The following passage is the first instance in "A Modest Proposal" in which the Proposer explicitly suggests child cannibalism as a valid solution to the hunger crisis in Ireland. The general effect of this argument in the work is satirical:
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
This excerpt marks the first point in the essay where the readers' expectations are subverted for the purpose of satirical criticism. Up until this point, the Proposer's description of the problem in Ireland reads as fairly typical and straightforward. This passage turns everything on its head, with the Proposer speaking about child cannibalism the way Swift's contemporaries would expect one to discuss employment measures or birth control.
Swift does not seriously think child cannibalism is a valid solution to Irish suffering. He writes a Proposer that believes this in earnest, displaying to the reader the utter lack of humanity afforded to impoverished Irish people in their time of suffering. The drastic and violent nature of this proposal—which is anything but "modest"—emphasizes the very real violence Irish people experienced at the time.
In the following passage, Swift uses figurative language to satirize Ireland's landlords, whom he describes as having "devoured" most of the country's parents:
I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.
This devouring is figurative, similar to the later description of England "devouring" Irish citizens. In this passage, devouring serves as shorthand to describe the various methods of exploitation perpetrated by landlords against impoverished Irish people, the most common of these being excessively high rent prices and subpar housing conditions. Swift emphasizes the horrendous nature of this exploitation by figuratively equating it to the devouring of children, whom the landlords "have best title" to.
Furthermore, the word "title"—commonly used in reference to deeds or documents that proclaim land ownership—places these children in the role of a piece of property to be bought, sold, and haggled for at the landlords' discretion. Much like the apartments and houses these landlords own, Irish parents and children are forced to depend on a class of wealthy elites that takes care of them only as long as their labor, money, and bodies can generate capital.
In the following passage, the Proposer discusses the exportation of children as material goods from Ireland, using satire to outline the exploitative relationship between the Irish people and the British Empire:
For this kind of commodity will not bear exportation, the flesh being of too tender a consistence to admit a long continuance in salt, although perhaps I could name a country which would be glad to eat up our whole nation without it.
The Proposer states that "this kind of commodity"—referring to Irish children—could not possibly be exported, on account of its needing to be preserved. The Proposer can, however, think of one country's denizens that would be so eager to consume Irish children that they would do so without seasoning. This country is England, which is notorious for its colonial exploitation of the Irish people. In this excerpt, Swift effectively utilizes figurative language to connect the proposed consumption of Irish children to the very real exploitation of Ireland at the hands of the British Empire. "Consumption," here, encompasses more than just the body: it signifies the labor, life, land, and resources of the Irish people, which the British Empire seized with impunity. This consumption led to the "devouring" not only of resources but of Irish language and culture, a phenomenon tragically commonplace among colonized peoples.
In the following excerpt, the Proposer discredits other potential solutions to the hunger crisis, commanding others to not even speak to him about alternatives. The alternatives he proposes, however, seem much tamer to the reader when compared to his primary proposal of infant cannibalism. This is deliberate satire on Swift's part:
Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: of taxing our absentees at 5s. a pound: of using neither clothes nor household furniture except what is of our own growth and manufacture [...] of being a little cautious not to sell our country and conscience for nothing: of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy toward their tenants.
The Proposer takes fully plausible solutions to the hunger crisis—ones that likely would have been proposed by Swift or his contemporaries—and discounts them as ridiculous, all while peddling a cannibalistic solution that no sensible person would ever propose in reality.
Making actual solutions seem reasonable by juxtaposition is an important element of Swift's satire, which critiques the various essayists, intellectuals, and political figures of the time. When discussing issues affecting poor, disenfranchised, or working class individuals, these "educated" men would speak from an out-of-touch, uninformed point of view, proposing unrealistic, inhumane solutions to problems that did not affect them.
