patent, commenced his coinage in Dublin, and at first kept several
offices for changing his half-pence for gold or silver. He soon
overstocked the kingdom so with copper money, that persons were obliged
to receive large sums in it; for the officers of the crown were
industrious dispensers of it, for which he allowed them a premium. It
was common at that time for one to compound for 1/4 copper, and the
collectors paid nothing else. The country being thus overcharged with a
base coin, everyone tendered it to Col. Moore to be changed. This he
refused, on pretence they were counterfeits.... On this he quitted
coining in 1698, but left us in a miserable condition, which is lively
represented in a Memorial presented by Will. Trench, Esq. to the Lords
of the Treasury, on Mr. Wood's obtaining his patent, and which our
Commissioners referred to.... Col. Moore finding the sweet of such a
patent, applied to King William for a renewal of it; but his petition
being referred to the government of Ireland, the affair was fairly
represented to the king, whereby his designs were frustrated.
"In the reign of the late Queen, application was made by Robert Baird
and William Harnill, Trustees for the garrison which defended
Londonderry, for a patent to coin base money for Ireland ... their
petition was rejected.... Since this time there have been many
applications made for such patents." [T.S.]]
Put the case, that the two Houses of Lords and Commons of England, and
the Privy-council there should address His Majesty to recall a patent,
from whence they apprehend the most ruinous consequences to the whole
kingdom: And to make it stronger if possible, that the whole nation,
almost to a man, should thereupon discover the "most dismal
apprehensions" (as Mr. Wood styles them) would His Majesty debate half
an hour what he had to do? Would any minister dare advise him against
recalling such a patent? Or would the matter be referred to the
Privy-Council or to Westminster-hall, the two Houses of Parliament
plaintiffs, and William Wood defendant? And is there even the smallest
difference between the two cases?
Were not the people of Ireland born as free as those of England? How
have they forfeited their freedom? Is not their Parliament as fair a
representative of the people as that of England? And hath not their
Privy-council as great or a greater share in the administration of
public affairs? Are they not subjects of the same King? Does not the
same sun shine on them? And have they not the same God for their
protector? Am I a freeman in England, and do I become a slave in six
hours by crossing the Channel? No wonder then, if the boldest persons
were cautious to interpose in a matter already determined by the whole
voice of the nation, or to presume to represent the representatives of
the kingdom, and were justly apprehensive of meeting such a treatment as
they would deserve at the next session. It would seem very extraordinary
if an inferior court in England, should take a matter out of the hands
of the high court of Parliament, during a prorogation, and decide it
against the opinion of both Houses.
It happens however, that, although no persons were so bold, as to go
over as evidences, to prove the truth of the objections made against
this patent by the high court of Parliament here, yet these objections
stand good, notwithstanding the answers made by Wood and his Council.
The Report says, that "upon an assay made of the fineness, weight and
value of this copper, it exceeded in every article." This is possible
enough in the pieces upon which the assay was made; but Wood must have
failed very much in point of dexterity, if he had not taken care to
provide a sufficient quantity of such halfpence as would bear the trial;
which he was well able to do, although "they were taken out of several
parcels." Since it is now plain, that the bias of favour hath been
wholly on his side.[6]
[Footnote 6: The report of the assayers as abstracted by the Lords of
the Committee in their report is not accurately stated. Monck Mason
notes that the abstract omits the following passage: "But although the
copper was very good, and the money, one piece with another, was full
weight, yet the single pieces were not so equally coined in the weight
as they should have been." Nor is it shown that the coins assayed were
of the same kind as those sent into Ireland. The Committee's report
fails to see the question that must arise when it is noted that while in
England a pound of copper was made into twenty-three pence, yet for
Ireland Wood was permitted to make it into thirty pence, in spite of the
statement that the copper used in England was worth fivepence a pound
more than that used by Wood. [T.S.]]
