In this vote was involved the formation of the corps. That a measure on so extraordinary a principle, and so hateful to the sentiments of the country generally, should have passed without scrutiny is remarkable; but Mr. Sheridan, on the 17th December following, thinking that the estimates were imprudently hurried through the House, introduced them again to notice. At the same time he endeavoured to bring the suggestion of raising a corps of mechanics into contempt. He called the project singular and extraordinary; ridiculed the idea of putting the artificers under martial law, and thereby to abridge their liberty. Moreover, he did not conceive that men, capable of earning half-a-crown a-day, would enlist as soldiers and work in their respective occupations at one-third of that sum for the mere douceur of military discipline. Then, with regard to the economy of the measure, he remarked, “That in the report of 1783, the Master-General had stated, that by suffering some of the artificers at Woolwich, Sheerness, &c. to be put into companies, the artillery would never want artificers; and a saving of 15,000_l._ would be made to Government. Before, therefore, any new plan of raising a distinct corps of artificers was authorized, it would be proper to know what the saving made in consequence of the original plan had amounted to; because, if no great saving had been made, the plan now proposed would evidently be attended with additional expense to the public.”[70] Mr. Sheridan did not embody this subject in his motion. His remarks upon it were merely incidental to his speech on the intended fortifications in the West Indies, and elicited no discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to Mr. Sheridan; but he spoke only to the motion, and made no allusion whatever to the new corps. Thus quietly did the Duke of Richmond gain a project, which there was reason to expect would not be granted without decided indications of repugnance and hostility. ----- Footnote 70: Dodsley’s ‘Annual Register,’ 1788. Second edit., 1790, p. 96. -----