Their examination lets us into a picture of the customs of the time. On a certain occasion as many as 150 met in the Attorney-General’s chambers, where the question was debated with great warmth; one party contending, with all the eloquence of self-interest, that a new company for the purpose of assurance would be very beneficial to the nation; the opposite party asserting that no such company was requisite, and that the nation would suffer from it. The advocates representing the underwriters proved that there were private adventurers ready to undertake all the business that could be brought; and, in return, the advocates for the companies produced a list of failures among the private assurers, and a calculation of the loss the public had sustained through them. The general tenor of the evidence went to clear Mr. Attorney, but it tended to criminate the applicants for charters. One company gave its agent authority to pursue “all proper methods;” and, as the agent had interpreted these words “to bribe all he came near,” they could only express their regret. Another company declared its purity with much vehemence; but, on close examination, it was found to arise from its poverty. Moral feeling was utterly extinct. The cry with all was, “Give!” “Give!” said the Attorney-General’s clerk. “You must give something; they have given something handsome on the other side,” said the Attorney-General himself. One witness deposed: “He, with some others, went to the chambers of the latter, and, having procured access, informed him they were come to wait on him with his fee; but Mr. Attorney said, ‘What do they come here for? Why do they not leave it with my clerk?’ The reply was, ‘It was matter of weight, and they desired to give it him themselves.’ Sir William Chapman then gave the fee, recommending the assurance company to the Attorney’s favour, saying, ‘The company would speak for itself, and hoped, if it should be found to be of use to the nation, that he would favour it,’ and some words of that kind, and then they withdrew.” The accusation failed, the decision being, “That the Right Honourable Nicholas Lechmere had discharged his trust, in the matters referred to him by his Majesty in Council, with honour and integrity.”