Lords Sitting of 9 January 1812

STATE OF IRELAND.
Lord Grenville, at the request of his noble friend (earl Fitzwilliam) who had given notice of a motion respecting the state of Ireland, for tomorrow se'nnight, moved to discharge the order for summoning their lordships on that day, with the view of postponing it till Friday, the 24th instant. His noble friend was decidedly of the same opinion with himself, that the situation of Ireland had been brought to a crisis, and that it must now be decided what were to be the future relations between this country and that. The reason, however, which induced his noble friend to wish the postponement of the motion was, that in the additional

73
interval some noble lords might be expected to arrive, particularly those who represented in that House the peerage of Ireland; and whilst from that courtesy and respect which was due to noble lords, his noble friend wished for a little further delay; a strong additional motive also was the advantage which might be expected from hearing the sentiments of the noble lords he had alluded to, who from their more intimate and personal knowledge of the events which had recently taken place in Ireland, might be enabled to give the House some valuable information. This was the only ground on which it was wished to delay the question, and there would not, if possible, be any further delay.
The order for summoning the Lords for to-morrow se'nnight was discharged, and fixed for Friday, the 24th instant.

STATE OF THE FINANCES.
Lord Grenvilleobserved, that a partial statement of the revenue of the country had been made elsewhere, and was probably now in the hands of their lordships. He could not applaud that conduct as manly, where the individual endeavoured to deceive himself and to shut his eyes to the difficulties of the country, still less could he call by the name of patriotism an attempt to deceive the country. He should therefore move for Accounts of the Produce of the Consolidated Fund, of the War Taxes, and of the annual Land and Malt for the years ending the 6th of January, 1810, and the 5th of January, 1811, in order that a true statement might be before the House, and to the production of these accounts he supposed there could be no objection.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid he should not object to the motion. With respect to the statement elsewhere, he had not seen it, but he was satisfied it would be found that no attempt had been made by an individual to deceive himself, as alluded to by a the noble lord, or still less to deceive the country.—The motions were agreed to.

REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS APPOINTED TO EXAMINE THE KING'S PHYSICIANS.
The Earl of Liverpoolrose to move the appointment of a Select Committee, to examine the Physicians in attendance on his Majesty, touching the state of his-Majesty's health. His lordship observed, that they were now called upon to resort to this measure under different circumstances to those which existed in the last session. The Privy
74
Council at that period had no jurisdiction: in the case; they were summoned as the body that could most conveniently be summoned to examine the Physicians, and made their Report to Parliament, which afterwards appointed Committees of it own also to examine the Physicians. Now, under the act passed last session, the Queen's Council had a legal jurisdicdiction, and their Reports under that act had already been laid on the table. As however some further legislative measure was necessary upon this melancholy subject, he thought it would be more consistent with propriety for the House to have on its Journals the Examination of the Physicians in attendance on his Majesty taken before a Committee of its own body, and he should therefore move, That a Select Committee be appointed to ex amine the Physicians in attendance on his Majesty, touching the state of his Majesty's health since their last examination before a Committee of this House.—Ordered. And also, that the said Committee consist of 21 Lords, and that they be chosen by ballot.
On the 15th instant the said Committee made their Report, as follows:

REPORT.
By the LORDS COMMITTEES appointed to examine the Physicians who have attended his Majesty touching the stale of his Majesty's health, since the examination of his Majesty's Physicians, before a Committee of this House in the last session of parliament; and to report such examination to the House;
Ordered to Report, That the Committee have met and examined the several physicians who were sworn for that purpose at your lordships' bar, and the evidence given by them before the Committee was as follows:
Die Lunœ, 13° Januarÿ 1812.
Dr. WILLIAM HEBERDEN called in, and examined.
2. Is the state of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his Parliament, and of attending to any kind of public business?—A. It is.
What is the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—His Majesty's bodily health is not entirely in its natural state, but not far removed from it.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—Very much disordered.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty' bodily and mental health since your last examination before a Committee of this House, are you now of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is probable or improbable?—Improbable.
