some of his regained popularity, when on April 20, on the second reading of the Bill for restraining Aislabie 'from going out of the Kingdom, etc., and for discovering his effects,' he opposed, though in vain, the proposal to consolidate this with the Directors' Bill, urging ' that it would seem hard to put a person of Mr. Aislabie's eminence and distinction on the same level with the Directors, and that such a precedent might be of dangerous consequences.' Indeed, Aislabie himself was at pains to state his gratitude in unmistakable terms. 'I am extremely sensible of your generosity, and am more ashamed of my own follies and mistakes than any severe treatment I might deserve at your hands could make me. Since you have been so good to promise to forget what is passed, I shall not put you in mind of it any further than to return you my most hearty thanks,' he wrote on February 2, 1722. I have sent you an account of the King's stock, with all the dividends as they were received by Sir Charles Vernon, to whom the stock was transferred. I have accounted with him this morning, and he has bought the stock that was pawned to him, and paid me the balance, so that at last I have raised as much as will pay the King, and shall have it ready against Monday night, if you please to let me know to whom I must pay it. I have likewise sent you a state of my own account before the judges, by which you will see my estate is not so great as is represented, since I must take all the bad debts to myself. The trustees are both very civil to me, and I am very sensible to whom I owe it. The judges meet on Wednesday next, when the Chief Justice Pratt will be there. If he and Judge Fortescue be well inclined, I hope to make an end of it. The doubt they make at present is, whether £29,000 public money, which was

in Mr. Hawes's hands October, 1718, be part of the effects I had in other people's hands at that time, and which I had invested in stocks some time after all the public money was paid away. As this can scarce be a point, yet being matter of account, they do not take it readily. I beg that you will assist me to make an end of this matter, in such manner as you think proper, that you may see, by making me free, you have made me your creature and your most obliged faithful servant.' 1

When the Directors' Bill went up to the House of Lords, Aislabie made a last effort to retain possession of his ill-gotten gains. He petitioned to be heard by counsel, but his application was refused, Lord Townshend declaring that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had done more mischief than any man in the nation. He was, however, allowed to appear at the bar, and there, speaking in his own defence, he urged that there was not sufficient evidence against him to give ground for inserting his name in the Bill and subjecting him to the penalties enacted by it. He spoke at length, and spoke well, and undoubtedly made the best of his case. He showed that this man's evidence clashed with that man's; that the word of a third party, that party being himself guilty, was untrustworthy; he insisted that he had paid for certain stock; he complained that at the eleventh hour fresh charges were brought against him which he had no opportunity to refute; he denied that his son-in-law, Edmund Waller, had dealt in the stock on his account. He talked all round the matter. He declared that he was bitterly opposed to the South Sea scheme, which he was from the first

1 Oxford Papers, quoted in Coxe's Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, II., 220.

convinced must prove injurious to the nation; yet he could not but allow that, when overruled, he, albeit responsible for the finances of the country, instead of resigning, actually advocated it from his place in the House of Commons. He stated categorically that he had not made money out of the South Sea Company; yet he was unable to explain by what other means he had contrived so greatly to increase his fortune. The Lords listened patiently, and then, nem. con., found that there was sufficient evidence to have his name continued in the Bill.

Two days after Aislabie's case had been considered in the House of Commons, that is on March 2, Sir George Caswell was summoned before that Assembly. The principal charge against him was that he had taken in for himself and his partners, Elias Turner and Jacob Sawbridge, £50,000 of the £574,000 fictitious stock to which reference has already been made, without payment or giving valuable security. Rising in his place, Caswell, in his defence, declared that he had made a lawful bargain for the stock, and had several times offered to pay the value of it, but was put off from time to time by Robert Knight, who told him that he was not at leisure to make up accounts with him and that he had sufficient security in his hands. Although witnesses were called in support of this contention, the House showed its disbelief in the story by finding him guilty by 227 to 92 votes. Then Caswell spoke again, this time in mitigation of sentence. I must express my great sorrow,' he said, 'that I have the misfortune to fall under the displeasure of the House, which lies the more heavy upon me because I am not conscious of any crime, unless it be the extraordinary zeal and affection I have shown for the support of the present happy settle

ment, having assisted the Government with vast sums of money at three per cent. which they could get nowhere else. For the truth of this I appeal to members of the House, who were then Commissioners of the Treasury.' The loans were admitted by William Clayton, an exLord of the Treasury, but it was generally thought that Caswell's guilt so far outweighed his services that he was expelled from the House and committed to the Tower, while the estates of himself and his partners were held liable for the £250,000 profit made out of the illicit transaction.

Possibly Caswell might have been let down more lightly-though in the interests of justice there was no reason for it—but that the country was evincing nothing short of fury at the idea of the projectors of the ruinous scheme escaping. The resentment without doors ever since the acquittal of Stanhope has very much contributed to carry matters to this height,'1 W. Thomas wrote to the Earl of Oxford, concerning Caswell's sentence. The conviction of Aislabie and Caswell somewhat eased the situation. It is not to be conceived what satisfaction these two days' work has given, and indeed it is well it so happens, for the rage has grown to such height upon the acquittal of Stanhope, that no man can tell where it would have ended,' Brodrick wrote to Lord Middleton. 'Bonfires were made in the City the day Mr. Aislabie went to the Tower.' 2 The public feeling was further displayed in a cartoon, entitled ‘A Late Member.' By the side of the principal figure was another, dressed as Punch, displaying an empty purse,

1 March 10, 1721; Portland MSS., V., 617.

2 March 11, 1721; Middleton Papers, quoted in Coxe's Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, II., 212.

John Vanbrugh wrote to the Earl of Carlisle, 'it is certain there was no sort of proof upon him worth naming, scarce enough even to leave a suspicion, so that the attack has done him service. And yet the clamour runs so high against almost any Minister in power while this vile mistake was made that many think a change would be (or perhaps will be) quite necessary; but where to change is the great difficulty.' In the same vein Arthur Onslow wrote to the Hon. John Molesworth. 'Notwithstanding my constant voting against the others who have come under our cognisance,' he said, 'I have the highest satisfaction in having given my assent to Lord Sunderland's acquittal. This affair has made a great noise all over Europe, I don't doubt, and you have had, to be sure, large accounts of it from your friends here, whether to his advantage or not, I can't say, but you may depend on this, that if we had condemned him upon that evidence which was before us, we had done the most unjust thing in the world, and what would have made every man, though the most innocent, in danger of censure, should his misfortunes bring him before our tribunal.' It must be admitted that to some extent Onslow changed his mind, for, in his Anecdotes,' he notes: How far he was guilty I will not take upon me to say, because the evidence against him was undoubtedly not so strong as against the others, but the money he left which soon afterwards, upon his death, appeared to have been acquired about this time, did pretty nearly tally to the profit he was charged to have received from the favour of the South Sea Company.'4 To put

3

1 Sir John Vanbrugh (1664–1726), dramatist and architect. 2 Carlisle MSS., 32.

May 6, 1721; MSS. in Various Collections, VIII., 808. 4 Hist. MSS. Com., Report XVI., App. Pt. IX., 508.