But what need is there of disputing, when we have positive demonstration
of Wood's fraudulent practices in this point? I have seen a large
quantity of these halfpence weighed by a very skilful person, which were
of four different kinds, three of them considerably under weight. I have
now before me an exact computation of the difference of weight between
these four sorts, by which it appears that the fourth sort, or the
lightest, differs from the first to a degree, that, in the coinage of
three hundred and sixty tons of copper, the patentee will be a gainer,
only by that difference, of twenty-four thousand four hundred and
ninety-four pounds, and in the whole, the public will be a loser of
eighty-two thousand one hundred and sixty-eight pounds, sixteen
shillings, even supposing the metal in point of goodness to answer
Wood's contract and the assay that hath been made; which it infallibly
doth not. For this point hath likewise been enquired into by very
experienced men, who, upon several trials in many of these halfpence,
have found them to be at least one fourth part below the real value (not
including the raps or counterfeits that he or his accomplices have
already made of his own coin, and scattered about). Now the coinage of
three hundred and sixty ton of copper coined by the weight of the fourth
or lightest sort of his halfpence will amount to one hundred twenty-two
thousand four hundred eighty-eight pounds, sixteen shillings, and if we
subtract a fourth part of the real value by the base mixture in the
metal, we must add to the public loss one fourth part to be subtracted
from the intrinsic value of the copper, which in three hundred and sixty
tons amounts to ten thousand and eighty pounds, and this added to the
former sum of eighty-two thousand one hundred sixty-eight pounds,
sixteen shillings, will make in all, ninety-two thousand two hundred
forty-eight pounds loss to the public; besides the raps or counterfeits
that he may at any time hereafter think fit to coin. Nor do I know
whether he reckons the dross exclusive or inclusive with his three
hundred and sixty ton of copper; which however will make a considerable
difference in the account.
You will here please to observe, that the profit allowed to Wood by the
patent is twelvepence out of every pound of copper valued at _1s. 6d_.
whereas _5d_. only is allowed for coinage of a pound weight for the
English halfpence, and this difference is almost 25 _per cent_. which is
double to the highest exchange of money, even under all the additional
pressures, and obstructions to trade, that this unhappy kingdom lies at
present. This one circumstance in the coinage of three hundred and sixty
ton of copper makes a difference of twenty-seven thousand seven hundred
and twenty pounds between English and Irish halfpence, even allowing
those of Wood to be all of the heaviest sort.
It is likewise to be considered, that for every halfpenny in a pound
weight exceeding the number directed by the patent, Wood will be a
gainer in the coinage of three hundred and sixty ton of copper, sixteen
hundred and eighty pounds profit more than the patent allows him; Out of
which he may afford to make his comptrollers easy upon that article.
As to what is alleged, that "these halfpence far exceed the like coinage
for Ireland in the reigns of His Majesty's predecessors;" there cannot
well be a more exceptionable way of arguing: Although the fact were
true, which however is altogether mistaken; not by any fault in the
Committee, but by the fraud and imposition of Wood, who certainly
produced the worst patterns he could find, such as were coined in small
numbers by permissions to private men, as butchers' halfpence, black
dogs and the like, or perhaps the small St. Patrick's coin which passes
for a farthing, or at best some of the smallest raps of the latest kind.
For I have now by me some halfpence coined in the year 1680 by virtue of
the patent granted to my Lord Dartmouth, which was renewed to Knox, and
they are heavier by a ninth part than those of Wood, and in much better
metal. And the great St. Patrick's halfpenny is yet larger than either.
But what is all this to the present debate? If under the various
exigencies of former times, by wars, rebellions, and insurrections, the
Kings of England were sometimes forced to pay their armies here with
mixed or base money, God forbid that the necessities of turbulent times
should be a precedent for times of peace, and order, and settlement.
In the patent above mentioned granted to Lord Dartmouth, in the reign of
King Charles 2d. and renewed to Knox, the securities given into the
exchequer, obliging the patentee to receive his money back upon every
demand, were an effectual remedy against all inconveniencies. And the
copper was coined in our own kingdom, so that we were in no danger to
purchase it with the loss of all our silver and gold carried over to
another, nor to be at the trouble of going to England for the redressing
of any abuse.
