HC Deb 23 June 1920 vol 130 cc2149-54
6. Brigadier-General SURTEES

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India propose to recognise the services of those officers, both civil and military, who, in its opinion, contributed to the quelling of the distur-

way through the Government of India, and will come to me with the recommendations of the Government of India. Since the memorial was written an improved scale of pay has been introduced with effect from 1st January, 1920. I am circulating this improved scale in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement referred to:

bances in the Punjab and elsewhere in India, by any other method than the general expression of satisfaction mentioned in paragraph 43 of the Government of India's letter on the Hunter Committee's Report?

Mr. MONTAGU

I have not received from the Government of India any proposal for further recognition. I will draw the attention of the Government of India to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

13. Mr. GWYNNE

asked the Secretary of State for India whether Sir Michael O'Dwyer communicated day by day with the Government of India concerning the various outbreaks in the Punjab and the measures taken by General Dyer to deal with them; whether this information was submitted forthwith to the India Office; and if not, for what reason?

Mr. MONTAGU

I received daily telegrams from the Government of India from the beginning of the disturbances up to the middle of May. These telegrams embodied the reports of the Punjab Government and, as I have already stated, were all, except two unimportant messages, communicated to the Press here. General Dyer was in charge in only one area, and there was no mention of him by name in those telegrams, and only one mention of him as General Officer Commanding Amritsar. Some movements of troops that were under his command are also reported in those telegrams.

Mr. GWYNNE

If the right hon. Gentleman was receiving these communications daily from the Government of India, will he say why he stated in December that he knew no details except what he read in the newspapers?

Mr. MONTAGU

There has been a great deal of misunderstanding on the point. I can assure my hon. Friend that what I said then was true. I was referring to a question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) on the publication of General Dyer's evidence in the newspapers. I then stated that I had published reports on the occurrences as I received them. If my hon. Friend will look at it, he will see that the matters dealt with in the published newspaper evidence of General Dyer were not covered in this report.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the manner in which this gallant officer has been treated is likely to assist officers in general in dealing with outbreaks?

Mr. SPEAKER

That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. PALMER

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman actually told the House that he knew nothing of these occurrences, that he would wire for information in regard to them, and left the impression on us that he was entirely ignorant of the whole business?

Mr. MONTAGU

Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT on the question and supplementary question I answered. Perhaps he will look also at the speech I made immediately after the occurrence, and the telegrams which resulted. I think then he will be in a position to take part in the Debate.

Mr. GWYNNE

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he stated on 16th December: "I thought I said I knew no details until I saw the account in the newspapers."

Mr. MONTAGU

Every report I had received from the Government of India, with the exception of these two telegrams, was published. That is true. The occurrence to which my right hon. Friend drew attention was the details of the shooting by General Dyer at Amritsar. I had no information on that subject.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Did the Government of India keep the right hon. Gentleman fully informed of events, or did the telegrams hush up the most important part of the account?

Mr. MONTAGU

A great deal of this unfortunate controversy has arisen because there is an impression that I was accusing the Government of the Punjab or the Government of India of concealing facts. I never made such an accusation, and I am prepared to defend their conduct in awaiting the Committee's report.

Sir F. HALL

On a point of Order. Is not the supplementary question I put in accordance with Question 13, which says "concerning various outbreaks in the Punjab and the measures taken by General Dyer to deal with them?" I venture to suggest that the supplementary question I put actually arises out of the question.

Mr. SPEAKER

I venture to suggest that it does not.

14. Mr. GWYNNE

asked the Secretary of State for India on what date he first interviewed Sir Michael O'Dwyer in regard to the outbreaks at Amritsar and discussed General Dyer's action; and whether at any time he interviewed Miss Sherwood, who was assaulted during the riots, and, if so, when?

Mr. MONTAGU

The answer to the first part is, I think, on the 30th June, 1919; to the second, yes, on the 7th October, 1919.

Mr. GWYNNE

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it was that he was able positively to state in December, if he knew from detailed information, both from Sir Michael O'Dwyer and Miss Sherwood in June, "I said I knew no details until I saw the report in the papers." If he sent the report to the papers he must have known it before he saw it in the papers. Is that a correct way of giving information to the House?

Mr. MONTAGU

I suggest that the hon. Member's question shows the wrong- headedness of the whole thing. Miss Sherwood could not possibly have given me any information of what General Dyer did because this gallant lady had been attacked long before all these incidents occurred. If the hon. Member wishes to accuse me of giving false information or making a statement which is not true perhaps he will raise it in Debate, when I shall have an opportunity of answering him.

Mr. GWYNNE

I shall have great pleasure in asking the right hon. Gentleman to explain how it is he is able to say he knew nothing at all of any details when he had seen Sir Michael O'Dwyer and had all the details from him six months before.

Mr. PALMER

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he knew nothing of the Amritsar shooting until he read it in the "Daily Express"?

Mr. MONTAGU

No, I never said so. The fact that there had been shooting at Amritsar was known to me and was published to the world when it occurred in the telegrams I received from the Government of India. What I said in December, and what I say now, is that I had no information as to the details, shooting without warning, and shooting to the exhaustion of ammunition, and the principles upon which General Dyer acted, and so forth. Those things came to me as a shock when I read them in the newspapers.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

When the right hon. Gentleman saw the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, why did he not, in June and at that interview and other interviews, ask him for full details?

Mr. MONTAGU

I can answer that much better in Debate, and I should prefer to do so. I have many most important private interviews at the India Office, and it is very difficult to keep in one's head a year after exactly what occurred, but I think I can satisfy the House, if not the hon. Member, that everything I have said is absolutely true.

Mr. REMER

Will the right hon. Gentleman publish, before the Debate takes place, the account which Miss Sherwood gave him?

Mr. MONTAGU

How can I do that six months after I had the private interview with Miss Sherwood, of which no record was kept? The step I took about Miss Sherwood, if the hon. Member wishes to know, was to tell, I think, two important London newspapers that Miss Sherwood was in London, and that it would be a good thing, in the public interest, if she were interviewed. I do not know what other steps I could have taken.

Mr. REMER

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Miss Sherwood's story has never really appeared in the Press?