Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Governme

Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government: Radicalism and Lockean Political Theory Richard Ashcraft

Political Theory, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Nov., 1980), 429-486. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0090-5917%28198011%298%3A4%3C429%3ARPALTT%3E2.O.CO%3B2-W

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. Political Theory is published by Sage Publications, Inc.. Please contact the publisher for further permissions regarding the use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/sage.html.

Political Theory 01980 Sage Publications, Inc.

JSTOR and the JSTOR logo are trademarks of JSTOR, and are Registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. For more information on JSTOR contact [email protected]. 02003 JSTOR

http://www.jstor.org/ Thu Nov 6 13:02:50 2003

REVOLUTIONARY POLITICS A N D LOCKE'S TWO TREA TISES OF GOVERNMENT Radicalism and Lockean Political Theory RICHARD ASHCRAFT University o f Calvornia-Los

Angeles

U

RADITIONALLY, LOCKE'S Two Trearises of Government has been presented to us as a philosophical defense of common sense political beliefs, as an historical defense of the Glorious Revolution of 1689, and as a political defense of the principles of liberalism. In the interpretive literature on Locke, these propositions were often interrelated and were seen to be mutually reinforcing. Thus, as one who had poured the common ideas of his age into a "philosophical mold," Locke could be viewed as the spokesman for his contemporaries' support for the establishment of William and Mary on the throne, and this event, in turn, was the foundation stone for the ediface of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century English liberalism.' Twenty-five years ago, Peter Laslett delivered an apparently serious blow to the historical support for this enclosure of Locke's political thought. The Two Treatises of Government, Laslett declared, had been written during the exclusion crisis (1679-1681) and not a decade later, after the Glorious Revolution, as had been previously supposed.2 Although it should have madea significant impact on our interpretation of the Two Treatises to know that Locke wrote the work to promote a revolution not yet accomplished rather than to justify an already successful invasion by William, the fact is, as Laslett admits, this has not been the case.3 In works published since 1960, scholars have, of course, made the necessary historical "adjustments" in their discussion of the AUTHOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this essay was presented ro the Conference on Political Thoughr'ssymposium on Locke ar the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington. DC, March 21-23, 1980. POLITICAL THEORY. Vol. 8 No. 4, November 1980 429485 O 1980 Sage Publications. Inc.

430 / POLITICAL T H E O R Y / NOVEMBER 1980

Two Treatises, but, otherwise, recent interpretations of that work have generally pursued the traditional pathways of Lockean scholarship.4 The failure of Laslett's historical research to have a more profound effect on our conception of Lockean political thought is attributable, in part, to two defects inherent in his argument. In the first place, Laslett did not sufficiently take into account the interconnectedness of the assumptions which composed the orthodoxy he was challenging. It was not, as he thought, simply a matter of replacing three questionable presuppositions concerning the Two Treatises in the extant scholarly literature with three new propositions claiming greater evidential upp port.^ Rather, some larger issues needed to be addressed. How, for example, could one continue to view Locke as "the prophet of common sense" political beliefs when he was engaged in promoting a revolution which, in fact, most of his contemporaries did not support? Moreover, if Locke was in this respect not a mainstream thinker but the spokesman for a small minority, would this not affect the social composition of his audience and their political expectations? Would it not, for instance, place Locke's political ideas in much greater proximity to the Republican ideas of Henry Neville or Algernon Sidney than most scholars had previously assumed?6 In short, Laslett's findings should have directed our attention to the radical dimensions of Locke's political theory. But it is difficult to see how these features of his thought can be brought into proper focus without, at the same time, challenging in a broad-gauged manner a number of presuppositions about Locke and liberalism that are taken for granted by contemporary scholars. The theoretical limitations that Laslett placed on his historical research, I am suggesting, did much to contribute to the latter's negligible effect in prompting us to revise our understanding of Locke's political theory. The second defect in Laslett's argument, somewhat paradoxically, is that his historical approach to the interpretation of the Two Treatises was not "historical" enough. Laslett alluded in rather unspecified terms to an alliance between Locke and the Earl of Shaftesbury and to the fact that the former's writings were a n expression of the latter's political objectives.' Yet, a more precise characterization of the nature of this alliance and of "Shaftesbury's politicd purposes" might have provided exactly the specific historical context needed to clarify the meaning of many of the ambiguous or puzzling statements made by Locke in the Two Treatises. Because virtually all historians have treated the exclusion crisis simply as a prelude to the Glorious Revolution of 1689, the politi-

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY / 431

cal ideas of the exclusion tracts have likewise been easily assimilated into those associated with the "Whig triumph" of William and Mary.8 It is not surprising, therefore, that Laslett's identification of the Two Treatises with the writings of the exclusion crisis period not only did not challenge, but, in a way, his research seemed to confirm, through the example of Locke, this historical "flownof ideas into the headwaters of English liberalism of the 1690s. Unless the historical basis for this reasoning is questioned and the political ideas of Locke and Shaftesbury's followers are much more sharply distinguished from the designs of the Whigs in 1689 than has generally been the case, such a conclusion would appear to be unavoidable. In this essay, I shall argue that Shaftesbury's effort to promote a revolution, with which Locke and the Two Treatises were associated, brought together a relatively small group of radicals who, in their social composition, and, to some extent, in their political objectives, can be distinguished from those Whig magnates who "managed" the Glorious Revolution.9 These differences, in class affiliation and in political ideas, point to radicalism, and they suggest a basis in the historical evidence for the view that Locke's political theory is much more clearly linked with the political ideas of the Civil War radicals than we have been taught to believe. The Two Treatises viewed in its historical context is, in other words, a good deal more Janus-faced than most interpreters of Locke's political thought have recognized. I shall be concerned in this essgy to place the emphasis on the more disturbing and hidden face of Locke's radicalism rather than the familiar one that smiles benignly in anticipation of the triumph of the moderate Whiggism of the eighteenth century.10 My argument, then, directs our attention to the radical features of Locke's political theory, which developed in the context of the Earl of Shaftesbury's attempt to organize a revolution in 1681-1682. This project was cairied forward by others following Shaftesbury's death, and all of these efforts, grouped together, have come to be known to us historically under the somewhat misleading heading of the Rye House of this Plot. Locke and the Two Treatises, I shall argue, were conspiracy, which, as a radical movement, found its final expression in the abortive Monmouth Rebellion of 1685. In a more expanded sense, the Two Treatises must be seen as emerging from a political atmosphere characterized by the plots and conspiracies of radicals and the use of political repression, government spies, and agent provocateurs to combat the subversive activities of

432 / POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1980

these individuals. An understanding of this political climate is important, I shall argue, to appreciate the way radical political theoristsincluding Locke--expressed their ideas. It provides, so to speak, the angle of vision for viewing the political content of the Second Treatise. In this regard, I will show that the invention and use of a specific language was, op the one hand, an important part of the organizational structure of this revolutionary political movement, and, on the other hand, this language is a pervasive feature of the political writings of the radicals, including the Two Treatises of Government.

Any attempt to recover the political theory of the historical Locke must begin with the fact that, prior to 1690, he was not known to the world as a philosopher. Rather, Locke's contemporaries recognized him as "a person who was much trusted" by the Earl of Shaftesbury. And, as the latter's secretary and confidant, Locke was also "suspected to be illaffected to the government."l Nor were these suspicions ill-grounded, for, as Shaftesbury's recent biographer remarks, "it can scarcely be doubted that Locke shared his patron's general political outlook.'? T o his friends and enemies alike, therefore, Locke was simply a member of Shaftesbury's "family" and one of his inner circle of political advisers.3 This is, of course, the starting point for Laslett's consideration of the Two Treatises. Nevertheless, while I cannot pursue the matter further here, in my view this sixteen-year "inviolable friendship" between Locke and Shaftesbury still has not received the prominence it deserves in any discussion of Locke's political thought. One has only to read the accounts of Locke's friends, such as Jean LeClerc, Lady Masham, the Third Earl of Shaftesbury, and Pierre Coste, to see that Locke's references to his relationship with Shaftesbury come well within the range of adulation and a profound sense of respect and loyalty matched, perhaps, only by Engels' references to Marx, with which this political friendship can very appropriately be compared.4 Mention of this comparison also reminds us that we are speaking of two individuals who not only displayed a personal affection for each other, but, as Ranke observed, shared "a community of ideas." "Locke's principles," he wrote, "are those of Shaftesbury."s Indeed, in a literal sense, this statement supplies the crucial axis for any account of the

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY / 433

historical development of Locke's political ideas from the 1660s to the 1680s. Soon after Locke joined his "family," Shaftesbury advised him to . . . apply himself t o the study of ecclesiastical and political affain, which might have some relation to the business of a minister of state. And Mr. Locke succeeded s o well in t h a e studies, that his Lordship began to consult him on all occasions of that nature. He not only took him into his library and closet, but brought him into the company of the Duke of Buckingham. my Lord Halifax, and other noblemen of the greatest wit and learning, who were pleased as much with his convenation as my Lord Ashley.

Moreover, Shaftesbury entrusted Locke with "all the secretest affairs then in agitation and by my Lord's frequent discourse of state affairs, religion, toleration, and trade, Mr. Locke came to have a wonderful knowledge of these things."6 "I have searched in vain," Maurice Cranston admitted, for evidence of Locke's holding liberal views before his introduction to Lord Shaftesbury in 1666. There is much t o show that Locke held such views soon afterwards; and 1 cannot help wondering if he learned them from Shaftesbury. For it is certainly not the case. . . that Shaftabury learned his liberalism from Locke.'

Whatever one ultimately concludes regarding the flow of influence with respect to the political ideas of Locke and Shaftesbury-certainly both temporal precedence and intensity of commitment belong to the latter-it is also relevant to ask, what is it that Locke was expected to do for Shaftesbury as a member of his family? According to Locke's tutee, the Third Earl of Shaftesbury, his grandfather involved Locke in "his secretest negotiations and made use of his assistant pen in matters that greatly concerned the state.'q Again, there is a good deal of evidence to support this view. Almost immediately afterjoining Shaftesbury, Locke drafted several versions of a proposal recommending toleration for dissenters, an issue with which Shaftesbury had become politically identified.' In 1668, Locke wrote a draft manuscript on the rate of interest "at the direction of' Shaftesbury, then Chancellor of the Exchequer.10 The following year, he drafted with Shaftesbury the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina for the colony of which the latter was an original proprietor." In a document datingfrom the early 1670s describing the duties of the various members of Shaftesbury's household, Locke is identified, rather enigmatically and with more than a little sardonic wit, as "secretary for

434 / POLlTlCAL T H E O R Y / NOVEMBER 1980

the clergy."l2 Considering Shaftesbury's extreme "dislike of all forms of clerical authority, whether in politics or in enforcing any kind of religous conformity," this "role" was destined to become one of great importance to Shaftesbury as the dimensions of "the popish plot" began to unfold.I3 There is little doubt that throughout this politically turbulent and dangerous period, Locke was Shaftesbury's most trusted adviser. He made Locke "privy to his most secret affairs," and, in turn, Lockeb'gave his assistance to some pieces which his Lordship published, to stir up the English nation to have a watchful eye over the conduct of the Roman Catholics, and to oppose the designs of that party."i4 There is another document in the Shaftesbury papers refering to "a secret universal Catholic league camed on by the clergy for the utter extirpation of the Protestant religion out of the world." This design, so farasit pertains to England, it is noted, "cannot be canied on without the full concurrence of the English Court."ls It is Shaftesbury's leadership in organizing the opposition to both these forces which establishes the political dimensions for the theoretical arguments contained in the exclusionist pamphlets and tracts of the 1680s. One of the earliest expressions of Shaftesbury's political perspective, and a prolegomena of the position to be developed in the Two Treatises of Government, can be found in A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country (1675).16 Several of Locke's close friends were convinced that he was the author of this pamphlet, and there are indeed reasonable grounds for supposing that he did write the Letter. Two days after the House of Lords ordered the work burnt by the public hangman, and set up a committee to discover and punish its author, Locke hastily left England for France.i7 Later, Locke was also thought to be the author of an exclusion tract, No Protestant Plot, which, Cranston believes, 'Locke may well have had a hand in writing."ls While Locke's authorship of particular political tracts-a subject in itself well worth further exploration-remains uncertain, what does appear to be true is the Third Earl's statement that Locke acted as Shaftesbury's "assistant pen" during the last decade of the latter's political career. It is in this particular context, I am suggesting, namely, as a further expression of Shaftesbury's political ideas and objectives, that one ought to read Locke's Two Treatises of Government. As Laslett phrased the point, "the evidence suggests" that Locke "actually wrote the book for Shaftesbury's purposes."l9 Cranston concurs with this judgment, maintaining that the Two Treatises was "not written as

