BRITISH JUSTICE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10640, 13 July 1920, Page 5

BRITISH JUSTICE

CASE OF GENERAL OYER ,WAS FBIGHTFULNESS NECESSARY AT AMRITSAR? DEBATE IN COMMONS. By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright (Reuter's Teleeram.) (Received July 12, 8.15 p.m.) LONDON, July 10. Continuing the debate in the House of Commons on tlie India Office vote; Sir Edward Carson entered a passionate plea for General Dyer, urging that a man ought not to he punished for dealing to the best of his ability with a situation for which he was not in the slightest degree responsible. Mr Winston" Churchill (Secretary, for War) explained at length the army regulations in reference to retirement, adding that "the Army. Council’s decision was reached unanimously. Mr Churchill, while assenting to the coun-, oil’s decision, held himself free in the event of Cabinet deciding otherwise tp make further submissions to the Crown for the retirement of General Dyer from the army. The council, however, accepted the conclusions of the Army Council. Mr Churchill described the Jallianwallaghbagh incident as a monstrous event, standing out in sinister isolation, and proceeded to lay down four broad lines for the guidance of officers, as follow: (1) Is the crowd attacking anything or anybody ?■ (2) la the crowd armed? (3) No more force should be used than is necessary to secure compliance with the law. (4) An officer should confine ‘ himself to a limited definite objective.

Mr Churchill also laid down one' genoral prohibition, namely, against friglitfulness, which could not ho admitted in any form; ■ Personally" ho was of opinion that General Dyer should have been placed compulsorily on the retired list.

Mr Asquith pointed out that the judgment passed on General Dyer was supported by the Government, of India, confirmed by the British Cabinet, and independently by the Army Council. Therefore, he contended, that General Dyer had a full and fair heaping. TO PREVENT REBELLION. GENERAL DYER DEFENDS HIS CONDUCT. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON, July 9. ■ A White Paper has been issued giving the defence of General Dyer. ■ General Dyer points out that ho knew the military dangers, of the pdsition and of the cloud in Afghanistan. He also realised that the gathering in JallianwaUaghbagh was not fortuitous, but was assembled with the express intent to challenge the authority , of the .Government and defy him to nre upon them. It was, in fact, a rebel army. He was conscious that a great offensive movement was gathering, and to sit still and await its complete mobilisation would be fatal. Ho could not regard the Jallianwallaghbagh assembly, as if it were a political gathering. He looked on Amritsar as the storm centre of the rebellion. Ho also knew attempts were being made to seduce hia troops. If he had shirked the challenge, there would infallibly have followed a general mob movement, inside and outside Amritsar, which would have destroyed the European population and involved in its luin the law-abiding Indian population, leading to similar results throughout the Punjab. General Dyer contends that his object was right, and the fore© used was not excessive, and achieved the desired effect. No less force would have achieved the effect.