The National Intelligencer And Washington Advertiser

From the Virginia Gazette.

A publication made in your paper by Mr. Beverly, purporting to be an account of some occurrences which took place respecting Gen. Wilkinson, before the grand jury, which lately attended the U. S. court at Richmond--doth certainly contain some errors. They will be rectified as far as my name is concerned by the publication of this note.

There was no motion made to present general Wilkinson for high treason, that I remember; there certainly was no vote taken upon such a question. A motion was made to present general Wilkinson for misprision of treason,-- The jury divided, seven for, nine against the presentment. I was with the minority.

A motion was also made to present the general for a violation of the laws and constitution of the U. S. I do not remember how the jury divided on this question; but I was with the majority.

I should not perhaps have troubled you with this address had it not been necessary to correct another mistake.

I am informed that several gentlemen in Richmond have said, and perhaps certified under their hands, that they received an account from me, corresponding with the statement made by Mr. Beverly. Those declarations and certificates, if any such there be, must be due to a misunderstanding or misapplication of the terms of my conversation. I never did state to any person that the grand jury were divided on a motion to present Gen. Wilkinson for high treason; or that any such question was made before them.

After the grand jury were discharged, and in course of the next day, sundry gentlemen of my acquaintance, at different times and places addressed me to the following effect-- "We have heard contradictory accounts of the division of the grand jury upon a motion to present general Wilkinson (without stating for what offence) will you be so good as to give us the correct account?" I answered, "I believe the jury were divided. 7 for. 9 against the presentment." The misunderstanding, I suppose, must have happened this way. Those who had heard of Mr. Beverly's account of a motion to present for high treason, which was not made, connected with it, my answer which could refer to no other than the motion to present for misprision of treason, which was made. Or, if any gentleman addressed me in terms which authorised him to regard my answer as applicable to a question of high treason, I did not attend sufficiently to the terms of his question, or should certainly have set him right. I can see no motive for wilful misrepresentation of this subject on the part of any. I will suppose none to exist.

WM. DANIEL, Jun.