privateering, is the universal bent of the English nation, at home and abroad, wherever settled. No less than seven hundred privateers were, it is said, commissioned in the last war! These were fitted out by merchants, to prey upon other merchants, who had never done them any injury. Is there probably any one of those privateering merchants of London, who were so ready to rob the merchants of Amsterdam, that would not as readily plunder another London merchant of the next street, if he could do it with the same impunity? The avidity, the alieni appetens, is the same; it is the fear alone of the gallows that makes the difference. How then can a nation, which, among the honestest of its people, has so many thieves by inclination, and whose government encouraged and commissioned no less than seven hundred gangs of robbers; how can such a nation have the face to condemn the crime in individuals, and hang up twenty of them in a morning? It naturally puts one in mind of a Newgate anecdote:-One of the prisoners complained, that in the night somebody had taken his buckles out of his shoes;-"What, the devil!" says another, "have we then thieves among us?-It must not be suffered; let us search out the rogue, and pump him to death." There is, however, one late instance of an English merchant who will not profit by such ill-gotten gain. He was, it seems, part-owner of a ship, which the other owners thought fit to employ as a letter of marque, and which took a number of French prizes. The booty being shared, he has now an agent here inquiring, by an advertisement in the Gazette, for those who suffered the loss, in order to make them, as far as in him lies, restitution. This conscientious man is a Quaker. The Scotch Presbyterians were formerly as tender; for there is still extant an ordinance of the town-council of Edinburgh, made soon after the reformation, "forbidding the purchase of prize goods, under pain of losing the freedom of the burgh for ever, with other punishment at the will of the magistrate; the practice of making prizes being contrary to good conscience, and the rule of treating Christian brethren as we would wish to be treated; and such goods are not to be sold by any godly men within this burgh.” The race of these godly men in Scotland is probably extinct, or their principles abandoned, since, as far as that nation had a hand in promoting the war against the colonies, prizes and confiscations are believed to have been a considerable motive. It has been for some time a generally received opinion, that a military man is not to inquire whether a war be just or unjust; he is to execute his orders. All princes who are disposed to become tyrants, must probably approve of this opinion, and be willing to establish it; but is it not a dangerous one? since, on that principle, if the tyrant commands his army to attack and destroy, not only an unoffending neighbor nation, but even his own subjects, the army is bound to obey. A negro slave, in our colonies, being commanded by his master to rob or murder a neighbor, or do any other immoral act, may refuse, and the magistrate will protect him in his refusal. The slavery then of a soldier is worse than that of a negro! A conscientious officer, if not restrained by the apprehension of its being imputed to another cause, may indeed resign, rather than be employed in an unjust war; but the private men are slaves for life; and they are perhaps incapable of judging for themselves. We can only lament their fate, and still more that of a sailor, who is often dragged by force from his honest occupation, and compelled to imbrue his hands in, perhaps, innocent blood. But methinks it well behoves merchants (men more enlightened by their education, and perfectly free from any such force or obligation) to consider well of the justice of a war, before they voluntarily engage a gang of ruffians to attack their fellow-merchants of a neighboring nation, to plunder them of their property, and perhaps ruin them and their families, if they yield it; or to wound, maim, or murder them, if they endeavor to defend it. Yet these things are done by Christian merchants, whether a war be just or unjust; and it can hardly be just on both sides. They are done by English and American merchants, who, nevertheless, complain of private theft, and hang by dozens the thieves they have taught by their own example. It is high time, for the sake of humanity, that a stop were put to this enormity. The United States of America, though better situated than any European nation to make profit by privateering, (most of the trade of Europe, with the West Indies, passing before their doors) are, as far as in them lies, endeavoring to abolish the practice, by offering, in all their treaties with other powers, an article, engaging solemnly, that, in case of future war, no privateer shall be commissioned on either side; and that unarmed merchant-ships, on both sides, shall pursue their voyages unmolested.' This will be a happy improvement of 'This offer having been accepted by the late king of Prussia, a treaty of amity and commerce was concluded between that monarch and the United States, containing the following humane, philanthropic article; in the formation of which Dr. Franklin, as one of the American plenipotentiaries, was principally concerned, viz. the law of nations. to the proposition. The humane and the just cannot but wish general success ON THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISES ENJOYED BY THE SMALL BOROUGHS IN ENGLAND. SIR, (To Sir Charles Wyvill.) Passy, June 16, 1785. I send you herewith the sketch I promised you. Perhaps there may be some use in publishing it: for, if the power of choosing now in the boroughs continues to be allowed as a right, they may think themselves more justifiable in demanding more for it, or holding back longer than they would, if they find that it begins to be considered as an abuse. I have the honor to be, &c. B. FRANKLIN. PAPER ENCLOSED IN THE FOREGOING LETTER TO SIR C. WYVILL. June 16, 1785. No man, or body of men, in any nation, can have a just right to any privilege or franchise not common to the rest of the nation, without having done ART. XXIII. If war should arise between the two contracting