cessation of the bulletins, to the period
of the relapse decidedly hskiug place? 1 had not ceased to
see [he Kin; daily.
When dieryou, yonr‘elf, perceive tie symptoms of a decided
relapse iu the King/ I presume, chimer uu taut evening or the.
next morning.
Ifow long did that relapse'continue ? Bat a very short time
with unv violence.
flow long was it before his Majesty was restored to the Mole
in which the Physicians had reported him to he perfectly teco-
. versa? It is impossible-for me' to ctitirot my memory Wills the
number of days artniti dist:late of time; to the best of my re-
collectiosaafew days only.
When did yoodlecontiriee your attendance upon- the King,
altogetfitr, in the yeOr IKK ?On the 9d of Juste.
' Dad the King's burry, which you. hate described, entirely •
ceased before pia ceased &Walk: upon the King 1 1 thiuks
art "entirely.
• Ott you,conceive those hurries were vestiges of, and de-
pendent upon, the mental ctimplaiat of the Ktag I Cerainly.
W hell you speak of the King's recovery, fit hepurpme of
leastsacting public busine.s, do', nu understand it' in the saute
May at you would the same words. applied to in individual,
that he was competent to tar trallii:LClllM of all his mildness,
public and priyaie„ tiud to the complete management of his afl
Fairs ? Most dssurtally.
him.: you ceased to attend the Kin_, in June, ISM, when
were you since called t) his Majesty ? Oa tbt tith of lot
month. •
Did not you attend the Kiag is thouyear 1904 -No.
Since yea have been called in to the li.in4, do rat recollect
jpwirmg objected Maar prop..sid made for an interview bet weal
t • King and the Lira Chancellor? Yes:
Had you known that it.was iiiteaded to propose to the King
tones the Clialicellor, should you have objected hi his being
tails of it ? I Obotild, certaiiily, have objected.
Do you think (bat tiny beneficial effect was produced to his
.blejesty's mental health by tae interview between the Kiug and
tke Chancellor ? No.
• Has any prejudicial effect resulted hum it ? 1 am not aware
that any prejudicial effect aroma
Oa the eixhi of she Chancellor setingllie King; did you pee
any etfect, good or hail, producgd, that you attributed to tbw
visit of the Chancellor ? Not that / could attribute to the visit
of the Chu:welter.
What was the femme assigned by the lihyskiant fur wishing
the King susee the Chancelleol Some of the Yeysicituss bad
foriiiei lin Mes that that Gbabeeltot would bate souse !tutees
0.4 tbet Kings ilia.

,

silly, is so co. svmptmni • there
ally atteud atutplat
cry kind, that net it appears to w
6 sous French, I,47sivdrfc'maDlitrhiytil
pay ftileght and Itt
you known
situation of the - enijer derail;
wth nothing. of their livi
ight amonstllg it? Serer
you cons!at
uperty tuft .are reenreN. is enuseipm
I *ail fur better depend upon the by
intake. .k AA yew then emu
r MI" bearing, le u
maiwpfele hisk. evaplaint of this
I tot to peattit lam a eonsidetabl
eeneral Ar6,e front
*tutor to kelf_ pearaoce in Pis Maj