this House that, after the proposals of the South Sea Company were accepted by the House and a Bill ordered to be brought in thereupon, and before such Bill passed, £50,000 of the capital stock of the South Sea Company was taken in by Robert Knight, late Cashier of the said Company, for the use and upon the account of Charles, Earl of Sunderland, a Lord of Parliament, and First Commissioner of the Treasury, without any valuable consideration paid, or sufficient security given, for payment for, or acceptance of, the same.' The debate was, however, postponed for a day at the instance of Walpole, who stated that it would be necessary for the further information of the House that the several witnesses, who had been examined by the Committee of Secrecy, might be examined at the bar, since possibly they might not come up in every particular whereof they had informed the Committee, or might so far explain their meanings as to give a very different turn from what the words of their examination might possibly import. 'We well foresaw gaining a night was chiefly in view,' Brodrick wrote to Lord Middleton; and it had (in my opinion) its effect, for when they came to be examined upon cross questions, every one of them strengthened the Report. Among the rest ordered to attend Sir John Blunt was one; but his Lordship's advocates did not think fit to call him in. The abstract of the Report which you have, will evince the strength of the case, which I own I think fuller proved (and so I said) than any of the three cases which had been under consideration. The defence made was entirely different from what I expected, there being (as I apprehended) no room left for denying the fact, wherefore I concluded the sufficiency of the security (his Lordship's note, sworn to have been shown Sir J. Blunt

by Knight) would have been insisted upon; but that point was given up, and his Lordship's denial of any stock taken, or note given, was the subject of three hours' debate, after all the papers read and witnesses examined. By way of negative proof, Mr. Pelham, brother to the Duke of Newcastle, and Mr. Walpole informed the House that his Lordship had empowered them to declare, that no stock had ever been taken in for him by Knight, or note given, so that the question in truth was neither more nor less than whether we should give credit to that assertion or Sir J. Blunt's oath. A good deal of pains was taken to falsify that oath by asking the witnesses at the bar whether Knight had told them of this stock being taken in in presence and hearing of Sir John Blunt (as he had sworn). They owned Knight's telling them of the stock so taken in for Lord Sunderland. One of them said he was alone when Knight told him of it; two others owned Sir John's being in the room when he told them, but did not believe him within hearing of what Knight said. Such trifling stuff was surely never insisted upon in any other case, and would in any other have been the strongest proof of the case. It was foreseen too well that such a defence was not to be relied upon, and therefore the sheet anchor was Lord Oxford's play. If you come into this vote against Lord Sunderland, the Ministry are blown up, and must, and necessarily will, be succeeded by a Tory one. I really think I never heard anything better debated on the one part, or more weakly on the other; but Sir J. Walker's argument of monosyllable was the best refuge.' 1

Jekyll proposed the question with, it is stated, 'some

1 March 16, 1721; Middleton Papers, quoted in Coxe's Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, II., 213.

personal reflections' no one,' said another, was at once so warm and inveterate as Jekyll'and Sir Thomas Hanmer followed on in attack. Walpole spoke eloquently in defence, only to be reminded by Shippen of what he had said in the previous year against the same person. In the end, after a heated debate, the resolution was negatived by 233 to 172 votes. Walpole and his friends voted for rejection; but it was noticed that the followers of the Prince of Wales, who was in the gallery, divided against Lord Sunderland.

It is impossible, on the evidence that has come down to posterity, to say whether Lord Sunderland was innocent or guilty, though, as a contemporary remarked, 'a 172 was a great number against a Prime Minister.' 4 Brodrick certainly thought him guilty, though he believed him less a knave than a dupe of the Directors; but others, whose opinions carry weight, did not agree with him. It is certain that Lord Sunderland held South Sea stock; but Drummond, writing to Daniel Pulteney, states, As all Lord Sunderland's friends, by Sir John Blunt's advice, sold out nothing, his Lordship is now glad it is so, for he would not have profited of the public calamity. Others spoke in favour of the Minister. 'As to my Lord Sunderland's case the other day,' Sir

5

1 March 16, 1721; Edward Harley to Lord Oxford.— Portland MSS., V., 618.

2 March 19, 1721; Edward Harley, junr., to his aunt, Abigail Harley.-Ibid.

3 Sir Thomas Hanmer, fourth baronet (1677-1746), M.P. for Suffolk; Speaker of the House of Commons, 1714-1715.

4 March 19, 1721; Edward Harley, junr., to Abigail Harley. -Portland MSS., V., 618.

5 November 24, 1720; Pulteney Papers, quoted in Coxe's Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, II., 195.