§ 5. Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India how many appeals have been preferred to the Privy Council by persons convicted of rebellion, murder, and other serious offences during the Punjab disturbances of April, 1919; what has been the result of the appeals which have been heard; and what steps he is taking to defend the remaining appeals?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThere have been six appeals, of 52 persons. One appeal, of 21 persons, has been heard and dismissed. The remaining five are pending. If proceeded with, counsel of standing will be retained to defend them in accordance with the usual practice. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General was one of those who acted in this behalf in the appeal which was dismissed.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I ask what is the position of the appeals? Are they going to be proceeded with or not?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThat depends upon the appellants. My legal advisers have, I think, pressed that the appeals should be proceeded with or abandoned.
§ 6. Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India whether Dr. Mohammed Bushir, of Amritsar, was convicted by a martial law commission for having led the mob at the attack on the national bank when Messrs. Stewart and Scott were murdered; whether he was sentenced to death; if so, on what grounds this man was subsequently pardoned by the Government of India; and whether his appeal to the Privy 1416 Council was still pending at the time he was so pardoned?
§ 13. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India by whose orders Muhammed Bashir, who led the attack on the National Bank at Amritsar when Messrs. Stewart and Scott were murdered, and also organised the gathering at Jallianwala Bagh, and who was convicted and sentenced to death by a martial law commission consisting of three judges, one of whom was a British High Court Judge and another an Indian Judge, was subsequently unconditionally released; whether this release was the result of the review of unexpired sentences by the two High Court Judges; if so, did both these judges concur in the recommendation for release or were their opinions divided; and, in the latter case, what was the special reason that induced the Government of India to override the opinions of four out of the five judges who dealt with the case?
§ Mr. MONTAGUDr. Muhammed Bashir was sentenced to death by a martial law commission in the Amritsar Leaders' case, which included the charge against him of inciting the mob in the attack on the National Bank. The sentence was reduced by Sir Edward Maclagan, Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, to one of six years' rigorous imprisonment. The two High Court Judges appointed to examine cases tried by Martial Law Courts agreed that the part of the case against the doctor relating to the events at the National Bank rested on the, uncorroborated testimony of an approver; one judge was of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to justify a conviction for waging war only, but the other judge would not admit the sufficiency of the evidence to justify a conviction at all. The Punjab Government, in the circumstances, recommended the release of Dr. Muhammed Bashir on certain conditions, and the Government of India accepted these recommendations. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSCan the right hon. Gentleman say what the conditions were, whether they have been fulfilled, and whether this gentleman, who was convicted, sentenced to death, and let out, is the leader of an agitation in the Punjab against this country?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe conditions were: (1) that during the remaining term of the sentence he would not commit or abet the commission of an offence against the State or public tranquillity; (2) that during the same period he would not, directly or indirectly, take part in any movement directed against the State or public tranquillity, or likely to lead to the commission of any offence of the nature described above. If any of these conditions be not, in the opinion of the Local Government, fulfilled, the Local Government may cancel the suspension of the sentence. The hon. Member will perceive that, under the terms of the conditions, the Local Government have full discretion to act, and I would prefer to leave it to the Local Government to act.
§ Colonel YATEWas it the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab who released this man, or the Viceroy and the Government of India?
§ Mr. MONTAGUIf the hon. and gallant Gentleman had heard my answer, he would have noted that the Punjab Government, in the circumstances, recommended his release on certain conditions, and that the Government of India accepted the recommendation.
§ Colonel YATEDo the Government of India think it right to go against four judges, and is it likely to uphold the justiciary of India when four judges out of five condemn a man and the Government of India order his release?
§ 15. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India if, when he first heard of the occurrences at Amritsar in April, 1919, he thought it a matter for immediate inquiry; and, if so, why he did not arrange for the Commission to commence proceedings before 29th October?
§ Mr. MONTAGUAs I stated in this House on the 22nd May, 1919, the Viceroy had always contemplated an inquiry, and in the first week of that month he intimated this fact to me. I said, however, on the same date, "Let us talk of an inquiry when we have put the fire out." Any subsequent delay was due to climatic conditions and to the obvious difficulties in selecting and arranging for such a Committee.
§ Mr. GWYNNEWill the right hon. Gentleman say on what date he considered the fire to be put out?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI would not like to say that accurately in answer to a supplementary question, but I would suggest to the hon. Member that it was certainly not before martial law.
§ Mr. GWYNNEDoes the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it was reasonable, taking into consideration all that he has said, to wait from April until the end of October before proceedings were started?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI understand that that is one of the charges which the hon. Member will make in the Debate. You cannot hold an inquiry of this kind in the Punjab during the hot weather, and you cannot ask people to serve on an inquiry the date of which has not yet been fixed.
§ Mr. GWYNNErose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member had better wait until to-morrow. He is in danger of spoiling his case by this preliminary canter.
§ 16. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India whether it is his intention to publish the evidence of all the witnesses examined by the Hunter Committee, or whether he expects the House of Commons to form an opinion on extracts from the evidence of a few witnesses, as set forth in the Blue Book Cmd. 681.
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe evidence of witnesses examined by the Hunter Committee has been published and is on sale, except that of three witnesses heard in camerâ. Members were informed, on a slip attached to the Report, which has been distributed, that volumes of evidence would be supplied on application to the India Office.
§ Mr. GWYNNEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have applied twice in the Vote Office for a copy of the evidence, and have been unable to get one?
§ Mr. MONTAGUNobody can regret more than I do the misfortunes of the hon. Member. I will see that he gets a copy of the evidence this afternoon.
§ Mr. GWYNNEDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think it is very important that we should all have it? Is it not 1419 usual for hon. Members to be able to get evidence of all important Commissions and inquiries in this House?
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWill the right hon. Gentleman let me have a copy too?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThere are, I think, five volumes. If I printed and distributed them all to every hon. Member, I should be accused of unnecessary expenditure. If the hon. Member has found any difficulty in getting the evidence it is rather remarkable that he should have waited till the day before the Debate is to take place.
§ Mr. GWYNNEThe right hon. Gentleman must know that it is usual to send round such evidence.
§ 17. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India at what date, and through what source, he eventually became aware of the details of the occurrences at Amritsar?
§ Mr. MONTAGUBrigadier-General Dyer's own Reports were first received at the India Office in January, 1920, and the Committee's Report at the end of March. Earlier official reports had not given the details in question. It was in the previous December that I read a newspaper cablegram regarding what Brigadier-General Dyer had said in evidence.
§ Mr. GWYNNEWill the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question, which was, from what source he eventually kept himself informed as to the details of the occurrence?
§ Mr. MONTAGUPerhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to study carefully the printed report of the answer which I have just read to the House.
§ Colonel YATECan the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government of India did not send home General Dyer's Report?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not arise out of the question.