invasive of any liberty or privilege of the King's subjects of Ireland."
If this proposition be true, as it is here laid down, without any
limitation either expressed or implied, it must follow that a King of
England may at any time coin copper money for Ireland, and oblige his
subjects here to take a piece of copper under the value of half a
farthing for half-a-crown, as was practised by the late King James, and
even without that arbitrary prince's excuse, from the necessity and
exigences of his affairs. If this be in no manner "derogatory nor
evasive of any liberties or privileges of the subjects of Ireland," it
ought to have been expressed what our liberties and privileges are, and
whether we have any at all, for in specifying the word _Ireland_,
instead of saying "His Majesty's subjects," it would seem to insinuate
that we are not upon the same foot with our fellow-subjects in
_England_; which, however the practice may have been, I hope will never
be directly asserted, for I do not understand that Poining's act[13]
deprived us of our liberty, but only changed the manner of passing laws
here (which however was a power most indirectly obtained) by leaving the
negative to the two Houses of Parliament. But, waiving all controversies
relating to the legislature, no person, I believe, was ever yet so bold
as to affirm that the people of Ireland have not the same title to the
benefits of the common law, with the rest of His Majesty's subjects, and
therefore whatever liberties or privileges the people of England enjoy
by common law, we of Ireland have the same; so that in my humble
opinion, the word _Ireland_ standing in that proposition, was, in the
mildest interpretation, _a lapse of the pen_.
[Footnote 13: It was not intended that Poyning's act should interfere
with the liberty of the people, but it is undoubted that advantage was
taken of this law, and an interpretation put on it far different from
the intention that brought it on the statute books. It was passed by a
parliament convened by Sir Edward Poyning, at Drogheda, in the tenth
year of Henry VII.'s reign. Its immediate cause was the invasion of
Perkin Warbeck. That pretender assumed royal authority in Ireland and
had several statutes passed during his short-lived term of power. To
prevent any viceroy from arrogating to himself the powers of law-making
it was enacted by Poyning's parliament:
"That no parliament be holden hereafter in Ireland, but at such season
as the King's lieutenant and counsaile there first do certifie the King,
under the Great Seal of that land, the causes and considerations, and
all such acts as them seemeth should pass in the same parliament, and
such causes, considerations, and acts affirmed by the King and his
counsaile to be good and expedient for that land, and his licence
thereupon, as well in affirmation of the said causes and acts, as to
summon the said parliament, under his Great Seal of England had and
obtained; that done, a parliament to be had and holden as afore
rehearsed" ("Irish Statutes," vol. i., p. 44).
Two statutes, one, the Act of 3 and 4 Phil., and Mary, cap. 4, and the
other of II Eliz. Ses. 3, cap. 8, explain this act further, and the
latter points out the reason for the original enactment, namely, that
"before this statute, when liberty was given to the governors to call
parliaments at their pleasure, acts passed as well to the dishonour of
the prince, as to the hindrance of their subjects" ("Irish Statutes,"
vol. i., p. 346).
"By Poyning's Law," says Lecky, "a great part of the independence of
the Irish Parliament had indeed been surrendered; but even the servile
Parliament which passed it, though extending by its own authority to
Ireland laws previously enacted in England, never admitted the right of
the English Parliament to make laws for Ireland." ("Hist. Ireland," vol.
ii., p. 154; 1892 ed). [T.S.]]
The Report farther asserts, that "the precedents are many, wherein cases
of great importance to Ireland, and that immediately affected the
interests of that kingdom, warrants, orders, and directions by the
authority of the King and his predecessors, have been issued under the
royal sign manual, without any previous reference or advice of His
Majesty's officers of Ireland, which have always had their due force,
and have been punctually complied with, and obeyed." It may be so, and I
am heartily sorry for it, because it may prove an eternal source of
discontent. However among all these precedents there is not one of a
patent for coining money for Ireland.
There is nothing hath perplexed me more than this doctrine of
precedents. If a job is to be done, and upon searching records you find
it hath been done before, there will not want a lawyer to justify the
legality of it, by producing his precedents, without ever considering
the motives and circumstances that first introduced them, the necessity
or turbulence or iniquity of times, the corruptions of ministers, or the
arbitrary disposition of the prince then reigning. And I have been told
by persons eminent in the law, that the worst actions which human nature
is capable of, may be justified by the same doctrine. How the first
precedents began of determining cases of the highest importance to
Ireland, and immediately affecting its interest, without any previous
reference or advice to the King's officers here, may soon be accounted
for. Before this kingdom was entirely reduced by the submission of
Tyrone in the last year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, there was a period
of four hundred years, which was a various scene of war and peace
between the English pale and the Irish natives, and the government of
that part of this island which lay in the English hands, was, in many
things under the immediate administration of the King. Silver and copper
were often coined here among us, and once at least upon great necessity,
a mixed or base metal was sent from England. The reign of King James
Ist. was employed in settling the kingdom after Tyrone's rebellion, and
this nation flourished extremely till the time of the massacre 1641. In
that difficult juncture of affairs, the nobility and gentry coined their
own plate here in Dublin.
