HC Deb 07 July 1920 vol 131 cc1411-5

STATEMENT BY MR. CHURCHILL.

10. Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will publish the Report of Major Briggs, brigade-major to General Dyer, which was refused publication by the Hunter Committee, owing to the death of writer.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu)

The document referred to was not admitted as evidence by Lord Hunter's Committee, and has never been communicated to me officially. I learn through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that it is appended to the statement submitted by General Dyer to the Army Council, and will be published by him with that statement.

Mr. GWYNNE

May I ask when that Statement will be published?

Mr. MONTAGU

I think that question ought to be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

Colonel YATE

Shall we have that statement before the Debate to-morrow?

Mr. MONTAGU

With regard to that also, perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would address his question to the Secretary of State for War.

14. Commander Viscount CURZON

asked the Secretary of State for India whether all witnesses, including General Dyer, called before the Hunter Committee were given an opportunity of correcting the report of their evidence, or whether only certain witnesses were accorded this privilege?

Mr. MONTAGU

I understand that witnesses who remained accessible were generally given an opportunity of correcting their evidence. I believe that General Dyer returned to his brigade on the Frontier very shortly after giving evidence. Besides his oral evidence, he submitted a written statement, which is published in Volume 3 of the evidence.

Viscount CURZON

I could not hear everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. Could he state whether General Dyer was given an opportunity of correcting his evidence or not?

Mr. MONTAGU

I really do not know, but I understand that General Dyer did not correct his evidence.

Mr. GWYNNE

May I ask why other witnesses were allowed to correct their evidence, and General Dyer was not? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the other witnesses, when their evidence was submitted to them, had to make a great many corrections, as the shorthand notes had been taken by an Indian shorthand writer?

Mr. MONTAGU

No, Sir. I am not aware of that. The fact that General Dyer did not correct his evidence ought certainly to be taken into account in appraising it. I understand that the reason why General Dyer did not correct his evidence was because of his duties on the Frontier at the time, and I hope the House will take that into account.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY

Had he an opportunity of doing so?

Mr. MONTAGU

I was not a member of the Committee. The Hunter Commitee sat in India. They gave, I suppose, the usual opportunities to any witnesses who desired to correct their evidence. There was a very good reason why General Dyer did not do that: he was on service, and I have asked the House to take that into consideration in weighing the evidence.

Mr. GWYNNE

Did the right hon. Gentleman take that into consideration himself when he wrote his dispatch?

Mr. MONTAGU

I shall be prepared to justify the dispatch in the Debate to-morrow.

Mr. BILLING

Does General Dyer accept the accuracy of his own evidence which is now presented to him, or does he differ from it?

Mr. MONTAGU

I do not know. The further statement of General Dyer to the Army Council will, I understand, be published.

Mr. BILLING

Will General Dyer be given an opportunity of reading his evidence, and stating what corrections—had he had an opportunity of correcting it—he would have made?

Mr. MONTAGU

The evidence has been published now for some time. I imagine that in his statement to the Army Council he has made any observations he wishes to make.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS (by Private Notice)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to announce to the House the decision of the Army Council in reference to Brigadier-General Dyer, and if and when, it is proposed to publish Brigadier-General Dyer's statement?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill)

I am about to lay a Paper on the Table in dummy which will, I hope, enable hon. Members to be in possession of Brigadier-General Dyer's statement in time for the Debate tomorrow. Everything will be done to expedite it.

With regard to the decision of the Army Council, they have come to the following conclusion: The Army Council have considered the Report of the Hunter Committee, together with the statement which Brigadier-General Dyer has by their direction submitted to them. They consider that, in spite of the great difficulties of the position in which this officer found himself on 13th April, 1919, at Jallianwallah Bagh, he cannot be acquitted of an error of judgment. They observe that the Commander-in-Chief in India has removed Brigadier-General Dyer from his employment in India and that he has been informed that no further employment will be offered to him in India and that he has in consequence reverted to half-pay, and that the Selection Board in India has passed him over for promotion. These decisions the Army Council accept. They do not consider that further employment should be offered to Brigadier-General Dyer outside India—

HON. MEMBERS

"Why," and "Shame!"

Mr. CHURCHILL

That is very improper and disorderly.

HON. MEMBERS

"Why!"

Mr. CHURCHILL

It is well known to be disorderly. They have also considered whether any further action of a disciplinary nature is required, and the Army Council, in view of all the circumstances, do not feel called upon from the military point of view, with which alone they are concerned, to take any further action.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to endorse the action of the Army Council and, is he prepared to defend it here to-morrow?

Mr. CHURCHILL

Certainly.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT

Is it not the fact that General Dyer after these events happened was employed to take part in operations in Afghanistan?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking a question which has been asked before, and answered.

Commander BELLAIRS

Will hon. Members be precluded from moving the adjournment of the House with regard to the War Office decision at a later stage, in view of the fact that the discussion to-morrow is on the India Office Vote?

Mr. SPEAKER

I can only answer in the well-known Parliamentary phrase, "Wait and see."