agency. Keeping these facts in mind we shall not be forced to the folly of Bentham and Buckle in believing Burke insane in order to understand his righteous indignation hurled in no uncertain terms against the French revolutionists, who founded on atheism a reign of terror in which the sacred edifice of government was overthrown to the last stone, the sacred right to property usurped by spoliation, and the revolution itself supported by "frauds, impostures, violences, rapines, burnings, murders, confiscations, compulsory paper currencies, and every description of tyranny and cruelty." It would be difficult to imagine a situation in which more of Burke's fundamental principles were violated. /His savage indignation was not insanity nor was he inconsistent in opposing the French revolutionists and in defending the Americans. The two situations were as different as daylight and darkness, though agreeing in some principles The Americans were fighting for the rights of the English Constitution, which Parliament was overriding. They were trained in self-control and already had partial governments of their own. In the words of Daniel Webster "the character of our countrymen, moreover, was sober, moral, and religious; and there was little in the change to shock their feelings of justice and humanity, or even to disturb an honest prejudice. We had no domestic throne to overturn, no privileged orders to cast down, no violent changes of property to encounter. In the American Revolution, no man sought or wished for plunder or for spoil. Rapacity was unknown to it; the ax was not among the instruments of its accomplishment; and we all know that it could not have lived a single day under any well-founded imputation of possessing a tendency adverse to the Christian religion." On the other hand let us glance at Burke's opinion of the French revolutionists: "I never

will be persuaded that, because people have lived under an absolute monarchy, with all its inconveniences and grievances, therefore they are in the right to ruin their country, on the speculation of regenerating it in some shape or other. I never can believe it right to destroy all the credit, power, and influence of the gentry of a country, and a great deal of their property, and to rest its administration in the hands of its mechanics; I cannot think the religion of the Gospel, or any other, can be promoted by the kind endeavors of those who do not so much as pretend to be any other than atheists."

Although we hear much about Burke's antagonism to theories and theorists, we must not, therefore, conclude that he was unscientific, unprogressive, and void of imagination and idealism. On the contrary, he was severely scientific, accepting no conclusions that were not supported by facts, and taking no untried paths of action. His caution was wise. There are subjects on which the experimenter may cut and try, which he may even destroy without much loss and with the possibility of much gain. There are circumstances on the wrong outcome of which there hangs no great disaster. But Edmund Burke, for the most part, dealt with no such subjects, and with no such circumstances. "Prudent men," he said, "when so great an object as the security of government, or even its peace, is at stake, will not run the risk of a decision which may be fatal to it. A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood." He ventured no solid interests upon speculative grounds, and few men have had more solid interests at stake. The destinies of peoples, nations, and empires were in his hands; their very existence might depend on his decisions and on his course of action. Possibilities of failure, so far as humanly possible, must be eliminated. He knew the need of study and of weighing the past

ded on the ole

grounde

xxviii

INTRODUCTION

until "old experience do attain to something of prophetic strain." His was "the sure guess of well practised feet" that seldom went astray, or led others on treacherous grounds. Few statesmen, if any, have seen farther into the future; with all of his aversion to theory, few theorists or idealists have been sounder theorists and idealists, and have led more in the van of civilization. He said that he endeavored all his life to train his understanding and temper in the studies and habits of philosophy.

The theorists that he despised, those "refining speculatists," "political aeronauts," as he called them, were after all, men of narrow vision and reckless speculation, ignorant or scornful of the wisdom of the past, fanatics who had not taken the compass of greatness, comprehended the complexities of human nature, or realized that it is easier and safer to reform what may be amiss than to attempt to create anew from nothing. Such men may conceivably penetrate far into the intricacies of life, but they will never employ enough circumspection to retrace their steps, or so take account of the branching and turning of the way as ever to arrive at their fancied destination. Victims of their own abstractions they lose themselves in the great Serbonian bog, and their little one ideaed creed, pseudophilosophy, or what you will, leaves no trace to help the present or guide the future.

Burke's antipathy to theorists, then, was not to theorists per se, but rather to the false, hasty, superficial, and perverted methods to which they often resorted. He himself was a man of theory, of theory, however, supported by facts and circumstances and hardened into workable well-established principles. He submitted all his theories to the test of practicality. Had they worked? Would they work? Were they adapted to the

circumstances at hand? "This is the true touchstone," he said, "of all theories which regard man and the affairs of men-does it suit his nature in general?—does it suit his nature as modified by his habits? Prudence will lead us rather to acquiesce in some qualified plan, that does not come up to the full perfection of the abstract idea, than to push for the more perfect, which cannot be attained without tearing to pieces the whole contexture of the commonwealth, and creating a heartache in a thousand bosoms." He did not forget that new occasions and situations teach new duties and necessitate new measures. He understood that with the passing of time and the shifting of generations old statutes become invalid or must be adapted to new conditions. "It is not," he said, "what a lawyer tells me I may do, but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do."

Party was a He held that

For the attainment of his ends, and in his firm adherence to organization and order, conscious that all combinations and conditions of men must be reckoned with as they are and in their way, Burke was a staunch supporter of party. Party with him was the only means a politician had of reducing his politics to action, and of making his principles serviceable to man. practical means of attaining his ideals. when a public man failed to avail himself of such means for the performance of his duty, he betrayed his trust. But his firm adherence to party did not mean his slavery to party. He might agree with his party nine times out of ten, but that fact did not obligate him to agree the tenth time. He loved right more than party, more than friends, and more than state. He could and did break with all of these when he found them arrayed against his convictions, established principles, and that higher Law which no man can afford to violate. He, however, believed there are, and found few cases which would jus

tify revolt against established government, whether such revolt was by an individual or by a party. "I am guided by no factious principles, and I have, as long as they are true to themselves, all respect for those in power." As for parties, "they always have existed and always will."

Although Burke was a loyal supporter of his party and used it for the accomplishment of his ideals, he believed that "legislators have no other rules to bind them, but the great principles of reason and equity, and the general sense of mankind." These they are bound to obey and follow. He reserved not only a final and manly independence of party when conscience and principle would not permit him to remain acquiescent, but also a courageous and unswering independence of his constituents when he was convinced that their views and desires were not for the highest good of the nation. He would represent them with his mind, his ability, and his understanding and not as their mouthpiece. With no man or body of men would he go to all lengths. Right and only right as he understood it could claim his unalterable allegiance. He had no use for class legislation, and would not be employed to bring it about.

This sturdy independence of his constituents, strict adherence to the dictates of conscience, and his own conception of right eventually cost Burke the support of Bristol and left him dependent for the remainder of his service in the House of Commons on the pocket borough of Malton. Henceforth he was no longer obliged to oppose the selfish narrow desires and ignorance of his constituents; but secure in office, he could employ to the utmost his virtue and wisdom, which he held the only qualifications for government and for the best interests of all concerned. He sympathized with the masses, and was willing, if need be, to give his life for them, but he