By all that I can discover, the copper coin of Ireland for three hundred
years past consisted of small pence and halfpence, which particular men
had licence to coin, and were current only within certain towns and
districts, according to the personal credit of the owner who uttered
them, and was bound to receive them again, whereof I have seen many
sorts; neither have I heard of any patent granted for coining copper for
Ireland till the reign of King Charles II. which was in the year 1680.
to George Legge Lord Dartmouth, and renewed by King James II. in the
first year of his reign to John Knox. Both patents were passed in
Ireland, and in both the patentees were obliged to receive their coin
again to any that would offer then twenty shillings of it, for which
they were obliged to pay gold or silver.
The patents both of Lord Dartmouth and Knox were referred to the
Attorney-general here, and a report made accordingly, and both, as I
have already said, were passed in this kingdom. Knox had only a patent
for the remainder of the term granted to Lord Dartmouth, the patent
expired in 1701, and upon a petition by Roger Moor to have it renewed,
the matter was referred hither, and upon the report of the attorney and
solicitor, that it was not for His Majesty's service or the interest of
the nation to have it renewed, it was rejected by King William. It
should therefore seem very extraordinary, that a patent for coining
copper halfpence, intended and professed for the good of the kingdom,
should be passed without once consulting that kingdom, for the good of
which it is declared to be intended, and this upon the application of a
"poor, private obscure mechanic;" and a patent of such a nature, that as
soon as ever the kingdom is informed of its being passed, they cry out
unanimously against it as ruinous and destructive. The representative
of the nation in Parliament, and the Privy-council address the King to
have it recalled; yet the patentee, such a one as I have described,
shall prevail to have this patent approved, and his private interest
shall weigh down the application of a whole kingdom. St. Paul says, "All
things are lawful, but all things are not expedient." We are answered
that this patent is lawful, but is it expedient? We read that the
high-priest said "It was expedient that one Man should die for the
people;" and this was a most wicked proposition. But that a whole nation
should die for one man, was never heard of before.
But because much weight is laid on the precedents of other patents, for
coining copper for Ireland, I will set this matter in as clear a light
as I can. Whoever hath read the Report, will be apt to think, that a
dozen precedents at least could be produced of copper coined for
Ireland, by virtue of patents passed in England, and that the coinage
was there too; whereas I am confident, there cannot be one precedent
shewn of a patent passed in England for coining copper for Ireland, for
above an hundred years past, and if there were any before, it must be in
times of confusion. The only patents I could ever hear of, are those
already mentioned to Lord Dartmouth and Knox; the former in 1680. and
the latter in 1685. Now let us compare these patents with that granted
to Wood. First, the patent to Knox, which was under the same conditions
as that granted to Lord Dartmouth, was passed in Ireland, the government
and the Attorney and Solicitor-general making report that it would be
useful to this kingdom: [The patentee was obliged to make every
halfpenny one hundred and ten grains Troy weight, whereby _2s. 2d_. only
could be coined out of a pound of copper.][14] The patent was passed
with the advice of the King's council here; The patentee was obliged to
receive his coin from those who thought themselves surcharged, and to
give gold and silver for it; Lastly, The patentee was to pay only _16l.
13s. 4d. per ann._ to the crown. Then, as to the execution of that
patent. First, I find the halfpence were milled, which, as it is of
great use to prevent counterfeits (and therefore industriously avoided
by Wood) so it was an addition to the charge of coinage. And for the
weight and goodness of the metal; I have several halfpence now by me,
many of which weigh a ninth part more than those coined by Wood, and
bear the fire and hammer a great deal better; and which is no trifle,
the impression fairer and deeper. I grant indeed, that many of the
latter coinage yield in weight to some of Wood's, by a fraud natural to
such patentees; but not so immediately after the grant, and before the
coin grew current: For in this circumstance Mr. Wood must serve for a
precedent in future times.
[Footnote 14: The portion here in square brackets was printed in the
fourth edition of this Letter and in the work entitled, "Fraud
Detected." It is not given in Faulkner's first collected edition issued
in 1735, nor in "The Hibernian Patriot," issued in 1730. [T.S.]]
Let us now examine this new patent granted to William Wood. It passed
upon very false suggestions of his own, and of a few confederates: It
passed in England, without the least reference hither. It passed unknown
to the very Lord Lieutenant, then in England. Wood is empowered to coin
one hundred and eight thousand pounds, "and all the officers in the
kingdom (civil and military) are commanded" in the Report to countenance
and assist him. Knox had only power to utter what we would take, and was
obliged "to receive his coin back again at our demand," and to "enter
into security for so doing." Wood's halfpence are not milled, and
therefore more easily counterfeited by himself as well as by others:
Wood pays a thousand pounds _per ann._ for 14 years, Knox paid only
_16l. 13s. 4d. per ann._ for 21 years.
