The Sun.
London, England, 1819-04-01 00:00:00

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

.
Lord AuruoßP, in movi=ng that the Minutes of
the Court-Martial on Thomas Stinton, presented
to that'House, should be printed, 'observed, that
he did not mean tolake any farther step on the
subject. It 'appeared, hOWever, that there had
beenthreqcharges preferred against the soldier:
first, for abseriting, liinself from the drill ; se-
condly, .for running away fram the seijeant ; and
thirdly, for stealing a piece of cloth ; and that
he had been found guilty of the whole, except,
stealing the cloth ; although he had not been pu.
niched. Now, uniptestioriably, lie,ought not to
have been found guilty of being absent from
drill, when that absence. was occasioned by his
attendance on a Committee of the Honse of Coin-
mons.

BECKETT, in a tone of voice so low that
it would scarcely allow any thing to he' heard
%which the Hon. Gentleman said, referred to the
opinion expressed by ale Noble Lord himself on •
the evening of- the examination at the Bar—
namely, that there did not appear to have been
any infringement of the Privileges of the House.
Not having,,stated it_before; the s'oldierfOr the
first time produced at the Court-Martial the
Order for his attendance on a Committee of
the House of Commons ; hut as that Order was
for Thursday, the Court could not kollw that
it required his attendance on the Committee on
SiMirday.
Mr. TIERNEY' said, be was present at-the 'exa-
mination at the Bar, and went away perfectly sa-
tisfied that there had been no intentional breach
of the privileges of the House. It wa4
right to bring the man to -a Court-Maitial, in or-
der to give an acgoont of his absence from ;
lout when he :irodoce,l, in answer to ri,e first

charge, the Order from the [inure of Commons,
on that charge he ought to hay( been acquitted.
T. ,e Hon. Gentleman asked how Court-Mar-
/lid were to know that the Order, dated on
'Thursday, might require the soldier's attendance
on Satur44ay. It was their dtoy to sift the mat-
ter, when they would have found that tl.. e luau's
attendance etas necrssary (rum time, to time, no.
til he ,4 as no lottter required. Certainly he was
not punished ; to say that he was guilty, was
to say that he had committed an offence. He
(N.lr. Tierney) therefore said distinctly, that the
prtteee.ding was a breach Of the privileges of the
House, although he did not impute the .most dis-
tant intention to the Court-Martial of commit-
ting such a breach. But the circumstances ought
to he n' ; bet se, if any soldier of the
Guards shottld in torture receke a summons to at-
tend a Committee of the House of Commons, the
recollect on, of the charge against stioton would
induce hint to hes.eate in obeying it.
Lord F BENTINCK..tatd," that the matt emelt,
previoesly to have mentioned the thing to the
!-!rjeant. Ile was at a io:s tci conceive how the
st metre could tic considered a breach of the: pri-
viiege4 of the !louse ; the conch ding words of it
!nest do nif't'y any such ininrest.ion.
Cf•loOd BARBY te.narked, that it the crime im-
puted to the soldier was being absent without
the Court-martial were justified in fi .ding
lent gt.ilty; for ahkent without leave he had been.
(Loud cries of No, no!)
Mr.Ti F NEY said, that tinder he circumstances
of the case t • e tn.:n %%as justified in leaving his
trio-ter, without lettve. Any solditr retching a
sdwtsiotts from the Howse of Commons might
say to his Commanding Officer, " 1 Hill go whe-
ther volt choose it or not.
idiuti I BAetiv ittsisted, that if the absence of
the soleier inietfered wi:h his military duty, the
decidedly %%rung in not asking leave to
go --(No, no 1)
Mt BimuouAm protested against such doctrine.
0.1 a warrant issued front that House to any man,
whether.•ol i r or otherwise, whc:her under a
Centmandine Officer or x Master, it mattered not
wh ch (except that it was most important to
mark the principle as it referred to the former
Ihe alternative), it WidS This duty to Come
to the House, aud ask no man's leave.
Mr. \V WeNN said, there could be no doubt
that the principle was that which had 'just been
stated by 'he flononrablt and Leernt,'d Gentleman.
On the other hand he must say. that a soldier so
summoned night not to ask leave, but to give
novice that he had received such a summons and
• intend, dto obey i . . _

Mr. BaoUGBASI ()cif( c!ly agreed with the Hon.
Gvnik,rin that ritere tottld be no impropriety in
a soldier so summoned giving notice of the cir.
cuaisrance. His objection vas to his '' asking
lektee '• . .

Sir J. MACKINT',SH was persovded 'that there
had been no intention of infringing the privileges
of the House. The expression of " asking
leave" bad originated on the other side of the
House, and it was highly necessary to prOtest
agdinst such doctrine as 11 implied.
Mr. BENNET, as the subject was under discus-
Sion, wished to correct a mistake that had crept
into the public reports of his remarks on Friday
evening. He had been represented to say, " that
it vea,: probable the soldier solicited the Court-
mart ial, because he would have been flogged with..
out it." The word be hail used was " punished,"
nut " flogged." lie knew very well that a Com-
manding Officer had not the power to order a
soldier to be flogged without a Court-martial.
. The Minutes were then ordered to he printed.
At the suggestion of Sir G. HILL, Sit J. New-
tow'. postponed, until Monday, his motion rela-
tive to the State of Disease in behind.
IRISH CORONERS.

Mr. PARNELL moved for leave to bring in a
Bill to reOilare the office of Coroner in Ireland.
One ohj. ct of the BM would be to empower each
Barony ►o elect a Coroner.
Sir J. Nat' PORT did not think the proposed
measure would do away the evils of the existing
system.—Leeve granted.