§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a firm named Messrs. Colbeck, having sent in tenders for the supply of tweed at prices varying from 5s. 6½d. to 5s. 11½d. a-yard, and the tenders having been accepted, that at the highest price being for 7,000 yards only, the firm nevertheless were paid that highest price for the whole amount of 73,000 yards; whether a contract was entered into with Messrs. Wilson and Son to supply tartan at 2s. 4½d. a-yard. Messrs. Smith and Son, former contractors for this article, applied to be relieved of some surplus stock, leaving the price to be settled by the War Office. Their request was complied with, but the price paid was not that of the current contract with Messrs. Wilson, but the higher price of 2s. 8d. under the expired contract with Messrs. Smith and Son; whether a firm named Messrs. Davies were paid 20s., 16s. 3d., 10s. 6d., and 27s., for the same articles, which another firm, Messrs. Thorp, had already contracted to supply 1842 at 14s., 11s. 11d., 10s., and 17s. 6d., respectively; and, whether the War Office accepts the view of his duties taken by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his correspondence with them on these payments—namely, that his control extends to these and similar cases in which administrative action appears to involve a loss to the public?
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK) (Surrey, Guildford)(who replied) said: the hon. Member has misread the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Messrs. Colbeck tendered only at the prices of 5s. 11d. and 5s. 11½d. The tender at 5s. 6½d. was by another firm, to whom an order for the quantity with which they could safely be entrusted was given. All the cloth Messrs. Colbeck offered at 5s. 11d. was taken before the price of 5s. 11½d. was paid. When an order for 73,000 yards supplementary to the original supply contracted for—namely, 107,000, became necessary, it was given to Messrs. Colbeck as tried and responsible contractors at the price then in force; the other contractors at lower rates having failed on a previous occasion to carry out their contracts satisfactorily for this tweed. As regards the tartans, an effort had been made to break down what was practically a monopoly by Messrs. Wilson; and Messrs. Smith had been to a great expense in carrying out very satisfactorily a triennial contract for 9,000 yards per annum, at a price lower than that of Messrs. Wilson. When, however, the contracts came to be renewed in 1885, the latter tendered at a price still lower, and were accepted. Messrs. Smith then applied to have 3,000 yards taken off their hands; and, as there was every reason to be satisfied with the way in which they had done their work, this was permitted, according to many precedents, at the price governing their contract. The contract of Messrs. Thorp was comparatively an unimportant one for forage cap ribbons. They were new contractors, and their tender was much below all other competitors; but disputes arose as to measurements and other matters, and their contract was cancelled instead of being enforced against them. This is the usual course as regards new contractors, the object being not to deter firms from widening the area of competition as regards future 1843 supplies. The ribbons were obtained under another contract at rates higher than those of Messrs. Thorp; but lower than those which had obtained before they entered the field. The whole of these facts will, no doubt, be investigated by the Public Accounts Committee. It is clearly shown by the correspondence at page 208 of the Army Appropriation Account that the Secretary of State does not accept the claim of the Exchequer and Audit Department to control his discretion in matters of administration; and that correspondence will be laid before the Public Accounts Committee.