A liberty withdrawn from a named few
Is a suspension that touches only some people milder than one that touches everybody? Burke argues the reverse: a general suspension is felt by all and repealed for that reason, while one aimed at a class leaves most Englishmen undisturbed and nobody with a motive to end it.
The 1777 act reached persons seized at sea or outside the realm on suspicion of piracy or treason connected with the American war — a category rather than a kingdom. Burke voted against it and then explained why the narrowness is the danger. What nobody feels attracts no agitation, and what attracts no agitation stays: the exception hardens into a standing power over whichever people the government has placed outside the law's protection. The distinction has outlived its occasion, and returns wherever a state builds a category its ordinary law does not reach.
- habeas corpus
- rule of law
- liberty
- freedom
- treason
- punishment
- justice
- coercion
- constitutionalism
- legitimacy
Enter a dialogue
- You warn that 'the true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts'. Why is a small exception more dangerous than sweeping tyranny?
- Suspending habeas corpus, the right to challenge imprisonment before a judge, for some people leaves the rest untouched. Why is that worse than suspending it for everyone?
- A traveller home from abroad or a sailor back from sea could be held on the crown's bare suspicion. Why did that threaten Englishmen who never travelled?
- A harsh law touches only other people, so most people never feel it and nobody protests. What does that ask of those it spares?
- An act of Parliament let the crown hold colonial sailors as pirates. Why did you argue that men who resist out of mistaken virtue are not infamous criminals?