Traditional Hierarchy

​

Context:

To understand Burke’s views on traditional hierarchy, we must understand the society in which he was living. Burke began his writing during the late 1750s, a period in which the divine right of kings had ceased to be the norm for government and there had been a focus on more democratic system. Although not completely democratic as some surveys at the time have shown that less than 3% of the total population of approximately 8 million had the right to vote.  By this point, parliamentary sovereignty had been fully established and the colonies were under the firm grasp of the empire.

​

 

The role of traditional Hierarchy in the transfer of liberty

​

Burke strongly believed that liberty was not an abstract idea but rather a product of institutions and that only strong hierarchies within these institutions could transfer this liberty. He talks about this in his speech on conciliation with the American colonies in 1775, claiming that the disgruntled Americans, who would later lead the revolution, were devoted to “liberty according to English ideas”. He further claims in this speech that it is Parliament who is ignoring its duty as an institution to provide this liberty and that the hierarchy that places Parliament as the ultimate sovereign authority can only function so long as it remains a “sanctuary of liberty”. He places a lot of importance on the duties of various parts of hierarchy he talks about in this speech and implicitly suggests that if these duties are not fulfilled then there is no need to obey the hierarchy. Burkes idea of liberty was different from much of the thinking of the time and in a letter to a young Frenchman wrote the following:

“Permit me then to continue our conversation, and to tell you what the freedom is that I love, and that to which I think all men entitled. This is the more necessary, because, of all the loose terms in the world, liberty is the most indefinite. It is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish liberty, as if every man was to regulate the whole of his conduct by his own will. The liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which liberty is secured by the equality of restraint. A constitution of things in which the liberty of no one man, and no body of men, and no number of men, can find means to trespass on the liberty of any person, or any description of persons, in the society. This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions”

Burke was even uncomfortable with the destruction of foreign institutions and hierarchies writing “Provident patriots did not think it good for Rome that even Carthage should be quite destroyed”. Although he does show support of intervention to support hierarchies when talking about the king of Prussia. It could be argued then that Burke, if he were around today, would have been in support of the war in Iraq based on the premise of preserving global order. This is assuming he believed the claims that Saddam had WMD. He would most certainly object however to the idea that Bush and Blair had the moral authority to call for such a war

I cannot conceive any existence under heaven (which, in the depths of its wisdom, tolerates all sorts of things), that is more truly odious and disgusting, than an impotent, helpless creature, without civil wisdom or military skill, without a consciousness of any other qualification for power but his servility to it, bloated with pride and arrogance, calling for battles which he is not to fight, contending for a violent dominion which he can never exercise, and satisfied to be himself mean and miserable, in order to render others contemptible and wretched.

 

The idea of hierarchy being the safe guard of liberty forms not only much of the basis of his criticism of the French revolution but also of his sympathy for the American revolution.

 

Natural Order and Monarchy

​

One of the biggest debates between Burke and Paine was whether Britain could learn anything from the French revolution. Burke invokes the revolution of 1688 as an example of a revolution done correctly. The difference in Burke’s opinion was the revolutions goal of maintaining the areas of the hierarchy that worked while changing only what had to be changed. In Burke’s view, the freedoms won during this revolution had always been possessed by the British people and he writes that the ultimate goal of the revolution was to “to preserve our antient indisputable laws and liberties.”. The monarchy in Burke’s view was the most important part of the hierarchy as it gave liberty a sense of continuity. This is how burke explains this idea

YOU will observe, that from Magna Carta to the Declaration of Right, it has been the uniform policy of our constitution to claim and assert our liberties, as an entailed inheritance derived to us from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to our posterity, as an estate specially belonging to the people of this kingdom without any reference whatever to any other more general or prior right. By this means our constitution preserves a unity in so great a diversity of its parts. We have an inheritable crown; an inheritable peerage; and a house of commons and a people inheriting privileges, franchises, and liberties, from a long line of ancestors.

For Burke, the actions of the French revolution would be the equivalent of modern Britain leaving the EU and getting rid of every law that was passed while part of it. While the “great repeal bill” that the government is planning does technically give the opportunity to do this, it is unlikely that the government with remove everything. Burke would probably support this approach as he had spoken many times about how parliament should always have complete power but not always use that power, specifically in reference to the taxation of America.

​

 

Role of parliament within the hierarchy

​

After monarchy In Burke’s hierarchy, we come to parliament. Burke felt that the role of parliament in this hierarchy was not to impose its will on to the people but rather guide them slowly to the correct behaviours. He displays this idea during the debate in parliament on the introduction of jury trial in Canada where he states “I thought the giving them this optional jury was the best way of leading them into the habit of having juries.” He did not however believe that the views of the public were completely subservient to the will of parliament and felt that a pragmatic approach was sometimes needed

“In order to make Canada a secure possession of the British government, you have only to bind the people to you, by giving them your laws. Give them English liberty—give them an English constitution—and then, whether they speak French or English, whether they go to mass or attend our own communion, you will render them valuable and useful subjects of Great Britain. If you refuse to do this, the consequence will be most injurious : Canada will become a dangerous instrument in the hands of those who wish to destroy English liberty in every part of our possessions.”

 

This idea of pragmatism is best reflected by the conservative party’s acceptance of the post-war consensus and institutions like the NHS. While many conservatives are ideologically opposed to the idea of the NHS, they accept that it is too popular to directly attacked without damaging the social order and by extension the hierarchy.

 

​

 

Brexit

​

Britain’s planned exit from the European union is the most important, and controversial, events of modern British politics. While it is hard to say for certain what Burke’s overall opinion would be, we can apply his thinking to various parts of this event. Burke was a firm believer that parliament should always be supreme so the idea of Britain being bound to EU law, even if only by convention, would not be something he would support enthusiastically. The most obvious burkean criticism would be that this is too much change and such a small amount of time, therefore it is possible he would have been a supporter of a transitionary deal with the EU which has been proposed by some MPs. The argument that voters were misinformed and the vote should ignored is something Burke would agree with in principle. This can be seen during his speech in defence of jury trial

“Sir, how much these people are to be pitied whose authority is thus quoted ; how ignorant, how much deceived, were those persons who conversed with this great officer ! how little they knew of the nature of that institution which they condemned”

There is an underlying theme in Burke’s work that suggests that the role of MPs within the hierarchy is not to represent people but represent their interests. Deviation from this hierarchy would be a betrayal in Burke’s view. Burke’s opinion on the matter of the role of MPs in regards to the hierarchy was in fact paraphrased by Ken Clarke in his speech on why he’s voting against Britain leaving the EU