1721. CHAP. in the Commons died one of the statesmen accused XI. in it, James Craggs, Secretary of State. His illness was the small-pox, which was then very prevalent*, 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, 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. and altered to STANGAPE. On his behalf it was CHAP. contended that the transfer had been made without his knowledge or consent; but I am bound to acknowledge 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, father of the great historian, who has raised his eloquent voice against the oppressions of that period. † 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! 66 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 coun"try!" 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. XI. 721. CHAP. made the House of Commons more chary than had been usual with them in voting the Supplies. When a King's message was sent down asking for a Subsidy of 72,000l. to Sweden, it was warmly opposed by many members, especially Lord Molesworth, who went into the whole state of Northern politics. He said that obtaining naval stores was the main advantage we reaped from our trade in the Baltic; that he owned hemp was a very necessary commodity, especially at this juncture (a remark which produced a general laugh), but that in his opinion we might be supplied more cheaply from our plantations in America. Nevertheless the Subsidy was carried. The great object of Walpole was now the restoration of Public Credit. In addition to the measure formerly mentioned, and in fact as superseding it, he now proposed a fresh Bill, which met with the concurrence of both Houses. Of the seven millions and a half, which the South Sea Directors had agreed to pay the public, he remitted more than five, and on their incessant complaints the other two also were afterwards yielded. The forfeited estates served partly to clear their encumbrances; the credit of their bonds was maintained; and 33 per cent. of the capital was paid to the proprietors; and thus as far as possible was justice done to all parties, and the ill effects of the late calamity retrieved. Many proprietors, however, of the redeemable annuities were highly dissatisfied; on one occasion they thronged into the lobby, |