Misplaced Pages

#377622

88-558: Drapier's Letters is the collective name for a series of seven pamphlets written between 1724 and 1725 by the Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin, Jonathan Swift , to arouse public opinion in Ireland against the imposition of a privately minted copper coinage that Swift believed to be of inferior quality . William Wood was granted letters patent to mint the coin, and Swift saw

176-595: A Wolverhampton manufacturer, and which Midleton opposed. The coinage, known as "Wood's Halfpence" became bitterly unpopular in Ireland: it was opposed by the Church of Ireland hierarchy, and was the subject of a celebrated attack by Jonathan Swift in the Drapier Letters . Although the patent was dropped, Midleton was so upset by the situation that he resigned as Lord Chancellor in 1725, and went into opposition in

264-537: A tract concerning a contemporary issue was a product of the heated arguments leading to the English Civil War ; this sense appeared in 1642. In some European languages, this secondary connotation, of a disputatious tract, has come to the fore: compare libelle , from the Latin libellus , denoting a "little book". Pamphlets functioned in place of magazine articles in the pre-magazine era, which ended in

352-574: A by-election on 27 February 1717. He supported Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland until they fell out in 1719 over the Peerage Bill , which Sunderland had promoted but which Midleton opposed, and he was ignored until Sunderland's death in 1722. He was returned unopposed at Midhurst at the 1722 general election , became a leading ministerial supporter in the House of Commons, and was invited to private dinners with Sir Robert Walpole . He spoke for

440-566: A fine line between loyalty and disloyalty, because he charges that the Irish are loyal only to their king, who had the title "King of Ireland", but not to England. To this the Drapier states: Let whoever think otherwise, I M.B. Drapier, desire to be excepted, for I declare, next under God, I depend only on the King my sovereign, and on the laws of my own country; and I am so far from depending upon

528-411: A kingdom limits the authority of the monarch because it forces the people of Ireland to use only gold or silver coins as official currency. 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

616-532: A letter celebrating Harding's release from being tried for printing the Drapier's letters. The Drapier begins his letter with three quotations: Psalm 109 , Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 7 , and Virgil 's Aeneid Book Five. With these passages, he sets the tone for his own defence by appealing to both the reason and the religious sentiments of his audience to prove his innocence: I foolishly disdained to have Recourse to Whining , Lamenting , and Crying for Mercy , but rather chose to appeal to Law and Liberty and

704-448: A nationwide boycott, which forced the patent to be withdrawn; Swift was later honoured for this service to the people of Ireland. Many Irish people viewed Swift as a hero for his defiance of British authority. Beyond being a hero, many critics have seen Swift, through the persona of the Drapier, as the first to organise a "more universal Irish community", although it is disputed as to who constitutes that community. Regardless of to whom Swift

792-477: A particular country and made available to the public" and a book as "a non-periodical printed publication of at least 49 pages, exclusive of the cover pages". The UNESCO definitions are, however, only meant to be used for the particular purpose of drawing up their book production statistics. The word pamphlet for a small work ( opuscule ) issued by itself without covers came into Middle English c.  1387 as pamphilet or panflet , generalized from

880-512: A peer. He was advanced to the rank of 1st Viscount Midleton in 1717. The most celebrated Irish lawsuit heard in Midleton's time as Lord Chancellor was Sherlock v Annesley ; although on the face of it this was an unremarkable dispute between two cousins over who had the right to possession of lands in Kildare , it raised the sensitive question as to whether the Irish or British House of Lords

968-489: A relationship between the two that would justify them trying Swift as the "Drapier". Over the course of a year, four more pamphlets, filled with invective and complaints against both Wood and his patent, followed the first. The pamphlet was successful, and public opinion became so hostile against Wood's coinage that the patent was withdrawn by 1725. At one point, Lord Carteret and the Irish Privy Council offered

SECTION 10

#1732793783378

1056-720: A result of Swift being forced to respond so quickly to the Privy-council's report. The Drapier emphasises his humble nature and simple understanding when appealing to the pride of his audience, the nobility. 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 released by Walpole served as a defence of Wood's coin;

1144-498: A significant reward of £300 for information that would verify the identity of the pamphlet's author, but Swift was neither arrested nor charged for the works. The lack of an arrest and the unity of the Irish people behind the "Drapier" was an important motivating factor behind Walpole's withdrawal of the patent. Although Swift knew that the Duchess of Kendal was responsible for selling the patent to Wood, he rarely mentions this fact in

