L that year, the King's assent was given by presence of Lord Eldon and Lord Sidmouth, and most of the rest of the ministry of 1804, who might, if they had chosen, have contradicted, or cross-examined, him. The publie must well remember, that, in 1804, Dr. SIMMONS of St. Luke's Hospital, and his men, attended the King; and Lord Grey asserted, and challenged contradiction, that these persons remained with him until | the 10th of June of that year! Nobody accepted Lord Grey's challenge. Nobody attempted to contradict him. But, I will, if the reader chooses, leave this circumstance wholly out of consideration; and stick to the facts stated upon oath by Dr. HEBERDEN, according to whom the King's malady continued from the 12th of Februsry to within some days of the 23rd of April. Now, then, what can have been meant by the words "some days ?? The Hypocrite, who writes in the COURIER, says it may mean any time any length of time; that it may mean "a fortnight, at "least." But, is this the interpretation that sound sense and a love of truth and justice will allow of?No: it is clear, that Doctor Heberden meant a few days; some number within a week: but, even in those days, his words by no means admit, that the King was perfectly recovered; and, after all, we find, that the Doctor, or another physician, had to remain constantly about him even to the month of October afterwards, on account of the still remaining appearances of indisposition.——Leaving out of the question, therefore, Earl Grey's uncontradicted assertion as to the attend. ance of Dr. SYMONDS and his men, until the 10th of June, Dr. HEBERDEN'S evidence is full as to the point, that the malady continued from the 12th of February to the 23rd" proper to acquaint the House of Commons, of April.--What, then, was done during this time, in the name of the King, and as by his express authority? Whether any Commissions may have been granted, any leases of Crown Lands let or renewed, any titles or honours bestowed, any sentences of death confirmed, during that time, are particulars that I have not, at hand, the means of ascertaining; but, I have the means of ascertaining in what cases the very highest functions of royalty, the giving assent to Acts of Parliament, the making of laws, affecting the property, liberty, and lives of fifteen millions of people, were exercised, and these I shall accurately state.--Remember, that the space of time mentioned by Dr. HEBERDEN, was, from the 12th of February to the 23rd of April, 1804.--On the 9th of March of "&c. &c."- -This, even this, was done on the 26th of March, that is, twenty eight days before the 23d of April.And yet, with these facts before us; with all this before us, we are not to be allowed to express our opinion, that great caution ought to be used in the resumption of the royal authority by the King; we are not to be allowed to say, that care ought to be taken to prove that he is quite well first; we are not to do this, upon pain of being marked out by the impudent and venal editor of the COURIER, as men who wish to dethrone the King, to throw him into a corner, to pluck the Crown from his head and to bind it with thorns! But, these are the last struggles of knavery and hypocrisy combined; and they will not succeed. Thus stands the case up to the 23rd of April. I beg the reader to bear the dates in his mind. Thus stands the case up to the 23rd of April; but, as the reader may attach great importance to the assertion of Lord Grey respecting the attendance of Dr. SYMONDS and his men 'till the 10th of June, it is proper to inform him, that, between the 23rd of April and the 10th of June, 24 Public Acts of Parliament received the King's Assent by Commission, as in the former cases. And, by the 30th of July, 36 more Public Acts; thus making the number 91 Acts, receiving the King's Assent, by Commission, after the 12th of February in that year; and, July, the reader will bear in mind, was still long before the month of October.- -There are still some circumstances to notice, in order to make the history of these transactions complete. A change of ministry took place between the 23rd of April and the 10th of June.- -Mr. Addington, Ld. St. Vincent, Mr. Yorke, and Ld. Hobart, went out of the cabinet; and Mr. Pitt, Ld. Melville, Ld. Harrowby, Ld. Camden, and Ld. Mulgrave, came into it. The others remained; and the Law-Officers also remained. This change was completed on the 18th of May: So that Lords Eldon, Castlereagh, Hawkesbury, Westmorland, and Chatham were in both cabinets. Nothing more need be said. The thing is so plain; the chain of facts so complete; the statement so incontrovertible, that it sets all pettifogging at defiance. There are, however, two points, upon which I shall just say a word or two; namely, the declaration of Mr. ADDINGTON (now Ld. Sidmouth), during the King's malady in 1804; and the individual responsibility of Lord Eldon. --As to the former, it was called forth by a question, and afterwards a motion, of Sir ROBERT LAWLEY, in the House of Commons, on the 27th of February, 1804. Sir Robert Lawley asked the minister for an explicit statement as to the state of the King. To this Mr. Addington answered, that no such statement was necessary in the opinion of his Majesty's confidential servants. Whereupon Sir Robert Lawley moved an adjournment of the House. This produced a long debate, which was very interesting at that time, and certainly not less so now. In this debate Mr. Addington spoke no less than five times. He made explanation upon explanation; and, at last, it came to these words: "The hon. Gentleman has stated, that I have "set up my own opinion in opposition to "that of his Majesty's Physicians. All I can say on this part of the accusation against me is, that I have stated nothing "as matter of speculation, or opinion, of "my own, but upon authority of the physi "cians. I wish to be distinctly understood "here to re-state, that there is not, at this time," [27th of February mind]" any necessary suspension of such royal functions as it may be necessary for his Majesty to discharge at the present moment.". He was pressed further by Mr. Grey, and he then said: "I meant distinctly to state, "that there is not at this time, any neces"sary suspension of the royal authority "for any act which may be necessary to be "done."This was what Lord Grey alluded to the other night; and, if it had any meaning at all, it meant one of these three things: that it was not necessary that the King should be deranged in mind; or, that it was not, at that time, necessary for him to have the use of his senses; or, that his faculties were not so much impaired as to render him unfit for business. The two former it cannot be supposed that any man could mean; and, therefore, we must take the latter; and, then, all we have to do, is, to compare it with the Evidence of Dr. Heberden.--I should now enter upon the subject of individual or collective responsibility; but as my space is so narrow, and as I see, that the subject will demand room, I must defer it till my next. MR. FINNERTY.—This gentleman was, on Thursday, the 31st of January, brought up to receive judgment, in the Court of King's Bench, for a libel against CASTLereagh. He produced affidavits, respecting the conduct of his prosecutor, some of which he was, it appears, allowed to read, and some not. He was sent to the King's Bench Prison till next Thursday, when he is to be brought up again. I have inserted the proceedings in another part of this Number, from the TIMES newspaper, to which I beg to refer the reader. The subject is one of the greatest consequence; it is worthy of all the attention that the public can bestow upon it; and, I am convinced, that in this way it will be viewed by every man in the kingdom, who has left in him one single spark of a love of justice or humanity. WM. COBBETT. PROTEST-Against the Rejection of Lord retained such marks of indisposition about business at any period of any day, he still him as made it expedient that some one of his Physicians should be about his person for some months afterwards; and that Dr. Heberden was in attendance on his Ma DISSENTIENT,-First, Because it is of the highest importance, that in the ap-jesty so late as the end of October;" and pointment of her Majesty's Council, the it was stated in debate, and not denied, public should have every security, which that, during this latter period, and partiprevious conduct can afford, that the per- cularly on the 10th of June, 1804, when sons composing the same will not act under it was understood and believed both by any undue bias, but that whilst they fol- this House and the public, that his Majesty low the course prescribed to them by their was perfectly recovered, his Majesty duty for restoring his Majesty to the public not only continued in a state which reexercise of his Royal Functions, whenever quired medical guidance, but that both he shall be in a capacity to resume them, Dr. Simmons and his assistants still were in they will neither expose his Majesty to attendance on, and possessed a controul the danger of a too early pressure of bu- over his Majesty; yet, that nevertheless, siness, nor concur in representing his Ma- while his Majesty was still subject to such jesty as qualified to act in his high office, personal controul, the said John Lord Elbefore his recovery shall be complete.- don, as Lord High Chancellor of Great Secondly, Because it appears by the evi- Britain, did receive his Majesty's pleasure dence of Dr. Heberden, taken on oath be- on divers important matters of his Mafare a Committee of this House, " that he jesty's Regal Government, and did, in virwas first called upon to attend his Majesty tue of his said office, perform various pubon the 12th of February 1804; that he lic acts requiring the sanction of the believed his Majesty presided at Council King's authority. 4thly, Because John ou the 23d of April following; and that Lord Eldon, having so conducted himself, he should consider the interval between is not, in our own judgment, a person to those periods as constituting the duration whom the sacred trust of acting as one of of his Majesty's disease at that time." her Majesty's Council in the care of his Yet, nevertheless it appears from the Jour- Majesty's person, and in the discharge of nals of this House that between the two the other most important duties, by this days above-mentioned, John Lord Eldon, Act committed to the said Council, can being then Lord High Chancellor of with propriety or safety be committed.Great Britain, did, on the 5th of March, GREY, LAUDERDALE, VASSAL HOLLAND, 1804, receive, and in his Majesty's name ERSKINE, ROSSLYN, DERBY, Ashburton, signify his Majesty's consent to a Bill, PONSONBY, PONSONBY, (of Imokilly.) intituled, "An