WILLIAM TILE THIRL*

17

saltpetre was a favourite theme of Whig pamphleteers and chap.poets* ' ■ W"

The escape of Seymour only inflamed the ardour of Wharton muand of Wharton’s confederates. They were determined to dis- sir tiio-cover what had been done with the eighty or ninety thousand masCook 'pounds of secret service money which had been entrusted toCook by the East India Company. Cook, who was member forColchester, was questioned in his place: he refused to answer:he was sent to the Tower; and a bill was brought in providingthat if, before a certain day, he should not acknowledge thewhole truth, he should be incapable of ever holding any office,should refund to the Company the whole of the immense sumwhich had been confided to him, and should pay a fine of twentythousand pounds to the Crown. Rich as he rvas, these penaltieswould have reduced him to penury. The Commons were insuch a temper that they passed the bill without a single divi-sion.** Seymour, indeed, though his saltpetre contract was thetalk of the whole town, came forward with unabashed foreheadto plead for his accomplice: but his effrontery only injured thecause which he defended.*** In the Upper House the billwas condemned in the strongest terms by the Duke of Leeds.Pressing his hand on his heart, he declared, on his faith, on hishonour, that he had no personal interest in the question, andthat he was actuated by no motive but a pure love of justice.

Ilis eloquence was powerfully seconded by the tears andlamentations of Cook, who, from the bar, implored the Peersnot to subject him to a species of torture unknown to the mildlaws of England. “Instead of this cruel bill,” he said, “pass a

* In a poem called the Prophecy (1703), is the line“When Seymour scorns saltpetre pence.”

In another satire is tho lino

“Bribed Seymour bribes accuses.”

** Commons’ Journals from March 26. to April 8. 1605.

*** L’llerniitnge, April 1695.

Macaulay, Ilislunj. V7/I*

2