witnesses, all the papers and precedents, which he thought material,
having been read and considered, and having as he conceived, fully
vindicated both the patent, and the execution thereof. For his further
justification, and to clear himself from the imputation of attempting to
make to himself any unreasonable profit or advantage, and to enrich
himself at the expense of the kingdom of Ireland, by endeavouring to
impose upon them, and utter a greater quantity of copper money, than the
necessary occasions of the people shall require, and can easily take
off, delivered a proposal in writing, signed by himself, which is
hereunto annexed, and Mr. Wood having by the said letters-patent,
"covenanted, granted, and promised to, and with your Majesty, your heirs
and successors, that he shall and will from time to time in the making
the said copper farthings and halfpence in England, and in transporting
the same from time to time to Ireland, and in uttering, vending,
disposing and dispersing the same there, and in all his doings and
accounts concerning the same, submit himself to the inspection,
examination, order and comptrol of your Majesty and your commissioners
of the treasury or high-treasurer for the time being;" the Lords of the
Committee are of opinion, that your Majesty upon this voluntary offer
and proposal of Mr. Wood, may give proper orders and directions for the
execution and due performance of such parts of the said proposal, as
shall be judged most for the interest and accommodation of your subjects
of Ireland: In the mean time, it not appearing to their Lordships that
Mr. Wood has done or committed any act or deed, that may tend to
invalidate, or make void his letters-patent, or to forfeit the
privileges and advantages thereby granted to him by your Majesty; It is
but just and reasonable, that your Majesty should immediately send
orders to your commissioners of the revenue, and all other your officers
in Ireland, to revoke all orders, directions, significations, or
intimations whatsoever, that may have been given by them, or any of
them, to hinder or obstruct the receiving and uttering this copper
money, and that the halfpence and farthings already coined by Mr. Wood,
amounting to about 17,000_l_. and such further quantity as shall make up
the said 17,000_l_. to 40,000_l_. "be suffered and permitted without any
let, suit, trouble, molestation, or denial of any of your Majesty's
officers or ministers whatsoever, to pass, and be received as current
money by such as shall be willing to receive the same." At the same
time, it may be advisable for your Majesty, to give the proper orders,
that Mr. Wood shall not coin, import into Ireland, utter or dispose of
any more copper halfpence or farthings, than to the amount of 40,000_l_.
according to his own proposal, without your Majesty's special licence or
authority, to be had for that purpose; and if your Majesty shall be
pleased to order, that Mr. Wood's proposal, delivered to the Lords of
the Committee, shall be transmitted to your Majesty's chief governor,
deputies, or other your ministers, or officers in Ireland, it will give
them a proper opportunity to consider, Whether, after the reduction of
360 tons of copper, being in value 100,800_l_. to 142 tons, 17 hundred,
16 pounds being in value 40,000_l_. only, anything can be done for the
further satisfaction of the people of Ireland.
LETTER III.
TO THE NOBILITY AND GENTRY OF THE KINGDOM OF IRELAND.
NOTE.
The Drapier's second letter was dated August 4th, 1724. A few days
later the English Privy Council's Report, dated 24th July, 1724, arrived
in Dublin, and on August 25th, Swift had issued his reply to it in this
third letter.
The Report itself, which is here prefixed to the third letter, was said
to have been the work of Walpole. Undoubtedly, it contains the best
arguments that could then be urged in favour of Wood and the patent, and
undoubtedly, also, it would have had the desired effect had it been
allowed to do its work uncriticised. But Swift's opposition was fatal to
Walpole's intentions. He took the report as but another attempt to foist
on the people of Ireland a decree in which they had not been consulted,
and no amount of yielding, short of complete abandonment of it, would
palliate the thing that was hateful in itself. He resented the insult.
After specific rebuttals of the various arguments urged in the report in
favour of the patent, Swift suddenly turns from the comparatively petty
and insignificant consideration as to the weight and quality of the
coins, and deals with the broad principle of justice which the granting
of the patent had ignored. Had the English Houses of Parliament and the
English Privy Council, he said, addressed the King against a similar
breach of the English people's rights, his Majesty would not have waited
to discuss the matter, nor would his ministers have dared to advise him
as they had done in this instance. "Am I a free man in England," he
exclaims, "and do I become a slave in six hours in crossing the
channel?"
The report, however, is interesting inasmuch as it assists us to
appreciate the pathetic condition of Irish affairs at the time. The very
fact that the petition of the Irish parliament could be so handled,
proves how strong had been the hold over Ireland by England, and with
what daring insistence the English ministers continued to efface the
last strongholds of Irish independence.
