Drapier's Letters 1901773 221172545 2008-06-23T10:28:24Z DOI bot 6652755 Citation maintenance. You can [[WP:DOI|use this bot]] yourself! Please [[User:DOI_bot/bugs|report any bugs]]. [[Image:377px-Swift-works.JPG|thumb|right|300px|Title page of the 1735 ''Works''. The author is in the Dean's chair receiving the thanks of Ireland. The motto reads, "I have made a monument more lasting than brass."]] ''''' Drapier's Letters''''' is the collective name for a series of seven [[pamphlet]]s written by the [[dean (religion)|Dean]] of [[St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin|St Patrick's Cathedral]], [[Jonathan Swift]]. The letters were written, between 1724 and 1725, in order to arouse public opinion in [[Ireland]] against the imposition of a privately minted copper [[coinage]], which Swift believed to be of [[Debasement|inferior quality]]. [[William Wood (Mintmaster)|William Wood]] was granted a [[patent]] to [[Mint (coin)|mint]] the coin, and Swift saw the licensing of the patent to Wood as corrupt. In response to Wood's patent, the ''Drapier's Letters'' emphasize the constitutional and financial independence of the Irish kingdom. Since this subject was politically sensitive, Swift wrote under the [[pseudonym]] ''M. B. Drapier'' to hide from retaliation.<ref name="Letter 1 Intro Note">[[#refProse Works|Letter 1 Intro Note]]</ref> Although the letters were condemned by the Irish government with prompting from the English government,<ref>[[#refCoxe|Coxe]]</ref> Swift's letters were still able to inspire popular sentiment against Wood and his patent. The popular sentiment turned into a nation wide boycott, which forced the patent to be withdrawn; Swift was later honored for this service to the people of Ireland.<ref>''The Cambridge History of English and American Literature'', Volume IX, VI. 19. "Pamphlets on Irish affairs: ''Drapier’s Letters''."</ref> Many Irish people recognized Swift as a hero for his defiance of [[England|English]] control over the Irish nation through the ''Drapier's Letters''.<ref>[[#refSmith|Smith p. 271]]</ref> Beyond being a hero, many critics have seen Swift, through the Drapier, as the first to organize a "more universal Irish community", although it is disputed as to "who" makes up that community.<ref name="Moore p. 84">[[#refMoore|Moore p. 84]]</ref> Regardless of whom Swift is actually appealing to or what he may or may not have done, the nickname provided by [[Archbishop King]], "Our Irish Copper-Farthen Dean", and his connection to ending the controversy stuck.<ref>[[#refMoore|Moore p. 87]]</ref> The first complete collection of the ''Drapier's Letters'' appeared in the 1735 [[George Faulkner]] edition of the ''Works'' of Jonathan Swift along with an [[allegory|allegorical]] frontispiece offering praise and thanks from the Irish people.<ref>[[#refWeedon|Weedon p. 44–48]]</ref> Today, the ''Drapier's Letters'' are seen as the most important of Swift's "Irish tracts", and are a politically important part of Swift's writings, along with ''[[Gulliver's Travels]]'' (1726), ''[[A Tale of a Tub]]'' (1704), and ''[[A Modest Proposal]]'' (1729). ==Background== In 1722, hardware manufacturer William Wood was granted a patent to produce copper coinage, up to [[£]]108,000, for use in Ireland.<ref>[[#refGoodwin|Goodwin p. 649]]</ref> The patent was secured by a payment of £10,000 to the [[Ehrengard Melusine von der Schulenburg, Duchess of Kendal and Munster|Duchess of Kendal]], mistress to King [[George I of Great Britain|George I]]. Although Wood produced copper coins, [[assay]]s showed his coins to be significantly underweight, undersized, and made from inferior materials. Despite this, they were approved by the English Parliament for use in Ireland.<ref>[[#refDrapier’s Letters|''Drapier's Letters'' p. 142]]</ref> The Irish complaint against Wood was not that they had enough copper coins, but that there would be too many coins introduced into the Irish economy that would be of inferior in quality. These coins would take away valuable silver coins from the Irish economy, and since they would not be minted under Irish authority, there was no way for the Irish to control the quality and amount.<ref name="Moore p. 66">[[#refMoore|Moore p. 66]]</ref> Also, Wood's coin was only one aspect of "an unfavorable balance of trade" that hurt Ireland;<ref name="Moore p. 66"/> the Irish wanted to have their own national bank and authority to print their own coinage, and Wood's coin became a way to express their economic-nationalist desires.<ref name="Moore p. 73">[[#refMoore|Moore p. 73]]</ref> The patent issue soon became a struggle between Prime Minister [[Robert Walpole]] (with the authority of the English Parliament) and the leaders of Ireland. All attempts by the [[Privy Council of Ireland|Irish Privy Council]] and the [[Church of Ireland]] to prevent the release of the coinage proved fruitless.<ref name="Goodwin p. 661">[[#refGoodwin|Goodwin p. 661]]</ref> It was soon thought by many that [[William Conolly]]’s [[Office of the Revenue Commissioners|Commissioners of the Revenue]] might pay the soldiers stationed in Ireland with the coin; if the soldiers were paid with the coin, then the merchants of Ireland would be forced to accept the coin from the soldiers or risk military reprisal or a loss of business. This worried the leadership of Ireland and they requested help in challenging Wood's patent and leading a boycott of the coin. Swift was asked by Archbishop King and [[St John Brodrick, 1st Earl of Midleton|Lord Chancellor Midleton]] to contribute to a pamphleteering campaign against Wood's coin.<ref name="Ferguson p. 96">[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 96]]</ref> During this time, [[John Carteret, 2nd Earl Granville|Lord Carteret]], [[Secretary of State for the Southern Department|one of the two]] British [[Secretary of State (United Kingdom)|Secretaries of State]], publicly pushed Walpole into defending Wood's patent. However, Carteret privately attempted to destroy the patent in order to damage Walpole's reputation. Thus, Carteret appeared to the English as a defender of the patent when he seemingly tried to prevent an Irish uprising against English rule (especially by finding the "Drapier"), but he was really furthering his anti-Walpole agenda and aiding the Irish cause.