to illustrate the meaning of horror and tyranny.  “In private complaints he never takes the statement of the complainant.  It is taken down by the reader when the court rises and got signed by the magistrate the following day.  Whether the report received (upon such complaints) is favourable to the complainant or unfavourable to him, it is never ready by the magistrate, and complaints are dismissed without proper trial.  This is the fate of private complaints.  Now as regards police chellans.  Pleaders for the accused are not allowed to interview under trial prisoners in police custody.  They are not allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses....  Prosecution witnesses are examined with leading questions....  Thus a whole prosecution story is put into the mouth of police, witnesses for the defence though called in are not allowed to be examined by the defence counsel....  The accused is silenced if he picks up courage to say anything in defence....  Any Cantonment servant can write down the name of any citizen of the Cantonment on a chit of paper and ask him to appear the next day in court.  This is a summons....  If any one does not appear in court who is thus ordered, criminal warrants of arrest are issued against him.”  There is much more of this style in the letter which is worth producing, but I have given enough to illustrate the writer’s meaning.  Let me turn for a while to this official’s record during Martial Law.  He is the official who tried people in batches and convicted them after a farcical trial.  Witnesses have deposed to his having assembled people, having asked them to give false evidence, having removed women’s veils, called them ‘flies, bitches, she-asses’ and having spat upon them.  He it was who subjected the innocent pleaders of Shokhupura indescribable persecution.  Mr. Andrews personally investigated complaints against this official and came to the conclusion that no official had behaved worse than Mr. Smith.  He gathered the people of Shokhupura, humiliated them in a variety of ways, called them ‘suvarlog,’ ‘gandi mukkhi.’  His evidence before the Hunter Commission betrays his total disregard for truth and this is the officer who, if the correspondent in question has given correct facts, has been promoted.  The question however is why, he is at all in Government service and why he has not been tried for assaulting and abusing innocent men and women.

I notice a desire for the impeachment of General Dyer and Sir Michael O’Dwyer.  I will not stop to examine whether the course is feasible.  I was sorry to find Mr. Shastriar joining this cry for the prosecution of General Dyer.  If the English people will willingly do so, I would welcome such prosecution as a sign of their strong disapproval of the Jallianwalla Bagh atrocity, but I would certainly not spend a single farthing in a vain pursuit after the conviction of this man.  Surely the public has received sufficient experience of the English mind.  Practically the whole English Press has joined the