I shall not presume to vindicate any man, who openly declares he would transgress a statute; and a statute of such importance:  But, with the most humble submission, and desire of pardon for a very innocent mistake, I should be apt to think that the loyal intention of the writer, might be at least some small extenuation of his crime.  For, in this I confess myself to think with the Drapier.

I have not hitherto been told of any other objections against that pamphlet; but, I suppose, they will all appear at the prosecution of the Drapier.  And, I think, whoever in his own conscience believes the said pamphlet to be “wicked and malicious, seditious and scandalous, highly reflecting upon His Majesty and his ministers, &c.” would do well to discover the author, (as little a friend as I am to the trade of informers) although the reward of 300_l_. had not been tacked to the discovery.  I own, it would be a great satisfaction to me, to hear the arguments not only of judges, but of lawyers, upon this case.  Because, you cannot but know, there often happens occasions, wherein it would be very convenient, that the bulk of the people should be informed how they ought to conduct themselves; and therefore, it hath been the wisdom of the English Parliaments, to be very reserved in limiting the press.  When a bill is debating in either House of Parliament there, nothing is more usual, than to have the controversy handled by pamphlets on both sides; without the least animadversion upon the authors.

So here, in the case of Mr. Wood and his coin; since the two Houses gave their opinion by addresses, how dangerous the currency of that copper would be to Ireland; it was, without all question, both lawful and convenient, that the bulk of the people should be let more particularly into the nature of the danger they were in; and of the remedies that were in their own power, if they would have the sense to apply them; and this cannot be more conveniently done, than by particular persons, to whom God hath given zeal and understanding sufficient for such an undertaking.  Thus it happened in the case of that destructive project for a bank in Ireland, which was brought into Parliament a few years ago; and it was allowed, that the arguments and writings of some without doors, contributed very much to reject it.[11]

[Footnote 11:  Swift himself assisted in writing against this “destructive project” in a series of pamphlets (see vol. vii.).  The arguments for and against the bank were thoroughly discussed by Hercules Rowley and Henry Maxwell in a series of controversial letters against each other. [T.S.]]

Now, I should be heartily glad if some able lawyers would prescribe the limits, how far a private man may venture in delivering his thoughts upon public matters:  Because a true lover of his country, may think it hard to be a quiet stander-by, and an indolent looker-on, while a public error prevails; by which a whole nation may be ruined.  Every man who enjoys property, hath some share in the public; and therefore, the care of the public is, in some degree, every such man’s concern.