§ 13. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the details of the Punjab disturbances in general, and General Dyer's action at Amritsar in particular, were debated at length at the legislative council at Simla during September, 1919; whether Reports of these debates, telegraphic and otherwise, were received by him; and, if so, on what dates?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Many allegations were made by non-official Members to which the reply of Government representatives was generally that these were matters on which judgment should be suspended till the Committee had reported. The debates were received in the India Office in two parts on the 5th and 12th November.
§ Mr. GWYNNEWill the right hon. Gentleman say how, if that is the case, he could still state in December that he had no information on the subject of Amritsar, except what he read in the papers?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe hon. Member still persists in misquoting. What I said on the 16th December was that I had no details of these occurrences, not that I had no knowledge whatever. I had given 413 accounts to the House. If the hon. Member suggests that on reading the allegations of hon. Members of the Legislative Council of India I should have communicated those as authentic to the House whilst there was at that moment a Committee of Inquiry sitting, I venture to differ from him.
§ Sir R. COOPERWill the right hon. Gentleman say how he was able to state positively that he had no information of the details when he had read the full account, and that the discussion in the Legislative Council was a false discussion?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI cannot carry on a debate at Question Time, but what I said was that I had no knowledge of the details of the occurrences.
§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFTWas not the right hon. Gentleman shocked?
§ Mr. MONTAGUCertainly. I think the words I used were that the evidence, as reported in the newspapers, was "profoundly disturbing." I think those were the words.
§ Mr. MONTAGUWell, I accept "shocked." I had no knowledge whatever that General Dyer had made those statements that he was reported to have made until I saw the accounts in the papers.
§ 14. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India whether Sir Michael O'Dwyer informed him at his interview on 30th June, 1919, that General Dyer had ordered his troops to shoot on the prohibited meeting at Jallianwala Bagh without further warning than that already given by him by Proclamation, causing death casualties to the then estimated extent of 200 persons?
§ Mr. MONTAGUSo far as I can state with certainty the details of a conversation which took place a year ago, I am confident that nothing was said about warning. The casualties as ascertained at the time had already been published.
§ Mr. GWYNNEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Michael O'Dwyer stated positively that he told the right hon. Gentleman all the details, and he found he was then so well 414 informed, and knew them as well as he did, of the shooting, and the casualties, and the firing and the crawling order; and is he also aware that Sir Michael O'Dwyer wrote to him on 30th December of last year directly he saw the accounts in the papers that the right hon. Gentleman said he knew nothing about it, and reminded him of the conversation and of the details?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has put a fresh series of statements, and I think he ought to give notice of them.
§ Mr. GWYNNEI think, Sir, if you read the questions you will see that I positively ask the right hon. Gentleman these things?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member is putting the same question as is on the Paper it has been answered; if it is a different question, it should appear on the Paper.
§ 16. Mr. REMERasked the Secretary of State for India which two important London newspapers he recommended in October to interview Miss Sherwood in order that in the public interest her narrative should be known; and why, if this was his view in October last, he stated in December that it was not in the public interest to discuss the Amritsar affair until the Hunter Commission made their Report?
§ Mr. MONTAGUMiss Sherwood gave me an account of her experiences which I thought should be widely known. I should have thought the same of any other authentic account of the same interest. What I did not think advisable was to call for official reports on a matter which was under official inquiry. That is a very different affair.
Dr. MURRAYDo all these questions not show that the time has come when the Debate on Amritsar should take place to settle all these things, and can he not say when it will take place?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe sooner it comes on the better I shall be pleased. I understand that General Dyer's statement to the Army Council is expected in the War Office to-day, and therefore I confidently hope it will be possible to hold the Debate next week.