thumb|right|upright=1.5|alt=A man sits on a throne with a document in his left hand. The document is also held by a woman crouching before him. The man's feet are on a man looking up. A woman is on the bottom left nursing one child and holding another. At the top of the scene are two cherubims holding a laurel crown. In the background is a cathedral. The caption is "Exegi Monumentum Ære perennius. Hor."|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 [[bronze." (The phrase comes from the Odes of Horace.) The word "Ære" means "bronze" or "metal" or "honor" or "air" in Latin, and may be a pun on the Irish word for Ireland, Éire, so that a parallel meaning could be: "I have made a monument to Ireland forever." Swift was familiar with the Irish language, and translated at least one poem by Carolan, "O'Rorke's Feast".]]
Drapier's Letters is the collective name for a series of seven political 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 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 The popular sentiment turned into a nationwide boycott, which forced the patent to be withdrawn; Swift was later honoured for this service to the people of Ireland.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 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, 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).
Background
In 1722, hardware manufacturer William Wood was granted letters patent to produce copper coinage of up to £108,000 (around £ as of ) for use in Ireland. The patent was secured by a bribe of £10,000 (around £ as of ) to 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 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 patent issue soon became 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 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, 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 the Irish nationalist cause.
Pamphleteering
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 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'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 was closely aligned with the common people of Ireland. 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 a relationship between the two that would justify them trying Swift as the "Drapier". 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 the Irish people owed their allegiance only to the king. The letter To 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.
To the Shop-keepers
right|thumb|200px|alt=A document reading, "A Letter to the Shop-Keepers, Tradesmen, Farmers, and Common-People of Ireland, Concerning the Brass Half-Pence coined by Mr. Woods, with the Design to have them Pass in this Kingdom." The explanation of the text follows. At the bottom is "By M. B. Drapier" and "Dublin: Printed by J. Harding in Molesworth's-Court."|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. 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 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". However, 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 the currency. 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.
To Mr Harding
thumb|right|200px|alt=A document reads "A Letter to Mr. Harding the Printer, Upon Occasion of a Paragraph in his News – Paper of Aug. 1st, Relating to Mr. Woods's Half-Pence." At the bottom is "By M. B. Drapier, Author of the Letter to the Shop-Keepers", with the same printer as before.|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 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 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 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 1d 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 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 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 the Irish people.
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 the coin produced under Wood's patent. Other merchants and tradesmen followed in a similar fashion. 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 the coin from being distributed.
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. The Drapier emphasises his humble nature and simple understanding when appealing to the pride of his audience, the nobility.
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 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 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. In referring to this point, the Drapier asks, "Were not the People of Ireland born as Free as those of England?" 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 the Drapier's Letters follows claims of loyalty to the Irish king:
:I have digressed a little 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. 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. 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, and 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". 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, 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.
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 a letter celebrating Harding's release from being tried for printing the Drapier's letters. 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: