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.

    48/60 (page 46)
    he again, ‘ my business is done/ He prayed him not to say so. But still he said, ‘ mark what I tell you V ‘ my busi- ness is done; you can do nothing for me/ So he continued vomiting all that he took till the third day, as I remember, when he died,” The Bishop adds, “ He,” Dr. Short, “ was a moderate Papist, being the first man in the College of Physicians that took the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, when they were enjoined. Sir Thomas asked him, f How he came to do it ?’ To which he answered, f that he abhorred as much as we that the Pope should have any superiority over Kings, and would fight to keep it out.” In this very interesting but most inconclusive narrative, not one word is expressly said about poison by the cautious Court Physician, although lie, manifestly, intended to hint broadly that the King was poisoned in the draught given to him by Sir Thomas Williams,— (of whom we hear nothing in any of the other reports of the King’s illness,)—and that Dr. Short also insinuated that he, himself, was the victim of poison. Throughout this account, the evidence upon the imputed fact is feeble in the extreme,—so much so that it tends considerably to weaken and to explain away much of that which is most damnatory in the other narratives which we have cited. We, here, learn upon how slender a surmise the court physicians, or some of them, began to whisper that their royal patient was the victim of unfair play. His case showed what they regarded as signs of improvement. (It is shown that this was an “ intermis- sion”—-a usual character in such fevers, and no valid evidence of improvement unless properly taken advantage of in treat- ment.) Something to drink, which they had not ordered, was given him in their absence. After this,—in consequence of it, as they assumed,—the patient grew worse, as he naturally would do upon the return of the paroxysm of fever after the intermission or remission. We meet with a precisely parallel instance in the accounts of the death of King James the First. While his physicians were at dinner, certain harmless plasters were applied to the King’s side and wrists, which, upon their return, the medical attendants removed, with such strong expressions of resentment at the interference, that a suspicion of poison, at once, got abroad, which was much strengthened when they refused to record their opinion that the applications were innoxious.