WHY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SHOULD DEMAND MR. MONTAGU'S RESIGNATION.
/THOUGH there is enough, and more than enough, in 1 Mr. Montagu's record to require his removal, we realize that at the present moment the matter is too con- troversial for us to expect a general agreement. Even that portion of the nation which is awakening and is anxious about India will probably say, "It all looks very bad, but We have started upon the Montagu policy, and we must now give it a fair trial." What we want to do now is to show that, quite apart from the verdict that must be given on the general policy, there are specific and actual reasons why Mr. Montagu's resignation must be called for. 1. In the first place he has not treated the House of Commons with the frankness and the straightforwardness to which that body is entitled. He has committed the unforgivable sin in a servant. He has not been candid with his master the House of Commons, but has dealt in verbal "dissimulation." He has used words which gave an impression different from that which a fuller state- n:ient—i.e., the whole truth—would have given. And here we must say by way of parenthesis that if the House of Commons does not insist on having the whole truth, but allows itself to be in effect though not in actual words deceived by its servants—the Ministers—it will lose not only its power but the respect of the British people. A terrible error was made by the House of Commons when it not merely passed over in silence, but actually endorsed the conduct of the Ministers who deceived it in the case of the Marconi scandal. - In that case two Cabinet Ministers used language to the House of Commons which, though verbally correct, was intended to give, and did give, an impression contrary to the facts. The House of Commons on party grounds forgave that, and, alas ! owing to the direction of men like Mr. Asquith and Lord Grey of Fallodon, did not punish or even properly reprobate the action of the Ministers. Ever since that time it has been obvious that Ministers in a tight place have thought it safe to play with the House of Commons, and tell it not the whole truth, but only as much of the truth as was con- venient. That is what has just happened in the case of Mr. Montagu. In the Marconi scandals everything turned upon a word—" this." One of the Ministers in question declared that he had no shares in "this Company "- i.e., in the English Marconi Ccmpany, which was the Company verbally in the context. In Mr. Montagu's case the misdirection of the House of Commons lay in the words in detail." He knew nothing of the details of the Amritsar riots. We now see, owing to the cross-examination of Mr. Montagu in the House, that not knowing - about the 'natter in detail was consistent with knowing all the essential facts at first hand.
If Mr. Montagu did not know the details, he must either have deliberately shut his ears and eyes to them, or else he showed the most extraordinary official incompetence ever shown by a Cabinet Minister. To put it in language which cannot be misunderstood, he deliberately and wilfully led the House of Commons to receive the impression that he knew nothing about General Dyer's action when in reality he was as well aware of it as anyone in England or in India, except, perhaps, in the kind of minutiae which only come out in a minute investigation. He knew, that is, quite enough, and this is a very important point, to prevent the military and civil authorities in India from endorsing General Dyer's action by promotion and continued employment. He had quite enough information on which to break General Dyer, provided that he held the view which he held later, and which he now defends—the view that General Dyer was guilty of action indefensible per se and highly injurious to the best interests of the Empire. But what motive had Mr. Montagu to mis- inform the House of Commons last winter ? We do not profess to be able to tread the mysterious labyrinths of Mr. Montagu's mind, or to unravel the Asian mystery. It may be remembered, however, that Mr. Montagu was desperately anxious to get his Government of India Bill through, and for his purpose it was not wise to present the dangers of insurrection with which we were faced in India in too lurid a light. A debate like that which took place last week on the Amritsar riots would probably have ruined the India Bill. In other words, Mr. Montagu veiled from the House of Commons his knowledge of the Dyer incident because it was politically incon- venient to admit full knowledge last December. He was playing with the House of Commons all through. Of course, if the House of Commons likes to be played with there is nothing more to be said, except that it will lose its power and authority as surely as does the chairman of a company when it is made plain before the board of directors, the officials and the shareholders that the general manager has not only failed to tell his employers how things stand, but has actually given the impression that they stand quite differently from what they do.
2. Our next ground for calling for Mr. Montagu's resignation is a very strong one. It was shown in the debate of July 8th that he has deliberately chosen to come forward as an Asiatic agitator, one of the oppressed who raise their voices against the oppressor, one who draws a strict division between what he calls the Indians. and the white men, one who shows that his sympathies are against, the white men and the community among which he himself lives—a community which has shown itself quite willing to adopt him and every member of his race and religion as Englishmen, so long as they will only play the game fairly and squarely. Now Mr. Montagu may be right or he may be wrong in his insinuations about oppres- sors and oppressed and about Indians and their white tyrants. We are not going to judge of that now. What we do say is that if he is right, then the Indian agitators are right, and there is only one thing left for us to do, and that is to leave India as quickly and as completely as we can. If we are the oppressors and not, as we believe, the saviours of the people of India from untold misery and oppression, from an anarchy and a tyranny worse than that which oppresses the Russian millions, our further stay in India must be hateful to every just and humane and freedom-loving man. Mr. Montagu's attitude is utterly incompatible with our continued presence in India, unless we regard him., as perhaps he may regard himself, as the official receiver put in to wind up the business as soon as possible. He ought to resign of his own accord, but if he will not resign the House of Commons ought to make him.
