Showing 23 results

Archival description
MONT II/A/2/11/1 · Item · 23 June 1919
Part of Papers of Edwin Montagu, Part II

British Delegation, Paris.—The Secretary of State recalls that at the beginning of the trouble in India the Viceroy sent him a telegram (A2/1/14(i)) telling him not to worry about ‘getting the right people back on our side’, and that he had a scheme in mind. Asks Brown to find it and send it in the next pouch.

MONT II/A/2/15/1 · Item · 12 Aug. 1919
Part of Papers of Edwin Montagu, Part II

Has been informed that the Bombay High Court is asking pleaders to show cause why they should not be disbarred for taking the satyagraha [passive resistance] vow. Questions whether it is worth proceeding against satyagraha now it is over. Is telegraphing to [Sir George Lloyd at] Bombay for facts in connection with a question to be asked by Wedgwood [in the Commons] on Thursday.

(MS in the hands of Montagu and S. K. Brown. Used for transmission.)

MONT II/A/3/17/1 · Item · 19 Dec. 1921
Part of Papers of Edwin Montagu, Part II

(i) The annexed telegram will be ‘all right’ if sent tomorrow morning. There is no chance of consulting the Prime Minister tonight, except at the risk of having the matter turned down out of hand.

(ii) He has been unable to obtain a Cabinet decision on Reading's telegram [A3/15/1–3], but the Prime Minister has authorised him to say that the Government accept Reading’s conclusions, provided that (1) the conference is conditional upon a change of attitude as to the Prince’s visit; (2) it will be in other respects unconditional on both sides; and (3) Reading would enter it under no other pledge than to listen and discuss, and report afterwards to the Government.

MONT II/A/2/12/3 · Item · 18 July 1919
Part of Papers of Edwin Montagu, Part II

(i) The legal adviser has been told that the Privy Council will hear the appeal on the 23rd. It would therefore be safe to promise a reply within a week.

(ii) The Privy Council will hear the appeal on the 23rd. Further orders may be expected in a week.

((ii) is a MS in the hand of S. K. Brown, apparently used for transmission.)

MONT II/A/2/27/3 · Item · 22 Mar. 1920
Part of Papers of Edwin Montagu, Part II

(i) Has just seen A2/27/2. At first sight it would seem better, if the courts are amenable, for Government to prosecute Dyer than to leave him to private prosecution. Defers giving an opinion on whether it should be before a civil or military tribunal, though the latter would probably not protect Dyer from private prosecution.
(ii) Postpones discussing the matter till next week. Suggests advising the Viceroy that he will reply when he returns on Monday. Is not prepared to exonerate Dyer. ‘What about depor-tations?’

((ii) is repeated, more legibly, in the hand of S. K. Brown.)

MONT II/A/2/12/5 · Item · 30 July 1919
Part of Papers of Edwin Montagu, Part II

Refers him to his official telegrams of the 23rd and 28th for the further orders promised in A2/12/3, and instructs him to take the necessary action.

(MS drafted by S. K. Brown, at the suggestion of Sir Thomas Holderness. Used for transmission.)

MONT II/A/3/17/5 · Item · [20 Dec. 1921]
Part of Papers of Edwin Montagu, Part II

The Government have considered Reading’s telegram [A3/15/1–3] and accept his conclusions. They agree with his doubts as to the practical result of a conference, since the recent reforms were not initiated in response to clamour but as an attempt to establish a working electorate, and their whole basis would be jeopardized if the Government allowed itself to be pressured into making premature concessions. They acknowledge, however, the difficulty of refusing discussion and the practical advantages of granting it, for the sake of leading agitators to formulate their demands. They endorse the paramount necessity of including members of the legislatures in such a conference.

MONT II/A/3/1/7 · Item · 2 Aug. 1921
Part of Papers of Edwin Montagu, Part II

Sends in full the ‘agreed statement’ as given to the press: Lord Reading has been advised that his conversations with Gandhi about the Ali brothers have been inaccurately reported in the press, and he has therefore authorised the publication of an agreed statement on the following lines. The interviews resulted from conversations between Reading and Malaviya in which the latter was advised of the Government’s decision to begin criminal proceedings against the Ali brothers for making speeches inciting to violence. Malaviya and Andrews suggested that Reading should speak with Gandhi. The proposed interview was intended to have reference to the general situation, but it is acknowledged that in inviting Gandhi to Simla Malaviya made no reference to the intended proceedings against the Ali brothers. In due course Gandhi came to Simla and an interview was arranged. At the first interview no mention was made of the proposed prosecutions. At the next, Reading expressed the belief that responsible non-co-operators had made speeches inciting to violence, and Gandhi replied that, if he was satisfied that such were the case, he would publicly repudiate them and their teachings unless they withdrew their statements. Reading read to Gandhi passages in speeches by the Ali brothers that he believed were calculated to incite to violence, and Gandhi acknowledged that they were capable of bearing that interpretation; but he asserted that he did not believe that the Ali brothers had intended to incite their audience to violence, and said that he would advise them to express public regret for the unintentional incitement in these passages. Reading asked to see a draft of this statement, and at this point he mentioned the intended prosecutions, stating that, if he was satisfied with the statement, he would try to prevent the prosecutions being carried out. Gandhi, in due course, showed the statement to Reading, who pointed out that certain passages, particularly the reference to the Ali brothers’ religious creed, gave it the appearance of a manifesto, and that it did not contain a promise to refrain from speeches inciting to violence. Reading pointed out that, after publication of the statement, the Ali brothers could give any explanation by means of speeches, provided they did not infringe the law. Gandhi agreed to make the requested alterations. Reading advised him that, if the Ali brothers signed the amended statement, the proceedings would be suspended, reserving the right to take them up again if the promises in the statement were not observed, and noted that it would be necessary to issue a communiqué explaining the Government’s position. Reading advised Gandhi that he might not be able to prevent the commencement of proceedings if the statement was not published quickly, and Gandhi agreed that this would be done. Some days later, Gandhi telegraphed that the Ali brothers had signed the [revised] statement with an immaterial alteration. The Government then issued an official communiqué, the terms of which were not settled till just before its issue, though its substance had been communicated to Gandhi. The main part of the interviews between Reading and Gandhi concerned the various causes of discontent in India, including the disturbances in the Punjab, the Khilafat agitation, and the Treaty of Sèvres. Gandhi did not submit any scheme of swaraj, nor was any such scheme discussed.

(Typed. Formally issued in the name of the Viceroy.)

MONT II/A/3/14/8 · Item · 19 Dec. 1921
Part of Papers of Edwin Montagu, Part II

(i) Directs him to consult Sir William Duke about sending a telegram to Lord Reading. He does not want Reading to say that he suggested sending for Gandhi. Refers to his own ‘hasty draft’ [A3/14/9].

(ii) The draft seems to be superseded by a telegram just received [A3/15/1–3]. He has sent Sir Edward Grigg a copy and told him that Montagu may wish to see the Prime Minister on it urgently.