influence their finding the bill may have upon the kingdom. The people
in general find no fault in the Drapier's last book, any more than in
the three former, and therefore when they hear it is condemned by a
grand jury of Dublin, they will conclude it is done in favour of Wood's
coin, they will think we of this town have changed our minds, and intend
to take those halfpence, and therefore that it will be in vain for them
to stand out. So that the question comes to this, Which will be of the
worst consequence, to let pass one or two expressions, at the worst only
unwary, in a book written for the public service; or to leave a free
open passage for Wood's brass to overrun us, by which we shall be undone
for ever.
The fifth thing to be considered, is, that the members of the grand jury
being merchants, and principal shopkeepers, can have no suitable
temptation offered them, as a recompense for the mischief they will
suffer by letting in this coin, nor can be at any loss or danger by
rejecting the bill: They do not expect any employments in the state, to
make up in their own private advantage, the destruction of their
country. Whereas those who go about to advise, entice, or threaten them
to find that bill, have great employments, which they have a mind to
keep, or to get greater, which was likewise the case of all those who
signed to have the author prosecuted. And therefore it is known, that
his grace the Lord Archbishop of Dublin,[1] so renowned for his piety,
and wisdom, and love of his country, absolutely refused to condemn the
book, or the author.
[Footnote 1: The proclamation against the Drapier's fourth letter as
given in Appendix IV. at the end of this volume, does not bear
Archbishop King's signature. In a letter from that prelate, written on
November 24th, 1724, to Samuel Molineux, secretary to the Prince of
Wales, it appears that other persons of influence also refrained from
sanctioning it. The following is an extract from this letter as given by
Monck Mason for the first time:
"A great many pamphlets have been writ about it [Wood's patent], but I
am told none of them are permitted to be printed in England. Two have
come out since my Lord Lieutenant came here, written with sobriety,
modesty, and great force, in my opinion, which put the matter in a fair
and clear light, though not with all the advantage of which it is
capable; four were printed before, by somebody that calleth himself a
Drapier which were in a ludicrous and satyrical style; against the last
of these the Lord Lieutenant procured a proclamation, signed by 17 of
the Council; offering £300 for discovering the author. I thought the
premium excessive, so I and three more refused to sign it, but declared,
that if his excellency would secure us from the brass money, I would
sign it, or any other, tending only to the disadvantage of private
persons; but, till we had that security, I would look on this
proclamation no otherwise than as a step towards passing that base and
mischievous coin, and designed to intimidate those who opposed the
passing it; and I declared, that I would not approve of anything that
might countenance, or encourage such a ruinous project; that issuing
such a proclamation would make all believe, that the government was
engaged to support Wood's pretensions, and that would neither be for
their honour nor ease. I was not able to stop the proclamation, but my
refusing to sign it has not been without effect." ("History of St.
Patrick's," p. 344, note n.). [T.S.]]
Lastly, it ought to be considered what consequence the finding the bill,
may have upon a poor man perfectly innocent, I mean the printer. A
lawyer may pick out expressions and make them liable to exception, where
no other man is able to find any. But how can it be supposed, that an
ignorant printer can be such a critic? He knew the author's design was
honest, and approved by the whole kingdom, he advised with friends, who
told him there was no harm in the book, and he could see none himself.
It was sent him in an unknown hand, but the same in which he received
the three former. He and his wife have offered to take their oaths that
they knew not the author; and therefore to find a bill, that may bring a
punishment upon the innocent, will appear very hard, to say no worse.
For it will be impossible to find the author, unless he will please to
discover himself, although I wonder he ever concealed his name. But I
suppose what he did at first out of modesty, he now continues to do out
of prudence. God protect us and him!
I will conclude all with a fable, ascribed to Demosthenes. He had served
the people of Athens with great fidelity in the station of an orator,
when upon a certain occasion, apprehending to be delivered over to his
enemies, he told the Athenians, his countrymen, the following story.
Once upon a time the wolves desired a league with the shepherds, upon
this condition; that the cause of strife might be taken away, which was
the shepherds and the mastiffs; this being granted, the wolves without
all fear made havoc of the sheep.[2]
Novem. 11th, 1724.
