A

LETTER

FROM

MR. BURKE,

то

JOHN FARR AND JOHN HARRIS, ESQRS.

SHERIFFS OF THE CITY OF BRISTOL,

ON THE

AFFAIRS OF AMERICA,

1777.

A LETTER, &

I

GENTLEMEN,

HAVE the honour of fending you the two laft acts which have been paffed with regard to the troubles in America. These acts are fimilar to all the reft which have been made on the fame fubject. They operate by the fame principle; and they are derived from the very fame policy. I think they complete the number of that fort of ftatutes to nine, It affords no matter for very pleafing reflection, to obferve, that our subjects diminish, as our laws increase., alpra to bla

1

If I have the misfortune of differing with fome of my fellow-citizens on this great and arduous subject, it is no small confolation to me, that I do not differ from you. With you, I am perfectly united. We are heartily agreed in our deteftation of a civil war. We have ever expressed the moft unqualified difapprobation of all the fteps which have led to it, and of all thofe which tend to prolong it. And I have no doubt that we feel exactly the fame emotions of grief and fhame on all its miferable confequences; whether they appear,

on the one fide or the other, in the shape of victories or defeats, of captures made from the English on the continent, or from the English in these iflands; of legislative regulations which fubvert the liberties of our brethren, or which undermine our

own.

Of the first of these ftatutes (that for the letter of marque) I fhall fay little. Exceptionable as it may be, and as I think it is in fome particulars, it seems the natural, perhaps neceffary result of the measures we have taken, and the fituation we are in. The other (for a partial fufpenfion of the Habeas Corpus) appears to me of a much deeper malignity. During its progrefs through the house of commons, it has been amended, fo as to exprefs more diftinctly than at firft it did, the avowed fentiments of thofe who framed it: and the main ground of my exception to it is, because it does exprefs, and does carry into execution, purposes which appear to me fo contradictory to all the principles, not only of the constitutional policy of Great Britain, but even of that fpecies of hoftile juftice, which no afperity of war wholly extinguishes in the minds of a civilized people.

It seems to have in view two capital objects; the first, to enable adminiftration to confine, as long as it fhall think proper, thofe, whom that act is pleased to qualify by the name of pirates. Those fo qualified, I understand to be, the commanders

and

and mariners of fuch privateers and fhips of war belonging to the colonies, as in the courfe of this unhappy conteft may fall into the hands of the crown. They are therefore to be detained in prifon, under the criminal defcription of piracy, to a future trial and ignominious punishment, whenever circumstances fhall make it convenient to execute vengeance on them, under the colour of that odious and infamous offence.

To this first purpose of the law, I have no fall dislike; because the act does not, (as all laws, and all equitable tranfactions ought to do) fairly defcribe its object. The perfons, who make a naval war upon us, in confequence of the present troubles, may be rebels; but to call and treat them as pirates, is confounding, not only the natural dif tinction of things, but the order of crimes; which, whether by putting them from a higher part of the scale to the lower, or from the lower to the higher, is never done without dangerously difordering the whole frame of jurifprudence. Though piracy may be, in the eye of the law, a less offence than treafon; yet as both are, in effect, punifhed with the fame death, the fame forfeiture, and the fame corruption of blood, I never would take from any fellow creature whatever, any fort of advantage which he may derive to his fafety from the pity of mankind, or to his reputation from their general feelings, by degrading his offence, when I

cannot