<ref name="Ehrenpreis 198">[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p.198]]</ref> ===Pamphleteering=== [[Image:Jervas-JonathanSwift.jpg|thumb|left|Charles Jervas's portrait of [[Jonathan Swift]] (1718)]] Jonathan Swift, then Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral in [[Dublin]], was already known for his concern for the Irish people and for writing several political pamphlets. One of these, ''Proposal for the Universal use of Irish Manufacture'' (1720), had so inflamed the English authorities that the printer, John Harding, was prosecuted, although the pamphlet had done little more than recommend that the Irish use the materials they produce rather than export them to England.<ref>[[#refSmith|Smith p. 266–267]]</ref> It was also known by the Irish authorities that Swift's political pamphleteering had been employed by the [[Tory]] government of [[Anne of Great Britain|Queen Anne]], when he had been a propagandist, and that he would use his abilities to undermine the Whig government of Walpole.<ref name="Ehrenpreis 198"/> The disadvantages of Wood's inferior coinage were [[Forensic science|forensically]] reviewed in the first of the pamphlets, ''A Letter to Shop-keepers'' (1724),<ref name="Ehrenpreis 198"/> in which Swift adopted the persona of the "Drapier": a common Irishman, a talented and skilled [[draper]], and a religiously devout individual who believes in scripture and the Church of Ireland.<ref>[[#refBeaumont|Beaumont p. 44]]</ref> Swift's [[pseudonym]]ous choice served two purposes: it provided him an alternate persona to hide from potential political reprisals, and it allowed him to identify with the people of Ireland.<ref name="Ferguson p. 96"/> There is debate in the academic community over how much Swift may have wished his audience to identify him as the Drapier, especially through the Drapier's constant inclusion of religious imagery that was common to Swift's sermons, but it is thought that religion is an important aspect of the Drapier's identity either way.<ref name="Ehrenpreis 208">[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 208]]</ref> It is certain that most people in Ireland knew that Swift was the author of the letters, but there was little legal proof that would have allowed him to be tried as such.<ref name="Ehrenpreis 208"/> Four more pamphlets of further invectives and declamations against Wood and his patent followed the first over the course of a year, and public opinion became so hostile against Wood's coinage that the patent was withdrawn in 1725. A significant reward of £300 was at one point offered by Lord Carteret for the identity of the author, but Swift was neither arrested nor charged. The lack of an arrest and the unity of the Irish people behind the "Drapier" was an important motivator to Walpole's withdrawal of the patent.<ref name="Goodwin p. 661"/> ===Threats of Treason=== Although Swift knew that the Duchess of Kendal was responsible for selling the patent to Wood, he rarely mentions this fact in the ''Letters''. Instead, his first three letters describe Wood as the mastermind behind the patent. Although the Drapier constantly asserts his loyalty to the King, his words did not prevent claims of [[treason]] from being leveled against him in response to the third and fourth letters.<ref>[[#refSmith|Smith p. 271]]</ref> In the third and fourth letters, Swift argues that the Irish deserve [[independence]] from England but not from the king. This, of all of the Drapier's arguments, is what agitated Walpole, as the head of the English Parliament, the most. Thus, the Drapier was condemned like [[William Molyneux]], whose ''Case of Ireland'' (1698) pleaded for Irish independence using the same reasons.<ref name="Ferguson p. 110">[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 110]]</ref> The claims of treason leveled against the Drapier were of "treason to the English Parliament", which only caused more resentment among the Irish people, who sided with Swift's constitutional argument that the Irish people owed their allegiance only to the king.<ref name="Ferguson p. 110"/> ==The Pamphlets== The first three pamphlets were written as a set intended to conclude the matter. However, when Lord Carteret was sent to control Ireland and placed a bounty on the Drapier's head, Swift felt that the fifth pamphlet was necessary. The fifth (in this list) was written at the height of the controversy over Wood's coin, and constitutes the final public writing of "the Drapier".<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 6 Intro Note">[[#refProse Works|’’Prose Works'' Letter 6 Intro Note]]</ref> The letter ''To the Lord Chancellor Middleton'' was signed with Swift's name<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 5">[[#refProse Works|''Prose Works'' Letter 5]]</ref> and not collected until Faulkner's 1735 edition. The last letter, ''An Humble Address'', was also published after the conflict had ended.<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 7 Intro Note">[[#refProse Works|’'Prose Works'' Letter 7 Intro Note]]</ref> ===To the Shop-keepers=== [[Image:SwiftLetterShopkeepers.png|right|thumb|200px|Title page from the 1724 pamphlet ''To the Shop-keepers'']] The Drapier's first letter, ''To the Shop-keepers, Tradesmen, Farmers, and Common-People of Ireland'', was printed in March 1724.<ref name="Letter 1 Intro Note"/> Shortly after printing, a copy of the first letter was forwarded by Swift to Lord Carteret on [[April 28]], [[1724]], and the knowledge of the letter's contents had spread all the way to London.<ref name="Letter 1 Intro Note"/> By April 1724, the letter was popular and Swift claimed that over 2,000 copies were sold in Dublin.<ref>[[#refLetters|Letters p. 106]]</ref> The letter was retitled as "Fraud Detected: or, The Hibernian Patriot" by Faulkner's ''Dublin Journal'', which published the piece in 1725.<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 1">[[#refProse Works|''Prose Works'' Letter 1]]</ref> "Fraud Detected" was later used by Faulkner to title the collection of the first five letters, published after the patent controversy ended.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 317-318]]</ref> The Drapier introduces his subject by invoking the duty of his readers as "Christians, as parents, and as lovers of your country".<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 1"/> His purpose is to introduce the background of Wood's coin and then he suggests a boycott similar to the one in his ''Proposal for the Universal Use of Irish Manufacture''. Throughout his monetary arguments, the Drapier constantly acknowledges how humble his station in life is, and incorporates theological and classical allusions to mock Wood. The Drapier places the blame for the coin upon Wood, stating: "It is no treason to rebel against Mr Wood."