crime. He stole jewels, and silks from his mother,—swindled a servant out of a bond of £175,—and was accused, by his own brother-in-law, under circumstances of the strongest suspicion, of having poisoned his wife's mother, for the sake of robbing her of £300. His infamy, as will be seen by the extracts from his evidence, was proven, out of his own lips.*]

This was considered by the bar as the most powerful of his efforts upon the state trials of this year. Mr. Curran has been represented, by the detractors of his reputation, as surrounded, during those trials, by an admiring populace, whose passions, instead of endeavouring to control, he was rather anxious to exasperate, by presenting them with exaggerated pictures of the calamities of the times. It is not true that his audiences were of this description: one of the most honourable circumstances of his life is the fact that they were of a far different kind. He was encompassed, indeed, by men whose passions were sufficiently inflamed, but they were passions which it required no ordinary courage in the advocate to brave, and to despise. In his defence, of Bond he was repeatedly interrupted, not by bursts of applause, but by violence and menace; with what effect will appear in the course of the following passages.

"Gentlemen, much pains has been taken to warm you, and then you are intreated to be cool; when the fire has been kindled, it has been spoken to, and prayed to be extinguished. What is that?" [Here Mr. Curran was again interrupted by the tumult of the auditors; it was the third time that he had been obliged

*Reynolds's family did not like to rest under the imputation of his having been an informer and perjurer. His son, some years since, published an apology for his life. It failed to clear him. Reynolds was rewarded with two consular appointments, and, for some time was postmaster of Lisbon during the Peninsular war. In all he received £45,000 for swearing men's lives away, and one of his family still receives the pension settled on him, literally as the price of blood.-M.

+ This question was occasioned by a clash of arms among the military that thronged the court; some of those who were nearest to the advocate appeared, from their looks and gestures, about to offer him personal violence, upon which, fixing his eye sternly on them, he exclaimed, "You may assassinate, but you shall not intimidate me."-C.

to sit down on rising he continued.] "I have very little, scarcely any hope of being able to discharge my duty to my unfortunate client, perhaps most unfortunate in having me for his advocate. I know not whether to impute these inhuman interruptions to mere accident; but I greatly fear they have been excited by prejudice."

[The Court said they would punish any person who dared to interrupt the counsel for the prisoner. "Pray, Mr. Curran, proceed on stating your case; we will take care, with the blessing of God, that you shall not be interrupted."]

"You have been cautioned, gentlemen, against prejudice. I also urge the caution, and not with less sincerity: but what is the prejudice against which I would have you armed? I will tell you: it is that pre-occupation of mind that tries the accused before he is judicially heard; that draws those conclusions from passion which should be founded on proof, and that suffers the temper of the mind to be dissolved and debased in the heat of the season. It is not against the senseless clamour of the crowd, feeling impatient that the idle discussion of facts delays the execution, that I warn you. No: you are too proud, too humane, to hasten the holiday of blood. It is not against any such disgraceful feelings that I warn you. I wish to recall your recollections to your own minds, to guard you against the prejudice of elevated and honest understanding, against the prejudice of your virtues.

"It has been insinuated, and with artful applications to your feelings of national independence, that I have advanced, on a former occasion, the doctrine that you should be bound in your decisions by an English act of parliament, the statute of William III. Reject the unfounded accusation; nor believe that I assail your independence, because I instruct your judgment and excite your justice. No: the statute of William III. does not bind but it instructs you upon a point which before was enveloped in doubt. The morality and wisdom of Confucius, of Plato, of Socrates, or of Tully, does not bind you, but it may elevate and illu

you;

minate you; and in the same way have British acts of parliament reclaimed you from barbarism. By the statute of William III. two witnesses are necessary, in cases of high treason, to a just and equal trial between the Sovereign and the subject; and Sir William Blackstone, one of the wisest and best authorities on the laws of England, states two witnesses to be but a necessary defence of the subject against the profligacy of ministers. In this opinion he fortifies himself with that of Baron Montesquieu, who says, that, where one witness is sufficient to decide between the subject and the state, the consequences are fatal to liberty; and a people so circumstanced cannot long maintain their independence. The oath of allegiance, which every subject is supposed to have taken, stands upon the part of the accused against the oath of his accuser; and no principle can be more wise or just than that a third oath is necessary to turn the balance. Neither does this principle merely apply to the evidence of a common and impeached informer, such as you have heard this day, but to that of any one witness however high and respectable his character."

