History of the Royal Sappers and Miners, Volume 1 (of 2): From the Formation of the Corps in March 1712 to the date when its designation was changed to that of Royal EngineersConnolly, T. W. J. (Thomas William John)
History
History of the Royal Sappers and Miners, Volume 1 (of 2): From the Formation of the Corps in March 1712 to the date when its designation was changed to that of Royal Engineers
Connolly, T. W. J. (Thomas William John)
Great Britain. Army. Royal Sappers and Miners
Clause Lxxv. Public Acts, 28 Geo. III., vol. i., p. 369. This was not
a specific clause to meet the case of the artificers, but the same
which had existed, with possibly slight variations, since its first
insertion in the Act It merely included the corps by name, and made
other necessary alterations to embrace classes of persons heretofore
inadvertently omitted. Why it should have caused so much discussion,
more especially with reference to the formation of the corps, is
almost marvellous, since a more fitting opportunity was afforded for
that purpose, when the Ordnance estimates were presented and passed in
December of the previous year. What were Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Courtenay,
and the other opponents of the Duke of Richmond’s schemes about, to
allow this measure to steal a successful march upon them?
-----
“The same subject was again discussed on the third reading of the Mutiny
Bill, when it was asked, whether any part of the corps was already
enlisted and embodied? This question being answered in the affirmative,
it was strongly contended that the authors of the measure had been
guilty of an illegal act, in raising a body of men without the consent
of Parliament; and that it was a violent and arbitrary measure to
subject those men to military law, who at the time of their enlisting,
were evidently not included in the Mutiny Act. On the other hand, Mr.
Pitt contended, that, by a liberal interpretation of the King’s
prerogative, government was authorized, on the late alarm of war, to
raise the corps in question: and Sir Charles Gould, the
Advocate-General, maintained, that every soldier enlisted, became, _ipso
facto_, subject to be tried by martial law. The House again divided on
the question, ayes 142, noes 70.
“Upon the commitment of the Bill in the Upper House, the Duke of
Manchester rose and declared his intention of opposing the novel clauses
that it contained. He was an avowed enemy, he said, to the extension of
military law, unless in cases of absolute necessity; and that the
present Bill went unnecessarily to extend that law, by making a number
of artificers subject to its severe effects, who had hitherto enjoyed
their liberty in common with their fellow-subjects. Could it be proved
necessary for the defence of the kingdom, he should not entertain the
least objection to the increase of the army; but in a time of profound
peace, the adoption of a measure of so singular a nature as the present,
called for jealousy and caution.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account