Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:07:27.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Significant Silences in Locke's Two Treatises of Government: Constitutional History, Contract and Law

Part of: Retrospect: The Ancient Constitution and the Languages of Political Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Martyn P. Thompson
Martyn P. Thompson
Affiliation:
University of Tübingen
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It is increasingly common in modern literary theory to read that a text's meaning must be elicited from the textual ‘possibilities which are not said’. At this level of generality, the proposition applies equally to the interpretation of non-literary as literary texts. In this paper, I shall endeavour to illustrate the usefulness of this approach by considering the meaning of Locke's argument in Two treatises in terms of things which Locke chose not to say. I shall argue two points. First, I shall suggest that many of the controversies which have arisen in recent years about Locke's meaning have suffered because inadequate attention has been paid to the precise character of a number of silences in Locke's argument. The persistence of an inadequate framework for understanding the character of Englishmen's appeals to an original contract, constitutional law and history in the late seventeenth century will occupy my attention here. Second, I shall suggest that attention to the details of Locke's most significant silences can cast light on current controversies about the intellectual status of Locke's argument. In particular, I shall argue that the current tendency to locate Two treatises within a context of coded, conspiratorial politics is mistaken.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 275 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

References

1 Seldon, R., A reader's guide to contemporary literary theory (Brighton, 1985), p. 48Google Scholar.

2 My criticism is directed against understandings of late-seventeenth-century appeals to contract, constitutional history and law as evidenced, for example, in the recent debate between Thomas P. Slaughter and John Miller. See: Slaughter, Thomas P., ‘“Abdicate” and “Contract” in the Glorious Revolution’, Historical Journal, XXIV (1981), 323–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, John, ‘The Glorious Revolution: “Contract” and “Abdication” reconsidered’, Historical Journal, XXV (1982), 541–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Slaughter, Thomas P., ‘“Abdicate” and “Contract” restored’, Historical Journal, XXVIII (1985), 399–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 The most impressive argument to this effect is Ashcraft's. See: Ashcraft, Richard, ‘Revolutionary politics and Locke's Two treatises of government’, Political Theory, VIII (1980), 429–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ashcraft, Richard and Goldsmith, M. M., ‘Locke, revolution principles, and the formation of whig ideology’, Historical Journal, XXVI (1983), 773–800Google Scholar.

4 Locke, John, Two treatises of government, Laslett, Peter (ed.) (New York, Mentor edn, 1965), p. 171Google Scholar.

5 See, for example, Kenyon, J. P., Revolution principles: the politics of party, 1689–1720 (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Franklin, Julian H., John Locke and the theory of sovereignty (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 105–8Google Scholar.

6 Tarlton, Charles D., ‘“The rulers now on earth”: Locke's Two treatises and the Revolution of 1688’, Historical Journal, XXVIII (1985), 279–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Dunn, John, ‘The politics of Locke in England and America in the eighteenth century’, in Yolton, John W. (ed.), John Locke: problems and perspectives (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 45–80Google Scholar; Thompson, Martyn P., ‘The reception of Locke's Two treatises of government, 1690–1705’, Political Studies, XXIV (1976), 184–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘Reception and influence: a reply to Nelson on Locke's Two treatises of government’, Political Studies, XXVIII (1980), 100–8Google Scholar. Contractualist warnings to William III were a significant part of early Jacobite propaganda. See, for example Ferguson, Robert, A Letter to Mr. Secretary Trenchard (London, 1694), pp. 4–5Google Scholar; Anon., The character of the present set of whigs (London, 1711), pp. 6–7Google Scholar. For a general discussion of Locke and other whigs, see Franklin, , John Locke, pp. 87–126Google Scholar.

8 See the articles cited in n. 2 above.

9 See respectively Ferguson, Robert, The late proceedings and votes of the parliament of Scotland (Glasgow, 1689), p. 24Google Scholar; Johnson, Samuel, Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's book intituled, The case of allegiance due to soveraign princes, stated and resolved (London, 1690), p. viGoogle Scholar; , T. H., Political aphorisms; or, the true maxims of government displayed (London, 1690), p. 29Google Scholar; Allix, Peter, An examination of the scruples of those who refuse to take the oath of allegiance (London, 1689)Google Scholar in State tracts (London, 1705), I, 302Google Scholar; Ferguson, Robert, A brief justification of the Prince of Orange's descent into England (London, 1689), p. 25Google Scholar; Johnson, Samuel, Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's book, p. XGoogle Scholar; Burnet, Gilbert, An enquiry into the measures of submission to the supreme authority (London, 1689; 1st edn, Holland, 1688)Google Scholar in Harleian miscellany (London, 1810), IX, 204Google Scholar; Savage, John, The ancient and present state of Germany (London, 1702), p. 36Google Scholar; and Atwood, William, The fundamental constitution of the English government (London, 1690), pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

