Yet I will suppose, for the present, you still think that the legislature had no such intention of retraining the present dividend of 10l. _per cent._ and inserted the 24th of June, instead of the 5th of July, imagining the dividend became payable on the former, instead of the latter of those days; would you, Gentlemen, in such a case, take upon yourselves to divide contrary to the express words of an act of parliament? And would you justify this disobedience to the law, by imputing a blunder to the only body upon earth in which we can allow infallibility? It will not surely give offence, if I presume you may be mistaken in your construction of the act, while you fix the charge, of saying one thing, and meaning another, upon the king, lords, and commons of this realm; and should your judgment not be infallible, and in your construction of this law, the mistake should be on your side, ignorance will be but a poor plea for the breach of an act, which you arraigned upon the same principle. If the law maxim, _ignorantia legis neminem excusat_ is ever to be justified upon the principle of humanity, it will be in this case, where it interprets the law, contrary to the express and obvious meaning of it. If, for the sake of argument, we admit that the legislature may have committed this blunder, do you allow it to be consistent, with the rules of true policy, to let those who are the objects of a law, become the interpreters, much more the correctors of it? Suppose a law should prove hurtful to society; let us suppose, if such a case can be supposed, it would break in upon the security of life, liberty, and property, which it is the sole object of law to support? No power in this kingdom, can alter such a law, but that which made it; and the judges, who are the interpreters of the law, are bound to determine all cases which come under that law, according to the plain and obvious construction of it. They cannot correct; their province is, to tell what the law is, not what it should be. Will you assume a power to yourselves, not granted to the king's judges? Will you, Gentlemen, presume to interpret, that the legislature should have said the 5th of July, instead of the 24th of June; and determine, that the dividend shall be made which stands restrained by the express words of that law? If you will correct the law, why will you not do it with as little violence as possible? Why will you not alter 1767, and say it should be 1768? In that case, the law would not take place this twelve month, there would be no doubt about your dividends, in the mean time, and this will be but the alteration of a single figure, while what you contend for, changes words as well as figures.