u THE NATIONA / i.l . TO Mit. WILLIAM COBBETT. LETTER IV'. " paiated by the most fiery Et! got, would be tsa mild a punishment ":or COMIETT. C. ...2n 1 It is impos3ible not to admit the conclusion which you have Ora w in the words I iiate aelerted final your letter fur lily motto, :IA hich has been fully Lssentid to by a cry man iu 1:In:;land w reail your own statement. " 0 , that mire v %vooll It ; ifca a. hook,' was the exclatnation of awise mart. " CtirSO 011 the folly that prompted me to write a defence" yvill be the luosuage of a wretch zdio is no fool. Thcsiinple st vie of , inkerroeatory, which I have hefiire adopted, suits my capacity, and will, perhaps, 'hake the business easier eVen , to a mail of fflor superior atteinments. • " Sir George Young, adniittcd me without being detained a single minute in purgatory—he hcard mg star .' • In point of fairness and can-lour what reason or right have -you to say "ik,7! was apparently all he wanted of me." if this be any thing more than a silly, unmeaning sneer, it amounts to an insinuntion that he proposed noosing more than merely to hear your story without paying any attention to the complaint. It means this or it means nothing. IThesthisconsist with his send ing for you immediately that yoor name was announced, in 'pre- " ference to the crowd_ of hungry applicants who were in his anti rooet when you mite in ? This does not ammor to be a - correct inference either in fact or in argument, but the very contrary. " You mac to hear .front Mtn in a day or ttua," that is you .iihoughLso, for you do toteyea pretend to say he told you so. 1 . Whig, 'gir, if this *part of your defence be true, that the Secre lary at War heard your story, and (hot' apparenag this was all tie want oil, how is itatukt yon dare t oeeusert in a subsequent part -of your letter, that on this very tlth ,Lumerv, ;le OW MC that ur A :) taken rare to gine d;,-ections to have these documents secured. Now, Sir, if he had said En would you not have been ready 'to laugh out right in hie fare, at the very absurdity of such a. lie. On theother hand, if hr did use the exp7es , sions, he must far ;lave zooid paled even y our impatient w -Res as to base sent for documents bni . ore he had heard your story : this is really toobad. 1V hat ioconb;steney is there in Sir th Young's ivritiog on the 15th , Yehrunry, that "he• mild write th the Colonel of the regi moo oboat the hooks, although. says hr, I could.not doubt bat flail the )•.7ginv!iitat t'oci,ks have hums ping( rty Sertired. " Ile could • net donh t, nor could any man doubt that: the books were in the bonds of the proper dol'eer, and ould be totthcomiog, as they . ;4c:wally wete oil the day of trial. lly your own statement th-y «e; . e opsot to every body, long, very . long, after .your complaints were made, and as yon halt " a fr!co s ci 1:i Court," if any altoutions had been mad.e, these is no fLeiht of your ha% In; information, and we , should have heard of it. I.)ou't tic ii know they were in lleactland's keeping., amid open to the inTection of oicry officer as utohil ? Was any at tempt neyi.le fo remove or alter them ? No, Sir ; even your firroetery, matchless tied intrepid as it is, has not ventured a lie that could have• lasted only a day. But, your journey Pollsinon:h gave on any infermation about the books, it vas that they were actually ordered 14„,London, and you do .Know, that they were nut in the hands 9f the accused from the . I.lth January, to the very hour of trial. On this 14th of Jon. .1792, you .e;.y, pose " I wrote to the then Secretary at War, Sir Ceorge Yoorg, stating say ti citoaeo, my business with . X 1:11.I. Cur iflc, ComititutiOn, anb iLcitug. SUNDAY, JUNE 1809. him, and my intentions. I waded from the 14th to the k4th of January". No, Sir, if what you say he true, yon did hot wait, but wrote hitn on the 2'J January, for the exi•ress purpose of having MI Looks secured. What! before he had taken the least notice of your letter of the 14th, before . he had even favoured you with an audience to bear your story, for you-say " 1 waited from the 14th to the 24th Janaary,tathout receioing arta awaver at all ; and then all I heard was that he wished to see me at the War Ottice." , —P,ut you heard nothing for &teen days. Do you recollect the situ,,tion of the country in the beginning of 1792, atil du you conceive that the Socretary at War had no other besinez-s at that alarming period to attend to than a conialaint aguiesa the officers of your regiment. And be cause the proinritatie of military arrangements did not keep pace with the im oat ience of your mind, forsooth, " you !iegan to Le very siasp:cion3 that military justice in England ww• pretty nearly a- kin id mililarg justice in Nova Scotia." Witat sort of logic is this, Mr. Cohoett ? The letter you wrote 'to spur the Relge Advocate was on the 10th February, to which "l got an answer (you say), on the 150." What was the date of this answer? it was, perhaps, written on the 11th or ; but yon got it on the 15th, 46 although it might have. been trrittc-n in a moment." I suppose this to be merely a figure of.speech, hat-it informed you that 4ini 7 part of the charges were' proposed to be tried t remember this, Mr.,Cobbett. Cu the 15th February y oil knew this, and you acknowledge in the next senteace teat a copy of thosr which were to be tried was sent yon on the 234 . February ; "Gut even of these-charges," you spy i• the most ' • terint parts were entitled." Now, Sir, In page 905, : . ou tell US 16 all depended upon the written doeuments as • to 11e principal ,charges. FOR as. tilt Court Martial was to area-dile - on the 24th Mareh l , I went de . i.vn to Porr.mnuth on the 9.00, in order toiknow for certain what was become of the books." In the Srst place .%.: tell us that on the 234 February, yott knew tbeinost material part of the charges-were omitted, MA yet on the 20th. Dilaret you, went 4olpn t 0..:; look after the books in order to sobstantiate rheas petacipatekodoes which yeti • /mete were omitted. Now, Sir, how do you recolacile your having received these mutilated charges ua the 234 February, when in yotmL Letter to the Judge Advocate on the 4th March, you refuse Captain Pwcll any specific:at:an of the charges preferrEqd against hia:. Take your choice of the alternative—A either event you arc guilty of a direct falsehood, But, Sir, von - did not go down to Portsmouth on the 2Uth Mare!). Your lanliladv, Elizabeth Wools, has sworn that you did not leave *vont. lodgings until the night attic 21:a.—Do yott believe there iq a man in England will believe yonr assertion in opposition to her oath.--Nor did the Judge. Advocate receive anyletter written. 1)% vou from Tratton on the :Milt 'March, he fiat/ sworn this; indeed, he violet not.— You were net three, and you never wrote • such a letter—otherwke the Judge Advocate is perjured, and . you are to be helieved upon your bare word in oppositioa to his oath. You say he Judge Advocate informed you on the tsth March, that he hal laid your remonstranceos to the place where the Covet INlartial was to be hell, before—,whom Uinta you ? Not the King, but the accused parties. I accuse you with here writing a deliberate falsehood. I will consent to lose all credit with the public, if you can produce a letter to that erect. The Jadge Advocate dim! no such thing; and yon•know he did net. The-letter of the Judge Advocate upon-this subject iw dated the M March anti not the sth, and he tells yon that he thought it necessary to acquaint the Defendant that you had ap plied to have the Court Martial held in London; and on Feb. REGI Owl. Mr 101 l Pszcz 9d. f !I IP t