XI. 1720. CHAP. He said that if the city of London were on fire, wise men would be for extinguishing the flames before they inquired after the incendiaries, and that he had already bestowed his thoughts on a proposal to restore Public Credit, which, at a proper season, he would submit to the wisdom of the House. Through his influence, chiefly, the amendment of Shippen was rejected by 261 against 103; but next day on the Report no one ventured to oppose the insertion of words "to punish the authors of our "present misfortunes." Three days afterwards it was carried that the Directors should forthwith lay before the House an account of all their proceedings*, and a Bill was introduced against “the "infamous practice of Stock-Jobbing." It was amidst this general storm that Walpole, on the 21st of December, brought forward his remedy. He had first desired the House to decide whether or not the public contracts with the South Sea Company should be preserved inviolate. This being carried by a large majority, Walpole then unfolded his scheme; it was in substance to engraft nine millions of Stock into the Bank of England, and the same sum into the East India Company, on *Governor Pitt moved that the Directors should attend on "Thursday with their Myrmidons, the secretary, the treasurer, "and, if they pleased, with their great Scanderbeg: who he "meant by that I know not; but the epithet denotes somebody "of consideration!" Mr. Brodrick to Lord Midleton, December 10. 1720. Compare with this letter the Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 680. XI. 1720. certain conditions, leaving twenty millions to the CHAP. South Sea. This measure, framed with great financial ability, and supported by consummate powers of debate, met with no small opposition, especially from all the three Companies, not one of which would gain by it; and though it passed both Houses, it was never carried into execution, being only permissive, and not found necessary, in consequence, as will be seen hereafter, of another law. A short Christmas recess had no effect in allaying animosities. Immediately afterwards, a Bill was brought in by Sir Joseph Jekyll, restraining the South Sea Directors from going out of the kingdom, obliging them to deliver upon oath the strict value of their estates, and offering rewards to discoverers or informers against them.* The Directors petitioned to be heard by counsel in their defence, the common right, they said, of British subjects—as if a South Sea man had been still entitled to justice! Their request was rejected, and the Bill was hurried through both Houses. A Secret Committee of Inquiry was next appointed by the Commons, consisting chiefly of the most vehement opponents of the South Sea Scheme, such as Molesworth, Jekyll, and Brodrick, the latter of whom they selected for their Chairman. This Committee proceeded to examine Mr. Knight, the cashier of the Company, and the agent * This last clause is mentioned by Brodrick to Lord Midleton, Jan. 19. 1721. 1721. But this person, CHAP. of its most secret transactions. But this dreading the consequences, soon after his first ex1721. amination escaped to France, connived at, as was suspected, by some persons in power, and carrying with him the register of the Company. His escape was reported to the House on the 23d of January, when a strange scene of violence ensued. The Commons ordered the doors to be locked, and the keys to be laid on the table. General Ross then stated that the Committee, of which he was a member, had "discovered a train of the deepest 66 villany and fraud that hell ever contrived to "ruin a nation." No proof beyond this vague assertion was required: four of the Directors, members of the Parliament, were immediately expelled the House, taken into custody, and their papers seized!* Meanwhile the Lords had been examining other Directors at their Bar, and on the 24th they also ordered five to be taken into custody. Some of the answers indicated that large sums in South Sea Stock had been given to procure the passing of the Act last year; upon which Lord Stanhope immediately rose, and expressing his indignation at such practices, moved a resolution, that any transfer of Stock, without a valuable consideration, for the use of any person in the administration, during the pendency of the South Sea Act, was a notorious and *"Several of the Directors were so far innocent as to be "found poorer at the breaking up of the scheme than when it "began." (Macpherson's Hist. of Commerce, vol. iii. p. 112.) XI. 1721, dangerous corruption. He was seconded by Lord CHAP. Townshend, and the Resolution passed unanimously. On the 4th of February, the House, continuing their examinations, had before them Sir John Blunt, who, however, refused to answer, on the ground that he had already given his evidence before the Secret Committee of the Commons. How to proceed in this matter was a serious difficulty; and a debate which arose upon it soon branched into more general topics. A vehement philippic was delivered by the Duke of Wharton, the son of the late Minister, who had recently come of age, and who even previously had received the honour of a dukedom, his father having died while the patent was in preparation. This young nobleman was endowed with splendid talents, but had early plunged into the wildest excesses, and professed the most godless doctrines; and his declamations against the "villanous scheme," or on public virtue, came a little strangely from the President of the Hell-fire Club!* On this occasion he launched forth into a general attack upon the whole conduct of administration, and more than hinted that Stanhope had fomented the late dissension between the King and Prince of Wales. Look to his parallel, he cried, in Sejanus, that evil and too powerful minister, who * On the 29th of April, this year, the King issued a Proclamation against the Hell-fire Club. Wharton hereupon played a strange farce: he went to the House of Lords, declared that he was not, as was thought, a "patron of blasphemy," and pulling out an old family Bible, proceeded with a sanctified air to quote several texts! But he soon reverted to his former courses. XI. CHAP. made a division in the Imperial family, and rendered the reign of Tiberius hateful to the Romans! 1721. Stanhope rose with much passion to reply; he vindicated his own conduct and that of the administration; and in conclusion, after complimenting the Noble Duke on his studies in Roman history, hoped that he had not overlooked the example of the patriot Brutus, who, in order to assert the liberty of Rome, and free it from tyrants, sacrificed his own degenerate and worthless son! But his transport of anger, however just, was fatal to his health; the blood rushed to his head; he was supported home much indisposed, and relieved by cupping, but next day was seized with a suffocation, and instantly expired. Thus died James Earl Stanhope, leaving behind him at that time few equals in integrity, and none in knowledge of foreign affairs. His disinterestedness in money matters was so well known, that in the South Sea transactions, and even during the highest popular fury, he stood clear, not merely of any charge, but even of any suspicion with the public; and the King, on learning the news, was so much affected, that he retired for several hours alone into his closet to lament his loss. In the room of Stanhope, Townshend became Secretary of State; while Aislabie, finding it impossible to stem the popular torrent, resigned his office, which was conferred upon Walpole. But this resignation was far from contenting the public, or abating their eagerness for the report of the Secret Committee. That Committee certainly dis |