There was a few days ago a pamphlet sent me of near 50 pages written in
favour of Mr. Wood and his coinage, printed in London; it is not worth
answering, because probably it will never be published here: But it gave
me an occasion to reflect upon an unhappiness we lie under, that the
people of England are utterly ignorant of our case, which however is no
wonder, since it is a point they do not in the least concern themselves
about, farther than perhaps as a subject of discourse in a coffee-house
when they have nothing else to talk of. For I have reason to believe
that no minister ever gave himself the trouble of reading any papers
written in our defence, because I suppose their opinions are already
determined, and are formed wholly upon the reports of Wood and his
accomplices; else it would be impossible that any man could have the
impudence to write such a pamphlet as I have mentioned.

Our neighbours whose understandings are just upon a level with ours
(which perhaps are none of the brightest) have a strong contempt for
most nations, but especially for Ireland: They look upon us as a sort of
savage Irish, whom our ancestors conquered several hundred years ago,
and if I should describe the Britons to you as they were in Caesar's
time, when they painted their bodies, or clothed themselves with the
skins of beasts, I would act full as reasonably as they do: However they
are so far to be excused in relation to the present subject, that,
hearing only one side of the cause, and having neither opportunity nor
curiosity to examine the other, they believe a lie merely for their
ease, and conclude, because Mr. Wood pretends to have power, he hath
also reason on his side.

Therefore to let you see how this case is represented in England by Wood
and his adherents, I have thought it proper to extract out of that
pamphlet a few of those notorious falsehoods in point of fact and
reasoning contained therein; the knowledge whereof will confirm my
countrymen in their own right sentiments, when they will see by
comparing both, how much their enemies are in the wrong.

First, The writer, positively asserts, "That Wood's halfpence were
current among us for several months with the universal approbation of
all people, without one single gainsayer, and we all to a man thought
ourselves happy in having them."

Secondly, He affirms, "That we were drawn into a dislike of them only by
some cunning evil-designing men among us, who opposed this patent of
Wood to get another for themselves."

Thirdly, That "those who most declared at first against Wood's patent
were the very men who intended to get another for their own advantage."

Fourthly, That "our Parliament and Privy-council, the Lord Mayor and
aldermen of Dublin, the grand juries and merchants, and in short the
whole kingdom, nay the very dogs" (as he expresseth it) "were fond of
those halfpence, till they were inflamed by those few designing persons
aforesaid."

Fifthly, He says directly, That "all those who opposed the halfpence
were Papists and enemies to King George."

Thus far I am confident the most ignorant among you can safely swear
from your own knowledge that the author is a most notorious liar in
every article; the direct contrary being so manifest to the whole
kingdom, that if occasion required, we might get it confirmed under five
hundred thousand hands.

Sixthly, He would persuade us, that "if we sell five shillings worth of
our goods or manufactures for two shillings and fourpence worth of
copper, although the copper were melted down, and that we could get five
shillings in gold or silver for the said goods, yet to take the said two
shillings and fourpence in copper would be greatly for our advantage."

And Lastly, He makes us a very fair offer, as empowered by Wood, that
"if we will take off two hundred thousand pounds in his halfpence for
our goods, and likewise pay him three _per cent_. interest for thirty
years, for an hundred and twenty thousand pounds (at which he computes
the coinage above the intrinsic value of the copper) for the loan of his
coin, he, will after that time give us good money for what halfpence
will be then left."

Let me place this offer in as clear a light as I can to shew the
unsupportable villainy and impudence of that incorrigible wretch. First
(says he) "I will send two hundred thousand pounds of my coin into your
country, the copper I compute to be in real value eighty thousand
pounds, and I charge you with an hundred and twenty thousand pounds for
the coinage; so that you see I lend you an hundred and twenty thousand
pounds for thirty years, for which you shall pay me three _per cent_.
That is to say three thousand six hundred pounds _per ann_. which in
thirty years will amount to an hundred and eight thousand pounds. And
when these thirty years are expired, return me my copper and I will give
you good money for it."

This is the proposal made to us by Wood in that pamphlet written by one
of his commissioners; and the author is supposed to be the same infamous
Coleby one of his under-swearers at the committee of council, who was
tried for robbing the treasury here, where he was an under-clerk.[23]

[Footnote 23: See note on p. 61. [T.S.]]

By this proposal he will first receive two hundred thousand pounds, in
goods or sterling for as much copper as he values at eighty thousand
pounds, but in reality not worth thirty thousand pounds. Secondly, He
will receive for interest an hundred and eight thousand pounds. And when
our children came thirty years hence to return his halfpence upon his
executors (for before that time he will be probably gone to his own
place) those executors will very reasonably reject them as raps and
counterfeits, which probably they will be, and millions of them of his
own coinage.

