liberties, and consequently resistance is lawful, therefore an inferior
court a _bene placito_ judge may----Monstrous absurdity.
Another, I am sorry I can't say more modest argument to support it is
this.--
"Considering," say they, "grand juries, it is but reasonable a
discretionary power of dissolving them should be lodged in the judges."
By the words "considering grand juries," I must understand considering
their understandings, their fortunes or their integrity, for from a want
of one or more of those qualifications must arise the reason of such a
discretionary power in the judges.
Though I shall not urge it as far as I could, I will venture to say the
argument is at least as strong the other way--considering the judges.--
First as to their understandings, it must be confessed the benches are
infinitely superior to the lower professors of the law: Yet surely it
can't give offence to say the gentlemen of the several counties have
understandings sufficient to discharge the duty of grand jurymen--If
want of fortune be an objection to grand jurymen, _a pari ratione_, it
is an objection to some other men.--Besides, that the fact is not true,
for in their circuits, no judge goes into any county where he does not
meet at least a dozen gentlemen returned upon every grand jury, every
one of whom have better estates than he himself has--And these not
during pleasure, which last consideration, saves me the trouble of
shewing the weakness of the objection in the third qualification.
"Ay. But it was a necessary expedient to keep out Wood's brass."
Are the properties of the commons of this kingdom better secured by the
knight-errantry of that day? In the name of common sense, what are we to
believe? Has the undaunted spirit, the tremendous voice of ------
frightened Wood and his accomplices from any further attempts? Or rather
has not the ready compliance of ------ encouraged them to further
trials? The officers and attendants of his court may tremble when he
frowns, but who else regards it more than they do one of Wood's
farthings.
"There is no comparison," says another, "between the affair of Sir W.
Scroggs and this of ------. Sir W. discharged a grand jury because they
were about to present the Duke of York for being a Papist, but ------
discharged the grand jury for not presenting a paper he recommended to
them to present as scandalous, (and in which, I say, he was a party
reflected on.)"
I agree there is a mighty difference, but whom does it make for?
A grand jury of a hundred (part of a county) take upon them to present
a no less considerable person than the king's brother and heir
presumptive of the crown, the chief-justice thinks this a matter of too
much moment for men of such sort to meddle in, but a matter more proper
for the consideration of Parliament: I would not be understood to
condemn the jury; I think they acted as became honest Englishmen and
lovers of their country; But I say if judges could in any case be
allowed to proceed by rules of policy, surely here was a sufficient
excuse. However the commons impeached him.
The determinations of ignorant or wicked judges as they are precedents
of little weight, so they are but of little danger, and therefore it
will become the commons at all times to animadvert most carefully upon
the actions of the most knowing men in that profession.
I say, my lord, _at all times_, because I hear former merit is pleaded
to screen this action from any inquiry.
I am sensible much is due to the man who has always preferred the public
interest to his private advantages as -------- has done. When a man has
signalized himself, when he has suffered for that principle, he deserves
universal respect. Yet men should act agreeably to the motive of that
respect, and not ruin the liberty of their country to shew their
gratitude, and so, my lord, where a man has the least pretence to that
character, I think 'tis best to pass over small offences, but never such
as will entail danger and dishonour upon us and our posterity.
The Romans, my lord, when a question was in the senate, whether they
should ransom fifteen thousand citizens who had merited much by their
former victories, but losing one battle were taken prisoners; were
determined by the advice of that noble Roman Attilius Regulus not to
redeem them as men unworthy their further care, though probably it was
their misfortunes not their faults lost that day.
Flagitio additis
Damnum: neque amissos colores
Luna refert medicata fuco
He thought they were not worthy to be trusted again:----
To shew them pity, in his mind, would betray the Romans to perpetual
danger: _Et exemplo trahenti_
Perniciem veniens in aevum,
Si non periret immiserabilis
Captiva pubes
I hear some precedents have been lately found out to justify that
memorable action; but if precedents must control reason and justice, if
a man may swear he will keep his counsels secret, and yet by precedents
may be forced to divulge them, I would advise gentlemen very seriously
to consider, the danger we are in; and examine what precedents there are
on each side of the question, for my part I think the commons of England
are not a worse precedent than the judges of England.
