THE HYDERABAD DECCAN MINING CONCESSION.

HC Deb 27 June 1889 vol 337 cc880-2

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Times, that appeared on 7th June, alleging that the Secretary of State for India contemplates confirming the Hyberabad Deccan Mining Concession, subject to certain conditions; (2) whether it is a fact that the Nawab Mehdi Ali, the Financial Secretary to the Nizam's Government, has stated that he considers that these terms are inadequate and prejudicial to the Nizam's State, and whether the British resident at Hyderabad, and the Nizam's legal advisers in India, have expressed their concurrence with this view; (3) whether, as it appears from the statement in the Times, Messrs. Freshfield and Williams, who were appointed solicitors for the Nizam's Government on the advice of the Secretary of State for India, proposed these terms of settlement to the concessionnaires without any sanction from the Nizam's Government, and threatened to throw up the case rather than communicate the Nizam's proposals to the concessionnaires; (4) whether one of the grounds urged upon the Nizam's Government by Messrs. Freshfield and Williams, in order that it might give its assent to these terms was, that Mr. Watson, the concessionnaire (a gentleman in regard to whom, and to his partners, the Select Committee of last year on the Hyderabad Deccan Company reported, The concessionnaires have used the concession for the purpose of realizing great gains not intended to be conferred on them, and that this has been done to the injury of the State from which they obtained the concession, with the assistance of their partner, Abdul Huk, is a man of such financial influence in the City that his action might weaken the credit of the Nizam's Government should some arrangement approved by him not be come to with him; and (5) whether all the correspondence referred to in the Times as having passed between the Government of Hyderabad and the British resident will be laid upon the Table, and Her Majesty's Government will give the House an opportunity to express its opinion thereon, before becoming a party to any final settlement?

SIR G. HUNTER (Hackney, Central)

also asked whether the arrangement, whatever it may be, which the Secretary of State might sanction would be a final settlement of all matters in dispute and all claims between His Highness the Nizam's Government, the original concessionnaires, and the company?

* SIR J. GORST

The statement in the Times, referred to in the question, is premature; the matter is still under the consideration of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has no official information as to the opinion referred to in the second paragraph of the question; nor is he aware of the various confidential communications which may have passed between the solicitors and agents of the Nizam in relation to these matters referred to in the third and fourth paragraphs. Until the Secretary of State has arrived at a decision in the matter it is impossible to say what Papers can with advantage to the Public Service be laid upon the Table.

MR. LABOUCHERE

May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has seen any of the documents, to which reference is made in the question, in print?

* SIR J. GORST

That is rather a large question. I have seen a great many documents; but none which would enable me to answer as to all the communications which have passed between the solicitors and the agents.

MR. LABOUCHERE

If I submit these documents to the hon. Gentleman, will he consider whether they ought to be laid before the House, having regard to the decision of the Committee which sat to consider the subject last year?

* SIR J. GORST

As soon as the Secretary of State has fulfilled his function in the matter he will, no doubt, be prepared to consider what documents should be laid before the House.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Will the Papers be submitted to the House, to enable the House to take the matter into consideration and decide what action it ought to take?

SIR G. CAMPBELL

wished to know whether the Under Secretary had no official information with regard to the opinions and the advice which the British Resident at Hyderabad had given?

* SIR J. GORST

said that Papers could not be laid for the purpose of encouraging the House to interfere with the Secretary of State in the performance of his duties. When the Secretary of State had carried out his duty in this matter it would be for the House to say whether it had been properly performed.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

My question had no reference to the Papers before the House, but to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that the Secretary of State has no official information with regard to the matter referred to in the second and third paragraphs of the question.

* SIR. J. GORST

I did not read the question in that way. The question is, whether it is the fact that the Nawab Mehdi Ali has expressed an opinion, and whether the British Resident at Hyderabad has expressed concurrence in that opinion? The Government have the opinion of the British Resident at Hyderabad upon the case, and do not care for his opinion upon somebody else's opinion.

SIR W. G. HUNTER

The Under Secretary for India has misunderstood my question. I do not want to know the nature of the settlement. I ask whether the decision, whatever it may be, will be considered a final settlement of the question?

* SIR J. GORST

That depends upon the company and the concessionnaires. I do not know what they would consider a final settlement.