§ MR. STACPOOLEasked the Judge Advocate General, Whether it is the fact that Captain Roberts, of the 94th Regiment, made formal application to the Horse Guards that the Court Martial directed to be held on his conduct, while stationed at Newry, should take place, not at Belfast, but in London, in order that he might have the benefit of the evidence of two Members of Parliament, Lord Francis Conyngham and the Right honourable Sir Colman O'Loghlen, who were unable to absent themselves from the House of Commons; whether such application was not refused, and Captain Roberts thereby deprived of his common law right to a change of venue, and of the material advantage to be derived from the aforesaid evidence; whether it is not the fact that the charges made against Captain Roberts were framed in direct violation of the instructions contained in the third paragraph of the Appendix (A) to the Queen's Regula- 415 tions, which directs that "in framing charges care should be taken to render them specific in names, dates, and places," inasmuch as there was no mention made in the charges of the name of the gentleman to whom Captain Roberts is alleged to have written, or of the date of such communication; whether an Officer holding Her Majesty's Commission is thereby deprived of the legal right to address a communication to a private friend seeking counsel and advice; whether, after the close of the case for the prosecution, it was either legal or equitable to admit the evidence of Sergeant Burgess; whether the finding of the Court Martial was the unanimous opinion of the Officers constituting that tribunal; and, whether there will be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, before the promulgation of Captain Roberts' sentence, Copies of the full record of the charges, evidence, statements of prosecutor and prisoner, and of the Deputy Judge Advocate, and the finding of the Court Martial?
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, in reply, said, it was the fact that Captain Roberts made the application stated in the Question of the hon. Member; but the application was refused as being contrary to usage, and also on the sufficient ground that of about 60 witnesses examined 57 were in the Belfast district, while only three were in London, and of these three not one was summoned by the prisoner as necessary to his defence. He would remind the hon. Member that there was no such thing as a common law right to a change of venue; and having a regard to all the circumstances, the prisoner was clearly not deprived of any advantage by the course which was followed. The charges upon which Captain Roberts was arraigned, both legally and specifically alleged, the offences for which he was tried, and he was of opinion that those charges were framed, not in violation of, but in conformity with the paragraph of the Queen's Regulations to which the hon. Member referred. He was also of opinion that an officer holding Her Majesty's Commission was not thereby deprived of the legal right to address a communication to a private friend seeking counsel and advice. He was of opinion that the Court acted both legally and equitably in admitting the evidence of Sergeant Burgess at the time when he was examined as a witness. He had 416 no information as to whether the finding of the court martial was or was not the unanimous opinion of the tribunal; and having regard to the oaths prescribed by the 152nd Article of War, he could not inform the hon. Member if the Court were unanimous. It was not in accordance with the usual practice to entertain any application for the production of proceedings until after the promulgation.