Talk:Edmund Burke/Archive 1

Do we have permission for this????

It was written for an 1886 edition of the book; do you reckon the copyright's cleared by now?

---

From the introduction to the Project Gutenberg e-text: Thoughts on the Present Discontents:

Edmund Burke was born at Dublin on 1 January 1730. His father was an attorney who had fifteen children, all but four of whom died young. Edmund, the second son, being of delicate health in his childhood, was taught at home and at his grandfather's house in the country before he was sent with his brothers Garrett and Richard to a school at Ballitore, under Abraham Shackleton, a member of the Society of Friends. For nearly forty years afterward, Burke paid an annual visit to Ballitore.

In 1744, after leaving school, Burke entered Trinity College, Dublin. He graduated with a B.A. in 1748 and an M.A. in 1751. In 1750 he went to London, to the Middle Temple. In 1756 Burke became known as a writer, by two pieces. One was a pamphlet called "A Vindication of Natural Society." This was an ironical piece, reducing to absurdity those theories of the excellence of uncivilised humanity that were gathering strength in France and had been favored in the philosophical works of Bolingbroke, then recently published. Burke's other work published in 1756,was his "Essay on the Sublime and Beautiful."

At this time Burke's health broke down. He was cared for in the house of a kindly physician, Dr. Nugent, and the result was that in the spring of 1757 he married Dr. Nugent's daughter. In the following year Burke made Samuel Johnson's acquaintance, and acquaintance ripened fast into close friendship. In 1758, also, a son was born and, as a way of adding to his income, Burke suggested the plan of "The Annual Register."

In 1761 Burke became private secretary to William Gerard Hamilton, who was then appointed Chief Secretary to Ireland. In April 1763, Burke's services were recognized by a pension of 300 pounds a year; but he threw this up in April, 1765, when he found out that his services were considered to have been not only recognised, but also bought. On 10 July 1765, Lord Rockingham became premier, and a week later Burke, through the good offices of an admiring friend who had come to know him in the newly-founded Turk's Head Club, became Rockingham's private secretary. He became the mainstay, if not the inspirer, of Rockingham's policy of pacific compromise in the vexed questions between England and the American colonies. Burke's elder brother, who had lately succeeded to his father's property, died also in 1765, and Burke sold the estate in Cork for 4,000 pounds.

Having become private secretary to Lord Rockingham, Burke entered Parliament as member for Wendover, and promptly took his place among the leading speakers in the House.

On the 30th of July, 1766, the Rockingham Ministry went out, and Burke wrote a defence of its policy in "A Short Account of a late Short Administration." In 1768 Burke bought for 23,000 pounds an estate called Gregories or Butler's Court, about a mile from Beaconsfield. He called it by the more territorial name of Beaconsfield, and made it his home. Burke's endeavours to stay the policy that was driving the American colonies to revolution, caused the State of New York, in 1771, to nominate him as its agent. About May, 1769, Edmund Burke began the pamphlet here given, Thoughts on the Present Discontents. It was published in 1770, and four editions of it were issued before the end of the year. It was directed chiefly against Court influence, that had first been used successfully against the Rockingham Ministry. Allegiance to Rockingham caused Burke to write the pamphlet, but he based his argument upon essentials of his own faith as a statesman. It was the beginning of the larger utterance of his political mind.

Court influence was strengthened in those days by the large number of newly-rich men, who bought their way into the House of Commons for personal reasons and could easily be attached to the King's party. In a population of 8,000,000 there were then but 160,000 electors, mostly nominal. The great land-owners generally held the counties. When two great houses disputed the county of York, the election lasted fourteen days, and the costs, chiefly in bribery, were said to have reached three hundred thousand pounds. Many seats in Parliament were regarded as hereditary possessions, which could be let at rental, or to which the nominations could be sold. Town corporations often let, to the highest bidders, seats in Parliament, for the benefit of the town funds. The election of John Wilkes for Middlesex, in 1768, was taken as a triumph of the people. The King and his ministers then brought the House of Commons into conflict with the freeholders of Westminster. Discontent became active and general. "Junius" began, in his letters, to attack boldly the King's friends, and into the midst of the discontent was thrown a message from the Crown asking for half a million, to make good a shortcoming in the Civil List. Men asked in vain what had been done with the lost money. Confusion at home was increased by the great conflict with the American colonies; discontents, ever present, were colonial as well as home. In such a time Burke endeavoured to show by what pilotage he would have men weather the storm.

See also: Selections From The Speeches And Writings Of Edmund Burke

---

I would like to suggest some changes to the Edmund Burke article, as follows:

1) "British" -- Burke was Irish. I would recommend changing this from "British philospher and statesman" to read "Irish-born British philosopher and statesman" or something equivalent.

2) It is not universally agreed that Burke is the father of modern conservatism. Burke was not considered a conservative in his time (indeed the word 'conservative' was not used to describe politicians in his time). Some writers even feel that Burke's reputation has been co-opted by modern (American) conservatives who focus only on his opposition to the French revolution and neglect the other important threads of his life and career.