It was the Report that set me the example of making a comparison between
those two patents, wherein the committee was grossly misled by the false
representation of William Wood, as it was by another assertion, that
seven hundred ton of copper were coined during the 21 years of Lord
Dartmouth's and Knox's patents. Such a quantity of copper at the rate of
_2s. 8d. per_ pound would amount to about an hundred and ninety thousand
pounds, which was very near as much as the current cash of the kingdom
in those days; yet, during that period, Ireland was never known to have
too much copper coin, and for several years there was no coining at all:
Besides I am assured, that upon enquiring into the custom-house books,
all the copper imported into the kingdom, from 1683 to 1692, which
includes 8 years of the 21 (besides one year allowed for the troubles)
did not exceed 47 tons, and we cannot suppose even that small quantity
to have been wholly applied to coinage: So that I believe there was
never any comparison more unluckily made or so destructive of the design
for which it was produced.
The Psalmist reckons it an effect of God's anger, when "He selleth His
people for nought, and taketh no money for them." That we have greatly
offended God by the wickedness of our lives is not to be disputed: But
our King we have not offended in word or deed; and although he be God's
vicegerent upon earth, he will not punish us for any offences, except
those which we shall commit against his legal authority, his sacred
person (which God preserve) or the laws of the land.
The Report is very profuse in arguments, that Ireland is in great want
of copper money.[15] Who were the witnesses to prove it, hath been shewn
already, but in the name of God, Who are to be judges? Does not the
nation best know its own wants? Both Houses of Parliament, the
Privy-council and the whole body of the people declare the contrary: Or
let the wants be what they will, We desire they may not be supplied by
Mr. Wood. We know our own wants but too well; they are many and grievous
to be borne, but quite of another kind. Let England be satisfied: As
things go, they will in a short time have all our gold and silver, and
may keep their adulterate copper at home, for we are determined not to
purchase it with our manufactures, which Wood hath graciously offered to
accept. Our wants are not so bad by an hundredth part as the method he
hath taken to supply them. He hath already tried his faculty in
New-England,[16] and I hope he will meet at least with an equal
reception here; what _that_ was I leave to public intelligence. I am
supposing a wild case, that if there should be any person already
receiving a monstrous pension out of this kingdom, who was instrumental
in procuring this patent, they have either not well consulted their own
interests, or Wood must[17] put more dross into his copper and still
diminish its weight.
[Footnote 15: On this subject of the want of small money in Ireland,
Monck Mason traverses the Report in the following manner:
"There appears to be a manifest prevarication in their lordships' report
upon this part of the subject; they state, that the witnesses testified,
that there was a want of small money in Ireland; they attempt,
therefore, to impose a copper currency, which certainly was not wanted.
To satisfy the reader upon this point, I shall quote, from the
unpublished correspondence of Archbishop King, the following extracts:
the first, from his letter to General Gorge, dated the 17th October,
1724, is to the following purpose.
"'... As to our wanting halfpence for change, it is most false; we have
more halfpence than we need, already; it is true, we want change; but it
is sixpences, shillings, half-crowns, and crowns; our silver and our
guineas being almost gone; and the general current coin of the kingdom
is now moydores, which are thirty shillings a-piece; at least nine pence
above the value in silver: now, they would have us change these for
halfpence, and so the whole cash of the kingdom would be these
halfpence.' ...
"But the true state of the case, as to coin, is more circumstantially
developed in the following letter of the same prelate to Mr. Southwell,
which was written a few months before, viz., on the 9th June, 1724.
"'... And yet, after all, we want change, and I will take leave to
acquaint you with the state of this kingdom as to coin. We used to have
hardly any money passing here, but foreign ducatoons, plate pieces,
perns, dollars, etc. but, when the East India Company were forbid
sending the coin of England abroad, they continued to buy up all our
foreign coin, and give us English money in lieu of some part of it; by
which we lost twopence in every ounce, the consequence of this was, that
in two years there was not to be seen in Ireland a piece of foreign
silver.
"'If any be brought, it is immediately sent away, the two, or as I am
informed, the three pence in the ounce, given by the East India Company,
being a temptation not to be resisted; but, the truth is, very little is
brought in, for the merchants that carry our commodities to foreign
markets, find it more to their advantage to carry directly to London
whatever they receive in cash; and whereas formerly they used, when they
had disposed of their cargo, to load their vessels with such commodities
as there was a demand for in Ireland, and bring the rest in cash, they
bring now only the commodities, and send the silver to London; and when
they have got the twopence in every ounce from the East India Company,
the rest serves to answer the returns we are obliged to make to England,
for the rents we are obliged to pay to noblemen and gentlemen who have
estates in Ireland and live in England, and for the pensions, and other
occasions which are many; by this means they gain likewise the exchange,
which is commonly four or five per cent, better to them than if they
sent cash.
"'It Is farther to be observed, that 21 shillings, which is the value of
a guinea in England, makes in Ireland 22 shillings and 9 pence, whereas
a guinea passes for 23 shillings with us, therefore, he who sends silver
into England, gains three pence more by it than if he sent guineas; this
advantage, though it may seem little, yet in a manner has entirely
drained us of our English money which was given in lieu of foreign
silver.
"'But farther, if any carry foreign gold to England, they cannot easily
pass it, and if they do, it is at a greater loss than there is in the
guineas, this has taken away our guineas, so that there is hardly one to
be seen; we have hardly any coin left but a few moydores and pistoles,
which can, by no means, serve the inland trade of the kingdom.
"'To give, therefore, a short view of our case, it is thus; We can have
English coin but by stealth, there being an act of parliament forbidding
the exportation of English coin; if, therefore, we should send our gold
or silver to England to be coined, we cannot have it back again, or if
we could, we cannot keep it for the reason above; we cannot for the same
reason have foreign silver; let us add to these, that by the act of
navigation and other acts, we cannot make our markets of buying where we
make our markets for selling; though we might have the commodities we
want much cheaper there, than we can have them in England, viz. all East
India and Turkey goods, with many others: nor is it to be expected that
any nation will trade with us with their silver only, when we will not
exchange commodities with them.
"'Except, therefore, England designs entirely to ruin Ireland, a kingdom
by which it is demonstrable that she gains yearly thirteen or fourteen
hundred thousand pounds, she ought to think of giving us some relief'"
("History of St. Patrick's," pp. xciii-xciv). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 16: See note on p. 14. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 17: Another hint at the Duchess of Kendal and her connection
with the patent. [T.S.]]
Upon Wood's complaint that the officers of the King's revenue here had
already given orders to all the inferior officers not to receive any
of his coin, the Report says, That "this cannot but be looked upon as a
very extraordinary proceeding," and being contrary to the powers given
in the patent, the Committee say, They "cannot advise His Majesty to
give directions to the officers of the revenue here, not to receive or
utter any of the said coin as has been desired in the addresses of both
Houses," but on the contrary, they "think it both just and reasonable
that the King should immediately give orders to the commissioners of the
revenue, &c. to revoke all orders, &c. that may have been given by them
to hinder or obstruct the receiving the said coin." And accordingly, we
are told, such orders are arrived.[18]. Now this was a cast of Wood's
politics; for his information was wholly false and groundless, which he
knew very well; and that the commissioners of the revenue here were
all, except one, sent us from England, and love their employments too
well to have taken such a step: But Wood was wise enough to consider,
that such orders of revocation would be an open declaration of the crown
in his favour, would put the government here under a difficulty, would
make a noise, and possibly create some terror in the poor people of
Ireland. And one great point he hath gained, that although any orders of
revocation will be needless, yet a new order is to be sent, and perhaps
already here, to the commissioners of the revenue, and all the King's
officers in Ireland, that Wood's "halfpence be suffered and permitted,
without any let, suit, trouble, molestation or denial of any of the
King's officers or ministers whatsoever, to pass and be received as
current money by such as shall be willing to receive them." In this
order there is no exception, and therefore, as far as I can judge, it
includes all officers both civil and military, from the Lord High
Chancellor to a justice of peace, and from the general to an ensign: So
that Wood's project is not likely to fail for want of managers enough.
For my own part, as things stand, I have but little regret to find
myself out of the number, and therefore I shall continue in all humility
to exhort and warn my fellow-subjects never to receive or utter this
coin, which will reduce the kingdom to beggary by much quicker and
larger steps than have hitherto been taken.[19]
[Footnote 18: Archbishop King's letter, quoted by Monck Mason, explains
why it was that the revenue officers refused to receive Wood's coins. It
seems the officers had been advised by lawyers that, in the event of
their taking the coins, it might be quite likely they would be compelled
to make them good, should such a demand be made of them. Precedents
could easily be cited by those taking action, since all previous patents
issued to private individuals for coining money, required of the
patentee to take them back and pay for them with gold or silver. [T.
S.]]
[Footnote 19: The suggestion thus made by the Lords of the Committee,
although coupled with the reduction in the amount of money Wood was to
be permitted to introduce, did not do any good. Archbishop King argued
rightly that this was treating the people of Ireland as if they were
fools and children. If Wood could coin £40,000, what was to prevent him
coining £200,000? The suggestion indeed irritated the people almost as
much as did the patent itself. [T.S.]]