Group had left Indian affairs and shifted its chief interest to other fields. Curtis became

one of the chief factors in Irish affairs in 1921; Lord Chelmsford returned home and was

raised to a Viscounty in the same year; Meston retired in 1919; Marris became Governor

of Assam in 1921; Hailey became Governor of the Punjab in 1924; Duke died in 1924;

and Rushbrook Williams became director of the Central Bureau of Information,

Government of India, in 1920.

This does not indicate that the Milner Group abandoned all interest in India by 1924 or

earlier, but the Group never showed such concentrated interest in the problem of India

again. Indeed, the Group never displayed such concentrated interest in any problem either

earlier or later, with the single exception of the effort to form the Union of South Africa

in 1908-1909.

The decade 1919-1929 was chiefly occupied with efforts to get Gandhi to permit the

Indian National Congress to cooperate in the affairs of government, so that its members

and other Indians could acquire the necessary experience to allow the progressive

realization of self-government. The Congress Party, as we have said, boycotted the

elections of 1920 and cooperated in those of 1924 only for the purpose of wrecking them.

Nonetheless, the system worked, with the support of moderate groups, and the British

extended one right after another in steady succession. Fiscal autonomy was granted to

India in 1921, and that country at once adopted a protective tariff, to the considerable

injury of British textile manufacturing. The superior Civil Services were opened to

Indians in 1924. Indians were admitted to Woolwich and Sandhurst in the same year, and

commissions in the Indian Army were made available to them.

The appointment of Baron Irwin of the Milner Group to be Viceroy in 1926—an

appointment in which, according to A. C. Johnson's biography Viscount Halifax (1941),

"the influence of Geoffrey Dawson and other members of The Times' editorial staff" may

have played a decisive role—was the chief step in the effort to achieve some real

progress under the Act of 1919 before that Act came under the critical examination of

another Royal Commission, scheduled for 1929. The new Viceroy's statement of policy,

made in India, 17 July 1926, was, according to the same source, embraced by The Times

in an editorial "which showed in no uncertain terms that Irwin's policy was appreciated

and underwritten by Printing House Square."

Unfortunately, in the period 1924-1931 the India Office was not in control of either

the Milner Group or Cecil Bloc. For various reasons, of which this would seem to be the

most important, coordination between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy and between

Britain and the Indian nationalists broke down at the most crucial moments. The Milner

Group, chiefly through The Times, participated in this situation in the period 1926-1929

by praising their man, Lord Irwin, and adversely criticizing the Secretary of State, Lord

Birkenhead. Relationships between Birkenhead and the Milner (and Cecil) Group had not

been cordial for a long time, and there are various indications of feuding from at least

1925. We may recall that in April 1925 a secret, or at least unofficial, "committee" of

Milner Group and Cecil Bloc members had nominated Lord Milner for the post of

Chancellor of Oxford University. Lord Birkenhead had objected both to the candidate

and to the procedure. In regard to the candidate, he would have preferred Asquith. In

regard to the procedure, he demanded to know by what authority this "committee" took

upon itself the task of naming a chancellor to a university of which he (Lord Birkenhead)

had been High Steward since 1922. This protest, as usual when Englishmen of this social

level are deeply moved, took the form of a letter to The Times. It received a tart answer in

a letter, written in the third person, in which he was informed that this committee had

existed before the World War, and that, when it was reconstituted at the end of the war,

Mr. F. E. Smith had been invited to be a member of it but had not seen fit even to

acknowledge the invitation.

The bad relationship between the Milner Group and Lord Birkenhead was not the

result of such episodes as this but rather, it would seem, based on a personal antipathy

engendered by the character of Lord Birkenhead and especially by his indiscreet and

undiplomatic social life and political activity. Nonetheless, Lord Birkenhead was a man

of unquestioned vigor and ability and a man of considerable political influence from the

day in 1906 when he had won a parliamentary seat for the Conservatives in the face of a

great Liberal tidal wave. As a result, he had obtained the post of Secretary of State for

India in November 1924 at the same time that Leopold Amery went to the Colonial

Office. The episode regarding the Milner candidacy to the Oxford Chancellorship

occurred six months later and was practically a direct challenge from Birkenhead to

Перейти на страницу:

Поиск

Нет соединения с сервером, попробуйте зайти чуть позже