228] 
To this lord Fitzwilliam replied, 
that the most necessary policy had 
called upon him to act as he had 
done. Ireland was ina state of im- 
minent danger from internal feuds 
and external foes: the Catholics 
were equally powerful and dissatisfi- 
ed: the French were become masters 
of Holland,and thirty-six hostile sail 
of the line were hovering on the west- 
ern coast of Ireland. In this peril- 
ous situation he had the happiness 
to unite all parties ina determination 
to act vigorously for the defence of 
the kingdom. But could he have 
effected this, had he not convinced 
the Irish of the liberal intentions of 
this country ? 
He was answered by lord Gren- 
ville; who, after alledging much the 
same reasons against an enquiry as 
those already “adduced, remarked 
that were parliament (o'assume the 
right of enquiring into the motives 
for the dismission of ministers, they 
might, by the same rule, proceed 
next to the examination whether 
those who were appointed to suc- 
ceed them had been properly cho- 
sep. This would obviously lead to 
still more dangerous enquiries, tend- 
ing ultimately to unhinge the con- 
stitution. 
After other arguments on both 
sides of the question, the motion for 
anenquiry was rejected by one 
hundred against twenty-five. 
In the house of commons very 
spirited debates also took place on 
this subject. Mr. Jekyll intros 
duced it by observing, that the 
house had an unquestionable right to 
examine the use made of the royal 
prerogatives, and to limit them if 
necessary. He reminded the minis- 
ter of his solemn promise, that 
whenever the period came for in- 
vestigation, he would undertake to 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1795. 
prove that no blame was imputable 
to the ministers of thiscountry. Mr. 
Jekyll vindicated the conduct of 
lord Fitzwilliam from his letters. 
According to these he had acted in 
strict conformity to his instructions, 
which went to the emancipation of 
the Catholics, a condition without 
which he would not have under- 
taken the commission entrusted to 
him. But the fact was, that the in- 
terest of a particualr family was 
primarily to be consulted; that of 
the Beresfords: their dismission from 
oftice was the real ground of dis- 
sension between lord Fitzwilliam 
and the minister, and the business of 
the emancipation was only the pre- 
tence; it were absurd, Mr, Jekyll 
said, to mention the oaths taken by 
the king, as obstacles to such a mea- 
sure. In Canada, in Corsica, the 
Catholic religion was settled by 
law, without violation of the royal 
oath. He concluded by moving for 
an enquiry into the conduct of 
ministers in dismissing from his 
office the lord-lieutenant of Ireland. 
It was stated, in reply, by Mr. 
Pitt, that no communication of the 
correspondence between lord Fitz« 
william and the ministry, could be 
permitted without the king’s assent; 
and ministry were officially bound 
to the strictest secrecy in all cases of 
thi: nature. He would not, for this 
reason, enter into any verbal ex- 
planations of the business in ques= 
non, and neither should admit nor 
deny the facts or the inferences al- 
ledged. The king had clearly the 
right to nominate, and_ to dismiss 
ministers without assigning his mo- 
tives; cases of an extraordinary na- 
ture excepted. We forcibly urged 
the indispensible necessity of an en- 
tire agreement in sentiments be- 
tween the king’s ministry, without 
which 