10 See respectively Ferguson, Robert, Whether the preserving the protestant religion was the motive unto, or the end that was designed in, the late revolution? (London, 1695)Google Scholar in Somers tracts (London, 1751), III, 423Google Scholar; Atwood, William, The superiority and direct dominion of England over Scotland reasserted (title shortened; London, 1705), p. 9Google Scholar; Atwood, William, The fundamental constitution, p. 84Google Scholar; Lawton, Charlwood, The Jacobite principles vindicated (London, 1693)Google Scholar in Somers tracts (London, 1809–1815), X, 526Google Scholar; Tutchin, John, Observator, 86 (London, 17 02, 1703)Google Scholar; Anon., A political conference (London, 1689), p. 23Google Scholar; and Johnson, , Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's book, p. viGoogle Scholar.

11 Two treatises, II, sects. 97–9. Gough, J. W., The social contract (Oxford, 2nd edn, 1957), ch. 10Google Scholar and John Locke's political philosophy (Oxford, 1950), pp. 29, 121–2Google Scholar.

12 Ferguson, , A letter to Mr. Secretary Trenchard, p. 4Google Scholar; Lawton, , The Jacobite principles, p. 526Google Scholar and A letter formerly sent to Dr. Tillotson (London, 1690)Google Scholar in Somers tracts (London, 1809–1815), IX, 370Google Scholar; SirMontgomery, James, Great Britain's just complaint (London, 1692)Google Scholar in Somers tracts (London, 1809–1815), X, 468Google Scholar. Similar jacobite contractualist arguments can be found in Jenkin, Robert, The title of a usurper after a thorough settlement examined (London, 1691), pp. 57, 59Google Scholar and Anon., The dear bargain (London, 1690)Google Scholar, in Somers tracts (London, 1809–1815), X, 377Google Scholar. Collier, Jeremy, Vindiciae juris regii (London, 1689), p. 42 but see also p. 43Google Scholar; A collection of the parliamentry debates (London, 1741), II, 202–3Google Scholar; Kettlewell, John, The duty of allegiance settled upon its true grounds (London, 1691)Google Scholar, in Works, (London, 1718), II, 208–9, 214, 224, 263Google Scholar; Dodwell, Henry, A further prospect (London, 1707), pp. 105–7Google Scholar. (I owe the as two references to Dr Mark Goldie.) A collection of the parliamentary debates (London, 1741), II, 248–9Google Scholar.

13 Collier, , The desertion discuss'd (London, 1689) in State tracts, I, 110Google Scholar.

14 Allix, , An examination of the scruples, p. 302Google Scholar; Kettlewell, , Christianity, a doctrine of the cross; or, passive obedience, under any pretended invasion of legal rights and liberties (London, 1691), p. 80Google Scholar.

15 See, for example, Kenyon, Revolution principles, chs. 1 and 2; and Goldie, Mark, ‘The Revolution of 1689 and the structure of political argument’, Bulletin of Research in the Humanities, LXXXIII (1980), 473–564Google Scholar.

16 Historical Manuscripts Commission, 12th report, appendix part VI, MSS of the house of lords, 1689–90 (London, 1889), pp. 15–16Google Scholar and Lords Journals, XIV, 110. On Pufendorf's reputation see, for example, Atwood, , The fundamental constitution, pp. 30, 87Google Scholar, Tooke, A. (ed.), The whole duty of man (London, 1691)Google Scholar, preface, and Axtell, J. L. (ed.), The educational writings of John Locke (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 294–5, 356, 395, 400Google Scholar. In view of Locke's clear preference for Pufendorf, the current tendency to relate Locke to Grotius requires modification. See Hancey, J. O., ‘John Locke and the law of nature’, Political Theory, IV (1976), 448Google Scholar and Tuck, Richard, Natural rights theories (Cambridge, 1979), p. 173CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Thompson, Martyn P., ‘The language of contract in modern European political thought’, in Cranston, M. and Mair, P. (eds.), Langage et politique (Bruxelles, 1982), pp. 171–81Google Scholar and Ideas of contract in English political thought in the age of Locke (New York, 1987)Google Scholar.

18 Schochet, Gordon J., Patriarchalism in political thought (Oxford, 1975), pp. 8–9, 262Google Scholar and in general chs. 11 and 13.

