§ 63. Earl WINTERTON
asked the Chief Secretary what is the position in the Irish Government occupied by Lieut.-Commander Fry; how long he has been employed by the Government in question; and on whose recommendation he was appointed?
§ Mr. HENRY
Lieut.-Commander Fry was engaged on the 10th January, 1921, as a temporary clerk in the office of the Chief of Police, and is still employed in that capacity. He applied for employment in the ordinary way and was accepted after the usual investigations as to character had been made. It is contrary to practice to disclose the names of persons to whom reference is made as to the character of applicants for employment in the public service.
§ Earl WINTERTON
Were any inquiries made as to this officer's eligibility from those who served with him in the Navy; and were on terms of close friendship with him, such as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Central Hull has never served with this officer, and has no knowledge whatsoever of him, and had nothing whatever to do with his appointment? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not refute these statements?
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR
In view of the statement so frequently made as to the danger to life in the publication of the names of witnesses and of the knowledge many of us have that comrades of men of the Auxiliary Force have issued threats against those who give evidence against them, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to discourage the organised attack on this officer by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House?
Is it not a fact that this officer is believed by the majority of those who know the case in Dublin to have been involved in a deliberate attempt to obtain the judicial murder of three gallant officers?
§ Mr. O'CONNOR
Is it not the universal opinion in Ireland that this man was endeavouring to defeat the attempt of the Government to get off scot-free men charged with a brutal and cowardly murder?
Is it not a fact that the court-martial, after having heard the complete breakdown of the prosecution, did not even call upon counsel to make their concluding addresses?