<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 1"/> There are many religious overtones similar to [[Sermons of Dean Swift|Swift's sermons]], such as the Drapier's combination of a duty to God with duty to one's king and country. Many critics have compared the language and rhetorical style of the first letter to a [[Prophet#Judaism|Hebrew prophet]] or to an [[Evangelicalism|evangelical preacher]] who warns the masses of an imminent threat to their soul.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 210">[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 210]]</ref> However, the [[Last Judgment|final judgment]] had not yet come, so the Drapier also included arguments claiming that Wood's halfpence would destroy the Irish economy and the souls of the citizenry.<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 99]]</ref> One of the concerns of the Irish discussed in the first letter is that over what is now know as [[Gresham's law]]<ref name="Moore p. 81">[[#refMoore|Moore p. 81]]</ref>: debased coins would cause silver and gold coinage to be hoarded or removed from the country, which would further debase the currency.<ref name="Moore p. 81"/> Tenant farmers would no longer be able to pay their landlords, and , after the tenants are removed, there will be fewer crops grown in Ireland; the increase of poverty and the decrease of food supply would completely ruin Ireland's economy.<ref name="Moore p. 81"/> Although the language and examples employed by the Drapier to describe the possible economic harms were viewed as over the top, but many critics and historians have determined that Swift's imagery was grounded in truth.<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 101]]</ref> Even Swift's satire of Wood's character was based on actual evidence and added very little to what Wood provided the public through his words and actions.<ref>[[#refTreadwell|Treadwell p. 76–91]]</ref> Although the Drapier emphasizes Wood's involvement and not the king's, glosses of the first letter reveal allusions to Wood bribing the Duchess of Kendal that obscure the distinction to the careful reader.<ref>[[#refDrapier’s Letters|''Drapier's Letters'' p. 142]]</ref> However, the Drapier always respects the king as leader of the Irish nation and the Irish church, although some critics see his bold language and free use of the king's name and title as undermining those positions.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 210"/> The Drapier makes sure to use Wood as the primary target, which, when combined with only an indirect attack upon people at the top of the British political system, reassured the people of Ireland that they could rebel against an "insignificant hardware man".<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 98]]</ref> ===To Mr Harding=== [[Image:SwiftLetterHarding.png|thumb|right|200px|Title page from the 1724 pamphlet ''To Mr. Harding'']] The Drapier's second letter, ''A Letter to Mr. Harding the Printer, upon Occasion of a Paragraph in his News-Paper of August 1st, relating to Mr. Wood's Half-Pence'', was printed on [[August 4]], [[1724]], in response to the English Privy Council's testing of Wood's coin.<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 2 Intro Note">[[#refProse Works|''Prose Works'' Letter 2 Intro Note]]</ref> The Drapier alludes to the involvement of the Duchess of Kendall in his first letter; in the second, the Drapier deemphasizes her involvement and shifts his focus to blame the [[British Whig Party|Whig]] party. According to the Drapier, the Whigs are the ones who Wood bribed in order to secure his patent.<ref>[[#refTreadwell|Treadwell p. 86]]</ref> The central target for this letter is the Privy Council's report produced under the authority of the Walpole. It was necessary for the Drapier to attack the report to ensure that the people would be willing to resist the coin and deny the "truth" that Wood's supporters issued.<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 104]]</ref> Therefore, the Drapier describes them as "only a few Betrayers of their Country, Confederates with ''Woods''".<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 2">[[#refProse Works|Prose Works'' Letter 2]]</ref> The Drapier does not directly attack [[Isaac Newton]]'s assay of Wood's coin, but instead attacks the process behind the assay and the witnesses who testified before the Privy Council. In his criticism of the Privy Council's report, the Drapier claims that the report is part of Wood's propaganda and lies, because Wood released three proposals concurrent with the report: lowering the patent production quota from £100,800 to £40,000 worth; that no one is obliged to accept more than five pence halfpenny per transaction; and to sell the coin at 2s 1 d a pound or his raw copper at 1s 8d a pound.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p 226;229-230;249-250.]]</ref> Wood's choice of wording, that the Irish he would be "obliged" to accept the coin, was criticized by the Drapier who then accused Wood of "perfect ''High Treason''" for obliging the people to take any copper coin when the king lacked the constitutional authority to do such a thing.<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 105]]</ref> In the second letter, the Drapier walks a careful line between openly indicting the king and merely hinting at his relationship with Wood's patent; while the Drapier accuses Wood, he constantly refers to the king's authority and power to issue legal tender (this is called "the King's Prerogative"). In particular, the Drapier mentions that the king is unable to constitutionally force any money to be accepted by his people except that made of gold or silver.<ref name="Ferguson p. 106-107">[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 106-107]]</ref> The Drapier claims that the constitution limits the authority of the monarch to force the Irish to accept copper or brass coinage. Throughout this argument, the Drapier compares the king's ability to print money with the petty amount of political power held by Wood, which undermines the image of the king as the supreme authority in Ireland while hinting that the king is not protecting the rights of the Irish people.<ref name="Ferguson p. 106-107"/> The Drapier stops himself before he commits treason, and he instead argues that the king would never accept a patent that could harm Ireland; to the Drapier, the king would never act in such a way as to help Wood harm the people of Ireland.