The Political Thought of Edmund Burke

“The most influential political thinker of Ireland,” is not a phrase to be taken lightly. These words spoken by module lecturer, Paul Bew, and agreed upon by many are what I hope to discuss briefly in this essay. There are three questions I will be bringing light upon in this essay. The first will be of what the main elements in the political thinking of Edmund Burke were. Secondly I will discuss how important an influence Ireland was in molding Burke’s political thought. And finally the controversial question of why Burke defended the ancien regime in France but criticized it in Ireland will be clarified.

Burke believed in the unity of England and Ireland. A good way of looking at his view is that he thought Catholics have grievances; Ireland doesn’t. He was a thinker of modern conservative thought and the chief Orange thinker of the 1700s. Burke was also an aesthetic writer who believed in not “the” world but “a” world and thought that drama in theatre could not replace man’s feelings for the real world. He was a disciple of Locke, a “philosopher of unreason in the great age of Reason” (Cobban, p.75), and a Whig politician with a difference. Locke’s philosophy is based on individual right; Burke’s begins with religious obligation (Cobban, p. 95). He denied the validity of abstract, deductive thinking in politics. Burke’s conservatism was not scientific in origin-but religious. As a Whig, Burke desired an oligarchy (spiritual in rule) (Cobban, p. 92).

Burke was against revolution and Thomas Payne was for it, so Irish thought was split between the two. Burke was opposed to the French Revolution because he thought it stood for everything that was antichristian and was bad for everything that represents civilization. He felt that it was not for democracy or liberty; it was about destroying everything that was worthwhile. He felt that England had to fight to the finish to stop it. Americans used this philosophy to apply to the Russian revolution in 1917.

Burke was against colonization in America and in India. O’Gorman quotes Burke as calling the East India Company “a state in the disguise of a merchant,” meaning that the British were only out to exploit the people. The same goes in America (p. 127). Many officers were sent to India to be promoted in rank and there was in fact no one for them to govern except other officers. Ireland was a different story.

Burke hoped for full Catholic emancipation in 1795, but alas it never happened. During the same time, he was furious with the Orange Order because he felt that their acts drove the Catholics of Ireland into the arms of the French. The United Irishmen were also in contact with the revolutionaries in France and believed in the persecution of Catholic priests.

In Burke’s way of thinking “two commitments stand out, never reconciled and never entirely subduing each other, though one or other often dominate according to the need of the moment. One is to suffering humanity, clamoring for justice, compassion and life itself. The other is to society, formed of human beings in an intricate pattern which subordinates some men, elevates others and articulates the whole.” (Hill, p. 44). One can see the first of Burke’s commitments in his desire for Catholic emancipation. His other commitment is defended in his opposition to the godless revolutionaries in France. The destroyers of all that is civil will destroy the society of France as well.

Many scholars have noticed that religion was the basis of Burke’s political philosophy. Stanlis says in his book, “The religious dimensions of Burke’s political philosophy-his sense of piety, awe, and reverence toward the nonrational mysteries at the core of human existence, and his respect for all forms of human corporate life-ultimately manifest themselves in his principle of moral prudence, the most important principle in his practical politics,” (p. 198). It was simple to Burke, Catholic persecution wasn’t Christian. How could Protestants do these awful crimes and still call themselves Christians?

Born into an Irish-Catholic family, it is no wonder that from an early age Burke saw that the people were being treated as second-class citizens. He would never forget the Protestant bigotry defined in such crude acts as the judicial murder of Friar Nicholas Sheehy. His own father had to “convert” to Protestantism on paper in order to obtain a legal career. His mother and sister were the only ones who stayed true to the religion. He attended Trinity College in Dublin and followed his father’s footsteps into becoming a politician in England.

It was in Ireland that Burke first saw how selfish a ruling faction could be by the passing the Penal laws. That is what Burke had a problem with.
Because of his background, “had Burke remained in Ireland, he would most likely have become active in some nationalist cause,” (Lock, p. 59). This contradicts what most know of Burke as not proto-nationalist, but you must realize that among being treated as a second-class citizen, Burke also hated the landlords. He hated the inequality of money between England and Ireland. Had he not grown too old for Dublin and stayed, instead of moving on to a political career, it is likely he would have fought for severance of the two countries.

Burke’s views about his position in Parliament were quoted as “Nothing gave him so much satisfaction, when he was first honoured with a seat in that House, as that it might be in his power, some way or other, to be of service to the country that gave him birth; and he had always said to himself…(that if ever he were to deserve a great reward he would say)…do something for Ireland; do something for my country and I am over rewarded,” (Cobban, p.102). Langford states that Burke, however, suffered much from his Irish origins as a politician. “In the press he was Edmund Benny Clabber, the ‘goose turned swan by the inspiring streams of the Liffey and the Shannon’,” (p. 823).

Burke believed that a man couldn’t be a good Irishman without being a good Englishman and he couldn’t be a good Englishman without being a good Irishman. He felt that the two had the same “heart”. France didn’t; and therefore he believed in the ancien regime ruling. He didn’t believe in Catholics (or the ancien regime in Ireland) ruling Ireland because he felt that their mistreatment as a religion wasn’t a great enough reason to overthrow British rule. He believed that if England simply treated the Catholics better, they would unite in the cause to fight the revolution in France. The division between religions didn’t matter; what mattered is that the revolutionaries in France weren’t of a religion. All must fight against these Godless men.