First, Burke was a Whig, not a Tory. Keep in mind that Tories are now called the Conservative party in Enlgand, whereas Whigs are now called the Liberal Democrats. Burke campaigned ceaselessly for the rights of those under British colonial rule. Burke was responsible for the impeachment and trial of Warren Hastings, the Governor-general of colonial India. In his famous speach "On Conciliation", he urged the King's government not to be stubborn in its negotiations with the American colonies, but instead to consider the colonists' grievances and try to avoid a war. He spoke out vigorously against the Catholic penal laws.

All of these causes ran counter to the prevailing, old-Establishment (you might even say, conservative) sentiments at the time. Chadloder

You are making good sense, 66.27.202.81. In a moment I'll try my hand at inserting a balanced, mainstream assessment of Burke's position. See what you make of it. Tannin 10:49 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC) (PS: It's a good idea to make yourself a username so you can sign your posts here in the talk pages - it's free and only takes a moment.)

I would suggest you read the thread for conservatism. Burke was indeed a conservative, and the Whigs were the conservative party of the time. With Canning, however, the conservative movement was co-opted by the Tories. "Conservative" does not mean "right-wing." Burke was not "right wing" but his defence of political rights rested on Christianity, while the defence of rights offered up at the time by the Tories was "Reason" and other Enlightenment buzzwords. Amicuspublilius 01:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a bit simplistic to say that "Whigs are now the Liberal Democrats". In the first case the modern party system did not develop until after the Reform Act of 1832. The Liberal Party is regarded as being founded in 1859 by a de facto union of the Whigs, Peelites (free-trade consersvatives) and Radicals. However many "Whigs" left the Liberal Party after 1886 due to the policy of Home Rule for Ireland. On the other hand Gladstone, the greatest Liberal Leader of the UK was a great "Burkean".

--

Burke was not regarded as a magnificent orator. While his speeches today are white hot on the printed page, his speaking voice was considered to be very poor and his speeches sometimes emptied out the seats of the House. Chadloder 18:45 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm: How do we explain this entry in the Oxford Companion to British History? Burke became a towering figure in the House of Commons, captivating his audience with spellbinding oratory. I'm not saying you are wrong, Chadloder, I have only a little knowledge of Burke, but that's a pretty authoritative source to be contradicting. Tannin

I will have to accept the Oxford Companion's interpretation until I dig up my sources.  :) It was probably wrong of me to say that Burke's speaking voice was very poor -- while he had a quiet voice, it was effective. However, he was regarded to be a very tiresome speaker. His speech at the start of the Hastings trial lasted 8 days; his speech to close the trial lasted 9 days.

While we are picking statements apart.  :) I still disagree that Burke is regarded as the father of modern conservatism. Or rather, anyone who regards him as such does so incorrectly. I blame Russel Kirk for that view, which only became fashionable during the Cold War. I think the best categorization is that Burke was a centrist. Both modern liberals and modern conservatives claim to be the intellectual heirs of Burke's thought. I don't think either view is correct. One could only say Burke was a centrist.

I have already mentioned that he was a life-long Whig. Let me also cite some other sources that (I hope) will support the centrist, subtle, pragmatist Burke.

From Winston Churchill's Consistency in Politics:

No greater example in this field can be found than Burke. His Thoughts on the Present Discontents, his writings and speeches on the conciliation of America, form the main and laisting armoury of Liberal opinion throughout the English-speaking world. His Letters on a Regicide Peace, and Reflections on the French Revolution, will continue to furnish Conservatives for all time with the most formidable array of opposing weapons. On the one hand he is revealed as a foremost apostle of Liberty, on the other as the redoubtable champion of Authority. But a charge of political inconsistency applied to this life appears a mean and petty thing. History easily discerns the reasons and forces which actuated him, and the immense changes in the problems he was facing which evoked from the same profound mind and sincere spirit these entirely contrary manifestations. His soul revolted against tyranny, whether it appeared in the aspect of a domineering Monarch and a corrupt Court and Parliamentary system, or whether, mouthing the watch-words of a non-existent liberty, it towered up against him in the dictation of a brutal mob and wicked sect. No one can read the Burke of Liberty and the Burke of Authority without feeling that here was the same man pursuing the same ends, seeking the same ideals of society and Government, at defending them from assaults, now from one extreme, now from the other.

I will also cite the introduction to Conor Cruise O'Brien's The Great Melody: A Thematic Biography of Edmund Burke:

Then there was another Burke revival, also connected with American politics and policies, in the 1950s and 1960s. Some American scholars, notably Peter J. Stanlis and Russell Kirk, drew upon Burke for arguments in the context of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the idea of America's imperial responsibilities. This revival produced some valuable detailed work, but as a whole the Burke of this revival was seriously distorted by its polemical and propagandist purposes, inflating the aspects of his career that suited those purposes, and deflating those that did not suit...

