§ Mr. Fox Maulebegged also to put a question to the noble Lord. Some time since a Mr. St. George had been removed from the commission of the peace in Ireland, in consequence of a letter which he had thought fit to address to his noble Friend the late Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. An application was subsequently made to restore him to the position which he had formerly held, the answer to which was, that on his withdrawing, or apologising for the letter which he had written, there would be no objection to his restoration. It was now stated, however, that Mr. St. George had been restored to his position as a magistrate, without any apology, and without his withdrawing the offensive letter. He begged to ask the noble Lord whether Mr. St. George had apologised for that letter, or had withdrawn it.
§ Lord Eliotsaid, that shortly after the appointment of the present Lord-lieutenant, a representation had been made to him by the whole of the magistrates for the county for which Mr. St. George acted, supported by the Lord-lieutenant of the county (the Marquess of Clanricarde) who recommended the case to the favourable consideration of the Government. The Lord Chancellor, however, was so strongly impressed with the impropriety of the letter, viewing it as an insult to the representative of the Sovereign, that he refused to comply with the application until an explanation had been given. Such an explanation had been given as had satisfied the Lord Chancellor, and he of his own motion, but with the entire concurrence of the Lord-lieutenant, had reinstated Mr. St. George.
§ Mr. Fox Maulewished to know, whe- 1426 ther in the letter written by Mr. St. George to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, there was an apology for having written the letter to the Marquess of Normanby. He also wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay on the Table the correspondence on the subject between the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and Mr. St. George.
§ Lord Eliothad no hesitation in saying that the apology that had been made appeared satisfactory to the Lord Chancellor. He knew that the Lord Chancellor had refused to restore that gentleman to the commission of the peace, when he was applied to by nearly the whole of the magistracy of the county, until a satisfactory explanation had been made to him. He was not prepared to say whether the communications that had passed were not more of a private than of a public nature. The decision of the whole matter belonged to the Lord Chancellor and he did not think that these papers could be produced.