That the Kings of England have exercised their prerogative of coining
copper for Ireland and for England is not the present question: But (to
speak in the style of the Report) it would "seem a little
extraordinary," supposing a King should think fit to exercise his
prerogative by coining copper in Ireland, to be current in England,
without referring it to his officers in that kingdom to be informed
whether the grant was reasonable, and whether the people desired it or
no, and without regard to the addresses of his Parliament against it.
God forbid that so mean a man as I should meddle with the King's
prerogative: But I have heard very wise men say, that the King's
prerogative is bounded and limited by the good and welfare of his
people. I desire to know, whether it is not understood and avowed that
the good of Ireland was intended by this patent. But Ireland is not
consulted at all in the matter, and as soon as Ireland is informed of
it, they declare against it; the two Houses of Parliament and the
Privy-council addresses His Majesty upon the mischiefs apprehended by
such a patent. The Privy-council in England takes the matter out of the
Parliament's cognizance; the good of the kingdom is dropped, and it is
now determined that Mr. Wood shall have the power of ruining a whole
nation for his private advantage.
I never can suppose that such patents as these were originally granted
with the view of being a job for the interest of a particular person, to
the damage of the public: Whatever profit must arise to the patentee was
surely meant at best but as a secondary motive, and since somebody must
be a gainer, the choice of the person was made either by favour, or
_something else_[7] or by the pretence of merit and honesty. This
argument returns so often and strongly into my head, that I cannot
forbear frequently repeating it. Surely His Majesty, when he consented
to the passing of this patent, conceived he was doing an act of grace to
his most loyal subjects of Ireland, without any regard to Mr. Wood,
farther than as an instrument. But the people of Ireland think this
patent (intended _no doubt_ for their good) to be a most intolerable
grievance, and therefore Mr. Wood can never succeed, without an open
avowal that his profit is preferred not only before the interests, but
the very safety and being of a great kingdom; and a kingdom
distinguished for its loyalty, perhaps above all others upon earth. Not
turned from its duty by the "jurisdiction of the House of Lords,
abolished at a stroke, by the hardships of the Act of Navigation newly
enforced; By all possible obstructions in trade," and by a hundred
other instances, "enough to fill this paper." Nor was there ever among
us the least attempt towards an insurrection in favour of the Pretender.
Therefore whatever justice a free people can claim we have at least an
equal title to it with our brethren in England, and whatever grace a
good prince can bestow on the most loyal subjects, we have reason to
expect it: Neither hath this kingdom any way deserved to be sacrificed
to one "single, rapacious, obscure, ignominious projector."
[Footnote 7: A hint at the Duchess of Kendal's influence in the
procuring of the patent. [T.S.]]
Among other clauses mentioned in this patent, to shew how advantageous
it is to Ireland, there is one which seems to be of a singular nature,
that the patentee shall be obliged, during his term, "to pay eight
hundred pounds a year to the crown, and two hundred pounds a year to the
comptroller."[8] I have heard indeed that the King's council do always
consider, in the passing of a patent, whether it will be of advantage to
the crown, but I have likewise heard that it is at the same time
considered whether the passing of it may be injurious to any other
persons or bodies politic. However, although the attorney and solicitor
be servants to the King, and therefore bound to consult His Majesty's
interest, yet I am under some doubt whether eight hundred pounds a year
to the crown would be equivalent to the ruin of a kingdom. It would be
far better for us to have paid eight thousand pounds a year into His
Majesty's coffers, in the midst of all our taxes (which, in proportion,
are greater in this kingdom than ever they were in England, even during
the war) than purchase such an addition to the revenue at the price of
our _utter undoing_.
[Footnote 8: By the terms of the patent, Wood covenanted to pay to the
King's clerk, or comptroller of the coinage, £200 yearly, and £100 per
annum into his Majesty's exchequer, and not as Walpole's report has it,
£800 and £200. [T.S.]]
