The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-06-09 00:00:00

THE HYDERABAD SCANDAL.

The Select Committee of the rouse of Commons
appointed to inquire into matters relating to the
Hyderabad Deccan Mining Company resumed on
Tuesday, Sir H. James presiding. Mr. Hall, secretary
to the company, recalled, produced a number of
documents which were asked for at the last sitting,
including a report furnished by Mr. Molesworth, the
company's engineer in Hyderabad. It was arranged
that the secretary should be recalled on the next
hearing, and cross-examined. Particulars of the
company's shares were next furnished, after which
\lr. Evans, stockbroker, was examined at great
length as to the sale of the company's shares on the
Stock Exchange. He could have sold the whole
capital of the company at the time, and would have
oeen glad to have had the opportunity. He pre-
sumed that Abdul Huk was the owner of shares
when he first saw him, but he did not know how he
came by them. He got about £360 commission. It
was desired that it should be made known that the
Hyderabad Government was buying the company's
stock. Sir Henry James: Do you mean to say that it
was a bond fide transaction for Abdul Huk to buy
his own shares for his Government, and to
employ six brokers to sell to himself as repre-
senting his Government ? Mr. Evans would rather
not express an opinion. Pressed, he admitted that
his object in employing six brokers was to improve
the price of the shares. He did this in the interest of
himself, his friends, and the p 'Ale. He would rather
not say what his commission was before the Ist of
June. The committee decided that the question must
be answered. Mr. Evans said he was paid 10s. a
share, and if he had known what was likely to follow
he would have asked for a pound. (Laughter.) Mr.
Littler proved that the public had every opportunity
of satisfying themselves as to the constitution of the
company. Mr. Winter, brother-in-law of Mr. Watson.
and a solicitor, gave evidence. He had an interview
with Abdul Huk, who wished the promoters to pay
him £120,000 in cash. The witness considered
it was a bribe, as Abdul Huh was acting for the
Ni7am's Government, and he asked him what
authority he had for asking this money. In January,
1882, Abdul Huk showed him a letter from Sir
e:alar Jung, which stated that his Highness's Govern-
ment appreciated the services rendered by Abdul
Ethic, and had no objection to his receiving any
remuneration with which the promoters chose to
reward his services. In reply to Mr. Labouchere,
the witness detailed at great length the course
of the negotiations. In further cross-examina-
tion, Mr. Winter said he was remunerated for his
efforts with one-eighth of the shares received by the
concessionnaires. He promised Abdul fink one-fourth
share. On the 4th of January, 1852, Abdul Huk told
him that his Government were aware of this. When
Abdul Huk received the money for the payment of the
railway and paid it into the National Provincial Bank,
less £83,000, his commission, he stuck to this—in
spite of the objections of Sir Saler Jung, who appealed
to the Viceroy; but the Government at Calcutta
declined to interfere. He considered that he was
justified in taking the money under the letter of Sir
Sear Jung the elder. Mr. Labouchere asked if it
were not a singular coincidence that Abdul Huk, the
owner of so many shares, had not his name on the
register. The witness said he transferred the shares
in blank—in fact, lodged them with the Sirdar's
banker. Sir Horace Davey, as representing Abdul
Huk, read a telegram he had received from Secundera-
bad, stating that an agreement had been signed
between Abdul Huk and the Nizam. The Sirdar
Abdul Huk had repurchased the shares which he had
sold to the Nizam for £151,631, with interest. Mr.
Mayne, representing the Nizam, confirmed this. After
some discussion it was arranged that the original
letter shown to Mr. Winter should be produced, and
the inquiry was adjourned until Friday.