This piece, as its title expresses, was published when the bill against
the printer was to be brought before the grand jury: it warned them of
what was expected from them. Whiteshed, the Chief Justice, again attempted
to browbeat the jury, but in vain. The bill was thrown out: and the Chief
Justice could only show his resentment by dissolving the Grand Jury.
Whiteshed was so ridiculed that the vexation he suffered was thought to
have shortened his life.
_Seasonable Advice to the Grand Jury._
Concerning the bill preparing against the printer of the Drapier's fourth
letter.
_November 11th, 1724._
Since a bill is preparing for the grand jury to find against the printer
of the Drapier's last letter, there are several things maturely to be
considered by those gentlemen before they determine upon it.
First, they are to consider, that the author of the said pamphlet did
write three other discourses on the same subject, which, instead of being
censured, were universally approved by the whole nation, and were allowed
to have raised and continued that spirit among us, which has hitherto kept
out Wood's coin; for all men will grant, that if those pamphlets had not
been written, his coin must have overrun the nation some months ago.
Secondly, it is to be considered, that this pamphlet, against which a
proclamation has been issued, is written by the same author: that nobody
ever doubted the innocence and goodness of his design; that he appears,
through the whole tenour of it, to be a loyal subject to his Majesty, and
devoted to the House of Hanover, and declares himself in a manner
peculiarly zealous against the Pretender. And if such a writer, in four
several treatises on so nice a subject, where a royal patent is concerned,
and where it was necessary to speak of England and of liberty, should in
one or two places happen to let fall an inadvertent expression, it would
be hard to condemn him, after all the good he has done, especially when we
consider that he could have no possible design in view, either of honour
or profit, but purely the GOOD of his country.
Thirdly, it ought to be well considered, whether any one expression in the
said pamphlet be really liable to a just exception, much less to be found
"wicked, malicious, seditious, reflecting upon his Majesty and his
ministry," &c.
The two points in that pamphlet, which it is said the prosecutors intend
chiefly to fix on, are, first, where the author mentions the penner of the
King's answer. First, it is well known his Majesty is not master of the
English tongue; and therefore it is necessary that some other person
should be employed to pen what he has to say or write in that language.
Secondly, his Majesty's answer is not in the first person, but in the
third. It is not said, WE are concerned, or OUR royal predecessors; but
HIS MAJESTY is concerned, and HIS royal predecessors. By which it is
plain, these are properly not the words of his Majesty, but supposed to be
taken from him, and transmitted hither by one of his ministers. Thirdly,
it will be easily seen, that the author of the pamphlet delivers his
sentiments upon this particular with the utmost caution and respect, as
any impartial reader will observe.
The second paragraph, which it is said will be taken notice of as a motive
to find the bill, is what the author says of Ireland's being a dependent
kingdom; he explains all the dependence he knows of, which is a law made
in Ireland, whereby it is enacted, "that whoever is King of England shall
be King of Ireland." Before this explanation be condemned, and the bill
found upon it, it would be proper that some lawyers should fully inform
the jury what other law there is, either statute or common, for this
dependency; and if there be no law, there is no transgression.
The fourth thing very maturely to be considered by the jury, is, what
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 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 do and
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 advantages 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 a greater; as it was likewise the case of all those who signed the
proclamation to have the author prosecuted. And therefore it is known,
that his grace the Lord Archbishop of Dublin, so renowned for his piety
and wisdom, and love of his country, absolutely refused to condemn the
book or the author.
Lastly, it ought to be considered what consequence the finding of 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 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 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 sheep, upon this
condition, that the cause of the strife might be taken away, which was the
shepherds and mastiffs: this being granted, the wolves, without all fear,
made havoc of the sheep.