The first charge is hardly less than a direct accusation of disobedience of orders. It is stated, that as it never was in the contemplation of Government to disband the European regiment, it was expected I would have taken the earliest opportunity to communicate to the men a distinct and public disavowal of that intention. In the succeeding paragraph I am accused of having adopted a course of proceeding entirely different from what Government had in view in deputing me; and I am positively charged _with_ "_having abstained from making any direct communication to the men_." My letter to Lieutenant-Colonel Barclay, of the 18th July, is a number of this dispatch, and has been printed with it. This letter contains the following passage: "You will satisfy Sir George Barlow, that one of the first things that I did, after I came on shore, was to satisfy the minds of the officers, and, through them, of the men, of the intentions of Government in ordering a party of marines from the corps; _and you will see, by the enclosed extract from my Journal, that I took the first good opportunity that offered of_ STATING THIS FACT _in the most public and impressive manner to the whole regiment_." I may ask, with great surprise and some indignation, Why the extract alluded to in this letter was not transmitted to the Honourable the Court of Directors? This extract was a copy of my speech made to the European regiment under arms on the 15th of July. The whole of this speech is in my Journal[52]. The following is a part of it. "I consider it my duty to declare to you at this moment, that it never was in the contemplation of Government to _disband_ or disperse this corps; and that it never meant to employ any officer or man of the regiment in any manner, or upon any service, but such as was suited to the character of British soldiers; and which it, of course, conceived both officers and men would be forward to proceed upon."