Methinks I am fond of such a dealer as this who mends every day upon our
hands, like a Dutch reckoning, where if you dispute the unreasonableness
and exorbitance of the bill, the landlord shall bring it up every time
with new additions.

Although these and the like pamphlets published by Wood in London be
altogether unknown here, where nobody could read them without as much
indignation as contempt would allow, yet I thought it proper to give you
a specimen how the man employs his time, where he rides alone without
one creature to contradict him, while our FEW FRIENDS there wonder at
our silence, and the English in general, if they think of this matter at
all, impute our refusal to wilfulness or disaffection, just as Wood and
his hirelings are pleased to represent.

But although our arguments are not suffered to be printed in England,
yet the consequence will be of little moment. Let Wood endeavour to
persuade the people there that we ought to receive his coin, and let me
convince our people here that they ought to reject it under pain of our
utter undoing. And then let him do his best and his worst.

Before I conclude, I must beg leave in all humility to tell Mr. Wood,
that he is guilty of great indiscretion, by causing so honourable a name
as that of Mr. Walpole to be mentioned so often, and in such a manner,
upon his occasion: A short paper printed at Bristol and reprinted here
reports Mr. Wood to say, that he "wonders at the impudence and insolence
of the Irish in refusing his coin, and what he will do when Mr. Walpole
comes to town." Where, by the way, he is mistaken, for it is the true
English people of Ireland who refuse it, although we take it for granted
that the Irish will do so too whenever they are asked. He orders it to
be printed in another paper, that "Mr. Walpole will cram this brass down
our throats:" Sometimes it is given out that we must "either take these
halfpence or eat our brogues," And, in another newsletter but of
yesterday, we read that the same great man "hath sworn to make us
swallow his coin in fire-balls."

This brings to my mind the known story of a Scotchman, who receiving
sentence of death, with all the circumstances of hanging, beheading,
quartering, embowelling and the like, cried out, "What need all this
COOKERY?" And I think we have reason to ask the same question; for if we
believe Wood, here is a dinner getting ready for us, and you see the
bill of fare, and I am sorry the drink was forgot, which might easily be
supplied with melted lead and flaming pitch.

What vile words are these to put into the mouth of a great councillor,
in high trust with His Majesty, and looked upon as a prime-minister. If
Mr. Wood hath no better a manner of representing his patrons, when I
come to be a great man, he shall never be suffered to attend at my
levee. This is not the style of a great minister, it savours too much of
the kettle and the furnace, and came entirely out of Mr. Wood's forge.

As for the threat of making us eat our brogues, we need not be in pain;
for if his coin should pass, that unpolite covering for the feet, would
no longer be a national reproach; because then we should have neither
shoe nor brogue left in the kingdom. But here the falsehood of Mr. Wood
is fairly detected; for I am confident Mr. Walpole never heard of a
brogue in his whole life.[24]

[Footnote 24: A biting sneer at Walpole's ignorance of Irish affairs.
[T.S.]]

As to "swallowing these halfpence in fire-balls," it is a story equally
improbable. For to execute this operation the whole stock of Mr. Wood's
coin and metal must be melted down and moulded into hollow balls with
wild-fire, no bigger than a reasonable throat can be able to swallow.
Now the metal he hath prepared, and already coined will amount at least
fifty millions of halfpence to be swallowed by a million and a half of
people; so that allowing two halfpence to each ball, there will be about
seventeen balls of wild-fire a-piece to be swallowed by every person in
this kingdom, and to administer this dose, there cannot be conveniently
fewer than fifty thousand operators, allowing one operator to every
thirty, which, considering the squeamishness of some stomachs and the
peevishness of young children, is but reasonable. Now, under correction
of better judgments, I think the trouble and charge of such an
experiment would exceed the profit, and therefore I take this report to
be spurious, or at least only a new scheme of Mr. Wood himself, which to
make it pass the better in Ireland he would father upon a minister of
state.

But I will now demonstrate beyond all contradiction that Mr. Walpole is
against this project of Mr. Wood, and is an entire friend to Ireland,
only by this one invincible argument, that he has the universal opinion
of being a wise man, an able minister, and in all his proceedings
pursuing the true interest of the King his master: And that as his
integrity is above all corruption, so is his fortune above all
temptation. I reckon therefore we are perfectly safe from that corner,
and shall never be under the necessity of contending with so formidable
a power, but be left to possess our brogues and potatoes in peace as
remote from thunder as we are from Jupiter.

I am,
   My dear countrymen,
     Your loving fellow-subject,
       fellow-sufferer and humble servant.
                                         M.B.

Oct. 13. 1724.




SEASONABLE ADVICE TO THE GRAND JURY.




SEASONABLE ADVICE TO THE GRAND JURY,

CONCERNING THE BILL PREPARING AGAINST THE PRINTER OF THE DRAPIER'S
FOURTH LETTER.


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 whom this bill is to come,
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 hitherto hath
kept out Wood's coin: For all men will allow, that if those pamphlets
had not been writ, his coin must have overrun the nation some months
ago.

SECONDLY, it is to be considered that this pamphlet, against which a
proclamation hath been issued, is writ by the same author; that nobody
ever doubted the innocence, and goodness of his design, that he appears
through the whole tenor 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 hath
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 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 hath to say, or write in that
language. Secondly, His Majesty's answer is not in the first person, but
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 being a
depending kingdom. He explains all the dependency he knows of it, 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 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 ВЈ300 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]

[Footnote 10: See Coxe's "Memoirs of Walpole" (vol. i., cap. 26, p. 389,
ed. 1800), where Wood is blamed for his indiscretion on this matter. See
also note prefixed to the Drapier's First Letter in the present edition.
[T.S.]]

Thus I have sufficiently justified the people of Ireland, from learning
any bad lessons out of the Drapier's pamphlets, with regard to His
Majesty and his ministers: And, therefore, if those papers were intended
to sow sedition among us, God be thanked, the seeds have fallen upon a
very improper soil.

As to alienating the affections of the people of England and Ireland
from each other; I believe, the Drapier, whatever his intentions were,
hath left that matter just as he found it.

I have lived long in both kingdoms, as well in country as in town; and
therefore, take myself to be as well informed as most men, in the
dispositions of each people toward the other. By the people, I
understand here, only the bulk of the common people; and I desire no
lawyer may distort or extend my meaning.

There is a vein of industry and parsimony, that runs through the whole
people of England; which, added to the easiness of their rents, makes
them rich and sturdy. As to Ireland, they know little more than they do
of Mexico; further than that it is a country subject to the King of
England, full of bogs, inhabited by wild Irish Papists; who are kept in
awe by mercenary troops sent from thence: And their general opinion is,
that it were better for England if this whole island were sunk into the
sea; for, they have a tradition, that every forty years there must be a
rebellion in Ireland. I have seen the grossest suppositions pass upon
them; "that the wild Irish were taken in toils; but that, in some time,
they would grow so tame, as to eat out of your hands:" I have been
asked by hundreds, and particularly by my neighbours, your tenants, at
Pepper-harrow; "whether I had come from Ireland by sea:" And, upon the
arrival of an Irishman to a country town, I have known crowds coming
about him, and wondering to see him look so much better than themselves.

A gentleman now in Dublin, affirms, "that passing some months ago
through Northampton, and finding the whole town in a flurry, with bells,
bonfires, and illuminations, upon asking the cause, was told, it was for
joy, that the Irish had submitted to receive Wood's halfpence." This, I
think, plainly shews what sentiments that large town hath of us; and how
little they made it their own case; although they be directly in our way
to London, and therefore, cannot but be frequently convinced that we
have human shapes.

As to the people of this kingdom, they consist either of Irish Papists;
who are as inconsiderable, in point of power, as the women and children;
or of English Protestants, who love their brethren of that kingdom;
although they may possibly sometimes complain, when they think they are
hardly used: However, I confess, I do not see any great consequence, how
their personal affections stand to each other, while the sea divides
them, and while they continue in their loyalty to the same prince. And
yet, I will appeal to you; whether those from England have reason to
complain, when they come hither in pursuit of their fortunes? Or,
whether the people of Ireland have reason to boast, when they go to
England on the same design?

My second proposition was, that we of Ireland are a free people: This, I
suppose, you will allow; at least, with certain limitations remaining in
your own breast. However, I am sure it is not criminal to affirm;
because the words "liberty" and "property," as applied to the subject,
are often mentioned in both houses of Parliament, as well as in yours,
and other courts below; from whence it must follow, that the people of
Ireland do, or ought to enjoy all the benefits of the common and statute
law; such as to be tried by juries, to pay no money without their own
consent, as represented in Parliament; and the like. If this be so, and
if it be universally agreed, that a free people cannot, by law, be
compelled to take any money in payment, except gold and silver; I do
not see why any man should be hindered from cautioning his countrymen
against this coin of William Wood; who is endeavouring by fraud to rob
us of that property, which the laws have secured. If I am mistaken, and
that this copper can be obtruded on us; I would put the Drapier's case
in another light, by supposing, that a person going into his shop,
should agree for thirty shillings' worth of goods, and force the seller
to take his payment in a parcel of copper pieces, intrinsically not
worth above a crown: I desire to know, whether the Drapier would not be
actually robbed of five and twenty shillings, and how far he could be
said to be master of his property? The same question may be applied to
rents and debts, on bond or mortgage, and to all kind of commerce
whatsoever.

Give me leave to do what the Drapier hath done more than once before me;
which is, to relate the naked fact, as it stands in the view of the
world.

One William Wood, Esq; and hardware-man, obtains, by fraud, a patent in
England, to coin 108,000_l._ in copper, to pass in Ireland, leaving us
liberty to take, or to refuse. The people here, in all sorts of bodies
and representatives, do openly and heartily declare, that they will not
accept this coin: To justify these declarations, they generally offer
two reasons; first, because by the words of the patent, they are left to
their own choice: And secondly, because they are not obliged by law: So
that here you see there is, _bellum atgue virum_, a kingdom on one side,
and William Wood on the other. And if Mr. Wood gets the victory, at the
expense of Ireland's ruin, and the profit of one or two hundred thousand
pounds (I mean by continuing, and counterfeiting as long as he lives)
for himself; I doubt, both present and future ages will, at least, think
it a very singular scheme.

If this fact be truly stated; I must confess, I look upon it as my duty,
so far as God hath enabled me, and as long as I keep within the bounds
of truth, of duty, and of decency, to warn my fellow-subjects, as they
value their King, their country, and all that ought or can be dear to
them, never to admit this pernicious coin; no not so much as one single
halfpenny. For, if one single thief forces the door, it is in vain to
talk of keeping out the whole crew behind.

And, while I shall be thus employed, I will never give myself leave to
suppose, that what I say can either offend my Lord Lieutenant; whose
person and great qualities I have always highly respected; (as I am sure
his excellency will be my witness) or the ministers in England, with
whom I have nothing to do, or they with me; much less the Privy-council
here, who, as I am informed, did send an address to His Majesty against
Mr. Wood's coin; which, if it be a mistake, I desire I may not be
accused for a spreader of false news: But, I confess, I am so great a
stranger to affairs, that for anything I know, the whole body of the
council may since have been changed: And, although I observed some of
the very same names in a late declaration against that coin, which I saw
subscribed to the proclamation against the Drapier; yet possibly they
may be different persons; for they are utterly unknown to me, and are
like to continue so.

In this controversy, where the reasoners on each side are divided by St.
George's Channel, His Majesty's prerogative, perhaps, would not have
been mentioned; if Mr. Wood, and his advocates, had not made it
necessary, by giving out, that the currency of his coin should be
enforced by a proclamation. The traders and common people of the
kingdom, were heartily willing to refuse this coin; but the fear of a
proclamation brought along with it most dreadful apprehensions. It was
therefore, absolutely necessary for the Drapier, to remove this
difficulty; and accordingly, in one of his former pamphlets, he hath
produced invincible arguments, (wherever he picked them up) that the
King's prerogative was not at all concerned in the matter; since the law
had sufficiently provided against any coin to be imposed upon the
subject, except gold and silver; and that copper is not money, but as it
hath been properly called _nummorum famulus_.

The three former letters from the Drapier, having not received any
public censure, I look upon them to be without exception; and that the
good people of the kingdom ought to read them often, in order to keep up
that spirit raised against this destructive coin of Mr. Wood: As for
this last letter, against which a proclamation is issued; I shall only
say, that I could wish it were stripped of all that can be any way
exceptionable; which I would not think it below me to undertake, if my
abilities were equal; but being naturally somewhat slow of
comprehension; no lawyer, and apt to believe the best of those who
profess good designs, without any visible motive either of profit or
honour; I might pore for ever, without distinguishing the cockle from
the corn.

That which, I am told, gives greatest offence in this last letter, is
where the Drapier affirms; "that if a rebellion should prove so
successful, as to fix the Pretender on the throne of England, he would
venture so far to transgress the Irish statute, (which unites Ireland to
England under one King) as to lose every drop of his blood, to hinder
him from being King of Ireland."

I shall not presume to vindicate any man, who openly declares he would
transgress a statute; and a statute of such importance: But, with the
most humble submission, and desire of pardon for a very innocent
mistake, I should be apt to think that the loyal intention of the
writer, might be at least some small extenuation of his crime. For, in
this I confess myself to think with the Drapier.

I have not hitherto been told of any other objections against that
pamphlet; but, I suppose, they will all appear at the prosecution of the
Drapier. And, I think, whoever in his own conscience believes the said
pamphlet to be "wicked and malicious, seditious and scandalous, highly
reflecting upon His Majesty and his ministers, &c." would do well to
discover the author, (as little a friend as I am to the trade of
informers) although the reward of 300_l_. had not been tacked to the
discovery. I own, it would be a great satisfaction to me, to hear the
arguments not only of judges, but of lawyers, upon this case. Because,
you cannot but know, there often happens occasions, wherein it would be
very convenient, that the bulk of the people should be informed how they
ought to conduct themselves; and therefore, it hath been the wisdom of
the English Parliaments, to be very reserved in limiting the press. When
a bill is debating in either House of Parliament there, nothing is more
usual, than to have the controversy handled by pamphlets on both sides;
without the least animadversion upon the authors.