INQUIRY INTO THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

No object engrossed more time, or produced more violent debates, than did the inquiry into the public accounts. The commissioners appointed for this purpose pretended to have made great discoveries. They charged the earl of Ranelagh, paymaster-general of the army, with flagrant mismanagement. He acquitted himself in such a manner as screened him from all severity of punishment; nevertheless, they expelled him from the house for a high crime and misdemeanor, in misapplying several sums of the public money; and he thought proper to resign his employment. A long address was prepared and presented to the queen, attributing the national debt to mismanagement of the funds; complaining that the old methods of the exchequer had been neglected; and that iniquitous frauds had been committed by the commissioners of the prizes. Previous to this remonstrance, the house, in consequence of the report of the committee, had passed several severe resolutions, particularly against Charles lord Halifax, auditor of the receipt of the exchequer, as having neglected his duty, and been guilty of a breach of trust. For these reasons they actually besought the queen, in an address, that she would give directions to the attorney-general to prosecute him for the said offences; and she promised to comply with their request. On the other hand, the lords appointed a committee to examine all the observations which the commissioners of accounts had offered to both houses. They ascribed the national debt to deficiencies in the funds: they acquitted lord Halifax, the lords of the treasury, and their officers, whom the commons had accused; and represented these circumstances in an address to the queen, which was afterwards printed with the vouchers to every particular. This difference blew up a fierce flame of discord between the two houses, which manifested their mutual animosity in speeches, votes, resolutions, and conferences. The commons affirmed, that no cognizance the lords could take of the public accounts would enable them to supply any deficiency, or appropriate any surplusage of the public money; that they could neither acquit nor condemn any person whatsoever, upon any inquiry arising originally in their own house; and that their attempt to acquit Charles lord Halifax was unparliamentary. The lords insisted upon their right to take cognizance originally of all public accounts; they affirmed, that in their resolutions, with respect to lord Halifax, they had proceeded according to the rules of justice. They owned however that their resolutions did not amount to any judgment or acquittal; but that finding a vote of the commons reflected upon a member of their house, they thought fit to give their opinion in their legislative capacity. The queen interposed by a message to the lords, desiring they would despatch the business in which they were engaged. The dispute continued even after this intimation; one conference was held after another, at length both sides despaired of an accommodation. The lords ordered their proceedings to be printed, and the commons followed their example. On the twenty-seventh day of February, the queen, having passed all the bills that were ready for the royal assent, ordered the lord-keeper to prorogue the parliament, after having pronounced a speech in the usual style. She thanked them for their zeal, affection, and despatch; declared, she would encourage and maintain the church as by law established; desired they would consider some further laws for restraining the great license assumed for publishing scandalous pamphlets and libels; and assured them, that all her share of the prizes which might be taken in the war, should be applied to the public service. By this time the earl of Eochester was entirely removed from the queen’s councils. Finding himself outweighed by the interest of the duke of Marlborough and lord Godolphin, he had become sullen and intractable; and, rather than repair to his government of Ireland, chose to resign the office, which, as we have already observed, was conferred upon the duke of Ormond, an accomplished nobleman, who had acquired great popularity by the success of the expedition to Vigo. The parties in the house of lords were so nearly matched, that the queen, in order to ascertain an undoubted majority in the next session, created four new peers, 115 [See note-J, at the end of this Vol.] who had signalized themselves by the violence of their speeches in the house of commons.

ANNE, 1701—1714