Act to enable his Majesty to grant the inheritance in fee-simple of certain manors, messuages, lands, and hereditaments, in the parishes of Byfleet, Weybridge, Wallin, Wallinleigh, and Chertsey, in the county of Surrey, to his Royal Highness Frederick Duke of York and Albany, for a valuable consideration ;" and that he did also put the Great Seal to a Commission dated 9th March, by virtue of which 15 Bills received the Royal Assent; Die Martis, 18 Decembris 1810. as well as to a Commission dated March 23d, DR. ROBERT DARLING WILLIS under which 17 other Bills received the called in and examined. Royal Assent; although his Majesty was, at that time, as appears by the evidence YOU are desired to acquaint this Comabove recited, afflicted by a malady of mittee, whether the state of his Majesty's the same nature and character with that health is such as to render him incapable which has now occasioned a suspension of of coming in person to his Parliament, or the Regal functions.-Thirdly, Because it of attending to any kind of public busifurther appears from the same evidence, ness?-His Majesty is incapable of com"that after the period when his Majestying to parliament, or of attending to any was so far recovered as to be able to transact public business. KING'S ILLNESS. Evidence of Drs. WILLIS and HEBERDEN, as given in the Lords' Committee, - appointed to examine the Physicians, who have attended his Majesty during his illness, touching the state of his Majesty's health. December 18th, 1810. What are the hopes you entertain of his Majesty's recovery-I entertain confident hopes of his Majesty's recovery; the protraction that has hitherto taken place, though it lessens considerably the expect ation that the recovery will take place in a very short time, is not sufficient to diminish my confidence that his Majesty will ultimately recover. Do you found the opinion given in your answer to the former question, upon the particular symptoms of his Majesty's disorder, or upon general experience in other cases of the same nature, or upon both? I form my opinion upon both, upon my general experience in cases of mental disease, and upon the particular symptoms of his Majesty's complaint. Whether in that particular species of the disorder his Majesty has been afflicted with, it has been found from experience that the greater number of persons so affected have been cured?-Confining myself strictly in my answer to that particular class of the disease under which his Majesty now labours, I should say that a very large proportion recover. Can you form any judgment or probable conjecture of the duration of his Majesty's illness?—No, I cannot. Whether so far as experience enables you to judge of his Majesty's disorder, you think it more probable his Majesty will or will nor recover, so as to render him capable of attending to public business?presume that my answer to a former question is an answer to that. I consider recovery as including a full capability of transacting all business. Whether you can state to this Committee any particular cause to which you ascribe his Majesty's present indisposition? -I presume the extreme distress for the illness of the Princess Amelia. Whether any change has taken place in his Majesty's indisposition since your last examination before the Privy Coun cil? can hardly state that any material alteration has taken plače. It is extremely difficult in cases of this description to measure accurately the degrees of amendment. Has Dr. Willis attended his Majesty in the former attacks of this disorder -I attended his Majesty in the year 1801. In case of a cessation of the disorder, would great interruptions, or such as would probably arise in the exercise of his high station, be likely to produce a return of the disorder?—I have no reason to think that it would, provided the recovery is complete. Relapses have not been pro duced after former illnesses in his Ma jesty's complaints. When Dr. Willis agrees with the other physicians, who have been examined, in assigning the immediate occasion of his Majesty's present illness, does he mean to assign it as the primitive cause of the complaint, or only as having brought into action a disease to which his Majesty had been before subject?-Certainly as bring. ing into action a disease to which his Mas jesty has been before subject. When Dr. Willis expresses this confi. dent expectation of his Majesty's recovery, does he mean his final recovery, without the probability of a recurrence of the same indisposition?-Certainly not. - Should his Majesty recover, so as to fulfil all the expectation, which Dr. Willis means to express, is it in his opinion more or less probable that his Majesty would be subject to similar indispositions?