must be left to the impartial judgment of the world, as well as to the
courts of judicature, although indeed not in so effectual and decisive
a manner. But to affirm, as I hear some do, in order to countenance a
fearful and servile spirit, that this point did not belong to my
subject, is a false and foolish objection. There were several scandalous
reports industriously spread by Wood and his accomplices to discourage
all opposition against his infamous project. They gave it out that we
were prepared for a rebellion, that we disputed the King's prerogative,
and were shaking off our dependency. The first went so far, and obtained
so much belief against the most visible demonstrations to the contrary,
that a great person of this kingdom, now in England, sent over such an
account of it to his friends, as would make any good subject both grieve
and tremble. I thought it therefore necessary to treat that calumny as
it deserved. Then I proved by an invincible argument that we could have
no intention to dispute His Majesty's prerogative, because the
prerogative was not concerned in the question, the civilians and lawyers
of all nations agreeing that copper is not money. And lastly to clear us
from the imputation of shaking off our dependency, I shewed wherein as I
thought this dependency consisted, and cited the statute above mentioned
made in Ireland, by which it is enacted, that "whoever is King of
England shall be King of Ireland," and that the two kingdoms shall be
"for ever knit together under one King." This, as I conceived, did
wholly acquit us of intending to break our dependency, because it was
altogether out of our power, for surely no King of England will ever
consent to the repeal of that statute.
But upon this article I am charged with a heavier accusation. It is said
I went too far, when I declared, that "if ever the Pretender should come
to be fixed upon the throne of England (which God forbid) I would so far
venture to transgress this statute, that I would lose the last drop of
my blood before I would submit to him as King of Ireland."
This I hear on all sides, is the strongest and weightiest objection
against me, and which hath given the most offence; that I should be so
bold to declare against a direct statute, and that any motive how strong
soever, could make me reject a King whom England should receive. Now if
in defending myself from this accusation I should freely confess, that I
"went too far," that "the expression was very indiscreet, although
occasioned by my zeal for His present Majesty and his Protestant line in
the House of Hanover," that "I shall be careful never to offend again in
the like kind." And that "I hope this free acknowledgment and sorrow for
my error, will be some atonement and a little soften the hearts of my
powerful adversaries." I say if I should offer such a defence as this, I
do not doubt but some people would wrest it to an ill meaning by some
spiteful interpretation, and therefore since I cannot think of any other
answer, which that paragraph can admit, I will leave it to the mercy of
every candid reader.
I will now venture to tell your lordship a secret, wherein I fear you
are too deeply concerned You will therefore please to know that this
habit of writing and discoursing, wherein I unfortunately differ from
almost the whole kingdom, and am apt to grate the ears of more than I
could wish, was acquired during my apprenticeship in London, and a long
residence there after I had set up for myself. Upon my return and
settlement here, I thought I had only changed one country of freedom for
another. I had been long conversing with the writings of your
lordship,[12] Mr. Locke, Mr. Molineaux,[13] Colonel Sidney[14] and other
dangerous authors, who talk of "liberty as a blessing, to which the
whole race of mankind hath an original title, whereof nothing but
unlawful force can divest them." I knew a good deal of the several
Gothic institutions in Europe, and by what incidents and events they
came to be destroyed; and I ever thought it the most uncontrolled and
universally agreed maxim, that _freedom_ consists in a people being
governed by laws made with their own consent; and _slavery_ in the
contrary. I have been likewise told, and believe it to be true, that
_liberty_ and _property_ are words of known use and signification in
this kingdom, and that the very lawyers pretend to understand, and have
them often in their mouths. These were the errors which have misled me,
and to which alone I must impute the severe treatment I have received.
