The Daily News. MONDAY, MARCH 13, 1922. AN ADMINISTRATIVE PRINCIPLE.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 March 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. MONDAY, MARCH 13, 1922. AN ADMINISTRATIVE PRINCIPLE.

The circumstances that have led to the resignation of the Secretary for India (Mr. E. S. Montagu) are exceptional in their gravity, not only from a Cabinet point of view, but as affecting the action and responsibilities of individual Ministers as well as the various Governments throughout the Empire. Mr. Lloyd George put the crux of the matter in plain and direct language when replying to Mr. Montagu’s letter of resignation. “If,” said the British Premier, “the Governments of the Empire were all to claim the liberty of publishing declarations on matters vitally affecting the relations of the whole Empire, our foreign policy vzould be broken, and the very existence of the Empirte would be jeopardised.” No misconstruction is possible on this pronouncement of an administrative principle that is a fundamental necessity of Imperial politics. Equally forcible is the Premier’s assertion of the danger attached to individual action by any member of Cabinet which commits the Government to a policy on which they have not been consulted. The very essence of democratic Government is co-operated action. Therein lies the line of demarcation between the will of one—autocracy—and the united views of those who act for the people—democracy. Rule by the majority is such a firmly rooted cardinal principle in all Britishspeaking communities that any departure therefrom is fraught with grave danger. It takes no special gift of perception to envisage the state of affairs that would ensue were individual members of a Government to take upon themselves the authority of the whole Cabinet. Each Minister would be a law unto himself, and nothing but chaos would result—“the very existence of the Empire would be jeopardised.” The particular cause of Mr. Montagu’s indiscretion was that he took the sole responsibility of the publication of ’he Indian Government’s telegram appealing fir a revision of the Sevres Treaty, which dealt with Turkey’s future. The fact that Lord Reading (the Viceroy of India) transmitted such a message, in no way relieved the Secretary for India of the blame for its publication, although he contends that it contained views which had again and again been expressed. He admits the existence of grave difficulties in India in connection with that treaty, but claims that the Government of India “regarded the matter as one of urgency.” The very fact that grave difficulties existed should have sufficed to engender more than ordinary caution in dealing with such a matter, and Mr 4 . Montagu threw discretion to the winds, ignored his colleagues in the Cabinet and added to the original error of judgment eomn.itted by the Government of India. “Such actions,” Mr. Lloyd George contended—and rightly so—“are totally incompatible with the collective responsibility cf Cabinet to the Sovereign and to Parliament.” The questions raised by the telegram went far beyond the frontiers of India or the responsibilities of the Chief Secretary’s office, and the moment chosen for the publication of the appeal for a revision of the treaty was indefensible from the standpoint which must govern the British Government’s action on broad, Imperial interests. The principle involved in this matter is one that has far-reaching effect, not only as regards Britain and India, but the whole Empire. The accident or indiscretion of a moment may create an upheaval that might lead to disruption. ’There must be complete loyalty and co-operation among the members of every Government, and the utmost care exercised to prevent discord or friction. While the various Governments within the Empire are within their rights in making their views known to the Imperial Government on matters concerning their own affairs, they have no right to go beyond that limit. There was no option for Mr. Montagu but to resign. Un*

happily it is closing the door after the steed has departed, yet there is a strong moral that the incident has brought into prominence—that of the danger which a Government runs when all its members are not imbued with the imperative necessity of acting in unison. There is absolutely no excuse that can be advanced for an act like that of Mr. Montagu’s, which has seriously increased the difficulties of the Imperial Government when delicate and fateful negotiations were in prospect. The question of Mr. Montagu’s action is one that must be left with the Imperial Government to deal with. The harm that has been done calls for prompt and effective steps’ to cheek the situation from developing into a grave crisis.