edmund burke
born: 1729
died: 1797 |
works:
reflections on the revolution in france(1790) |
relationships:
benefactors: ralph verney john cruger joseph harford richard champion charles watson-wentworth charles james fox william cavendish-bentinck associates: henry cruger (co-mp) |
influences: thomas hobbes |
opponents: richard price thomas paine mary wollstonecraft |
sources:
1) reflections on the revolution in france, jga pocock, hackett, 1987 2) edmund burke, wikipedia 3) econlib notes on burke's speech to the electors of bristol |
notes:
- irish protestant (church of ireland). supported measures to ease the oppression of irish catholics (catholic emancipation) as well as "free trade" with ireland. - editor of the annual register - was initially (1765) chosen to represent a "pocket borough" (wendover), which was a seat in the house of commons that was "controlled" by an aristocrat (lord fermanagh). i think the usefulness of this arrangement may have said more about the inability of aristocrats to represent themselves than their ability to suppress democracy. that is, that some members (often legal experts) were hired by aristocrats to act on their interests because they lacked the ability to carry out the role themselves. he did briefly represent bristol (1774-1780) as an elected mp, albeit in a shady election and apparently in the pay of wealthy merchants, but went back to being an mp-for-hire after losing that seat when he was hired by the charles watson-wentworth to represent him in malton. some of his arguments for aristocratic governance may consequently be interpreted as arguing for his own job security. he was also briefly paymaster of the forces in two instances spanning 1782 and 1783, as well as parliamentary agent for the colony of new york in the 1770s where he seems to have acted as a representative for merchant interests. his son (richard) assumed office as mp of malton upon his resignation, but quickly became ill and died. - he supported the american revolution and opposed the french revolution. this is often presented as a paradox on the surface, and then explained away with subtle arguments. yet, the truth is probably actually that the difference was not one of principle. his backers had shipping interests in america that appear to have been in competition with similar interests in france. - |