§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask the Postmaster General how often since the appointment of the Times' Commission has Mr. Maberly, of the Dublin General Post Office, been absent from his post, and for what periods; has Mr. Maberley access to the Dead Letter Office; how often has he visited Mr. Soames, solicitor to the Times, or his employes, or been to the office of the Times solicitor or his agents; did he submit returned letters or papers, which should be in the custody of the Post Office, to the agents of the Times; had he the authority of the Postmaster General for this; if Mr. Maberly was served with a subpœna duces tecum by the Times; by what means was the Times' solicitor able to specify the documents in the confidential custody of the Post Office, which he was required to produce; and what were the names of the addressor and addressees of the letters which Mr. Maberly produced?
§ * MR. RAIKESSince the appointment of the Special Commission Mr. Maberly has been absent three times—namely, from the 24th of October last to the 28th of that month; from the 7th of December, 1888, to the 20th of March; and from the 9th instant to the present time. The first and last periods he was on his ordinary annual leave. The second period he was on sick leave under medical certificate, and during this period he was summoned to London by subpœna from the President of the Special Commission. Mr. Maberly is second in rank in the Returned Letter Office in Dublin, and takes charge of 1139 that office in the absence of his superior officer. I have no official knowledge of how Mr. Maberly may have spent his time, or whom he may have visited during his absence from his official duties, but he has never received or asked the sanction of the Department for any interview with Mr. Soames, or other persons in the employ of the Times. I understand that previously to the service of the subpœna he had received no communication directly or indirectly on the subject from anyone. Mr. Maberly did not submit any returned letters or papers to the agent for the Times. The solicitor for the Times specified nothing so far as the Post Office is aware. The President directed the production of certain books, and Mr. Maberly was authorised to produce in Court, if required, the only books which answered to the terms of the subpœna. No letters were produced by Mr. Maberly.
§ MR. SEXTONCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether it was Mr. Maberly, or some other official in the Dublin Office, who lately opened a letter addressed to me by the President of the United States?
§ * MR. RAIKESThe right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that I endeavoured to prosecute an inquiry into the matter, but was unable to do so in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman declining to give up the envelope to the officers of the Department.
§ MR. SEXTONDid I not submit the letter to the right hon. Gentleman, and did he not point out, even before I noticed the fact, that not only had the letter been opened, but that fresh gum had been used to seal it up again?
§ * MR. RAIKESThe right hon. Gentleman was good enough to show me the letter, and I believed that it had been opened, so far as I could judge, but it was necessary to place it in the hands of officers in the Department, who are experts in matters of that kind. I am entirely unable, in the absence of evidence, to say by whom the letter has been opened, when or where.
§ MR. SEXTONWill the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that if I give him the envelope it will not be allowed to pass out of his hands or to be destroyed?
§ * MR. RAIKESThe right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, have sufficient confidence in my common honesty.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to give notice that I will call attention to the conduct of Mr. Maberly and the general irregularities of the Dublin Office upon the Post Office Vote.