In what degree do you consider his Majesty's recovery as improbable?—It is perhaps impossible to describe with accuracy the degree in which I may feel the improbability of his Majesty's recovery. The improbability is certainly considerable, but not in an extreme degree.
Are you off opinion that his Majesty's recovery is hopeless?—No.
Do you expect that his Majesty will recover?—I do not.
Dr. THOMAS MONRO called in, and examined.
2. Is the state of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his Parliament, and of attending to any kind of public business?—A. The state of his Majesty's health is such as to render him incapable of coming to his Parliament, or of attending to any public business.
What is the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—His Majesty's bodily health is tolerably good.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—The present state of his Majesty's mental health is certainly, in my opinion, insane.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's bodily and mental health during his Majesty's present indisposition, as far as it has come under your observation, are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is probable or improbable?—I think his Majesty's recovery is improbable.
In what degree do you consider his Majesty's recovery as improbable?—I consider it very improbable.
Are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is hopeless?—I do not entirely despair.
Do you expect that the King will recover?—No; I do not.
Dr. SAMUEL FOART SIMMONS called in, and examined.
2. Is the state, of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his Parliament, and of attending to any kind of public business?—A. The state of his Majesty's health is certainly not such as to enable him to meet his Parliament, or to attend to any public business.
What is the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—Very good.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—Much deranged.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's bodily and mental health during his Majesty's present indisposition, as far as, it has come under your observation, are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is probable or improbable?—Improbable.
In what degree do you consider his Majesty's recovery as improbable?—It is difficult to say, because in some cases recoveries so unexpectedly take place,-that it sets all calculations at defiance. The proportion of recoveries in persons of his Majesty's advanced period of life is much less than in earlier periods; but recoveries do sometimes take place in persons of a still greater age than his Majesty.
Are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is hopeless?—Not hopeless.
Are you physician to St. Luke's Hospital?—I was for thirty years, and now am consulting physician.
Is there any regulation in that Hospital with respect to the admission of patients after a certain age?—Till within about three years there was not; persons of any age were admissible; but since that period no patient of seventy years of age is admitted. I have looked over the memoranda of all the Hospital cases that I have, where the ages of patients are accurately marked, prior to the regulation with respect to the exclusion of patients about seventy years of age, and I find that in the course of about thirty years there were, out of six thousand two hundred and fifty-six patients, only seventy-eight who were of the age of seventy years and upwards; and that of those seventy-eight only sixteen were discharged cured, which is in the proportion of one in five; whereas of the others,-taking the whole number of patients admitted into the Hospital from its establishment, nearly one half (rather more than four in ten) were discharged cured. It appears that of three hundred and thirty four patients discharged uncured and re-admitted as deemed incurable, eighteen have been discharged cured, which is about five in one-hundred. That I think shews the difficulty of fixing the degree of improbability. Those eighteen persons had been for several years in a state of derangement.
Were any of those eighteen above the age of seventy?—I think they were, not; but; I cannot speak positively without referring to books.
Of the sixteen patients referred to in a former part of his answer, has Dr. Simmons any recollection whether any of them had been deranged for any considerable time, or whether they had had frequent recurrences of their disorder?—That is a question I cannot answer without have recourse to books.
Does Dr. Simmons know what was the cause of the regulation in consequence of which patients above the age of seventy were excluded from St. Luke's?—About the same time that the regulation took place for the exclusion of persons above the age of seventy, a rule was made also for the exclusion of children under the age of twelve. It was found, that of the old persons a much smaller proportion recovered than of the other patients. Many of them soon fell into a state of infirm bodily health. They died in a larger proportion from palsies and other diseases incident to old age; and therefore it was thought better to confine the admissions to the middle ages of life.
Was the improbability of cure the cause of the regulation?—I think not, because we have had persons of a more advanced age (one of eighty-three) discharged from the Hospital as cured. The age of the patient merely was certainly not the reason of the regulation; at least I never understood it to be so.
Does Dr. Simmons recollect whether any of the persons above the age of se verity, discharged as cured, were blind?—I can speak with' certainty that they were not, because the number of blind patients that I have had an opportunity of seeing has been very small, not more, as far as I recollect, than six in the Hospital, and two in private practice.