[Footnote 2: The advice had the desired effect. The jury returned a
verdict of "Ignoramus" on the bill, which so aroused Whitshed, the Chief
Justice, that he discharged them. As a comment on Whitshed's illegal
procedure, the following extract was circulated:
EXTRACT FROM A BOOK ENTITLED, "AN EXACT COLLECTION OF THE DEBATES OF THE
HOUSE OF COMMONS HELD AT WESTMINSTER, OCTOBER 21, 1680," page 150.
_Resolutions of the House of Commons, in England, November 13, 1680._
"Several persons being examined about the dismissing a grand jury in
Middlesex, the House came to the following resolutions:--
"_Resolved_, That the discharging of a grand-jury by any judge, before
the end of the term, assizes, or sessions, while matters are under their
consideration, and not presented, is arbitrary, illegal, destructive to
public justice, a manifest violation of his oath, and is a means to
subvert the fundamental laws of this kingdom.
"_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to examine the proceedings of
the judges in Westminster-hall, and report the same with their opinion
therein to this House." [T.S.]]
LETTER V.
A LETTER TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR MIDDLETON.
NOTE.
I have departed from the order given by Faulkner and the earlier
editors,[1] and followed by Sir W. Scott in arranging the series of the
Drapier's Letters, by adhering to a more correct chronological sequence.
This letter has always been printed as the sixth Drapier's letter, but I
have printed it here as the fifth, since it was written prior to the
letter addressed to Viscount Molesworth, which has hitherto been called
the fifth. The Molesworth letter I print here as "Letter VI." As already
noted the letter to Midleton was written on the 26th October, 1724, but
its first publication in print did not occur until Faulkner included it
in the fourth volume of his collected edition of Swift's works, issued
in 1735. There it is signed "J.S." and is given as from the "Deanery
House." All the other letters are printed as "By M.B. Drapier." The
Advertisement to the Reader prefixed to the present fifth letter is from
Faulkner's edition. Probably it was printed by Faulkner under Swift's
direction.
[Footnote 1: Sheridan, Deane Swift, Hawkesworth and Nichols]
Swift's acquaintance with Midleton had been of long standing. The
Chancellor had been an avowed opponent of the patent and yet, by his
signature to the proclamation, he seemed to be giving the weight of his
official position against the popular sentiment. In addressing him,
Swift was endeavouring, apparently, to keep him to his original line of
action and to destroy any influence the government party may have had on
him, since he was well aware of Carteret's insinuating charm. Midleton,
however, had always stood firm against the patent. His signature to the
proclamation against the Drapier was justified by him when he said that
the Drapier's letters tended to disturbance. Carteret had really tried
to win him over, but he did not succeed "While he [Midleton] expressed
the highest obligation to the Lord Lieutenant," writes Coxe, "he
declared that his duty to his country was paramount to every other
consideration, and refused to give any assistance to government, until
the patent was absolutely surrendered."
The text here given of this letter is based on Faulkner's issue in vol.
iv. of the 1735 edition of Swift's works. It has been collated with that
given in the fifth volume of the "Miscellanies," printed in London in
the same year.
[T.S.]
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER[2]
The former of the two following papers is dated Oct. 6th 1724[3], by
which it appears to be written a little after the proclamation against
the author of the Drapier's Fourth Letter. It is delivered with much
caution, because the author confesseth himself to be Dean of St.
Patrick's; and I could discover his name subscribed at the end of the
original, although blotted out by some other hand, I can tell no other
reason why it was not printed, than what I have heard; that the writer
finding how effectually the Drapier had succeeded, and at the same time
how highly the people in power seemed to be displeased, thought it more
prudent to keep the paper in his cabinet. However, having received some
encouragement to collect into one volume all papers relating to Ireland,
supposed to be written by the Drapier; and knowing how favourably that
author's writings in this kind have been received by the public; to make
the volume more complete, [I procured a copy of the following letter
from one of the author's friends, with whom it was left, while the
author was in England; and][4] I have printed it as near as I could in
the order of time.
