SECONDLY, it is to be considered that this pamphlet, against which a proclamation hath been issued, is writ by the same author; that nobody ever doubted the innocence, and goodness of his design, that he appears through the whole tenor of it, to be a loyal subject to His Majesty, and devoted to the House of Hanover, and declares himself in a manner peculiarly zealous against the Pretender; And if such a writer in four several treatises on so nice a subject, where a royal patent is concerned, and where it was necessary to speak of England and of liberty, should in one or two places happen to let fall an inadvertent expression, it would be hard to condemn him after all the good he hath done; Especially when we consider, that he could have no possible design in view, either of honour or profit, but purely the GOOD of his country.

THIRDLY, it ought to be well considered, whether any one expression in the said pamphlet, be really liable to just exception, much less to be found “wicked, malicious, seditious, reflecting upon His Majesty and his ministry,” &c.

The two points in that pamphlet, which it is said the prosecutors intend chiefly to fix on, are, First, where the author mentions the “penner of the King’s answer.”  First, it is well known, His Majesty is not master of the English tongue, and therefore it is necessary that some other person should be employed to pen what he hath to say, or write in that language.  Secondly, His Majesty’s answer is not in the first person, but the third.  It is not said “WE are concerned,” or, “OUR royal predecessors,” but “HIS MAJESTY is concerned;” and “HIS royal predecessors.”  By which it is plain these are properly not the words of His Majesty; but supposed to be taken from him, and transmitted hither by one of his ministers.  Thirdly it will be easily seen, that the author of the pamphlet delivers his sentiments upon this particular, with the utmost caution and respect, as any impartial reader will observe.

The second paragraph, which it is said will be taken notice of as a motive to find the bill, is, what the author says of Ireland being a depending kingdom.  He explains all the dependency he knows of it, which is a law made in Ireland, whereby it is enacted that “whoever is King of England, shall be King of Ireland.”  Before this explanation be condemned, and the bill found upon it, it would be proper, that some lawyers should fully inform the jury what other law there is, either statute or common for this dependency, and if there be no law, there is no transgression.

The Fourth thing very maturely to be considered by the jury, is, what influence their finding the bill may have upon the kingdom.  The people in general find no fault in the Drapier’s last book, any more than in the three former, and therefore when they hear it is condemned by a grand jury of Dublin, they will conclude it is done in favour of Wood’s coin, they will think we of this town have changed our minds, and intend to take those halfpence, and therefore that it will be in vain for them to stand out.  So that the question comes to this, Which will be of the worst consequence, to let pass one or two expressions, at the worst only unwary, in a book written for the public service; or to leave a free open passage for Wood’s brass to overrun us, by which we shall be undone for ever.