employer was not concerned. With respect to them he possesses the authority which the general law gave him, and no more.

In the state of consummate distress in which he arrives at Lisbon, what is this man to do? A great deal of argument has been used to show what he should not have done. I could have wished that a word or two had been employed in showing satisfactorily what he ought to have done, or could have done with more propriety in this situation. It has been said there was the ship and freight. He has acted rightly in binding both in this very bond. It has been added that he might have bound himself. This, also, he had actually done; though I presume that the mere personal security of such a man-a hired master of a vessel-would go but a little way to satisfy a foreign lender of money. It is said that he ought to have bound his owners likewise; but those who propose that should first prove his authority to bind his owners personally beyond the value of their ship (which value he has already bound), and likewise find merchants at Lisbon who would be willing to advance money upon the personal security of the owners, living at Trieste, whom they might be under the necessity of ultimately following into a personal suit in the supreme court of the empire. Then, the ship and freight being pledged, and the master having no other funds, and being anxious to convey the cargo to the place of its destination, what could he do better than hypothecate the cargo, under the reasonable expectation which this case afforded that the ship and freight, and average expenses falling particularly on the lading, would have been sufficient to discharge the bond without calling on the cargo? In pursuing this resolution, it was hardly possible for a man to act with more caution than this master appears to have done. He applied not only to the consul of his nation, but likewise to the court of justice in the foreign country. It seems to be the particular regulation of that country that matters of this nature shall not be transacted without the sanction of a court of justice. As to the policy of that regulation, doubts may be entertained whether it might not be safer to leave matters of this sort to the vigilance and honesty of the parties intrusted, rather than to the superficial attention which may be given by persons employed to inspect the circumstances of the case by a court of justice. The court at Lisbon, however, proceeded to examine the truth of the representation given by the master; witnesses were examined; surveys under public authority were made. The result was that the ship is reported by surveyors to be of sufficient authority to warrant the repairs. The repairs are made, and the master has the authority

of the court, not only for the propriety of the repairs, but likewise for the reasonableness of his expectation that the ship alone would be able to answer the expense of them. Still, however, the foreign lender was not obliged to advance money, but such security as he liked, and in this situation the master pledges the additional security of the cargo. He proceeds on his voyage to England, and the bond which became due on the event of his arrival is put in suit. The consequence is that the ship is sold; and being sold as a foreign ship, unable to procure a register, sells for not more than half the value at which she was estimated at Lisbon. Upon this state of the case it is evident that, instead of the cargo being sacrificed to the ship, which is the present complaint, the ship has been made the martyr of the cargo. For it is in the service of that cargo that she has been brought to a place where the owners suffer this extreme diminution of her value. In her unrepaired state at Lisbon she is valued at six millions of rees, and therefore would have sold there in that condition for a much larger sum than she produced, after her repairs, by a sale in England, for a purpose which absorbs the whole of her value, freight included, and a good deal more. She adheres with fidelity to her engagements with the cargo, and is a victim to the execution of that duty.

On the whole, I am of opinion that the situation and the conduct of the master were such as to justify the exercise of that right which belongs to him in cases of necessity, although interests of the owners of the cargo, whose ordinary agent he is not, may be affected by it; and they must be affected by it unless it can be shown that the other contracting party-the money lender-was prevented from contracting by any incompetency which would vitiate the whole of the bond, or that he has fraudulently charged sums, computing the account for which the bond is given, which would vitiate it pro tanto. With respect to the first, it is true that Mr. Calvert (who advances the money at Lisbon) is the correspondent of one of the consignees of the cargo; and it is argued to be an extraordinary thing, and a proof of collusion on his part, that would constitute a total incompetency, that he, the correspondent, should enter into such a contract. In the first place, it is to be observed that Mr. Calvert is the correspondent of one consignee only, and therefore, with respect to all other interests in this ship and cargo, he is, as far as appears, a mere stranger. Secondly, even with respect to the goods of that consignee, I am still to learn that it is the bounden duty of a foreign correspondent to advance his money without authority, and with

out such security as he may approve. And, thirdly, this consignee having declined to give any orders, and having expressly thrown the whole matter on the discretion of the master, I think that Mr. Calvert stood with respect to these goods on the same footing as any other merchant; and if the master was driven to the resource of bottomry, nothing in the relation of Mr. Calvert to those goods created an incompetency in Mr. Calvert to advance his money on such security as any other man might have demanded for it.

There being nothing in the conduct of the parties to invalidate the contract, it remains only to inquire whether any articles have found their way into these charges that ought not to have appeared there. It does not appear that many articles are questionable. I perceive there is a pretty heavy commission charged. I know that the word "commission" sounds sweet in a merchant's ear; but whether it is a proper charge or not on this occasion I will not take upon myself to determine without a reference to the registrar, properly assisted. The master, being in a situation of distress, was left to act for the best conveyance of his cargo, and I think he may fairly be supposed to have done so. The bondholder advances the money, having a right to elect his security, and he has run his risk on that security. If the ship and cargo had perished, he would have lost the whole. The owners of the ship have lost all, and there is a great loss besides. On whom is this loss to fall? It can only fall on the proprietors of the cargo, or on the bondholder, who has advanced his money and run his risk upon the given security, and under circumstances which by no means affect him with incompetency to enter into such a contract,—a contract from which the cargo has received a considerable benefit. I think that there is no question of the liability of the cargo.