-His Majesty having already laboured under four attacks, it is more probable he will continue liable to repeated attacks. His Majesty's illness having been immediately preceded by and constantly ac companied with fever, arising from extraordinary susceptibility and nervous irritation, is not such a complaint more likely to be re-produced from external circum stances and causes, than any other indisposition of the same class -It is, perhaps, a medical question of very little moment, whether his Majesty's complaint is attended with fever or not; in my opi nion there is no fever present, the whole depending upon an extreme nervous irrita bility; but I am not aware that his Majesty will be more subject to relapse on that account, than he would be if it arose from any cause in the constitution itself; it appears always to require some external cause to excite it. Whether, when the complaint is accompanied with that extreme nervous irritabi lity described by Dr. Willis, it is not more subject to be acted upon and increased by external circumstances and causes, than a similar complaint not so accompa nied I was not aware of any similar complaint that can take place without being accompanied with a similar nervous irritability. How many relapses have taken place in his Majesty's present disorder since his Majesty was taken ill in October last? There have been two relapses, State the periods of those relapses? The 15th Nov. and the 5th Dec. were the perlods at which a considerable degree of increase of the symptoms took place, which have been denominated relapses. : Dr. Willis has stated that his Majesty's disorder arose from extreme distress for the illness of the princess Amelia, the Committee wish to know if Dr. Willis considers these relapses to have arisen in the ordinary course of the disorder, or whether any extraneous causes have contributed to occasion those relapses?-In that extreme state of nervous irritability very trifling causes are sufficient to produce an occasional increase of symptoms till the recovery has advanced beyond a certain period; it may be difficult to say, therefore, whether this increase of symptoms may have arisen in the ordinary course of the disorder, or from trifling circumstances which may have produced them. Did not the first relapse occur about the period of the princess Amelia's funeral? On the following day, or the day after that. When Dr. Willis speaks of relapses, does he mean relapses after a cessation of the disorder, or after a remission of the disorder?-Certainly after a remission, his Majesty's disorder has never ceased. Were there not exacerbations of his Majesty's disorder on the 15th November and the 5th December ?-Certainly, on the evening of both those days. Does Dr. Willis consider the exacerbations which took place on each of those days to have been relapses properly so called, or such paroxysms as commonly occur in a disorder of this description?— I consider them merely as paroxysms which belong to the disorder, itself. Are, or are not the remissions of his Majesty's disorder impeded, and the paroxysms renewed or increased, by his consideration of, and reflection upon his own case, under all its circumstances?—I am not aware of any particular effect that has taken place from such considerations. Whether in the course of Dr. Willis's experience in disorders of this kind, he has had occasion to observe that the age of the patient is a consideration of weight in forming expectations of recovery? Where the traces of age can be discovered in the symptoms of the disorder, it is certainly a matter of great consideration; but in his Majesty's situation I have not discovered any traces of age in the symptoms; I therefore infer that his Majesty's age is not a matter of moment. On a comparison of the symptoms of his Majesty's present disorder with those of his disorder in the year 1801, is Dr. Willis of opinion that the paroxysms of the present case are more or less severe either in degree or duration than those of the former?-The paroxysms in this disorder have been more frequent but not more severe than in 1801, nor of longer duration. Have the remissions in the present disorder been of longer or shorter duration than those of the disorder of 1801 ?-Hitherto they have been shorter. Whether the remissions have been more or less complete in his Majesty's present disorder than in 1801 ?—I think less complete. Whether the disorder, under which his Majesty now labours, is of the same class as that in 1801 ?-It is of the same class. Whether from the facts which Dr. Willis has collected from the physicians, and other medical attendants on his Majesty, he deems this disorder to be of the same class as his Majesty's other attacks, in which Dr. Willis did not attend his Majesty?-I believe all his Majesty's attacks have ben similar. How far in these disorders the experi ence of former attacks in the case of the same patient affords an indication of the probable time of the cure, supposing that a cure shall be ultimately effected?-It becomes probable where the symptoms of one attack resemble the symptoms of a preceding one, that the progress to amendment, will be similar also. Whether the progress toward recovery has hitherto been the same in this, as in former attacks?-It has rather been more prolonged than in 1801, but it is further advanced than in the first attack in 1788: I cannot speak as to the attack in 1804. Whether the difference is such as to afford Dr. Willis any ground for judging that this recovery will or will not be delayed longer than in the former attacks? The difference is not sufficient to enable me to form any judgment on the subject. Whether referring to his answer given to a former question, Dr. Willis can state what degree of protraction in recovery would be sufficient to diminish his expectation of ultimate recovery?-My opi nion would be rather guided by the symptoms which should attend that protraction than the protraction itself. When the approaches towards recovery are more likely to manifest themselves by |