<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 2"/><ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 107]]</ref> In response to calls for action from the Drapier in the second letter, a group of bankers joined together on [[August 17]], [[1724]], agreeing in writing that they would not accept the coin produced under Wood's patent.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 324]]</ref> Other merchants and tradesmen followed in a similar fashion.<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 107]]</ref> However, this did not stop Walpole from ordering the Commissioners of the Revenue in Ireland to enter the coin into the Irish economy.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 235">[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 235]]</ref> Regardless of Walpole's orders, the Irish Lord Justices did not act, [[Henry Boyle, 1st Earl of Shannon|Lord Shannon]] did not command that his troops should be issued Wood's coin, and Middleton's House of Lords and Conolly's House of Commons did not pass any resolution backing up Walpole's order, which effectively prevented the coin from being distributed.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 235"/> ===To the Nobility and Gentry=== [[Image:SwiftLetterObservations.png|right|thumb|200px|Title page from the 1724 pamphlet ''Some Observations'']] The Drapier's third letter, ''To the Nobility and Gentry of the Kingdom of Ireland: Some Observations Upon a Paper, Call'd, The Report of the Committee of the Most Honourable the Privy-Council in England relating to Wood's Half-pence'', was printed on [[August 25]], [[1724]].<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 3 Intro Note">[[#refProse Works|''Prose Works'' Letter 3 Intro Note]]</ref> The subject matter of the third letter is similar to that of the second letter, and some scholars have explained this as a result of Swift being forced to respond so quickly to the Privy-council's report.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 238">[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 238]]</ref> The Drapier emphasizes his humble nature and simple understanding when appealing to the pride of to his audience, the nobility.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 238"/> The Drapier spends most of his letter responding to the "Report of the Committee of the Most Honourable the Privy-Councill in England". This document was released by Walpole as a defense of Wood's coin; the report argues that the coin was important to the people of Ireland. However, the report was not officially released by Walpole in the Parliament's ''Gazette'', but published without Parliament's authority in the ''London Journal'' in August 1724. Some scholars have speculated that Walpole had the report published in a non-Parliamentary magazine so that he would not be connected directly to Wood's coin. However, the lack of Parliamentary authority behind the report allowed the Drapier to undermine the credibility of the report's content.<ref>[[#refMason| Mason p. 336]]</ref> The Drapier claims, "Mr. Wood in publishing this paper would insinuate to the world, as if the Committee had a greater concern for his credit and private emolument, than for the honour of the Privy-council and both Houses of Parliament here&nbsp;...&nbsp;For it seems intended as a vindication of Mr. Wood, not without several severe remarks on the Houses of Lords and Commons of Ireland."<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 3">[[#refProse Works|''Prose Works'' Letter 3]]</ref> To the Drapier, Wood has utter contempt for the political authority of Ireland, and would use his coin and the report to mock them. However, the attack extends beyond Wood to encompass a dispute about the authority of England to rule over the kingdom of Ireland.<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 109]]</ref> The central argument in the letter is that the English have negated the rights of the Irish people by relying on a completely English system to pass the patent without allowing the [[Irish Parliament]] a say. William Wood, according to the Drapier, was already involved in a similar dispute with a coin he printed for [[Massachusetts]].<ref name="Moore p. 66"> Wood, the Drapier claims, "hath already tried his Faculty in ''New-England'', and I hope he will meet with an EQUAL RECEPTION here; what ''That'' was I leave to the Publick Intelligence."<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 3"/> The response to Wood's coin was a complete boycott of the coin.<ref name="Moore p. 66"/> The Drapier does not blame the production of the coining on Walpole's policies, in regard to England's colonies, but on Wood's (and his accomplice's) actions This criticism of Wood's actions allows the Drapier to attack the patent process in such a way that could not be used directly against the English Parliament.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 240]]</ref> In referring to this point, the Drapier asks, "Were not the People of ''Ireland'' born as Free as those of ''England''?"<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 3"/> The final image of this letter is that of the small but brave [[David]] versus the giant [[Goliath]].<ref>[[#refBeaumont|Beaumont p. 42]]</ref> Wood is the giant invader who wears his brass coin as armor and Swift is just the small merchant who is not big enough to fill the king's armor.<ref>[[#refBeaumont|Beaumont p. 43]]</ref> This image resonated with the people, and a sign was displayed by people of Dublin which read: :"And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid : as the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground ; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not.”<ref name="Smith p. 274">[[#refSmith|Smith p. 274]]</ref> The third letter openly incorporates Swift's argument that political authority stems from the consent of a population. As such, the third letter has been seen as a response in part to the [[Dependency of Ireland on Great Britain Act 1719|Declaratory Act]], which had undermined the independence and the authority of Irish legislature and judiciary in favor of the English.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 243]]</ref> The Declaratory Act removed the ability for any in Ireland to speak for the people of Ireland, and it was necessary for the act to be removed before the people could be heard.<ref name="Fabricant 481">[[#refFabricant|Fabricant p. 481]]</ref> However, such an attack on the Declaratory Act was common in Swift's works, and he constantly argued against the act by promoting Irish autonomy.