Monck Mason, in reviewing the report, has devoted a very elaborate note
to its details, and has fortified his criticisms with a series of
remarkable letters from the Archbishop of Dublin, which he publishes for
the first time.[1] I have embodied much of this note in the annotations
which accompany the present reprint of this letter.
[Footnote 1: "History of St. Patrick's Cathedral," pp. lxxxvi-xcv.]
The text of this third letter is based on Sir W. Scott's, collated with
the first edition and that given by Faulkner in "Fraud Detected." It has
also been read with Faulkner's text given in the fourth volume of his
edition of Swift's Works, published in 1735.
[T.S.]
[Illustration:
SOME
**Observations**
Upon a PAPER, Call'd, The
**REPORT**
OF THE
**COMMITTEE**
OF THE
Most Honourable the _Privy-Council_
IN
**ENGLAND,**
Relating to WOOD's _Half-pence_.
_By_. M.B. _Drapier_.
AUTHOR of the LETTER to the
_SHOP-KEEPERS_, &c.
DUBLIN:
Printed by _John Harding_ in
_Molesworth's-Court_ in _Fishamble Street_.
]
LETTER III.
TO THE NOBILITY AND GENTRY OF THE KINGDOM OF IRELAND.
Having already written two letters to people of my own level, and
condition; and having now very pressing occasion for writing a third; I
thought I could not more properly address it than to your lordships and
worships.
The occasion is this. A printed paper was sent to me on the 18th
instant, entitled, "A Report of the Committee of the Lords of His
Majesty's Most Honourable Privy-Council in England, relating to Mr.
Wood's Halfpence and Farthings."[2] There is no mention made where the
paper was printed, but I suppose it to have been in Dublin; and I have
been told that the copy did not come over in the Gazette, but in the
London Journal, or some other print of no authority or consequence; and
for anything that legally appears to the contrary, it may be a
contrivance to fright us, or a project of some printer, who hath a mind
to make a penny by publishing something upon a subject, which now
employs all our thoughts in this kingdom. Mr. Wood in publishing this
paper would insinuate to the world, as if the Committee had a greater
concern for his credit and private emolument, than for the honour of the
Privy-council and both Houses of Parliament here, and for the quiet and
welfare of this whole kingdom; For it seems intended as a vindication of
Mr. Wood, not without several severe remarks on the Houses of Lords and
Commons of Ireland.
[Footnote 2: The full text of this report is prefixed to this third
letter of the Drapier. The report was published in the "London Journal"
about the middle of August of 1724. Neither the "Gazette" nor any other
ministerial organ printed it, which evidently gave Swift his cue to
attack it in the merciless manner he did. Monck Mason thought it "not
improbable that the minister [Walpole] adopted this method of
communication, because it served his own purpose; he dared not to stake
his credit upon such a document, which, in its published form, contains
some gross mis-statements" ("History of St. Patrick's Cathedral," note,
on p. 336). [T.S.]]
The whole is indeed written with the turn and air of a pamphlet, as if
it were a dispute between William Wood on the one part, and the Lords
Justices, Privy-council and both Houses of Parliament on the other; the
design of it being to clear and vindicate the injured reputation of
William Wood, and to charge the other side with casting rash and
groundless aspersions upon him.
But if it be really what the title imports, Mr. Wood hath treated the
Committee with great rudeness, by publishing an act of theirs in so
unbecoming a manner, without their leave, and before it was communicated
to the government and Privy-council of Ireland, to whom the Committee
advised that it should be transmitted. But with all deference be it
spoken, I do not conceive that a Report of a Committee of the Council in
England is hitherto a law in either kingdom; and until any point is
determined to be a law, it remains disputable by every subject.
This (may it please your lordships and worships) may seem a strange way
of discoursing in an illiterate shopkeeper. I have endeavoured (although
without the help of books) to improve that small portion of reason which
God hath pleased to give me, and when reason plainly appears before me,
I cannot turn away my head from it. Thus for instance, if any lawyer
should tell me that such a point were law, from which many gross
palpable absurdities must follow, I would not, I could not believe him.
If Sir Edward Coke should positively assert (which he nowhere does, but
the direct contrary) that a limited prince, could by his prerogative
oblige his subjects to take half an ounce of lead, stamped with his
image, for twenty shillings in gold, I should swear he was deceived or a
deceiver, because a power like that, would leave the whole lives and
fortunes of the people entirely at the mercy of the monarch: Yet this,
in effect, is what Wood hath advanced in some of his papers, and what
suspicious people may possibly apprehend from some passages in that
which is called the "Report."
