The unfortunate loss of our fleet, and the consequent withdrawing of our troops from the American territory, afforded an opportunity to the party opposed to Sir George Prevost's civil administration in Canada, of which they immediately and eagerly availed themselves, of circulating the most unfounded statements, and the most exaggerated accounts, with respect to both those transactions. These were industriously transmitted to England by a private ship belonging to one of Sir George Prevost's most violent opponents, and upon their arrival, and in the absence of any official accounts of the transactions to which they referred, they created a general belief that the disastrous result of the naval action had been occasioned by a want of co-operation from the shore; that the retreat had been conducted in a precipitate and disgraceful manner; that a severe loss of men, guns, stores, and provisions, had been the consequence of it; and that the whole army was indignant at the conduct of their commander. The arrival of Sir George Prevost's despatches, together with the explanations afforded, as well by them as by the person to whom they had been given in charge, could not fail to undeceive His Majesty's Government on this subject, and to convince them of the grossness of the misrepresentations which had gone forth. Had not some expressions in Sir James Yeo's letter, accompanying the account of the naval action, been construed into charges against Sir George Prevost, which, in justice to him, as well as to the public, it was deemed proper to call upon him to answer, there cannot be a doubt but that the further management of the war in the Canadas would still have been entrusted to the Commander who had hitherto so successfully conducted it. Even if the subsequent conduct of Sir James Yeo did not afford ample proof of the fact, there is not wanting other evidence to shew that the letter in question was written by him under the irritation of the moment, and in consequence of Captain Pring's communication to him of the result of the naval action, but without any intention of making a charge against Sir George Prevost, and without the most distant idea that it could be so construed. Sir James Yeo must have possessed too honourable a mind to become a guest in Sir George Prevost's family, and to partake of his attention and hospitality, had he for a moment supposed that his public letter, on the subject of the naval action at Plattsburg, could have been construed into a formal accusation. Had he really meant it as such, he would most undoubtedly, in a manly and open manner, have communicated the proceeding he had adopted to the party accused; and, under such circumstances, would, no less certainly, have refused the kindness and attention of the person of whom he had publicly expressed so unfavourable an opinion. That this must have been the case may further be inferred, from the circumstance that, although Sir George Prevost was recalled to answer