London and the Kingdom - Volume 2 / A History Derived Mainly from the Archives at Guildhall in the Custody of the Corporation of the City of London.

by Reginald R. Sharpe

Transactions between the City and the Marquis of Normanby.

A month later (18 April) the House of Lords were busy investigating the conduct of the Marquis of Normanby in accepting, and of the Corporation of the City in granting, a lease of a certain plot of land lying behind Clarendon House, part of the City's estate known as Conduit Mead. It was shown by oral and documentary evidence that a longer lease than usual had recently been granted (Jan., 1695) to the marquis as "a gratification," he being a person of distinction[pg 592] who had shown himself very friendly to the interests of the City and likely to continue so.[1821] Negotiations for a lease had been commenced so far back as January, 1694, "before the Orphans' Bill was on the anvill in the House of Commons."[1822] It was not denied that the City entertained the hope that the marquis would use his interest in expediting the passage of the Bill, and that this hope had been realised. On the other hand it was shown that when the marquis learnt that one of the conditions of the lease was that he should "covenant" to procure an Act of Parliament for settling some doubts of title to the land conveyed, he at once declared that such a thing was not in his power, but lay with the king, the lords and the commons; nevertheless, he consented to use his best endeavours in that direction. The marquis, it was said, had also been indiscreet enough to divulge certain proceedings of the House of Lords in the matter of the Convex Lights, and this formed the subject of an investigation by the House at the same time as the granting of this lease. After careful consideration the House entirely acquitted his lordship of blame in both cases.[1823]

Corrupt practices of East India Company in connection with its charter.

In considering the City's action in respect of the Orphans' Bill we must not forget to take into account the condition of the age. It was one in which peculation and venality were predominant. Nearly every official who was worth the buying could be bought, and the world thought none the worse of him provided that these pecuniary transactions were[pg 593] kept decently veiled. The "gifts and rewards" bestowed by the City with the object of expediting the passage of the Orphans' Bill were as nothing compared with the vast sums which the East India Company was reported to have disbursed in order to obtain the confirmation of its charter. It was the practice when Sir Thomas Cook was in power for the directors of the company to sign warrants for any sum that he might require without demanding particulars from him. In seven years (1688-1694) more than £100,000 had been disposed of for the company's "special service," nearly £90,000 of which had been disbursed whilst Cook was governor (1692-1693).[1824]

Sir Thomas Cook and Sir Basil Firebrace.

A parliamentary committee endeavoured to obtain some account as to how this large sum of money had been expended, but could learn nothing more than that it had been spent on the "special service" of the company and that a great part of it had been entrusted to Sir Basil Firebrace.[1825] Firebrace denied this, but confessed to having received upwards of £16,000 for which he had accounted to the company. The committee's report proceeded to inform the House that the company had spent considerable sums of money, under the guise of contracts, in buying up the interests of "interlopers" and getting them to join the company. They had found Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir John Fleet, Sir Thomas Cook (all aldermen of the city), Sir Joseph Herne and John Perry to have been cognisant of[pg 594] these proceedings, but they being members of parliament the committee did not think fit to send for or examine them.[1826] Acting upon the committee's report, the House called upon Sir Thomas Cook (26 March) to give an account of the sum of £87,000 which he had received of the company's money, and upon his refusing committed him to the Tower.[1827] A Bill was within a few days introduced into the House for compelling Cook to make disclosure and rapidly passed (6 April).[1828] In the Upper House the Bill met with the strongest denunciation by the Duke of Leeds (who saw in it considerable danger to himself), as also by Cook himself, who was brought from the Tower for the purpose of allowing him to plead against the passing of such a Bill. At the Bar of the House the latter earnestly implored the Peers not to pass the Bill in its present form. Let them pass a Bill of Indemnity and he would tell them all. The Lords considered his request reasonable, and after a conference with the Lower House it was agreed that the Bill should take the form of an Indemnity Bill, and so it was passed (19 April), a joint committee of both Houses being appointed to examine Cook and others.[1829]

Examination of Cook, 23 April, 1695.

His examination, which took place in the Exchequer Chamber on the 23rd April, confirmed the committee's previous suspicions.[1830] The sum of £10,000[pg 595] had been paid (he said) to Sir Basil Firebrace about November, 1693, when the charter of the East India Company had been confirmed, and he had always been under the apprehension that Firebrace had pocketed the money "to recompense his losses in the interloping trade." A further sum of £30,000 had been paid to Firebrace on various contracts. There had been a contract involving the payment of £60,000 on account of procuring a new charter, and another of the value of £40,000 on account of getting the charter sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, but as no Act was passed this latter contract fell through. There was a further sum of £30,000 which had been lost to the company on account of certain stock it had agreed to purchase from Firebrace at the price of £150 per cent. at a time when the company's stock was standing at par. Firebrace had always refused to give him any account as to how this money was disposed of, and had declared that "if he were further pressed he would have no more to do in it." Such was the sum and substance of Cook's confession so far as it affected Firebrace.

Examination of Firebrace, 24-26 April, 1695.

The next day (24 April) Firebrace appeared before the committee. As to the £10,000 he had received from Cook, that was (he said) a gratuity which had been given to him before the granting of the charter. The other sum of £30,000 was due on a contract "for favours and services done." He was positive that both sums were intended "directly for himself and for the use of no other person whatsoever"; that he paid nothing thereout towards procuring either charter or Act, nor had promised to do so. He acknowledged himself to have been very[pg 596] active in his endeavours to gain over interlopers, and to improve the stock of the company, but when pressed by the committee for particulars he asked to be excused giving an immediate answer on the score of ill-health; he had not slept for two nights and was much indisposed.[1831] On the 25th and following day he was well enough to volunteer further evidence incriminating the Duke of Leeds. He told the committee of an interview he (Firebrace) had had with Sir Thomas Cook, when the latter expressed his apprehension lest the passing the East India Company's charter should be opposed by the lord president. They had then agreed to endeavour to win his lordship's favour by an offer of 5,000 guineas. That sum had been actually left at the duke's house, and it was only returned on the morning the enquiry opened. After the payment of the money both Cook and himself had enjoyed free access to the duke and found him willing to give them his assistance.[1832]