Besides it must be remembered that precedents in some cases will not
excuse a judge, even where they are according to the undoubted law of
the land, as for instance,
Suppose a man says what is true, not knowing it to be true, though it be
logically a truth as it is distinguished, yet it is morally false; and
so, suppose a judge give judgment according to law, not knowing it to be
so, as if he did not know the reason of it at that time, but bethought
himself of a reason or precedent for it afterwards, though the judgment
be legal and according to precedent, yet the pronouncing of it is
unjust; and the judge shall be condemned in the opinions of all men: As
happened to the Lord Chief Justice Popham a person of great learning and
parts, who upon the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh; when Sir Walter
objected to reading or giving in evidence, Lord Cobham's affidavit,
taken in his absence, without producing the lord face to face, the lord
being then forthcoming: The chief justice overruled the objection, and
was of opinion it should be given in evidence against Sir Walter, and
summing up the evidence to the jury the chief justice said, "Just then
it came into his mind why the accuser should not come face to face to
the prisoner, because, &c." Now if any judge has since found precedents,
or has since picked up the opinion of lawyers, I fear he will come
within the case I have put.
I foresee, if ever this question happens to be debated, _you know
where_, gentlemen will be divided; Some will be desirous to do their
country justice and free us from all future danger of this kind; Others
upon motives not quite so laudable, will strive to screen, and with
others private friendship will prevail: But I would recommend to your
friends, who really love their country, to consider the several
circumstances concurring in your lordship which probably may not in your
successor: Let them suppose a person were to fill your place, from whose
manifest ignorance in the law, we may reasonably conclude, his only
merit is an inveteracy and hatred to this country. I say how could your
best friends excuse themselves, if in regard to your lordship they
should suffer such a precedent to be handed down to such a man
unobserved or uncensured?
_Invenit etiam aemulos infaelix nequitia_--Ambitious men have not always
been deterred by the unhappy fate of their predecessors, _Quid si
floreat vigeatque?_ But what lengths will they run if injustice and
corruption shall ride triumphant?
Had somebody received a reprimand upon his knees in a proper place, for
treating a printer's jury like men convict of perjury, forcing them to
find a special verdict, I dare to say he had not been quite so hardy as
to have discharged the grand jury or treated them in the manner he did,
because they had not an implicit faith in the court; nor had he dared
not to receive a presentment made by the second grand jury against
Wood's farthings upon pretence it was informal, which I mention because
the worthy Drapier has mistaken the fact.
Some of your lordship's screens I hear advise you to shew great humility
and contrition for what's past, as the only means to appease the just
indignation all sorts of men have conceived against you.----Were I well
secured you will not recommend this letter to the next grand jury to be
presented, I could give you more _seasonable advice_, but happen as it
may I will venture to give you a little.
Fawning and cajoling will have but little effect on those who have had
the honour of your acquaintance these ten years past, for Caligula who
used to hide his head if he heard the thunder, would piss upon the
statues of the gods when he thought the danger over--A better expedient
is this,----
Tell men the Drapier is a Tory and a Jacobite.--That he writ "The
Conduct of the Allies."--That he writ not his letters with a design to
keep out Wood's halfpence, but to bring in the Pretender; persuade them
if you can, the dispute is no longer about the power of judges over
juries, nor how much the liberty of the subject is endangered by
dissolving them at pleasure, but that it is now become mere Whig and
Tory, a dispute between His Majesty's friends and the Jacobites, and
'twere better to see a thousand grand juries discharged than the Tories
carry a question though in the right.--_Haec vulnera pro libertate
publica excepi, hunc oculum pro vobis impendi._ Try this cant, pin a
cloth over your eyes, look very dismal, and cry, "I was turned out of
employment, when the Drapier was rewarded with a Deanery," I say, my
lord, if you can once bring matters thus to bear, I have not the least
doubt you may escape without censure.
To your lordship's zeal and industry without doubt is owing, that the
Papists and the Tories have not delivered this kingdom over to the
Pretender, so Caesar conquered Pompey that _Legum auctor et eversor,_
and 'twas but just the liberty and laws of Rome should afterwards depend
upon his will and pleasure.----The Drapier in his letter to Lord
Molesworth has made a fair offer, "Secure his country from Wood's
coinage," then condemn all he has writ and said as false and scandalous,
when your lordship does as much I must confess it will be somewhat
difficult to discover the impostor.
