Bolingbroke and the Concept of Constitutional Government
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1962.tb00996.x |
| Date | 01 October 1962 |
| Author | J. H. Burns |
| Published date | 01 October 1962 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
BOLINGBROKE AND THE CONCEPT
OF
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT
J.
H.
BURNS
University College,
London
HENRY
ST
JOHN,
Viscount Boljngbroke (1678-1751), cannot be said
to cut
a
distinguished figure in histories of political thought. ‘Brilliant but
unsound’ would be a fair summary of the more favourable verdicts; many
are distinctly hostile. Much of the criticism bears upon Bolingbroke’s
alleged insincerity and even cynicism, and some of it may be due
in
part
to his having taken what one powerful historical tradition regarded as
the wrong side in British politics since 1688. In
this
case, perhaps, the
Whig dogs have had rather too much of the best of it; but Bolingbroke’s
character and career in general are not in question here. His contribution
to political writing was that of a brilliant journalist. Now if journalism
of
this kind is properly to be considered in tracing the development
of
political thinking-and there will be odd gaps in our knowledge if it is
not-questions of motivation and integrity need not be of the first im-
portance. Whether a man like Bolingbroke believed what he wrote matters
less, for this purpose, than the fact that he believed certain arguments
likely to appeal to his contemporaries; for this very fact throws light on
the movement of ideas and attitudes in his period.
Even in this light, of course, it could not reasonably be maintained that
Bolingbroke’s works are
of
great significance in the general history
of
political thought. They do have a certain importance in that history
because
of
Bolingbroke’s evident influence upon the much more important
work of Montesquieu: he clearly had a part in leading (or misleading)
Montesquieu to his celebrated and influential view of the British con-
stitution. But this, if interesting, is secondary. There is, however, one
special aspect of political thought where Bolingbroke may be granted
something more like primary importance. This is the evolution of the
notion
of
constitutional government. The most eminent historian of
constitutionalism, Professor
C.
H. McIlwain, himself draws attention to
Bolingbroke’s work in this connexion.1 But it is one of the tantalizing
features of McIlwain’s
Constitutionalism Ancient and
Modern
that its
detailed analysis hardly goes beyond the earlier years of the seventeenth
century. In particular the opening contrast between Bolingbroke and
Paine, with the suggestion that Bolingbroke in some sense represents the
Constitutionalism Ancient and
Modern,
2nd cdn.
(Ithaca,
N.Y.,
1947).
pp.
1-12.
Political
Studies,
Vol.
X,
No.
3
(1962,
264-276).
To continue reading
Request your trial