“the L50,000 national debt of that kingdom, in five years from the time they should obtain a charter.”  The latter application, being subsequent in point of date, was withdrawn, Lord Forbes and his friends having acquainted the Lord-lieutenant that, “rather than, by a competition, obstruct a proposal of so general advantage, they were willing to desist from their application.”  The former was accordingly approved of, and the King, on the 29th of July, 1721, issued letters of Privy Seal, directing that a charter of incorporation should pass the Great Seal of Ireland. ("Comm.  Journ.,” vol. iii, Appendix ix, page cc, etc.)

When the parliament of Ireland met, on the 12th of September following, the Duke of Grafton, lord lieutenant, in his speech from the throne, communicated the intention of his Majesty to both houses, and concluded by saying, “As this is a matter of general and national concern, his Majesty leaves it to the wisdom of Parliament to consider what advantages the public may receive by erecting a bank, and in what manner it may be settled upon a safe foundation, so as to be beneficial to the kingdom.”  The commons, in their address, which was voted unanimously on the 14th, expressed their gratitude for his Majesty’s goodness and royal favour in directing a commission to establish a bank, and on the 21st moved for the papers to be laid before them; they even, on the 29th, agreed to the following resolution of the committee they had appointed, “that the establishment of a bank upon a solid and good foundation, under proper regulations and restrictions, will contribute to restoring of credit, and support of the trade and manufacture of the kingdom;” but, when the heads of a bill for establishing the bank came to be discussed, a strenuous opposition was raised to it.  On the 9th of December Sir Thomas Taylor, chairman of the committee to whom the matter had been referred, reported “that they had gone through the first enacting paragraph, and disagreed to the same.”  Accordingly, the question being proposed and put, the house (after a division, wherein there appeared 150 for the question and 80 against it) voted that “they could not find any safe foundation for establishing a public bank,” and resolved that an address, conformable to this resolution, should be presented to the lord-lieutenant. (Comm.  Journ., vol. iii, pp. 247-289.)

The proceedings of the House of Lords resembled that of the Commons; on the 8th of November they concurred with the resolution of their committee, which was unfavourable to the establishment of a bank.  A protest was, however, entered, signed by four temporal and two spiritual peers, and when an address to his Majesty, grounded on that resolution, was proposed, a long debate ensued, which occupied two days.  On the 9th December a list of the subscriptions was called for, and on the 16th they resolved, that if any lord, spiritual or temporal, should attempt to obtain a charter to erect a bank, “he should be deemed a contemnor of the authority of that house, and a betrayer of the liberty of his country.”  They ordered, likewise, that this resolution should be presented by the chancellor to the lord lieutenant. ("Lord’s Journal,” vol. ii, pp. 687-720.) Monck Mason’s “Hist.  St. Patrick’s Cathedral,” p. 325, note 3. [T.  S.]