§ Lord Eliot
would briefly advert to the circumstances of the case. In 1837, Mr. St. George had written a disrespectful answer to a communication from the Lord-lieutenant; and he was, in consequence, removed from the commission. The present Lord Chancellor of Ireland admitted that he was very properly removed, and when applied to for the restoration of Mr. St. George, he objected, unless Mr. St. George consented to retract the letter, or to make an apology for the language which he had used. The Lord Chancellor, however, received so many applications from gentlemen connected with the county—persons of different political opinions—and even from the Lord-lieutenant of the county, that he felt himself justified in again communicating with Mr. St. George on the subject of an apology. Mr. St. George in consequence, gave an explanation to the Lord Chancellor, but it was not a retractation of the letter or an apology. The Lord Chancellor, however, did not think himself justified in acting on his own view of the case, but reinstated Mr. St. George in consequence of the wishes which had been so strongly expressed on the subject. The present Lord Chancellor of Ireland thought that the late Government was right in removing Mr. St. George; but, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, seeing that men of different parties in the county of Galway called for his restoration, and recollecting that Mr. St. George had been suspended for almost five years, in consequence of his letter, the Lord Chancellor had consented to reinstate him. After the explanation which he had given, he did not think that it would be proper to produce the paper called for by the right hon. Gentleman.