§ MR. M'LAGAN (Linlithgow)
asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is true that the £83,000 was promised to Sirdar Diler-ul-Mulk, by; the late Prime Minister of Hyderabad, in a letter to the Sirdar, in the following terms: —Five per cent commission (or £83,000) on the whole amount to be appropriated in manner you think proper in rewarding the services of those who have been mainly instrumental in starting the schemes and in carrying it through;that, notwithstanding this letter, Sirdar Diler-ul-Mulk pocketed the whole of the £83,000, and, as the negotiator for raising the funds for making the railway, allowed as promotion money to persons in this country who carried through the railway scheme what was an equivalent to an additional sum of £175,000 out of the capital, thus devoting one-fifth of the whole sum raised in this country for forming the railway to promotion purposes; and, whether the Government will appoint a Committee, or support a Motion, by an independent Member, for the appointment of a Committee, to inquire into the alleged gross misappropriation, for the most part among persons in this country, of the funds of a quasi- independent Indian State, but a State in some measure under the protection of the Indian Government?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham)
The statements in the Question are substantially correct, except that the amount paid for promotion was, so far as is known to the Secretary of State, £138,000, and not £175,000. As the facts of the case are perfectly well known, the Secretary of State does not think that any object would be gained by the appointment of a Committee.
§ SIR GUYER HUNTER (Hackney, Central)
As arising out of the reply of 486 the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State, I would ask him whether the sum of £100,000 was not paid under an agreement with the India Office for the purpose of defraying all expenses up to the registration of the Company and remuneration for assuring capital, and whether that amount was not shown en the prospectus of the Company; and whether the balance of £35,000, and not £75,000 as stated by the hon. Member who put the Question, was not simply the commission granted on the debenture issue, and was allowed on the understanding that the debenture stock had been underwritten?
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said, as to the first part of the Question, that he had stated, in answer to a Question put to him a few days ago, that the sum mentioned was paid by the Hyderabad Government. As to the other part of the Question, he was not aware that the Secretary of State had any official knowledge on the subject; but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give Notice of his Question.