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY i 435

philosophy," but as "a party bookw; that is, as a work of propaganda designed to promote the political objectives of Shaftesbury and the Whigs.20 Nevertheless, neither Locke's political intentions nor the immediate historical circumstances governing the writing of the Two Treatises have played a significant role in the various interpretations of that work contained in the countless books and articles which discuss "Locke's* political theory. In light of the evidence that gives a decisive importance to precisely these political and historical factors, it seems to me that the burden of proof must lie with those who begin their analysis of the Two Treatises in a manner that disassociates the work from the partisan political activities organized by Shaftesbury in the 1680s to explain their reasons for attributing to Locke some other set of assumptions with respect to his writing of the Two Treatises. As I indicated earlier, in this regard, we are all indebted to Professor Laslett for having set the Two Treatises of Government on its proper historical foundations. But, having amved a t this point, it obviously follows that any assessment of what Locke thought he was doing in putting down his political thoughts in the Two Treatises will certainly depend in some measure on the clarity of our-and his-understanding of what, in fact, Shaftesbury's "purposes" were. But, it is here, I believe, that Laslett has not displayed the kind of care and attention to historical detail that one might have hoped for, given the historical soundness of his general argument v i s - h i s the traditional interpretive approaches to Locke's political thought. In part, this criticism pertains to the specific arguments Laslett used to determine the date of composition and the ordering of the Two Treatises, and, in part, it relates to his interpretation of Shaftesbury's political activities and purposes. Precisely what these purposes were must naturally remain a matter about which historians may disagree, but at a minimum, we need an approach to this interpretive task which focuses on the organizational activities of Shaftesbury and of those immediately around him, including Locke. For what Shaftesbury and his followers planned to do, and who would undertake such political action must certainly constitute a relevant aspect of any interpretive account of Locke's argument in the Two Treatises of Government, insofar as that work was written with the intention of persuading individuals to support and participate in the realization of Shaftesbury's political objectives. For some reason, Laslett seems to have assumed that this historical determination presented no serious problems for his

436 / POLITICAL T H E O R Y

, NOVEMBER 1980

reading of the Two Treatises. But, as Shaftesbury's biographer puts the issue: If Locke's Two Treatises were begun in 1679 when the Whigs' political strategy centered on the exclusion of the Duke of York by constitutionally legal means, how can that work have been intended to provide a defense of the revolution Shaftesbury was accused of planning in 1682?21 To put the matter in its sharpest terms: If Locke wrote the Second Treatise in 1679, then he did not write it for "Shaftesbury's purposes," since neither Shaftesbury nor anyone else had organized themselves to undertake such a revolution in that year. Moreover, no other tract or pamphlet written or published in 1679 set out to defend an anticipated revolution, so that, on this view, Locke's political ideas are not only divorceable from those of the politician he is supposedly advising, they must also be regarded as being singularly divorced in their political intentions from those purposes that informed the writing of hundreds of pamphlets contributed to the exclusion debate by Locke's contemporaries. If, on the other hand, the Second Treatise is to be associated with Shaftesbury's plans and the meetings that he and others organized with the design of fomenting a revolution, then the date of its composition belongs to a later period, most probably sometime after the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament in March, 1681, when, according to the participants in the proposed revolution, these plans were first formulated.22 ?herefore, although it is a slight detour from the main argument I wish to make in this essay, it is necessary to reconsider Laslett's opinion, which, because it has become an orthodoxy, functions, in my view, as a n obstacle to our historical understanding of Locke's political argument in the Two Treatises. Though Laslett's position is certainly well known, I will restate the salient points of his argument. In the First Treatise, Laslett writes, Locke quotes from Filmer's i'ke Freeholder's Grand Inquest and other tracts, always giving the 1680 edition as his reference. In the one instance he cites from Filmer's tracts in the Second Treatise (par. 22), he departs from this practice and refers to the 1679 edition of Filmer's tracts. A note refering to the same edition of Filmer is also recorded in a notebook used by Locke in 1679. Thus, Laslett concludes, "it looks as if Locke must have been using the 1679 volume when he wrote #22 of the Second Treatise. . . . And it looks as if he had reached that paragraph before even reading Patriarcha; indeed the text of the Second Treatise, although written against patriarchalism, could have been originally composed without his having seen Patriarcha at all."23 But do things look this way?

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL T H E O R Y , 437

In the first place, it is rather risky to conclude from a single reference how Locke went about writing the Second Treatise since, as we know, his notebooks are filled with references from various authors recorded throughout the 1679-1683 period that later found their way into the Two Treatises. In addition, Locke did not make systematic or extensive notes from Filmer, as he did from Hooker, Grotius, Pufendorf, and some of the travel and voyage books that he used while writing the Second Treatise. Moreover, it is surely a curious fact, and one which places Filmer in a different category from the other examples mentioned, that Locke did not own the 1679 edition of The Freeholder's Grand Inquest. He did not own that work in 1679 or at any other time. His copy of Filmer's tracts was bound with the 1680 edition of Patriarcha. In other words, Locke had access to, and was using someone else's copy of, the 1679 edition of Filmer's tracts a t the time he recorded the reference in his notebook cited by Laslett. The first question one might pose, then, is this: are we to assume that Locke set out to write a major work of political theory directed against the writings of a thinker whose book he did not himself possess, and to which, therefore, he may have had limited access? Of course, although there is no record of this, Shaftesbury may have lent Locke the book-assuming he owned the 1679 edition of Filmer's tracts-and this possibility brings the Earl and his political objectives back into the picture. Now, Locke did not a m v e in England from France until April 30, 1679. The first exclusion bill was introduced in the House of Commons in mid-May, and, at the end of that month, Charles I1 prorogued Parliament until August, and, subsequently, until October. Meanwhile, Shaftesbury was still serving as the President of the King's Privy Council. Not only did Shaftesbury, at this time, have no intention of encouraging a policy of armed resistance-the central theme of the Second Treatise-but he was attempting to use his position in the government to win over other members of the Privy Council to the policy of exclusion, while encouraging his supporters in the House of Commons to prepare for the next session of Parliament, a t which time they would again demonstrate their overwhelming strength by passing the bill.24 In addition, the Duke of Monmouth had been dispatched in June to put down a rebellious uprising in Scotland, a n action which had the backing of Shaftesbury and the Whig party. On October 14, however, the King dismissed Shaftesbury from the Privy Council and, at the same time, he again prorogued Parliament, this time until January

438 / POLITICAL T H E O R Y / N O V E M B E R 1980

26, 1680. Was this, then, the moment to unleash the political argument of the Second Treatise? It seems highly unlikely. There is still no evidence that Shaftesbury, or anyone else, had at this time formulated a political strategy based on the defense of armed resistance or theview that the government had "dissolved" into a state of nature. And, frankly, I d o not see how the political message of the Second Treatise can be explained in terms of a political policy which cannot be shown to have existed. What the Whigs as a political party were actually engaged in was a massive campaign of gathering petitions addressed to Charles, asking that Parliament be called into session.25 Shaftesbury's policy during the winter (1679-1680) was to persuade Charles I1 to call a Parliament "since it was taken for granted the King would yield to what everybody desired" if that body were allowed to meet." This campaign of petitioning "going forward in the city and country" was specifically Shaftesbury's "new project* to increase the pressure on Charles for the exclusion of Jarnes.27 At the beginning of December, 1679, the Earl and a number of other Lords personally presented Charles with such a petition, while, in the country at large blank petition forms "were put into the hands of agitants and . . . these agitators, being choice party-men, and well-instructed, went to every voter" to secure "the hand or mark of every voting freeholder, citizen, and burgher in England."Zg Since it was part of the radical Whig argument that, in the absence of a sitting Parliament, subjects possessed but two means for "redressing their grievances," namely, by petitioning or through resistance, it is clear that the party in late 1679 and early 1680 had committed itself to the former policy.29 Indeed, a radical Whig like William Sachervel even argued that it was too early in the exclusion campaign to resort to petitioning agitation, because the King was not yet in sufficiently dire financial circumstances for the political pressure to be really effective.30 Nevertheless, this was the plan of political action adopted by Shaftesbury and the Whigs, and condemned by the King and the Court. Moreover, as late as August, 1680, Locke is reporting to Shaftesbury on the gathering of petitions and the expectations that Parliament will soon meet.3' Since the exclusion crisis in 1679-1680 was perceived by the Whigs, by Shaftesbury, and by Locke as a matter to be resolved through parliamentary debate, elections, petitions, in short, through constitutional means, the problem of explaining Locke's intentions in setting out to write a revolutionary tract becomes a formidable one indeed.

Ashcraft ! LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY / 439

In the winter of 1679-1680, a number of pamphlets and tracts were published dealing with: (1) the dangers of the popish plot, with narratives and accounts of the trials of its leading figures; (2) a defense of, or a n attack on, the right of subjects to petition or address the King; (3) the right of Parliament to pass a bill excluding the Duke of York from succeeding to the throne; and (4) recommendations addressed to the electorate about choosing members to sit in the Parliament scheduled to meet a t the end of January. Now, it is Laslett's view that, as "an exclusion tract," the Second Treatise was intended by Locke to be a contribution to this debate.32 In support of this point, Laslett observes that Locke's reading notes, as well as his record of book purchases, "show that between 1679 and 1682[he] was more interested in publications on political theory and natural law than ever before or after."33 Even more specifically, Laslett refers to Locke's purchase of political pamphlets, noting that "quite a number in his library catalogue date from 1679-82."34 A11 of this is, however, rather misleading with respect to Laslett's specific contention that "the important part" of the Second Treatise can be assigned to 1679-1680, and, in particular, to the period prior to Locke's acquisition of Patriarcha at the end of January, 1680.35 In Locke's library catalogue, there are sixty-six titles published between 1679-1683 which can be said rather definitely to be "contributions" to the political debate of the exclusion crisis. Of these, only three date from 1679, and all three works are in French, indicating, perhaps, that Locke purchased them while he was still in that country. Of the total, 51 titles, or 77 percent of Locke's exclusion crisis holdings were published in 1681 o r later.36 I have not included in my calculations the voyage or travel books which we know Locke made use of while he was writing various sections of the Second Treatise. In this regard, it is worth noting that Knox's book on Ceylon, mentioned in paragraph 92 of that work, was not purchased by Locke until August, 1681.3' Acosta's History of East and West Indies, cited in paragraph 102, does appear on an undated book list, but no definite time of Locke's ownership of the work can be assigned prior to March, 1681, the date of a reference to it recorded in one of Locke's journals.38 Garcilasso de la Vega's Commentarios Reales, cited in paragraph 14 (and in paragraph 57 ofthe First Treatise) was left by Locke in Paris in 1679, and he seems not to have acquired another copy until 1681 or 1682.39 These references are particularly interesting only in that they compose three of the six authors whose

440 / POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1980

works are cited and mentioned by name by Locke in the Second Treatise, and none of them were in Locke's possession in the winter of 1679-1680 when he is supposed to have been writing that work. To this list we may add Hooker's Laws of the Ecclesiastical Polity and William Barclay's De poteste pupae and De regno et regali potestate. These works were not included in the exclusion crisis titles referred to above, although Locke explicitly mentions and cites from both authors in the Second Treatise. Locke purchased his copy of Hooker in June, 1681, and of Barclay's works on July 15, 1680.40 In other words, we are now confronted with the assumption that Locke set out to write an exclusion tract in 1679, although he purchased and read none of the pamphlets published in English during that year as part of the debate, such as Charles Blount's An Appeal From the Country to the City, for the Preservation of His Majesty's Person, Liberty, Property, and the Protestant Religion, Roger L'Estrange's The FreeBorn Subject, Or, the Englishman's Birthright, or his The Case Put, Concerning the Succession of His Royal Highness, the Duke of York, or William Penn's election tract, An Address to Protestants upon the Present Conjuncture. Moreover, of the works, specifically cited by Locke in the Second Treatise, he either did not own or possess any of them in the winter of 1679-1680. Of the works Locke did own which formed part of the exclusion debate to which he was supposedly contributing, 95 percent of these were certainly purchased after he acquired Filmer's Patriarcha, which, according to Laslett, caused him to abandon the writing of the Second Treatise to "add" a First Treatise to it.4' Perhaps it is unfair to refer to Locke's pamphlet holdings as a measure of his expressed interest in the political issues of the exclusion crisis. Why should we expect a philosopher like Locke to direct his attention to such day to day political events? But Locke was interested in these events, and he did buy numerous pamphlets which discussed them. In 1681, for example, Locke lists in a journal his purchase of more than forty pamphlets and tracts dealing with the popish plot, including Dangerfield's Narrative, Dugdale's Information, Bedlow's Information, narratives by Titus Oates, Lord Stafford's trial, as well as other trials, letters, and narratives.42 In July of that year, Locke bought an account of Fitzharris' trial, and three other pamphlet~.~3 At the end of December, 1680, he bought accounts of Parliamentary speeches and