But I shall in time grow wiser, and learn to consider my driver, the
road I am in, and with whom I am yoked. This I will venture to say, that
the boldest and most obnoxious words I ever delivered, would in England
have only exposed me as a stupid fool, who went to prove that the sun
shone in a clear summer's day; and I have witnesses ready to depose that
your lordship hath said and writ fifty times worse, and what is still an
aggravation, with infinitely more wit and learning, and stronger
arguments, so that as politics run, I do not know a person of more
exceptionable principles than yourself; and if ever I shall be
discovered, I think you will be bound in honour to pay my fine and
support me in prison; or else I may chance to inform against you by way
of reprisal.[15]
[Footnote 12: See note _ante_, p. 161. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 13: William Molyneux (1656-1698), the correspondent of John
Flamsteed and Locke. His "Dioptrica Nova" contains a warm appreciation
of Locke's "Essay on the Human Understanding." He died in October, 1698,
but in the early part of this year, he published his famous inquiry into
the effect of English legislation on Irish manufactures. The work was
entitled, "The Case of Ireland's being bound by Acts of Parliament in
England stated," and its publication made a great stir both in England
and in Ireland. Molyneux attempted to show that the Irish Parliament was
independent of the English Parliament. His book was reported by a
Committee of the House of Commons, on June 22nd, 1698, to be "of
dangerous consequence to the Crown and Parliament of England," but the
matter went no further than embodying this resolution of the committee
in an address to the King. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 14: Algernon Sidney (1622-1682), the author of the well known
"Discourses concerning Government," and the famous republican of the
Cromwellian and Restoration years, was the second surviving son of the
second Earl of Leicester His career as soldier, statesman, agitator,
ambassador and author, forms an interesting and even fascinating chapter
of the story of this interesting period of English history. He was tried
for treason before Jeffreys, and in spite of a most excellent defence,
sentenced to death. His execution took place on December 7th, 1682. [T.
S.]]
[Footnote 15: A writer, signing himself M.M., replying to this letter of
Swift's in a broadside entitled, "Seasonable Advice to M.B. Drapier,
Occasioned by his Letter to the R--t. Hon. the Lord Visct. Molesworth,"
actually takes this paragraph to mean that Swift intended seriously to
turn informer: "Now sir, some people are of opinion that you carried
this too far, inasmuch as you become a precedent to informers: others
think that you intimate to his lordship, the miserable circumstance you
are in by the menaces of the prentice to whom you dictate; they conceive
your declaring to inform, if not fee'd, to the contrary, signifies your
said prentice on the last occasion to swear, if you don't forthwith
deliver him his indentures, and half of your stock to set up trade with,
he will inform against you, bring you to justice, be dismissed by law,
and get the promised £300 to begin trade with; how near these
conceptions be to truth I can't tell; but I know people think that word
_inform_ unseasonable. . . ." [T.S.]]
In the meantime, I beg your lordship to receive my confession, that if
there be any such thing as a dependency of Ireland upon England,
otherwise than as I have explained it, either by the law of God, of
nature, of reason, of nations, or of the land (which I shall never
hereafter contest,) then was the proclamation against me, the most
merciful that ever was put out, and instead of accusing me as malicious,
wicked and seditious, it might have been directly as guilty of high
treason.
All I desire is, that the cause of my country against Mr. Wood may not
suffer by any inadvertency of mine; Whether Ireland depends upon
England, or only upon God, the King and the law, I hope no man will
assert that it depends upon Mr. Wood. I should be heartily sorry that
this commendable resentment against me should accidentally (and I hope,
what was never intended) strike a damp upon that spirit in all ranks and
corporations of men against the desperate and ruinous design of Mr.
Wood. Let my countrymen blot out those parts in my last letter which
they dislike, and let no rust remain on my sword to cure the wounds I
have given to our most mortal enemy. When Sir Charles Sidley[16] was
taking the oaths, where several things were to be renounced, he said "he
loved renouncing," asked "if any more were to be renounced, for he was
ready to renounce as much as they pleased." Although I am not so
thorough a renouncer; yet let me have but good city security against
this pestilent coinage, and I shall be ready not only to renounce every
syllable in all my four letters, but to deliver them cheerfully with my
own hands into those of the common hangman, to be burnt with no better
company than the coiner's _effigies,_ if any part of it hath escaped out
of the secular hands of the rabble.