How many of those blind patients recovered?—I recollect no instance Of perfect recovery.
Do you expect that the King will recover?—I can hardly say that I expect it.
Upon What grounds do you deem his Majesty's recovery improbable?—I believe I have already stated the reasons, one of which was his age.
Is the age of his Majesty the only ground upon which Dr. Simmons considers his Majesty's recovery as improbable?—Not merely his age—the general turn of his disorder.
What are the grounds upon which Dr Simmons considers that his Majesty's recovery is not hopeless—There are many
78
grounds Upon which I consider the case as not hopeless—the regularity of his former habits of life—the present good state of his general health—his recovery from' former attacks of his disorder—the accuracy of his perception in many points, particularly With respect to his food. His Majesty's memory likewise seems so perfect, that it cannot fail to give some hope as to the ultimate termination of the disorder.
Is there any indication of fatuity in his Majesty's disorder?—There is no such indication; and that I think another strong reason for not considering his Majesty's case as hopeless.
When was Dr. Simmons first called in to attend his Majesty during his present illness?—On the 9th of October last.
Since that period, has his Majesty made any progress toward recovery?—I cannot say that there has been any obvious progress toward recovery.
Does Dr. Simmons consider his Majesty in a more or less favourable state for recovery from such a disorder, than most persons of Seventy years of age?—Not less favourable than other persons of that age.
Does Dr. Simmons consider the case as more or less favourable for recovery now, than when he first saw his Majesty on the 9th of October;—Rather less favourable, from the length of time that has elapsed without any obvious progress towards recovery.
Die Martis 14° Januarÿ 1812
Dr. JOHN WILLIS called in, and examined.
Is the state of his Majesty's health such, as to render him incapable of coming in person to his Parliament, and of attending to any kind of public business!—Certainly.
What is the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—The present state of his Majesty's health is nearly the Same as it has been since I have seen his Majesty; I have thought it upon the whole rather better since I Was first called in.
When was Dr. Willis first called in during his Majesty's present illness?—The first time I saw his Majesty was on the 9th of October.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—The present state of his Majesty's mental health, without meaning to affix any nice distinctions, is a high degree of derangement.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's

79
bodily and mental health during his Majesty's present indisposition, as far as it has come under your observation, are you of opinion that his: Majesty's recovery is probable or improbable?—Improbable.
In what degree do you consider his Majesty's recovery as improbable?—I consider it very improbable.
Are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is hopeless?—No, I should not think the case hopeless. By saying not hopeless, I mean to say, I do not consider recovery as impossible.
Since the 9th of October has there been any progress towards recovery?—I think there have been occasional symptoms for the better, rather than any progress.
When did Dr. Willis see the King last?—Yesterday morning.
Did he consider the King's mental health at that time better or worse than it was on the 9th of October?—I certainly did not think it worse, but I can scarcely "ay I thought it better.
In what state was the King's bodily health yesterday?—Very nearly in the same state as it has been since the 9th of October.
Has Dr. Willis any expectation of the King's recovery from his mental disorder?—I can hardly say with regard to any. I have not expectation of the King's recovery.
Is the Committee to understand, that, considering all the circumstances of the case, Dr. Willis does not, upon the whole, expect the King to recover?—Considering all the circumstances of the case, I certainly do not expect the King to recover.
Has Dr. Willis known many persons to recover, when afflicted by the particular species of derangement under which the King labours?—Yes, I have known a great many recover from the particular species of derangement under which the King labours.
After they had arrived at the age of the King?—No, I cannot say that.
Has Dr. Willis ever attended any patients who were blind?—No, I have not.
Dr. MATTHEW BAILLIE called in, and examined.
Is the state of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his Parliament, and of attending to any kind of public business?—The
80
state of his Majesty's health is such as to render him incapable of coming to Parliament, or of attending to public business.