<ref name="Mahony 508">[[#refMahony|Mahony p. 508]]</ref> This does not mean that the Irish independence is to be taken lightly, because Swift viewed the self-reliance as "the only means of halting their [the Irish/Irish Protestant] self-destructive complicity - of which they were inadequately aware - in England's ongoing consumption of Ireland."<ref name="Mahony 508"/> ===To the Whole People of Ireland=== [[Image:SwiftLetterPeopleIreland.png|right|thumb|200px|Title page from the 1724 pamphlet ''To the Whole People of Ireland'']] The Drapier's fourth letter, ''To the Whole People of Ireland, A Word or Two to the People of Ireland, A Short Defense of the People of Ireland'', was written on [[October 13]], [[1724]] and was either published on [[October 21]], [[1724]] or on [[October 22]], [[1724]], the day Lord Carteret arrived in Dublin. Throughout the letter, the Drapier pretends that Carteret's transfer to Ireland to enforce Wood's patent was a rumor produced by Wood's allies, although Swift had knowledge to the contrary.<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 114]]</ref> The fourth letter was written in response to the many charges put forth by the English supporters of Wood's patent against the Irish, including claims of [[pope|papal]] influence and of treason. A large portion of the letter is a response to these accusations and to refuting further arguments that Wood's coin could be beneficial to the Irish people.<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 4">[[#refProse Works|''Prose Works'' Letter 4]]</ref> The tone of the letter is clear: Wood's allies are promoting an evil that will harm Ireland. However, Wood is only a secondary target—figures like Walpole are mocked for their role in the controversy.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 255">[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 255]]</ref> The majority of the fourth letter is devoted to an argument revolving around the political liberty of the Irish people. It is for this argument that the Drapier was persecuted, because his words were seen as a call to challenge English authority and possibly to declare independence from the king.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 255"/> The Drapier walks a fine line between disloyalty, because he charges that the Irish are loyal only to their king, who had the title "King of Ireland", but not to England.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 255"/> To this the Drapier states: {{bquote|Let whoever think otherwise, I M.B. Drapier, desire to be excepted, for I declare, next under Good, I ''depend'' only on the King my sovereign, and on the laws of my own country; and I am so far from ''depending'' upon the people of England, that if they should ever rebel against my sovereign (which God forbid) I would be ready at the first command from His Majesty to take arms against them, as some of ''my'' countrymen did against ''theirs'' at Preston. And if such a rebellion should prove so successful as to fix the Pretender on the throne of England, I would venture to transgress that statute so far as to lose every drop of my blood to hinder him from being King of Ireland.<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 4"/>}} In defense of his nation, the Drapier turns around claims of treason and papal loyalty against Wood and his defenders (especially Walpole), calling them as treasonous as the [[Williamite War in Ireland|Jacobite rebels]] and the [[English Civil War|Parliamentary rebels]].<ref>[[#refCraik|Craik p. 74]]</ref> The Drapier believed that God's providence supported the people of Ireland, but his will required the people of Ireland to stand up against the treasonous English.<ref>[[#refJohnson|Johnson p. 76]]</ref> The most famous and controversial statement of the ''Drapier's Letters'' follows claims of loyalty to the Irish king: :"I have digressed a little in order to refresh and continue that spirit so seasonably raised amongst you, and to let you see that by the laws of GOD, of NATURE, of NATIONS, and of your own COUNTRY, you ARE and OUGHT to be as FREE a people as your brethren in England."<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 4"/> This line of argument follows the political philosophy of [[John Locke]] in the ''[[Two Treatises on Government]]'' (1689).<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 255"/> Locke wrote that the people had the right to resist their government when their property rights were violated, and that nations have the same sovereign rights even when they have been conquered by another.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 255"/> A secondary rhetorical battle began between Walpole and the Irish in regards to Wood's patent;<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 255"/> the rest of the constitutional debate was over the nature of [[Poynings' Law]], a law that was brought back into use through the Declaratory Act (1720).<ref>[[#refMoore|Moore p. 75]]</ref> Poyning's Law was a law that the English claimed allowed them to control all of Ireland's legal actions and to revoke the Irish parliamentary independence.<ref name="Moore p. 73">[[#refMoore|Moore p. 73]]</ref> Traditionally, the rulers of Ireland viewed themselves as a kingdom and not a colony that would be controlled by Poyning's Law.<ref name="Moore p. 73"> The Drapier agreed with the Irish interpretation of the law and incorporated aspects of Molyneux's arguments that combined proof the law was misinterpreted and Locke's political philosophy.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 255"/> Lord Carteret read passages from the fourth letter about Irish constitutional independence to the Irish Privy Council and claimed that they were treasonable.<ref>[[#refCoxe|Coxe p. 396–397]]</ref> It was then that Harding was arrested for printing the letters and £300 were offered as a reward for the identity of the Drapier.<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 115]]</ref> Lord Carteret wrote that the arrest and bounty were the result of an "unfortunate accident" and he did not want to respond in such a way.<ref>[[#refDrapier’s Letters|''Drapier's Letters'' p. xliii]]</ref> Lord Midleton was also forced to denounce his previous ally, the Drapier, when did so when he wrote, "to provoke England to that degree as some have endeavoured to do, is not the true way to keep them out".<ref>[[#refNichols|Henry Downes, Oct. 25, 1724. ''Letters on Various Subjects'' p. 588]]</ref> Archbishop King responded to the letters by saying they were "ludicrous and satyrically writ".<ref>[[#refGoodwin| Goodwin p. 671]]</ref> However, the Archbishop publicly supported the constitutional actions more than the other three, and his support caused others important officials to criticize him.