Judging General Dyer by the British Government, it was convinced that he would not dare to shoot, and that there was nothing to be afraid of. Of what use, then, would a fourth or a fortieth warning have been? The warnings would have been unheeded, and General Dyer would have been condemned, whatever he had done. But it is necessary to put it on record that he is dismissed from his command and from India because three warnings and not four were given to the apostles of revelution.

Nor can General Dyer be blamed because he continued to fire. His own explanation is perfectly truthful and candid. "I fired, and continued to fire," says he, "until the crowd dispersed, and I consider this is the least amount of firing which would produce the necessary moral and widespread effect which it was my duty to produce, if I was to justify my action. If more troops had been at hand, the effect would have been greater in proportion. It was no longer a question of dispersing the orowd, but one of producing a sufficient moral effect from a military point of view, not only on those who were present, but mere especially throughout the Punjab. There could be no question of undue severity." The gentlemen who drew up the report regard General Dyer's conception of duty as mistaken, and the government agrees with them. Mr Montagu, who has hastened to endorse the report, and

to fling his own stones at General Dyer, asserts that it is the policy of the Government to use the minimum of force necessary when military action is required in support of the civil authority. So there's an end of it. General Dyer, having displayed "honesty of purpose and unflinching adherence to his conception of his duty," is regarded as no longer "fitted to remain entrusted with the responsibilities which his rank and position impose upon him." He is therefore directed to resign his appointment, and his case will be referred to the Army Council. We congratulate General Dyer on having incurred the insolent censure of Mr Montagu. We congratulate him also on his prospect of seeing his case examined by a body of soldiers who are not intimidated by the voters, and who have no natural love of agitators and incendiaries.

But in order to justify themselves, the gentlemen who drew up the report were obliged to declare that there had been no conspiracy at all. To put up a poster upon the Clock-tower, calling on the people to die and kill is, then, no sign of conspiracy. They who preach to a willing audience a bitter war against Europeans are not conspiring. It is no proof of a conspiracy when a mob, seme thousands strong, burns banks and murders their managers with every circumstance of venomous brutality. The blood of white men, no doubt, may be shed with impunity. It is the consistent opinion of our

possible. They have deprived every European in India of security in life or property. The truth is, our Government cannot make up its mind to do anything. It stands in hourly dread of action. It would far rather overlook the crime of murder than punish the monstrous assassin. It obstinately refuses to forgive the slaughtered victims. Relying for its continuance upon a lawless fringe of anarchists and communists, it shrinks most oravenly from playing the man. It believes, perhaps erroneously, that the just punishment of crime is unpopular, and it views without a strong disapproval the murder of policemen in Ireland and of Europeans in India. But some day or another it will be forced into adopting a definite policy. It may come to the conclusion, like the Radioals of fifty years ago, that "Perish India!" would be a profitable ory at the hustings. In the meantime we are deeply committed to the Government of India. We have ruled the country for more than a century.

We

have brought peace and prosperity to a fertile land. We have assuaged the feuds which once divided prince from prince and race from race. And we have done all this without outraging the oustoms or offending the prejudices of a sensitive people. We cannot do what we have done if we allow a minority of two per cent of the population to intimidate us on the false ground of self-determination. Either we

must leave India to the confusion and the carnage which surely would follow our departure, or we must govern it as men and not as the puppets of the polling - booth. The hand-to-mouth policy of flattery and sentiment can end only in disaster. Upon Mr Montagu lies the heaviest responsibility. He holds a place which should never have been his, which he should have been disqualified from holding from the mere fact that he is a Jew. It is not his fault that he does not understand the British soldier's conception of his duty. But he will not be absolved when, in the mutiny which he, an Oriental, has done his best to ensure, Engishmen are murdered English women are outraged.

and

While Mr Montagu is doing his best to promote political agitation, "legitimate and constitutional," in India; while he is handing over the 98 per cent peaceable inhabitants to the malign influence of the wirepullers, whom he loves and fears, Mr George is putting Great Britain under the heavy disgrace of peace with murderers. In other words, Mr George, attended by the silent members of his Cabinet, who take his orders and register his decrees, has received Krassin, the representative of the most brutal and bloody minded bloody-minded tyrants that ever brought suffering and destruction upon an outraged people. The monsters who employed Chinese assassins to do their hellish work, oynical Jews, men of

no

country and no assooi

ations, are to-day publicly acclaimed our political friends and equals. Of the many blows that Mr George has struck at England's dignity and England's honour, this is the heaviest, and he can escape from his ignoble position neither by false history nor by inapposite jesting.

We do not suppose he feels any indignation against the Scoundrels whom Krassin represents, because they have murdered with an elaborate oruelty the Czar of Russia and his family. Monarchs and princes cannot vote, and are therefore but of small interest to politicians. It is unlikely that Mr George should shed a tear over the tear over the unavenged murder of our naval attaché at Petrograd. Naval attachés are not a numerous body and may safely be left to perish. Never

theless it is well to remember that Mr George is now conferring with a set of misoreants and regioides who murdered an English officer, and who have hitherto refrained from expressing an apology or regret. For this callousness, we believe, there is no precedent, and the prestige of Great Britain has suffered an irreparable blow. Again Mr George will be unmoved. But even he, he, we should have

work for the self-appointed champion of the liberty of the world." the world." However, from the very first Mr George could not wholly dissemble his love for Lenin and Trotsky. We all remember the tragi-comedy of Prinkipo. The intercession of Mr Bullitt, whose story remains uncontradicted, is not yet forgotten. Yet, as usual throughout the controversy, Mr George has spoken with two voices. He has abused the Bolsheviks with all the resources of his vocabulary, at the same time that he has paid them assiduous court. He has expressed his horror of Bolshevism a shevism a dozen times. He has declared that he would refuse to take it by the hand; he has deplored "its horrible consequences starvation, bloodshed, confusion, ruin, and horror"; and he has taken it by the hand, making light of its "horrible consequences," and palliating its crimes. Moreover, he Moreover, he has given 8 solemn undertaking that he would not have any dealings with Russia before he had consulted the House of Commons. And he has received Krassin at Downing Street without previously throwing a word to the elected representatives of the British people.