In justice to Captain Douglas, we must here state, that he clearly proved before the court-martial, that he withheld his statement for two days before the Court of Inquiry, still under the impression that it might be used to damage him in the proceedings before the civil court. That he was justified in doing so is shown by an order from the Horse Guards, 3d July 1809, expressly acknowledging the “right” of any party, before a court of inquiry, “of declining to answer any question, or to make any statement, which might, in his opinion, have proved prejudicial to him in the course of any ulterior inquiry into his conduct.” On the 28th November last also, we may remark that Sir Charles Napier, in an order to the Indian Army, says, in reference to a Court of Inquiry—“If any person happens to be accused of misconduct, he is called on for his statement of the matter in hand, like any other person: he may either appear or refuse to appear, as he pleases, unless ordered by superior authority; and _either answer_ any questions put to him, or _refuse_ to answer.” If, in the face of these two orders, an officer is to be arraigned before a court-martial for conduct “unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, in having omitted and neglected to make a statement before a Court of Inquiry” which he thought would injure himself, we must say they are a _snare and a delusion for the unwary_, and ought to be expunged forthwith from the Order-books of the army. Footnote 4: The only article of war, beside this, which could be supposed, for a moment, to embrace the case, is the 108th, which says, that—“All crimes not capital, and all disorders and neglects which officers and soldiers may be guilty of, _to the prejudice of good order and military discipline_, though not specified in the foregoing cases, or in our Articles of War, shall be taken cognisance of by courts-martial, according to the nature and the degree of the offence.” But it is evident that this article applies to matters of a military nature. If the merely moral delinquency of which Captain Douglas is charged might be described as affecting “good order and military discipline,” there is no act of a man’s life that might not be designated in the same manner. Footnote 5: “In the old articles of war the language used was scandalous and infamous conduct, _such as is_ unbecoming the character of an ‘officer and a gentleman.’” Footnote 6: Capri. Footnote 7: _The Pillars of Hercules; or, a Narrative of Travels in Spain and Morocco in 1848._ By DAVID URQUHART, Esq. M.P. 2 vols. 8vo. London: 1850. _Le Véloce; ou Tanger, Alger, et Tunis._ Par ALEXANDRE DUMAS. Vols. I. and II. Paris: 1849. Footnote 8: Alison. Footnote 9: Spackman’s _Tables_, p. 185. Footnote 10: SPACKMAN’S _Occupations of the People_. _Vide_ Synoptical Table. Footnote 11: