Mr. Bonar Law, in criticising Mr. Asquith's statement, dealt chiefly
with the Indemnity Bill. The position, he said, was this. The firm of Montagu & Co., to which Sir Stuart Samuel belonged, approached the India Office and asked for an order for the purchase of silver. The India Office complied with the request, and by so doing placed the firm in a position to deal in silver for themselves, " with the absolute certainty of making any profit they chose." He did not believe the firm took that course, but it was an important matter of principle, and the House ought to he formally satisfied on the point. Mr. Asquith, later in the debate, promised to make suggestions as to an inquiry into the dealings of the firm, which he hoped would satisfy the Opposition. Mr. Boner Law did not at all exaggerate the importance of this affair. It is impossible to imagine a more unsatisfactory manner of administering the affairs of India than the method which the India Office permitted itself to adopt. The India Office, as the trustees for India, should never give the smallest loophole for sus- picion. The results of suspicion, even false suspicion, must have disastrous effects in India. In this case the India Office may have actually made the best possible transaction financially and saved money for India. But that is not the point. The India Office should not seek small profits when it thereby jeopardizes its repute for immaculate trusteeship. To keep the confidence of the people of India is worth a few thousands of pounds. Trustee investments notoriously do not produce high dividends. Scrupulous dealing and an avoidance of even the appearance of evil are the proper objectives of trustees. The close relationship of Mr. Montagu, the Under Secretary of State, to members of the firm of Montagu S.: Co. seems to us to make the employment of that firm by the India Office absolutely inexcusable.
Previous page
