An enquiry into the circumstances of the death of King Charles the Second, of England / by Norman Chevers.

  • Chevers, Norman, 1818-1886.
Date:
1861
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: An enquiry into the circumstances of the death of King Charles the Second, of England / by Norman Chevers. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    45/60 (page 43)
    on the other hand, it be found that these two physicians actually did affix their signatures to the official report of the post mortem examination, there cannot be a doubt that they and the whole of their colleagues were honest- ly satisfied, by inspection of the parts, of the truth of their declaration that—“ there was nothing preternatural in the organs within the abdomenof course including the stomach and bowels, with the exception of the congested states of the spleen, liver, and kidneys which they described. Supposing that the separate examination of the stomach and bowels had not been, previously, decided upon, it is not surpris- ing that,—when they found that Needham, the zealous anato- mist, was among them, full of eager curiosity, indiscreetly displayed, the first to discover the dark spots, (which, as they are described to us, carry no evidence of anything suspicious,) — they should have determined to satisfy him no further. The course which they took, interpreted in this manner, was natural; it, however, displayed inordinate and, therefore, suspicious caution and timidity, and the result shows that, like most timid measures, it was injudicious and unsuccessful. It is possible that, as a precautionary measure, the sixteen medical men in attendance, or certain of their number, were, offi- cially, directed to make a private examination of the intestinal canal. This, however, is improbable. The extraordinary number of physicians and surgeons, engaged in this case, has been no- ticed, with surprise, by several historians; still this must be taken as an evidence of the absence of any criminality on the part of King James who may fairly have considered that, as cruel suspicions were abroad, the first steps in the indis- pensable enquiry might safely be confided, exclusively, to these men of large experience and unquestionable integrity. The fact, however, that strangers were allowed to be present at the autopsy goes far to prove that the medical officers were not thus instructed by the Government, but were left at liberty to use their own discretion in conducting the examination. That the medical men performed their duty conscientiously, and that, upon examining the stomach and bowels, they could not discover anything morbid or suspicious cannot, I think, now be doubted; but it is much to be regretted that they did not secure themselves and others by expressly stating, in their report, that they had, carefully and thoroughly, examined the stomach and bowels and had discovered them to be sound.