Painful as it was to the friends of Sir George Prevost to allow a single stain to rest upon the memory of so brave and distinguished a soldier, more especially when they possessed the means of removing every doubt as to his conduct, they yet considered an appeal to the candour and justice of his country as unnecessary. The violent prejudices which at one period existed against the late Commander of the Forces in the Canadas were gradually wearing away; his memory had been honored by a just tribute of his Sovereign's regret and approbation; and the scenes in which he had been so conspicuous an actor, had ceased to be a matter of general interest. Under these circumstances, the relatives of Sir George Prevost would confidently have entrusted his reputation to the unprejudiced judgment of posterity, had they not seen, with equal regret and indignation, a late attempt to revive the almost exploded calumnies and misrepresentations of which he had been the victim. That the Quarterly Review[1] should have lent its pages to an attack like this, will, upon the perusal of the present volume, excite the surprise of every candid person; and it is chiefly for the purpose of correcting the mis-statements into which the Reviewer has been led, that the following pages are presented to the public. Before entering more particularly upon the subject of Sir George Prevost's conduct, so wantonly attacked in the article above alluded to, it may not be thought improper briefly to advert to his father's services and to his own early history. From his military career, previous to his appointment to the chief command in British North America, it will clearly appear that he was not without reason selected by his Majesty's Government for the discharge of that important trust. Major-General Augustin Prevost, the father of the late Sir George Prevost, was by birth a citizen of Geneva: he entered the British service as a Cornet in the Earl of Albemarle's regiment of Horse Guards, and was present at the battle of Fontenoy, where he was wounded.