Similarly O’Gorman states Burke’s opposition to the revolution in Ireland as this, “Fundamentally, he could not see that violence was necessary when political channels for reform still remained open. Burke did not believe that the British constitution established between 1688 and 1714 forbade Catholic enfranchisement; to enfranchise them, therefore would not be a violation of the constitution, rather the contrary,” (p. 87).

Burke believed that when the British system is gone from the hearts of men, they will not be held under tyranny and will kill their rulers. The French do not have the heart of the British and are fighting a war in which chivalry is dead. Burke believed that the principle of honor was corrupted or destroyed in Ireland, but that this corruption in France was taken one step further in a revolution in manners. The revolutionaries, in his opinion, had no taste, politeness, or respect. And he takes many efforts to describe the uncivil attacks on the queen and her husband in their bedroom and their fleeing from the castle in their nightgowns. Burke believed that once the society of France had been undone by the revolution, it would also deprive the men of a means of reconstructing it (Bourke, p.469).

Burke believed that “Behavior, and not mere profession of intention, must be the test of moral worth,” (Parkin, p. 135). This goes along with the well-known saying that “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. French revolutionaries had intentions of changing the government for the better and striking up a more efficient economy, but in their godless, murderous behavior, their goals are immoral. Gregory Claeys in Whale’s collection of essays on Burke’s Reflections disagrees with this and says that before the French revolution, religion was a shadow over learning. The revolution would bring literary, intellectual, and commercial progress. Claeys saw Burke as promoting ignorance and barbarism along with religion (p.48). Not many contradictory views such as his were found in my research.

Arnold’s compilation of Burke’s works include Moral Insensibility in which Burke says ” When men of rank sacrifice all ideas of dignity to an ambition without a distinct object, and work with low instruments and for low ends, the whole composition becomes low and base. Does not something like this now appear in France? Does it not produce something ignoble and inglorious?” (p. 132). O’Gorman also quoted Burke saying ‘The truth is that France is out of itself-The moral France is separated from the geographical,’ and explains that what Burke meant is that the French ‘people’ no longer existed (p. 127).

After a depressing year of being ill with “stomach deterioration”, Edmund Burke died in May 1790. In 1798, the French invaded Ireland and 30,000 were killed. Many scholars have wondered what Burke would have said. Would he finally have sided with the Orange Order? Or would he have found reasons to believe in the United Irishmen? One can only speculate.

It is a shame that the Burkeian vision did not come into effect in his lifetime. He envisioned England and Ireland peacefully coexisting and Catholics granted full political rights. If the elite were a different ethnicity then it might have worked out differently. But the Protestants and Catholics belonged to the same class, and working class democratic ethnic separateness was the cause for constant turmoil. It is only in the 1990s that Ireland began reaching some resolution, and peace has been declared. It may be another century before there are no prejudices against “the other” religion.

Burke’s insistence on church and state being tied together in a political ribbon of harmony may be unrealistic in today’s secular world, but he defended Christianity to the end. To critics Burke says “the words of Paul answering the Roman Procurator of Judaea…: ‘I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness,”’ (Ayling, p. 286).

The lifetime of disruption and change Burke had seen is quoted in his Reflections “little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon here in a nation of men of honour and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult-But the age of chivalry is gone.-That of sophisters, oeconomists, and calculators, has succeeded…” (Whale, p. 30).

As a rags to rags story leaves Edmund Burke, we say adieu to the man who commanded a room with his overpowering life-force. A speaker who could make a man weep with his flowery prose, and a man who held onto his roots even when they caused him shame. I think the thoughts of Langford sum up why Burke is still being discussed in Irish political thought classes today, “On the whole, what is most striking about Burke’s influence is its variety. No other member of parliament in the country that invented the parliamentary tradition has exerted such influence over such a diverse and enduring audience,” (p.840).

Arnold, Hazlitt & Others. Edmund Burke: Selections with Essays. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1930. Pp. 132.

Ayling, Stanley. Edmund Burke: His Life and Opinions. John Murray Ltd, London, 1988. Pp. 286.

Bourke, Richard. “Liberty, authority, and trust in Burke’s idea of empire.” Journal of the History of Ideas. 2000. Pp. 469.

Cobban, Alfred. Edmund Burke and the Revolt against the Eighteenth Century. George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London, 1960. Pp. 75, 92, 95-96, 102.

Deane, Seamus. “Factions and Fictions: Burke, Colonialism and Revolution.” Bullan. Volume 4: Issue 2. Winter 1999/Spring 2000. Pp. 10.

Hill, B.W. Edmund Burke on Government, Politics and Society. The Harvester Press, England, 1975. Pp.44.

Lock, F. P. Edmund Burke: Volume I, 1730-1784. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998. Pp. 59.

Matthew, H. C. G. (editor). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Volume 8: Brown-Burstow. Edmund Burke by Paul Langford. Oxford University Press, London, 2004. Pp. 823, 840.

O’Gorman, Frank. Edmund Burke: His Political Philosophy. George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1973. Pp. 87, 127.

Parkin, Charles. The Moral Basis of Burke’s Political Thought. Russell & Russell, New York, 1968. Pp. 135.

Stanlis, Peter J. Edmund Burke: The Enlightenment and Revolution. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1991. Pp. 198, 212.

Whale, John (editor). Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France: New interdisciplinary essays. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK, 2000. Pp. 30, 48.