parties, the merchants of either country, then residing in the other, shall be allowed to remain nine months to collect their debts and settle their affairs, and may depart freely, carrying off all their effects without molestation or hindrance; and all women and children, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, artisans, manufacturers, and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfortified towns, villages, or places, and in general all others, whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments, and shall not be molested in their persons, nor shall their houses and goods be burnt, or otherwise destroyed, nor their fields wasted, by the armed force of the enemy into whose power, by the events of war, they may happen to fall; but if any thing is necessary to be taken from them for the use of such armed force, the same shall be paid for at a reasonable price. And all merchants and trading vessels employed in exchanging the products of different places, and thereby rendering the necessaries, conveniences, and comforts of human life more easy to be obtained, and more general, shall be allowed to pass free and unmolested; and neither of the contracting powers shall grant or issue any commission to any private armed vessels, empowering them to take or destroy such trading vessels, or interrupt such commerce. the nation some service equivalent, for which the franchise or privilege was the recompense or consideration. No man, or body of men, can be justly deprived of a common right, but for some equivalent offence or injury done to the society in which he enjoyed that right. If a number of men are unjustly deprived of a common right, and the same is given in addition to the common rights of another number, who have not merited such addition, the injustice is double. Few, if any, of the boroughs in England, ever performed any such particular service to the nation, entitling them to what they now claim as a privilege in elections. Originally, in England, when the king issued his writs calling upon counties, cities, and boroughs, to depute persons who should meet him in parliament, the intention was to obtain by that means more perfect information of the general state of the kingdom, its faculties, strength, and disposition; together with the advice their accumulated wisdom might afford him in "such arduous affairs of the realm" as he had to propose. And he might reasonably hope that measures approved by the deputies in such an assembly would, on their return home, be by them well explained, and rendered agreeable to their constituents and the nation in general. At that time, being sent to parliament was not considered as being put into the way of preferment, or increase of fortune; therefore no bribe was given to obtain the appointment. The deputies were to be paid wages by their constituents: therefore the being obliged to send and pay was considered rather as a duty than a privilege. At this day, in New England, many towns who may, and ought, to send members to the assembly, sometimes neglect to do it; they are then summoned to answer for their neglect, and fined if they cannot give a good excuse; such as some common misfortune, or some extraordinary public expense, which disabled them from affording, conveniently, the necessary wages. And the wages allowed being barely sufficient to defray the deputy's expense, no solicitationsare used to be chosen. In England, as soon as the being sent to parliament was found to be a step towards acquiring both honor and fortune, solicitations were practised, and where they were insufficient, money was given. Both the ambitious and avaricious became candidates. But to solicit the poor laborer for his vote being humiliating to the proud man, and to pay for it hurting the lover of money, they, when they met, joined in an act to diminish both these inconveniences, by depriving the poor of the right of voting, which certainly they were not empowered to do by the electors their constituents, the majority of whom were probably people of little property. The act was, therefore, not only unjust, but void. These lower people were immediately afterwards oppressed by another act, empowering the justices to fix the hire of day laborers and their hours of work, and to send them to the house of correction if they refused to work for such hire; which was deposing them from their condition of freemen, and making them literally slaves. But this was taking from many freemen a common right, and confining it to a few. To give it back again to the many is a different operation. Of this the few have no just cause to complain, because they still retain the common right they always had, and they lose only the exclusive additional power which they ought never to have had. And if they used it when they had it, as a means of obtaining money, they should in justice, were it practicable, be obliged to refund and distribute such money among those who had been so unjustly deprived of their right of voting, or forfeit it to the public. Corporations, therefore, or boroughs, who from being originally called to send deputies to parliament, when it was considered merely as a duty, and not as a particular privilege, and therefore was never purchased by any equivalent service to the public, continue to send, now that by a change of times it affords them profit in bribes, or emoluments of various kinds, have in reality no right to such advantages; which are besides in effect prejudicial to the nation, some of those who buy thinking they may also sell. They should therefore, in justice, be immediately deprived of such pretended right, and reduced to the condition of common freemen. But they are perhaps too strong, and their interest too weighty, to permit such justice to be done. And a regard for public good in these people, influencing a voluntary resignation, is not to be expected. If that be the case, it may be necessary to submit to the power of present circumstances, passions, and prejudices, and purchase, since we can do no better, their consent; as men, when they cannot otherwise recover property unjustly detained from them, advertise a reward to whoever will restore it, promising that no questions shall be asked. B. F. |