1232-404: A son, St John Brodick , who predeceased him. His second wife was Lucy Courthorpe, daughter of Sir Peter Courthorpe of Little Island, County Cork and his second wife Elizabeth Giffard, daughter of Sir John Giffard of Castlejordan. With Lucy he had his second son and heir, Alan, 2nd Viscount Midleton, and another son and daughter. He married thirdly Anne Hill, daughter of Sir John Trevor , Master of

1320-409: A speedy reconquest. In 1690 Brodrick returned to Dublin and was given the legal office of Third Serjeant . He also became Recorder of Cork . He was dismissed as Serjeant in 1692, on the ground that there was no work for him to do. Brodrick, while complaining bitterly about his dismissal, admitted privately that his post had been a superfluous one. As a prominent Whig supporter of the outcome of

1408-594: A struggle between Prime Minister Robert Walpole (with the authority of the Parliament of Great Britain) and the leaders of Ireland. All attempts by the Irish Privy Council and the Church of Ireland to prevent the release of the coinage proved fruitless. It was soon thought by many that William Conolly ’s Commissioners of the Revenue might pay the soldiers stationed in Ireland with the new coin; if

1496-687: A twelfth-century amatory comic poem with an old flavor , Pamphilus, seu de Amore ("Pamphilus: or, Concerning Love"), written in Latin . Pamphilus's name is derived from the Greek name Πάμφιλος , meaning "beloved of all". The poem was popular and widely copied and circulated on its own, forming a slim codex . The earliest appearance of the word is in The Philobiblon (1344) of Richard de Bury , who speaks of " panfletos exiguos " {" little pamphlets "} (ch. viii.). Its modern connotations of

1584-462: A vindication of Mr. Wood, not without several severe remarks on the Houses of Lords and Commons of Ireland." 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. The central argument in the letter

1672-410: Is a historical term for someone who produces or distributes pamphlets, especially for a political cause. Due to their ephemeral nature and to the wide array of political and religious perspectives given voice by the format's ease of production, pamphlets are prized by many book collectors . Substantial accumulations have been amassed and transferred to ownership of academic research libraries around

1760-527: Is actually appealing 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. The first complete collection of the Drapier's Letters appeared in the 1734 George Faulkner edition of the Works of Jonathan Swift along with an allegorical frontispiece offering praise and thanks from the Irish people. Today,

1848-461: Is not the true way to keep them out". Archbishop King responded to the letters by saying they were "ludicrous and satyrically writ". However, the Archbishop publicly supported the constitutional actions more than the other three, and his support caused others important officials to criticise him. Regardless of the proclamation against the Drapier and the words issued by important Irish officials,

SECTION 20

#1732793783378

1936-411: Is only a secondary target—figures like Walpole are mocked for their role in the controversy. 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 British authority and possibly to declare independence from the king. The Drapier walks

2024-602: Is that the British have negated the rights of the Irish people by relying on a completely British 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 minted for Massachusetts . 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

2112-430: The Drapier's Letters are an important part of Swift's political writings, along with Gulliver's Travels (1726), A Tale of a Tub (1704), and A Modest Proposal (1729). In 1722, hardware manufacturer William Wood was granted letters patent to produce copper coinage of up to £108,000 (around £21,460,900 as of 2024) for use in Ireland. The patent was secured by a bribe of £10,000 (around £1,987,100 as of 2024) to

2200-582: The Drapier's Letters follows claims of loyalty to the Irish king: A secondary rhetorical battle began between Walpole and the Irish in regard to Wood's patent; 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). Poyning's Law was a law passed by the British parliament which allowed them to control all of Ireland's legal entities and to revoke Irish parliamentary independence when it suited them. Traditionally,

2288-491: The Duchess of Kendal , mistress to King George I . Although Wood's copper coins were subsequently alleged to be underweight, undersized, and made from inferior materials, assays had found they were not so, prior to their approval by the Parliament of Great Britain for use in Ireland. The Irish complaint against Wood was not that they had enough copper coins, but that this would introduce too many coins of inferior quality into

2376-500: The Irish Privy Council and claimed that they were treasonable. It was then that Harding was arrested for printing the letters and a reward of £300 was offered for the identity of the Drapier. 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. 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,

