§ MR. HARRINGTONI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if Barrett, into whose case he ordered a further inquiry, has since been refused admission to the prisons service except on terms which he felt bound to refuse; and if it is the intention of the Government to have him reinstated in his former position and, in consideration of the harsh treatment he received, grant him compensation?
MR. J. MORLEYBarrett sent in his resignation as prison warder in May, 1892. It is true that he was recently offered re-employment in the Prisons Service, but the conditions which he asked should attach to his re-engagement were not such as could be acceded to by the Executive. After a very careful investigation of all the facts of the case, the decision arrived at was that if re-appointed to the Prisons Service it could only be on the terms attaching to a new appointment. But Barrett declined to accept employment on these terms, and the Government see no reasons for altering the decision arrived at.
MR. HAEEINGTONIs it not a fact that this officer had eight or nine years' service in the Prison Service, and was recommended for promotion; that he stood for examination as a convict warder and failed; and that instead of getting the benefit of his eight or nine years' service, or being remitted to the district for which he had been recommended for promotion, he was dismissed for no fault except that of failure to pass the examination?
MR. J. MOELEYI went into the facts of the case, and my decision was that if he were restored it could only be on the condition that he came in as a fresh officer. I felt that his claim for salary and compensation for past service was beyond what was fair and reasonable. I think what I decided fully met the justice of the case.
MR. J. MORLEYHe had no legal claim whatever to back pay or compensation, he having resigned his appointment by his own act in 1892.