3. Allied to our second reason for calling for Mr. Montagu's resignation is the fact that the people of India have been confused and amazed at the Secretary- ship for India being given to a man of his race and his views and feelings. Many of them have begun to think that the British people must have gone mad to put such a man to rule over India. No doubt after the way of Asiatics they show this rather in condemnation of -the people who appointed such a Vizier than in opposition to the Vizier himself. The Asiatic always bows to power wherever he finds it lodged. As long as Mr. Montagu is Secretary of State for India he will be very little criti- cized in India. The moment he falls, whether just in time or too late, we shall find that throughout he has been execrated in India as a man who is bringing doom upon the Peninsula from Peshawar to Calcutta, from Simla to Cape Com.orin.
The proof of what we are saying is to be found in the attitude—an attitude usually only expressed in private talk—of the Feudatory Princes and Chiefs of India towards Mr. Montagu. They see the ruin that is coming upon them and theirs, and most naturally they shrink from it. They know the feelings of their own subjects, and they know it is the feeling of ninety per cent, of the population all over India, and they wonder why "a ten per cent. crowd" should be allowed to throw their world into confusion. Still, and here once again comes in the Asiatic mind, if these things must be, then the only possible line for a prudent man to take is to make up to those who wield the thunderbolt, to those who have power, however mis- begotten.
4. Another reason why Mr. Montagu must go is his unfittedness of personal temperament for the great task which has been so lightheartedly and negligently entrusted to him. A nervous if not indeed panic-stricken visionary is not the best pilot for a revolutionary sea. Mr. Montagu is as full of changing moods and fancies as a neurasthenic patient. Now he is a kind of Bolshevik Pasha dealing out revolutionary generalities with the insolence of the tyrant on the divan. Next the adroit political advocate, now a whole-souled Englishman, now a persecuted Hebrew, now a far-seeing and moderate statesman, now a whole- souled Radical. Once an Asquithite, loyal and true, then a Lloyd Georgite to the death. The whole man is a shifting, shuddering political antithesis. Personally, we prefer a cool head and a steady hand at the helm in our extremity, not a person of this constitution. 5. There always remains the great objection which we raised when Mr. Montagu became Under-Secretary of State for India and when he was made Secretary of State, in short, ever since he has held office—the fact of his family connexion with the silver trading firm of Samuel, Montagu and Co. Against the financial honesty of that firm we say nothing. We are, indeed, absolutely convinced that they have never broken the law directly or indirectly, and that the enormous fortune accumulated by them rests upon sound and legitimate business acumen. It is not their fault that the Prime Minister of England should have selected the brother of the chairman of the firm to be Secretary of State for India. Considering, however, the intimate connexion between the Govern- ment of India and silver finance we make no apology for protesting against Mr. Montagu's holding the position he does. It is useless to tell us that he has not made a halfpenny out of his connexion. We are quite sure he has not ; we make no accusation of any illegal action, and vie use this formula frankly and plainly and not because we think he has done wrong by subtle means. We are absolutely convinced, however, that if Mr. Lloyd George had been as careful of the interests of his country as he professed to be when he attacked Mr. Chamberlain and laid down the standard of Caesar's wife for all Cabinet Ministers, he would never have offered Mr. Montagu the post of Secretary of State for India. Further, we hold that if Mr. Montagu had been a man who put patriotism above personal ambition he would have told Mr. Lloyd George that this was the post he could not occupy, not because he was afraid of temptation, but because he would not set an example which would be certain to be followed, and which when followed must sooner or later lead to that pool of corruption in which hitherto every great empire has drowned itself.
Before we end let us return once more, for it is the essential matter, to the question of Mr. Lloyd George's responsibility. 1We do not much admire the practice of throwing out cargo to lighten the political ship, but Mr. Lloyd George is an adept at this way of keeping afloat. We would warn him that if he fails to adopt it in this case there are now thousands of people tbrciughout the'country who are determined that, if there is a catastrophe in India, he-shall not be allowed to put all the blame on Mr. Mssatagu and escape himself. We have reached the point where It must be made plain to the country that if Mr. Lloyd George continues to keep Mr. Montagu at the India Office, Mr. Lloyd George .must not merely share Mr. Montagu's responsibility, but must bear the greater part of that responsibility. He has been warned, and if he does not take the warning, then, as sure as the sun will rise to- morrow, Mr. Lloyd George will find that at last he has reached the point where he cannot slide out of blame with a "Please, air, I'm sorry, but it really wasn't me, but the other fellow."
Previous page
