Talk:Arson in royal dockyards

message: re this edit, when I click on the link in the citation, it says that the Queen assented to the Ulster Defense Regiment Act. Either the link is wrong, or the Ulster Defense Regiment Act covers more than the name implies; either way, a better link/cite is necessary, no? —Luis (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: (And of course the assent, which appears to actually be here, says nothing about what the bill did, so even if it were the "correct" hansard link, I think my original point - that the citation does not support the claim - still stands. A secondary source instead of a primary hansard link would be much stronger.—Luis (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation for assent? 

message: Not a huge deal, but the Law Commission's report does not mention the flammability of battleships (or anything of the sort, really) as a reason to repeal the Act. I realize the other citation says this, though, so not immediately obvious how best to deal with it. Leaving here for now. —Luis (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the assertion, given that the act also applied to armories, and explosives remain flammable to this day. The cited source says "...committing arson in one of His Majesty’s shipyards. This capital offence was not repealed until 1971 – long after naval ships had ceased to be made from highly flammable materials". It does not state that it was repealed because naval ships had ceased to be made from highly flammable materials. I would say (though it needs citing) that the act was repealed because it was no longer likely to be enforced and the offences could be punished under other statutes. jnestorius(talk) 18:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for repeal 

message: The Law Commission's report cites to Archbold to say that there was only one prosecution under the Act, and that prosecution was in 1777, but the case name was R. v. Hill, not Aitken...? I've been trying to find access to a copy of Archbold that actually discusses this, but no luck so far...—Luis (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The much-improved-since-2007 Portsmouth Dockyard page on the topic resolves this - it says his name was Hill, with Aitken an alias. I'll figure out how to fix the citations. —Luis (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only one prosecution, but... 

message: I wish we had a more recent source for the discussion of NSW. In an attempt to find one, I came across this 1994 report, which seems to take for granted that the Dockyard Act was not in force as of 1994. I can't find any evidence about when it might have been explicitly repealed, though, nor can I (yet) find the 1967 NSW report that the Victoria report refers to. —Luis (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More recent information about Australia, particularly NSW 

message: Parsing the text of section 1, emphasis added:
:WHEREAS the safety and preservation of his Majesty's ships of war, , , dock yards, rope yards, , , naval, and  stores, and the places where such stores are kept or deposited, either within this realm or in any of the islands, countries, forts, or places thereunto belonging, is of great importance to the welfare and security of the kingdom: 
:May it please your most excellent Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that 
:if any person or persons shall, 
::either within this realm, or in any of the islands, countries, forts, or places thereunto belonging, 
::wilfully and maliciously 
::set on fire, or burn, or otherwise destroy, 
::or cause to be set on fire, or burnt, or otherwise destroyed, 
::or aid, procure, abet, or assist in the setting on fire, or burning, or otherwise destroying of 
:any of his Majesty's ships or vessels of war, 
:::whether he said ships or vessels of war be 
::::on float or building, or begun to be built, in any of his Majesty dock yards, 
::::or building or repairing by contract in any private yards, for the use of his Majesty, 
:or any of his Majesty's , magazines, dock yards, rope yards, , 
::or any of the buildings erected therein or belonging thereto; 
::or any timber or materials there placed, for building, repairing, or fitting out of ships or vessels; 
:or any of his Majesty's , naval, or  stores, or other , 
::or any place or places where any such military, naval, or victualling stores or other ammunition of war is, are, or shall be kept, placed, or deposited; 
:that then the person or persons guilty of any such offence, 
::being thereof convicted in due form of law, 
:shall be adjudged guilty of felony, 
:and shall suffer death, 
::as in cases of felony, 
::without benefit of clergy.
A naive reading of the above suggests the terms in  are not specific to the navy and might equally apply to the army. However, sources seem to discuss the act only in terms of the navy. "His Majesty's" suggests the distinction between the  Navy and the non-Royal British Army; is this a relevant distinction? As against that there are Royal Arsenal and Royal Gunpowder Mills; would arson there have come under the 1772 act?  jnestorius(talk) 01:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The word military is an explicit reference to the army. I don't know why sources focus on the navy, but the text is clear. I wouldn't read anything into the "His Majesty's" bit; army officers are commissioned in the name of the king. Richard75 (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applicable to Army as well as Navy?