I don't really know how to rate this. This guy strikes me as so far behind the curve of history that it's hard to take too seriously in 2014 (though I gather he is still taken seriously). He has no truck with democracy. He likes tradition and that things should change only slowly, incrementally, if at all. Political influence should be a function of property. Especially in the first and last of these things, he sounds utterly clueless about the modernity that was breaking out all around him. On the other hand, I like his skepticism about rational institutional design, and find less to object to in his emphasis on the benefits of slow, contemplative change, the organic growth of polities, and all the rest.

I am sure this has been discussed ad infinitum among people who know, but why does he not discuss the American Revolution, or even mention it? I noted one or two off hand references to the western hemisphere. But I would have loved to hear his thoughts not just on 1688 and 1789, but also the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution.