Compare And Contrast Burke And Edmund Kate

Edmund Burke discloses his reluctance to change in his Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, by arguing the old form of government was better than the new one. Specifically, he argued that from the Glorious Revolution in 1688 through the reign of George II of Hanover, the leaders of the Whig party controlled the country under the reign of the king in what he called “the most fortunate periods of our history” (Burke 529). At the same time, the parlement of Paris objects to the current policies of the French government in the Remonstrance against the Edict Suppressing Obligatory Labor. By comparing the similarities and differences of thoughts between the two pieces, conservative intentions unfold in both the parlement’s and Burke’s writing. Both the parlement of Paris and Edmund Burke believe the salvation of the country lies in certain groups of people maintaining power. The parlement of Paris strongly believes in the foundation and original structure of the government, with power and control in the hands of the nobility, “the strongest support of the throne” (parlement 12). Burke ultimately gives power to the Whig party, but also allows for a broader premise as to who should run the country. The parlement’s argument consists of the right to inheritance, characterizing the country’s structure by

In other words, to him the only way to fix the government would be to do nothing. Unlike Burke, the parlement of Paris’ argument does not only consist of resorting to the original government, but rather proposing statutory changes instead of the new tax replacing the obligatory labor law of 1726. Since the parlement accepts change and proposes alternative reforms in their favor, Edmund Burke proves more conservative because of his inability to see any reform as