Tomer: i disagree. if read his books, reflextions for exaple u will c that he excplains that u should change but slowly and gradually. he said that king gearge should give up for the americans for the same reason !!!

Chadloder 22:45 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Right to pick leaders?

24/11/04

Not sure that this is entirely accurate in the article

“although the British parliament depended on the approval of the British people for its authority to rule, this did not mean that citizens had the right to choose their rulers”

Indeed...

“It was for the leaders of the people, he felt, to guide the people by their knowledge; it was for the people to find their leaders and to accept their guidance, imposing no mandates and giving no instructions…” Page 51 of ‘Burke and Bristol’

And of course his most famous speech was to the electors of Bristol, in which he told them "you choose a member indeed..."

I think that whilst fundamentally he probably didn't believe people had the right to pick their leaders, I can't find anything that supports him actually saying it. He only seems to go so far as to say that once they have chosen their leader they should let them get on with things and not bother them. (anon)

Government by the aristocracy?

I removed the following passages by Winston Smith:

He believed that the revolution represented a move away from a form of government in which those most apt to rule, the aristocracy, held power, to a form of government in which the emerging class of economists, lawyers and doctors preponderated - and this, for him, was undesirable. He believed that the aristocracy, by virtue of their experience and the fact that they had no profession (and therefore no bias), could best rule in the general interest. The emergent bourgeoisie, on the other hand, had neither the experience nor the impartiality (for they all had professions, which impinged on their ability to view society holistically), so were considered ill-prepared for the business of government.

Burke was also weary about the violation of tradition that came with the French revolution. To a large extent Burke concurred in the principle: 'what is, is good', meaning that he was of the opinion that if something had existed for a long time it had proved its functionality. For this reason, Burke believed that it was better to preserve established institutions rather than create new ones, which could potentially work poorly. From his viewpoint, established institutions acted as a resevoir of accumulated wisdom, slowly built up over time. It was only by adding to this stored wisdom, not by detroying it and starting afresh, that human society could hope to develop.

The most disturbing interference with tradition, as far as Burke was concerned, was the desecration of the established church. Burke was a true beliver, and this is part of the reason for his opposition, but there was another, perhaps more important reason. That is, that religion functioned as an instrument of social control. Unlike the aristocracy, poor people did not have the time to educate themselves about the world and learn the most appropriate ways of living, but through religion, the aristocracy could prescribe how poor people should live their life. In addition, religion, preaching salvation in the afterlife, helped to quell social unrest and demands for change.

Burke was a commoner, a lawyer, a Whig, and a supporter of representative democracy. There are some passages of Reflections on the Revolution in France in which he praises the elegance of the old aristocratic order in France, but his purpose is to contrast it to the what he saw as the depredation by the moneyed classes that were then being justified by the "Rights of Man" (exemplified by the leading role of rich speculators, who held government bonds, in promoting the policy of expropriating Church lands). To characterize his views as support for government by the aristocracy is, I think, highly misleading. Similarly, passages in which he argues that those who enjoy leisure to become educated on political and philosophical matters are more qualified for government is not an argument for government by the aristocracy, but rather for representative instead of direct democracy.

Winston Smith's comments about Burke's attitude towards religion seem to me more correct but still misleading. Burke's is not an argument (à la Marx) that religion is a mechanism by which the aristrocracy controls the behavior of the poor. Rather, his claim is that tradition (including religion) represents a repository of wisdom about social arrangements whose practical justification is often not rationally evident to those who adhere to it. -- Eb.hoop 22:20 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Further, Burke was not opposed to change, just to abrupt change. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:35, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Philosophical Society

Periodically, one person or another cuts the following: "...after being rejected for membership of the Philosophical Society..." Is it false? Then say so. If true, it seems germane. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise that this had been removed and restored before, but it struck me as strange for a number of reasons that Burke would have been rejected by the University Philosophical Society in 1747.

Firstly, there is no reference to this in any of the histories which have been written of the CHS although the most recent of the major works, and that which is considered the definitive work on this subject, 'The Hist and Edmund Burke's Club' (1997, Declan Budd and Ross Hinds, eds.)was I think written before the UPS adopted their current foundation date and mythology. Nor to my knowledge is there any mention of this in any of the records of the Society, including the 1747 minutes written by Burke. The only other reference to this is on the UPS website ('Some chap called Edmund Burke tried to join (no relation to this year's Hon. Secretary). We found the overall sight, sound and smell of this guy so intrinsically hilarious we couldn't help but laugh for 9 days when he applied for membership. 9 days later we stopped laughing and told him to fuck off. Irate at this, he went off to form a society composed of all the Phil's rejects. It still exists to this day and one of the membership requirements for this sHit society, actually enshrined in their laws, is that you have to be too boring/ugly/unclean to join the Phil.').

Secondly, if it is assumed that the UPS existed in some manifestation in 1747, which incidentally it should not be, then this manifestation was not the University Philosophical Society, nor the Royal Dublin Society as the UPS claim but the Dublin Society for Improving Husbandry, Manufactures and Other Useful Arts, which in 1820 changed its name to the Royal Dublin Society and which since 1747 has come to perform a very different function.

Thirdly, it simply does not stand to reason that Burke, or anybody else, would found a History club as a result of being rejected from a society dedicated to animal husbandry &c. I imagine that this misunderstanding comes from the congruence which developed between the purposes and memberships of the two societies well after 1747.

To answer your question, the statement is almost certainly false. In light of this, I propose that the reference be removed until some evidence can be produced to support it.

-Toropets 11:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, this is tremendously more informative than the uncommented removal! -- Jmabel | Talk

Religion

I think that more needs to be said about the ambiguity of Burke's religion. Burke was officially an Anglican; however, his mother was Catholic, his wife was Catholic and his daughters were Catholic. His father and sons were Anglican. All this was at a time when Catholics were forbidden to vote or hold public office. It seems to me that this point needs to be brought out in the article. Joey1898

Right. I was examining the claim that "Vindication of Natural Society" was a satire. One rationale for thinking it was not serious was its scathing criticism of established religion. Knowing Burke's religious background, one can easily see how he might oppose church authority. (My opinion is that young Burke wrote it seriously.) Hogeye 22:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - it's perhaps also inaccurate to say simply that Burke's early education was at the Quaker school. Before this he was sent to his mother's (catholic) family to be brought up, and before being sent to the Quakers, attended a Catholic 'hedge' school. His mother's family, the Nagles, seem to have been quite closely tied in with Catholic unrest. Burke's father was also a convert to Protestantism, rather than a born Protestant, and this implied a rather particualr status in the Irish society of the time. It was, in any case, illegal to practice law as a Catholic. (See e.g. Luke Gibbon's book 'Edmund Burke and Ireland') —This unsigned comment was added by 158.94.172.95 (talk • contribs) 29 March 2006.

While converts were treated in society differently to Catholics and Anglicans (seen as somewhere in between) their children were seen as full Anglicans. Burkes strong ties to Catholicism had a strong influence on his life that’s worth noting. Its also worth remembering that the reason his sisters and daughters were Catholic and brothers and sons were Protestant was not primarily to do with property and voting but instead was the tradition at the time to bring male children up in the religion of the father and female children in the mothers religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdonnap (talk • contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservative

While it is true that Burke was not called a Conservative at the time and was a member of the Whig party, "Conservative" is a relative term and its meaning has shifted over time (and place). Most contemporary Conservatives think of their movement as being built on Edmund Burke. I think that point needs to be included.

Chadloder - You say that conservatives ignore other threads in Burke's thought - which do you mean? Joey1898

I think that if Burke had died ten years earlier, he would be known as a liberal rather than a conservative. Up until age 60 he was clearly a liberal - an anti-imperialist radical supporting autonomy for the American colonies. Up until age 60 he was considered by his contemporaries as a moderate liberal. It was only his criticism of the French Revolution, essays written in his last years, which gave him his reputation as a conservative. Hogeye 22:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Hogeye. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" without any specific definitions and without acknowledging that they are relative terms. The meaning of Conservative changes depending on what one is trying to conserve. In the Netherlands, for example, defenders of ‘Dutch tolerance’ as a traditional national value and Islamist supporters of Sharia law both call themselves conservatives. In America today, the Conservatives hold views that are almost identical to those of Classic Liberalism. In other words, Classic Liberalism is what they are trying to conserve.

Anon wrote> "In America today, the Conservatives hold views that are almost identical to those of Classic Liberalism."

You are mistaken. In USAmerica, libertarians are almost identical to classical liberalism. Conservatives hold notions totally contrary to classical liberalism, e.g. their military interventionism, their passion for big government and big military, and even nowadays their massive domestic social spending. Conservatives are against separation of church and state, they support managed trade (NAFTA, CAFTA) instead of free trade, they support tariffs and quotas in lumber, steel, textiles, etc. All these are incompatable with classical liberalism.

The "right" in the US diverged from classical liberal (the Old Right) in the 1950's, when it was perverted by the anti-communist hysteria and William Buckley's National Review. Hogeye 16:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Burke rose above all of that by articulating the fundamental Conservative idea that any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience; therefore, change should be incremental, not revolutionary. Joey1898 15:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye -

1. That was written by me, not anonymous. (It was my first paragraph; you ignored my second paragraph.)

2. You are conflating the Republicans and the Conservatives. While American Conservatives tend to be Republican, the Republican Party, being a political party, makes pragmatic compromises and politically motivated decisions, which may or may not be Conservative. American Conservatives do support free trade and oppose tariffs, but the best they have been able to manage politically is managed trade and fewer tariffs. Massive social spending is a political tactic of the Republican Party that has appalled the Conservative supporters of the Party.

3. You are caricaturing the Conservatives when you say that they are opposed to the separation of Church and State. Conservatives do not want an established religion. They want all religions (and non-religions) to be treated equally in the public square. So for example, they support school vouchers (a good Classical Liberal idea based on competition) for religious schools (Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.) and nonreligious schools.

4. You didn't address my central point that Burke articulated the fundamental Conservative idea that tradition represents the experiences of past generations and should not be dismissed out of hand by the current generation. Change should consist of concrete solutions to concrete problems. Joey1898 17:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Conservativism, as you mentioned, is a relative and fuzzy term. Most self-labeled conservatives in the US support big military. Many support protectionism - Pat Buchanon is one example of a conservative advocate of protectionism. You are right that there are some libertarians who (disingeneously) call themselves "conservative" - apparently being too cowardly to acknowlege that they support legalization of drugs and individual rights for homosexuals. But please don't count these closet libertarians as conservative.

I don't think Burke articulated "that tradition represents the experiences of past generations and should not be dismissed out of hand" until the last decade or so of his life. Can you give a Burke quote and date of that opinion? Furthermore, that position is not particularly conservative. Conservatism is a bias for the status quo; simply saying the status quo should not be dismissed out of hand could be construed as neutral or for rational change, e.g. consider change by its merits. Hogeye 17:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye -

1. Defining Conservatism as "a bias for the status quo" is absurd. Name one Conservative that isn't working to change our society as it exists today. Conservatism is a bias for tradition, traditional institutions, and incremental concrete change. The status quo is not the same thing as tradition.

2. Pat Buchanan is outside the mainstream of contemporary Conservatism precisely because he favors protectionism.

3. Many Conservatives, including William F. Buckley, favor legalizing drugs. Of those that don't, most are still generally unhappy that Congress used the interstate commerce clause as an excuse for national drug laws.

4. Conservatives do not oppose individual rights for homosexuals; they only oppose gay marriage - generally because they see it as government (or worse the courts) imposing a new definition of marriage. Like William F. Buckley, most conservatives generally oppose anti-sodomy laws, but wanted to see the legislatures, not the courts, overturn them. Find me where John Locke or Adam Smith or David Ricardo or John Stuart Mill expressed support for gay marriage.

5. Burke's opposition to Imperialism (and support of the American colonists, the Indians and the Irish) was rooted in tradition - "the ancient, rustic, manly, home-bred sense of this country." Prior to the French Revolution, Burke criticised British Imperialism because it distorted the traditions of Britain as well as those of its colonies. Defending the American colonists in 1775, he appealed to "the language of your own ancient acts of Parliament . . . I would not violate with modern polish the ingenuous and noble roughness of these truly constitutional materials. Above all things, I was resolved not to be guilty of tampering - the odious vice of restless and unstable minds. I put my foot in the tracks of our forefathers, where I can neither wander nor stumble." (Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies, March 22, 1775) Joey1898 22:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Excess of quotations

Would someone please move the bulk of these to Wikiquote, leaving two or three that are particularly salient? If this doesn't happen within a few days, I will feel free to move them all. - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been over a week, I'm moving them. - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Vindication of Natural Society

It was not "after he became a politician" that Edmund Burke explained this work was a satire - there was a preface in the very next edition of the work. Burke was no coward, for example when stopped by an armed mob who were part of the infamous "Gordon Riots" in against the Catholic Relief Bill he not only told them that he had voted for the Bill - he also refused to change his position, and Burke took part in the armed defence of houses that came under attack from the mob.

Nor was Burke a man who changed his position for money (the claim that he opposed Warren Hastings due to his and William Burke's commercial interests has long been exploded). For example, Edmund Burke turned down money from Earl Fitzwilliam (even though Burke was deep in debt) because Fitzwilliam had not yet come out against the French Revolution. Far from changing his position for money, Burke was the sort of man who demanded that other people change their position before he would do them the honour of accepting their support (an Irishman of the tough kind).

Nor was "Vindication.... really a satire on anarchism. The idea was to attack "natural religion" (the idea that one can have a religion without a creed) by using society without a formal government a similar concept (whether it really is a similar concept is a moot point).

I think it was Murry Rothbard who made up the idea that Burke was an anarchist who betrayed his beliefs when he went into politics.

Actually the closest that Burke got to private property anarchism (or "anarchocapitalism" as some call it) was very late in life.

In his "Appeal..." Burke stressed that a country that loses its government does not go back to year zero (as most French revolutionaries seemed to hold).

Land and other goods are not up to be distributed to new people, they remain the property of their existing owners.

A new political regime does not have the right (according to Burke) to try and create a new society. And people (whether they own property or not) have both the right and the moral duty to resist any plundering by such a new regime.

Of course, one could argue, if people have the moral duty to resist plundering by a new regime, do they not have the right to resist plundering by the old one?

Burke was always hostile to plundering (whether it was by governments or by private people - such as slavers) - his life is full of examples (whether it is attacks on the way the Prussians acted in Poland or attacks on the British Crown for trying to lay claim to estates that it had been in private hands for centuries.....), but Burke always accepted the need for some taxation.

Certainly taxation and government spending should be as low as possible (and Burke was one of the first to calculate the total tax burden correctly, i.e. as proportion of income, which led him to understand that taxes were HIGHER not LOWER in Ireland compared with Britain), but he never held the no tax anarchist position.

