In England coins for currency proceeded from a mint established under government supervision. In Scotland such a mint was specially provided for in the Act of Union. But in Ireland, the government acted otherwise.

The Irish people had again and again begged that they should be permitted to establish a mint in which coins could be issued of the same standard and intrinsic value as those used in England. English parliaments, however, invariably disregarded these petitions. Instead of the mint the King gave grants or patents by which a private individual obtained the right to mint coins for the use of the inhabitants. The right was most often given for a handsome consideration, and held for a term of years. In 1660 Charles II granted such a patent to Sir Thomas Armstrong, permitting him to coin farthings for twenty years. It appears, however, that Armstrong never actually coined the farthings, although he had gone to the expense of establishing a costly plant for the purpose. ("Letter I: To the Shop-Keepers, tradesmen, Farmers and Common-People of Ireland")

Basic Set Up:

This is an excerpt from a political tract in which Swift talks about the unjust policies that England imposes on Ireland, such as the way that money and currency are issued and controlled.

Jonathan Swift was part Irish, and one of his favorite topics of attack was English policy toward Ireland, which was basically an English colony at the time.

Here, Swift is critiquing the way in which the English issued money in Ireland. Basically, Swift is saying that the English were screwing the Irish economy because the value of the coins that were issued in Ireland was not the same as the value of the coins issued in England. Being the colonizer means you get to make the rules, right? Right?

What's more, it wasn't even the English government that was making the currency—it was some rich dude the English government gave a contract to. That's right: the English government paid some rich contractor to issue second-rate currency to Ireland. That, as Swift points out, inevitably led to loads of corruption.

Swift's tract is important because it shows just how involved Augustan writers were in the politics and policies of their day. These guys weren't just writing poetry and fiction; they were out there challenging government policy and exposing all kinds of political mischief.

We have a straightforward political tract here, folks. But political writing and pamphleteering were such a big part of the Augustan landscape that we can't talk about the Augustan age without talking about political works like this.

And the fact is, the political tracts these writers wrote were often so eloquent, so well constructed and argued that they might as well be literary works. Even though Swift's language is simple in this tract, his argument is forceful. He's clear, he's convincing, and he wins us over by showing us, very clearly, just how unjust English policy is in Ireland.