INDIAN UNRIST

Hokitika Guardian, 17 March 1922, Page 2

INDIAN UNRIST

‘ IHE TIMES ” SERVICE LONDON, March 15 In the House of Commons, Mr T. P. O’Connor moved the adjournment for the purpose of discussing the Indian question and Mr Montagu’s resignation Mr O’Connor said that Mr Montagu was fanatical on the subject of Moslem opinion in India The motion was seconded, and carried.

Then Mr Montagu rose, and the House filled. He complained that Mr Chamberlain did not include one word of regret when announcing his (Montagu’s) resignation. He repeated the arguments he used in his speech to hi? constituents.

Replying to Lord Curzon’s speech Mr Montagu urged that India was a member of the League of Nations. It was not true that India was dictating *- to the people of Britain or the Governmnt. Mr Montagu -said that India was entitled to a predominating share in the making 'of the Sevres treaty with Turkey, because no other country had played so great a part a s India jn Turkey’s defeat. Mr Chamberlain, in reply said, that Mr Lloyd George knew nothing until he saw the document of the Indian Government iii favour of Turkey in the London papers, and lie regarded it as a national misfortune. There could he no rule regarding what matter? sltould be brought before the- Cab-: inet. That must be left to the discretion of the Ministers, who must stand | or fall by the use of that discretion.. Mr Asquith said the important thing was that the Government liad now dis : covered that there is such a thing as Cabinet responsibility. The moral of this incident was that the sooner we returned to the old straight way, where politicians were divided by real-differ-ences of conviction, the better. The motion was then withdrawn,