§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
asked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to Colonel Marshall's pecuniary dealings at Hyderabad, Whether the subjoined is a correct quotation of the Rule in force under the Government of India regarding pecuniary transactions of officials within the limits of their jurisdiction—All covenanted civil servants, statutory civilians, uncovenanted officers who hold gazetted appointments, and military officers in civil employ, are prohibited under pain of dismissal from taking loans from, or otherwise placing themselves under pecuniary obligations to, persons subject to the official authority or influence of such Government officers, or residing, possessing property, or carrying on business within the local limits for which such Government officers are appointed;whether Colonel Marshall's alleged lending of a large sum of the Nizam's money to his own brother-in-law is an infringement of the said Rule; and, whether, having regard to the fact that no Report on the matter has been made to the Government of India by the Secretary of State, he will call for a Report, and inform the House what action has been taken in the matter?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham)
The rule is correctly stated. The Secretary of State is in possession of no information or evidence in reference to the alleged loan. The Secretary of State cannot call for Reports from the Governments of India unless some evidence is furnished to him upon which a reference to India can be based. If such evidence is furnished he will immediately call for a Report.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
Am I to understand that the India Office in London is the only Body in the world which is not acquainted with these notorious facts, and that the hon. 1417 Gentleman does not think there is ground for asking for a Return on the subject?
§ SIR JOHN GORST
If any Gentleman will lay before me any primâ facie evidence which will justify me in making any reference to the Indian Authorities I will do so.