§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to an article in The St. James's Gazette of July 16 last, entitled Another Hyderabad Scandal, which gives a quota- 107 tion from Stubb's List of June 30, showing that in the bankruptcy of H. Wathen and Son, wholesale tea dealers of Fen-church Street, E.C., Colonel Marshall, Hyderabad, India, is put down as an unsecured creditor for £5,250 in the Schedule of the separate estate of William Hulbert Wathen; whether The St. James's Gazette is correct in stating that Colonel Marshall is private secretary and confidential adviser to the Nizam, and that William Hulbert Wathen is Colonel Marshall's brother-in-law; that, last year, when the Hyderabad Prime Minister was in this country, representing the Nizam at the Jubilee ceremonies, Colonel Marshall became, for the time being, virtually Minister of Hyderabad; that, in that capacity, he took upon himself the responsibility of appointing Mr. Wathen Agent of the Hyderabad State; that with the appointment a new procedure was instituted, Mr. Wathen being supplied with funds in advance; that £6,000 were thereupon remitted to Mr. Wathen from the public and private funds of the Nizam, of which amount Mr. Wathen only expended £750, dealing with the whole £6,000 as an unsecured loan to himself, personally, for the balance of which—namely, £5,250, as above shown, Colonel Marshall is now ranked on his separate estate as a creditor; whether he is aware that the unsecured debts of the firm are put down at £26,121 6s. 4d., and of the separate estate of Mr. Wathen at £6,250 11s. 8d., while the net assets of the firm are quoted at £3,177 0s. 7d., and of the separate estate as £512 10s. only; whether the above allegations and facts were known to the India Office, or to the Government of India, when it was arranged that Colonel Marshall should accompany or precede the Hyderabad Minister on his visit to Simla, to meet the Earl of Dufferin about the 19th of last month; and, whether he will state what steps will be taken by Her Majesty's Government, or the Government of India, in dealing with Colonel Marshall?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham)The Secretary of State has no means of knowing whether the statements in The St. James's Gazette are correct. The matter is one which it is the function of the Viceroy to deal with in the first instance.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, whether he was to understand that when such a charge was made against an officer in the position of Colonel Marshall the Secretary of State did not consider it his duty to call attention to it?
§ SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that the Secretary of State was not in the habit of calling the attention of the Viceroy to paragraphs in the newspapers.
§ MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N.)asked, whether the Government were not sending Colonel Marshall back to Hyderabad?
§ SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that question was a matter which was entirely within the functions of the Viceroy, and a matter with which the Secretary of State had, in the first instance, no right to interfere.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, was he, then, to understand that when a serious charge was made against a public official the fact was not considered by the Secretary of State a sufficient reason for ordering an inquiry or suggesting such an inquiry to the Viceroy?
§ SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, he did not think the hon. Member understood the principle on which India was administered. The person responsible for the administration of India and for the conduct of Indian officials was the Viceroy; it was only the Viceroy who could take such a matter into consideration and pronounce a decision upon it; and it was not in accordance with the practice of the Government of India that the Secretary of State should interfere.