biassed by
the hopes of immoderate gain to be made out of the ruins of their
country, expressed their apprehensions of the pernicious consequences of
this copper money; and resolved to make use of the _right they had by
law to refuse the same_".[6]

[Footnote 6: _Ibid_, p. 7.]

The Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Grafton, had arrived in August, 1723,
and parliament sat early in September. Its first attention was paid to
the Wood patent. After the early excitement had subsided, they resolved
to appeal to the King. During the early stages of the discussion,
however, the Commons addressed the Lord Lieutenant, asking that a copy
of the patent and other papers relating to it, be laid before them. This
was on September 13th. On the following day Mr. Hopkins informed the
House that the Lord Lieutenant had no such copy, nor any papers. The
House then unanimously resolved to inquire into the matter on its own
account, and issued orders for several persons to appear before it to
give evidence, fixing the day for examination for September 16th. On
that day, however, Mr. Hopkins appeared before the members with a copy
of the patent, and informed them that the Lord Lieutenant had received
it since his last communication with them. This incident served but to
arouse further ridicule. A broadside, published at the time with the
title "A Creed of an Irish Commoner," amusingly reveals the lameness of
the excuse for this non-production of the exemplification. Coxe says
that the cause for the delay was due to the fact that the copy of the
patent had been delivered to the Lord Lieutenant's servant, instead of
to his private secretary; but this excuse is probably no more happily
founded than the one offered.

On Friday, September 20th, the House resolved itself into a committee
"to take into consideration the state of the nation, particularly in
relation to the importing and uttering of copper halfpence and farthings
in this kingdom." After three days' debate, and after examining
competent witnesses under oath, it passed resolutions to the following
effect

(1) That Wood's patent is highly prejudicial to his Majesty's revenue,
and is destructive of trade and commerce, and most dangerous to the
rights and properties of the subject.

(2) That for the purpose of obtaining the patent Wood had notoriously
misrepresented the state of the nation.

(3) That great quantities of the coin had been imported of different
impressions and of much les