<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 121]]</ref> Regardless of the proclamation against the Drapier and the words issued by important Irish officials, the people of Ireland had stood by the writer, and it was their support that protected Swift.<ref>[[#refDrapier’s Letters|''Drapier's Letters'' pp. xlii-xliii]]</ref> Some critics have viewed this support as resulting from the letter's appeal to the "mob", or common people, of Ireland.<ref name="Moore p. 84"/> ===To Viscount Molesworth=== [[Image:Drapiers Letter 5.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Title page of ''To Viscount Molesworth'' from the 1735 Faulkner edition and reproduced by the 1903 Temple Scott edition]] The Drapier's fifth letter, ''A Letter To the Honourable the Lord Viscount Molesworth, at his House at Brackdenstown, near Swords'' was published on [[December 31]], [[1724]]. The letter includes the most pseudo-biographical information on the Drapier.<ref name="Ferguson p. 128">[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 128]]</ref> This letter is seen as the final salvo in the Drapier's fight against Wood's patent. Although there was a possible agreement between Carteret and Walpole over ending the patent, Swift found it necessary to publish this defense of the fourth letter to ensure that Walpole would not back down from his promise of removing the patent.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 286]]</ref> It has also been seen as a letter celebrating Harding's release from being tried for printing the Drapier's letters.<ref name="Ferguson p. 128"/> The Drapier begins his letter with three quotations: [[Psalm 109]], [[Sirach|Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 7]], and [[Virgil]]'s ''[[Aeneid]]'' Book Five.<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 6">[[#refProse Works|''Prose Works'' Letter 6]]</ref> With these passages, he sets the tone for his own defense by appealing to both the reason and the religious sentiments of his audience in order to prove his innocence: {{bquote|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.<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 6"/>}} Some critics argue that Swift did not need to defend himself, and ''To Viscount Molesworth'' was written in order to gloat.<ref name="Ferguson p. 130">[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 130]]</ref> However, the essence of the letter encourages the Irish to remember the actions of Walpole, Wood, and the English Parliament. By willingly throwing himself before the judgment of his fellow Irishmen and before the final judgment of God, the Drapier claims that he is and always will be on the correct side of the argument.<ref name="Ferguson p. 130"/> Other critics emphasize that the letter's object, Lord Molesworth, was targeted to bind the higher and lower classes together. Using Molesworth, a [[English Dissenters|religious dissenter]], a nobleman, and the opposite of Swift, the Drapier unites all of the various people of Ireland in a common nationalist cause.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 289]]</ref> Instead of defending charges against himself, the Drapier is calling up more support for the Irish cause; he seeks attention so that the greater liberty of Ireland will be respected.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 291]]</ref> The letter serves one other purpose: to delight in the Drapier's lack of being captured and his victory over Whitshed.<ref name="Ferguson p. 128"/> William Whitshed, [[Lord Chief Justice of Ireland|Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench in Ireland]], was the one who actually arrested Harding and sought to convict him of printing treasonous materials.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 289-290]]</ref> A letter written anonymously by Swift, "Seasonable Advice to the Grand-Jury", motivated the Irish jury to stand up against Whitshed and release the printer.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 293">[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 293]]</ref> The Drapier hints at the letter and the freeing of Harding when he lists many other works written by Jonathan Swift, and, in the process, nearly reveals his own identity.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 293"/> However, his tone may not be mocking, as he could just be flaunting his own position, and some have credited this idea to the incorporation of so many Biblical and Classical allusions beyond the three that begin the letter. Scholar Herbert Davis declared this letter is "in some ways the best written of all the ''Letters''".<ref>[[#refDrapier’s Letters|''Drapier's Letters'' p. lvii]]</ref> ===To the Lord Chancellor Middleton=== The sixth letter during the Drapier's campaign, ''To the Lord Chancellor Middleton'', is dated [[October 26]], [[1724]], and was written as a private letter from Jonathan Swift to Alan Brodrick Lord Midleton (with the misspelling of his title).<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 5 Intro Note">[[#refProse Works|''Prose Works'' Letter 5 Intro Note]]</ref> It is not a true "Drapier" letter, because the author professes to be different from the Drapier, although he was known to be one and the same by Lord Midleton. [[Walter Scott|Sir Walter Scott]] includes this letter as number five, although Faulkner, Sheridan, Deane Swift, Hawkesworth and Nichols label it as number six.<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 5 Intro Note"/> The purpose of the sixth letter was to ensure that Midleton would stay true to his opposition of Wood's patent. Although the extent to which Midleton was influenced by the letter cannot be known, it is certain that Midleton believed that the patent would harm Ireland and that he would resist it at all costs.<ref>[[#refCoxe|Coxe p. 395–399]]</ref> Regardless, Swift wrote the letter to express himself in a way that the Drapier could not: as the dean of a great, Irish cathedral.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 271]]</ref> He asserts his status to verify that the Drapier's intentions must be good. In essence, the letter rehashes many of the previous letters' arguments in order to draw Midleton into openly supporting the Drapier's actions.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 274]]</ref> Swift also admits to actively working against the patent, and mentions how his [[Sermons of Dean Swift#On Doing Good|"On Doing Good" sermon]] is similar to the ideas expressed by the Drapier.