The journalist and historian Rick Perlstein has a recent book called The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan. A reviewer criticized the book, and Perlstein responded here. What piqued my interest was Perlstein's claim that "I first learned to distrust conservatives’ own protestations that theirs is a 'movement of ideas' when I read a speech transcript from a right-wing congressman in 1962 backing his defense of laissez-faire economics by dropping the name of Edmund Burke, who had less than nothing to do with laissez-faire economics.”
If you have read a biography of Burke, or of Adam Smith, or James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D., you will know that Burke and Smith were friends (and members of an illustrious dining club started by Johnson). In fact, Burke's first biographer recounted a conversation in which Burke claimed that “Mr. Smith, he said, told him, after they had conversed on subjects of political economy, that he was the only man who, without communication, thought on those topics exactly as he [Smith] did" (Robert Bisset, The Life of Edmund Burke, 1800, v. 2, p. 429). And as a study of Burke's economic thought (which I have only skimmed) observes, "Burke often sounded like Smith in his advocacy of economic freedom and the free market economy" (Francis Canavan, The Political Economy of Edmund Burke, 1995, p. 117).
It turns out, then, that Burke had a lot to do with laissez-faire economics, and that the right-wing congressman in 1962 was correct. (Will Perlstein now stop distrusting conservatives?) To my knowledge, as one who has read little of Burke beyond Reflections on the Revolution in France, he did not comment except in passing on monetary matters. But Smith was perhaps the first prominent free banker, in The Wealth of Nations, and Burke was an enthusiastic student of the book. So perhaps Burke supported free banking but, because of his focus on other matters, never had occasion to express his opinion in his writings?