The informer in question was Thomas Reynolds,* a name that

* Reynolds was a silk-mercer of Dublin, who had taken a very active part in the conspiracy. He was, in 1797, a colonel of the United Irishmen, afterwards treasurer and representative of a county, and finally a delegate for the Province of Leinster. As the time of the general insurrection approached, either remorse, or the hope of reward induced him to apprise the Government of the danger. Having previously settled his terms (500 guineas in hand, and personal indemnity) through Mr. Cope, a Dublin Merchant, he gave information of an intended meeting of the Leinster delegates at Mr. Bond's house, upon which those persons, among whom were M'Cann and Byrne, were arrested in the month of March. The evidence of Reynolds, when connected with the papers that were seized, was so conclusive against the three who were tried, that no line of defence remained but to impeach his testimony. The following extracts from Mr. Curran's cross-examination of him will show the manner in which this was attempted.

THOMAS REYNOLDS CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. CURRAN,

Q. You talked of yourself as a married man; who was your wife?

A. Her name was Witherington.

Q. Whose daughter?

A. The daughter of Catherine and William Witherington, of Grafton-street.

Q. She has brothers and sisters?

A. One sister and two brothers.

will be long remembered in Ireland, and of which the celebrity has been extended to England, by some late discussions of his character in the British Parliament. This man had been the principal

Q. How long are you married?

A. I was married upon the 25th of March, 1794.

Q. You were young when your father died?

A. I was about sixteen years of age.

Q. I think your mother carried on the business after his death?

A. She did.

Q. Do you recollect at that time whether, upon any occasion, you were charged, perhaps erroneously, with having taken any of her money?

A. No, sir, I do not recollect having heard any such charge.

Q. You have sisters?

A. I have, and had sisters.

Q. Some of them were living at the time of your father's death?

A. All that are now living were: there were more but they died.

Q. Do you recollect having had any charge made of stealing trinkets or any thing valuable belonging to those sisters?

A. Never. I never was charged with taking any thing valuable belonging to any of my sisters.

Q. Were you ever charged with having procured a skeleton key to open a lock belonging to your mother?

A. I was.

Q. I do not ask you whether the charge were true or not; but you say there was a charge

of that kind?

A. I heard so; and I have no reason to doubt it.

Q. It was to open a drawer?

A. No: it was to open an iron chest.

Q. Where there were knives and forks kept?

A. It is not usual to keep such things there. I believe papers were kept there. Mr. Warren was my mother's partner: he kept her in ignorance, and did not supply her

with money.

Q. Do you not believe that your mother made this charge?

A. I believe she thought it at the time. She was a woman of truth: though, at times extremely passionate. I wish to say this:-You ask me whether I ever was accused of stealing money, or other valuables or trinkets, from my sisters: I was not; but I was accused of stealing my mother's trinkets. I was then about sixteen years of age.

Q. During the partnership between Mr. Warren and your mother, do you recollect any thing about a piece of lutstring?

A. I do perfectly well.

Q. Was any charge made of stealing that?

witness for the Crown upon the trial of M'Cann and Byrne; and it is not improbable that a tenderness for his reputation had occasioned the suppression of Mr. Curran's defences in those cases.

A. The very same charge. I was charged with stealing the lutstring to give it to a girl, and that I also took my mother's jewels for the same purpose.

Q. Then the charge consisted of two parts-the taking, and the manner in which they were given away?

A. If you will have it so.

Q. I am not asking you whether you committed any facts of this kind or not, but whether the charges were made?

A. I tell you the charges were made; and I took the things.

Q. Then you committed the theft; and you were charged with the stealing?

A. Both of the facts were true.

Q. I did not ask you as to the skeleton key?

A. That charge was untrue.

Q. It did not fit the lock?

A. I had no such key: the charge was unfounded: the others were true.

Q. How long is Mrs. Witherington, your mother-in-law, dead?

A. Twelve months, last April.

Q. Where did she die?

A. In Ash-street: a part of the house was my office, and connected with the house. Q. How long did she live there?

A. About ten months.

Q. Do you recollect what the good old lady died of?

A. I do not know; but heard it was a mortification in her bowels; she was complaining badly for some days.

Q. Had there been any medicine brought to her?

A. I recollect perfectly well, after she was ill, medicine was brought her.

Q. By whom?

A. By me.

Q. Are you a physician?

A. No: but I will tell you. A Mr. Fitzgerald, a relation of our family, who had been an apothecary, and quitted business, left me a box of medicines, containing castor oil, cream of tartar, rhubarb, tartar emetic, and such things. I had been subject to a pain in my stomach, for which he gave me a quantity of powders in small papers, which I kept for use, and found great relief from: they saved my life. I asked Mrs. Reynolds for one of these papers to give Mrs. Witherington, and it was given to her.

Q. It did not save her life?

A. No, sir; and I am sorry for it.

Q. You paid her a sum of money?

A. I did.

Q. How much?

A. £800.

Q. How long before her death?

A. About a fortnight or three weeks: I got her receipt, and made my clerk account for it in my books.