Ashcraft

/ LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY / 441

election tracts.44In January, 1681, Locke paid for a letterdiscussing the exclusion bill, and on March 29, 1681, he purchased a n undisclosed number of "pamphlets."45 In 1682, he records the purchase of copies ofa newsletter, The Protestant Mercury.46 The point, then, is not that Locke was uninterested in the exclusion controversy or that he was indifferent to what other political writers were saying; it is just that it cannot be shown that he was especially interested in this literature prior to his purchase of Patriarcha, at the very time he is supposed to have been writing anexclusion tract replying to the arguments of others. On the other hand, it can be demonstrated that Locke was extremely interested in the pamphlets, Parliamentary debates, election tracts, and newsletters dealing with the issues of the exclusion controversy from late 1680 to 1682, precisely the period during which Locke bought virtually all of the books and pamphlets which compose this political literature in his library catalogue. Let us consider another facet of the problem with Laslett's argument. Referring to the Second Treatise, Laslett declares that Locke "had certainly reached paragraph number 22 of that Treatise, possibly number 57 and even number 236, almost the very end, when he changed his mind sometime in 1680, and decided to write the First Treatise too."47 Leaving aside the most implausible aspects of this statement to concentrate on its firmer core, we may recall that the passages up to and around paragraph 22 of the Second Treatise present Locke's views af the state of nature and the state of war, with a chapter devoted to each concept. Now, assuming that Locke had read the exclusion crisis literature during the winter of 1679-1680-which, as we have seen, he did not-would he have found this political language in general use by his contemporaries as a way of expressing their view of the political issues, such that he could assume that what he had "written" in the Second Treatise would be recognized by his audience as a contribution to that political debate? The answer is, he most assuredly would not. Neither the previously mentioned tracts by L'Estrange, Penn, or Blount, nor the other pamphlets published in 1679 present a discussion of the issues in terms of the government having been dissolved into a state of nature or a state of war. Though some opposed the exclusion of James on the grounds of divine right, "yet few went at first so high." According to Bishop Burnet, more weight was placed on the laws of the kingdom and their history,

442 / POLlTlCAL T H E O R Y / NOVEMBER 1980

with arguments pro and con about their relevance to the question of succe~sion.~s The parliamentary debates support this view, for it was not until November 4, 1680, that Leoline Jenkins, that "great assertor of the divine right of monarchy" (Burnet), presented a full-scale defense of the hereditary right of the Crown. Jenkins reasserted these arguments in the debate a week later, presenting then under the rubric of "the fundamentals of the government" and as an explanation for its true origins.49 As J. R. Jones, in his study of the exclusion crisis, observes with reference to the Whig political writings in 1679, The arguments for the exclusion of James from the succession were based on necessity, on the immediate political situation rather than on any profound or detailed political theory. By contrast with the later years of the crisis there was at first comparatively little in the way of pamphleteering justifications. The case against James was a simple one.J0

This point, paradoxically, is cited frequently against Locke's political perceptivity on the grounds that while his contemporaries were focusing on the legal, constitutional, or historical aspects of exclusion, Locke managed to isolate himself from this debate by framing the issues in "philosophicaln or "abstractn notions such as the state of nature or the state of war, precisely those sections of the Second Treatise assigned by Laslett to the earliest date of its composition.5' It is here, however, that one must proceed with caution. It is Laslett's misdating of the Second Treatise which lends support to the erroneous view that Locke is "philosophically" removed from the political issues of most concern to his contemporaries. If one then commits the additional mistake, characteristic of the writings of historians of this period, namely, that of jumbling together the hundreds of exclusion pamphlets and sermons into one compressed body of literature from which three or four "representative" pieces are extracted and cited, there is a definite risk that what one pulls out of the barrel will lend credence to this superficial conclusion.s2 Obviously, not every exclusion tract referred to a state of nature or necessarily addressed itself to some of the other matters discussed in the Second Treatise. This is definitely not the same thing, however, as asserting that there was not a body of literature which did discuss the political situation of the exclusion crisis in this language. The point I am making is a n historical one; namely, that this political terminology was not prevalent in the winter of 1679-1680, but that it was relevant to the political debate at a later period.

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY / 443

In Three Great Questions Concerning the Succession and the Dangers of Popery . . ., the author begins by discussing the origins of political society, especially the problems arising from the fact that "all men, having a natural equal right to all things, there could be lib society without government and order; that to secure this state, it was necessary men" should preserve themselves by entering into "compacts and agreements" which established that government "most conducing to the good of the community, founded upon that Golden and Eternal Law of Reason, of Nature."s3 He goes on to consider what it is that removes "men from the state of war and poverty into a condition of peace and plenty," what induces an individual to "depart from so much of my natural right" as I have from the Law of Nature "to associate myself" with others to form a commonwealth, what conditions return men to "the state of nature," what political power is considered in relation to "the right and force of nature," and so 0n.M In A Dialogue at Oxford Between a Tutor and a Gentleman, Formerly his Pupil, Concerning Government, the author, speaking as the pupil against his tutor, an adherent of the divine right theory of government, describes the origins of "the Fundamental Contract" in "the consent of the people," to which they subscribe to institute "common good" as "the first and last end of all government."ss He takes up the question of how, in "those esteemed rude and unpolished times" when men lived in a state where they were "not bound by contract," they came to see the necessity of living according to "some fixed and standing rule," which "can be no other than the fundamental . . . and original frame of the Constitution."s6 As the patriarchal tutor wryly remarks to the pupil upon hearing all this, life amongst the coffee houses and clubs of London "have taught you to speak another sort of language than you did here in the University." In Vox Populi: Or, the People's Claim to n e i r Parliaments Sitting. . ., the Law of Nature is invoked to defend a definition of the ends of government as "the common peace, safety, and benefit of the people* and to defend "the people's fundamental rights and liberties."S7 Appended to the pamphlet are two speeches by James I-thesame ones cited by Locke in the Second Treatise-designed to show that the King's authority originates in the consent of the people, is limited by the law, and must be directed toward promoting the general welfare of the people. These points, along with the dissolution of government, what action should be taken when the prince violates the trust placed in him by the people, and what actions taken by the king are likely to place men

444 1 POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1980

in a state of war, are considered in A Just and Modest Vindication of the Proceedings of the Two Lost Parliaments.58 And, for course, there are too many parallels between James Tyrell's Patriarcha non monarcha and the Second ~reatise-literally scores of them-to list here. Not only the notions of "the state of nature" or "that great Law of Nature, that every man ought to endeavor the common good of mankind," but also, the dissolution of government, the state of war, "tacit consent," private property arising from the "labor and industryn of the individual, the example of the Indians living in America, and many more specific parts of Locke's argument first appear in Tyrell's work.s9 Now, what is interesting about these particular exclusion tracts is that Locke did own these pamphlets, and their political language bears a striking resemblance and relevance to that of the Second Treatise. Moreover, if we take a more general view of Whig political literature, numerous examples of this political language can be found. The author of Two Great Questions Determined b y the Principles of Reason and Divinity begins his argument with the assumption that "every man is born in the same condition and relation of equality . . . a state of nature."" He then goes on to discuss the necessity of finding "some fixed standing rule and law" which will "attain the end of government, the general welfare." He also alludes to the fact that actions taken by rulers which are destructive to the ends of government have the consequence of placing men in a condition "as if they had none." In this situation, "everyone naturally has a power and right to preserve himself. . . by standing and defending himself . . . for the other's violence being arbitrary, that is, exercised by one who had not right or authority so to do, was unjust, and might therefore not only be resisted, but returned in the same degree according to the just and natural laws" which govern individuals in that condition.61 Thomas Hunt, in The Great and Weighty Considerations Relating to the Duke of York, likewise begins his argument by asserting that "the Law of Nature . . . was given or declared to all makind, when they were in a state of nature, before governments were constituted." He then distinguishes between this "lawful" condition and one of "anarchy, which is the most intolerable state of mankind, a state of war and violence, unreasonable passion and unbounded appetite." This distinction is important to Hunt's defense of "the rights of property" as being bounded by the laws established by individuals who, acting in accordance with "the Law of Nature," agree

Ashcraft ! LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY / 445

"to form themselves unto societies, to enter into mutual obligations* with each other. Hunt discusses the problem of "tacit*' and "express" consent, "the first Constitution of the government," i.e., "its true original," and the possibility that rulers may 'design' the "destruction of those that are to be governed and protected," thereby subverting the ends for which government was instituted.62 It should also be stressed that opponents of the Whigs recognized the prevalence of this language and explicitly attacked it in their writings. Robert Brady, in The Great Point of Succession Discussed, sees himself as replying to a number of'lately'published pamphlets which begin with the assumption of men existing in a condition of "natural freedom and equality" before government was instituted. Brady, of course, denies this, equating any such conditions with "Hobbes' senseless notion of a state of war," which would be "destructive of all human society."63 It is worth noting, however, that Brady does agree with his opponents that the argument must be joined on the ground of natural law, and that the problems raised by the exclusion crisis are not solvable on the basis of an interpretation of English history or by "an argument drawn from matter of fact."64 Similarly, the author of Loyalty and Conformity Asserted in Two Sermons attacks the "wild and extravagant supposition* of "a state of nature" which is supposed to precede the institution of government. He, too, equates this condition with a Hobbesian state of war, which he condemns as a portrayal of men living in "universal hostility." Then, he reflects, "if we would fancy a state of nature preceding to government, we ought with more reason to suppose some golden age, wherein all men lived peaceably one with another, without doing wrong or injury toeach other."6s Naturally, since he is defending divine right theory, he does not imagine any such state to exist. Nevertheless, the point is that these Tories recognized the widespread usage of this political language amongst their Whig opponents, and they felt themselves to be under some' necessity to respond to that language. In addition, it was just as important to them to deny the validity of a distinction between "the state of nature" and "a state of war" as it was to the Whigs to insist on making such a distinction, as Locke does in the first two chapters of the Second Treatise. And, like Locke, this is the way those Whigs begin their argument and the terminology they employ before considering some particular aspect of the exclusion crisis. Many other examples, from both Whig and Tory writings, could be cited, but the general point is, I think, clear.66

446 / POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1980

What I wish to emphasize is that none of the works cited in the last few pages appeared before the publication of Filmer's Patriarcha, or, in other words, during the time when, Laslett asserts, Locke was formulating his argument in these terms. On the contrary, this language gained its greatest currency in the exclusionist writings after the publication of Patriarcha. The notion, therefore, that the appearance of the latter work 'forced' Locke to abandon this language and to turn to a detailed refutation of Filmer in the First Treatise is, at best, otiose. It is simply not true, as Pocock and others have maintained, that there is no historical or political context for the kind of approach adopted by Locke in the Second Treatise. He is not isolated from the political debate because he employs a "philosophical" language. Indeed, this language can be found in petitions, sermons, and Parliamentary debates, as well as in political tracts during the exclusion crisis-it even appears in Dryden's Absalom a n d Achitophel. What is true is that these arguments, and the Second Treatise, properly belong to a later date than that assigned to them by Laslett. Let us, therefore, summarize and review the kinds of assumptions we should have to accept to believe that Locke wrote "the most important part," and at least the first two chapters, of the Second Treatise prior to his purchase of Patriarcha in January, 1680. We must believe that Locke set out to write against The Freeholder's Grand Inquest without owning a copy of that work, and without owning or having in his posession any of the other works he explicitly cites in the Second Treatise-including one reference which occurs in the first two chapters of that work. We must believe that he set out to defend a policy of resistance and revolution as part of "Shaftesbury's purposes" at a time when we have no evidence that Shaftesbury or the Whigs had such purposes; indeed, at a time when their legalistic and constitutional strategy was moving the party in the opposite direction. We must believe that Locke intended the Second Treatise to be an exclusion crisis tract, although, to that point in time, there is no evidence-apart from the single reference in Locke's notebook cited by Laslett-that he had even read any of the exclusion literature or that he had bought particular works to ascertain what the debate was about, as he was to do two years later. We must believe that Locke wrote in a political language which was then not being used, although in 1681 it was very much in vogue. We are asked to believe, in other words, that Locke's close association with the Earl of Shaftesbury