<ref>[[#refProse Works|''Prose Works'' IV. "On Doing Good" Sermon intro note]]</ref> ===An Humble Address=== The Drapier's last letter, ''An Humble Address to Both Houses of Parliament'', was completed in June 1725. It was written before Wood's patent was defeated, and it was stopped from being printed when word reached Swift that the patent had been withdrawn.<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 7 Intro Note">[[#refProse Works|''Prose Works'' Letter 7 Intro Note]]</ref> This letter remained unpublished for 10&nbsp;years.<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 7 Intro Note"/> The letter challenges the Ireland's parliament to investigate how Wood originally attained the patent, even though most in power knew that the patent was the result of bribery.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 303]]</ref> Although nothing new would be discovered in an investigation, the letter served the purpose of trying to unite the people of Ireland to fight for further economic freedom. The Drapier refers to Ireland's lack of economic freedom when he claims, the Irish "are altogether Losers, and ''England'' a Gainer".<ref name="''Prose Works'' Letter 7">[[#refProse Works|''Prose Works'' Letter 7]]</ref> Swift's intentions behind the letter are uncertain, and some critics believe that Swift did not desire such an investigation into Wood's supporters while others contend that Swift was serious about promoting a public inquiry into the matter.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 305]] Ehrenpreis challenges Ferguson's characterization of Swift as not actually caring about an investigation</ref> The topics the Drapier addresses span from [[absentee landlord|absentee land owners]] to importing of goods from England to favoring Englishmen over Irishmen for Irish governmental positions. These issues were the many issues that Swift cared about and saw as threatening Ireland before Wood's halfpence controversy.<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 133]]</ref> However, these individual issues were not as important as the independence and unity of Ireland: the specifics of independence were less important than self-rule.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 308]]</ref> Some argue that Swift, after Wood's patent was withdrawn, removed himself from the political landscape in order to focus on writing ''[[Gulliver's Travels]]'', in which he picked up many of the same ideas.<ref name="Ferguson p. 135">[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 135]]</ref> ==Publication== John Harding published the first four letters before he was arrested and the fifth after his release.<ref name="Ferguson p. 128"/> After Harding's death, George Faulkner became Swift's primary publisher in Ireland, and ''A Letter to the Lord Chancellor Middleton'' and ''An Humble Address'' were copied from manuscript copies provided by the author to Faulkner and then printed with the other letters.<ref>[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 780-781]]</ref> The ''Drapier's Letters'' were first collected and published in their entirety by Faulkner in 1735.<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 134]]</ref> On [[February 9]], [[1733]], Faulkner advertised his future publication of Swift's collected works in four volumes, the first containing the ''Drapier's Letters'', in the ''Dublin Journal''.<ref>[[#refDrapier’s Letters|''Drapier's Letters'' XIV p. 42]]</ref> However, this edition led to the [[Motte v. Faulkner|Motte v. Faulkner (1735) lawsuit]], since the London bookseller Benjamin Motte had publication rights, under English [[copyright]] law, to many of the works included in Faulkner's edition.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 787">[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 787]]</ref> Although the ''Drapier's Letters'' were not under copyright, the complete work was legally brought to a halt from being published in England by a ruling on [[November 28]], [[1735]].<ref>[[#refCornu|Cornu p. 120-121]]</ref> It is uncertain if Swift allowed Faulkner to publish the works in order to allow an Irish publisher to compete against an English publisher or if Swift had no say in the matter and Faulkner published the works against Swift's will.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 787"/> In a letter to Motte in May 1736, Swift did not defend Faulkner's legal right to publish the works. Instead, Swift made admonished the attitude and action of Motte as a publisher for prosecuting Faulkner instead of coming to an agreement that would allow Faulkner to reprint the copyrighted material.<ref>[[#refCorrespondence|Correspondence p. 493-494]]</ref> ==Reception== Although the original printing of the ''Drapier's Letters'' resulted in the arrest of Harding and a [[bounty (reward)|bounty]] placed upon the Drapier's head, Swift's actions in defending Ireland were deemed heroic among the Irish citizenry.<ref>[[#refFerguson|Ferguson p. 138]]</ref> He was titled the "Hibernian patriot" for his actions.<ref name="Mahony 518">[[#refMahony|Mahony p. 518]]</ref> Some residents of Dublin placed banners and signs in the city to recognize Swift's deeds as the Drapier, and images from the letters, such as the Drapier comparing his campaign to [[David]] fighting [[Goliath]], became themes in popular literature.<ref name="Smith p. 274"/> Scholar Herbert Davis claims that, by the end of 1725, Swift was "the Darling of the populace; His Image and Superscription on a great many Sign-Posts" in Ireland.<ref>[[#refDrapier’s Letters|''Drapier's Letters'' p. lxvi]]</ref> R Swift did not fully embrace this treatment by the people of Ireland, but he still enjoyed the popularity.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 514">[[#refEhrenpreis|Ehrenpreis p. 514]]</ref> On Swift's birthday, [[November 30]], [[1727]], a large group of men came to St. Patrick's Cathedral to pray and then afterwards celebrated throughout the city.<ref>''Dublin Journal'' 3 December 1726</ref> This gathering commemorated Swift and his letters and also protested against the harsh English treatment of Ireland.<ref name="Ehrenpreis p. 514"/> Later, the ''Drapier's Letters'', especially the fourth, were praised by Irish nationalists.<ref name="Mahony 517">[[#refMahony|Mahony p. 517]]</ref> However, many recent critics have re-examined the nationalistic viewpoint and the counter viewpoint that Swift is speaking more for the Protestants of Ireland than for the whole people.<ref name="Mahony 517"/> Many critics are concerned who "the Whole People of Ireland" are, "who" ''Drapier's Letters'' are speaking "to", and if Swift has the right, as a Protestant Englishman, to speak for anyone.