sacrifice his fame and his duty, by voting in support of a proceeding subversive of liberty; that he would shrink from the reproach of the most insignificant of his constituents, if that constituent could say to him, when thou sawest the thief of the constitution, thou consentedst unto him.'

Such would be the motion suggested to an English attorney general, and accordingly we find no instance of his ever venturing on such a measure.

Without case then, or precedent, or principle, what is the support of such a conduct here? The distinction of a judge? And what is that distinction? 'tis different in different men; 'tis different in the same man at different times;-'tis the folly of a fool and the fear of a coward;-'tis the infamy of the young, and the dotage of age; in the best man it is very weakness that human nature is subject to, and in the worst, it is very vice. Will you then tell the people that you have chose this glorious distinction in the place of fixed laws, offences, and fixed punishment, and in the place of that great barrier between the prerogative and the people—a trial by jury.

But 'tis objected that the resolution is a censure on the judges, and a charge of corruption.-I deny it, and I appeal to your

own acts.

He then called to the clerk, who read from the journals a vote of censure passed upon Mr. Justice Robinson, for imposing a fine illegally in a county when on circuit, without view or evidence. Was their resolution founded on any corruption of that judge? No; you would, if so, have addressed to remove him. I called for the resolution, therefore, not to charge him with guilt; I am persuaded he acted merely through error; but to vindicate him, to vindicate you, and to exhort you to be consistent. You thought a much smaller violation of law was deserving your reprobation.-Do not abandon yourselves and your country to slavery, by suffering so much a grosser and more dangerous transgression of the constitution to become a precedent for ever. In tenderness even to the judges, interpose. Their regret, which I am sure they now feel on reflection, cannot undo what they have done; their hands cannot wash away what is written in their records; but you may repair whatever has been injured: if your friend had unwillingly plunged a dagger into the breast of a stranger, would you prove his innocence

by letting the victim bleed to death? The constitution has been wounded deeply, but I am persuaded innocently; 'tis you only, who, by neglecting to interpose, can make the consequences fatal, and the wound ripen into murder.

I would wish, I own, that the liberty of Ireland should be supported by her own children; but if she is scorned and rejected by them when her all is at stake, I will implore the assistance even of two strangers; I will call on the right honourable secretary to support the principles of the British constitution. Let him not render his administration odious to the people of Ireland, by applying his influence in this house to the ruin of their personal freedom. Let him not give a pretence to the enemies of his friend in a sister country, to say that the son of the illustrious Chatham is disgracing the memory of his great father; that the trophies of his Irish administration are the introduction of an inquisition among us, and extinction of a trial by jury; let them not say that the pulse of the constitution beats only in the heart of the empire, but that it is dead in the extremities. He concluded with declaring his hearty concurrence to the resolution proposed.

The attorney general, (Fitzgibbon,) in a speech of much personality, opposed Mr. Curran's motion.

Mr. Curran, in reply, thanked the right honourable gentleman for restoring him to his good humour, and for having, with great liberality and parliamentary decency, answered his arguments with personality! Some expressions could not heat him, when coming from persons of a certain distinction. He would not interrupt the right honourable gentleman in the fifth repetition of his speech. He would prevent his arguments, by telling him, he had not in one instance alluded to Mr. Reilly. The right honourable gentleman said, he had declared the judges guilty; but he had said no such thing. He said, if any judge was to act in the manner he mentioned, it would be an aggravation of his guilt. The right honourable gentleman had said, that the house of commons had no right to investigate the conduct of judges; if so, he would ask the learned serjeant, why he sat in that chair? he would ask why the resolution had been just read from the journals?—The gentleman had called him a babbler; he could not think that was meant as a disgrace; because in another parliament, before he had the honour of a seat in that house, but

when he was in the gallery, he had heard a young lawyer named Babbler. He did not recollect that there were sponsors at the baptismal font, nor was there any occasion, as the infant had promised and vowed so many things in his own name. Indeed he found it difficult to reply, for he was not accustomed to pronounce panegyric upon himself; he did not well know how to do it; but since he could not tell them what he was, he could tell them what he was not. He was not a man whose respect in person and character depended upon the importance of his office; he was not a young man who thrust himself into the foreground of a picture which ought to be occupied by a better figure; he was not a man who replied with invective when sinking under the weight of argument; he was not a man who denied the necessity of a parliamentary reform at the time he proved the expediency of it, by reviling his own constituents, the parish clerk, the sexton, and grave-digger; and if there was any man who could apply what he was not to himself, he left him to think of it in the committee, and to contemplate upon it when he went home.

SPEECH OF MR. CURRAN,

ON THE

COMMERCIAL RESOLUTIONS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, SATURDAY, JULY 23d, 1785.

more.

MR. CURRAN.-I can easily excuse some inconsistences in the conduct of the right honourable secretary, for some accidents have befallen him: when we met last, he desired us to adjourn for three weeks; we did so; and now he wants above a fortnight But will that help forward the business before the house? will it expedite the progress of a bill, to say, let us wait till the packet comes in from England, and perhaps we shall have some news about the propositions. Did the British minister act in this manner? no; when he postponed from time to time the consideration of the propositions, he did not postpone the other business of the house: he did not say, let it wait till the packet comes from Dublin. This the Irish minister is forced to do: I say forced, for I am sure it is not his inclination; it must distress him greatly; and I sincerely feel for and pity his distress.

When we had the eleven propositions before us, we were charmed with them. Why? because we did not understand them. Yes, the endearing word, reciprocity, rang at every corner of the streets. We then thought that the right honourable gentleman laid the propositions before us by authority: but the English minister reprobates them as soon as they get to England, and the whole nation reprobates them: thus, on one hand, we must conclude the English minister tells the Irish minister to propose an adjustment; and, when it goes back, alters every part; or that the Irish minister proposed it without any authority at all. I am

inclined to believe the latter; for it would add to the gentleman's distress to suppose the former.

Now let us mark another inconsistency into which the right honourable gentleman is driven, no doubt against his will. Time to deliberate was refused us, when we had something to deliberate upon; and now, when we are told we have nothing before us to consider, we are to have a fortnight's recess to enable us to think about nothing. And time indeed it will take, before we can think to any purpose. It will take time for the propositions to go through, and perhaps to be again altered in the house of lords. It will take time for them to be reconsidered in the British commons. It will take time for them to come over here. It will take time for us to consider them, though that time is likely to be very short. It will take time to send them back to England. It will take time for them to be returned to us again; and then time will be required to carry them into execution.

But a rumour hath gone abroad of a studied design to delay the discussion of this business until there shall be no members in town. But away with such a suspicion; I think too honourable of the right honourable gentleman: but yet I should be glad to hear him say, there is not even an idea of the base design of forcing them down our throats.

Mr. Secretary Orde moved, that the house do adjourn to Tuesday se'nnight.

Mr. Curran.-Sir, the adjournment proposed is disgraceful to parliament, and disgraceful to the nation. I must explain myself by stating a few facts, though they relate to a subject that I own I cannot approach but with reluctance. The right honourable gentleman early in the session produced a set of propositions which he was authorized to present to us as a system of final and permanent commercial adjustment between the two kingdoms. As a compensation for the expected advantages of this system, we were called upon to impose 140,000l. a year on this exhausted country. Unequal to our strength, and enormous as the burden was, we submitted; we were willing to strain every nerve in the common cause, and to stand or fall with the fate of the British empire.

But what is the event? I feel how much beneath us it would be to attend to the unauthenticated rumours of what may be said or done in another kingdom; but it would be a ridiculous affecta