Perhaps he should have done - but he did not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.63.48.48 (talk • contribs) 28 May 2006.

Representative Democracy and "Conservative V Liberal".

Burke was not a supporter of democracy (representative or other). What has been called the "divine right of the 51%" never appealed to him. Indeed he voted against Parliamentary reform all his life.

Just as Burke never supported clerics being allowed to stay clerics of the Church of England if they did not agree with its doctrines. Tolerance for dissenters was a fine thing - but handing over the Church to them was something quite different (I do not have time to go into the differences between an Established Church and a State Church, although I know a lot of modern people seem to have a problem grasping the differences, but they are different things).

Nor did Burke tend to change his basic opinions over time. This is not the place to go into a detailed comparison of the British Bill of Rights and the American Bill of Rights on the one hand, and the French Revolution's "Rights of Man" on the other. However, although the "Rights of Man" often sounds as if it is concerned with individual rights, in the sense of limits on government power, it (just as such things as the international declaration on Human Rights has now) has lots of collective elements within it.

Burke always opposed the idea that there are such things as positive political rights and that without them one is a slave (that is the position of Richard Price not Edmund Burke).

So what if someone did not have the "right to vote" - what mattered is that government should not oppress him (order him about, steal what little property he had and so on).

Whatever politial system, in the circumstances of time and place, was best at maintaining limited government (the respect for the bodies and goods of the people) was what Burke favoured.

He did not like absolute monarchies (especially the "modern" "enlightened" kind of the 18th century) because they tended to order folk about more than the old monarchies that had been limited by such things as Estates.

But was a Whig (a supporter of limits on the power of the Crown) not because he had a misty eyed loved of Parliament (still less because he beliveed in a "right to vote") - but because he believed that unlimited monarchies had a nasty habit of plundering people and ordering them about.

The old, unreformed, House of Commons did not do a perfect job of controlling government - and Burke wanted it to do a better job. But he would only have turned against the (landowner dominated) House of Commons if it could have proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, to him that a new, Democratic, House of Commons would have done a better job.

Burke certainly did not regard the old House of Commons as the work of God that could not be touched - but it was the duty of would be reformers to prove their case (and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt - as if a new system failed the consequences could be terrible).

Given the vast increase in taxes and regulations (and the introduction of the fiat [government command money, as opposed to commodity money such as gold or silver] money that Burke so denouces in "Reflections on the Revolution in France") in every country that has adopted Representative Democracy, it seems that Burke was right to be hostile to it.

Although (it could be argued) that such things might have come to pass under the old system to.

Alas for my senile brain - I forgot "Conservative V Liberal".

Well as others have said above "it depends what you mean".

If you mean liberal as in "pro liberty" (Latin libertas, French libre - please excuse me if I have mispelled these words) - well yes Burke was a liberal in this sense.

As long as one understands that he never held that this liberty extended to the right to plunder other people. You have the right to defend your body and your goods - and those of other people (indeed you have a moral, although not a legal, duty defend other people), but you have no right to steal their goods - whether on the grounds that the are richer than you, or are Roman Catholics, or have different colour skin (or whatever).

Nor do people have to been "worthy" of their property, or use it for the "general welfare".

In "Letter to a Noble Lord" Burke lays in to the Duke of Bedford and his family (the Russels) - pointing out that they got their estates by fawning on Henry VIII and have (mostly been) fairly useless people. However, Burke does not argue that the Duke of Bedford's estate should be taken from him. No Burke is warning (and other people with more money than sense) the Duke that the very French Revolution that he (the Duke) supports would take his estate and murder his family.

In the sense of "liberal" as in "generious" (as in "liberality"), Burke was very generious with his own money (or with any money that was voluntarily given him) - too generious perhaps (few hard luck stories ever left Burke unmoved), but he was not in favour of being "generious" with the taxpayers money.

Sadly being "generious" with other folks money (money taken from them by the threat of violence) has come to be what "liberal" means (although many so called "conservatives" are just as bad).

As for "Conservative" - again it depends on what you mean.

Burke was very supportive of any traditionial insitutions that limited government (he loved such "traditions" so much that his enemies claimed he made them up), but should someone (such as Warren Hastings) claim that the traditions of a land (say India) justified what Burke considered arbitary government then it was time for the red mist to come down in front of Burke's eyes.

Burke loved tradition you see - just as long as it was traditions that protected the bodies and goods of people. As for a tradition of violating such things - well that was not a proper tradition (at least not to Burke's way of looking at things).

Few members in the House of Commons got so many changes to the law made in the 18th century as Edmund Burke (ending the limitations on the property rights of Roman Catholics in Ireland - inculding the right to keep and bare arms, ending all statutes against "engrossing and forestalling" [the wholesale trade], and getting rid of many other regulations), but he was acting for tradition every time. Although some might say it was his own idea of tradition that he was acting for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.63.48.48 (talk • contribs) 28 May 2006.

Recusancy

"His father conforming to the Church of Ireland (see..Recusancy)": besides the odd punctuation, why see Recusancy? It has nothing at all to do with the Church of Ireland, does it? - Jmabel | Talk 20:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox needed

{{Infobox Philosopher}} needs to be added to the page. 24.126.199.129 06:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I added one. Someone with a better knowledge of Burke than me could add his influences and his notable ideas as well as expanding who he has influenced.--Johnbull 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

The list is growing again. Added once more: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I thought that was an apocryphal attribution; does someone have a citation? - Jmabel | Talk 00:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the citations; I see that we agree that it is apocryphal. So shouldn't that be noted where the quotation is given, not just in a footnote? - Jmabel | Talk 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we possibly have a link to these citations? I have seen nothing in the article or the footnotes that give any reason to believe the famous quote should not be attributed to Edmund Burke. The only citation I see in the footnotes points to a Google Books page, which only proves that it was attributed to him by 1943, and gives no indication that it should actually be attributed to someone else. - K1darkknight (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the Quotes section. The article should include the "triumph of evil" quote, and state it's bogus nature. We could also move it to the Trivia section. -- Petri Krohn 10:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just now discovered that the article claimed the quote is genuine and appeared in a private letter. This claim is bogus as well. I made this change to fix the problem and add some better citations on the subject. Eubulides (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The article claims the "bogus" quote only dates backj to 1968. How then did it appear in a U.S. government publication from 1943?, and another publication from 1950. I call nonsense the "proof" that the quote is a fabrication from the 1960's. Edison (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Burke never made that famous statement-- however he did say something similar: "when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, and unpaid sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." 1770, cited in Fred R. Shapiro The Yale book of Quotations 2006 page 115 Rjensen (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? OK

2. Factually accurate? Pass

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

• I'm sure one can re-write this Burke's father wished him to study for the law, and with this object he went to London in 1750 and entered the Middle Temple.
• The section Trivia should probably be inserted in the text somewhere as it just looks weird in an encyclopedia.
• The section Quotes could be transferred to Wikiquote or could be included in the text. (See W. S. Gilbert for an example of blue boxes containing quotes)
• The Summary IMO would be better sideway instead of vertically. If one disagrees just striking such comment is ok. ;)
• For what is considered controversial there should be inline citations. I have no specific requirements but spreading some in the article will help the reader find additional material on the different subjects mentioned.

Lincher 12:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Edmund Burke

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Portait image changed

I changed the portait image. The new image is better than the prior version. This image was acquired from Wiki Commons, then adjusted for contrast, and resubmitted to Commons. --Quoth the Raven 12:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

This article was reworked in accordance with the comments made during the on hold period of the GA candidacy. Upon such changes, the article is now of GA status. Lincher 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Economist??

Whatever one may think of Burke's views on economic issues, how can Burke be considered a member of the "English Historical School", or for that matter, as an economist?Fconaway 23:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If the template seems large and intrusive in the Burke article, feel free to delete it--the template will continue to contain a link to the Burke article, wherever it is placed. Burke is quite important in economics, primarily because he begins the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment, decades before the end of the Napoleonic wars, when most of Europe turns against the Enlightenment. As you are all aware, he bears striking similarities to Hayek, in that he manages to combine a favorable view of markets and liberty with strong support for tradition--the synthesis of the conservative and liberal (libertarian) positions. The German Historical School is considered to owe a great deal to Burke, borrowing his emphasis on the importance of tradition as historically accumulated best practice. I can't really place him with the Germans, so I placed him with the English, but any of you are free to edit the template and provide your justifications for a new placement. Anthon.Eff 04:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

he was pretty clearly a political economist, i'm not sure he was a economist. --Buridan 14:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In that period, everyone was a "political economist"--Marshall really marks the beginning of the tradition of calling the field "economics" (his Principles of Economics vs. JS Mill's Principles of Political Economy). If you mean that his focus was not so much on the economy, but on the interaction between the state and the economy (what political scientists and radical economists today call "political economy") then you are raising a valid point--compared to other "political economists" like Hume and Smith, his work contains almost no technical economics. I think he should be left on the template, but please chime in, folks, if he doesn't belong then let's take him off. Anthon.Eff 16:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Burke and Romanticism

Given his opposition to the Enlightenment, could Burke be considered a Romantic? --66.214.21.91 00:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think his theory of the sublime in art and his opinions on the french revolution may have influenced some romantics,. but I don't think I have ever read anywhere that he was a romantic, maybe a proto-romantic like Cowper or Crabb. Methusedalot (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Influences and Influenced

I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC ^Talk 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Lord Verney

In 1765 Burke entered the British Parliament as a member of the House of Commons for Wendover, a pocket borough in the control of Lord Verney, later 2nd Earl Verney, a close political ally of Rockingham.

