ther the evil or the good predominated, he professed himself unable to determine. He confessed that the relapse which his Majesty had experienced since the meeting of the privy council, had greatly distressed the physicians and put the prospect of immediate recovery to a greater distance, but did not render ultimate recovery improbable. He repeated to a question from another member, that the physicians were less sanguine of speedy recovery than when before examined he observed that the King was now in much the same state as in the latter end of 1788, and the beginning of 1789; but the disorder varied so, it was subject to so many fluctuations, that when they saw the King a little better for tuo or three days, they were sanguine, and a relapse threw them back again-it was impossible to give any positive and decided opinion-nobody in such a disorder has ever been able to set the time of recovery. He stated that the King was frequently indisposed with fever, and that to a serious degreehe had both a mental and a bodily disorder. Dr. Reynolds thus described his Majesty's mental complaint. His memory is entire, his perceptions are entire, and his acuteness is considerable, which appears from every now and then a comment on any thing that is said. His judgment is perverted, and his discretion is asleep at times-though every now and then there are gleams of both, but they are transient." Dr. Reynolds Dr. Reynolds understood that, beyond a doubt, his Majesty's derangement was occasioned by his anxiety and distress of mind relative to the Princess Amelia. None of the royal family had seen his Majesty since Dr. Reynold's attendance, but the Lord Chancellor had been admitted to him, the day before the meeting of parliament. Sir Henry Halford had mentioned to his Majesty that the Lord Chancellor was at Windsor-this he had done without the concurrence or know

ledge of the other physicians-they did not approve, but they did not dissent-as the King had been led to expect the Lord Chancellor, they thought it might irritate him were that expectation not gratified, they therefore consented to the interview

it continued for about a quarter of an hour-none of the physicians were present. On being asked whether the physicians desired that the Chancellor should see the King because aware that parliament was to meet the next day? he answered that he did not know whether that was not one of the reasons.

The doctor farther stated that the King might recover, and be able to transact public business, but that some vestiges of the complaint might remain. When questioned more particularly on this most interesting point, he said that no doubt there might be times when the King might be perfectly competent to every thing, and that now and then a little hurry or something, might for a quarter of an hour agitate him, but that it would all subside again. He understood this was the case in his former recoveries. He did not speak this from personal knowledge, for he had always ceased to visit the King when he was declared quite well.-After this declaration, he understood the King was subject, not to paroxysms

they could scarcely be called such -it was more a hurry of manner than any thing else. He said when the King was so flurried, from a little opposition, if he was told that there was any business to transact it composed him directly. In 1801, after Dr. Reynolds had retired from attending his Majesty, he had a relapse at Kew-but the doctor did not see the King in that relapse-he thought his Majesty so well that he might withdraw with propriety-he thought it would have a good appearance to the public that he had withdrawnthat it would be a confirmation to the public that the King was getting well.

On being asked whether the complete recovery of the King was the same as the complete recovery of any other person afflicted with the same disorder, to be intrusted with any thing he may have to transact, whether public or private, the doctor replied" I think so."

Dr. Baillie stated that his Majesty was at present better than at some former periods of his malady, but he did not think that of late there had been much appearance of improvement. He thought if the constitution were not much weakened, that former attacks of the same disorder, gave hopes of recovery from the present. He said that the King was much hurried on the 25th of October, but there were signs of hurry beforehe had observed them before. The Lord Chancellor was admitted, that parliament might have an account of his Majesty' health, independently of that given by the physicians. He thought that the circumstances of his Majesty's present indisposition indieated that it would be of a longer continuance than some of his former indispositions. He had a less sanguine expectation of his Majesty's ul timate recovery than when examined before the privy council, but the dif ference in that respect was very little. He was less sanguine of the King's speedy recovery, for the remission from the last attack of his Majesty did not appear so perfect as some of the former ones were. On other points Dr. Baillie evpressed opinions coinciding with those given by Dr. Reynolds.

Dr. Heberden was very sanguine of ultimate recovery. He thought the King was in much the same state as he was when the doctor was examined before the privy council. He had seen the King the morning before his examination. His Majesty had passed a very good night, but it having been mentioned to him that his physicians, or some of them, were going to town for the purpose

of being examined, he believed, owing to that cause, his Majesty had a little hurry upon him, at the time when the doctor saw him-he conceived it was owing to that cause because his Majesty's conversation was directed to that subject. By the word hurry he meant talking more rapidly, and with quicker tran- . sitions from one subject to another -not talking incoherently. He thought the King's recovery might not be very distant, and explained this by referring to the duration of his Majesty's former disorders. Ile attended the King in 1804-signed the bulletin stating that his Majesty was perfectly well-after this accompanied his Majesty to Weymouth -his Majesty was then liable to hurries, but he believed that at any time of any day his Majesty was competent to transact busines-he considered the hurries vestiges of his Majesty's malady.

Doctor Robert Darling Willis expressed the same hopes of ultimate recovery as the others, and thought his Majesty's age, as his constitution was so sound, would not retard the cure. In 1801 he did not sign the bulletins, but he saw and ap. proved of them ;--he concurred in their opinion that the King was perfectly recovered, although some little remains of hurry about his Majesty remained. A relapse then took place, his Majesty's servants transacted business with him between the recovery and the relapse. He thought the King's hurries were vestiges of his complaint. If a patient had been un der his care more than once he would expect his return more than after the first attack.

Sir Henry Halford had thought he observed his Majesty agitated be fore the 25th of October--his Maje ty's illness increased rapidly on the 28th-he was now worse than he was on the 25th of October. He thought the King might have tran sacted business up to the 27th at night

-on the 25th he observed the King's conversation and manner hurriedyet up to the 28th he could transact business-he thought so-supposing the King was in the same state now as he was on the 27th of October, he would declare him competent to transact public business.

