§ SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the allegation that the India Office contains no record of any communications between Mr. Tayler, late Commissioner of Patna, and Sir Stafford Northcote in 1867, Whether the India Office possesses any record of communications between Mr. Tayler and Sir Stafford Northcote in 1868; whether it is a fact that such communications terminated, on the change of Government in that year, with an assurance from Sir Stafford Northcote to Mr. Tayler that his case would be fully investigated by the new Secretary of State; whether that assurance was ever communicated to the Duke of Argyll; and, whether the question submitted to the decision of the Duke of Argyll referred to the general merits of the case, or only to the particular point as to whether the case should then be re-opened?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham)There is no official record of any communication between Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Tayler in 1868, other than that printed in Parliamentary Paper 308 1366 of 1879. But a letter addressed to Lord Salisbury in 1877, which, being practically an application for honours, was, according to the usual practice of the India Office, dealt with personally by the Secretary of State, and not officially by the Secretary of State for India in Council, is still preserved in the India Office. This letter enclosed copies of the correspondence which Mr. Tayler alleged to have taken place between himself and Sir Stafford Northcote in 1867–8. There is no record of Sir Stafford Northcote's alleged assurance, other than a statement of Mr. Tayler; nor any record of such assurance having been communicated to the Duke of Argyll. There is, however, no ground for supposing that the case was not fully investigated. by the Duke of Argyll. The questions submitted to the Duke of Argyll by Mr. Tayler's Memorial of October, 1868, were—(1) That the order for his removal from the office of Commissioner of Patna in 1857 might be cancelled; (2) that he might be recommended to Her Majesty for honorary distinction; (3) that pecuniary compensation might be awarded him.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)asked, if the hon. Member would inquire of the Duke of Argyll in regard to the matter?
§ SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, his official experience had been too short to enable him to say whether such an inquiry would be proper; but if the Question were put on the Paper he would find out.