A SEDITION-MONGER IN INDIA.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12960, 13 November 1907, Page 7

A SEDITION-MONGER IN INDIA.

• XIR KEIR HARDTE AND THE "DAILY MAIL." (rROM OCR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) LONDON, October 4. Mr Keir Hardio—"Queer Hardio" as his unme is commonly pronounced—is being queerer even than .usual. Ho is in India on a visit, and has been occupying his time in dohig his utmost to stir up bitter feeling against England among the ooloured population ot India. Ho has boon haranguing the native population and vehemently declaring that the condition of Bengal, under (British rule, is worse than that of Russia;- that atrocities are committed there moro horriblo than the Turkish outrages in Armenia; and that tho Hindus aro now well fitted for self-government such us Canada and the Transvaal enjoy, • the ryots being quite as intelligent as English agricultural la-bourers. Naturally his listeners have "taken fire" at these words. They proclaim him "not a man but an angel." On this side of tho world, however, Mr Queer Hardio's utterances have, excited strong indignation and a loud demand is raisod from the prompt deportation of the silly but most mischievous babbler as a sedition-monger. The "Daily Mail,"' in order to ascertain "whether Mr Hardie was »c foolish as his native supporters in the Press represented him to be," telegraphed to him asking for a statement and received two telegrams in reply. The first omitted all reference to what he had actually said. It merely dilatedL upon the peaceful nature of the Hindus in Eastern Bengal, and finally it brought a very grave charge against Renter's Agency, declaring that the "Drfily iMail" and "The Times" had been misled by that agency, that Reuter'e reports wore "grossly distorted," and that its information ires not to be trusted. In view of this charge a second telegram was despatched by the "Daily Mafl," asking Mr Keir Bardic the plain question whether he bad used the la-hguage contained in the original Renter message from Calcutta. He replied in his second telegram that the Reuter statements were "fabrications." But then he went on to show, that, far from tho statements attributed to him having been fabricated, there was substantial foundation in his speeches for Router's report. The general tone of his speeches was not vitally changed by .these verbal ■ modification*. The effect, upon a Bengali audienoe of the -words which hare been credited 46 'him' by Reuter, and those which he actually used, would .be practically the same. "In either case," as one critic justly remarks, "his utterances would tend to stimulate disorder and discontent; in either case they were dangerous "to his countrymen and profoundly "wrong."