§ MR. WEIRI beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it has been represented to him that the full sum demanded by the telegraph clerk at Hampstead Post Office for a duplicate telegram addressed to Balallan, Plockton, Ross-shire, and Balallan, Strome Ferry, Ross-shire, on the 4th ultimo was paid by the sender; that upwards of an hour and a half after handing in the telegram at the Hampstead Office an intimation was sent from that office to the sender, requesting payment of an additional fee 1090 before the telegram would be delivered; why no explanation has been given by the Postmaster General to a communication on the subject; and whether he will make arrangements for the telegraphic business between London and Ross and Cromarty to receive better attention than hitherto?
§ MR. A. MORLEYThe hon. Member apparently did not understand the explanation I gave him in my reply to his question on Thursday last. The telegrams were handed in by the hon. Member as what are known as multiple address. Telegrams for delivery from the same office; and payment was made on that hypothesis. The telegrams wore, in fact, for delivery from two separate offices, and should have been paid for as two separate telegrams. A written explanation was on the point of being sent to the hon. Member when he put his previous question the other day, and I will give instructions that the statement shall be sent to him, so that he may be fully informed as to how the matter stands. I am not aware that there is any want of attention to the telegraph business between London and Ross and Cromarty.
§ MR. WEIRIs it not the fact that the full amount demanded by the telegraph official at the Hampstead Post Office was paid by the sender?
§ MR. A. MORLEYI do not think a demand was made. The telegram was sent with the money and taken in by the telegraphist, who was not aware that there were two different offices involved.