§ MR. DALYI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will in the future see that no inspector or representative of the Post Office be sent to a district to investigate any case where the friends of the inspector reside or are interested, as was the case at Inniskeen, county Monaghan, where an inspector named Lockington took part in the transferring of a post office to his brother from a man who held the position for twenty-six years at Inniskeen.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Postmaster General cannot give any such undertaking. The action taken by Mr. Lockington is not accurately described in the latter part of the hon. Member's question.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIs it not accurate to say that the inspector dismissed the postmaster and put his brother into the job?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINHe did not dismiss the postmaster or put his brother into the place.
§ MR. DALYIs it not the fact that Lockington conducted the inquiry as the result of which the postmaster was dismissed, and that Lockington's brother got the place?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI have stated that Lockington conducted the inquiry. The postmaster was dismissed by the Postmaster General in consequence of what transpired at the inquiry, and at a trial which occurred in the locality. I should add that the post office has not been given to Lockington's brother, but to the occupant of a house which is owned by him, and this fact was stated by Lockington in his report to the Postmaster General when he 612 submitted this and other houses as suitable for post-office purposes. The appointment has been filled temporarily and not permanently.
§ MR. DALYCan the hon. Gentleman state how it came to the lot of this inspector to get Fitzpatrick dismissed after he had occupied the office so many years without complaint?
§ MR. SPEAKERThat is not the question on the Paper.