That paper mentions "such persons to have been examined, who were
desirous and willing to be heard upon that subject." I am told, they
were four in all, Coleby, Brown, Mr. Finley the banker, and one more
whose name I know not. The first of these was tried for robbing the
Treasury in Ireland, and although he was acquitted for want of legal
proof, yet every person in the Court believed him to be guilty. The
second was tried for a rape, and stands recorded in the votes of the
House of Commons, for endeavouring by perjury and subornation, to take
away the life of John Bingham, Esq.[3]
[Footnote 3: Referring to these persons who were examined by the
Committee, Monck Mason quotes from two letters from Archbishop King to
Edward Southwell, Esq. King was one of the council, and Southwell
secretary of state at the time. The first of these letters remarks:
"Could a greater contempt be put upon a nation, than to see such a
little fellow as Wood favoured and supported against them, and such
profligates as Brown and Coleby believed before a whole parliament,
government, and private council." From the second letter, written on
August 15th, 1724, Monck Mason gives the following extracts:
"--When I returned to Dublin I met with resolutions concerning our
halfpence, founded chiefly on the testimony of two infamous persons,
John Brown and Coleby: as to the first of these, you will find his
character in the votes of the house of commons, last parliament.
Tuesday, the 5th of November.
"'Resolved, that it appears to this Committee, that a wicked conspiracy
was maliciously contrived and carried on against John Bingham, to take
away his life and fortune.
"'Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said John
Brown, of Rabens, Esq. and his accomplices, were the chief promoters and
advisers of the said conspiracy.
"'Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said John
Brown is a person not fit to serve his majesty, in any office or
employment, civil or military, whatsoever.
"'Resolved, that the said John Brown has, in the course of his
examination, grossly prevaricated with this Committee.
"'To all which resolutions, the question being severally put, the house
did agree, _nemine contradicente_.
"'Ordered, that the said John Brown be, for his said prevarication,
taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms attending this house.
"'Ordered, that his majesty's attorney-general do present the said John
Brown, for conniving and maliciously carrying on the said conspiracy to
take away the life of the said John Bingham, and others.'
"As to Coleby, he was turned out of the treasury for robbing it of a
considerable sum of money. I was present at his trial at the
King's-bench, and the evidence was such as convinced every one, in his
conscience, that he was guilty; but, the proofs being presumptive, and
not direct, the jury acquitted him; on which the judge (Pine, if I
remember right) observed the happiness of English subjects, that, though
everybody was convinced of a man's guilt, yet, if the evidence did not
come up to the strict requisites of the law, he would escape" ("History
of St. Patrick's Cathedral," pp. xciv-xcv.) [T.S.]]
But since I have gone so far as to mention particular persons, it may be
some satisfaction to know who is this Wood himself, that has the honour
to have a whole kingdom at his mercy, for almost two years together. I
find he is in the patent entitled _Esq_; although he were understood to
be only a hardware-man, and so I have been bold to call him in my former
letters; however a '_squire_ he is, not only by virtue of his patent,
but by having been a collector in Shropshire, where pretending to have
been robbed, and suing the county, he was cast, and for the infamy of
the fact, lost his employment.
I have heard another story of this 'Squire Wood from a very honourable
lady, that one Hamilton told her. He (Hamilton) was sent for six years
ago by Sir Isaac Newton to try the coinage of four men, who then
solicited a patent for coining halfpence for Ireland; their names were
Wood, Coster, Elliston, and Parker. Parker made the fairest offer, and
Wood the worst, for his coin were three halfpence in a pound less value
than the other. By which it is plain with what intentions he solicited
this patent, but not so plain how he obtained it.
It is alleged in the said paper, called the "Report," that upon repeated
orders from a secretary of state, for sending over such papers and
witnesses, as should be thought proper to support the objections made
against the patent (by both Houses of Parliament) the Lord Lieutenant
represented "the great difficulty he found himself in to comply with
these orders. That none of the principal members of both Houses, who
were in the King's service or council, would take upon them to advise
how any material person or papers might be sent over on this occasion,
&c." And this is often repeated and represented as "a proceeding that
seems very extraordinary, and that in a matter which had raised so great
a clamour in Ireland, no one person could be prevailed upon to come over
from Ireland in support of the united sense of both Houses of Parliament
in Ireland, especially that the chief difficulty should arise from a
general apprehension of a miscarriage, in an enquiry before His
Majesty, or in a proceeding by due course of law, in a case where both
Houses of Parliament had declared themselves so fully convinced, and
satisfied upon evidence, and examinations taken in the most solemn
manner."[4]
[Footnote 4: Commenting on this Monck Mason has the following note. This
learned biographer's remarks are specially important inasmuch as he has
fortified them with letters from Archbishop King, unpublished at the
time he wrote: "But this [referring to the extract from the Report given
by Swift] will not appear so strange or inexplicable after perusing the
following letter from Archbishop King ... to Edward Southwell, Esq. ...;
this important state paper may, therefore, be considered as an official
communication of the sentiments of the Irish Privy Council upon this
matter.
