§ MR. CLANCYI beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in. view of the fact that he has dismissed from employment, after seventeen years service, a man named Daniel Scully, of the engineering department of the General Post Office, Dublin, on a charge of forgery and embezzlement of a sum of £2 odd, he will pay whether Scully was ever given any form of trial, and whether he was confronted with his accusers and allowed the opportunity of cross-examining them; whether he is aware that Scully has denied that he is guilty of either of the charges preferred against him, and has asked that he should be given such an opportunity of vindicating his character as would be afforded by a criminal prosecution; and whether he will now say that he will prosecute Scully or restore him to his employment.
LORD STANLEYAs I have already explained to the hon. Member by letters of the 6th and 26th June and 26th July, I went very fully into the case to which he refers before coming to a decision, and I find no reason for departing from that decision.
§ MR. CLANCYThe noble Lord admits, I take it, that he has discharged this man, who is charged with forgery and embezzlement. I presume he has evidence in his possession to justify that charge, or has he not?
LORD STANLEYI have the right which belongs to every Postmaster-General to get rid of any man from the postal service if, for reasons which he thinks sufficient, that man is not capable of offering efficient or honest service.
§ MR. CLANCYThat is not my Question. Will the noble Lord answer straightforwardly, has he evidence in his possession justifying the charge of forgery and embezzlement?
§ MR. CLANCYAt the first opportunity I shall call attention to the cruelty practised by the Postmaster- 638 General in dooming this man and his family to ruin on evidence which he is afraid to produce.