[Footnote 2: Nichols, in the second volume of his Supplement to Swift's
Works (1779, 8vo), prints a note on this "Advertisement," furnished him
by Bowyer. It is as follows:
"1. The first of the papers is said to be dated Oct. 6, 1724; and that
it appears from thence to be dated a little after the proclamation
against the Drapier's fourth letter. Now the fourth letter itself is
dated Oct. 23, 1724. This is a pardonable mistake anywhere, but, much
more in a country where _going before just coming after_ is the
characteristic dialect. But I little thought that the Dean, in his zeal
for Ireland, would vouchsafe to adopt the shibboleth of it.
"2. The Preface-writer, in the choice MS which he found, could discover
the Dean's name subscribed at the end of the original; but _blotted out_
by _some other hand_. As the former passage is a proof that the
Advertisement was drawn up in Ireland, so this affords a strong
presumption that it was under the direction of the Dean himself: for who
else could divine that his name was struck out by another hand? Other
ink it might be: but in these recent MSS. of our age, it is the first
time I ever heard of a blot carrying the evidence of a handwriting.
Whether the Dean or the printer hit this _blot_, I shall not inquire;
but lay before you the pleasant procedure of the latter upon this
discovery. He had got, we see, the original in the Dean's hand; but the
name was obliterated. What does he, but send away to England for a copy
which might authenticate _his original_; and from such a copy the public
is favoured with it! I remember, in a cause before Sir Joseph Jekyll, a
man began reading in court the title-deeds of an estate which was
contested. 'The original is a little blind,' says he; 'I have got a very
fair copy of it, which I beg leave to go on with'--'Hold,' says Sir
Joseph, 'if the original is not good, the copy can never make it so.' I
am far, however, from accusing the printer of intending any fraud on the
world. He who tells his story so openly gives security enough for his
honesty. I can easily conceive the Advertisement might be in a good
measure the Dean's, who never was over-courteous to his readers, and
might for once be content to be merry with them." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: Misprinted by Faulkner for Oct. 26th. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: This portion in square brackets is not given by Faulkner in
his Advertisement. [T.S.]]
The next treatise is called "An Address, &c." It is without a date; but
seems to be written during the first session of Parliament in Lord
Carteret's government. The title of this Address is in the usual form,
by M.B. Drapier. There is but a small part of it that relates to William
Wood and his coin: The rest contains several proposals for the
improvement of Ireland, the many discouragements it lies under, and what
are the best remedies against them.
By many passages in some of the Drapier's former letters, but
particularly in the following Address, concerning the great drain of
money from Ireland by absentees, importation of foreign goods, balance
of trade, and the like, it appears that the author had taken much pains,
and been well informed in the business of computing; all his reasonings
upon that subject, although he does not here descend to particular sums,
agreeing generally with the accounts given by others who have since made
that enquiry their particular study. And it is observable, that in this
Address, as well as in one of his printed letters, he hath specified
several important articles, that have not been taken notice of by others
who came after him.
LETTER V.
A LETTER TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR MIDDLETON.[5]
My Lord, I desire you will consider me as a member who comes in at the
latter end of a debate; or as a lawyer who speaks to a cause, when the
matter hath been almost exhausted by those who spoke before.
[Footnote 5: Alan Brodrick, Lord Midleton (1660?-1728), came of a Surrey
family that had greatly benefited by the forfeitures in Ireland.
Adopting the profession of the law, Brodrick was, in 1695, appointed
Solicitor-General for Ireland. He sat in the Irish House of Commons as
the member for Cork, and in 1703 was chosen its Speaker. His strong
opposition to the Sacramental Test Act lost him the favour of the
government, and he was removed from his office of Solicitor-General. In
1707, however, he was appointed Attorney-General for Ireland, and in
1714 made Lord Chancellor. In the year following he was created Baron
Brodrick of Midleton. His trimming with Walpole and Carteret did not,
however, prevent him from opposing the Wood's patent, though he signed
the proclamation against the Drapier. He thought the letters served to
"create jealousies between the King and the people of Ireland." [T.S.]]
