to our receiving the petition, that it is a very strong reason for it.  If there be any fault in form, it is the fault of those who had the keeping of the common seal; and, as they may, perhaps, be of those against whom the complaints are made, and who may, upon inquiry, be found more or less amenable for the wrong, we are, therefore, to suspect that the withholding the seal may be with a view of preventing the truth’s being brought to light; at any rate, we ought to discountenance and defeat such indirect practices with regard to the use of a common seal.

“For my own part, sir, I have been always for encouraging the design upon which this corporation was at first established; and looked upon it as a provident act of charity to let necessitous persons have the opportunity of borrowing money upon easier terms than they could have it elsewhere.  Money, like other things, is but a commodity, and in the way of dealing, the use of it is looked upon to be worth as much as people can get for it.  If this corporation let persons in limited circumstances have the use of money at a cheaper rate than individuals, brokers, or money lenders, would be willing to do, it was certainly a beneficent act.  If they had demanded more than was elsewhere given, they would not have had applicants, and the design would not have proved good and useful; but the utility of it was most evident; and the better the design, and the more excellent the benefit, the more those persons deserve to be punished, who by their frauds have curtailed, if not now wholly cut off, these sources of furnishing assistance to the industrious and enterprising, and disappointed the public of reaping the benefit which might have accrued by an honest and faithful execution of so good an undertaking."[1]

[Footnote 1:  History and Proceedings of the House of Commons, Vol.  VII. p. 154.]

Another subject in the parliamentary discussions of Oglethorpe which I shall mention, is his defence of the magistracy and town-guard of the city of Edinburgh against an arraignment in the House of Lords, for what was deemed the neglect of prompt and energetic measures for suppressing the riotous seizure and murder of Captain Porteous by an exasperated mob.  The circumstances were these.

After the execution in the Grass-market, on the 14th of April, 1736, of one Andrew Wilson, a robber, the town-guard, which had been ordered out on the occasion, was insulted by rude and threatening speeches, and pelted with stones, by the mob.  John Porteous, the captain, so resented the annoyance, that he commanded his men to fire over their heads, to intimidate them; and then, as their opposition became violent, he directed the guard to fire among them; whereby six persons were killed, and eleven severely wounded.  For this he was prosecuted at the expense of the city, and condemned to die.  But, a short reprieve having been obtained, the mob, determined to defeat it, assembled in the night preceding the seventh day of September,