[Footnote 16: This must be Sir Charles Sedley (properly Sidley), the
famous wit and dramatist of Charles II.'s reign. In his reprint of 1735,
Faulkner prints the name "Sidley," though the original twopenny tract
and the "Hibernian Patriot" print it as "Sidney." Sir W. Scott corrects
it to "Sedley." [T.S.]]
But whatever the sentiments of some people may be, I think it is agreed
that many of those who subscribed against me, are on the side of a vast
majority in the kingdom who opposed Mr. Wood; and it was with great
satisfaction that I observed some right honourable names very amicably
joined with my own at the bottom of a strong declaration against him and
his coin. But if the admission of it among us be already determined the
worthy person who is to betray me ought in prudence to do it with all
convenient speed, or else it may be difficult to find three hundred
pounds in sterling for the discharge of his hire; when the public shall
have lost five hundred thousand, if there be so much in the nation;
besides four-fifths of its annual income for ever.
I am told by lawyers, that in all quarrels between man and man, it is of
much weight, which of them gave the first provocation or struck the
first blow. It is manifest that Mr. Wood hath done both, and therefore I
should humbly propose to have him first hanged and his dross thrown into
the sea; after which the Drapier will be ready to stand his trial. "It
must needs be that offences come, but woe unto him by whom the offence
cometh." If Mr. Wood had held his hand every body else would have held
their tongues, and then there would have been little need of pamphlets,
juries, or proclamations upon this occasion. The provocation must needs
have been great, which could stir up an obscure indolent Drapier to
become an author. One would almost think the very stones in the street
would rise up in such a cause: And I am not sure they will not do so
against Mr. Wood if ever he comes within their reach. It is a known
story of the dumb boy, whose tongue forced a passage for speech by the
horror of seeing a dagger at his father's throat. This may lessen the
wonder that a tradesman hid in privacy and silence should cry out when
the life and being of his political mother are attempted before his
face, and by so infamous a hand.
But in the meantime, Mr. Wood the destroyer of a kingdom walks about in
triumph (unless it be true that he is in jail for debt) while he who
endeavoured to assert the liberty of his country is forced to hide his
head for occasionally dealing in a matter of controversy. However I am
not the first who hath been condemned to death for gaining a great
victory over a powerful enemy, by disobeying for once the strict orders
of military discipline.
I am now resolved to follow (after the usual proceeding of mankind,
because it is too late) the advice given me by a certain Dean. He shewed
the mistake I was in of trusting to the general good-will of the people,
"that I had succeeded hitherto better than could be expected, but that
some unfortunate circumstantial lapse would probably bring me within the
reach of power. That my good intentions would be no security against
those who watched every motion of my pen, in the bitterness of my soul."
He produced an instance of "a writer as innocent, as disinterested, and
as well meaning as myself, where the printer, who had the author in his
power, was prosecuted with the utmost zeal, the jury sent back nine
times, and the man given up to the mercy of the court."[17] The Dean
further observed "that I was in a manner left alone to stand the battle,
while others who had ten thousand times better talents than a Drapier,
were so prudent to lie still, and perhaps thought it no unpleasant
amusement to look on with safety, while another was giving them
diversion at the hazard of his liberty and fortune, and thought they
made a sufficient recompense by a little applause." Whereupon he
concluded with a short story of a Jew at Madrid, who being condemned to
the fire on account of his religion, a crowd of school-boys following
him to the stake, and apprehending they might lose their sport, if he
should happen to recant, would often clap him on the back, and cry,
"_Sta firme Moyse_ (Moses, continue steadfast)."
[Footnote 17: This was for the publication of "A Proposal for the
Universal Use of Irish Manufactures." [T.S.]]
I allow this gentleman's advice to have been good, and his observations
just, and in one respect my condition is worse than that of the Jew, for
no recantation will save me. However it should seem by some late
proceedings, that my state is not altogether deplorable. This I can
impute to nothing but the steadiness of two impartial grand juries,
which hath confirmed in me an opinion I have long entertained, that, as
philosophers say, "virtue is seated in the middle," so in another
sense, the little virtue left in the world is chiefly to be found among
the middle rank of mankind, who are neither allured out of her paths by
ambition, nor driven by poverty.
Since the proclamation occasioned by my last letter, and a due
preparation for proceeding against me in a court of justice, there have
been two printed papers clandestinely spread about, whereof no man is
able to trace the original further than by conjecture, which with its
usual charity lays them to my account. The former is entitled,
"Seasonable Advice,"[18] and appears to have been intended for
information of the grand jury, upon the supposition of a bill to be
prepared against that letter. The other[19] is an extract from a printed
book of Parliamentary Proceedings in the year 1680 containing an angry
resolution of the House of Commons in England against dissolving grand
juries. As to the former, your lordship will find it to be the work of a
more artful hand than that of a common Drapier. It hath been censured
for endeavouring to influence the minds of a jury, which ought to be
wholly free and unbiassed, and for that reason it is manifest that no
judge was ever known either upon or off the bench, either by himself or
his dependents, to use the least insinuation that might possibly affect
the passions or interests of any one single juryman, much less of a
whole jury; whereof every man must be convinced who will just give
himself the trouble to dip into the common printed trials; so as, it is
amazing to think, what a number of upright judges there have been in
both kingdoms for above sixty years past, which, considering how long
they held their offices during pleasure, as they still do among us, I
account next to a miracle.
[Footnote 18: See p. 123. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 19: See note on p. 127. [T.S.]]
As to the other paper I must confess it is a sharp censure of an English
House of Commons against dissolving grand juries 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 the kingdom.
However, the publisher seems to have been mistaken in what he aimed at.
For, whatever dependence there may be of Ireland upon England, I hope he
would not insinuate, that the proceedings of a lord chief justice in
Ireland must depend upon a resolution of an English House of Commons.
Besides, that resolution although it were levelled against a particular
lord chief justice, Sir William Scroggs,[20] yet the occasion was
directly contrary: For Scroggs dissolved the grand jury of London for
fear they should present, but ours in Dublin was dissolved because they
would not present, which wonderfully alters the case. And therefore a
second grand jury supplied that defect by making a presentment[21] that
hath pleased the whole kingdom. However I think it is agreed by all
parties, that both the one and the other jury behaved themselves in such
a manner, as ought to be remembered to their honour, while there shall
be any regard left among us for virtue or public spirit.
[Footnote 20: Sir William Scroggs (1623?-1683) was appointed Lord Chief
Justice of England on the removal of Sir Thomas Ramsford in 1678. One of
the eight articles of impeachment against Scroggs, in 1680, was for
illegally discharging the grand jury of Middlesex before the end of the
term. Although the articles of impeachment were carried to the House of
Lords in 1681, the proceedings went no farther than ordering him to find
bail and file his answer by a certain time. Scroggs was removed, on
account of his unpopularity, on April 11th, 1681. As a lawyer, Scroggs
has no great reputation; as a judge he must be classed with the
notorious Jeffreys. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 21: See Appendix No. V. [T.S.]]
I am confident your lordship will be of my sentiments in one thing, that
some short plain authentic tract might be published for the information
both of petty and grand juries, how far their power reacheth, and where
it is limited, and that a printed copy of such a treatise might be
deposited in every court, to be consulted by the jurymen before they
consider of their verdict; by which abundance of inconveniences would be
avoided, whereof innumerable instances might be produced from former
times, because I will say nothing of the present.
I have read somewhere of an eastern king who put a judge to death for an
iniquitous sentence, and ordered his hide to be stuffed into a cushion,
and placed upon the tribunal for the son to sit on, who was preferred to
his father's office. I fancy such a memorial might not have been
unuseful to a son of Sir William Scroggs, and that both he and his
successors would often wriggle in their seats as long as the cushion
lasted. I wish the relater had told us what number of such cushions
there might be in that country.
