Chapter 2

The title of Irish patriot which Swift obtained was not sought for by him. It was given him mainly for the part he played, and for the success he achieved in the Wood's patent agitation. He was acclaimed the champion of the people, because he had stopped the foolish manoeuvres of the Walpole Administration. So to label him, however, would be to do him an injustice. In truth, he would have championed the cause of liberty and justice in any country in which he lived, had he found liberty and justice wanting there. The matter of the copper coinage patent was but a peg for him to hang arguments which applied almost everywhere. It was not to the particular arguments but to the spirit which gave them life that we must look for the true value of Swift's work. And that spirit--honest, brave, strong for the right--is even more abundantly displayed in the writings we have just considered. They witness to his championship of liberty and justice, to his impeachment of selfish office-holders and a short-sighted policy. They gave him his position as the chief among the citizens of Dublin to whom he spoke as counsel and adviser. They proclaim him as the friend of the common people, to whom he was more than the Dean of St. Patrick's. He may have begun his work impelled by a hatred for Whiggish principles; but he undoubtedly accomplished it in the spirit of a broad-minded and far-seeing statesman. The pressing needs of Ireland were too urgent and crying for him to permit his personal dislike of the Irish natives to divert him from his humanitarian efforts. If he hated the beggar he was ready with his charity. The times in which he lived were not times in which, as he told the freemen of Dublin, "to expect such an exalted degree of virtue from mortal men." He was speaking to them of the impossibility of office-holders being independent of the government under which they held their offices. "Blazing stars," he said, "are much more frequently seen than such heroical virtues." As the Irish people were governed by such men he advised them strongly to choose a parliamentary representative from among themselves. He insisted on the value of their collected voice, their unanimity of effort, a consciousness of their understanding of what they wished to bring about. "Be independent" is the text of all his writings to the people of Ireland. It is idle to appeal to England's clemency or England's justice. It is vain to evolve social schemes and Utopian dreams. The remedy lay in their own hands, if the people only realized it.

"Violent zeal for truth," Swift noted in one of his "Thoughts on Religion," "has a hundred to one odds to be either petulancy, ambition, or pride." Examining Swift's writings on behalf of Ireland by the criterion provided in this statement, we must acquit him entirely of misusing any of these qualities. If he were bitter or scornful, he was certainly not petulant. No one has written with more justice or coolness; the temper is hot but it is the heat of a conscious and collected indignation. If he wrote or spoke in a manner somewhat overbearing, it was not because of ambition, since he was now long past his youth and his mind had become settled in a fairly complacent acceptance of his position. If he had pride, and he undoubtedly had, it was nowhere obtruded for personal aggrandizement, but rather by way of emphasizing the dignity of citizenship, and the value of self-respect. Assuredly, in these Irish tracts, Swift was no violent zealot for truth. Indeed, it is a high compliment to pay him, to say that we wonder he restrained himself as he did.

Swift, however, had his weakness also, and it lay, as weaknesses generally lie, very close to his strength. Swift's fault as a thinker was the outcome of his intellectuality--he was too purely intellectual. He set little store on the emotional side of human nature; his appeal was always to the reason. He hated cant, and any expression of emotion appealed to him as cant. He could not bear to be seen saying his prayers; his acts of charity were surreptitious and given in secret with an affectation of cynicism, so that they might veil the motive which impelled them. It may have been pride or a dislike to be considered sentimental; but his attitude owed its spring to a genuine faith in his own thought. If Swift had one pride more than another, it lay in a consciousness of his own superiority over his fellow-mortals. It was the pride of intellect and a belief that man showed himself best by following the judgements of the reason. His disgust with people was born of their unreasonable selfishness, their instinctive greed and rapacity, their blind stupidity, all which resulted for them in so much injustice. Had they been reasonable, he would have argued, they would have been better and happier. The sentiments and the passions were impulsive, and therefore unreasonable. Swift seemed to have no faith in their elevation to a higher intellectual plane, and yet he often roused them by his very appeals to reason. His eminently successful "Drapier's Letters" are a case in point. Yet we question if Swift were not himself surprised at their effect. He knew his power later when he threatened the Archbishop of Armagh, but he, no doubt, credited the result to his own arguments, and not to the passions he had aroused. His sense of justice was the strongest, and it was through that sense that the condition of the people of Ireland appealed to him. He forgot, or he did not see that the very passion in himself was of prime importance, since it was really to it that his own efforts were due. The fine flower of imagination never blossomed in Swift. He was neither prophet nor poet; but he was a great leader, a splendid captain, a logical statesman. It is to this lack of imagination that we must look for the real root of his cynical humour and satirical temper. A more imaginative man than Swift with much less power would have better appreciated the weaknesses of humanity and made allowances for them. He would never have held them up to ridicule and contempt, but would rather have laid stress on those instincts of honour and nobility which the most ignorant and least reasoning possess in some degree.