Mr. Perceval had seen the King once, and the Chancellor twice since his illness. Sir Henry entered into a long explanation of the circumstances which led to the last introduction of the Lord Chancellor-he found the King that morning involved in a great many errors and misconceptions, and he took the liberty of mentioning the Chancellor's name as a medical expedient. He thought a beneficial effect had resulted from it. Sir Henry never thought his Majesty's recovery would be speedy.

Dr. Baillie attended the committee again to correct some immaterial mistakes in his former answers. He said the King was principally in the custody of Dr. Willis, but not exclusively so.

The Chairman observed, that this was the 16th celebration of the an niversary of the Trial by Jury, the value of which, he thought, from the office he had lately filled, no one could more correctly appreciate than himself. During the time in which he was in office, he had paid particular attention to the many defects in the mode of selecting juries, and had used every exertion in his power to correct those defects; but, sorry he was to say, that his exertions had been fruitless. The Trial by jury must ever be considered as the glory of the English law, and it

was incumbent on every individual to concur in preserving this invaluable institution in its original purity. He could not avoid noticing the recent increase of the number of special juries, which he considered as by no means favourable to the im partial administration of justice.To individuals, in the decision of a question requiring peculiar information, the decision of a special jury might be advantageous; but in constitutional points between the crown and the people, he thought a common pannel indiscriminately selected from the mass of individuals liable to serve on juries, more consistent with the spirit of the constitution. The books in which the names of freeholders were, or ought to be inscribed, were notoriously deficient.It would be scarcely credited, that these books were made out by the petty constable, and that half-acrown was the common fee for obtaining the insertion of a name. The freeholders' book for Middlesex, a county in which there are several thousand freeholds of the value of 40s. contained only about 500 names ! ! But the most reprehensible practice, with respect to special juries, was the frequent reeurrence of the same names. There were particular individuals, whose constant appearance on special juries was a ground of most serious complaint.-The worthy alderman concluded by proposing the highly constitutional toast of "TRIAL BY JURY."

On the " Memory of Vicary Gibbs, Esq." being given,

Mr. Henry Hunt contrasted the enthusiastic reception of that gentleman on his visit to Bristol, immediately after the state trials in 1794, with that of "Sir Vicary Gibbs," his Majesty's attorney-general, to the same place last summer.

In proposing " The Liberty of the Press," Mr. Clifford made several observations upon the proceedings which had taken place in the morn

ing, in the court of King's Bench; in the course of which, he reprobated a practice that had lately become too common, of pleading guilty to every alleged libel on which the attorney-general thought proper to move for a criminal information.

The Chairman could not help saying a few words on the subject alluded to by Mr. Clifford, in whose sentiments he entirely concurred, and particularly in the two cases of libel that had been before the court in the morning; for with respect to the allegations contained in the publications of the article on which the prosecution was founded, he felt perfect confidence that the testimony he could have given of facts to which he was himself a witness in Piccadilly, would have furnished matter for the serious consideration of a jury. Nor would his testimony have been without corroboration, and that too, from a most respectable source -no other than his coadjutor, Mr. Sheriff Atkins, who, however reluctant he might have been to come forward on such an occasion, would certainly have been compelled to confirm the facts to which he had alluded. He had never ceased to regret, that on the occasion of the unfortunate disturbances in Piccadilly, he had not, in the first instance, exerted the authority of the civil power, and dismissed the military. It was his belief, that with the assistance of twenty constables only, what was called the mob in Piccadilly, might in the first instance have been dispersed; and he should have no hesitation in taking upon himself the entire responsibility of the consequences of dismissing the military. Such, indeed was his determination on the night preceding the day on which Sir F. Burdett was taken to the Tower, nor should he have deferred dismissing the military, and calling out the civil power, until the following day (when it was too late,) but that he understood from Mr.

Coleman, on Sunday night, that the warrant would not be put in execution as it had been. Unfortunately he had, from the very commencement of the disturbance, been left to act alone, his colleague being out of town; from whom, however, he had no reason to expect any cordial or vigorous co-operation in the measures which he was known to think proper to be adopted on that occa sion.

The Chairman retired at half-past nine. He was succeeded by Mr. Bentley, and the remainder of the evening was passed with conviviality.

In the court of King's Bench on the 28th ult. Messrs. Harvey and Fisher, the printer and publisher of the Day, newspaper, were brought up to receive sentence for a libel on the borse guards, during the tumult in Piccadilly, previous to Sir Francis Burdett's committal to the Tower; when they were each sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment in Newgate, and to find security, themselves in 2001. and two sureties in 100l. each, to keep the peace for 3 years — Same day, Mr. Daniel Lovell, the printer of the Statesman newspaper, for copying the same libel, and for another libel on the commissioners of the propertytax at Manchester, was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment in Newgate (viz. one year for each libel); and to find se curity to keep the peace for 3 years, himself in 5col and two sureties in 2501. each.-Judgment had been suffered to go by default in both causes. Lovell stated that Messrs. Cowdroy and Harrop, the Manchester printers, in missioners, were not prosecuted; and consequence of concession to the comas he had done the same, he hoped this prosecution would have shared the same fate.

Mr.

Court of King's Bench, Dec. 6. An action was on the 16th inst. tried in the Court of King's Bench, brought by Mr. Dubost, an artist of eminence, against the Rev. Mr. Beresford, son of the Archbishop of Tuam, for cutting to pieces a painting which was publicly exhibited in Pall Mall, under the title of Beauty