XI. 1721. played no want of activity: it sat every day from CHAP. 9 in the morning till 11 at night, being resolved, as the Chairman expresses it, "to show how the horse was curried!"* At length, on the 16th of February, their first Report was presented to the House. It appeared that they had experienced obstacles from the escape of Knight, from the taking away of some books, and from the defacing of others; but that the cross-examination of the Directors and Accountants had supplied the deficiency. A scene of infamous corruption was then disclosed. It was found that last year above half a million of fictitious South Sea Stock had been created, in order that the profit upon that sum might be disposed of by the Directors to facilitate the passing of the Bill. The Duchess of Kendal had 10,000l.; another of the King's favourites, Madame de Platen, with laudable impartiality, had the same sum; nor were the two nieces of the latter forgotten. Against these ladies no steps were, nor, perhaps, could be taken. But those persons in the administration accused of similar peculation were Secretary Craggs, his father the PostmasterGeneral, Mr. Charles Stanhope, Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Aislabie, and the Earl of Sunderland; and the Report added the various evidence in the case of each. On the very day when this Report was reading in the Commons died one of the statesmen accused * Mr. Brodrick to Lord Midleton, Feb. 4. 1721. CHAP. in it, James Craggs, Secretary of State. His ill XI. ness was the small-pox, which was then very pre1721. valent *, joined no doubt to anxiety of mind. Whatever may have been his conduct in the South Sea affairs (for his death arrested the inquiry), he undoubtedly combined great talents for business, with a love of learning and of literature; and his name, were it even to drop from the page of History, would live enshrined for ever in the verse of Pope. But the fate of his father was still more lamentable; a few weeks afterwards, when the accusation was pressing upon him, he swallowed poison and expired. If we may trust Horace Walpole, Sir Robert subsequently declared that the unhappy man had hinted his intention to him.t The other cases were prosecuted by the House with proper vigour, and singly, as standing each on separate grounds. The first that came on was that of Mr. Charles Stanhope, Secretary to the Treasury; he was a kinsman of the late Minister, and brother of Colonel William Stanhope, afterwards Lord Harrington. It was proved that a large sum of stock had been entered for him in the bank of Sir George Caswall and Co., and that his name had been partly erased from their books, and altered to STANGAPE. On his behalf it was *See a list of its victims in that month in Boyer's Political State, vol. xxi. p. 196, &c. † Compare Walpole's Reminiscences (Works, vol. iv. p. 288. ed. 1798), and Brodrick's Letter to Lord Midleton, March 16. XI. 1721. contended that the transfer had been made without CHAP. his knowledge or consent; but I am bound to acknowlege that I think the change of his name in the ledger a most suspicious circumstance. On a division he was declared innocent, but only by a majority of three. On this occasion, according to Mr. Brodrick, "Lord Stanhope, son to Lord "Chesterfield, carried off a pretty many, by mentioning in the strongest terms the memory of "the late Lord of that name."* This respect to a living Minister would not surprise us, but it surely was no small testimony to the merits of a dead one. The next case was Aislabie's. It was so flagrant, that scarce any member ventured to defend him, and none to divide the House: he was unanimously expelled and sent to the Tower, and afterwards great part of his property seized. Many had been the murmurs at Stanhope's acquittal; and so great was the rejoicing on Aislabie's conviction, that there were bonfires that night in the City. Lord Sunderland now remained. He was charged with having received, through Knight, 50,000%. stock, without payment; and the public outcry against him was fierce and loud, but, as I believe, unfounded. The charge rested entirely on hearsay testimony, on words which Sir John Blunt said that Knight had said to him: there was collateral evidence to shake it; and the character of Blunt him *To Lord Midleton, March 7. 1721. XI. 1721. CHAP. self was that of a dishonest, and now ruined and desperate man. It is also remarkable that Sunderland had in fact lost considerably by the South Sea Scheme, and that one of his bitterest enemies then accused him, not of having confederated with the Directors, but of being their dupe and victim.* So strong seemed these considerations, that a large majority (233 against 172) declared the Minister innocent. But, notwithstanding this acquittal, the popular ferment was too strong for Sunderland to continue at the head of the Treasury: he resigned, and was succeeded by Walpole. His influence at Court, however, still continued; and he obtained the appointment of Lord Carteret in the room of Secretary Craggs. The South Sea Directors, on the other hand, were treated as a body, and with no measured severity. Amongst them was Mr. Gibbon, grandfather of the great historian, who has raised his eloquent voice against the oppressions of that period.t They were disabled from ever holding any place or sitting in Parliament; and their estates, amounting altogether to above two millions sterling, were confiscated for the relief of the South Sea sufferers. Even the small allowance voted to each Director was often embittered by insult, or diminished by enmity. Sometimes an allowance of one shilling, or of twenty pounds, was jestingly * Mr. Brodrick to Lord Midleton, Sept. 27. 1720. XI. 1721. moved. A rough answer of one Director at the CHAP. Treasury many months before was rancorously quoted against him. Another it seems had been foolish enough to boast that his horses should feed on gold a facetious member observed that he might now feed on it himself, and should have just as much gold as he could eat, and no more! If we blame the conduct of Parliament towards these unhappy men, we shall find that their contemporaries also complained of it. But it was for the exactly opposite reason! We may think such proceedings harsh and cruel; they thought them shamefully lenient. Petitions had been pouring in from all parts of the country praying for "condign punishment" on these "Monsters of pride "and covetousness"-"the Cannibals of Change Alley"-"the infamous betrayers of their country!" One worthy representative laments the sad grievance that after all there will be nobody's blood shed! * And in pamphlets of the day I read such expressions as "If you ask what, "monsters as they are, should be done with "them? the answer is short and easy Hang "them for whatever they deserve I would have "no new tortures invented, nor any new deaths de"vised. In this, I think, I show moderation. Let "them only be hanged, but hanged speedily!”+ This general exasperation and disappointment * Mr. St. John Brodrick to Lord Midleton, May 24. 1721. + Letter of Britannicus, London Journal, Nov. 19. 1720. |