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY / 447

prompted him to write a work for Shaftesbury which did not reflect but contravened his political purposes, that he intended to make a contribution to a political debate of which he was ignorant, and that he employed a language that he alone, at that time, could be identified with, because the historical context for this argument did not yet exist. With historical support such as this for the Second Treatise, who needs philosophical critics to point out Locke's intellectual confusion? What, then, was Locke doing in the winter of 1679? From the beginning of October until just before Christmas, he was in London with Shaftesbury. And, from Christmas until the first of February, 1680, Locke was at Oxford. While at Oxford, he Wrote a small treatise on the growth of vines and olives, which he presented to Shaftesbury on February 1, 1680. On January 22, Locke bought his copy of Patriarcha and Filmer's tracts. Did he feel compelled to draft a n immediate response to that work, either the First or the Second Treatise? He did not. On February 3, 1680, Locke left Oxford on an extended journey, in which he was more or less continuously on the road until .4pril8, when he returned to Oxford for just a week. He then left for London, where he remained from April 17 until May 30, 1680.67 In other words, unless we imagine Locke writing the Two Treatises on the move as it were, rather than at Oxford or London where the two halves of his library were housed, there is literally no time--except for one week in January-until April, 1680, when Locke could have begun anything like a serious or extended effort to reply to Filmer in a work of political theory. But the latter date already moves the period of composition of the Two Treatises well past the date proposed by Laslett, and it certainly does not require us to assume that the Second Treatise was planned, composed, or completed before Locke read Patriarcha. Once we have liberated ourselves from this erroneous assumption, we are then free to ask, why did Locke write the Second Treatise, and for whom was it intended to be a guide to political action?

To proceed to a consideration of this problem, I must omit any discussion of the First Treatise as a political tract. If space permitted, I

448 j P O L I T I C A L T H E O R Y i N O V E M B E R 1980

would attempt to demonstrate that the argument of that work belongs to the political debate of 1680-1681, when the central question was that of determining the succession. I n the immediate sense, this is, of course, the political problem of the exclusion crisis. In its more general form, the argument in the First Treatise poses the choice between the view that power flows from the will of one man, leading towards tyranny, and the view that power arises from the people and is expressed through consent and elections.' As a political tract, the First Treatise was intended to form part of Shaftesbury's electoral and Parliamentary campaign to win support for the passage of the exclusion bill during the elections and Parliamentary sessions of 1680-1681, and to achieve this objective, in part, through attacking and countering the clergy's electoral influence over the country gentry.* Finally, if the issue of succession is not resolved in a manner that reaffirms "the old way" of instituting government through "the consent of men making use of their reason to unite together into society," Locke warns, the consequences of an insistence on the divine right approach to the problem of succession will certainly be "endless contention a n d disorder," i.e., civil war.3 This notso-veiled threat was frequently made by the Whigs in the Parliamentary debates and in their pamphlets in 1680, and it was intended to give force to the Whig argument that Parliamentary passage of the exclusion bill was the only alternative to a civil war.4 Without a sitting Parliament, obviously, this entire political argument, and the political strategy which informed it, collapsed. Therefore, when the King dissolved the third elected Parliament in two years, and moved in the direction of ruling without one, a new political strategy, and with it, a new political argument, was required for those who, like Shaftesbury, were determined not to give up in their opposition to the Duke of York's succession to the Crown. It was around this time (1681), according to Lord Grey, that he attended a meeting with the Duke of Monmouth and Lord Russell a t Shaftesbury's house where the latter argued "that we had committed a great error in being so long a screen between the King and the House of Commons" which otherwise would have engaged in a much more direct attack on the King.5 It was now proposed by Shaftesbury that this "screen" be dropped, and that the future dangers of a tyranny under James give way to a more immediate focus on the real dangers of a tyranny under Charles I1 posed by his refusal to accede to the wishes of the people's elected representatives in the House of common^.^

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY .' 449

This policy shift is quite important as part of any argument pertaining to the dating of the Second Treatise. For, while great numbers of Whigs were willing to threaten a resort t o arms against James, a proven Catholic and not yet in possession, of the Crown-though few actually did so when the moment for action presented itself-very few were sufficiently courageous to voice this threat, let alone provide a systematic justification for this position, against Charles 11, ostensibly as Protestant with great powers already a t his disposal. Professor Laslett, in his concern to establish the theoretical importance of Filmer's ideas to Locke's arguments in the Second Treatise, tends to forget that, as a work written to justify political action, the primary target of Locke's attack is not Filmer, but Charles 11. This was not, as we noted above, Shaftesbury's political policy until early in 1681. The perils to Locke in advancing arguments in support of resistance t o Charles I1 were tremendous-as the fate of Sidney demonstrates-even with the support of Shaftesbury and the political forces a t his disposal; to suppose that Locke undertook this theoretical defense in 1679, when not even Shaftesbury and the leaders of the opposition were willing to attack Charles directly or to accuse him of having dissolved the government so that individuals were free to take up arms against a king (tyrant) exercising force without authority, is literally incredible. Yet, this is the position Shaftesbury had arrived a t in 1681, and the standpoint from which his efforts in 1682 to mount a revolution against Charles I1 must be explained. This new standpoint is also the one from which the Second Treatise begins. That is, as a political tract, it seeks to provide a justification for the political activity of those who have decided to resist, on thegrounds of self-defense (of their "lives, liberty, property and religion"), the actions of a tyrant, i.e., one who exercises "force without lawful authority." They are placed in this situation because "the executive power" has employed "the force of the Commonwealth" to "hinder the meeting and acting of the Legislative" power, contrary to both "the original Constitution" and to "the public exigencies" which "require" such a legislative body to be in session. For Locke, this is a paradigmatic instance of "exercising force without authority." Hence, he declares, I say using force upon the people without authority and contrary to the trust put in him, that does so, is a state of war with the people, who have a right to reinsrate their legislative in theexercise of their power. For having erected a Legislative, with

450 / POLITICAL THEORY / N O V E M B E R 1980

an intent they should exercise the power of making laws, either at certain times, or when there is a need of it; when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the society. and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists, the people have a right to remove it by force. In all states and conditions the true remedy of force without authority, is to oppose force to it. The use of force without authority, always puts him that uses it into a state of war, as theaggressor, and renders him liable to be treated a~cordingly.~

This political problem arose in its most actue form when the King preemptorily dissolved the Oxford Parliament in March, 1681. Some Whigs--especially Shaftesbury-were now convinced that Charles I1 intended to rule without calling Parliament into session, as, indeed, he did.8 If this were true, it raised "the old question" of who shall be judge when a ruler is making improper use of his power, i.e., exercising it "without authority." T o this question, Locke replied: I answer: between an Executive power in being, with such a prerogative ["calling Parliaments in England, as t o precise time, place, and duration" par. 167-RA] and a Legislative that depends upon his will for their convening, there can be no judge on earth. . . . The people have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no judge on earth, but to appeal to Heaven.9

In short, the King's actions in preventing Parliament from meeting to redress the grievances of the people through its passage of the exclusion bill was a violation of the "original Constitution." The result was that the government was now "dissolved," and the people were free to "constitute to themselves a new Legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those, who without authority would impose anything upon them." That the government was "dissolved" was neither a novel nor a peculiarly 'Lockean' view of the situation. It was, rather, a n expression of the radical Whig position in 1681. In its legalistic form, the point appears, for example, in a petition to the King gathered by the Whigs and sent from the Middlesex Grand Jury. Its authors ask Charles to call a Parliament because, without the meeting of that assembly, we find ourselves in a position "tending even to the dissolution of the constitution of the government."'O A more radical statement of the Whig position is provided by Robert Ferguson. Following the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament, Ferguson recalled, those allied with .Shaftesbury felt that "all the obligations they stood under to the King

Ashcraft / L O C K E A N P O L I T I C A L T H E O R Y / 451

were become dissolved."~~He goes on to say that, in their view, "whatsoever the Law of Nature, Nations, or the Kingdom made lawful" to provide for their self-defense in resisting the King's actions could now be appealed to.12 And, in a pamphlet which he wrote at the time, Ferguson referred to the fact that the nation might be "forced into a war in its own natural defense. . . . But if there must be a war, let it be under the authority of law," which Ferguson naturally took to be on the side of the people. If, on the other hand, the King and the Court refuse to allow "the peoplen to judge through the assembling of Parliament, the controversy with respect to the exclusion of James, then, the actions of the Court party could only mean that "they shall like beasts recur to force* and must, therefore, be met with force. For the radicals, "the liberty and welfare of a great nation was of too much importance to be suffered to depend upon the will of one man."" The author of The Magistracy and Government of England Vindicated replies to these arguments which he specifically associates with the views of the Rye House conspirators. These plotters, he maintains, in their belief that "the government was dissolved, everything reduced into its primitive state of nature, all power devolved into individuals . . . to provide for themselves by a new contract," and so forth, thus sought to legitimize and indemnify their "illegal" actions committed in a state of political dissolution.l4 Many other examples from the literature could be cited to indicate the prevalence of this viewpoint amongst the Whigs in Shaftesbury's camp in the spring of 1681, but I think enough has been said to suggest why Locke should have begun the Second Treatise by considering the condition of men living in a state of nature where the ties of government have been dissolved, leaving them to confront the possibility of a state of war brought on by the "designs" of a ruler who is attempting to claim absolute power and to exercise force "without authority." This, in its most cogent formulation, is Shaftesbury's political view of the situation in the post-March period of 1681, and the Second Treatise can therefore rightly be said to have been written within the framework ofShaftesbury's purposes." The parallels between Shaftesbury's political beliefs and policies and the specific arguments contained in the Second Treatise could certainly be extended much further, but the question I now wish to consider is, who was prepared to translate these views into political action and by what means? For, it is in this respect that the Two Treatises of Government can claim a special quality as a work of

452 / POLITICAL THEORY I NOVEMBER 1980

political theory written during the exclusion crisis; that is, as a work designed to urge radicals to unite, through revolutionary action, in resistance to the King. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that, following the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament, "only a few Whigs began to turn to ideas of resistance. Most of those who had sat in the Exclusion parliaments, or had been prominent outside, found it expedient to subside 'into inactivity." In this situation we are therefore dealing with "the hard core of Whigs" who were prepared to engage in revolution. Of this group, Shaftesbury was unequestionably the acknowledged leader, and the most vehement advocate of revolution.I5 What is more difficult to extract from the historical evidence is a clear picture of the nature of the organizational activities he directed. In part, this is due to the fact that "the hot-headed men with whom Shaftesbury . . .associated during his last months (1681-1683) were men of less standing and often obscure origin."l6 They were, in other words, tradesmen, artisans, old Cromwellian army officers, and individuals who did not leave behind many documents relating to their origins or their ideas. This is hardly surprising since those who decide to organize revolutionary movements are not usually so generous to their historical progeny as to leave a detailed written account of their activities. Hence, we face the problem-as did the governmental authorities in 1683-of trying to decide at what point talk about revolution began to crystallize into plans for such an undertaking. In this regard, it is helpful to recall that, from the radical perspective, there had been a "conspiracy" of long standing on the part of Catholics, the Court, and the clergy to subvert the Protestant religion and the balance of constitutional government in England. The political conflict of 1680-1681 simply gave greater intensity and provided increased factual support for this belief." Thus, the radicals finally became convinced that, as one of them insisted, "the King as well as the Duke were in the conspiracy to alter the Constitution and bverturn our religion."ls From this standpoint, revolutionary action did not appear to be such a giant step, for, it had to be acknowledged "that either we have conspired against the King, or that he and his dearly beloved brother have conspired against us; so that which remains to be decided, is whether the reproach and guilt of this conspiracy is to be laid upon them or to be imputed unto us."19

