Mr. Badcock, Controller London Postal Service, in replying to the testimony of Mr. A. F. Harris, the official representative of the London postmen, said that it was true that while one Worth for some years past had off and on been made an acting head postman, he had not been recommended for promotion to the position of head postman, because his postmaster had reported that he was "shifty, unreliable, and careless." Mr. Walpole, Secretary of the Post Office, thereupon queried: "Is that not a reason for not employing him to act as head postman?" Mr. Badcock replied: "It was thought better to give him a chance, instead of letting him have the grievance of complaining that he had not had an opportunity of showing whether he was qualified." Mr. Walpole continued: "But if he showed himself shifty, unreliable, and careless for several years, ought not his trial as a head postman to cease?" Mr. Badcock replied: "I must confess that I think so."[337] In February, 1887, Mr. Marum intervened in the House of Commons on behalf of one Ward, a telegraphist, who had been dismissed in 1876 because he had discharged his duties unsatisfactorily.[338] In February, 1888, Mr. Lawson, a Member of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, intervened on behalf of one Harvey, a letter carrier who had been dismissed in 1882.[339] In March, 1901, Mr. Bartley[340] intervened on behalf of one Canless, who had been dismissed because the Postmaster General "was of the opinion that Mr. Canless was not a fit person to be retained in the service." On dismissing the man, the Post Office had deducted from his pay the value of a postal money order--$2.25--alleged to have been stolen by him.[341] Canless' case was brought up again in August, 1904, upon the occasion of the debate upon the Report of the Bradford Committee. In July, 1897, Mr. C. Seale-Hayne intervened on behalf of one J. C. Kinsman, dismissed for insubordination and delegation of his duties to unauthorized persons.[342] In August, 1903, Mr. Sloan, M. P. for Belfast, intervened on behalf of one Templeton, of the Belfast Post Office, dismissed for emptying ink on the head of a workman engaged in the Post Office.[343] In March, 1905, Mr. John Campbell, M. P., tried to induce the Postmaster General to reopen the case of one M'Cusker, who had been disciplined in 1897.[344] In April, 1899, Mr. Lenty asked for a pension for one Wright, whose "conduct had been such as to render him unfit for further employment in the public service."[345] In August, 1902, Mr. Crean asked for a pension for W. H. Allshire, "Who was reported for certain irregularities for which he would probably have been dismissed. While the matter was under consideration he sent in his resignation, which was accepted."[346]