I gladly publish Mr. Pennington's letter with its enclosure just as I have received them. Evidently Mr. Pennington is not a regular reader of 'Young India,' or he would have noticed that no one has condemned mob outrages more than I have. He seems to think that the article he has objected to was the only thing I have ever written on General Dyer. He does not seem to know that I have endeavoured with the utmost impartiality to examine the Jallianwala massacre. And he can see any day all the proof adduced by my fellow-commissioners and myself in support of our findings on the massacre. The ordinary readers of 'Young India' knew all the facts and therefore it was unnecessary for me to support my assertion otherwise. But unfortunately Mr. Pennington represents the typical Englishman. He does not want to be unjust, nevertheless he is rarely just in his appreciation of world events because he has no time to study them except cursorily and that through a press whose business is to air only party views. The average Englishman therefore except in parochial matters is perhaps the least informed though he claims to be well-informed about every variety of interest. Mr. Pennington's ignorance is thus typical of the others and affords the best reason for securing control of our own affairs in our own hands. Ability will come with use and not by waiting to be trained by those whose natural interest is to prolong the period of tutelage as much as possible. But to return to Mr. Pennington's letter he complains that there has been no 'proper trial of any one.' The fault is not ours. India has consistently and insistently demanded a trial of all the officers concerned in the crimes against the Punjab. He next objects to be 'violence' of my language. If truth is violent, I plead guilty to the charge of violence of language. But I could not, without doing violence to truth, refrain from using the language, I have, regarding General Dyer's action. It has been proved out of his own mouth or hostile witnesses: (1) That the crowd was unarmed. (2) That it contained children. (3) That the 13th was the day of Vaisakhi fair. (4) That thousands had come to the fair. (5) That there was no rebellion. (6) That during the intervening two days before the 'massacre' there was peace in Amritsar. (7) That the proclamation of the meeting was made the same day as General Dyer's proclamation. (8) That General Dyer's proclamation prohibited not meetings but processions or gatherings of four men on the streets and not in private or public places. (9) That General Dyer ran no risk whether outside or inside the city. (10) That he admitted himself that many in the crowd did not know anything of his proclamation. (11) That he fired without warning the crowd and even after it had begun to disperse. He fired on the backs of the people who were in flight. (12) That the men were practically penned in an enclosure.