against him
rested chiefly on the evidence extorted from Sir John Blunt, great pains
were taken to make it appear that Sir John's word was not to be believed,
especially in a matter affecting the honour of a peer and privy
councillor. All the friends of the ministry rallied around the earl, it
being generally reported that a verdict of guilty against him would bring
a Tory ministry into power. He was eventually acquitted by a majority of
233 against 172; but the country was convinced of his guilt. The greatest
indignation was every where expressed, and menacing mobs again assembled
in London. Happily no disturbance took place.

This was the day on which Mr. Craggs the elder expired. The morrow had
been appointed for the consideration of his case. It was very generally
believed that he had poisoned himself. It appeared, however, that grief
for the loss of his son, one of the secretaries of the Treasury, who had
died five weeks previously of the small-pox, preyed much on his mind. For
this son, dearly beloved, he had been amassing vast heaps of riches: he
had been getting money, but not honestly; and he for whose sake he had
bartered his honour and sullied his fame was now no more. The dread of
further exposure increased his trouble of mind, and ultimately brought on
an apoplectic fit, in which he expired. He left a fortune of a million and
a half, which was afterwards confiscated for the benefit of the sufferers
by the unhappy delusion he had been so mainly instrumental in raising.

One by one the case of every director of the company was taken into
consideration. A sum amounting to two millions and fourteen thousand
pounds was confiscated from their estates towards repairing the mischief
they had done, each man being allowed a certain residue in proportion to
his conduct and circumstances, with which he might begin the world anew.
Sir John Blunt was only allowed 5,000l. out of his fortune of upwards of
183,000l.; Sir John Fellows was allowed 10,000l. out of 243,000l.; Sir
Theodore Janssen, 50,000l. out of 243,000l.; Mr. Edward Gibbon, 10,000l.
out of 106,000l.; Sir John Lambert, 5000l. out of 72,000l. Others, less
deeply involved, were treated with greater liberality. Gibbon, the
historian, whose grandfather was the Mr. Edward Gibbon so severely
mulcted, has given, in the _Memoirs of his Life and Writings_, an
interesting account of the proceedings in parliament at this time. He owns
that he is not an unprejudiced witn