But here it is plain that fourteen thousand pounds are to be paid by
Wood, only as a small circumstantial charge for the purchase of his
patent, what were his other visible costs I know not, and what were his
latent, is variously conjectured. But he must be surely a man of some
wonderful merit. Hath he saved any other kingdom at his own expense, to
give him a title of reimbursing himself by the destruction of ours? Hath
he discovered the longitude or the universal medicine? No. But he hath
found out the philosopher's stone after a new manner, by debasing of
copper, and resolving to force it upon us for gold.
When the two Houses represented to His Majesty, that this patent to Wood
was obtained in a clandestine manner, surely the Committee could not
think the Parliament would insinuate that it had not passed in the
common forms, and run through every office where fees and perquisites
were due. They knew very well that persons in places were no enemies to
grants, and that the officers of the crown could not be kept in the
dark. But the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland[9] affirmed it was a
secret to him (and who will doubt of his veracity, especially when he
swore to a person of quality; from whom I had it, that Ireland should
never be troubled with these halfpence). It was a secret to the people
of Ireland, who were to be the only sufferers, and those who best knew
the state of the kingdom and were most able to advise in such an affair,
were wholly strangers to it.
[Footnote 9: The Duke of Grafton. Walpole called him "a fair-weather
pilot, that knew not what he had to do, when the first storm arose."
Charles, second Duke of Grafton (1683-1757), was the grandfather of the
third duke, so virulently attacked by Junius in his famous letters. [T.
S.]]
It is allowed by the Report that this patent was passed without the
knowledge of the chief governor or officers of Ireland; and it is there
elaborately shewn, that "former patents have passed in the same manner,
and are good in law." I shall not dispute the legality of patents, but
am ready to suppose it in His Majesty's power to grant a patent for
stamping round bits of copper to every subject he hath. Therefore to lay
aside the point of law, I would only put the question, whether in reason
and justice it would not have been proper, in an affair upon which the
welfare of a kingdom depends, that the said kingdom should have received
timely notice, and the matter not be carried on between the patentee and
the officers of the Crown, who were to be the only gainers by it.
The Parliament, who in matters of this nature are the most able and
faithful counsellors, did represent this grant to be "destructive of
trade, and dangerous to the properties of the people," to which the only
answer is, that "the King hath a prerogative to make such a grant."
It is asserted that in the patent to Knox, his "halfpence, are made and
declared the current coin of the kingdom," whereas in this to Wood,
there is only a "power given to issue them to such as will receive
them." The authors of the Report, I think, do not affirm that the King
can by law declare _anything_ to be current money by his
letters-patents. I dare say they will not affirm it, and if Knox's
patent contained in it powers contrary to law, why is it mentioned as a
precedent in His Majesty's just and merciful reign:[10] But although
that clause be not in Wood's patent, yet possibly there are others, the
legality whereof may be equally doubted, and particularly that, whereby
"a power is given to William Wood to break into houses in search of any
coin made in imitation of his." This may perhaps be affirmed to be
illegal and dangerous to the liberty of the subject. Yet this is a
precedent taken from Knox's patent, where the same power is granted, and
is a strong instance what uses may be sometimes made of precedents.
[Footnote 10: Knox's patent, as Monck Mason points out, did not contain
the right to have his coins pass as the current coin of the realm; that
was permitted by a proclamation of the lord lieutenant, and could in the
same manner be withdrawn. Knox's patent differed materially from that
granted to Wood, since he was obliged to take back his coins and give
gold or silver for them, and no one was compelled to take more than five
shillings in the payment of each £100. See note, p. 66. [T.S.]]