2464-506: 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 accusations of treason from being levelled against him in response to the third and fourth letters. In the third and fourth letters, Swift argues that the Irish deserve to be granted independence from British control but not King George II . This, of all of

2552-505: The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland he lost his post as Solicitor-General in 1704. For some reason, he regarded his successor, Sir Richard Levinge, 1st Baronet as his particular enemy, even though Levinge, a mild and conciliatory man, made it clear that he was willing to be his friend. He was Attorney-General for Ireland 1707–1709. He became Chief Justice of Ireland 1710–1711 and was replaced as Speaker on 19 May 1710, but again held

2640-746: The Protectorate , and thus the family had much to lose if the land issue in Ireland was settled to the satisfaction of dispossessed Roman Catholics . He was educated at Magdalen College and the Middle Temple , being called to the English bar in 1678. Brodrick and his relatives fled Ireland during the Glorious Revolution . They were attainted under the rule of King James II in Ireland. In exile in England, Brodrick argued for

2728-404: The 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. One of the concerns of the Irish discussed in the first letter was over what is now known as Gresham's law : debased coins would cause silver and gold coinage to be hoarded or removed from the country, which would further debase

Drapier's Letters - Misplaced Pages Continue

2816-500: The British Secretary of State whose remit included Ireland , publicly pushed Walpole into defending Wood's patent. However, Carteret privately attempted to destroy the patent to damage Walpole's reputation. Thus, Carteret appeared to the British as a defender of the patent because he seemingly tried to prevent an Irish uprising (especially by finding "Drapier"), but he was really furthering his anti-Walpole agenda and aiding

2904-463: The British parliament. In referring to this point, the Drapier asks, "Were not the People of Ireland born as Free as those of England ?" The final image of this letter is that of the small child David versus the giant Goliath . Wood is the giant invader who wears his brass coin as armour and the Drapier is the small merchant who is not big enough to fill the king's armour. This image resonated with

2992-429: The Drapier claims that he is and always will be on the correct side of the argument. Other critics emphasise that the letter's object, Lord Molesworth, was targeted to bind the higher and lower classes together. Using Molesworth, a religious dissenter , a nobleman, and the opposite of Swift, the Drapier unites all of the various people of Ireland in a common nationalist cause. Instead of defending charges against himself,

3080-493: The Drapier is calling up more support for the Irish cause; he seeks attention so that the greater liberty of Ireland will be respected. The letter serves one other purpose: to delight in the Drapier's lack of being captured and his victory over Whitshed. William Whitshed , 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. A letter written anonymously by Swift, "Seasonable Advice to

3168-533: The Drapier turns around claims of treason and papal loyalty against Wood and his defenders (especially Walpole), calling them as treasonous as the Jacobite rebels and the Parliamentary "Roundheads" . 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 British. The most famous and controversial statement of

3256-519: The Drapier's arguments, is what agitated Walpole, as the head of the British parliament, the most. Thus, the Drapier was condemned like William Molyneux , whose Case of Ireland (1698) pleaded for Irish independence using the same arguments. The claims of treason levelled 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

3344-671: The Drapier, the Whigs are the ones who Wood bribed in securing his patent. The central target for this letter is the Privy Council's report produced under the authority of 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. Therefore, the Drapier describes them as "only a few Betrayers of their Country, Confederates with Woods ". The Drapier does not directly attack Isaac Newton 's assay of Wood's coin, but instead attacks

3432-692: The Glorious Revolution, he was not always in agreement with court policies in Ireland, which he considered too lenient on the Jacobites . The dismissal of the First Serjeant, John Osborne , at the same time as Brodrick was due to his even stronger opposition to Court policy. Despite this Brodrick often held Irish government offices and aspired to manage the Irish Parliament for English ministers. He represented Cork City in

3520-576: The Government on the army on 26 October 1722 and recovered his position as one of the Lord Justices (Ireland) who governed Ireland when the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was absent. In 1723 he returned to Ireland, where he became involved in a lengthy wrangle over a patent for manufacturing £108,000 of copper coinage for Ireland, which had been sold by the Duchess of Kendal , the principal Royal mistress of King George I , to William Wood ,

3608-516: The Grand-Jury", motivated the Irish jury to stand up against Whitshed and release the printer. 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. 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

Drapier's Letters - Misplaced Pages Continue

3696-596: The Irish Parliament, which met in 1692 and held this seat until 1710. He was a vocal opponent of court policies, until the new Whig Lord Deputy of Ireland , Lord Capell decided to appoint him Solicitor-General for Ireland in 1695. He promoted the penal laws against Catholics, whilst also supporting greater powers for the Irish Parliament. Brodrick was Speaker of the Irish House of Commons from 21 September 1703. After promoting resolutions critical of

3784-562: The Irish Parliament. He left behind him a legacy of bitterness and ill-will for which he was not really responsible − the Irish peers chose to blame him for the loss of their powers under the Sixth of George I , rather than their own misjudgment in imprisoning the Barons of the Exchequer. He was returned again as MP for Midhurst at the 1727 general election . Midleton led the opposition in

3872-573: The Irish economy. These coins would remove valuable silver and gold coins from circulation in the Irish economy, and since the new copper coins would not be minted under Irish authority, no way existed for the Irish to control the quality and amount. Also, Wood's coin was only one example of allegedly unfavourable economic practices that hurt Ireland; the Irish wanted to have their own national bank and authority to mint their own coinage, and Wood's coin became an issue over which they could express their economic-nationalist desires. The patent issue soon became

3960-531: The Irish nationalist cause. 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 British authorities that the printer, John Harding, was prosecuted, although the pamphlet had done little more than recommend that

4048-449: The Irish people owed their allegiance only to the king. 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 a fourth 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". The letter To

4136-423: The Irish people. 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. In response to calls for action from the Drapier in the second letter, a group of bankers joined on 17 August 1724, agreeing in writing that they would not accept

4224-520: The Irish use the materials they produce rather than export them to England. Also, the Irish authorities knew that Swift's political pamphleteering had been employed by the Tory government of Queen Anne , and that he would use his abilities to undermine the Whig government of Walpole. Swift analysed the forensic and economic disadvantages of Wood's inferior coinage and the effects it would have over Ireland in

4312-639: The Lord Chancellor Middleton was signed with Swift's name and not collected until Faulkner's 1735 edition. The last letter, An Humble Address , was also published after the conflict had ended. The Drapier's first letter, To the Shop-keepers, Tradesmen, Farmers, and Common-People of Ireland , was printed in March 1724. Shortly afterwards, a copy of the first letter was forwarded by Swift to Lord Carteret on 28 April 1724, and knowledge of

4400-540: The Printer, upon Occasion of a Paragraph in his News-Paper of Aug. 1st, Relating to Mr. Wood's Half-Pence , was printed on 4 August 1724, in response to the British Privy Council 's testing of Wood's coin. The Drapier alludes to the involvement of the Duchess of Kendall in his first letter; in the second, the Drapier de-emphasises her involvement and shifts his focus to blame the Whig party . According to

4488-488: 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 13 October 1724 and was either published on 21 October 1724 or on 22 October 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 rumour produced by Wood's allies, although Swift had knowledge to

SECTION 50

#1732793783378

4576-438: The blame for the coin upon Wood, stating: "It is no treason to rebel against Mr Wood." There are many religious overtones similar to Swift's sermons , such as the Drapier's combination of a duty to God with duty to one's king and country. Many critics compare the language and rhetorical style of the first letter to a Hebrew prophet or to an evangelical preacher who warns the masses of an imminent threat to their soul. However,

4664-425: The coin at 2 s 1 d a pound or his raw copper at 1s 8d a pound. Wood's choice of wording, that the Irish would be "obliged" to accept the coin, was criticised 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. In the second letter, the Drapier walks a careful line between openly indicting

4752-597: The coin from being distributed. 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 25 August 1724. The subject matter of the third letter is similar to that of the second letter, and some scholars have explained this as

4840-660: The coin produced under Wood's patent. Other merchants and tradesmen followed in a similar fashion. However, this did not stop Walpole from ordering the Commissioners of the Revenue in Ireland to enter the coin into the Irish economy. Regardless of Walpole's orders, the Irish Lord Justices did not act, 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

4928-469: The coinage is merely meant as an important aspect of the Drapier's identity without it being meant as evidence that Swift was the author. Regardless of how secret Swift may have wanted his identity to be, most people in Ireland, including members of the Irish Privy Council, certainly knew that Swift was the author of the letters. Unfortunately for the Walpole administration, little legal proof was available of

