Why does Burke uphold the policy of compromise in his “Speech on Conciliation with America”?

Answer: In the “Speech on Conciliation with America” Edmund Burke, the great British parliamentarian of the 18th century makes a fierce and imperishable campaign against the policy of trying to coerce the American colonies and upholds his policy of compromise. His purpose is to establish peace. At the outset of his speech, he makes his position clear- his purpose is to win ‘the former unsuspecting confidence of the Colonies in the Mother Country’:

“The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord fomented, from principle, in all parts of the Empire, not peace to depend on the juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy boundaries of a complex government. It is simple peace; sought in its natural course, and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace sought in the spirit of peace and laid in principles purely pacific. I propose, by removing the ground of the difference, and by restoring the former unsuspecting confidence of the Colonies in the Mother Country, to give permanent satisfaction to your people, and (far from a scheme of a ruling by discord) to reconcile them to each other in the same act and by the bond of the very same interest which reconciles them to the British government.”

The chaotic situation in the American colonies made the British Parliament face two vital questions: the first of which is whether England ought to make concessions to the colonists since reconciliation will be impossible without concession and the second one is if the concession is to be granted to what degree it should be First, whether you ought to concede; and secondly, what your concession ought to be.” Before the questions are answered Burke argues that ‘it is necessary to consider distinctly the true nature and the peculiar circumstances of the object we have before us’. He further argues that America must be governed practically taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matter. He says:

“……we must govern America according to that nature and to those circumstances, and not according to our own imaginations, nor according to abstract ideas of right–by no means according to mere general theories of government, the resort to which appears to me, in our present situation, no better than arrant trifling.”

Burke then goes on to give a detailed analysis of all the circumstances of the American colonies and their relationship to the mother country. The first thing he considers is the population of America. He informs the House that the size of the population in the colonies is growing and comments that it is dangerous “to trifle with so large a mass of the interests and feelings of the human race.” He then considers America’s wealth in terms of its trade, agriculture, and fisheries. He shows that in the fields of trade, agriculture, and fisheries the colonies have made unprecedented progress. The opulence of the American colonies so many appeals to Burke so that he considers it “an object well worth fighting for”. He prefers the policy of compromise and conciliation to force and coercion because “Nothing less will content me than whole America.” This is why he is in favor of ‘prudent management’ than of force. He says:

“America, gentlemen say, is a noble object. It is an object well worth fighting for. Certainly, it is if fighting were the best way of gaining them . . . My opinion is much more in favor of prudent management than of force; considering force, not as an odious, but a feeble instrument, for preserving a people so numerous, so active, so growing, so spirited as this, in a profitable and subordinate connexion with us. ……….A further objection to force is, that you impair the object by your very endeavors to preserve it. The thing you fight for is not the thing which you recover; but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed in the contest.”

Burke continues his analysis of the circumstances of America, turning to the American character. He, in a persuasive manner, shows several reasons such as (i) the English descent of the colony people (ii) the existence of popular government in the colonies (iii) the practice of Protestantism (iv) the possession of slaves (v) their study of law and (vi) the geographical distance between the colonies and the mother country has contributed to the development of fierce realities Burke draws the special attention of his colleagues in the House of Commons and points out the problem of governing a people from a great distance. He says:

“Three thousand miles of ocean lie between you and them … Seas roll, and months pass, between the order and the execution; and the want of a speedy explanation of a single point is enough to defeat a whole system.”

Burke then proposes that there are three conceivable courses to deal with such people. The first is to try and alter the conditions by restricting the growth of America, but this is not possible because there are virtually no policies that can avert the growth of the colonies. The second alternative is coercion. But, this policy also would not be productive and bring desired results because it is a ‘feeble instrument’ for dealing with so diverse a people like the Americans. He dismisses the policy of coercion for the reasons already implied in the analysis of the American character. There remains Burke’s own policy, that of concession, or, the policy of ‘compromise’ or ‘appeasement’. He prefers the policy of concession because it is a historically proven policy and it is possible within the provisions of the ‘British Constitution.’ He takes the pacification of Ireland, or its relative pacification, that of Wales, and of the palatinates of Chester and Durham as instances of the proven value of the policy of reconciliation. He concludes with six propositions that do no more than state the undisputed facts of the case, but which, without artifice, make the three resolutions embodying his plan of conciliation appear irresistible.

Burke is a wise politician who has penetrating insights into the affairs of things. He is guided by rational selfishness. His ultimate motto is to do good to his motherland. He fervently upholds the policy of compromise because he feels that the only way to make the colonist “cling and grapple” to the British crown is by granting them certain “civil rights”. Again, in his view, the demand of Americans is not unreasonable. His pursuit of the policy of concession is due to the fact that he “balance(s) inconveniences” and comes to the realization that it is the only way to come to terms with the realities of circumstances.

Burke adopts the policy of compromise because he fully estimates the strength of the colonies and also the difficulty to govern those freedom-loving people from a great distance. He tries his best to stop the Government from driving the American colonies into rebellion. Unfortunately, the House turns a deaf ear to the appeal of this great politician. The results are not sweet for England — Britain’s defeat in the War of Independence, and a rupture between two English-speaking peoples. The subsequent historical happenings culminating in the independence of America show bitterly how right Burke was.