The heir-apparent of an earl is known by the earl's next lower title that does not have the same name. The Earls Verney (normally called "Lord Verney") were also Viscounts Fermanagh and Barons Verney of Belturbet, so the earl's first son would be called "Lord Fermanagh". I changed the passage accordingly. —Tamfang 05:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, the 2d Earl Verney succeeded to the title before 1765! —Tamfang 04:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

GA sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• Life section requires substaintial addition of references
• 2 templates in "Influence and reputation" interfere the reading (minor issue)
• Most quotes are unreferenced
• Needs same reference formatting

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I will now delist the article as it does not meet GA standard. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Burke a "Conservative," & "Classical Liberal?"

Burke was a Whig who supported the Established Church. He was not a member of the Tory faction at any time, and there was no Liberal party in his day. To call him a Conservative or a Liberal is Opinion not supported by fact, evidence, or documentation. That his musings became part of the conservative pantheon after 1789 is beyond dispute, but he never took common cause with the Tories. English Liberalism is typically considered to begin with John Locke, but Burke had a distaste for abstract theorising such as Locke's State of Nature and the contractualism that evolves from those assumptions. He certainly would have not thought much of James Mill, Jeremy Bentham, or JS Mill either as they built their assumptions from abstractions - the very thing he vilifed the Rousseauean French for doing. While he was in general agreement with Adam Smith as to how the Economy worked and should generally function, he consistently sided with the Church of England (although he shared with Locke a belief in tolerance of non-conformists, he never advocated disestablishing the Anglican Church) and staked out little formal opinion on Free Trade - the key issue that would come to give life to the distinction between Conservatives and Liberals (Conservatives being against and Liberals for ...) during the early Victorian age. To that end, I am deleting reference to Burke in the Categories section as a Conservative and a Liberal. Edmund Burke is an English Whig of Irish heritage. End of story. TrulyTory (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal essay "Thoughts about Edmund Burke’s, Reflections on the Revolution in France" moved to Talk

{{Essay-like}} Moving this here to Talk:

Thoughts about Edmund Burke’s, Reflections on the Revolution in France

Edmund Burke’s, Reflections on the Revolution in France, published in November 1790 expressed his criticism of and opposition to the French Revolution. He was very critical of the revolution and likened the result to a polluted stream, saying that “France has always more or less influenced manners in England; and when your fountain is choaked up and polluted, the stream will not run long, or not run clear with us” (Burke 445). Burke sees a decline in France as a result to the revolution and a break from France’s past, which Burke saw as a rather grand and glorious past.

Burke seems to believe that France had a satisfactory system and speaking again in metaphor, suggested that France “might have repaired those walls” and “might have built on those old foundations” (Burke 430). He apparently believed that what France had in place was valuable enough that it should have been repaired rather than out. Burke stated that the “constitution was suspended before it was perfected” (Burke 430) for he believed that France “had the elements of a constitution very nearly as good as could be wished” (Burke 430). It is clear that Burke believed in the old system in France and saw the revolution taking France down a path of decline. He pointed out that France “had all these advantages in your ancient state; but you chose to ace as if you had never been moulded in civil society’ (Burke 431). Burke says of France in this era of revolution, that, “you began ill” (Burke 431). He really seemed to wish for the past to continue unchanged and the status quo to be the rule. When he says, “Respecting your forefathers, you would have been taught to respect yourself” (Burke 431), he suggests that they knew the way and it would have been wise for those at the time of the revolution to have done as they had done. He says that following “those ancestors, your imaginations would have realized in them a standard of virtue and wisdom, beyond the vulgar practice of the hour” (Burke 431). In the present, the revolution was the vulgar practice he referred to. Continuing to bash France, he says that France “has abandoned her interest, that she might prostitute her virtue (Burke 432).

Burke is equally critical of the revolutionaries and their actions. He points out that they made no sacrifice not shedding one drop of blood ‘in the cause of the country they have ruined’ (Burke 434). They were not forced into the choice to revolt which Burke characterizes as a “fond election of evil” (Burke 434). He is critical of the quality of the persons involved, describes those elected to the Third Estate as all lacking experience with regard to matters of running the state. And of a specific group, “practitioners of the law,” he said nothing nice, calling them “the inferior, unlearned, mechanical, merely instrumental members of the profession” (Burke 435). He said there were “distinguished exceptions” but the vast majority was inferior. Some of the other professions represented in the National Assembly, such as doctors and stock and fund dealers, were no more experienced and in Burke’s eyes helpful to the process.

The concept of the revolution, the results of the revolution and those who were central to carrying out the revolution were all targets of Burke’s attacks. He did not subscribe to the vision of the revolutionaries. He believed that France had a strong foundation and that any change that was necessary should come about as a result of adjustments and shifts to the existing system and structure. Burke is emphatic that the revolution was unnecessary and not in the interest of France or its people.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

ARMED DOCTRINE?

Can someone write a subsection on Burke's definition of "the armed doctrine"...as it was a very important concept, and relevant today.--128.91.40.181 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

summary timeline

I like the summary timeline, but I don't understand why it is backwards on.Johncmullen1960 (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)