t numbers of his majesty's subjects, and had highly prejudiced
the public credit. It was then ordered that, for their offence, they
should be expelled the House, and taken into the custody of the
sergeant-at-arms. Sir Robert Chaplin and Mr. Eyles, attending in their
places four days afterwards, were also expelled the House. It was resolved
at the same time to address the king to give directions to his ministers
at foreign courts to make application for Knight, that he might be
delivered up to the English authorities, in case he took refuge in any of
their dominions. The king at once agreed, and messengers were despatched
to all parts of the continent the same night.

Among the directors taken into custody was Sir John Blunt, the man whom
popular opinion has generally accused of having been the original author
and father of the scheme. This man, we are informed by Pope, in his
epistle to Allen Lord Bathurst, was a dissenter, of a most religious
deportment, and professed to be a great believer.[24] He constantly
declaimed against the luxury and corruption of the age, the partiality of
parliaments, and the misery of party spirit. He was particularly eloquent
against avarice in great and noble persons. He was originally a scrivener,
and afterwards became, not only a director, but the most active manager of
the South-Sea company. Whether it was during his career in this capacity
that he first began to declaim against the avarice of the great, we are
not informed. He certainly must have seen enough of it to justify his
severest anathema; but if the preacher had himself been free from the vice
he condemned, his declamations would have had a better effect. He was
brought up in custody to the bar of the House of Lords, and underwent a
long examination. He refused to answer several important questions. He
said he had been examined already by a committee of the House of Commons,
and as he did not remember his answers, and might contradict himself, he
refused to answer before another tribunal. This declaration, in itself an
indirect proof of guilt, occasioned some commotion in the House. He was
again asked peremptorily whether he had ever sold any portion of the stock
to any member of the administration, or any member of either House of
Parliament, to facilitate the passing of the bill. He again declined to
answer. He was anxious, he said, to treat the House with all possible
respect, but he thought it hard to be compelled to accuse