It is hardly necessary to say, that the military law under which our army has been governed, ever since the Revolution, is as completely founded upon the statutes of parliament as any other branch of our jurisprudence. A less technical mode of procedure is recognised as prevailing in courts-martial, than that which regulates our civil or criminal courts. But there is nothing of an _arbitrary_ nature in the sentences they pass. These are determined, so far as this is possible, by the act of parliament. A judge of the bankruptcy court is not more bound by the statute, when he grants or withholds the bankrupt’s certificate, than are the judges of a court-martial when they sentence a fellow-officer to be cashiered. Let it be granted, therefore, that Captain Douglas had so far committed himself, in the course of the events we shall have to record, that it was expedient to bring him before a court-martial. Let this be granted—an opinion, however, from which many will dissent—when there, he claims justice! He is under the protection of the law. He is not to be punished with undue severity; he is not to be punished illegally. It is probable that Mr Warren will be thought to have been carried a little too far, in his vindication of Captain Douglas’s conduct, by his generous zeal and by the ardour of advocacy. It would be asking too much to require that he should suddenly assume towards his late client the coolness of a quite impartial observer. But whilst his argument is that of an advocate, and is something too much tainted with the logic of the courts of Westminster, his statement of facts is full and impartial. He may be a too zealous advocate, but he is a candid historian. It is hardly necessary to add, that, whenever occasion legitimately permits, he is a very pleasant and graphic historian.