5016-471: The common Rights of Mankind , without considering the Climate I was in. Some critics argue that Swift did not need to defend himself, and To Viscount Molesworth was written to gloat. However, the essence of the letter encourages the Irish to remember the actions of Walpole, Wood, and parliament . By willingly throwing himself before the judgement of his fellow Irishmen and before the final judgement of God,

5104-465: The contrary. The fourth letter was written in response to the many charges put forth by the British supporters of Wood's patent against the Irish, including claims of 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. The tone of the letter is clear: Wood's allies are promoting an evil that will harm Ireland. However, Wood

5192-443: The currency. Tenant farmers would no longer be able to pay their landlords, and, after the tenants were removed, there would be fewer crops grown in Ireland; the increase of poverty and the decrease of food supply would completely ruin Ireland's economy. Although some critics and historians view the language and examples employed by the Drapier to describe the possible economic harms as over the top, others consider that Swift's imagery

5280-575: The first of the pamphlets, A Letter to the Shop-keepers (1724). In the pamphlet, Swift adopted the persona of the "Drapier": a common Irishman, a talented and skilled draper , a religiously devout individual who believes in scripture, and a man loyal to both the Church of Ireland and to the King of Ireland. Swift's pseudonymous choice served two essential purposes: it provided him with an alternate persona which he could use to hide from potential political reprisals, and it allowed him to create an identity that

5368-402: 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 claims that the king is unable to force his people to accept any copper based currency. As the Drapier points out, the constitution establishing Ireland as

SECTION 60

#1732793783378

5456-502: 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. The Drapier makes sure that Wood appears to be 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". The Drapier's second letter, A Letter to Mr. Harding

5544-409: The lack of Parliamentary authority behind the report allowed the Drapier to undermine the credibility of the report's content. 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 ... For it seems intended as

5632-467: The letter's contents had spread all the way to London. By April 1724, the letter was popular and Swift claimed that over 2,000 copies had been sold in Dublin. The letter was retitled "Fraud Detected: or, The Hibernian Patriot" by Faulkner's Dublin Journal , which published the piece in 1725. "Fraud Detected" was later used by Faulkner as the title of the collection of the first five letters, published after

5720-582: The licensing of the patent as corrupt. In response, Swift represented Ireland as constitutionally and financially independent of Britain in the Drapier's Letters . Since the subject was politically sensitive, Swift wrote under the pseudonym M. B., Drapier , to hide from retaliation. Although the letters were condemned by the Parliament of Ireland , with prompting from the Parliament of Great Britain , they were still able to inspire popular sentiment against Wood and his patent. The popular sentiment turned into

5808-785: The mid-nineteenth century. There were hundreds of them in the United States alone. They were a primary means of communication for people interested in political and religious issues, such as slavery . Pamphlets never looked at both sides of a question; most were avowedly partisan , trying not just to inform but to convince the reader. Pamphlets can contain anything from information on kitchen appliances to medical information and religious treatises. Pamphlets are very important in marketing because they are cheap to produce and can be distributed easily to customers. Pamphlets have also long been an important tool of political protest and political campaigning for similar reasons. A pamphleteer

5896-415: The most pseudo-biographical information on the Drapier. 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 defence of the fourth letter to ensure that Walpole would not back down from his promise of removing the patent. It has also been seen as

5984-401: The next session of the Irish Parliament, but then let others take the lead. In his memoirs, he famously expressed a great sense of disappointment at having lost to another of his lifelong rivals, Adam Montgomery of Cambridge. Midleton died on 29 August 1728. Lord Midleton married three times. His first wife was Catherine Barry, daughter of Redmond Barry of County Cork and Mary Boyle. They had

6072-587: The office in the next Parliament 25 November 1713 – 1 August 1714, where he also represented County Cork . In 1713 he purchased a substantial estate at Peper Harow , in Surrey , from Philip Frowde. He was appointed Lord Chancellor of Ireland in 1714 and was ennobled in the Peerage of Ireland in 1715, as the 1st Baron Brodrick. He vacated his seat in the Irish Commons and continued in the Irish Parliament as

6160-587: The patent controversy ended. The Drapier introduces his subject by invoking the duty of his readers as "Christians, as parents, and as lovers of your country". 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

6248-546: 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. In defence of his nation,

