with the country. Every eye was directed towards him; every tongue invoked him, as the only man whose financial abilities, and public favour, could avert the country's ruin. Nor did he shrink from this alarming crisis. Had he stood aloof, or joined the opposition, he would probably have had the power to crush the South Sea Directors and their abettors, and especially to wreak his vengeance upon Sunderland; and he is highly extolled by a modern writer for magnanimity in resisting the temptation.* But though Walpole undoubtedly deserves great praise through all his administration for placability and personal forbearance, yet I can scarcely think the present case an instance of it. In this case the line of interest exactly coincided with the line of duty. Would not the King have shut out Walpole for ever from his confidence had Walpole headed this attack on his colleagues? Would not a large section, at least, of the Whigs have adhered to their other chiefs? Was it not his evident policy, instead of hurling down the objects of popular outcry, to befriend them in their inevitable fall, and then quietly to step into their places, with the consent, perhaps even with the thanks, of their personal adherents?

Meanwhile the German ministers and mistresses, full of fear for themselves, and in utter ignorance of England, were whispering, it is said, the wildest schemes. One spoke of a pretended resignation to the Prince of Wales; another wished to sound the officers of the army, and try to proclaim absolute power; another again advised to apply to the Emperor for troops. But such mad proposals, if, indeed, they were ever seriously made, were counteracted by the English ministers, and still more, no doubt, by the King's own good sense and right feeling.

On the 8th of December, Parliament met in a mood like the people's, terror-stricken, bewildered, and thirsting for vengeance. In the House of Commons parties were strangely mixed; some men, who had dipped in dishonest practices, hoped by an affected severity to disarm suspicion; others, smarting under their personal losses, were estranged from their political attachments. Whigs and Tories crossed over, while the Jacobites, enjoying and augmenting the general confusion, hoped to turn it in their own behalf. The King's opening speech lamented the unhappy turn of affairs, and urged the seeking a remedy. This passed quietly in the Lords; but when Pulteney moved the address in the Commons, Shippen proposed an angry amendment, and produced a violent debate. "Miscreants;" scum of the people;" "enemies of their country;" such were the names given to the South Sea Directors. One member complained that the Ministry had put a stop to all the little bubbles, only in order to deepen the water for the great one. Lord Molesworth admitted that the Directors could not be reached by any known laws; "but extraordinary crimes," he exclaimed, "called for extraordinary

66

* Coxe's Memoirs, vol. i. p. 138. A letter in his second volume (p. 194), from Pulteney, then a friend of Walpole, confirms the view I have taken.

remedies. The Roman lawgivers had not foreseen the possible existence of a parricide; but as soon as the first monster appeared, he was sewn in a sack, and cast headlong into the Tiber; and as I think the contrivers of the South Sea Scheme to be the parricides of their country, I shall willingly see them undergo the same punishment!" Such was the temper of the times! On this occasion, Walpole spoke with his usual judgment, and with unwonted ascendency. 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 certain conditions, leaving twenty millions to the 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

"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.

This last clause is mentioned by Brodrick to Lord Midleton, Jan. 19, 1721.

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.

1

This Committee proceeded to examine Mr. Knight, the cashier of the Company, and the agent of its most secret transactions. But this person, dreading the consequences, soon after his first examination 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 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!*

2

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 dangerous corruption. He was seconded by Lord 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

"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.)

[See Wright's "England under the House of Hanover," chap. 2, vol. i. p. 79, for a description of the caricatures on the cashier's flight, and the connivance for the purpose of screening the conduct of persons about Court.]

2 [It is in connection with the account of these proceedings that Lord Campbell writes: "I mention his (Lord Cowper's) next appearance in the House as the earliest instance I find recorded of the practice now so prevalent of putting questions in Parliament to the Ministers of the Crown. There being a report that a gentleman of the name of Knight, against whom the House of Lords wished to take some proceedings, and who had absconded, had been arrested in Brussels, upon the application of the English resident there, Lord Cowper, rising in his place, mentioned the report, which being a matter in which the public was highly concerned, he desired those in the administration to acquaint the House whether there were any ground for that report."3 Lord Sunderland then stated that the report was true, and informed the House in what manner Mr. Knight had been apprehended and secured,-taking credit to the government for the promptitude and energy they had exhibited.

3 "I know not when the existing form of commencing the question was established:" "Seeing the Rt. Honourable gentleman, or the noble Lord in his place," &c. Lives of the Chancellors, vol. iv. p. 398, chap. cxvii.]

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 made a division in the Imperial family, and rendered the reign of Tiberius hateful to the Romans! 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 displayed no want of activity: it sat every day from 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

* 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.

† Mr. Brodrick to Lord Midleton, Feb. 4, 1721.

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 10,0007.; 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 Postmaster-General, 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 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.†

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 of 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 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

* 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, 1721.

To Lord Midleton, March 7, 1721.