美国人在1787年制定了一部名为《美国宪法》的文件，此后这种成文宪法模式极为流行，以至于现在几乎所有国家都拥有成文宪法。相比之下，英国宪法失去了往日的荣耀，甚至按照某些标准，英国被认为根本不存在宪法。不过，从宪法实践的结果来看，渐进的英国宪法依然给大多数国家的宪法树立了榜样。因此，非常有必要学习英国宪法改革的经验以及这个国家宪法改革者的技艺。与通常认为柏克是保守主义者不同，本研究将柏克视作英国宪法改革者的代表人物，他的宪法改革思想可以被恰当地概括为“为保存而改革”。具体而言，保存宪法是柏克的最终目标，改革宪法是达到这个目标的手段。当柏克发现改革将威胁到整个宪法的生存时，他转而维护宪法。1784年下议院关于议会改革动议的辩论是一个转折点，在此之前，柏克改革宪法，而在此之后，他维护宪法。基于这种情况，本研究将柏克的政治生涯分为改革宪法和维护宪法两个阶段，并且按照时间顺序论述他的宪法改革思想。在改革宪法阶段，布莱克斯通所热情讴歌的英国混合与平衡宪法，作为下议院议员的柏克并没有体会到。相反，柏克觉得当时由国王、上议院和下议院组成的英国宪法处于非常危险的境地。在这种情形下，柏克为政党政府辩护，呼吁在政府内组建更紧密的政治联合来抗衡所谓的“双重内阁”体制。同时为了保持下议院的独立，柏克投身于节俭改革事业，希望借此限制王权的影响。但在1783年，受到国王明确威胁的上议院否决了下议院已通过的议案，随后国王利用特权提前解散议会，上述事件使柏克强烈反对英国宪法三个分支处于平衡状态的学说。在维护宪法阶段，柏克认识到建基于自然权利理论之上的议会改革动议能摧毁英国宪法，所以他将该理论视为更严重的威胁，转而称赞王权。法国革命后，柏克意识到上述理论对英国宪法的致命威胁，于是他不仅否定英国人民有选择国王的权利，而且谴责法国革命者对待其国王的方式，但他积极捍卫英国王权和宪法的言行导致同党成员指责其不一致。柏克一方面驳斥了以下指控，即他是党的叛徒并且背弃了自己的改革往事，另一方面他提出区别于上议院世袭贵族的“自然贵族”概念，这体现出他依然是宪法改革者。然而，通过分析美国亚当斯和杰斐逊两位总统在自然贵族问题上的争论，有助于解释为什么柏克后来经常被当作保守主义者而不是改革者。

In 1787, the Americans framed a document called ‘the United States Constitution’, and this model of written constitution has since become so popular, to the extent that almost all countries nowadays have written constitutions. By contrast, the British constitution has lost its past glory, and even according to some of the standards, the British is considered to have no constitution at all. Nevertheless, in terms of the results of constitutional practice, the gradual British constitution still sets an example for most countries’ constitutions. Therefore, it is very necessary to learn from the experience of British constitutional reform and the art of its constitutional reformers.In contrast to the stereotype that Burke is a conservative, this research views Burke as a representative of British constitutional reformers, whose thinking about the constitutional reform can be aptly summarized as ‘conservation through reform’. Specifically speaking, conservation of the constitution was Burke’s ultimate goal, and constitutional reform was his means to that end, when Burke realized that the reform would endanger the survival of the whole constitution, he turned to vindicate the constitution. The debate in the House of Commons on the Parliamentary Reform Bill in 1784 was a turning point, before which Burke reformed the constitution, and after which he vindicated the constitution. On this basis, this research divides Burke’s political career into two phases, the constitutional reform and the vindication of the constitution, and discusses his thinking about the constitutional reform in chronological order.During the phase of the constitutional reform, the mixed and balanced British constitution that Blackstone enthusiastically eulogized was not experienced by Burke as a Member of Parliament. On the contrary, Burke felt that the British constitution, which then consisted of the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, was in a very precarious position. Under such circumstances, Burke defended party government and called for a closer political coalition within the government to counteract the so-called ‘double cabinet’ system. At the same time, in order to preserve the independence of the House of Commons, Burke was devoted to the cause of economical reform as a means of limiting the influence of the Crown. In 1783, however, the House of Lords, under explicit threat from the king, negatived a bill passed by the House of Commons, and the king then used his prerogative to dissolve Parliament prematurely, which led Burke to strongly oppose the doctrine that the three branches of the British constitution were in balance.During the phase of the vindication of the constitution, Burke realized that a parliamentary reform motion founded on the natural rights theory could destroy the British constitution, then he regarded such doctrine as a more serious threat and turned to praise the Crown. After the French revolution, Burke recognized its fatal threat to the British constitution and not only denied the British people the right to choose their king and condemned the way the French revolutionaries treated their king, but his words and actions in vigorous defense of the British king and constitution gave rise to criticism of his inconsistency by members of his own party. On the one hand, Burke repudiated charges that it was he who was the turncoat of his party and had reneged on his reformist past, he on the other hand introduced the concept of ‘natural aristocracy’ as distinct from the peerage of the House of Lords, which demonstrated that he was still a constitutional reformer. By analyzing the debate over natural aristocracy between President Adams and President Jefferson in the United States, however, it is helpful to explain why Burke was later generally viewed as a conservative rather than a reformer.