Thus to keep my word with your lordship, I have much against my
inclinations writ this, which shall be my last upon the ungrateful
subject.--If I have leisure, and find a safe opportunity of giving it to
the printer, my next shall explain what has long duped the true Whigs of
this kingdom. I mean _honesty in the "worst of times."_
Though your lordship object to my last, that what I writ was taken out
of Lord Coke, Lord Somers, Sir Will. Jones, or the writings of some
other great men, yet I will venture to end this with the sentiments of
Philip de Comines upon some thorough-going courtiers.
"If a sixpenny tax is to be raised, they cry by all means it ought to be
double. If the prince is offended with any man, they are directly for
hanging him. In other instances, they maintain the same character.
Above all things they advise their king to make himself terrible, as
they themselves are proud, fierce, and overbearing, in hopes to be
dreaded by that means, as if authority and place were their
inheritance."
I am,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's most
obedient and most
humble servant.
N.N.
_Jan_. 4, 1724-5.
APPENDIX V
THE PRESENTMENT OF THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF THE CITY OF
DUBLIN.[1]
Whereas several great quantities of base metal coined, commonly called
_Wood's halfpence,_ have been brought into the port of Dublin, and
lodged in several houses of this city, with an intention to make them
pass clandestinely, among His Majesty's subjects of this kingdom;
notwithstanding the addresses of both houses of parliament and the
privy-council, and the declarations of most of the corporations of this
city against the said coin; And whereas His Majesty hath been graciously
pleased to leave his loyal subjects of this kingdom at liberty to take
or refuse the said halfpence.
[Footnote 1: Chief Justice Whitshed, after browbeating the Grand Jury
that threw out the Bill against Harding for printing the fourth
Drapier's letter, discharged it, and called another Grand Jury. The
second Grand Jury not only repeated the verdict of the first, but issued
the following expression of its opinion on the matter of Wood and his
patent. [T.S.]]
We the Grand Jury of the county of the city of Dublin, this Michaelmas
term, 1724, having entirely at heart His Majesty's interest and the
welfare of our country, and being thoroughly sensible of the great
discouragement which trade hath suffered by the apprehensions of the
said coin, whereof we have already felt the dismal effects, and that the
currency thereof will inevitably tend to the great diminution of His
Majesty's revenue, and the ruin of us and our posterity: do present all
such persons as have attempted, or shall endeavour by fraud or
otherwise, to impose the said halfpence upon us, contrary to His
Majesty's most gracious intentions, as enemies to His Majesty's
government, and to the safety, peace and welfare of all His Majesty's
subjects of this kingdom, whose affections have been so eminently
distinguished by their zeal to his illustrious family, before his happy
accession to the throne, and by their continued loyalty ever since.
As we do with all just gratitude acknowledge the services of all such
patriots, as have been eminently zealous for the interest of His
Majesty, and this country, in detecting the fraudulent impositions of
the said Wood, and preventing the passing his base coin: So we do at the
same time declare our abhorrence and detestation of all reflections on
His Majesty, and his government, and that we are ready with our lives
and fortunes to defend his most Sacred Majesty against the Pretender and
all His Majesty's open and secret enemies both at home and abroad: Given
under our hands at the Grand Jury Chamber this 28th, November, 1724.[2]
George Forbes, David Tew,
William Empson, Thomas How,
Nathaniel Pearson, John Jones,
Joseph Nuttall, James Brown,
William Aston, Charles Lyndon,
Stearn Tighe, Jerom Bredin,
Richard Walker, John Sican,
Edmond French, Anthony Brunton,
John Vereilles, Thomas Gaven,
Philip Pearson, Daniel Elwood,
Thomas Robins, John Brunet.
Richard Dawson,
[Footnote 2: On August 20th, 1724, the Grand Jury, and the other
inhabitants of the Liberty of the Dean and Chapter of St. Patrick's
waited on the Dean, and read him the following Declaration, desiring him
to give orders for its publication:
"The Declaration of the Grand-Jury, and the rest of the inhabitants of
the Liberty of the Dean and Chapter of St. Patrick's, Dublin.