Ashcraft

L O C K E A N POLITICAL T H E O R Y / 453

In their treatment of the "conspiracy" by the radicals, historians have adopted a two-tiered approach. On the one hand, there was a n attempt to mount a general insurrection, which, in its most complicated formulation, would have coordinated a rising in the country with a seizure of the King's guards in London, with some form of armed resistance from the Scotch rebels. This strategy clearly flowed from Shaftesbury, although in drafting it he had a great many "advisers." O n the other hand, there was also a plot to assassinate the King and the Duke of York, known in its most infamous form as the Rye House Plot. This plan involved a n ambush of the King and his brother as they were returning to London from the horseraces at Newmarket. Colonel Rumbold, a Cromwellian army officer, was the owner of a public house (Rye House) adjacent t o the road from Newmarket where the surprise attack was to be carried out. As might be imagined, after the discovery of the Rye House Conspiracy by the government, n o one in particular was anxious t o take credit for the formulation of this plan, although, at his trial, Captain Walcot, another Commonwealth army officer, did not deny that he was t o be one of the participants in this undertaking. While I do not believe these two conspiracies can be as easily or as sharply distinguished from each other as a number of historians and biographers have claimed, I d o not propose to reconstruct the rather complicated network of interrelationships and activities of the participants involved in the formulation of both plans. 1 will limit myself, therefore, to a few observations regarding the political objectives and the social composition of those individuals who proposed to make a general revolution. This movement was organized, initially, by Shaftesbury. As leader of the opposition, Lord Shaftesbury was naturally suspected by the government of being willing to resort to violence t o achieve his political ends. Whether or not this was in fact true at the time, the King seized the initiative and had Shaftesbury arrested and imprisoned in the Tower in July, 1681.20 At the time of his arrest, Shaftesbury's papers were seized. Found amongst them was a draft proposal for a n Association of Protestants to oppose the Duke of York. In itself, this document was not as legally damaging as the government could have hoped for, since it was undated and not in Shaftesbury's handwriting. Nevertheless, at the indictment proceedings against Shaftesbury, the Chief Justice, referring to the proposal, admonished

454 / POLITICAL T H E O R Y 1 N O V E M B E R 1980

the grand jury to "consider that paper well . . . it seems to me to be of great consequence."21 Then, too, a bill to constitute such an association had been introduced and debated in Parliament in December, 1680, so that the proposal lacked that degree of conspirational secrecy which might have made it more politically damaging to Shaftesbury's position.22 Still, the government and the Tories pressed this issue as far a s they could, condemning the Association as a "treasonable conspiracy."23 More than a year later, Clarendon, Halifax, and others within the government were still working to draft another bill of indictment against Shaftesbury on the basis of this proposal for an ass0ciation.2~In 1683, after the exposure of the Rye House Conspiracy, a contemporary noted in his journal that "the design appears to have been to prosecute the association."25 In the sense that the plan to mount a revolution grew out of the rationale underlying the formation of the Association, I believe his assessment was correct. In his Brief History of the Times, published four years after the Rye House Conspiracy, Roger L'Estrange also emphasized the connection. After reprinting the document, L'Estrange wrote, that "The reader will find in this paper of Association . . . the sum of the whole cause, and of all they contended for. . . . It lays open the rise, progress, and drift of a republican conspiracy."26 In its preamble, the proposal for the Association declared that we have "endeavored in a parliamentary way by a bill for the purpose to bar and exclude the said Duke [of York] from the succession to the Crown," but these efforts have been "utterly rejected," leaving us "almost in despairn about how to act to provide for our "laws, estates and liberty." In response to this situation, "we have thought fit to propose to all true Protestants a union amongst themselves, by solemn and sacred promise of mutual defense and assistance in the preservation of the true Protestant religion, his Majesty's person and royal state, and our laws, liberties, and properties." Subscribers to the Association took an oath to "defend to the utmost of my power, with my person and estaten the Protestant religion against all efforts to introduce popery into England. They also pledged to defend "the power and privilege of parliaments, the lawful rights and liberties of the subject, against all encroachments and usurpations of arbitrary power whatsoever." Finally, members of the Association were to bind themselves to a specific promise: I will never consent that the said James, Duke of York . . . be admitted t o the succession of the crown of England: but by all lawful means, and by force ofarrns if

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY 1 455 need so require, according to my abilities, will oppose him, and endeavor to subdue, expel, and destroy him, if he come into England, orthedominions thereof, and seek by force to set up his pretended title, and all such as shall adhere unto him, or raise any war, tumult, or sedition for him or by his command, as publicenemies of our laws, religion, and country. To this end, we and every one of us, whose hands are here undenvritten, do most willingly bind ourselves. . . in the bond of one firm and loyal society or association.

The Association agreed to act under the leadership of "this present parliament whilst it shall be sitting, or the major part of the members of both houses subscribing this association when it shall be prorogued or dissolved."27 As things developed, however, those who united to defend themselves "by force of arms* against the Duke of York could not claim more than a fragment of the membership of Parliament for their leaders. Nevertheless, one reason for the two-tiered approach to the radical movement, in the eyes of some of its seventeenth-century participants, as well as in the writings of later historians, arises from the class divisions amongst the radicals. This division was reflected in the creation of the Council of Six, a group of self-appointed grandees, who assumed responsibility for promoting the revolution following Shaftesbury's death. As one of the members of that Council later explained, in early 1683, it was clear that several groups were already engaged in "contriving insurrections in several parts of this kingdom," and it was likely that, without the disciplined leadership of "persons of quality," the various projects already set in motion might lead to chaos and disaster.28 At his execution, Lord Russell, another member of the Council, sarcastically declared, "there can be no rebellion now as in former times, for there are now no great men left in England.'q9 Russell's statement was meant to imply both that six persons of quality meeting together could hardly be expected to make the revolution of which they had been accused, and also that they obviously had nothing to d o with the "meaner" sorts of individuals who were involved in the Rye House Conspiracy. In fact, this was not true, although Russell's attitude reflected the necessity of maintaining social distance between the nobility and 'the rabble' even when they were more or less united in a subversive movement. Naturally, the government attempted in its propaganda to make the most of the fact that the majority of revolutionaries belonged to "the rabble." As Roger L'Estrange put it, "The King is betrayed by his little people."3o This was not true either. Still, the core and dynamic impetus

456 / POLITICAL T H E O R Y / N O V E M B E R 1980

of the radical movement was provided by the brewers, tailors, shoemakers, silk dyers, weavers, and carpenters, men from the same social class which later supplied the backbone and force for Monmouth's illfated rebellion. T o these must be added a surprisingly large number of old Commonwealth army officers, colonels, majors, and captains, who were prepared to fight once more for "the old cause."31 A third group of radicals who stood socially between the aristocracy and the tradesmen were the merchants, bankers, and London officeholders (mayor, aldermen, sheriffs) who supplied the financial leadership for the revolution.* Finally, there were the professional men, lawyers, doctors, ministers, and journalists. They wrote most of the pamphlets and tracts setting forth the radical political perspective. They also moved most freely amongst all the classes, and, in effect, provided a n existential linkage a s well a s a general ideological framework which united the various segments of the radical movement. This last point is a n important one because, in addition to possessing the ability to express the ideological beliefs of radicalism, these individuals had to have the trust of radicals in each class; and, with that trust, came a fairly comprehensive consciousness of the activities of the movement as a whole. Lord Shaftesbury had demonstrated a unique ability t o move freely within all levels of the radical movement, and thischaracteristic of openness and easy access had solidified the fact of his personal leadership of the movement. After November, 1682, when Shaftesbury fled in exile, this role had t o be assumed by members of the professional strata, who, however, because of their social class origins, could not claim "leadership" of the movement. Since I wish to focus in this essay both on the ideological defense and the organizational structure of radicalism, I will concentrate on the activities of the prominent individuals-of whom, I shall argue, Locke was one-within this intellectual strata, the "literary representatives" of the revolutionary movement. By all accounts, the most active and important member of this group was Robert Ferguson, "the plotter," whose subtitle aptly summarizes his lifetime of political activity.32 During the exclusion crisis, Ferguson was chaplain to Shaftesbury, to Certainly, whom, he wrote, "I could a t all time make my own he was close to Shaftesbury. Ferguson accompanied the Earl into exile *I have omitted in this essay a n y discussion of the members of this class, although their role was certainly a n important one.

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN P O L I T I C A L THEORY / 457

in Holland, and, in a letter to his wife a t the time of Shaftesbury's death, Ferguson wrote of the loss of his "honorable friend" who had shown him great 'Yatherly love and care." For his part, Shaftesbury left Ferguson a legacy of £ 4 0 in his ~ i 1 1 . 3 ~ By training and education, Ferguson was a dissenting minister, although his politically subversive activities during 1679-1683 did not allow him to make the kind of publicly scheduled appearances such a profession demanded. He was, however, a close friend of the Independent minister, J o h n Owen, who sometimes allowed Ferguson to preach to his congregation. It is even possible that Ferguson first came to know Locke through Owen; Ferguson had served a s the latter's assistant sometime around 1670, and Owen, of course, had been Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, when Locke was a student of the college.35 In any event, Ferguson certainly knew Locke well by the time of the 1680s when they both served a s members of Shaftesbury's inner circle.36 It was Ferguson who recorded that, in his conversations with Shaftesbury during the latter's final days in Holland, the Earl had attributed his "Socinian" religious beliefs to Mr. Locke's influence and ideas.37 Later, Anthony Wood maintained that one of the reasons Locke was deprived of his studentship at Oxford was that he "kept company and was great with Robert Ferguson and Ford Lord G r e y . . . which was complained of by Thomas Chudleigh," the English envoy in Holland.38 Ferguson wrote a number of tracts-probably not as many as are attributed to him-in defense of Shaftesbury's political position. In fact, along with Locke, Ferguson was unequestionably the best and most effective ideologue in Shaftesbury's stable of "assistant pens." Moreover, as we shall see, Ferguson's arguments and phraseology are remarkably close to those of Locke. After Shaftesbury's death, Ferguson attached himself to the Duke of Monmouth in a capacity similar to the one he had held with the Earl. But, Ferguson apparently exercised a good deal more influence over Monmouth, whose political views were much less developed or firmly held than Shaftesbury's had been. In fact, Monmouth confessed to his father, the King, after the discovery of the Rye House Conspiracy, that he had been "misled, and insensibly engaged in things of which the consequence was not enough understood by me."j9 Monmouth even maintained later, rather implausibly, that he had not read the Declaration of principles which Ferguson had written to justify his own rebellion.@ Still, it is true, and perhaps what Monmouth meant to say, that he did not have a very profound or

458 / POLITICAL THEORY ,' N O V E M B E R 1980

independent understanding of political theory-as Shaftesbury clearly had-and, therefore, he gladly left such matters to Ferguson. In this regard, what is most interesting is a n account of a conversation Monmouth had with the King a few months after the conspiracy had come to light. The King, he recorded in his diary, "received me pretty well; and said Locke* a n d Ferguson* were the causes of my misfortunes, and would ruin me. After some hot words against them," and Charles' confrontation of Monmouth with a letter addressed to him from Ferguson-which the government had intercepted-the interview ended.41 There is little evidence bearing on any independent relationship Locke may have had with Monmouth, at least until his period ofexile in Holland, during which Locke was much more deeply involved in the planning of Monmouth's Rebellion than Locke's biographers have been willing to admit. Still, we know that during the period Shaftesbury and Monmouth were working together in the political struggles of 16801682, there were some important political meetings between the two at which Locke was p r e ~ e n t . ~IZn addition, Monmouth's chief assistant and personal secretary, James Vernon, had been a pupil of Locke's at Christ Church, and the Duke had several other close friends, such as Sir Walter Yonge and Lord Grey, whom he shared with Locke.43 Almost as interesting a figure as Ferguson, and another member of the group of radical intellectuals, is Major John Wildman. Wildman had been an active leader in the Leveller movement and the author of some Civil War tracts defending the Army's position in the late 164C~s.4~ He reappeared on the political scene during the exclusion crisis, and played a prominent role in the revolutionary movement of the 1680s. Ferguson speaks warmly of Wildman as a friend of his of "long acquaintance" and as a person "who is esteemed a great statesman and excellently versed in the laws of England."4s In fact, Wildman was a lawyer, though by 1680, he seems to have become a person of modest wealth due to some land holdings. Following his release from imprisonment in the Tower in 1667, Major Wildman became a close confidant and assistant t o the Duke of B ~ c k i n g h a m . ~Since b Buckingham and Shaftesbury were relatively close allies during the early stages of the exclusion crisis, it may be that Locke and Wildman came t o know each other then.47 As Buckingham receded into the political background after 1680, Wildman moved closer to