"Letter from William King, Archbishop of Dublin, to Edward Southwell,
Esq., dated the 23d March, 1723.
"'I have not had any occasion of late to trouble you with my letters;
but yesternight I came to the knowledge of an affair which gave me some
uneasiness, and, I believe, will do so to the whole kingdom, when it
becomes public. My lord lieutenant sent for several lords and commoners
of the privy council, and communicated to them a letter from my Lord
Carteret, writ by his majesty's command, in which was repeated the
answer given to the addresses of the lords and commons, about one
William Wood's farthings and halfpence; and his grace is required to
send over witnesses and evidences against the patentee or patent: this
has surprised most people, because we were borne in hand that that
affair was dead, and that we should never hear any more of it.
"'His grace's design was, to be advised by what means and methods he
might effectually comply with his majesty's commands; and, by what I
could perceive, it was the sense of all, that it was not possible, in
the present situation of affairs, to answer his majesty's expectations
or those of the kingdom; and that, for these reasons:
"'1st, because this is a controversy between the parliament of Ireland
and William Wood, and, the parliament being now prorogued, nobody either
would, or durst, take on them to meddle in a business attacked by the
parliament, or pretend to manage a cause which so deeply concerned the
parliament, and the whole nation, without express orders. If this letter
had come whilst the parliament was sitting, and had been communicated to
the houses, they could have appointed certain persons to have acted for
them, and raised a fund to support them, as has been done formerly in
this kingdom on several occasions; but, for any, without such authority,
to make himself a party for the legislature and people of Ireland, would
be a bold undertaking, and, perhaps, dangerous; for, if such undertaker
or undertakers should fail in producing all evidences that may be had,
or any of the papers necessary to make the case evident, they must
expect to be severely handled the next parliament for their
officiousness, and bear the blame of the miscarriage of the cause: for
these reasons, as it seemed to me, the privy councillors were unwilling
to engage at all in the business, or to meddle with it.
"'But, 2dly, the thing seemed impracticable; because it would signify
nothing to send over the copies of the papers that were laid before the
parliament, if the design is, as it seems to be, to bring the patent to
a legal trial; for such copies we were told by lawyers, could not be
produced in any court as evidence; and, as to the originals, they are in
the possession of the houses, and (as was conceived) could not be taken
from the proper officers with whom they were trusted, but by the like
order.
"'And, as to the witnesses, it was a query whether my lord lieutenant by
his own power could send them; and, if he have such power, yet it will
not be possible to come at the witnesses, for several in each house
vouched several facts on their own knowledge, to whom the houses gave
credit; my lord lieutenant can neither be apprised of the persons nor of
the particulars which the members testified; whereas, if the parliament
was sitting, those members would appear, and make good their assertions.
"'There were several sorts of farthings and halfpence produced to the
houses, differing in weight, and there was likewise a difference in the
stamp. These were sent over by William Wood to his correspondents here,
and by them produced. But can it be proved, on a legal trial, that these
particular halfpence were coined by him? It is easy for him to say, that
they are counterfeited, as (if I remember right) he has already affirmed
in the public prints, in his answer to the address of the commons.
"'But, 3dly, it was not on the illegality of the patent, nor chiefly on
the abuse of it the patentee (which was not so much as mentioned by the
lords), that the parliament insisted, but on the unavoidable mischief
and destruction it would bring on the kingdom, and on its being obtained
by most false and notorious misinformation of his majesty; it being
suggested, as appears by the preamble, that the kingdom wanted such
halfpence and farthings: now, if the king be misinformed, the lawyers
tell us, that the grant is void. And, that his majesty was deceived in
this grant by a false representation, it was said, needed no further
proof than the patent itself.--William Wood by it was empowered to coin
360 tons of copper into halfpence and farthings, which would have made
£90,000, about the fifth part of all the current cash of Ireland; for
that is not reckoned, by those who suppose it most, to be £500,000. Now,
the current cash of England is reckoned above twenty millions; in
proportion, therefore, if Ireland wants £90,000 England will want four
millions. It is easy to imagine what would be said to a man that would
propose to his majesty such a coinage; and it is agreed, that the people
of England would not be more alarmed by such a patent, than the people
of Ireland are, by the prospect of turning the fifth part of their
current coin into brass.