"We, the Grand-Jury, and other inhabitants of the Liberty of the Dean
and Chapter of St. Patrick's, Dublin, whose names are underwritten, do
unanimously declare and determine, that we never will receive or pay any
of the half-pence or farthings already coined, or that shall hereafter
be coined, by one William Wood, being not obliged by law to receive the
same; because we are thoroughly convinced by the Addresses of both
Houses of Parliament, as well as by that of his Majesty's most
honourable Privy-Council, and by the universal opinion of the whole
kingdom, that the currency of the said half-pence and farthings would
soon deprive us of all our gold and silver, and therefore be of the most
destructive consequence to the trade and welfare of the nation." [T.
S.]]
APPENDIX VI
PROCLAMATION AGAINST THE DRAPIER.
"_Oct. 27th,_ 1724.
"A proclamation for discovering ye Author of ye Pamphlet intituled A
letter to ye whole people of Ireland, by M.B. Drapier, author of the
Letter to the Shop-keepers, etc.
£300 Reward
BY THE LORD-LIEUTENANT AND COUNCIL OF IRELAND.
A Proclamation.
"CONTENT:
"Whereas a wicked and malicious pamphlet, intituled A Letter to the
whole people of Ireland, by M.B. Drapier, author of the Letter to the
Shop-keepers, etc., printed by John Harding, in Molesworth's Court, in
Fishamble Street, Dublin, in which are contained several seditious and
scandalous paragraphs highly reflecting upon his Majesty and his
Ministers, tending to alienate the affections of his good subjects of
England and Ireland from each other, and to promote sedition among the
people, hath been lately printed and published in this kingdom: We, the
Lord-Lieutenant and Council do hereby publish and declare that, in order
to discover the author of the said seditious pamphlet, we will give the
necessary orders for the payment of three hundred pounds sterling, to
such person or persons as shall within the specified six months from
this date hereof, discover the author of the said pamphlet, so as he be
apprehended and convicted thereby.
"Given at the council chamber in Dublin, this twenty-seventh day of
October, one thousand seven hundred and twenty-four.
"(Signed) Midleton _Cancer_. Shannon; Donnerail; G. Fforbes; H. Meath;
Santry; Tyrawly; Fferrars; William Conolly; Ralph Gore; William
Whitshed; B. Hale; Gust. Hume; Ben Parry; James Tynte; R. Tighe; T.
Clutterbuck.
"God Save the King."
APPENDIX VII
It is very interesting and even curious to note, that the signatories to
the public expression of their attitude towards Wood and his patent, as
shown by the Proclamation, should have almost all of them signed another
document, in their capacities of Privy Councillors, which addressed his
Majesty _against_ Wood and the patent. So far as I can learn, Monck
Mason seems to have been the first historian to discover it; nor do I
find the fact mentioned by any of Swift's later biographers.
"It was rumoured in Swift's time," says Monck Mason, "but not actually
known to him" (see Drapier's Sixth Letter), "that the Irish Privy
Council had addressed his Majesty against Mr. Wood's coin. Having
inspected the papers of the Council office, I shall lay before the
reader the particulars of this event, which were never promulgated,
probably, because they had not the desired effect, the premier [Walpole]
having determined, notwithstanding all opposition or advice, to
persevere in his ill-judged project.
"On the 17th April, 1724, at a meeting of the Council, in which the Duke
of Grafton himself presided, it was ordered, that it should be referred
to a committee of the whole board, or of any seven or more, 'to consider
what was proper to be done to allay and quiet the great fears of the
people, occasioned by their apprehensions of William Wood's copper money
becoming current among them,' On the 6th of May, the committee reported,
that they had considered the matter referred to them, and were of
opinion, that an address should be sent to his Majesty, of which they
then presented a draught. It was again on the 19th, referred to a
committee of the whole board to prepare a letter, which was accordingly
done on the next day.--The report was as follows:
"'To the King's Most Excellent Majesty, the humble address of the Lords
Justices, and Privy-Council.