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY / 459

Shaftesbury and his entourage. In 1681 Wildman was elected a member of the shortlived Oxford Parliament. Locke and Wildman knew each other a t the time of the Glorious Revolution, both men having returned to England in the wake of William's invasion.4aEach had lived in exile in Holland for several years, but exactly when their political paths first crossed is hard to say. In any case, Wildman was actively involved in the revolutionary conspiracy, and, perhaps, in the assassination plot as well. His most trusted friend, who had associated with him in the Leveller movement and who had been imprisoned with Wildman in the Tower in the 16505, was Colonel Rumbold, the ominous owner of the Rye House, where the supposed assassination was to take place. A third radical ideologue, better known than Ferguson or Wildman, but not so active as an organizer as either of them, is Algernon Sidney. In fact, despite the notoriety attached to his posthumously published Discourses Concerning Government and to his martyrdom, Sidney was a somewhat isolated figure in the radical movement. This is due, in part, to the .fact that, unlike the other radical intellectuals, Sidney 'stood aloof and refused to ally his own designs with those of the Earl" (Shaftesbury).d' Sidney's aristocratic bearing, which apparently alienated a number of people, may also have had something to do with his relatively isolated status. For both reasons, it is unlikely that he and Locke were very close, although they did have two very good friends in common, viz., William Penn and Benjamin Furley.50 Wildman and Sidney, however, were friends and both of them,,along with another Republican, Henry Neville, had known each other for some years before the exclusion crisis.51 Many years Iater, after the publication of Sidney's Discourses, Locke recommended the work a s a text in political theory to be read. Biographers have generally interpreted his statement that he had not read the work as an indication of Locke's indifference to it; but, if the claim was true, it might very well mean the opposite of this, namely, that Locke was recommending Sidney's book because he knew that it embodied Sidney's. Republican beliefs and therefore ought to be read.52 Before we turn to Locke as a fourth theorist, it will be helpful to mention two other members of this professional strata of radicals, Robert West and Nathaniel Wade. Both men were Republican lawyers active as organizers in the movement, and West was a particularly

460 / POLITICAL T H E O R Y / NOVEMBER 1980

important figure in this regard. As one contemporary observed, he was a person "of great trust among all those people" involved in the Rye House Conspiracy, with the exception of some members of the Council of Six.53 West, like Ferguson, was probably one of those who was involved in the assassination plot as well as the planned revolution, but we will be concerned only with this role in the latter conspiracy. West's association with Ferguson, Shaftesbury, and with Colonel John Rumsey, another Commonwealth Army officer and one of the Earl's trusted aides, began at least a year before the Rye House Conspiracy.s4 West's role was to coordinate the activities of those individuals responsible for the rising in London. Accordingly, the city had been divided into twenty districts on a map hung on the walls of West's chambers in the Middle Temple, where a number of meetings of the conspirators were held.55 West, Walcot, Rumbold, Ferguson, and others also met frequently at a tavern near a house used by the Council of Six for their meetings.56 It was West who, following Shaftesbury's death, had sent a message to Ferguson in Holland asking him to return to England to help carry out the planned revolution. Finally, it was West who played an active part in securing arms for the revolution.s7 Immediately following the government's discovery of the Rye House Conspiracy, there was a hastily called meeting of the radicals, including Rumsey, Rumbold, Wade, Ferguson, and West at Captain Walcot's house, at which time they all agreed to flee to Holland. A large number of those connected with the radical movement did manage to get out of the country, including Locke, but West and Rumsey were taken into custody. Both men confessed, and the evidence they supplied was used to convict other conspirators.58 How much of what they said was true and how much was self-serving or exaggerated must therefore be weighed carefully, but the extensiveness of West's involvement in the two conspiracies certainly made many people feel uneasy when they learned that he was in custody. Lord Howard, for example, one of the members of the Council of Six who did have some dealings with West, went into hiding. The King's guards sent to arrest him found him concealed in the chimney. In thisconnection, it should be noted that one of the government spies who had Locke under surveillance, reporting to the government on his activities and associations, wrote that, It seems he [Locke] transacted all affairs with West, and, therefore. as soon as he was secured, he thought it time to shift for himself for fear West should tell all he

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY / 461 knew. When West was f i s t taken he was very solicitous to know of us at the table who this West was, at which one made an unlucky reply, that it was the very same person whom he treated at his chambers and carressed at so great a rate when College was tried here at Oxford, which put the gentleman into a profound silence; and the next thing we heard of him was that he was fled for the same.59

The other lawyer, Nathaniel Wade, "had long resided at Bristol," and was "a vehement republican."" Wade was closely associated with West, Wildrnan, and Ferguson.61 He was part of the group around Monmouth, and he acted as a go-between for Monmouth and the Earl of Argyle in an effort to coordinate the revolutionary activities of the Scotch and the English radicals.62 Later, Wade played a leading role in Monmouth's Rebellion, displaying considerable courage under fire as the commander of some of Monmouth's troops. After the Duke's defeat, Wade was captured and he, too, confessed. Wade's confession is one of those-Lord Grey's is the other-which names Locke as one of the financial backers of Monmouth's Rebellion.63 This brings us to the central figure of our discussion, though by no means.of the radical movement. That Locke was an extremely secretive and cautious individual we know, though Cranston's quasigenetic explanation of this trait seems less than satisfactory. That some of Locke's letters and papers, as well as virtually all of the important Shaftesbury papers and correspondence, were burnt and destroyed is also true. It must be admitted, therefore, that there is a large, black hole in the center of the Locke-Shaftesbury relationship, which is there precisely because of their political relationship and because of the dangerous situation in which the two men found themselves in the 1680s. Obviously, this makes the task of reconstructing the exact dimensions of their activity and relationship extremely difficult for the historian. Still, biographers have not been especially careful in their interpretation of the material that is available, and none of them seem capable of even imagining what it is like to participate in a revolutionary movement. In addition, even Locke's stature as a great philosopher seems to have become a barrier to our understanding of his political activity. For, it is often assumed that Locke's intellectual abilities must have divorced him-presumably as a matter of social distance-from the "typen of political activities engaged in by the individuals mentioned above. Locke, that is, always seems to be pictured as associating with Newton or Boyle, never with the likes of Ferguson or Wildman, not to mention

462 / POLITICAL THEORY

NOVEMBER 1980

some "obscure" tradesmen or artisans. This, however, will not do as a representation of the historical Locke. One friend who knew him especially well made a particular point of emphasizing that Locke was not like most academic intellectuals-and since she was Ralph Cudworth's daughter, we may assume she had known a great many of them-nor did Locke feel himself aloof from individuals in the lower class. On the contrary, Lady Masham wrote that Locke

.

suited tus dixouse to the meanest capacities. . . He convened very freely and willingly with all sorts of persons. .. .For even tradesmen would ask his advice,and were frequently instructed by him. . . . [H]e was very far from despising any one, though their persons were ever so mean."6'

In fact, one of Locke's best friends was a tradesman, Robert Pawling, a sometime mayor of Oxford. Pawling was "a rank fanatic," always "talking against the King and government with the utmost malice."65 He was bitterly disliked by Bishop Fell, who regarded Pawling as an outright "incendiary," and who, more than once, conveyed his complaints in writing to Secretary of State Jenkins.bbYet, it was to Pawling's care and custody that Locke entrusted some of his papers and belongings when he went into exile. This fact, of course, did not go unnoticed by the government spies. Sejeant Hollowaywrote to Jenkins to report that, It is taken notice of in Oxford that from Mr. Locke's chamber in'christ Church, that was a great confident, if not secretary, to the late Earl of Shaftesbury, in a clandestine way several handbaskets of papers are carried to Mr. James Tyrell's house . . . or to Mr. Pawling's, the mercer's house in Oxford.

Since both men were known to be "disaffectedw from the government, Holloway felt sure it would "conduce to his Majesty's service" if both men's houses, as well as "Mr. Locke's chamber" were searched by the King's deputies.67Nor was Holloway by any means alone in holding this view. Both Wood and Prideaux reported that, after the Rye House Conspiracy was discovered, Locke had "conveyed away with him several letters and writings without being searched," which, if they had been confiscated, they argued, would have revealed his involvement in that conspiracy. Prideaux, for example, wrote that Whiggism goes down apace, and the punishments of sedition and treason fall very heavy upon those that have s o boldly beenguilty of it in the late licentious times.. . .

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY 1 463 Our friend John Locke is likewise become a brother sufferer with them. As soon as the plot was discovered. he cunningly stole away from us, and in half a years time no one knew where he was.*

As for Pawling, it appears that his house was searched by the King's deputies, and later, at the time of Monmouth's Rebellion, he was arrested and imprisoned.b9 After the Glorious Revolution, he and Locke were reunited-Pawling was Locke's landlord in London-and he received a mention a s a friend and a legacy in Locke's will. Another of Locke's close friends, Edward Clarke, was also one of Shaftesbury's strong s~pporters.~O When Locke left England, he also sent some of his papers and letters to Clarke, advising him, "You will know how far and what occasions they are to be made use of better than I. What you dislike you may burn."7' Obviously, Clarke was a person whose political judgment Locke trusted. Locke also devised a cypher which he left with Clarke so that the two could correspond safely, on the assumption, of course, that their letters were likely to be intercepted by the government. Nor was Locke mistaken in this view, for Clarke was later arrested and charged with having correspondence with traitors then in Holland.72 One of Clarke's lifelong friends-they had met as students at Oxford-was John Freke, who was also a good friend of Locke's. Freke was part of the radical movement, and had worked with Ferguson, West, and Wade in developing the plans for the insurrection.73 Later, he, too, was one of those who participated in organizing Monmouth's Rebellion. Like Clarke, Freke was arrested "for dangerous and seditious practices," though he was eventually released.74 When Locke did arrive in Holland, he lodged at the house of Thomas Dare. As Cranston remarks, "no 'disaffected person' in Amsterdam was more important politically or more notorious* than Dare. Dare's house was a frequent meeting place for the exiled radicals; it was, in fact, the headquarters of radicalism in Amsterdam.75 It was at a meeting at Dare's house, for example, that Ferguson drafted and read for discussion amongst the gathering of exiles present the Declaration of principles and grievances penned to support Monrnouth's Rebelli0n.~6 It was to Dare's house that Major wildman-sent his emissary from London to work out the plans for the invasion, and it was there that Monmouth and Argyle formulated these plans. Throughout this period, Locke was receiving his mail a t Dare's house and most of his finances were handled by Dare, who was also, coincidentally, the financial conduit for Monmouth's Rebelli~n."~'Again, the government knew

464 / POLITICAL T H E O R Y / N O V E M B E R 1980

where Locke was; its spies were keeping a watch on the movements of the radical exiles. In one of his dispatches, the English envoy at the Hague, Thomas Chudleigh, complained that Locke "retains at this time a faculty place in Christ Church College in Oxford which was never intended for the maintenace and support of such as seek to overthrow the government." Chudleigh did not see why Locke should be "indulged" in this privilege "whilst he lives amongst the worst of our traitors here.78 The King did not see any reason either, and ordered Locke removed from his studentship a t Oxford. It is not possible-not t o mention that it would be tedious-to list all of the friends and associates of Locke who were, with him, active in the revolutionary movement during 1680-1685. Suffice it to say that if Locke really wished t o convey t o the outside world that he was "politically innocentw--as some of his biographers assume-then, in selecting his numerous "disaffectedn friends, Locke appears to have had the poorest judgment of any man who ever lived. Clearly, Locke could have "retiredn t o Oxford t o live a quiet nonpolitical life at any time during the eight months after Shaftesbury fled t o Holland. He chose not to d o so; instead, he remained in London and assisted in the planning for the projected revolution. On September 15, 1682, Locke had accompanied Shaftesbury to the state of the Earl of Essex at Cassiobury, where they held a secret political meeting with a few other radical leaders a t the very time the Duke of Monmouth was making his "progress" through Cheshire, which was designed to enlist popular support-a trial balloon-for the planned rising later in the Fa11.79 Although this much is generally known, what puzzled Cranston and Laslett was the trip Locke chose to make to the Earl of Essex's estate in April, 1683, after Shaftesbury was dead.80 Why should Locke have gone there "on his own"? The answer is, Locke did not go there on his own. Essex was a member of the Council of Six, which was now in charge of the conspiracy. In his detailed account ofthe Rye House Conspiracy, Lord Grey writes that, about the end of April, 1683, "it was thought necessary there should be a speedy meeting of the cabal" (the Council), because the Scotch rebels were then in London and the plans for their joint insurrections had to be coordinated. Therefore, "my Lord of Essex (who was then in the country) was sent for to be there."81 In his diary, Locke records his trip from London to Essex's estate on April 24, returning to London the following day.82 In other words, Locke did not go there on his own, but as a representative from

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY / 465

the Council of Six to summon Essex back to London for an emergency meeting of the revolutionaries. Another item that has puzzled Locke scholars is the strange manuscript in his papers which deals with the murderlsuicide of the Earl of Essex in the Tower while he was awaiting trial for his part in the Rye House Conspiracy.83 In the context of the radical movement, there is nothing puzzling about the document. The radicals, to a man, always insisted that Essex had not committed suicide, but rather, had been murdered either by or with the connivance of the government. At least a dozen tracts were published asserting this point, of which the most notorious was the one by Ferguson, The Hue and Cry after the Earl of &sex, his Bl00d.84 Some people suspected, incorrectly, that Locke was the author of this pamphlet.85 They were not mistaken, however, in believing that he shared Ferguson's viewpoint, for Locke's unpublished manuscript makes the same argument as the Hue and Cry.86 This is an instance in which the reasoning behind the fact (i.e., the existence of the manuscript) is crucial, and it runs as follows: The radicals knew that the government had employed agent provocateurs, suborned witnesses, and forged documents to try to frame the political opposition; that it had rigged the Sheriffs elections in London to gain control of the city, and especially the juries; that it had refused to honor certain legal procedures in its trials of the dissidents. What the "murder* of Essex "proved" to them was that there were no limits to which the government would not go-including violence against those in its custody-in their opposition to the radicals. And this fact, in their minds, obviously legitimized the use of force against such a tyrannical regime. The "murder" of Essex, in other words, was for the radicals not merely a cause celebre; it also became part of their ideological creed. Accordingly, this charge against the government is repeated in every radical document and pamphlet written after 1683; it forms, in effect, part of the indictment against the government and is thereby incorporated into their justification for revolution. The charge appears, for example, in the Declaration of principles issued to support the Monmouth Rebellion.E7In this respect, Locke's manuscript is really quite revealing about his ideological beliefs in 1683, and it provides one more piece of evidence that he shared this perspective with other radicals. Finally, it is worth noting that as soon as the government discovered the Rye House Plot-even before West, Sidney, Russell, and others had actually been arrested-Locke hastily left London for James Tyrell's

466 1 POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1980

house in Oakley, where he began to make preparations to leave the country.88 Locke did not return to London until after the Glorious Revolution. As Laslett observes, Locke "went much further towards revolution and treason than his earlier biographers knew, anxious as they were to present him as a man of unspotted personal and political virtue."89 This is true. Yet, even the most recent biography by Cranston must be judged inadequate as a n effort to overcome this neglect by others of a very important part of Locke's life. In fact, four years after the publication of John Locke, Cranston himself admitted that "what has been obscured is Locke's connection with Shaftesbury's revolutionary activities." As to the traditional view that Locke had nothing t o d o with Shaftesbury's conspiracies, Cranston declares, "this story is not on the face of it easily credible.-In short, "the myth of Locke's political innocence" is just that, a myth. Locke's contemporaries did not believe it; the government which for two years, a t least, had Locke under surveillance, and which issued a warrant for his arrest, and attempted to get Locke and the other radicals in Holland extradited to England, did not believe it; and, as Cranston and Laslett maintain, the evidenceand there is more to come-simply will not support this view. Having argued for the acceptance of Locke as a bona fide member of the strata of radical intellectuals in the revolutionary movement, I want, finally, to turn to the creation of the special political language by these radicals and consider the uses to which that language was put.

Aside from "plotting," the one thing that intellectuals are expected to be able to d o better than anyone else is to write. In this case, the radical intellectuals were expected to provide some appropriate document which would justify the objectives of the planned revolution. In the event, this turned out t o be a more difficult undertaking than it might a t first appear, largely because there were some differences in viewpoints amongst the radicals themselves. Nevertheless, it was neither for lack of interest amongst the participants in the movement in having such a document, nor for want of effort on the part ofthose attempting to meet this demand, that no such manifesto-save, perhaps, one-appeared in print prior to the Two Treatises of Government.'

Ashcraft / L O C K E A N P O L I T I C A L THEORY

467

During 1681-1683 when Shaftesbury, Grey, Russel, and Monmouth discussed proposals for a rebellion, the group also considered the question of what kind of statement of their ideas would enlist the support of others to their revolution. Lord Russel appears to have been especially insistent o n this point, arguing that before they took up arms, "they should issue a Declaration making plain what they stood for."* Indeed, in his history of this period, Lord Grey recalls that the group had "many meetings" a n d listened t o "tedious discourses, innumerable proposals."3 Anyone who has experienced similar meetings and discussions must feel some sympathy for Grey's attitude. Still, hedoesseem t o have exhibited a n inordinately low threshold of tolerance for ideological discussion. "There was a t one of o u r meetings," he wrote, "a paper read which Mr. Ferguson brought, it was designed for a Declaration." Grey is a bit fuzzy about the details of this paper, but he did "remember it began with some account of the ends of government in general," before going on to discuss the specific grievances against the existing government.4 Ferguson's declaration was aimed a t "inciting men's minds to the intended insurrection."$ Later, at another meeting, Grey recalled, Sidney presented a discourse "with a long prologue of the necessity we were reduced to, of taking up of arms, and the lawfulness of it; and from thence descended to a particular account of their several proceedings and resolutions."6 Not everyone was satisfied with Sidney's discourse; some members offered suggestions, and Sidney agreed to draw up a "Declaration" and to present it at a later meeting.' I will take up the question of what these various Declarations said in a moment. The point I a m making here is that there was a n understood responsibility on the part of the radical theorists to develop some declaration of principles for the revolutionary movement and a demand on the part of the participants in that movement t o have them d o so. Major Wildman "was commissioned to draw up a new English Constitution," the draft of which, unfortunately, has not survived.8This may be the same document to which Ferguson refers, though he describes Wildman's paper more as a n expression and justification of the views of those who "were for vindicating the laws and liberties of the people, by a formed and joint rising in the two nations." In any case, heand Wildman worked together on this p r ~ j e c t At . ~ the same time, both Robert West and Nathaniel Wade were asked to draft similar justificatory declarations, "a scheme of fundamentals to be presented to the council of six for their approbation," is the way West put it.10 Ferguson took this

468 1 POLITICAL T H E O R Y ,' N O V E M B E R 1980

"project of government" drawn up by Wade and West to compare it with one that Sidney had composed, promising to "reduce them into a n entire one."Il By now, the reader will have determined that I intend to argue that Locke's Second Treatise represents an outgrowth of this "tedious" process to draft a political declaration for the revolutionary movement. From some of the conspirators we learn that "my Lord Shaftesbury was preparing a Declaration to be published" in conjunction with their revolution, and West was asked to submit a proposal. "For, says he, I would have several people draw it, to pick one good one out of all. And he told me he had made some collections toward it, and showed me a papern which described the various "attempts to introduce arbitrary government and popery" under the present government. The paper, according to West, then went o n to maintain "that the government was dissolved, and they were free t o settle another government. These, I perceived, were the topics my Lord Shaftesbury laid weight upon."l2 Since all of the radical intellectuals were busily engaged in drafting papers, discourses, proposals, and declarations on behalf of the radical movement, 1 find it difficult to imagine that Locke was the only unemployed intellectual in the group, when he, after all, was the chief adviser to the leader of the movement who was actively commissioning such draft proposals from others. In my view, Locke's Second Treatise, like Ferguson's Declaration, Sidney's Discourses, and the proposals by West and Wade, were all formulated in the context of the revolutionary conspiracy begun by Shaftesbury and carried on by the Council of Six. Now, it is quite true that disagreements arose within the radical movement, chiefly between those who favored a Commonwealth, and those who did not. T h e latter group supported the planned revolution; they simply wanted to stop ; t the point of forcing the King to agree to their demands, the satisfaction of which, in their view, did not require the establishment of a commonwealth, although that solution would also, as a matter of course, resolve the specific grievances as well. In other words, some people thought a commonwealth was a necessary outcome of their political struggle, while others did not accept its necessity. Both factions, however, were prepared to march together a very long way down the road-certainly past the point of taking up arms against the government-before their pathways diverged.1 In this respect, there is something very unhistorical and abstract on the part of some scholars who use labels such as "Republican" and "Whig" to

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY 1 469

separate into rigidly defined categories the political ideas of men like Wildman and Ferguson, who, despite these labels-Ferguson was not a Republican-could nevertheless work together closely as friends drafting a radical political declaration. The same might besaid for Locke and Sidney, though they apparently worked "together* at some greater distance.14 As one anonymous spy reported to the government, "the factious . . . though they hate one another, they combine against the government"" But how did they manage to "combine" together against the government, always a risky undertaking at best? Soliciting participants for a projected revolution cannot be done with the openness of a charitable fund drive; as soon as one reveals the plan to someone, everyone involved in it becomes vulnerable to betrayal and prosecution. To deal with this problem, the radicals invented a code language. Certain key words and phrases were used by them, and only by them, since the use of these words revealed very clearly the ideological commitment of radicalism. This terminology spoke of "invasion of rights," "usurpation," "tyranny," the King's "betrayal of his trust," his use of "violence and force against us," the fact that he had "degenerated into a beast," and so forth. It is, and it was meant to be, a violent language. It was intended to convey the fact to others that a state of war had already begun, launched by the King, who was the true "rebel," 'thief," or "traitor." Of course, since this language is in itself quite revealing, there had to be some means by which one could be led into it gradually so that the conspiracy could be revealed piecemeal according to the willingness of the listener to demonstrate his own ideological commitment. 'First their inclinations were to bc tried by gradual insinuations, and plausible discourses at a distance, till they had gained a full assurance of their fidelity." The means by which this was accomplished was through focusing upon the key word "invasion." "They were to be asked, what they would or could do in case of foreign invasion?" There are several accounts of tavern or coffee house conversations along the following lines: Goodenough asked Hone, a joiner, "if in case of invasion I would not be ready to stand up for the liberties (of the people) and the King," and when Hone replied that he would be willing to d o so, Goodenough "afterwards told me that the invasion was already" in progress because the people's liberties had been takenfrom them by the government, "and therefore it was lawful to rise." This perception that Charles 11's "op-

470 / POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1980

pressive" actions constituted "an actual invasion on the English liberties, properties, and consciences" was placed in the larger context of a political theory asserting "that the only obligation the subject has to the king is a mutual covenant; that this covenant was manifestly broken on the King's part; that therefore the people were free from all oaths . . . and had the natural liberty restored to them of asserting their own rights."'6 There is a somewhat more comical version of this conversation between Thomas Leigh and John Rouse. Leigh asked Rouse if he would be prepared to oppose any invasion of his liberties, but Rouse demanded to know what he mean by an invasion, "for 1 knew of none." Do you know what I mean? asked Leigh. "Is there not an invasion on all we have? . . . You see how we are every day invaded against our rights." To all this, Rouse says, "I was not a little startled and desired him to explain for, when I expressed my readiness to serve, I intended against a foreign invasion."" That was the point, of course. The term "invasion of rights and libertiesn was, in the words of one conspirator, "the way to hook in persons" who might be sympathetic to joining the revolution. If they proved otherwise, it could be claimed that a French "invasion" for the popish interest was being talked about, and the conversation could be reported to the government only at the risk of impugning the informer's loyalty to Enland.18 Nor should it be thought that this language was confined to the lower classes. Captain Walcot, who attended several meetings of the middle level people (Ferguson, Sir Thomas Armstrong, Colonel Rumsey, West) indicated in a speech at his execution that he had been present "where some things were discoursed of, in order to the asserting our liberties and properties, which we looked upon to be violated and invaded."'9 In fact, the terminology seems just as plausibly to havecome from the upper as well from 'he lower classes of the radical movement. In his account of his conversation with Lord Russell while the latter was awaiting his execution, Archbishop Tillotson paraphrased Russell's position as "if our religion and rights should be invaded, as your Lordship puts the case." Even so, Tillotson maintained, it is not lawful, "upon any pretence whatsoever to take up arms" against the King, a point which, much to their dismay, neither he nor Bishop Burnet could convince Russell to accept.20 Lord Howard testified at Sidney's trial that, in defense of its revolution, the Council of Six had resolved "ourselves into such principles, as should put the properties and liberties of the

