§ MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what grounds the Local Government Board refused to have the contract for milk in Cavan Union reopened, seeing that it was proved another tender had been misdelivered by the Post Office of Cavan, and which offered to supply the quantity of milk required for £160 less than the tender which was accepted; whether it is a fact that the Guardians who accepted the higher tender had notice prior to their decision that another tender had been sent; whether the Local Government asked for the decision of the same Board of Guardians who had given the first decision, to which exception had been taken; and, whether he will instruct the Local Government Board to hold a sworn investigation into the whole case?
§ MR. TREVELYANSir, the facts of this case are as follows:—Upon the day appointed for receiving tenders the Guardians had only one before them, which they accepted. They were informed by a Mr. Hewitt that he had sent a lower tender; but the Guardians assert that the prices he named were not known to them until after they had accepted the other tender. It subsequently appeared that Mr. Hewitt's tender had miscarried in the Post Office, and he complained on the subject to the Local Government Board, who immediately wrote to the Guardians asking if they wished to put an end to the contract which they had made. This might legally have been done with the consent of the Local Government Board. The matter was especially considered by the Guardians after due notice, and they decided, by a large majority, to abide by the contract. It is to be borne in mind that, if both tenders had originally been before them, they would not necessarily have accepted the lower. Having regard to all these facts, 1415 the Local Government Board saw no sufficient reason to interfere further in the matter, and there are no grounds for directing a sworn investigation.
§ MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the non-delivery of a letter addressed to the Guardians of Cavan Union, posted on 15th January last, and indorsed "Tender for Milk;" and, if so, what action he proposes to take regarding the alleged misconduct of the postmaster?
§ MR. FAWCETTIt is the case, Sir, as stated by the hon. Member, that the letter was not delivered, and I much regret the circumstance. The postmaster has been censured for his carelessness, which I trust may not be repeated.