letter that showed you to have bad any criminal hand in '_the
conspiracy_.' How came these newspaper writers to _know_ the contents of
your letter? _Who_ was it that _authorized them_ to publish this account
of your letter? Either they know its contents, or they do not: if the
latter, they have published what they do not know to be true; if the
former, why do they not publish the _whole_ of those contents? The
reason is this: the contents of your letter would convince every man
who should see them, that you were not only ignorant of any Plot or
Conspiracy; but that, if your correspondent _really had_ any such views
(which I do not believe) your letter was calculated to _check_ any hope
that he might have entertained of having your co-operation. This is
what, I venture to say, the contents of your letter would have proved to
the satisfaction of every well-wisher to the peace and happiness of the
country; and _because_ they would have proved _this,_ these base writers
have carefully kept them out of their columns!

"But, Mr. Preston, they tell us, boldly _avows_ the intended
'_insurrection_,' and _confesses_ all that can be wished, except,
indeed, the main thing, which is, that _you_ had a hand in the said
'_insurrection_.' However, this is _all a falsehood;_ and, if the
_proof_ of its falsehood be not made clearly appear before this day
month, I will be content to pass for an ideot for the rest of my life.
The account of Mr. Preston's '_confessions_,' as the sons of Corruption
call them, you shall have in their own words. The Lord Mayor, it seems,
went to Mr. Preston's home, and having examined him and his papers,
found no grounds for detaining him; but, since that he has been, it
appears, taken up and kept in custody, and the following is the account
which Corruption's Press gives of his examination: "'The next person of
importance who has been apprehended is Thomas Preston, who is called the
Secretary to the Spa-fields Committee. This poor wretch lives with his