AN OLD NEW ZEALANDER IN A STORM.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 234, 4 October 1888, Page 4

AN OLD NEW ZEALANDER IN A STORM.

As old New Zealander in the person of Sir John Gorsfc has had a good deal of pitch flung at him lately on account of his supposed connection with the Hyderabad Deccan scandal. The Indian newspapers generally had evidently expected to see fche Under-Secretary of State for India pilloried by the Committee appointed to investigate the whole affair, and the "Pioneer" and

the "Statesman" discuss the question in a very disappointed and injui-ed strain. From their jeremiads it appears that Sir John, whilst in India, had been guilty of associating with a certain " Tom Palmer," who, to pub ifc mildly, was not in sympathy with the official delegate of the Xizam, who went to England in connection wifch the inquiry into the scandal. The delegate, evidently anxious to keep out of temptation's way, refusedjto expose his virtue fco danger, by granting the insidious Thomas a personal interview. Alas for his good resolutions ! there is a reception ab the Foreign Office, when Sir John, meeting the Nawab in the crowd according to the indignant Indian " Pioneer," asks him if he has seen "his friend Tom Palmer." Need ifc be added that the barrier which the discreet representative of the Hyderabad State had judiciously raised was ab once removed. Later on, and through Mr Palmer's amiable intervention, Sir John calls upon another Hyderabad official, of whom he had expressed himself unfavourably. And as the scene for the moment closes, we are told of a little dinner given by Mr Palmer, afc which Sir John Gorsb and the Hyderabad delegate are the guests. When opposition papers agree, their unanimity is wonderful, and having evidently prepared themselves for the inculpation of Sir John in the scandal, the "Statesman and Friend of India " joined with its rival in expressions of disappointment), asserting Sir John's escape from the pillory thafc was prepared for him, in .ts most grandiloquent style, to be "an affront to India." The " Statesman," as well as being very malicious, has evidently a very long memory, and reminds its readers that it was by the recommendation of Mr Palmer thafc Sir John Gorst was engaged by the old Peshkar to come to India in 1883, for a fee of 75,000 rupees. It says : —"Thomas Palmer has a very curious history, the facts of which have never yefc, we believe, been told. He is a Eurasian barrister in advanced life, and, afc bhe time of which we write, was the old Peahkar's unofficial adviser and bosom-friend. The immense fee that was paid by him to Sir John Gorsb was entered by the Peshkar in the treasury accounts as money that was required for larcre purchases made by the young Nizam in Bombay. The Prince declared fche statement to be altogether false, asJie had made no purchases whatever there, and wanted to make none. When pressed for further explanation, the Peshkar declared that the money had been paid to Sir John Goret for advice in connection with His Highness'a approaching accession ! Sir John Gorsb is now Under-Secretary for India, and ib is stated in Hyderabad that upon the arrival of fche Nizam's representatives in London, Sir John Gorsfc ouened a correspondence with them, through his old friend and ally, Tom Palmer. Sir John Gorst himself is hardly the proper man to be Under-Secretary for India. Wifch the India Office already compromised through General Strachey, we have the Under-Secretary himself mixed up in this very unpleasant way wifch the Nizam's affairs, and we certainly can express no surprise ab the fear entertained by the Nizam's Council that the investigation will j end in a fiasco." j The " Statesman " has for once proved a ; true prophet in predicting the collapse of! the inquiry, but whether ifc is equally successful in implicating Sir John Gorst.-m the scandal is another matter. The will has not been wanting on its part, bub the way is nob quite so clear, especially in view of the following letter, which has been addressed by Sir John Gorsfc's Secretary to fche "Pall Mall Gazette," which, as might, have been expected, from its scandal-loving tendencies, has taken up the charges of its Indian contemporaries con amove. Mr Ritchie writes : —- " Sir,— Sir John Gorst desire.', me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th inst'., and to say that he saw ifc, and the articles in yesterday's ' Pall Mall Gazette' to which it refers, as he was passing through London to-day on the way to the continent. Sir John Gorsb desires me to _ say, in reply, thab had your representative applied to him earlier, he could have saved you from giving currency to a number of misstatements which the ' Pioneer' article contains. The charge which is insinuated against Sir John Gorsfc in the 'Pioneer' is wholly false. Mr Palmer, so far as Sir John Gorst is aware, had and has no connection with, or interest in, the Deccan Company ; and Sir John Gorst, throughout tho proceedings, consistentlyrefused to have any communication in reference to the Deccan inquiry, or wifch any of the parties interested therein, with fche exception of an official interview at the India Office wifch the Nawab Mahdi Ali.— Yours faithfully, Richmond Ritchik."

Despite the abovo contradiction, the " Pall Mall, still sticks to its point, asserting that the denial does not go by any means so far as tho original charges. "Thus," it continues, "in the first place, the statement of the ' Pioneer,' endorsed by the ' Statesman and Friend of India,' was not, so far as we anderstand, that Mr Tom Palmer had any specific ' connection with or interest in the Deccan Company,' but that he was generally mixed up with the seamy side of affairs at Hyderabad. Further, ifc was stated that he .is on intimate terms with Sir John Gorsfc, and the suggestion was that Mr Palmer might have acted as intermediary between his friend, the Under-Secretary of India.and <*ther persons who did have ' connection with or interest in the Deccan Company.' This 'charge,' whatever ifc may be worth, is not, our readers will see, covered by the termß of Sir John Gorsfc's letter. Further, ifc will be noticed that what Sir John Gorst contradicts is that he had 'any communication in reference to the Deccan inquiry with any of the parties interested therein.' This is a different thing from sayinp that he did nob have ' any communication with any of the parties infc-_j-ested therein/ We are compelled to make this distinction by the analogy of Mr Smith's statement with regard to his dealings with the 'Times.' Mr Smith also denied, that he had any communication in reference to the Oommimon wifch any of the parties interested therein.' But that denial, ifc subsequently appeared, was nob inconsistent wifch the fact that he did have communications with his ' oldfriend' Mr Walter. An unbelieving generation has questioned whether the ' old friends' confined their conversation to tho state of the weather. With this precedent before the public, it is unfortunate that Sir John Gorsb has nob given a less qualified denial bo statements which are causing so much disquiet in India."

Probably Sir John's old friends in New Zealand will be inclined to put a more generous construction on the Under-Secre-tary's action than is pjssiblo for a journal which is nothing if not omniscient in its backbiting propaganda.