I cannot but observe to your lordship how nice and dangerous a point it
is grown for a private person to inform the people even in an affair
where the public interest and safety are so highly concerned as that of
Mr. Wood, and this in a country where loyalty is woven into the very
hearts of the people, seems a little extraordinary. Sir William Scroggs
was the first who introduced that commendable acuteness into the courts
of judicature; but how far this practice hath been imitated by his
successors or strained upon occasion, is out of my knowledge. When
pamphlets unpleasing to the ministry were presented as libels, he would
order the offensive paragraphs to be read before him, and said it was
strange that the judges and lawyers of the King's Bench should be duller
than all the people of England; and he was often so very happy in
applying the initial letters of names, and expounding dubious hints (the
two common expedients among writers of that class for escaping the law)
that he discovered much more than ever the authors intended, as many of
them or their printers found to their cost. If such methods are to be
followed in examining what I have already written or may write hereafter
upon the subject of Mr. Wood, I defy any man of fifty times my
understanding and caution to avoid being entrapped, unless he will be
content to write what none will read, by repeating over the old
arguments and computations, whereof the world is already grown weary. So
that my good friend Harding lies under this dilemma, either to let my
learned works hang for ever a drying upon his lines, or venture to
publish them at the hazard of being laid by the heels.
I need not tell your lordship where the difficulty lies. It is true, the
King and the laws permit us to refuse this coin of Mr. Wood, but at the
same time it is equally true, that the King and the laws permit us to
receive it. Now it is most certain the ministers in England do not
suppose the consequences of uttering that brass among us to be so
ruinous as we apprehend; because doubtless if they understood it in that
light, they are persons of too much honour and justice not to use their
credit with His Majesty for saving a most loyal kingdom from
destruction. But as long as it shall please those great persons to think
that coin will not be so very pernicious to us, we lie under the
disadvantage of being censured as obstinate in not complying with a
royal patent. Therefore nothing remains, but to make use of that liberty
which the King and the laws have left us, by continuing to refuse this
coin, and by frequent remembrances to keep up that spirit raised against
it, which otherwise may be apt to flag, and perhaps in time to sink
altogether. For, any public order against receiving or uttering Mr.
Wood's halfpence is not reasonably to be expected in this kingdom,
without directions from England, which I think nobody presumes, or is so
sanguine to hope.
But to confess the truth, my lord, I begin to grow weary of my office as
a writer, and could heartily wish it were devolved upon my brethren, the
makers of songs and ballads, who perhaps are the best qualified at
present to gather up the gleanings of this controversy. As to myself, it
hath been my misfortune to begin and pursue it upon a wrong foundation.
For having detected the frauds and falsehoods of this vile impostor Wood
in every part, I foolishly disdained to have recourse to whining,
lamenting, and crying for mercy, but rather chose to appeal to law and
liberty and the common rights of mankind, without considering the
climate I was in.
Since your last residence in Ireland, I frequently have taken my nag to
ride about your grounds, where I fancied myself to feel an air of
freedom breathing round me, and I am glad the low condition of a
tradesman did not qualify me to wait on you at your house, for then I am
afraid my writings would not have escaped severer censures. But I have
lately sold my nag, and honestly told his greatest fault, which was that
of snuffing up the air about Brackdenstown, whereby he became such a
lover of liberty, that I could scarce hold him in. I have likewise
buried at the bottom of a strong chest your lordship's writings under a
heap of others that treat of liberty, and spread over a layer or two of
Hobbes, Filmer, Bodin[22] and many more authors of that stamp, to be
readiest at hand whenever I shall be disposed to take up a new set of
principles in government. In the mean time I design quietly to look to
my shop, and keep as far out of your lordship's influence as possible;
and if you ever see any more of my writings upon this subject, I promise
you shall find them as innocent, as insipid and without a sting as what
I have now offered you. But if your lordship will please to give me an
easy lease of some part of your estate in Yorkshire,[23] thither will I
carry my chest and turning it upside down, resume my political reading
where I left it off; feed on plain homely fare, and live and die a free
honest English farmer: But not without regret for leaving my countrymen
under the dread of the brazen talons of Mr. Wood: My most loyal and
innocent countrymen, to whom I owe so much for their good opinion of me,
and of my poor endeavours to serve them,
I am
with the greatest respect,
My Lord
Your Lordship's most obedient
and most humble servant,
M.B.
From my shop
in St. Francis-Street,
Dec. 14.
1724.