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 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 L87,000 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)

(M915)

His examination, which took place in the Exchequer Chamber on the 23rd
April, confirmed the committee's previous suspicions.(1830) The sum of
L10,000 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 L30,000 had been paid to Firebrace on various contracts. There had been
a contract involving the payment of L60,000 on account of procuring a new
charter, and another of the value of L40,000 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 L30,000 which had
been lost to the company on account of certain stock it had agreed to
purchase from Firebrace at the price of L150 per cent. at a time when the
company's stock was standing at par. Firebrace had always refused to give
him any account as