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 less weight than the patent called for.

(4) That the loss to the nation by the uttering of this coin would amount to 150 per cent.

(5) That in coining the halfpence Wood was guilty of a notorious fraud.

(6) “That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it hath been always highly prejudicial to this kingdom to grant the power or privilege of coining money to private persons; and that it will, at all times, be of dangerous consequence to grant any such power to any body politic, or corporate, or any private person or persons whatsoever."[7]

[Footnote 7:  “Comm.  Journals,” vol. iii., pp. 317-325.]

Addresses to his Majesty in conformity with these resolutions were voted on September 27th.

The House of Lords passed similar resolutions on September 26th, and voted addresses embodying them on September 28th.[8]