Walpole realized that to govern Ireland from England he must have a
trustier aid, a heavier hand, and a more vigilant eye, than were
afforded in Carteret. Carteret, however, was better away in Ireland,
and, moreover, as Lord-Lieutenant, he was an ameliorating influence on
the Irish patriotic party in Dublin. But that party was now backed by a
very important popular opinion. For the present, therefore, he gave way;
but his real feelings might have been discovered by an interpretation of
his appointment of Hugh Boulter as Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of
Ireland.[1] Boulter's letter to the Duke of Newcastle, written after his
arrival in Dublin towards the end of November, 1724, gave a very
unambiguous account of the state of the country towards the patent. On
the 3rd of December, he wrote, "We are at present in a very bad state,
and the people so poisoned with apprehensions of Wood's halfpence, that
I do not see there can be any hopes of justice against any person for
seditious writings, if he does but mix somewhat about Wood in them....
But all sorts here are determinedly set against Wood's halfpence, and
look upon their estates as half sunk in their value, whenever they shall
pass upon the nation."[2] On January 19th 1724-1725, the Primate wrote
again to the same effect. On the 3rd of July, he hopes that, as
parliament is about to meet, the Lord-Lieutenant "will be impowered in
his speech to speak clearly as to the business of the halfpence, and
thoroughly rid this nation of their fear on that head."[3] Boulter's
advice was taken. On the 14th August, 1725, a vacation of the patent was
issued, and when parliament met shortly after, the Lord-Lieutenant was
able, in his speech, to announce that his Majesty had put an entire end
to the patent granted Wood for coining copper halfpence and farthings.
He alluded to the surrender as a remarkable instance of royal favour and
condescension which should fill the hearts of a loyal and obedient
people with the highest sense of duty and gratitude. He doubted not the
Houses would make suitable acknowledgment of their sense of happiness
enjoyed under his Majesty's most mild and gracious government.[4]
[Footnote 1: See note on pp. 111-112.]
[Footnote 2: Boulter's letter, vol. i., p. 3. Dublin edition, 1770.]
[Footnote 3: _Ibid_., p. 29.]
[Footnote 4: Comm. Journals, vol. iii., p. 398.]
The Commons unanimously voted an address suitable to the occasion and in
harmony with the Lord-Lieutenant's suggestion. But the Lords
procrastinated in debates. It was a question whether their address
should or should not include the words "great wisdom" in addition to the
word "condescension" to express their sense of his Majesty's action.
Finally, however, the address was forthcoming, though not before some
strenuous expressions of opinion had been made by Midleton and
Archbishop King against Walpole's administration. As passed, their
Address included the debated words; as presented the Address omitted
them.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account