I remember some months ago I was at your house upon a commission, where
I am one of the governors: But I went thither not so much on account of
the commission, as to ask you some questions concerning Mr. Wood's
patent to coin halfpence for Ireland; where you very freely told me, in
a mixed company, how much you had been always against that wicked
project, which raised in me an esteem for you so far, that I went in a
few days to make you a visit, after many years' intermission. I am
likewise told, that your son wrote two letters from London, (one of
which I have seen) empowering those to whom they were directed, to
assure his friends, that whereas there was a malicious report spread of
his engaging himself to Mr. Walpole for forty thousand pounds of Wood's
coin, to be received in Ireland, the said report was false and
groundless; and he had never discoursed with that minister on the
subject; nor would ever give his consent to have one farthing of the
said coin current here. And although it be long since I have given
myself the trouble of conversing with people of titles or stations; yet
I have been told by those who can take up with such amusements, that
there is not a considerable person of the kingdom, scrupulous in any
sort to declare his opinion. But all this is needless to allege, when we
consider, that the ruinous consequences of Wood's patent, have been so
strongly represented by both Houses of Parliament; by the Privy-council;
the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of Dublin; by so many corporations; and the
concurrence of the principal gentlemen in most counties, at their
quarter-sessions, without any regard to party, religion, or nation.
I conclude from hence, that the currency of these halfpence would, in
the universal opinion of our people, be utterly destructive to this
kingdom; and consequently, that it is every man's duty, not only to
refuse this coin himself, but as far as in him lies, to persuade others
to do the like: And whether this be done in private or in print, is all
a case: As no layman is forbid to write, or to discourse upon religious
or moral subjects; although he may not do it in a pulpit (at least in
our church). Neither is this an affair of state, until authority shall
think fit to declare it so: Or if you should understand it in that
sense; yet you will please to consider that I am not now a preaching.
Therefore, I do think it my duty, since the Drapier will probably be no
more heard of, so far to supply his place, as not to incur his fortune:
For I have learnt from old experience, that there are times wherein a
man ought to be cautious as well as innocent. I therefore hope, that
preserving both those characters, I may be allowed, by offering new
arguments or enforcing old ones, to refresh the memory of my
fellow-subjects, and keep up that good spirit raised among them; to
preserve themselves from utter ruin by lawful means, and such as are
permitted by his Majesty.
I believe you will please to allow me two propositions: First, that we
are a most loyal people; and, Secondly, that we are a free people, in
the common acceptation of that word applied to a subject under a
limited monarch. I know very well, that you and I did many years ago
in discourse differ much, in the presence of Lord Wharton, about the
meaning of that word _liberty_, with relation to Ireland. But if you
will not allow us to be a free people, there is only another appellation
left; which, I doubt, my Lord Chief Justice Whitshed would call me to an
account for, if I venture to bestow: For, I observed, and I shall never
forget upon what occasion, the device upon his coach to be _Libertas et
natale solum;_ at the very point of time when he was sitting in his
court, and perjuring himself to betray both.[6]
[Footnote 6: On this motto of Whitshed's Swift wrote the following
poetical paraphrase:
"_Libertas et natale solum:_
Fine words! I wonder where you stole 'em.
Could nothing but thy chief reproach
Serve for a motto on thy coach?
But let me now thy words translate:
_Natale solum,_ my estate;
My dear estate, how well I love it,
My tenants, if you doubt, will prove it,
They swear I am so kind and good,
I hug them till I squeeze their blood.
_Libertas_ bears a large import:
First, how to swagger in a court;
And, secondly, to shew my fury
Against an uncomplying jury;
And, thirdly, 'tis a new invention,
To favour Wood, and keep my pension;
And, fourthly, 'tis to play an odd trick,
Get the great seal and turn out Broderick;
And, fifthly, (you know whom I mean,)
To humble that vexatious Dean:
And, sixthly, for my soul to barter it
For fifty times its worth to Carteret.
Now since your motto thus you construe,
I must confess you've spoken once true.
_Libertas et natale solum_.
You had good reason when you stole 'em."
[T.S.]]
Now, as for our loyalty, to His present Majesty; if it hath ever been
equalled in any other part of his dominions; I am sure it hath never
been exceeded: And I am confident he hath not a minister in England who
could ever call it once in question: But that some hard rumours at least
have been transmitted from t'other side the water, I suppose you will
not doubt: and rumours of the severest kind; which many good people have
imputed to the indirect proceeding of Mr. Wood and his emissaries; as if
he endeavoured it should be thought that our loyalty depended upon the
test of refusing or taking his copper. Now, as I am sure you will admit
us to be a loyal people; so you will think it pardonable in us to hope
for all proper marks of favour and protection from so gracious a King,
that a loyal and free people can expect: Among which, we all agree in
reckoning this to be one; that Wood's halfpence may never have entrance
into this kingdom. And this we shall continue to wish, when we dare no
longer express our wishes; although there were no such mortal as a
Drapier in the world.
I am heartily sorry, that any writer should, in a cause so generally
approved, give occasion to the government and council to charge him with
paragraphs "highly reflecting upon His Majesty and his ministers;
tending to alienate the affections of his good subjects in England and
Ireland from each other; and to promote sedition among the people."[7] I
must confess, that with many others, I thought he meant well; although
he might have the failing of better writers, to be not always fortunate
in the manner of expressing himself.
[Footnote 7: Swift here quotes the words of the proclamation issued
against the fourth Drapier's Letter. See Appendix IV. [T.S.]]
However, since the Drapier is but one man, I shall think I do a public
service, by asserting that the rest of my countrymen are wholly free
from learning out of _his_ pamphlets to reflect on the King or his
ministers, to breed sedition.
I solemnly declare, that I never once heard the least reflection cast
upon the King, on the subject of Mr. Wood's coin: For in many discourses
on this matter, I do not remember His Majesty's name to be so much as
mentioned. As to the ministry in England, the only two persons hinted at
were the Duke of Grafton, and Mr. Walpole:[8] The former, as I have
heard you and a hundred others affirm, declared, that he never saw the
patent in favour of Mr. Wood, before it was passed, although he were
then lord lieutenant: And therefore I suppose everybody believes, that
his grace hath been wholly unconcerned in it since.
[Footnote 8: Walpole was created a Knight of the Bath in 1724, when that
order was revived. In 1726 he was installed Knight of the Order of the
Garter, being the only commoner who had been so distinguished since the
reign of James I., except Admiral Montague, afterwards Earl of Sandwich.
He had been offered a peerage in 1723, but declined it for himself,
accepting it for his son, who was created Baron Walpole of Walpole, in
Norfolk. [T.S.]]
Mr. Walpole was indeed supposed to be understood by the letter W. in
several newspapers; where it is said, that some expressions fell from
him not very favourable to the people of Ireland; for the truth of
which, the kingdom is not to answer, any more than for the discretion of
the publishers. You observe, the Drapier wholly clears Mr. Walpole of
this charge, by very strong arguments and speaks of him with civility. I
cannot deny myself to have been often present, where the company gave
then opinion, that Mr. Walpole favoured Mr. Wood's project, which I
always contradicted; and for my own part, never once opened my lips
against that minister, either in mixed or particular meetings: And my
reason for this reservedness was, because it pleased him, in the Queen's
time (I mean Queen Anne of ever blessed memory) to make a speech
directly against me, by name, in the House of Commons, as I was told a
very few minutes after, in the Court of Requests, by more than fifty
members.
But you, who are in a great station here, (if anything here may be
called great) cannot be ignorant, that whoever is understood by public
voice to be chief minister, will, among the general talkers, share the
blame, whether justly or no, of every thing that is disliked; which I
could easily make appear in many instances, from my own knowledge, while
I was in the world; and particularly in the case of the greatest, the
wisest, and the most uncorrupt minister, I ever conversed with.[9]
[Footnote 9: Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford. [T.S.]]
But, whatever unpleasing opinion some people might conceive of Mr.
Walpole, on account of those halfpence; I dare boldly affirm, it was
entirely owing to Mr. Wood. Many persons of credit, come from England,
have affirmed to me, and others, that they have seen letters under his
hand, full of arrogance and insolence towards Ireland; and boasting of
his favour with Mr. Walpole; which is highly probable: Because he
reasonably thought it for his interest to spread such a report; and
because it is the known talent of low and little spirits, to have a
great man's name perpetually in their mouths.[10]