The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D. D., Vol. VI | Page 5

who, according to Coxe, submitted proposal
with many others, for the amelioration of the grievance. Wood's
proposals, say this same authority, were accepted "as beneficial to

Ireland." The letters patent bear the date July 12th, 1722, and were
prepared in accordance with the King's instructions to the Attorney and
Solicitor General sent in a letter from Kensington on June 16th, 1722.
The letter commanded "that a bill should be prepared for his royal
signature, containing and importing an indenture, whereof one part was
to pass the Great Seal of Great Britain." This indenture, notes Monck
Mason,[2] between His Majesty of the one part, "and William Wood, of
Wolverhampton, in the County of Stafford, Esq.," of the other, signifies
that His Majesty
"has received information that, in his kingdom of Ireland, there was a
great want of small money for making small payments, and that
retailers and others did suffer by reason of such want."
[Footnote 1: "A Defence of the Conduct of the People of Ireland in
their unanimous refusal of Mr. Wood's Copper Money," pp. 22-23.]
[Footnote 2: "History of St. Patrick's Cathedral," note v, pp. 326-327.]
By virtue, therefore, of his prerogative royal, and in consideration of
the rents, covenants, and agreements therein expressed, His Majesty
granted to William Wood, his executors, assigns, etc., "full, free, sole,
and absolute power, privilege, licence, and authority," during fourteen
years, from the annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, 1722, to coin
halfpence and farthings of copper, to be uttered and disposed of in
Ireland, and not elsewhere. It was provided that the whole quantity
coined should not exceed 360 tons of copper, whereof 100 tons only
were to be coined in the first year, and 20 tons in each of the last
thirteen, said farthings and halfpence to be of good, pure, and
merchantable copper, and of such size and bigness, that one
avoirdupois pound weight of copper should not be converted into more
farthings and halfpence than would make thirty pence by tale; all the
said farthings and halfpence to be of equal weight in themselves, or as
near thereunto as might be, allowing a remedy not exceeding two
farthings over or under in each pound. The same "to pass and to be
received as current money, by such as shall or will, voluntarily and
willingly, and not otherwise, receive the same, within the said kingdom
of Ireland, and not elsewhere." Wood also covenanted to pay to the
King's clerk or comptroller of the coinage, £200 yearly, and £100 per
annum into his Majesty's treasury.
Most of the accounts of this transaction and its consequent agitation in

Ireland, particularly those given by Sir W. Scott and Earl Stanhope, are
taken from Coxe's "Life of Walpole." Monck Mason, however, in his
various notes appended to his life of Swift, has once and for all placed
Coxe's narrative in its true light, and exposed the specious special
pleading on behalf of his hero, Walpole. But even Coxe cannot hide the
fact that the granting of the patent and the circumstances under which it
was granted, amounted to a disgraceful job, by which an opportunity
was seized to benefit a "noble person" in England at the expense of
Ireland. The patent was really granted to the King's mistress, the
Duchess of Kendal, who sold it to William Wood for the sum of
£10,000, and (as it was reported with, probably, much truth) for a share
in the profits of the coining. The job was alluded to by Swift when he
wrote:
"When late a feminine magician, Join'd with a brazen politician,
Expos'd, to blind a nation's eyes, A parchment of prodigious size."
Coxe endeavors to exonerate Walpole from the disgrace attached to this
business, by expatiating on Carteret's opposition to Walpole, an
opposition which went so far as to attempt to injure the financial
minister's reputation by fomenting jealousies and using the Wood
patent agitation to arouse against him the popular indignation; but this
does not explain away the fact itself. He lays some blame for the
agitation on Wood's indiscretion in flaunting his rights and publicly
boasting of what the great minister would do for him. At the same time
he takes care to censure the government for its misconduct in not
consulting with the Lord Lieutenant and his Privy Council before
granting the patent. His censure, however, is founded on the
consideration that this want of attention was injudicious and was the
cause of the spread of exaggerated rumours of the patent's evil
tendency. He has nothing to say of the rights and liberties of a people
which had thereby been infringed and ignored.
The English parliament had rarely shown much consideration for Irish
feelings or Irish rights. Its attitude towards the Irish Houses of
Legislation had been high-handed and even dictatorial; so that