, and consisted of the judge Advocate, who
presided, three naval, and three marine officers.

As the constitution of this court is altogether new in the British
annals, I hope my reader will not think me prolix in the description
I am about to give of it. The number of members, including the judge
Advocate, is limited, by Act of Parliament, to seven, who are expressly
ordered to be officers, either of His Majesty's sea or land forces. The
court being met, completely arrayed and armed as at a military tribunal,
the Judge Advocate proceeds to administer the usual oaths taken by
jurymen in England to each member; one of whom afterwards swears him
in a like manner. This ceremony being adjusted, the crime laid to the
prisoner's charge is read to him, and the question of Guilty, or Not
guilty, put. No law officer on the side of the crown being appointed,
(for I presume the head of the court ought hardly to consider himself
in that light, notwithstanding the title he bears) to prosecute the
criminal is left entirely to the party, at whose suit he is tried. All
the witnesses are examined on oath, and the decision is directed to
be given according to the laws of England, "or as nearly as may be,
allowing for the circumstances and situation of the settlement," by a
majority of votes, beginning with the youngest member, and ending with
the president of the court. In cases, however, of a capital nature,
no verdict can be given, unless five, at least, of the seven members
present concur therein. The evidence on both sides being finished,
and the prisoner's defence heard, the court is cleared, and, on the
judgement being settled, is thrown open again, and sentence pronounced.
During the time the court sits, the place in which it is assembled is
directed to be surrounded by a guard under arms, and admission to every
one who may choose to enter it, granted. Of late, however, our colonists
are supposed to be in such a train of subordination, as to make the
presence of so large a military force unnecessary; and two centinels, in
addition to the Provost Martial, are considered as sufficient.

It would be as needless, as impertinent, to anticipate the reflections
which will arise in reading the above account, wherein a regard to
accuracy only has been consulted. By comparing it with the mode of
administering justice in the English courts of law, it will be found to
differ in many points very essentially. And if we turn our eyes to
the usa