insult upon his innocence, rather than a triumph over the unjust prosecutors of his pretended guilt.

"Let me therefore conclude with reminding you, gentlemen,that if you find the defendant guilty,not believing that the thing published is a libel, or that the intention of the publisher was seditious, your verdict and your opinion will be at variance, and it will then lie between God and your own consciences to reconcile the contradiction.

"As the friend of my client, and the friend of my country, I shall feel much sorrow, and you yourselves will probably hereafter regret it, when the season of reparation is fled. But why should I indulge such unpleasant apprel:ensions, when in reality I fear nothing? I know it is impossible for English gentlemen, sitting in the place you do, to pronounce this to be a seditious paper; much less, upon the bare fact of publication, explained by the prefixed advertisement, and the defendant's general character and deportment, to give credit to that seditious purpose which is necessary to convert the publication even of a libel itself into a crime.

"I beg pardon of my lord, and of you, gentlemen, for the long time I have trespassed upon your indulgent and patient attention: nothing, indeed, but the duty I owe my client could have induced me to do it, after the fatigue I have sustained in a very long journey to appear before you."--Verdict "Guilty of publishing-but whether a libel or not the jury do not find."

SPEECH of JOHN PHILPOT CURRAN, Esq. in defence of LADY PAMELA FITZGERALD and her infant children, at the bar of the HOUSE of COMMONS in IRELAND.

LORD EDWARD FITZGERALD having died in prison before trial, of the wound he received in resisting the person who apprehended him; a bill was brought into parliament to attaint him after his death; Mr. CURRAN was heard at the bar of the house of commons, against the bill as counsel for the widow and infant children of that nobleman, (the eldest of whom was only four years old,) on which occasion Mr. CURRAN delivered the following speech. Mr. CURRAN said, "He rose in support of a petition presented on behalf of LORD HENRY FITZGERALD, brother of the deceased LORD EDWARD FITZGERALD, of PAMELA his widow, EDWARD, his only son and heir, of the age of four years, PAMELA his eldest daughter, of the age of two years, and Lucy his youngest child of the age of three months; against the bill of attainder then before the committee. The bill of attainder" he said, "had formed the subject into two parts. It asserted the fact of the late LORD EDWARD's treason, and secondly it purported to attaint him, and to vest his property in the crown; he would follow the same order: as to the first bill, he could not but remark upon the strange looseness of the allegation; the bill stated that he had during his life,and since the first of November last, committed several acts of high treason. Without stating what, or when, or where, or with whom ; it then affected to state the different species of treason, of which he had been guilty, namely, conspiring to levy war and endeavouring to persuade the enemies of the king to invade the country, the latter allegation was not attempted to be

t

proved! the conspiring to levy, without actually levying was clearly no high treason, and had been repeatedly so determined before this previous and important ques→ tion, namely, the guilt of lord EDWARD, (and without the full proof of which no punishment can be just). He had been asked by the committee, if he had any defence to go into? he was confounded by a question which he could not answer; but upon a very little reflection he saw in that very confusion the most conclusive proof of the injustice of the bill. For what," he said, " can be more flagrantly unjust, than to inquire into a fact, of the truth or falsehood of which no human being can have knowledge, save the informer who comes forward to assert it. Sir," said he, "I now answer the question. I have no defensive evidence. I have no case! it is impossible I should, I have often of late gone to the dungeon of the captive; but never have I gone to the grave of the dead to receive instructions for his defence-nor in truth have I ever before been at the trial of a dead man! I offer therefore no evidence upon this inquiry. Against the perilous example of which, I do protest in behalf of the public, and against the cruelty and injustice of which I do protest in the name of the dead father, whose memory is sought to be dishonored, and of his infant orphans, whose bread is sought to be taken away. Some observations, and but a few upon the assertions of REYNOLDS, I will make, (Mr. CURRAN then observed upon the credit of REYNOLDS by his own confession): I do believe him in that instance, even though I have heard him assert it upon his oath, by his own confession, an informer, and a bribed informer; a man whom several respectable witnesses had sworn in a court of justice upon their oaths, not to be credible on his oath-a man upon whose single testimony, no jury ever did, nor ever ought to pronounce a verdict of guilty. A

kind of man to whom the law resorts with abhorrence, and from necessity, in order to set the criminal against the crime; but who is made use of by the law upon the same reason that the most noxious poisons are resorted to in medicine. If such the man, look for a moment at his story; he confines himself to mere conversation only, with a dead man. He ventures not to introduce any third person, living or even dead! he ventures to state no act whatever done, he wishes indeed to asperse the conduct of lady EDWARD FITZGERALD, but he well knows, that even were she in the country, she could not be adduced as a witness to disprove him.

"See, therefore, if there can be any one assertion to which credit can be given, except this, that he has sworn, and forsworn, that he is a traitor, that he has received five hundred guineas to be an informer, and that his general reputation is to be entirely unworthy of credit.

"As to the papers, it was sufficient to say, that no one of them, nor even all of them, were ever asserted to contain any positive proof against lord EDWARD; that the utmost that could be deduced from them, was nothing more than doubt and conjecture; which, had lord EDWARD been living, might have been easily explained-to explain which was now impossible: and upon which to found a sentence of guilt would be contrary to every rule of justice or humanity.

"He would therefore pass to the second question: was this bill of attainder warranted by the principles of reason? the principles of forfeiture in the laws of treason, or the usage of parliament in bills of attainder? The subject was of necessity very long, it had nothing to attract attention, but-much to repel it. But he trusted that the anxiety of the committee for justice, notwithstanding any dulness either in the subject or the speaker, would

secure to him their attention." Mr. CURRAN then went into a minute detail of the principles of the law of forfeiture for high treason. "The laws of the Persians, and Macedonians, extended the punishment of the traitor to the extinction of all his kindred. That law subjected the property and life of every man to the most complicated despotism, because the loyalty of every individual of his kindred was a matter of wild caprice, as the will of the most arbitrary despot could be.

"This principle was never adopted in any period of our law; at the earliest times of the Saxons, the law of treason acted directly only on the person of the criminal, it took away from him what he actually had to forfeit, his life and property. But as to his children, the law disclaimed to affect them directly; they suffered, but they suffered by a necessary consequence of their father's punishment, which the law could not prevent, and never directly intended. It took away the inheritance, because the criminal at the time of taking it away, had absolute dominion over it, and might himself have conveyed it away from his family. This, he said, was, proved by the instances of conditional fees at the common law, and estates intail since the last statute De Donis. In the former case, the tenant did not forfeit, until he had acquired an absolute dominion over the estate by the performance of the condition. Neither in the latter case was the estate tail made forfeitable, until the tenant intail had become enabled in two ways to obtain the absolute dominion by a common recovery, or by a fine. Until then the issue intail, though not only the children of the tenant, but taking from his estate by descent, could not be disinherited by his crime. A decisive proof that even the early law of treason never intended to extend the punishment of the traitor to his children as such, but even this direct