  If Burke's view of words and relations gave him practical tools, and if parliamentary sovereignty provided him with a practical postulate, what did he assume was the proper end of sovereignty? We have seen that the relation between sovereign and the governed had for a primary purpose the protection of the latter's civil interests. This much suggests continuity between Burke the philosopher/historian and Burke the political participant. But the former might also see that there were complications for the latter. One who sees the multiplicity of civil interests, and the variety of relations in which they can be considered, and the variety of contraries at work, will see that to put society at ease with itself may well imply conflict and see that such conflict is hard to avoid; he or she will see, too, that Parliament forms an arena for conducting it in a stylised and moderated way through the representation of interests, appropriate to a civilized state of society; and, even while participating in such a conflict, s/he might recognizes the necessity of both sides to the result. Here, opponents may be not only enemies but also co-workers, sharing at least some common assumptions about the system within which their lot was cast, although separated from others by the role required of them. In that situation, the question becomes, where do you take your place? The answer may depend on your own connexions, and on how you conceive them.