THE RATE OF MONTENEGRO.
WE have long wondered why Montenegro, alone among all the' belligerents, should have lost her Independence as the result of the war. Many new States have emerged from the wreck of Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Russia and have been welcomed as examples of "sell- determination." But only one State has apparently ceased to exist, and that State is our little Ally Montenegro. She entered the war at the outset, and fought valiantly side 'by iide with the Serbs against the Austrians. She was over- whelmed like Serbia in the winter of 1915-16, and remained in Austrian occupation till the Hapsburgs fall in October, 1918. Then Montenegro was suddenly enveloped in obscurity. She was not represented in the Peace Conference. She did not sign the Peace Treaty. Haiti, Panama, Cuba, and Liberia were among the signatories, but Montenegro, whose people had fought and suffered, was absent. Her King and his Ministers to this day remain in exile in France. It was stated by the Serbian Government, soon after the Armistice, that the Montenegrin Assembly had met and had voted for the deposition of King Nicholas and for anion with the Southern Slav Kingdom. But the Peace Conference, so far as we know, has taken no action in the matter, and has neither confirmed nor denied the Serbian story. It is time that some light was thrown on the affairs of Montenegro. Lord Sydenham did well to raise the question in the House of Lords on March 11th, and to state plainly the serious all ations which are being made against Serbia in this connexion. We have no means of testing the accuracy of Lord Sydenham's assertions, but Lord Curzon's evident inability to contradict them all point-blank sug- gested that there was, at any rate, some foundation for the charges. The Western Powers, who are responsible, cannot continue to ignore Montenegro, and to let it be said that one of their smaller Allies has been victimized by another.
Lord Sydenham told the House of Lords that the Serbian troops occupied Montenegro after the Armistice and instituted a reign of terror. He said that the Montenegrins who refused to swear allegiance to the Serbian King had been subjected to persecution. Some had been killed ; others had had their houses looted and burned. The Monte- negrina, he declared, had risen in revolt, and were still fighting in their mountains against the Serbian troops. Seven thousand Montenegrin refugees were remaining in exile because they were not allowed to re-enter their country without taking the Serbian oath of allegiance. Many of their old leaders were languishing in Serbian gaols. A British traveller whom Lord Sydenham cited reported that he found thirty-eight of these political prisoners detained in four small cells. A mission sent by the people of Glasgow to relieve the distress in Montenegro had, he said, been obstructed by the Serbian officials, though the peasantry were in sore need of food. Lord Sydenham suggested that the alleged vote of the MontenegrinAssembly in favour of union with Serbia was obtained by fraud and intimidation, and did not represent the will of the people. He contrasted with -these statements the repeated and specific pledges of the Allies and of President Wilson to secure the integrity and the liberties of Montenegro. We are well aware of the difficulty of discovering the truth about anything that happens in the Balkan Peninsula. Montenegro in particular -has suffered at the hands of rival propagandists. The Serbians, in order to remove an obstacle to the union of Serbia and Montenegro, have done their best to blacken the character of King Nicholas and his Ministers, and to insinuate that Montenegro might have held out against overwhelming Austrian forces but for treachery. On the other hand, the Italians, whose Queen was a Montenegrin Princess, and who have no liking for the Serbs and Croats, have put the worst construction on the behaviour of the Serbian troops and officials in Montenegro. Both these sources of information are neces- sarily suspect. But Lord Sydenham seemed to be quoting from less biassed witnesses. It was noteworthy also that Lord Gladstone and Lord Bryce gave a general support to his plea that the Montenegrins should be allowed to decide their own future. They evidently disbelieved the Serbian account of the Montenegrin Assembly of November, 1918, which was said to have settled the cruestion once for Lord Curzon's reply on the whole confirmed the belief 'that there ought to be a public inquiry into the state of Montenegro. He said that "the so-called National Assembly " of November24th, 1918, had not been recognized by the Allies, because " neithertime nor opportunity was allowed by the Southern Slays for reasoned and detailed discussion of the decision -to be taken." Lord Curzon did not deny that there had been fighting, but he suggested that the combatants were mainly Montenegrins of rival parties, some supporting and the others opposing union with Serbia. The Allies, he said, had postponed the-settle- ment of Montenegro until they had solved the other Adriatic questions. They had been unable to admit- a Montenegrin delegate to the Peace Conference because the political parties in the country and outside it could not agree on a representative. The Allies had paid the exiled King a subsidy until peace was signed with Austria, and Great Britain had continued her subsidy for some time afterwards. Lord Curzon also said that the Foreign Office had sent Count de Solis on a mission of inquiry to Monte- negro d year ago, though his Report was highly confidential and could not be published. It is good to know that our Government, in the midst of their innumerable cares, have not forgotten Montenegro. But we are bound to emphasize Lord Curzon's significant silence in regard to the grave charges brought by Lord Sydenham. He did not deny that there had been serious troubles in Montenegro since the Armistice, though he hinted that they partook of the nature of a civil war rather than of foreign oppression. There is much force in Lord Curzon's contention that Montenegro—which is much smaller than Wales, and had a population of less than half-a-million in 1917—is too small to stand alone, and that "she ought at least to be offered the opportunity which will presently be presented to her, in common with the Southern Slays elsewhere, of obtaining her share, if she so desires it, in the creation of a great Southern Slav State." Lord Curzon said that the Allies had been considering the parallel case afforded by the Union of South Africa, in which four States combined, as an eiample for the Southern Slays. But it would be a great 'pity if the Allies were to sanction such a union without first clearing up the mystery of Montenegro. The new Southern Slav State would make a bad start if it could be alleged with any semblance of truth that Monte- negro's adhesion had only been secured by violence and deceit. We hope that Lord Sydenhana's charges will be promptly investigated. Even though it should be proved that the King of Montenegro cannot, for sufficient reasons, be allowed to rule any more over Montenegro, that would not justify the Allies in depriving the people of the right to determine their own future.
Previous page