6336-536: The people of Ireland had stood by the writer, and it was their support that protected Swift. Some critics have viewed this support as resulting from the letter's appeal to the "mob", or common people, of Ireland. The Drapier's fifth letter, A Letter To the Honourable the Lord Viscount Molesworth, at his House at Brackdenstown, near Swords was published on 31 December 1724. The letter includes

6424-704: The people of Ireland, and it was necessary for the act to be removed before the people could be heard. 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. 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." The Drapier's fourth letter, To

6512-505: The people, and a sign was displayed by people of Dublin which read: 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 Declaratory Act , which had undermined the independence and the authority of Irish legislature and judiciary. The Declaratory Act removed the ability for any in Ireland to speak for

6600-436: 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

6688-530: The report argued 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,

6776-540: The right of the British Parliament to pass laws concerning Ireland. Midleton feuded with his successor as Speaker, William Conolly , as they were rivals to be the leading figure in Irish politics. To bolster his position he resolved to enter the British House of Commons. He was returned unopposed as Member of Parliament for Midhurst by the patronage of Charles Seymour, 6th Duke of Somerset at

6864-419: The rulers of Ireland viewed themselves as a sovereign kingdom and not a subject territory that would be controlled by Poyning's Law. 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. Lord Carteret read passages from the fourth letter about Irish constitutional independence to

6952-489: The same way as leaflets or brochures. Alan Brodrick, 1st Viscount Midleton Alan Brodrick, 1st Viscount Midleton , PC (Ire) (c. 1656 – 29 August 1728) was a leading Irish lawyer and Whig politician who sat in the Parliament of Ireland between 1692 and 1715 and in the British House of Commons from 1717 to 1728. He was Speaker of the Irish House of Commons and Lord Chancellor of Ireland . Although he

7040-463: 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 Lord Chancellor Midleton to contribute to a pamphleteering campaign against Wood's coin. During this time, Lord Carteret ,

7128-408: The three that begin the letter. Scholar Herbert Davis declared this letter is "in some ways the best written of all the Letters ". Pamphlet For the "International Standardization of Statistics Relating to Book Production and Periodicals", UNESCO defines a pamphlet as "a non- periodical printed publication of at least 5 but not more than 48 pages, exclusive of the cover pages, published in

7216-705: The world. Particularly comprehensive collections of American political pamphlets are housed at New York Public Library , the Tamiment Library of New York University , and the Jo Labadie collection at the University of Michigan . The pamphlet has been widely adopted in commerce, particularly as a format for marketing communications. There are numerous purposes for pamphlets, such as product descriptions or instructions, corporate information, events promotions or tourism guides and they are often used in

7304-473: Was I leave to the Publick Intelligence." The response to Wood's coin was a complete boycott of the coin. 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

7392-477: Was a man of great gifts, he was so hot-tempered that even Jonathan Swift is said to have been afraid of him. Brodrick was the second son of Sir St John Brodrick of Ballyannan, near Midleton in County Cork , and his wife Alice Clayton (died 1696), daughter of Laurence Clayton of Mallow, County Cork , and sister of Colonel Randall Clayton MP, of Mallow. Brodrick's father had received large land grants during

7480-599: Was against the advice of Midleton, who though himself a very hot-tempered man did his best on this occasion to calm matters down. The imprisonment of the judges proved to be a disastrous mistake: the British Parliament retaliated with a statute, the Dependency of Ireland on Great Britain Act 1719 , the notorious "Sixth of George I", which not only removed the right of appeal to the Irish House of Lords but asserted

7568-484: Was closely aligned with the common people of Ireland. According to 20th-century Swift scholar Irvin Ehrenpreis , debate arose in the academic community over how much Swift may have wished his audience to identify him as the Drapier, especially since the Drapier constantly includes religious imagery that was common to Swift's sermons. However, the religious rhetoric probably used to justify an Irish rebellion against

7656-419: Was grounded in truth. Even Swift's satire of Wood's character is based on actual evidence and added very little to what Wood provided the public through his words and actions. Although the Drapier emphasises 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. However, the Drapier always respects

7744-530: Was the final court of appeal from Ireland, and ultimately put an effective end to the independence of the Irish Parliament until 1782. The parties ended up with conflicting orders from the two Houses of Lords entitling each of them to be put in possession; when the Barons of the Irish Court of Exchequer enforced the decree of the British House, the Irish House committed them to prison for contempt. This

#377622