As to some particular goods for which a farther distinction has been taken on the ground that they are privileged goods, not paying freight, I think that distinction insufficient. They have had in an equal degree the benefit of this conveyance to the place of their destination, and it is not reasonable that they should be exempted from the obligation attaching on the whole cargo of being amenable for contribution to the bond, although the owner of the vessel might, as far as his interests alone were concerned, have been willing to show them a particular indulgence. If they are the goods of the owner of the ship, they can have no more right to be exempted from contributing than the ship itself. Bond enforced against the cargo.

JOHN PHILPOT CURRAN.

[John Philpot Curran was born in County Cork, Ireland, 1750. By the assistance of friends he was educated at Trinity College, Dublin. His industry was fitful and ill directed, and for several years he led a dissolute life. Though designed by his family for the church, he determined to go to the bar. Accordingly, in 1773, he went to London and entered the Middle Temple. He spent two years there in severe study, amid many privations, and in poor health. In 1775 he was called to the Irish bar. For some time he lived in great poverty, and on more than one occasion turned his thoughts towards America. At length, by the patronage of Lord Avonmore, he received a silk gown, and was elected to the Irish house of commons. He was by this time the popular advocate on the Munster circuit, and soon acquired considerable influence in politics. From 1792 to 1800 he established enduring fame in the state trials arising out of the public discontent and ultimate uprising of 1798. Disheartened by ill health and domestic troubles, Curran again thought of going to America. He also contemplated joining the English bar. When, however, the Whigs came into power in 1806, he was offered, and reluctantly accepted, the appointment of master of the rolls, with a seat in the privy council. He was not at home on the bench, and spent much time in England with Lord Holland, Erskine, and Moore. In 1812 he made an unsuccessful effort to enter parliament. In 1814 he retired from the bench on a pension, and spent some time in travel. In the spring of 1817, while staying with Moore, in London, he had a slight attack of apoplexy, which resulted in his death in the same year. In 1834 his remains were removed, by public subscription, to a tomb at Glasnevin, designed by Moore, and at the same time a medallion was placed in St. Patrick's in Dublin. His life was written by his son. The best edition of his forensic speeches was published by Callaghan & Co., Chicago, 1877.]

Curran was one of the greatest orators of a remarkable generation. His power lay in the variety and strength of his emotions. His faults, which appear on every page of his work, lay chiefly in excess, intense expression, strained imagery, and overwrought passion. Though abounding in passages of extraordinary eloquence, his speeches are by no means models of style. Very few of them, in fact, have been preserved with accuracy. They were

7

always largely extemporaneous, and he could never be induced to prepare them for the press.

Curran's professional acquirements were never extensive. Whatever knowledge of the law he possessed was mainly acquired during his two-years residence at the Middle Temple. When he was called to the Irish bar, in 1775, it was looked upon as the nursery of the public service, and the avenue to political success. The course of study was literary, rather than technical, and a turgid and pompous eloquence was the chief recommendation of a barrister. Nor was his stormy career calculated to inspire studious application. His first considerable cause led to a duel; and he subsequently fought four others. In the political ferment of the last decade of the century Curran was a conspicuous figure. His defense of Rowan, charged with seditious libel, in 1792, is his most fully reported speech. The impersonal character of this speech is due to the fact that Rowan directed his counsel to aim, not so much to secure an acquittal, as to defend the principles of the Society of United Irishmen. During the next five years he defended successively Dr. Drennan, the Drogheda Defenders, the proprietor of the Northern Star, and Finnerty, on charges of seditious libel and conspiracy. During this period he also defended Weldon and Jackson on charges of treason. The latter died in court during the hearing of a motion in arrest of judgment, from poison taken in prison. Whatever may have been Curran's connection with the uprising of 1798, he zealously defended nearly all the prisoners in the resulting state prosecutions. In consequence of his efforts in their behalf, he was threatened with deprivation of his rank as king's counsel, soldiers were vexatiously billeted on him, anonymous and menacing letters were sent to him, and he was threatened with arrest. In the first case tried (that of Sheares), after a sixteen-hours sitting, with but twenty minutes' interval, Curran was compelled to begin his speech at midnight. On the trial of Bond, the court was filled with soldiers, and Curran, whose health had given way under the strain, was thrice menaced by interruptions. "You may assassinate me," he cried, "but you shall not intimidate me." Domestic troubles overwhelmed him. His wife eloped with a clergyman named Sandys. Robert Emmet, who was secretly attached to Curran's youngest daughter, was captured in consequence of having spent the hours during which he might have escaped in lingering about Curran's house to say farewell.