Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 4.djvu/194

180 honest and pious, and let in those who had neither honesty nor religion. But they saw that it would again let loose all the detestable race of spies and informers from which the country was now happily free, and would, in reality, only injure instead of benefiting the church, by making her an object of general hatred. The tories themselves affected great veneration for the toleration act, whilst they would thus have stifled all toleration.

The queen and the whole court exerted themselves to force the bill through the upper house, as they had done that for the prince's salary. Marlborough argued vehemently for it, but the whig lords hit upon a way of defeating it by seeming to comply. They agreed to its passing on condition that all who took the test, and then went to conventicles, should simply be deprived of their employments and be fined twenty pounds. They knew that the commons would not allow the slightest interference of the lords with the money part of the bill, and this proved to be the case. The lords searched their rolls, and showed numerous cases in which they had altered fines, but the commons refused to admit any such power. A conference in the Painted Chamber was held, but with a like result, and, after long contention, the bill was, happily for the nation, let fall.

A bill was next brought in to allow another year of grace to all who had not taken the oath abjuring the pretended prince of Wales. The tories contended that all the Jacobite party had now come over to the queen; but it was shown on the other side that this was but a specious deception; that the agents of St. Germains were in as full activity as ever; were constantly coming and going; and whilst they appeared to favour the queen, it was only to get as strong a party as possible into the house, eventually to abolish both the abjuration and the protestant succession bill; that to this end they now advised all persons to take the abjuration bill, and to be able to get into parliament or power. The bill was carried in the commons, but the lords again tacked two clauses to it; one declaring it high treason to endeavour to alter the succession as settled in the princess Sophia, and the other to impose the oath on the Irish. These were not money clauses; whoever refused them must appear disinclined to the protestant succession. The commons were completely entrapped, and, to the surprise of everybody, they accepted the clauses, and thus the bill, which was originally favourable to the Jacobites, became much more rigid against them.

The year 1703 was opened in the house of commons by a fresh onslaught on the whigs, which brought all the old conflict betwixt the houses into play again. The committee for the examination of the public accounts accused lord Ranelagh, paymaster-general of the forces, and lord Charles Halifax, auditor of the exchequer, with embezzlement and breach of trust. The embezzlement was attributed principally to the earl of Ranelagh, who was accused of appropriating millions, but the committee could only really prove against him hundreds. They expelled him, however, from their house, of which he was a member, and he thereupon resigned his post, which was divided betwixt Howe and another. The commons prayed the queen to dismiss lord Halifax, and to order his prosecution by the attorney-general, with which she promised to comply. The lords then took up the defence of their brother peer, appointed a committee to examine the charges of the commission of accounts against him, acquitted Halifax, ascribed the national debt to deficiency of funds, and addressed the queen on the subject. After this they printed their address, with vouchers for every particular. This raised a fierce debate in the commons. They denied the right of the lords to take cognisance of anything based on money matters; the lords insisted on their right to vindicate the character of a member of their order. To put an end to the conflict, the queen sent a message to the lords, desiring them to dispatch what business they had in hand, and as they still continued to repel the attacks of the commons, she sent the lord keeper on the 27th of February to prorogue parliament.

The tories in the commons, finding so strong a whig opposition in the lords, and perceiving that the whigs had won much popularity during this session by their defence of liberal measures, besought the queen to create four new peers in the tory interest, with which she also complied, and accordingly John Granville was created baron Granville of Petheridge, in the county of Devon; Heneage Finch, baron of Guernsey, in the county of Southampton; Sir John Leveson Gower, baron Gower of Sittenham, in Yorkshire; and Francis Seymour Conway, youngest son of Sir Edward Seymour, baron Conway of Ragley, in Warwickshire. To prevent this extraordinary movement of the commons appearing a party proceeding, John Harvey, a whig, was made baron Harvey of Ickworth, in Suffolk, and the marquis of Normanby was created duke of Buckinghamshire. Notwithstanding, Burnet says the proceeding caused much animadversion, "as it was an encroachment on one of the tenderest points of the prerogative to make motives for creating peers in the house of commons." Harvey's peerage, lady Marlborough tells us, was purely a job of her own.

Lord Rochester was now entirely removed from the queen's councils. His near relationship to the queen, and his being accounted the champion of the church, made him presume in the council, where he was blustering and overbearing. He was disappointed in not being placed at the head of the treasury, and quarrelled continually with Lord Godolphin. He had now voted against Marlborough's grant of five thousand pounds a year, and thus incurred the mortal hatred of the all-powerful lady Marlborough. It was clear that Rochester must give way, or the council must be rent by continual feuds. He was opposed to the war—another cause of hostility from the Marlboroughs, to whom it was money, fame, and everything. He received such intimations from the queen as caused him to retire into the country in disgust. As he refused all summonses to attend the council, her majesty ordered him to proceed to his government in Ireland, where his presence was greatly needed. He replied with great insolence that he would not go to Ireland, and the post of lord-lieutenant, as we have seen, was conferred on the duke of Ormonde. Still refusing to attend the council, the queen ordered that he should no more be summoned, and thus terminated Anne's connection with her relatives by the mother's side. The elder brother of Rochester, lord Clarendon, had been excluded the court for refusing the abjuration of the pretended prince of Wales, and his son, lord Cornbury, little better than an