Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that No. 3,297 Sub-Conductor H. B. Stickney, of the Army Ordnanace Corps, offered a plea in bar of trial on 5th January, 1912, at Roberts' Heights, when he was arraigned as a staff quarter- 1197W master-sergeant before a district court-martial for refusing to remove a crown from his arm when ordered; whether Stickney offered to give evidence himself and called as witnesses a document from Dublin and his duplicate attestation paper; do the court-martial proceedings disclose that the court closed to consider its decision without receiving the witnesses of the accused to support the plea in bar; will he explain why the court so acted, in opposition to the procedure definitely illustrated on page 564 of the Manual of Military Law, 1907, which shows that the witnesses should be examined on oath before the court closes to consider its decision; and will he say whether Stickney lodged an appeal, under Section 43 of the Army Act, at Netley on the 20th March, 1912, against the court's action?
§ Mr. TENNANTAs regards the court-martial on 5th January, the replies to the first three questions are in the affirmative. As regards the next question, the court acted correctly under Rule of Procedure 36 which governs the whole case. The portion of the Appendix to the Rules of Procedure quoted from page 564 of the Manual merely contains an illustration showing all the variations of procedure that may arise. As regards the last question, an appeal was lodged and was duly considered, and he was informed that the court-martial proceedings had been reviewed and had been found to be quite legal.