What is the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—Except for a little exacerbation which has taken place within the last two or three days, his Majesty's bodily health has been little disordered.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—The errors of his Majesty's mind are at present as strongly impressed, upon it as during any period of his illness; for a few weeks lately, his Majesty bas been able occasionally to relate anecdotes more distinctly than for two or three months previous to that period; within the last two or three days his Majesty's mind has been entirely lost in error.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's bodily and mental health, since your last examination before a Committee of this House, are you now of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is probable or improbable?—Adverting to all the circum-stances in that question, I think his Majesty's recovery extremely improbable.
In what degree do you consider his Majesty's recovery as improbable?—I consider it as amounting to the highest degree of improbability that his Majesty should recover.
Are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is hopeless?—I should say that his Majesty's recovery is not altogether without hope, because it is not impossible.
Does Dr. Baillie expect the King to recover?—Certainly not.
When did Dr. Baillie first change the opinion which he expressed when last examined before the Committee of the House of Lords with respect to the probability of the King's recovery?—I began to lose a considerable part of my confidence, with respect to his Majesty's ultimate recovery, a little before the quarterly Report of July.
Does Dr. Baillie mean to say, that since the quarterly Report in July he has continued to think the King's recovery improbable?—Certainly.
Sir HENRY HALFORD, Baronet, called in, and examined.
Is the state of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his Parliament, and of attending to any kind of public business?—It is such as to render it impossible for him to come, to his Parliament, or to attend to public business.
What is the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—I think the state of his Majesty's bodily health by no means good.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—His Majesty's mental health is extremely disordered.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's bodily and mental health since your last examination before a Committee of this House, are you now of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is probable or improbable?—Very improbable.
In what degree do you consider his Majesty's recovery as improbable?—I have already answered that question.
Are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is hopeless?—Not hopeless, because there is no physical impossibility.
When did you first perceive such a change in the symptoms of Ins Majesty's disorder as to make you think his recovery improbable?—In the beginning of July last.
Have you continued to think his Majesty's recovery improbable since that period?—I have.
Has there been any progress made toward recovery since that period?—I think not.
Has sir Henry Halford any expectation of his Majesty's recovery?—I do hot think his Majesty will recover.
Has there been any alteration in the state of his Majesty's bodily health within the last three or four days?—I cannot speak confidently to that question, because I left Windsor on Saturday.
Dr. ROBERT DARLING WILLIS called in, and examined.
Is the state of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his Parliament, and of attending to any kind of public business?—The state of his Majesty's health is such as to render him incapable of coming to Parliament, or of attending to any public business.
What is the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—I have never thought his Majesty's bodily health to be good. Within the last, few days there has been an increase in the morbid irritability of the system. This was increasing when I left Windsor yesterday morning; but generally speaking, I consider his Majesty's bodily health to have been better than, trader alt the circumstances of the case, might be reasonably expected.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—The present state of his Majesty's mental health is as bad, or perhaps worse, than at any period of the complaint.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's, bodily and mental health since your last examination before a Committee of this House, are you now of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is probable or improbable?—I think his Majesty's recovery extremely improbable.
In what degree do you consider his Majesty's recovery as improbable?—I think it all but impossible.
Are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is hopeless?—I scarcely know how to apply the word hopeless in a medical sense. The words hopeless and despair apply only to certain states, which are somewhere between extreme improbability and impossibility; but those states are so difficult to be ascertained, that I scarcely know when to apply the words.
Does Dr. Willis expect the King to recover?—I do not.
When did you first cease to think the King's recovery probable?—Soon after the last attack in July.
Have you continued to think the King's recovery improbable since that period?—I have seen no reason to form any other opinion.
Have you ever attended any patients in a state of mental derangement, who were blind?—Never.
In your answer to the question respecting the state of the King's bodily health, did you mean to state that it had been in any degree worse during the last three or four days?—Certainly, in some degree worse.
Was it so much worse as to make you apprehend any degree of danger?—Was it to continue, I should consider that there was some danger.
Do you speak of what it is now, of what it was some days ago?—I left Windsor yesterday morning; I speak of the state in which it was then. I think it right to add, I have frequently seen such states before, from which his Majesty has recovered.
Have you ever seen any other patient recover from a similar state?—Frequently.
At the King's age?—No.
It the nature of the present attack the same as that from which yaw have seen the King recover before?—Precisely.