freely. And is it by this straitened-this confined— this emasculated mode of discussing subjects, that every one of us must be regulated, who, when he looks first at home, and then to France, is so thankful for being born in this country.

But, gentlemen, I should like to ask, if this is to be the extent of privilege which we are to enjoy! I have hitherto merely inquired how far a man may go in support of his arguments by illustrating them; but if I were to go a step farther, I should not much exceed the bounds of my duty. Has not a person in this country a right to express his feelings too? Since when is it, I would ask, that we may know the era for the purpose of cursing it!-By whom was the change brought about, that we may know the author and execrate his memory-that an Englishman, feeling strongly on interesting subjects, is prevented from strongly and forcibly expressing his feelings? And are the sufferings of British soldiers the only subject from which the feelings of compassion must be excluded? Living as we do in an age when charity has a wide and an undisputed dominion; in an age when we see nothing but monuments of compassionate feeling from one end of the country to the other; in which, not only at home, but as though that was too confined a sphere, we are ransacking foreign climes for new objects of relief; when no land is so remote, no place so secluded, as not to have a claim on our assistance; no people so barbarous or so strange as not to excite our sympathy is this a period in which we are to be told that our own soldiers may not claim our mercy? Granting that they are not barbarians,-granting that they are not strangers, but are born amongst us, that they are our kinsmen, our friends, inhabiting the same country, and worshipping at the same altars,-granting that far from being unknown to us, we know them by the benefits they have rendered us, and by the feeling that we owe them a debt of gratitude never to

be repaid, I put it to you, gentlemen, whether we are to exclude them from what we give to all mankind; from the benefit of our feelings and our sympathy; from the scope of that universal law of nature which gives to all the victims of cruelty, however distant, however estranged, a home, a settlement, in every compassionate heart? Is this a discovery of the present time? But it is unnecessary to put it more home to your bosoms. If any one subject is nearer to our hearts than another, or ought to be so to British subjects, it is the condition and treatment of our brave troops, to whom we owe so much, to whom we owe a load of gratitude which was never so heavy as it is at present, and in whom now all our hopes are centred. How, gentlemen, can you visit a person with two years' imprisonment in a dungeon, who, feeling strongly upon a subject of so much interest, expresses his feelings with that warmth which cannot but be kindled in him, and which it becomes him to show? If he had no such feeling he would have been unworthy of his subject, and having such feeling, had he shrunk from giving vent to it, he would have proved his cowardice: he has, however, been particularly cautious; he has done little more than reason the point; he has not given full vent to his sentiments, but inasmuch as he has connected his emotions with his argument, you are to take what he has said as a proof of a sincere and an honest heart.

I have already stated to you that the opinions expressed in this publication are not the sentiments of this author alone; but that they were originally broached by the ablest men of the country; men whose high rank in the army renders them not the worse witnesses for the defendant. I have now in my hand a work by Sir Robert Wilson-an officer whom to name is to praise-but who, to describe him in proper colours, ought to be traced through his whole career of service, from the day he first entered the army, up to the present time; whose fame stands upon

record in almost every land where a battle has been fought by the English troops, whether in this or in the last war. It is perfectly well known to you that on one occasion, by his own personal prowess, he saved the life of the Emperor of Germany, for which service he received the highest order of knighthood. You must all know that afterwards through the campaign in Germany, when serving with the allied armies, he rendered himself celebrated by his skill and courage; as well as with our gallant army in Egypt. But not merely is he an ardent friend to the British cause; he is known throughout the whole of the British army as one of its most enthusiastic defenders. Far from being a friend to Buonaparte, of whom and of his friends you have heard so much to-day,-nothing more distinguishes him than an implacable hatred to that enemy of his country. To so great a length has he carried this, that I believe there is no spot of European ground, except England and Portugal, in which he would be secure of his life; so hostile has been his conduct and so plain and direct his charges against Buonaparte, that from the period when he published his well known work (containing aspersions against that person, which for the honour of human nature one would fain hope are unfounded), he has been held in an abhorrence by the ruler of France, equal to that which Sir Robert Wilson has displayed against him. From 1806, when the plans for the regulation of the army were in agitation, and when he published those opinions which the defendant has now republished, up to the present time, he has not received any marks of the displeasure of the government, but on the contrary has been promoted to higher and to higher honours; and has at length been placed in a distinguished situation near the king himself. During the discussions on our military system, when all men of liberal minds were turning their attention to the subject, he with laudable promptitude and public spirit, addressed a letter to Mr. Pitt, and

entitled it, "An Inquiry into the present State of the Military Force of the British Empire, with a view to its reorganization"-that is to say, with a view to its improvement, Sir Robert Wilson, with, perhaps objectionable taste, using the word reorganization, which is derived from the French. In this publication, the gallant officer, animated by love for the army, and zeal for the cause of his country, points out what he conceives to be the great defects of our military system; and the greatest of all these he holds to be the practice of flogging. He describes this punishment to be the great cause which prevents the recruiting of the army, and which, in one word, produces all manner of mischief to the service-ruining the character of the soldier, and chilling his zeal. I dare say, gentlemen, that you already begin to recollect something which you have heard this day; I dare say you recollect that the defendant is expressly charged with a wish to deter persons from enlisting, and to create dissatisfaction in the minds of the soldiery because he wrote against flogging. But Sir Robert Wilson, you now see, thinks that very opposite effects are to be produced by altering the system. There are fifteen or twenty pages of the pamphlet in my hand which contain an argument to support this opinion. And when you shall hear how the subject is treated by Sir Robert, you will perceive how impossible it is for a person who feels, to avoid, in such a discussion, the use of strong expressions. You will, as I read, see that Sir Robert comes from generals to particulars at once, and describes all the minutiae of military punishments. He first states that "corporal punishment is a check upon the recruiting of the army;" he then goes on, "My appeal is made to the officers of the army and the militia, for there must be no marked discrimination between these two services, notwithstanding there may be a great difference in their different modes of treating the soldiery. I shall sedulously avoid all personal allusions," (and,

gentlemen, you will observe the present defendant has been equally cautious,-not a single personal allusion is to be found throughout his discussion), "the object in view is of greater magnitude than the accusation of individual malefactors." (Malefactors, gentlemen, a much stronger word than can be found in the publication of the defendant). "I shall not enter into particulars of that excess of punishment, which in many instances has been attended with the most fatal consequences. I will not, by quoting examples, represent a picture in too frightful a colouring for patient examination." Sir Robert Wilson then alludes to the crimes for which this dreadful punishment is inflicted. He says, 66 How many soldiers whose prime of life has been passed in the service, and who have behaved with unexceptionable conduct, have been whipped eventually for an accidental indiscretion. In. toxication is an odious vice, and, since the Duke of York has been at the head of the army, officers have ceased to pride themselves upon the insensate capability of drinking; but, nevertheless, flogging is too severe as a general punishment for what has been the practice of officers.' Here, you see, gentlemen, the gallant writer brings in aid of his argument an allusion of a much more delicate nature than any that has been made by the defendant. He speaks of the misconduct of officers, and leads the mind to contrast the trivial consequences of misconduct to them with the severe punishment that awaits the soldier guilty of the same offence. A more delicate subject than this cannot be imagined. It is as much as if he said, "Do not punish the poor private so cruelly for a fault which his superior does not scruple frequently to permit, and for which no chastisement is awarded to him." Sir Robert proceeds " Absence from quarters is a great fault and must be checked: but is there no allowance to be made for young men, and the temptations which may occur to induce such an occasional neglect of duty?" Gen