<ref name="Fabricant 465">[[#refFabricant|Fabricant p. 465]]</ref> R. F. Foster believed that Swift represented "Ascendancy attitudes,"<ref name="Foster 175">[[#refFoster|Foster p. 175]]</ref> but this view is not held by all.<ref name="Fabricant 465"/> Some critics believe that Swift's work contributed greatly to a common Irish nationalism regardless of religious situation, and that Swift was able to relate to all of Ireland based on a unified suffering under the English rule.<ref>[[#refLeerssen|Leerssen p. 311]]</ref> Swift's ability to speak for the whole people was further verified by "so broad a consensus opposed to the coinage scheme" without having to worry about religious distinctions.<ref name="Fabricant 482">[[#refFabricant|Fabricant p. 482]]</ref> Also, Swift extends natural rights, in the ''Drapier's Letters'', to all people of Ireland without restriction.<ref name="Fabricant 483">[[#refFabricant|Fabricant p. 483]]</ref> ==Notes== {{reflist|4}} ==References== *<cite id=refBeaumont>{{cite book| last =Beaumont | first =Charles Allen | title =Swift's Use of the Bible | publisher =University of Georgia:Athens, 1965| date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refCornu>{{cite journal| first=Donald | last=Cornu |coauthors= | title =Swift, Motte, and the Copyright Struggle: Two Unnoticed Documents | journal =Modern Language Notes | volume =54 |issue=1939 | pages =pp. 114–124 | date =| doi =10.2307/2912284 }}</cite> *<cite id=refCoxe>{{cite book| last =Coxe | first=William | title =Memoirs of the Life and Administration of Sir Robert Walpole, Earl of Orford | publisher =T. Cadell and W. Davies:London (1798)| date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refCraik>{{cite book| last =Craik | first =Sir Henry | title =Life of Jonathan Swift: Vol. II. | publisher =2nd ed. Macmillan:London, 1894 | date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refEhrenpreis>{{cite book| last =Ehrenpreis | first =Irvin | title =Jonathan Swift: Volume III | publisher =Harvard University Press, 1983 | date = | location = | isbn = 0-674-85835-2 }}</cite> *<cite id=refFabricant>{{cite journal| first=Carole | last=Fabricant |title =Speaking for the Irish Nation: The Drapier, the Bishop, and the Problems of Colonial Representation | journal =Gulliver's Travels and Other Writings| pages =Houghton Mifflin Company. 2004. pp. 465–500 | date = }}</cite> *<cite id=refFerguson>{{cite book| last =Ferguson | first =Oliver W | title =Jonathan Swift and Ireland | publisher =University of Illinois Press, 1962 | date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refFoster>{{cite book| last =Foster | first =R. F | title =Modern Ireland, 1600-1972 | publisher =London: Penguin, 1988 | date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refGoodwin>{{cite journal| first=A. | last=Goodwin |coauthors= | title =Woods Halfpence | journal =The English Historical Review | volume =LI |issue=1936 | pages =pp. 647–674 | date =| doi =10.1093/ehr/LI.CCIV.647 }}</cite> *<cite id=refJohnson>{{cite journal| first=James William| last=Johnson |coauthors= | title =Swift's Historical Outlook | journal =The Journal of British Studies | volume =4, No. 2 |issue=May, 1965 | pages =pp. 52–77 | date = }}</cite> *<cite id=refLeerssen>{{cite book| last =Leerssen | first = | title =Mere Irish and Fior-Ghael: Studies in the Idea of Nationality | publisher =Cork: Cork University Press, 1996 | date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refMason>{{cite book| last =Mason | first =William Monck | title =History of St. Patrick's Cathedral | publisher =W. Folds:Strand-Street Dublin, 1820 | date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refMahony>{{cite journal| first=Robert | last=Mahony |title =Protestant Dependence and Consumption in Swift's Writings | journal =Gulliver's Travels and Other Writings| pages =Houghton Mifflin Company. 2004. pp. 501–524 | date = }}</cite> *<cite id=refMoore>{{cite journal| first=Seán | last=Moore |coauthors= | title =Our Irish Copper-Farthen Dean: Swift's Drapier's Letters, the 'forging' of a modernist Anglo-Irish literature, and the Atlantic world of paper credit | journal =Atlantic Studies | volume =2, No 1 |issue=2005 | pages =pp. 65–92 | date = }}</cite> *<cite id=refNichols>{{cite book| last =Nicolson | first =William | title =Letters on Various Subjects Vol. II | publisher =ed John Nichols. Dublin: 1809 | date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refSmith>{{cite book| last =Smith | first =Sophie | title =Dean Swift | publisher =London: Methuen & Co., 1910 | date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refCorrespondence>{{cite book| last =[[Jonathan Swift|Swift, Jonathan]] | first = | title =Correspondence | publisher =Vol. IV. Ed. Harold Williams. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1965 | date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refDrapier.E2.80.99s_Letters>{{cite book| last =Swift | first =Jonathan | title =Drapier's Letters | publisher =Ed. Herbert Davis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935 | date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refLetters>{{cite book| last =Swift | first =Jonathan | title =Letters of Jonathan Swift to Charles Ford | publisher =Ed. D. Nichol Smith, Clarendon Press:Oxford, 1935 | date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refProse_Works>{{cite book| last =Swift | first =Jonathan | title =The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, Vol. VI; The Drapier’s Letters | publisher =Ed. Temple Scott. London: George Bell and Sons, 1903 | date = | location = | isbn = }}</cite> *<cite id=refTreadwell>{{cite journal| first=J.M. | last=Treadwell |coauthors= | title =Swift, William Wood, and the Factual Basis of Satire | journal =Journal of British Studies | volume =15.2 |issue=1976 | pages =pp. 76–91. | date = }}</cite> *<cite id=refWeedon>{{cite journal| first=Margaret | last=Weedon |coauthors= | title =An Uncancelled Copy of the First Collected Edition of Swift's Poems | journal =The Library | volume =5.XXII |issue= 1967 | pages =pp. 44–48. | date = }}</cite> ==External links== *{{gutenberg|no=12784 |name=The Drapier's Letters}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Drapier's Letters, The}} [[Category:Works by Jonathan Swift]] [[Category:1724 books]] [[Category:1725 books]] [[Category:British non-fiction literature]] [[Category:Independence movements]] [[Category:Numismatics]] [[Category:Pamphlets]] [[Category:Irish constitutional law]]