A liberty withdrawn from a named few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 Burke argues the reverse: a general suspension is felt by all and repealed for that reason, while one aimed at a class leaves most Englishmen undisturbed and nobody with a motive to end it.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
- A narrow suspension leaves the vast majority of Englishmen with their liberties untouched. On what ground is that worse than suspending everybody's at once?
- Most people never feel a power aimed only at others, so nobody agitates. What does that ask of someone outside the category?
- When is an emergency measure still temporary, and when has it become a standing power over people the ordinary law no longer reaches?
- Opposing an exception that protects most people and touches few is politically thankless. What does a member pay for taking that side in 1777?
- Governments still build categories their ordinary law does not reach. How should a citizen recognise one while it still looks like a narrow measure?