The celebrity of Curran’s life, and the obscurity of his death—the height of his eminence, and the depth of his depression—the extent of his talents, and the humiliation of his imbecility—exhibited the greatest and most singular contrast I ever knew among the host of public characters with whom I so long associated.
At the bar I never saw an orator so capable of producing those irresistible transitions of effect which form the true criterion of forensic eloquence. But latterly, no man became more capable, in private society, of exciting drowsiness by prosing, or disgust by grossness: such are the inconsistent materials of humanity.[[68]]
[68]. It is very singular that Mr. Duguery, one of the most accomplished men, the most eloquent barristers, and best lawyers I ever knew, (a cousin-german of Lord Donoughmore,) fell latterly, though at an early age, into a state of total imbecility—became utterly regardless of himself, of society, and of the world;—and lived long enough to render his death a mercy!
I should not allude here to a painful subject as respects the late Mr. Curran, had it not been so commonly spoken of, and so prominent an agent in his ulterior misfortunes: I mean that unlucky suit of his against the Rev. Mr. Sandes. I endeavoured as much as possible to dissuade him from commencing that action, having reason to feel convinced that it must terminate in his discomfiture; but he was obdurate, and had bitter cause to lament his obduracy. I did my utmost also to dissuade him from his unfortunate difference with Mr. Ponsonby. I told him (as I firmly believed) that he was wrong, or at all events imprudent, and that his reputation could bear no more trifling with: but he did not credit me, and that blow felled him to the earth!
THE LAW OF LIBEL.
Observations on the law of libel, particularly in Ireland—“Hoy’s Mercury”—Messrs. Van Trump and Epaphroditus Dodridge—Former leniency regarding cases of libel contrasted with recent severity—Lord Clonmel and the Irish bar—Mr. Magee, of the “Dublin Evening Post”—Festivities on “Fiat Hill”—Theophilus Swift and his two sons—His duel with the Duke of Richmond—The “Monster!”—Swift libels the Fellows of Dublin University—His curious trial—Contrast between the English and Irish bars—Mr. James Fitzgerald—Swift is found guilty, and sentenced to Newgate—Dr. Burrows, one of the Fellows, afterward libels Mr. Swift, and is convicted—Both confined in the same apartment at Newgate.
In the early part of my life, the Irish press, though supposed to be under due restraint, was in fact quite uncontrolled. From the time of Dean Swift, and Draper’s Letters, its freedom had increased at intervals not only as to public but private subjects. This was attributable to several curious causes, which combined to render the law of libel, although stronger in theory, vastly feebler in practice than at the present day; and whoever takes the trouble of looking into the Irish newspapers about the commencement of the American revolution, and to 1782, will find therein some of the boldest writing and ablest libels in the English language. Junius was the pivot on which the liberty of the press at one moment vibrated: liberty was triumphant; but if that precedent were to prevail to the same extent, it achieved too much.
The law of libel in England, however railed at, appears to me upon the freest footing that private or public security can possibly admit. The press is not encumbered by any previous restraints. Any man may write, print, and publish whatever he pleases; and none but his own peers and equals, in two distinct capacities, can declare his culpability, or enable the law to punish him as a criminal for a breach of it (this excepts the practice of informations, often necessary). I cannot conceive what greater liberty or protection the press can require, or ought to enjoy. If a man voluntarily commits an offence against the law of libel with his eyes open, it is only fair that he should abide by the statute that punishes him for doing so. Despotic governments employ a previous censorship, in order to cloak their crimes and establish their tyranny. England, on the other hand, appoints independent judges and sworn jurors to defend her liberties; and hence is confirmed to the press a wholesome latitude of full and fair discussion on every public man and measure.