But although before the passing of this patent, it was not thought
necessary to consult any persons of this kingdom, or make the least
enquiry whether copper money were wanted among us; yet now at length,
when the matter is over, when the patent hath long passed, when Wood
hath already coined seventeen thousand pounds, and hath his tools and
implements prepared to coin six times as much more; the Committee hath
been pleased to make this affair the subject of enquiry. Wood is
permitted to produce his evidences, which consist as I have already
observed, of four in number, whereof Coleby, Brown and Mr. Finley the
banker are three. And these were to prove that copper money was
extremely wanted in Ireland. The first had been out of the kingdom
almost twenty years, from the time that he was tried for robbing the
treasury, and therefore his knowledge and credibility are equal. The
second may be allowed a more knowing witness, because I think it is not
above a year since the House of Commons ordered the Attorney-general to
prosecute him, for endeavouring "to take away the life of John Bingham
Esq; member of parliaments by perjury and subornation." He asserted that
he was forced to tally with his labourers for want of small money (which
hath often been practised in England by Sir Ambrose Crawley[11] and
others) but those who knew him better give a different reason, (if there
be any truth at all in the fact) that he was forced to tally with his
labourers not for want of halfpence, but of more substantial money,
which is highly possible, because the race of suborners, forgers,
perjurers and ravishers, are usually people of no fortune, or of those
who have run it out by their vices and profuseness. Mr. Finley the third
witness honestly confessed, that he was ignorant whether Ireland wanted
copper money or no; but all his intention was to buy a certain quantity
from Wood at a large discount, and sell them as well as he could, by
which he hoped to get two or three thousand pounds for himself.
[Footnote 11: Ambrose Crowley (not Crawley) was alderman and sheriff of
London. He was knighted January 1st, 1706-1707, and sat in the House of
Commons as member for Andover in 1713-1714. [T.S.]]
But suppose there were not one single halfpenny of copper coin in this
whole kingdom (which Mr. Wood seems to intend, unless we will come to
his terms, as appears by employing his emissaries to buy up our old ones
at a penny in the shilling more than they pass for), it could not be any
real evil to us, although it might be some inconvenience. We have many
sorts of small silver coins, to which they are strangers in England,
such as the French threepences, fourpence halfpennies and eightpence
half-pennies, the Scotch fivepences and tenpences, besides their
twenty-pences, and three-and-four-pences, by all which we are able to
make change to a halfpenny of almost any piece of gold or silver, and if
we are driven to Brown's expedient of a sealed card, with the little
gold or silver still remaining, it will I suppose, be somewhat better
than to have nothing left but Wood's adulterated copper, which he is
neither obliged by his patent, nor hitherto able by his estate to make
good.
The Report farther tells us, it "must be admitted that letters-patents
under the Great Seal of Great Britain for coining copper money for
Ireland are legal and obligatory, a just and reasonable exercise of His
Majesty's royal prerogative, and in no manner derogatory or invasive of
any liberty or privilege of his subjects of Ireland." First we desire to
know, why His Majesty's prerogative might not have been as well
asserted, by passing this patent in Ireland, and subjecting the several
conditions of the contract to the inspection of those who are only
concerned, as was formerly done in the only precedents for patents
granted for coining for this kingdom, since the mixed money[12] in Queen
Elizabeth's time, during the difficulties of a rebellion: Whereas now
upon the greatest imposition that can possibly be practised, we must go
to England with our complaints, where it hath been for some time the
fashion to think and to affirm that "we cannot be too hardly used."
Again the Report says, that "such patents are obligatory." After long
thinking, I am not able to find out what can possibly be meant here by
this word _obligatory_. This patent of Wood neither obligeth him to
utter his coin, nor us to take it, or if it did the latter, it would be
so far void, because no patent can oblige the subject against law,
unless an illegal patent passed in one kingdom can bind another and not
itself.
[Footnote 12: "Civill warre having set all Ireland in a combustion, the
Queene [Elizabeth] more easily to subdue the rebels, did take silver
coyne from the Irish, some few years before her death, and paid her army
with a mixed base coyne, which, by proclamation, was commanded to be
spent and received, for sterling silver money. This base mixed money had
three parts of copper, and the fourth part of silver, which proportion
of silver was in some part consumed by the mixture, so as the English
goldsmiths valued a shilling thereof at no more than two silver pence,
though they acknowledged the same to be worth two pence halfpenny."
(Fynes Moryson's "Itinerary," pt. i., p. 283). [T.S.]]