Report from the committee appointed to examine the physicians who have attended His Majesty during his illness, touching the present state of His Majesty's health / ordered to be printed by the Hon. House of Commons, 13 January, 1789.

Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons.

Date:: [1789]

Credit: Report from the committee appointed to examine the physicians who have attended His Majesty during his illness, touching the present state of His Majesty's health / ordered to be printed by the Hon. House of Commons, 13 January, 1789. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

36/54 (page 36)

$( 3* ) Luna, 12° Die Januarii 1789. The Reverend Doftor FRAMCIS WILLIS, jlgahi called in, and examined, Whether, when you figned accounts, at the defire of Dr. Wairen, and by the perfuafion of Sir Lucas Pepys, lefs favourable than the circumftances of the King’s heaitli would have war* anted, you thought that diffe eiue to be a mere difpute about wo ds ? I figned no account, that 1 know of, by Sir Lucas Pepys* s perfuafion—what I figned by his perfuafion was, that Dr. Warren had not waked his majefty. Whether you did at any time, or at any perfon’s defire nr perfuafion, fign \ eports lefs favourable than the t u'.h would have Wa ranted, concerning the ftate of his ma- jefty’s health ? Mot by any perfuafion, that I know of, but in my own mind, rather than have any difpute about it. Was it to prevent a difpute originally, or to put an end to the continuance of a difpute ? As it did not at all i efpetft his majefty's cure, and we had had diftutes about words before, I did not then think it worth while to have any for the futu:e. Do you think that the truth or falfehood of a repo t, figned by the King’s phyficians, for the information of his fubjedts, to be of no more confequence than a difpu e about wo.ds ? It really fti nek me fo then, and I am not at all affedted with it now. Whether or no yoy have not given to her majefty, and to the ladies who have the honour to be about her perfon, more exact accounts, according to your opinion, and of a more confolatory nature ? 1 have always given them the truth, to the bell of my opinion. Whether thofe accounts were in fadt of a more favour- able naiute ? The repo t that was made to the public, is from the appearance of his majefty in the morning, when the fymptoms have ever been lefs favourable; the accounts to the ladies attending her majefty have been frequently in the day, and therefore, taking the whole account of A the 24 hours, it muft appear much more favourab e. Is it true, that the report fent to St. James’s does on'y inc vide the ftate of his majeftv's hea th as it appears in the mo ning, and does not extend to the night and the pre- ceding evening and day. It entes into no particu'ars of any, except quiet or Jifturbid ftate, and deep, and that in ftating the whole together, it cannot be fo particu'ar as thofe given to her majefty every hour concerning his majefty's heath, which (he muft be very anxious to enquire after. Queftion repeated. I think fevera! times the report might have faid, that his majefty bad palfed fevera! hours, the preceding day in many refpedls better than he had done the day before. As far as quiet, or not quiet, the accbuut does include., what paffed in the preceding evening and day—it would • not be particular enough ta fatisfy me whether he was '■ either better or worfe. Whether, taken as a general report, without entering ■ into paiticulars, it is more or lefs favourable to the ftate E of the King's health than the truth would warrant? To the heft of my judgment, lefs favourable. Is It, then, lefs fnvourah'e than the general refult which might be drawn from all the circumftances of the dif. ferent accounts which you give to the ladies a.tend.ng her majefty ? Yes, I think it is. On what occafion, and for what purpofe, did you fign the ceitificate re'-ative to the tranfadlion of that day, m which you was infoimed that Dr. Warren had pre vented his majefty from fleepuig ? A good natured purpofe, and on the paper being offer.1c me to fign, and being allured that it would hurt D. Warien’s cliaradler if I did not. At the time of figning that ceitifica'e, did you explain to Dr. Warren, or Sir Lucas Pepys, or to any other per fon then prefent, the diftinction and refervation vvliicl you have now mentioned to this committee ? Yes, very particularly to both Dr. Warren and Sii Lucas Pepys—whether any body elfe was by I do not re- member. Whether you called in-any of the phyficians attending his majefty, or the furgeons or apnthtcaries, or any othei perf ns than thofe of your own family and the pages, to be » witnefs of the circumftances which you have defcribec as appearing on Friday evening laft ? 1 did not. Whether your purpofe, in excluding any perfons froir coming to his majefty, except by your own permifiion Do 1$