"'This, so far as I can remember, is a brief of what passed in the
meeting before my lord lieutenant'" ("History of St. Patrick's
Cathedral," pp. lxxxvii-lxxxviii). [T.S.]]

How shall I, a poor ignorant shopkeeper, utterly unskilled in law, be
able to answer so weighty an objection. I will try what can be done by
plain reason, unassisted by art, cunning or eloquence.

In my humble opinion, the committee of council, hath already prejudged
the whole case, by calling the united sense of both Houses of
Parliament in Ireland an "universal clamour." Here the addresses of the
Lords and Commons of Ireland against a ruinous destructive project of an
"obscure, single undertaker," is called a "clamour." I desire to know
how such a style would be resented in England from a committee of
council there to a Parliament, and how many impeachments would follow
upon it. But supposing the appellation to be proper, I never heard of a
wise minister who despised the universal clamour of a people, and if
that clamour can be quieted by disappointing the fraudulent practice of
a single person, the purchase is not exorbitant.

But in answer to this objection. First it is manifest, that if this
coinage had been in Ireland, with such limitations as have been formerly
specified in other patents, and granted to persons of this kingdom, or
even of England, able to give sufficient security, few or no
inconveniencies could have happened, which might not have been
immediately remedied. As to Mr. Knox's patent mentioned in the Report,
security was given into the exchequer, that the patentee should at any
time receive his halfpence back, and pay gold or silver in exchange for
them. And Mr. Moor (to whom I suppose that patent was made over) was in