Looking back on the work Swift did, and comparing its effect at the time with the current esteem in which he is held in the present day, we shall find that his reputation has altogether changed. In his own day, and especially during his life in Ireland, his work was special, and brought him a special repute. He was a party's advocate and the people's friend. His literary output, distinguished though it was, was of secondary importance compared with the purpose for which it was accomplished. He was the friend of Harley, the champion of the Protestant Church, the Irish patriot, the enemy of Whiggism, the opponent of Nonconformity. To-day all these phrases mean little or nothing to those who know of Swift as the author of "A Tale of a Tub," and "Gulliver's Travels." Swift is now accepted as a great satirist, and admired for the wonderful knowledge he shows of the failings and weaknesses of human nature. He is admired but never loved. The particular occasions in his life-time which urged him to rouse passions mean nothing to us; they have lost the aroma of his just indignation and are become historical events. What is left of him for us is the result of cold analysis and almost heartless contempt. How different would it have been had Swift allied his great gift as a writer to such a spirit as breathes in the Sermon on the Mount! But to wish this is perhaps as foolish as to expect dates to grow on thistles. We must accept what is given us, and see that we, at any rate, steer clear of the dangers mapped out for us by the travellers of the past.

* * * * *

The editor takes this opportunity to thank Mr. G. Ravenscroft Dennis and Mr. W. Spencer Jackson for much valuable assistance in the reading of proofs and the collation of texts.

TEMPLE SCOTT.

NEW YORK,

_May 18, 1905._

CONTENTS PAGE

A LETTER TO A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, IN IRELAND, UPON THE CHOOSING A NEW SPEAKER THERE 1

A PROPOSAL FOR THE UNIVERSAL USE OF IRISH MANUFACTURE 11

AN ESSAY ON ENGLISH BUBBLES. BY THOMAS HOPE, ESQ. 31

THE SWEARER'S BANK 37

A LETTER TO THE KING AT ARMS 47

THE LAST SPEECH AND DYING WORDS OF EBENEZER ELLISTON 55

THE TRUTH OF SOME MAXIMS IN STATE AND GOVERNMENT, EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO IRELAND 63

THE BLUNDERS, DEFICIENCIES, DISTRESSES, AND MISFORTUNES OF QUILCA 73

A SHORT VIEW OF THE STATE OF IRELAND 79

THE STORY OF THE INJURED LADY. WRITTEN BY HERSELF 93

THE ANSWER TO THE INJURED LADY 104

AN ANSWER TO A PAPER CALLED "A MEMORIAL OF THE POOR INHABITANTS, TRADESMEN, AND LABOURERS OF THE KINGDOM OF IRELAND" 107

ANSWER TO SEVERAL LETTERS FROM UNKNOWN PERSONS 117

AN ANSWER TO SEVERAL LETTERS SENT ME FROM UNKNOWN HANDS 127

A LETTER TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN CONCERNING THE WEAVERS 135

OBSERVATIONS OCCASIONED BY READING A PAPER ENTITLED "THE CASE OF THE WOOLLEN MANUFACTURES OF DUBLIN," ETC. 145

THE PRESENT MISERABLE STATE OF IRELAND 151

THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT WAS SAID BY THE DEAN OF ST. PATRICK'S TO THE LORD MAYOR AND SOME OF THE ALDERMEN WHEN HIS LORDSHIP CAME TO PRESENT THE SAID DEAN WITH HIS FREEDOM IN A GOLD BOX 167

ADVERTISEMENT BY DR. SWIFT IN HIS DEFENCE AGAINST JOSHUA, LORD ALLEN 173

A LETTER ON MR. M'CULLA'S PROJECT ABOUT HALFPENCE, AND A NEW ONE PROPOSED 177

A PROPOSAL THAT ALL THE LADIES AND WOMEN OF IRELAND SHOULD APPEAR CONSTANTLY IN IRISH MANUFACTURES 191

A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR PREVENTING THE CHILDREN OF POOR PEOPLE FROM BEING A BURTHEN TO THEIR PARENTS OR THE COUNTRY, AND FOR MAKING THEM BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC 201

ANSWER TO THE CRAFTSMAN 217

A VINDICATION OF HIS EXCELLENCY JOHN, LORD CARTERET 225

A PROPOSAL FOR AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT TO PAY OFF THE DEBT OF THE NATION WITHOUT TAXING THE SUBJECT 251

A CASE SUBMITTED BY DEAN SWIFT TO MR. LINDSAY, COUNSELLOR AT LAW 259

AN EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN ABUSES, CORRUPTIONS, AND ENORMITIES IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN 261

A SERIOUS AND USEFUL SCHEME TO MAKE AN HOSPITAL FOR INCURABLES 283

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE FOOTMEN IN AND ABOUT THE CITY OF DUBLIN 305

ADVICE TO THE FREEMEN OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN IN THE CHOICE OF A MEMBER TO REPRESENT THEM IN PARLIAMENT 309

SOME CONSIDERATIONS HUMBLY OFFERED TO THE LORD MAYOR, THE COURT OF ALDERMEN AND COMMON-COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN IN THE CHOICE OF A RECORDER 317

A PROPOSAL FOR GIVING BADGES TO THE BEGGARS IN ALL THE PARISHES OF DUBLIN 321

CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT MAINTAINING THE POOR 337

ON BARBAROUS DENOMINATIONS IN IRELAND 343

SPEECH DELIVERED ON THE LOWERING OF THE COIN 351

IRISH ELOQUENCE 361

A DIALOGUE IN HIBERNIAN STYLE 362

TO THE PROVOST AND SENIOR FELLOWS OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN 364

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN, SHERIFFS, AND COMMON-COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORK 366

TO THE HONOURABLE THE SOCIETY OF THE GOVERNOR AND ASSISTANTS IN LONDON, FOR THE NEW PLANTATION IN ULSTER 368

CERTIFICATE TO A DISCARDED SERVANT 369

AN EXHORTATION ADDRESSED TO THE SUB-DEAN AND CHAPTER OF ST. PATRICK'S CATHEDRAL, DUBLIN 370

APPENDIX:

A LETTER TO THE WRITER OF THE OCCASIONAL PAPER 375

AN ACCOUNT OF THE COURT AND EMPIRE OF JAPAN 382

THE ANSWER OF THE RIGHT HON. WILLIAM PULTENEY, ESQ., TO THE RIGHT HON. SIR ROBERT WALPOLE 392

INDEX 401

A LETTER

TO

A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, IN IRELAND,

UPON THE CHOOSING A NEW SPEAKER THERE.

WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708.

NOTE.

In the note prefixed to the reprint of Swift's "Letter concerning the Sacramental Test," the circumstances under which this "Letter to a Member of Parliament in Ireland" was written, are explained (see vol. iv., pp. 3-4, of present edition). The Godolphin ministry was anxious to repeal the Test Act in Ireland, as a concession to the Presbyterians who had made themselves prominent by their expressions of loyalty to William and the Protestant succession. In this particular year also (1708), rumours of an invasion gave them another opportunity to send in loyal addresses. In reality, however, the endeavour to try the repeal in Ireland, was in the nature of a test, and Swift ridiculed the attempt as being like to "that of a discreet physician, who first gives a new medicine to a dog, before he prescribes it to a human creature." It seems that Swift had been consulted by Somers on the question of the repeal, and had given his opinion very frankly. The letter to Archbishop King, revealing this, contains some bitter remarks about "a certain lawyer of Ireland." The lawyer was Speaker Brodrick, afterwards Lord Midleton, who was enthusiastic for the repeal. The present letter gives a very clear idea of what Swift thought should be a Speaker's duties both as the chairman of the House and as related to this particular measure of the Test.

* * * * *

The text of the present reprint is based on the original manuscript in Swift's handwriting; but as this was found to be somewhat illegible, it has been collated with the text given in vol. viii. of the quarto edition of Swift's collected works, published in 1765.

[T. S.]

A LETTER TO A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, IN IRELAND, UPON THE CHOOSING A NEW SPEAKER THERE.

SIR,

You may easily believe I am not at all surprised at what you tell me, since it is but a confirmation of my own conjecture that I sent you last week, and made you my reproaches upon it at a venture. It looks exceeding strange, yet, I believe it to be a great truth, that, in order to carry a point in your house, the two following circumstances are of great advantage; first, to have an ill cause; and, secondly, to be a minority. For both these circumstances are extremely apt to unite men, to make them assiduous in their attendance, watchful of opportunities, zealous for gaining over proselytes, and often successful; which is not to be wondered at, when favour and interest are on the side of their opinion. Whereas, on the contrary, a majority with a good cause are negligent and supine. They think it sufficient to declare themselves upon occasion in favour of their party, but, sailing against the tide of favour and preferment, they are easily scattered and driven back. In short, they want a common principle to cement, and motive to spirit them; For the bare acting upon a principle from the dictates of a good conscience, or prospect of serving the public, will not go very far under the present dispositions of mankind. This was amply verified last sessions of Parliament, upon occasion of the money bill, the merits of which I shall not pretend to examine. 'Tis enough that, upon the first news of its transmission hither, in the form it afterwards appeared, the members, upon discourse with their friends, seemed unanimous against it, I mean those of both parties, except a few, who were looked upon as persons ready to go any lengths prescribed them by the court. Yet with only a week's canvassing among a very few hands, the bill passed after a full debate, by a very great majority; yet, I believe, you will hardly attempt persuading me, or anybody else, that one man in ten, of those who changed their language, were moved by reasons any way affecting the merits of the cause, but merely through hope, fear, indolence, or good manners. Nay, I have been assured from good hands, that there was still a number sufficient to make a majority against the bill, if they had not apprehended the other side to be secure, and therefore thought it imprudence, by declaring themselves, to disoblige the government to no purpose.