"'This, so far as I can remember, is a brief of what passed in the
meeting before my lord lieutenant'" ("History of St. Patrick's
Cathedral," pp. lxxxvii-lxxxviii). [T.S.]]
How shall I, a poor ignorant shopkeeper, utterly unskilled in law, be
able to answer so weighty an objection. I will try what can be done by
plain reason, unassisted by art, cunning or eloquence.
In my humble opinion, the committee of council, hath already prejudged
the whole case, by calling the united sense of both Houses of
Parliament in Ireland an "universal clamour." Here the addresses of the
Lords and Commons of Ireland against a ruinous destructive project of an
"obscure, single undertaker," is called a "clamour." I desire to know
how such a style would be resented in England from a committee of
council there to a Parliament, and how many impeachments would follow
upon it. But supposing the appellation to be proper, I never heard of a
wise minister who despised the universal clamour of a people, and if
that clamour can be quieted by disappointing the fraudulent practice of
a single person, the purchase is not exorbitant.
But in answer to this objection. First it is manifest, that if this
coinage had been in Ireland, with such limitations as have been formerly
specified in other patents, and granted to persons of this kingdom, or
even of England, able to give sufficient security, few or no
inconveniencies could have happened, which might not have been
immediately remedied. As to Mr. Knox's patent mentioned in the Report,
security was given into the exchequer, that the patentee should at any
time receive his halfpence back, and pay gold or silver in exchange for
them. And Mr. Moor (to whom I suppose that patent was made over) was in
1694 forced to leave off coining, before the end of that year, by the
great crowds of people continually offering to return his coinage upon
him. In 1698 he coined again, and was forced to give over for the same
reason. This entirely alters the case; for there is no such condition in
Wood's patent, which condition was worth a hundred times all other
limitations whatsoever.[5]
[Footnote 5: It will serve to elucidate this paragraph if an account be
given of the various coinage patents issued for Ireland. Monck Mason
gives an account in a long note to his biography of Swift; but as he has
obtained it from the very ably written tract, "A Defence of the Conduct
of the People of Ireland," etc., I have gone to that pamphlet for the
present _résumé_. I quote from pp. 21-24 of the Dublin edition, issued
in 1724 and printed by George Ewing:
"K. Charles 2d. 1660 granted a patent for coining only farthings for the
kingdom of Ireland to Coll. Armstrong: But I do not find he ever made
any use of it.[A] For all our copper and brass money to the year 1680
was issued by private persons, who obtained particular licences, _on
giving security to change their half-pence and farthings for gold and
silver_; but some of their securities failing, others pretending the
half-pence which were tendered to be changed were counterfeits, the
public always suffered. Col. Armstrong's son, finding great profit was
made by coining half-pence in Ireland, by virtue of particular licences
recallable at pleasure, solicited and obtained a patent in the name of
George Legg afterwards Lord Dartmouth, for coining half-pence for
Ireland from 1680, for 21 years, _he giving security to exchange them
for gold or silver on demand_.[B] In pursuance of this he coined
considerable quantities of half-pence for four years; but in 1685 [John]
Knox, with the consent of Armstrong, got the remaining part of this term
granted by patent in his own name, he giving security as above, and got
his half-pence declared the current coin of Ireland, notwithstanding two
Acts of Parliament had enacted that they should not be received in the
revenue. Knox was interrupted in his coinage in 1689, by King James's
taking it into his own hands, to coin his famous brass money, of which
he coined no less than £965,375, three penny worth of metal passing for
£10 _ster_. In this money creditors were obliged to receive their debts,
and by this cruel stratagem Ireland lost about £60,000 per month. This
not only made our gold and silver, but even our half-pence to disappear;
which obliged King William to coin pewter half-pence for the use of his
army....
[Footnote A: Monck Mason, quoting Simon "On Irish Coins" (Append., No.
LXV), says: "Sir Thomas [Armstrong] was never admitted to make use of
this grant, nor could he obtain allowance of the chief governor of
Ireland, to issue them as royal coin among the subjects of that
kingdom."]
[Footnote B: "A proclamation was issued by the lord lieutenant,
declaring these half-pence to be the current coin of the kingdom, but it
provided that none should be enforced to take more than five shillings
in the payment of one hundred pounds, and so proportionately in all
greater and lesser sums.... This patent was granted, by and with, the
advice of James, Duke of Ormond" (Monck Mason, "History of St.
Patrick's," p. 334, note y).]