Edmund Burke and the Politics of Conquest

Abstract

This article restores the context of political action to Burke's thinking about politics. It begins with the specific case of his interventions in the parliamentary debate over the Quebec Bill in 1774, and proceeds from this focal point to establish the centrality of the theme of conquest to his political motivation and understanding in general. Burke's preoccupation with conquest drove him to examine eighteenth-century British politics within a set of comparative historical frameworks. These frameworks encompassed the trajectories of both modern European and imperial politics and ancient historical development. The objective of Burke's politics of conquest was to overcome the destructive influence of the spirit of conquest. That objective involved deciding upon and justifying courses of action with reference to these comparative historical frameworks of understanding. Careful investigation shows that while Burke's approach to this task was powerfully influenced by Montesquieu, his arguments invariably entailed serious criticism of Montesquieu's conclusions. Properly understood, these criticisms show that Burke himself did not endorse the political principles that were later taken to constitute “Burkian conservatism”. The article draws the conclusion that a thorough grasp of the politics of conquest in Burke's thinking will force us to reposition him in the history of political theory.

Political Theory of Empire and Imperialism

“…The importance of extra-European commerce and conquest to the development of European political thought is heightened, as recent scholarship has emphasized, by the active involvement of key political theorists as legislators or as employees or associates of trading companies. Examples include Grotius, Locke, Hobbes (Malcolm 2002), Burke (Whelan 1996, Burke & Bromwich 2000, Bourke 2007; for a particularly critical reading of Burke as someone who "managed to rescue the imperial mission" by assaulting its crimes, see Dirks 2006, p. 314), Constant (Pitts 2008), Mill (Zastoupil 1994, Moir et al 1999, and Tocqueville (2001), Richter 1963, Welch 2003, Pitts 2005. Recent work has explored, for instance, Grotius's sustained theoretical and legal efforts on behalf of the Dutch East India Company (Tuck 1999, Borschberg 2002, Van Ittersum 2006.…”

Vattel, Britain and Peace in Europe

“…Th e only means to such an end was the transformation of British foreign policy, to encompass intervention in Europe in order to keep the peace, to protect the old world, and maintain it for the economic development of all those states who favoured trade, morals and religion. 72 As Burke put it, Britain had become 'the great resource of Europe'. Britain could no longer be 'detached from the rest of the world, and amusing herself with the puppet-show of a naval power'.…”

TWO CONCEPTIONS OF LIBERALISM: Theology, Creation, and Politics in the Thought of Immanuel Kant and Edmund Burke1

“…Wrapped up in the towel that I willingly throw in to the historians, there might perhaps be a small gauntlet. When a recent commentator remarks that it is “generally accepted” that Burke cannot be located within a “natural‐law tradition” (Bourke 2007, 404), one wonders whether in the process of dismissing the admittedly crude identification of Burke as a Thomist, there is not now an over‐compensating tendency to entirely read out of Burke any influence of medieval theology, even as one strand among others. Consider the following position: Burke, we know, was influenced by classical authors such as Aristotle and Cicero.…”

“…Rather, the task for Burke scholars is to trace a large number of diverse discourses and influences. Recent work has done this admirably on a number of fronts, revealing the influence of classical authors such as Cicero, Philo, and Livy (Armitage 2000; Bourke 2000, 2007), early modern natural law thinkers such as Vattel and Grotius (Armitage 2000), Whig latitudinarianism (Clark 1997, 2001; Lock 2006, 573–76), and Anglican skepticism (Hampsher‐Monk 1998). Where there remains an interest in “Burke and God,” the focus is more on religion as an extrinsic cause and influence, rather than theology as an immanent reason and commitment.…”