Reflecting upon this and forty other passages, in the several Houses of Commons since the Revolution, makes me apt to think there is nothing a chief governor can be commanded to attempt here wherein he may not succeed, with a very competent share of address, and with such assistance as he will always find ready at his devotion. And therefore I repeat what I said at first, that I am not at all surprised at what you tell me. For, if there had been the least spark of public spirit left, those who wished well to their country and its constitution in church and state, should, upon the first news of the late Speaker's promotion, (and you and I know it might have been done a great deal sooner) have immediately gone together, and consulted about the fittest person to succeed him. But, by all I can comprehend, you have been so far from proceeding thus, that it hardly ever came into any of your heads. And the reason you give is the worst in the world: That none offered themselves, and you knew not whom to pitch upon. It seems, however, the other party was more resolved, or at least not so modest: For you say your vote is engaged against your opinion, and several gentlemen in my neighbourhood tell me the same story of themselves; this, I confess, is of an unusual strain, and a good many steps below any condescensions a court will, I hope, ever require from you. I shall not trouble myself to inquire who is the person for whom you and others are engaged, or whether there be more candidates from that side, than one. You tell me nothing of either, and I never thought it worth the question to anybody else. But, in so weighty an affair, and against your judgment, I cannot look upon you as irrevocably determined. Therefore I desire you will give me leave to reason with you a little upon the subject, lest your compliance, or inadvertency, should put you upon what you may have cause to repent as long as you live.

You know very well, the great business of the high-flying Whigs, at this juncture, is to endeavour a repeal of the test clause. You know likewise that the moderate men, both of High and Low Church, profess to be wholly averse from this design, as thinking it beneath the policy of common gardeners to cut down the only hedge that shelters from the north.[3] Now, I will put the case; If the person to whom you have promised your vote be one of whom you have the least apprehension that he will promote or assent to the repealing of that clause, whether it be decent or proper, he should be the mouth of an assembly, whereof a very great majority pretend to abhor his opinion. Can a body, whose mouth and heart must go so contrary ways, ever act with sincerity, or hardly with consistence? Such a man is no proper vehicle to retain or convey the sense of the House, which, in so many points of the greatest moment, will be directly contrary to his; 'tis full as absurd, as to prefer a man to a bishopric who denies revealed religion. But it may possibly be a great deal worse. What if the person you design to vote into that important post, should not only be a declared enemy of the sacramental test, but should prove to be a solicitor, an encourager, or even a penner of addresses to complain of it? Do you think it so indifferent a thing, that a promise of course, the effect of compliance, importunity, shame of refusing, or any the like motive, shall oblige you past the power of retracting?

Perhaps you will tell me, as some have already had the weakness to do, that it is of little importance to either party to have a Speaker of their side, his business being only to take the sense of the House and report it, that you often, at committees, put an able speaker into the chair on purpose to prevent him from stopping a bill. Why, if it were no more than this, I believe I should hardly choose, even among my footmen, such a one to deliver a message, whose interest and opinions led him to wish it might miscarry. But I remember to have heard old Colonel Birch[4] of Herefordshire say, that "he was a very sorry Speaker, whose single vote was not better than fifty common ones." I am sure it is reckoned in England the first great test of the prevalency of either party in the House. Sir Thomas Littleton[5] thought, that a House of Commons with a stinking breath (supposing the Speaker to be the mouth) would go near to infect everything within the walls, and a great deal without. It is the smallest part of an able Speaker's business, what he performs in the House, at least if he be in with the court, when it is hard to say how many converts may be made in a circle of dinners, or private cabals. And you and I can easily call to mind a gentleman in that station, in England, who, by his own arts and personal credit, was able to draw over a majority, and change the whole power of a prevailing side in a nice juncture of affairs, and made a Parliament expire in one party who had lived in another.

I am far from an inclination to multiply party causes, but surely the best of us can with very ill grace make that an objection, who have not been so nice in matters of much less importance. Yet I have heard some persons of both sides gravely deliver themselves in this manner; "Why should we make the choosing a Speaker a party cause? Let us fix upon one who is well versed in the practices and methods of parliament." And I believe there are too many who would talk at the same rate, if the question were not only about abolishing the sacramental test, but the sacrament itself.