* * * * *
"'May it please your Majesty,
"'We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Justices
and Privy Council, most humbly beg leave, at this time, to give an
instance of that duty, which, as upon all other occasions, so more
especially upon such as are of the greatest moment and importance, we
hold ourselves always bound to pay to your Majesty.
"'Your Majesty's great council, the High Court of Parliament, being now
prorogued, we conceive ourselves bound, by the trust which your Majesty
has been pleased to repose in us, and the oaths we have taken, with all
humility to lay before your Majesty the present state of this your
kingdom, with reference to a great evil that appears to threaten it, to
which, if a speedy remedy be not applied, the unavoidable consequence,
as we apprehend, will be, the ruin of multitudes of your Majesty's
subjects, together with a great diminution of your revenue.
"'Though the fears of your Majesty's subjects of this kingdom, in
relation to the coinage of copper half-pence and farthings, were, in a
great measure, allayed by your Majesty's most gracious resolution to do
every thing in your power for the satisfaction of your people, expressed
in your Majesty's answer to the addresses of both Houses of Parliament;
yet, the repeated intelligence from Great Britain, that William Wood has
the assurance to persist in his endeavours to introduce his copper
half-pence and farthings amongst us, has again alarmed your faithful
subjects, to such a degree, as already to give a great check to our
inland trade. If the letters patent granted to William Wood should, in
all points, be exactly complied with, the loss to be sustained by taking
his half-pence and farthings would be much greater than this poor
kingdom is able to bear. But if he, or any other persons, should, for
the value of gain, be tempted to coin and import even more than double
the quantity he by his patent is allowed to do, your people here do not
see how it is possible for your Majesty's chief governors of this your
kingdom, to detect or hinder the cheat.
"'It is found by experience, that we have already a sufficient quantity
of half-pence, to serve by way of exchange in the retailing trade, which
is the only use of such sort of money, of which, therefore, we find
ourselves to be in no want.
"'And since, by the letters patent granted to the same William Wood, no
man is required or commanded to take the said half-pence or farthings,
but the taking them is left at liberty to those who are willing so to
do; we most humbly submit it to your royal wisdom and goodness, whether
it may not be for your Majesty's service, and the great satisfaction and
good of your subjects, and very much tend to the allaying and quieting
of their fears, that your Majesty should cause your royal pleasure to be
signified to the Commissioners, and other officers of your Majesty's
revenue in this kingdom, that they neither receive those half-pence and
farthings, nor give countenance or encouragement to the uttering or
vending of them; or that some other speedy method may be taken to
prevent their becoming current amongst us.'"
APPENDIX VIII
Searching among the pamphlets of the Halliday Collection at the Royal
Irish Academy, Dublin, I came across a tract of twelve pages, printed by
John Whaley of Dublin in 1723, with the following title:
"The Patentee's Computation of Ireland, in a Letter from the Author of
the Whitehall Evening-Post concerning the making of Copper-Coin. As also
the Case and Address of both Houses of Parliament together with His
Majesty's Most Gracious Answer to the House of Lords Address."
The writer of this tract in defence of the patent maintained the
following propositions:
(1) That the Kingdom of Ireland wants a Copper Coin.
(2) That the quantity of this coin will be no inconvenience to it.
(3) That it is better than ever the Kingdom had, and as good as (in all
probability) they ever will or can have, and that the Patentee's profit
is not extravagant, as commonly reported.
(4) That the Kingdom will lose nothing by this coin.
(5) That the public in Ireland will gain considerably by it, if they
please.
(6) That the Kingdom will have £100,000 additional cash.
As he states his arguments, they are quite reasonable. On proposition
three, if his figures are correct, he is especially convincing. He
details the cost of manufacture thus:
_s. d._
Copper prepared for the coinage at his Majesty's
Mint at the Tower of London, costs per pound
weight 1 6
Coinage of one pound weight 3-1/2
Waste and charge of re-melting 1
Yearly payment to the Exchequer and Comptroller 1
Allowed to the purchaser for exchange, &c. 5
Total charge 2 4-1/2
"So that the patentee," he concludes, "makes a profit of only 1-1/2_d._
in the half crown or about 5%."
The tract, however, is more interesting for the reprint it gives of the
twenty-eight articles stated by the people in objection to the patent
and the coin. I give these articles in full: