§ 86. Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the complaint with regard to the recent appointment of a sub-postmistress at Bryansford, county Down; and whether he can state the facts in connection with the appointment?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEMy attention has been drawn to a letter on this subject from. Lord Roden which appeared in the "Times" of 26th January. As the facts have been misrepresented in that letter, it seems desirable that I should make a full statement about the matter. There were two candidates for the sub-postmastership of Bryansford: one was fully conversant with post-office work, but the other had no knowledge whatever of it. Lord Roden, to whom all but one of the houses in the locality belong, supported the candidature of the latter, and I am informed intimated through his agent that he would enforce her selection by refusing to let a house to the other candidate. If his Lordship's nominee had been appointed, she intended, I am told, employing the other candidate as her assistant, and the latter would thus have had to do practically the whole of the work, but would have had to rest content with only a part of the emoluments. My predecessor considered such an arrange- 1774 meat would be indefensible, and in this view I entirely concur. Fortunately, the better qualified candidate succeeded in securing suitable accommodation in the one house in the locality over which Lord Roden had no control, and was appointed sub-postmistress. So far from it being the case that her selection was ill received locally, I understand from independent witnesses that the appointment has given general satisfaction. A number of the signatories to the petition referred to by Lord Roden in his letter now assert that they signed it under a misapprehension, and have asked that their names should be withdrawn.