American restraining acts in imitation of the city of London, they sent
over a strong petition and remonstrance to the king. This was opposed by
the lord mayor and aldermen, and the common-council then resolved that
whoever refused to consent to a dutiful petition, tending to undeceive
the king, and by which the effusion of one drop of blood of the subjects
of Great Britain might be prevented, was an enemy to the constitution.
The Irish parliament was not behindhand with the common-council in
exhibiting sympathy for the cause of the Americans. Soon after it
assembled, which was on the 10th of October, the members rejected a
money-bill transmitted from England, upon the plea that it had been
altered in council. On the 23rd of November, still more unequivocal
symptoms of a refractory spirit appeared in the Irish parliament. Lord
Harcourt, the lord-lieutenant, having proposed to the commons to send
out of the kingdom 4000 men, for the American service, and accept
in their stead an equal number of foreign Protestant troops, to be
maintained at the expense of the British crown, they reluctantly
conceded to the first proposition, and absolutely refused to admit the
foreign substitutes.

These embarrassing matters were brought before the English parliament.
On the 15th of February, Mr Thomas Townshend moved for a committee of
inquiry, on the allegation that the lord-lieutenant had made an offer
of the public money without consulting the British house of commons, and
had thereby been guilty of a breach of privilege. Ministers were in
a dilemma. Taken by surprise no two of them agreed in their modes of
defence, or took the same ground in warding off the attack. Thus while
one asserted that the Irish speaker had misunderstood the viceroy's
message, which only meant that his majesty would pay the 4000
foreigners, another contended that when the Irish establishment was
increased, the king had engaged to pay 12,000 troops in that country,
except in case of invasion or rebellion in England, and that the present
demand not being within these exceptions, his majesty should, therefore,
be absolved from his promise. But whatever ground ministers took it was
clear that they or the viceroy of Ireland had been at fault, and had
not Lord Harcourt been popular both with "the king's friends" and the
opposition, it is probable that he would have been censured by the
house. The motion was, however, quashed by a large majority, and another
motio