INDIAN UNREST.

Hokitika Guardian, 16 March 1922, Page 3

INDIAN UNREST.

“ THE TIMES ” SERVICE. MONTAGU’S ACTION. LONDON, March 14 In the House of Lords, Lord Curz.on said that Mr Montagus’ action regarding India had gravely affected the position of the British delegates at t!v,> forthcoming Near East Conference at Paris. He said that at a Cabinet meeting held on -March 5, lie (Cuiy.oii) had suggested to -Mr Montagu that the publication of Lord Reading’s despatch should not bo authorised without reference to the Cabinet, and bo was dumbfounded to learn tliat, Mr Montagu had already authorised the same. He naturally thought that it was ten late to intervene. Subsequently be wrote to Mr -Montagu, privately, protesting against tbc repetition of any such occurrence. He regretted that Mr Montagu, instead of speaking in the House of Commons, went to bis constituency and traversed both their conversation and bis letter in which, aftei deploring M.r Montagu’s action, be (Curzon) bad said that if be, when Viceroy of India, bad ventured thus to publicly refer to European countries’ foreign policy, lie would have been iecalled. His letter to Mr Montagu went on to state that Air Chamberlain bad agreed that it was intolerable that a subordinate Government, like that of India, should seek to dictate this lines which lie thought Britain ought to follow as regards Thrace and Smyrna. Lord Crewe said lie agreed Mr -Montagu had broken Cabinet proprieties, the effect of which on Europe and India was a most important consideration. The opinions of the Government on India were well known. Therefore, be thought that the publication of I o-d Reading’s despatch was not likely to affect the'Near East confidence.