19 Republican ideas did find expression, of course, but they were hardly the mainstream of debate. Robbins, C. (ed.), Two English republican tracts (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 40–59Google Scholar and Goldie, M., ‘The roots of true whiggism’, History of Political Thought, I (1980), 195–236Google Scholar. On charges of novelty, see, for example, Ferguson, , A brief justification, pp. 26, 44Google Scholar, and The design of enslaving England discovered (London, 1689), p. 38Google Scholar; Clarendon, in A collection of the parliamentary debates, II, 204Google Scholar; and Locke, Two treatises, I, sect. 3 and II, sect. 112. On the common form of argument, see, for example, Wilson, Timothy, Conscience satisfied: in a cordial and loyal submitting to the present government (London, 1690)Google Scholar, To the Impartial Reader; Hunt, Thomas, An answer to a book (London, 1682), p. 182Google Scholar; and Browne, Thomas, An answer to Dr. Sherlock's case of allegiance to sovereign powers (London, 1691), p. 5Google Scholar. The general point is made in Thompson, Martyn P., ‘A note on “reason” and “history” in late seventeenth century political thought’, Political Theory, IV (1976), 491–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Pocock, J. G. A., The ancient constitution and the feudal law (Cambridge, 1957), p. 231Google Scholar.

21 Ibid. ch. 9.

22 Atwood, , Lord Hollis his remains (London, 1682), p. 266Google Scholar and The fundamental constitution, pp. xxii, 84.

23 Atwood, , The superiority and direct dominion (London, 1704), pp. 377–8Google Scholar and The fundamental constitution, p. 30.

24 The fundamental constitution, p. 32.

25 Ibid. p. 59. Atwood was quoting Robert Sheringham.

26 The fundamental constitution, pp. 78–9.

27 Ibid. p. 27.

28 Inner Temple MS 512 ‘U’, fos. 66, 253, 284, 341 and Inner Temple MS 512 ‘H’, fo. 12.

29 BM Lansdowne MS 510 B, fo. 32.

30 Atwood, , Lord Hollis his remains, p. 293Google Scholar, The history and reasons of the dependency (London, 1698), p. 211Google Scholar, and The superiority and direct dominion, p. 392.

31 Burnet, , An enquiry into the measures of submission, pp. 9–10Google Scholar. Similar concerns are evident in: Browne, , An answer to Dr. Sherlock's case, p. 3Google Scholar; Hunt, Thomas, Mr. Hunt's postscript for rectifying some mistakes in some of the inferior clergy, mischievious to our government and religion (London, 1682), p. 28Google Scholar; Downes, Theophilus, An examination of the arguments drawn from scripture and reason, in Dr. Sherlock's case of allegiance, and his vindication of it (London, 1691), p. 72Google Scholar; Jenkin, , The title of a usurper, p. 32Google Scholar; Johnson, Samuel, Dr. Sherlock's two kings of Brainsford (London, 1691), p. 4Google Scholar; Wilson, Timothy, God, the king, and the countrey, united in the justification of this present revolution (London, 1691)Google Scholar, Epistle dedicatory, n.p.; Atwood, William, Reflections upon a treasonable opinion (London, 1696), p. 9Google Scholar; Collier, Jeremy, Dr. Sherlock's case of allegiance considered (London, 1691), p. 10Google Scholar; Anon., The case of allegiance consider'd (London, 1689), pp. 6–7, 18–19Google Scholar; Anon., Reflections upon two books; the one entituled, the case of allegiance to a king in possession; the other an answer to Dr. Sherlock's case of allegiance to sovereign powers (London, 1691), p. 6Google Scholar; Whitby, Daniel, Agreement betwixt the present and former government (London, 1690)Google Scholar in State tracts, I, 413; Ferguson, Robert, A brief justification, p. 18Google Scholar; Brady, Robert, An inquiry into the remarkable instances (London, 1690), p. 20Google Scholar; Anon., A disputation (London, 1679)Google Scholar in Harleian Miscellany, VIII, 317; and Ferguson, Robert, A sober enquiry into the nature, measure, and principle of moral virtue, its distinction from gospel-holiness (London, 1673), p. 77Google Scholar.

32 Particularly, the militia acts of 1661 and 1662. See Western, J. R., Monarchy and revolution (London, 1972), pp. 32–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Burnet, , An enquiry into the measures of submission, pp. 10–11Google Scholar.

34 HMC, 12th report, appendix part VI, p. 15.

35 Patriarcha non monarcha, preface, n.p.

36 The great point of succession discussed, pp. 25–6.

37 Sidney, Algernon, The works (London, 1772), p. 269Google Scholar.

38 For the distinction between economical and political power amongst 16th-century scholastics, see Skinner, Quentin, The foundations of modern political thought (Cambridge, 1978), II, 156ffGoogle Scholar.

39 The general history of England, I, 4–6, 121. See also Tyrrell, James, Bibliotheca politica (London, 1694), pp. 352–8Google Scholar.

40 Kliger, S., The Goths in England (Cambridge, Mass., 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hoelzle, E., Die Idee einer altgermanischen Freiheit (Berlin, 1925)Google Scholar.

41 Tyrrell, , Bibliotheca politica, pp. 666–70Google Scholar.

42 Ibid. p. 706.

43 Patriarcha non monarcha, pp. 219–20. Collier, Jeremy in Dr. Sherlock's case of allegiance (p. 96)Google Scholar also claims that ‘the Laws of Nature…are part of the Constitution of this Realm’.

44 Thompson, , ‘A note on “reason” and “history”’, pp. 491–504Google Scholar.

45 The works (1772 edn), pp. 82–3.

46 Ibid. pp. 409–10.

47 The original power of the collective body of the people of England (London, 1702), p. 3Google Scholar.

48 Anon., A brief account, in State tracts, I, 284.

49 Bibliotheca politica (London, 1727 edn), p. 739Google Scholar.

50 Kenyon, Revolution principles, chs. 1 and 2.

51 Ferguson, , A letter to Mr. Secretary Trenchard, pp. 4–5Google Scholar. See also Anon., The character of the present set of whigs (London, 1711), pp. 6–7Google Scholar.

52 On the importance of the Mirror as evidencing England's original contract see: Atwood, , The fundamental constitution, p. 30Google Scholar; Allix, , An examination of the scruples in State tracts, I, 302Google Scholar; Johnson, , Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's book, p. XGoogle Scholar; Tyrrell, , The general history of England, I, xlixGoogle Scholar; Atwood, , The superiority and direct dominion, p. 377–8Google Scholar; Johnson, , An argument proving, that the abrogation of king James by the people of England from the royal throne, and the promotion of the prince of Orange one of the royal family, to the throne of the kingdom in his stead, was according to the constitution of the English government, and prescribed by it (London, 1692), pp. 48–9 (for 58–9)Google Scholar.

53 The common argument was that the Bible was written with other ends in view than to explain the origins of human societies or governments. The point, of course, was directly at odds with Filmerian patriarchalism.

54 Sidney, , The works (1772 edn), p. 269Google Scholar.

55 Miller, , ‘The Glorious Revolution’, p. 547Google Scholar. Slaughter, , ‘“Abdicate” and “Contract”’, pp. 400–1Google Scholar.

56 Locke, Two treatises, II, sects. 76, 101–6.

57 Parry, Geraint, John Locke (London, 1978), pp. 99–100Google Scholar; Laslett, (ed.), Two treatises, pp. 127–30Google Scholar.

58 See for example Tyrrell, , Bibliotheca politica, p. 104Google Scholar and Johnson, , Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's book, p. viGoogle Scholar.

59 Laslett, (ed.), Two treatises, p. 475 note to lines 48–9 and pp. 89–92Google Scholar. Gough, J. W., ‘James Tyrrell, whig historian and friend of John Locke’, Historical Journal, XIX (1976), 587–8Google Scholar, makes the much more persuasive point that Locke saw such historical and legal arguments as irrelevant to his purposes in Two treatises.

60 de Beer, E. S. (ed.), The correspondence of John Locke (Oxford, 1978), III, no. 1102, pp. 545–7Google Scholar. Quoted in Dunn, John, The political thought of John Locke (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 143–4, fn. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 As distinct form a mere ‘general submission’, in terms of Locker's critique of Sherlock quoted in Dunn, , The political thought of John Locke, pp. 145–6, fn. 5Google Scholar.

62 Axtell, (ed.), The educational writings, p. 401Google Scholar. Salder's work was not prominent amongnst whig authorities.

63 Axtell, (ed.), The educational writings, pp. 226–7, 292–4, 400–1, 403, 409–10, 422Google Scholar.

64 Two treatises, II, sects. 101–4; I, sect. 141. Locke's comment that Christian nations ‘must necessarily derive themselves from Noah’ occurs in the same chapter as his praise of Tyrrell's Patriacha non monarcha.

65 Farr, James and Roberts, Clayton, ‘John Locke on the Glorious Revolution: a rediscovered document’, Historical Journal, XXVIII (1985), 385–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Franklin, John Locke and the theory of sovereignty.

67 Ibid. pp. 105–8.

68 Laslett, (ed.), Two treatises, p. 171Google Scholar; Tyrrell, , Bibliotheca politica (1727 edn), p. 739Google Scholar.

69 Axtell, (ed.), The educational writings, p. 400Google Scholar.

70 Ibid. pp. 400–1.

71 Farr, and Roberts, , ‘John Locke on the Glorious Revolution’, pp. 385–6, 390–4, 395–8Google Scholar. Atwood, , The fundamental constitution, pp. 101–2Google Scholar.

72 Ashcraft, , ‘Revolutionary politics and Locke's Two treatises’, pp. 429–86Google Scholar. For Locke's distance from ‘the mainstream of English radicalism’ see Pocock, J. G. A., Virtue, commerce, and history (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 223–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The present essay is a much reworked and redirected version of a paper originally delivered at the Conference for the Study of Political Thought Symposium on ‘John Locke and the political thought of the 1680s’ (Washington DC, 1980)Google Scholar.