Ashcraft / L O C K E A N P O L I T I C A L T H E O R Y 1 471

people into such hands, as it should not be easily invaded by any that were trusted with the supreme authority of the land."2' And, according to Lord Grey, Shaftesbury had already adopted the language of invasion in 1681.22 In any event, the point is that the organizational unity of the radical movement was expressed through its use of a political language, and this unity, in turn, found its expression in the papers, proposals, declarations, and pamphlets written by the radical theorists of the government. Actually, several "linguistic codesn were created. The number of radicals was sufficiently large that they frequently discussed their plans at semipublic meetings in coffee houses. When they did so, as several of them later testified, they used "a canting language" employing legal terminology, medical or commercial terms, even that of a football match. They spoke of "executing a bargain and a sale," "closing a contract," and so forth.23 The most frequently used reference to the planned revolution, however, was that of "executing a lease and release."24 In late February, 1683, after Ferguson had returned to England and the meetings of the Council of Six, as well as those in West's chambers, were working concertedly to implement Shaftesbury's plans for a n insurrection, Locke wrote several letters in a "canting language" to Edward Clarke. In them he refers mysteriously to something being "put into her hands so that all that business will be as well as is possible, and I hope the event will be as successful as the beginning has been in all the parts lucky." In these letters, Lockerefers to "Tregnonil's lease and release.'qS Later letters to Clarke refer to two pseudonymous individuals, "Roberts and Sheldate" and the "business" that Locke is ready to carry out in conjunction with Roberts.26 From the depositions taken from several of the Rye House conspirators we learn that Ferguson at this time "went by the name of Roberts."27 Although it is difficult to determine at this point the specific nature of the roles to be played by various individuals, especially those who were never caught or discovered, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Locke was an active participant in the Rye House Conspiracy. The conspirators also invented a more colorful language about killing "wolves or tigers" which Locke empl0yed.~8Several times in the Second Treatise, Locke refers to "dangerous" and "noxious" beasts, such as "wolves," "tigers," or "lions," and to the fact that individuals who "degenerate" to the level of these "noxious beasts" may be

472 1 POLlTlCAL T H E O R Y / N O V E M B E R 1980

"destroyed."*Y In using this language, it was clear to the participants in the revolutionary movement that they were speaking of the King or the Duke of York. Finally, the radicals also used a "philosophical" language as a linguistic code in their writings. Everything they wrote, no matter how specific or how many the grievances to be considered later, had to begin with "the original of government," the "fundamentals of the Constitution," or "some account of the ends of government in general." This language is not, in itself, sufficient to distinguish the radicals as a group since, as I have already indicated, it was in wide currency amongst the Whigs a s a much large political party. Rather, the difference seems to lie in the fact that Whigs could choose to use this language or not, whereas the radicals were so committed t o it that they virtually couldnot express their political purposes without using it. I want to conclude this essay, therefore, with a few brief references to the use of both the specific (invasion) and the general political language of radicalism in the various theoretical documents produced by that movement. In his explanatory account of the radicals' purposes, Ferguson wrote that rather than be "tyrannized over in their consciences, persons, and estates, and to see slavery entailed upon their posterity," they undertook to "retrieve the liberties of which they had been robbed." Since the King had resorted to "violence as well as fraud" against the liberties of the people, his actions had to be met with resistance.30 Ferguson also recalled his discussions with Major Wildman about these matters. The latter agreed with him that something had to be done "to assert the liberties of the people" before they were "arbitrarily destroyed." Wildman then drew up a proposal showing "how far the King had invaded and subverted the laws, even to the changing of the Constitution."3' Later, at the time of Monmouth's Rebellion, the radicals claimed "our religion, liberty and lives are visibly and undeniably attacked and invaded." Hence, "the Fundamental Contract" had been "violated" by James 11, who "was actually a traitor."The Declaration which Ferguson drafted for that rebellion begins with a statement that "government was originally instituted by God, and this or that form of it chosen and submitted t o by men for the peace, happiness, and security of the government." It argues that magistrates are obliged "by the Fundamental Terms of the Constitution" not only "to preserve the people

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLlTlCAL THEORY 1 473

from violence and oppression, but to promote their prosperity," and that this power is "entrusted" to the prince by the people "for the advancing the welfare of the people." Yet, the English government has undergone a "perversion" and "decay" from "the primitive frame of the government"; its "boundaries" have been broken, leaving us in astate of "absolute tyranny . . . and o u r privileges ravished from us by fraud and violence." There is more language of this sort about the King's "execution of laws without the consent of Parliament," his "having invaded the Throne, a n d usurped the title of a K i n g . . . broken in upon our estates," the "greatness and extent of the conspiracy against our rights," leaving no means of reliefexcept to resort to arms, since, by "the Laws of Nature" it is obvious that James is a n enemy t o mankind and may be dealt with accordingly.32 Still later, in another pamphlet, Ferguson maintained that not only is government, "founded on compact and agreement," but also that the articles of the Social Contract form part of the fundamental laws of nature. Therefore, any ruler who "does invade and subvert the Fundamental laws of the society does therefore ipso facto annul all the legal right he had to govern."33 In a remarkable pamphlet written by one of the radicals involved in the Rye House Conspiracy to justify their undertaking, the author expressed the entire range of the radical argument. Although the pamphlet's purpose is "to unfold and declare the nature and quality of the government of England," and its "invasion" of the rights. and liberties of the people, yet, the author writes, "it will not be amiss before we enter upon that province, to inquire briefly into the nature of government in general, and the ends for which it was originally instituted." He then declares that since the King has subverted and violated these ends, which are derived from the laws of nature, "he doth @so facto depose himself, and instead of being owned any longer for a King, ought t o be treated as a rpbel and traitor." He defends the social contract, and "the fundamental Laws of Nature," both of which decree that "all magistracy is appointed for the benefit of mankind and the common good." Rulers who violate this principle "degrade" themselves and "become injurious t o the community," placing its members "in a worse condition" than they were in before government was instituted. These rulers are plainly "enemies" to mankind "and may be dealt with after the manner" of any one or any thing which threatens the people's safety.34This argument and language continues for another sixty pages, and many of its statements could be laid side by side with thosefound in

474 1 POLITICAL THEORY 1 NOVEMBER 1980

the writings of Ferguson, in Sidney's Discourses, or in Locke's Second Treatise. Locke's position is that it is the possibility of "the invasion of others" which makes the individual's enjoyment of life, liberty, or property "very uncertain" in a state of nature.33 Therefore, anyone who 'unjustly invades another man's right" becomes a n aggressor, robber, or thief who may be resisted o r killed. Moreover, "the injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the wearer of a crown, or some petty villain."36 Thus, whenever magistrates "invade" the liberties and properties of the people "contrary to the trust put in them," the peopleb'are absolved from obedience" and may resist.3' This 1 am sure, whoever. . . by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the Constitution and frame of any just government is guilty of the greatest crime, 1 think, a man is capable of.. . . And he who does it, is justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind."'8

These "pests," noxious creatures," o r "beasts of prey" may bedestroyed o r killed. Locke argues that with respect to foreign "invasions" the legitimacy of this remedy "is agreed on all hands. But that magistrates doing the same thing may be resisted hath of late been denied."I9 It is just this distinction Locke attempts to undermine, and, in the course of doing so, he advances the argument that there is no essential difference between a foreign o r a domestic invasion of the people's rights and liberties40 In short, the Second Treatise defends revolutionary action, employing the language of invasion in precisely the same manner that the revolutionary movement sought to build its organizational structure. This point reminds us that this language was a language of political action, and that it was intended t o arouse the political consciousness of people. Naturally, this was a double-edged sword, since it could also force one's opponents into taking extreme action, as some of the Rye House trials demonstrate. At Sidney's trial, the prosecutor insisted on using this language-with questionable legal propriety in view of the treason statute-as a "witness" against Sidney. The Discourses, he declared, was "a most seditious and traitorous libel," whose arguments were drawn from those of "the late rebellion," viz., that political power "is originally in the people," that the King's power is "derived from the people upon trust, and t h a t . . . the King had invaded their rights; and therefore.. .

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY / 475

they might resume that original power they had conferred. . ..The whole book," he concluded, "is an argument for the people to rise in arms and vindicate their wrongs."41 S o it was, and so much could be-and would have been-said for the Second Treatise as well. Prior to Sidney's trial, the Privy Council minutes show that the Council adopted a resolution that the paper of Association found with Shaftesbury's papers ought to be compared with "Algernon Sidney's book."42 And, in his address to the jury at the trial, Chief Justice Jeffreys referred to the "meetings and debates" of the Rye House Conspirators, insisting that Sidney's manuscript expressed "the general design of the rebellion they planned," for, "their debates at their meetings were to that purpose. And such doctrines as these suit with their debates.-43 Unquestionably, the echo from that courtroom must have had a special resonance for the exiled author of the then unpublished Two Treatises of Government.

NOTES 1. Locke as ?he theorist of the Revolution (1689) . . . had the common sense of the generation on his side" (Harold Laski, Political nought in Enghnd From Locke to Bentham [New York, 19201. p. 29). This is a dominant theme of George Sabine's chapter on Locke in his A History of Polirical Theory, 3rd. ed. (New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston, 1961), P. 518 ff. For Maurice Cranston. Locke's thought reflects'an inspired ordinariness," a "prophetic common sense" ('John Locke and Government by Consent," in David Thomson (ed.) Political Ideas [New York: Penguin, 19661, pp. 64-78). Also, see John Plamentaz, Man and Society, 2 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963). 1: 212 ff. 'Locke merely poured into a philosophical mold ideas . . . which were already the commonplace" ideas of the Whigs (R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism p e w York: Mentor. 19541, p. 214). On Locke's ideas as having 'defined the essential outlines of liberal doctrine for nearly two centuries," see Harold Laski. The Rise of European Liberalism: An &say in Interpretation (New York: Humanities, 1962), p. 70. Locke's political theory was "the formal apology of Whiggism" (Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols. [London, 19021, 2: 135; Sterling Lamprecht, The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Locke [New York, 19183, pp. 141-143). 2. Peter Laslett. 'The English Revolution and John Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge Historical Journal ( 1956): 40-55. 3. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 2nd. ed., ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967). Foreword. It should be noted, however, that recent historical research stressing the essentially conservative nature of the Glorious Revolution has increasingly tended to divorce the Two Treatisesfromthat event because of the radical "

476 1 POLlTlCAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1980 character of Locke's arguments (Martyn P. Thompson, "The Reception of Locke's Two Treatises of Government, 1 6 W 1705," Political Studies. [June 19761: 184- 19 1; J. P. Kenyon, Revolution Principles: h e Politics of Party. 1689-1720. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977D. 4. A notable exception is Julian H. Franklin, John Locke and the Theory of Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1978). pp. 102-1 19. 5. The three "dogmas," as Laslett calls them, were: (I) that Locke wrote tojustify the Glorious Revolution; (2) that he was answering Hobbes; and (3) that he wrote as a "philosopher" about politics (Laslett, Two Treatises. Foreword t o 1960 edition). 6. Caroline Robbins, h e Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman (New York: Atheneum, 1960); Zera S. Fink, h e Classical Republicans (Evanston, 1L: Northwestern University Press, 1945). 7. Locke wrote the Two Treatises 'Yor Shaftesbury's purposes" (Locke, Two Trearises, p. 27). 8. J. R. Jones. The First Whigs: h e Politics of the Exclusion Crisis, 1678-1683 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961); 0. W. Furley, "The Whig Exclusionists: Pamphlet Literature in the Exclusion Campaign, 1679-81," Cambridge HistorialJournal(1957): 1936; Betty Behrens, "The Whig Theory of the Constitution in the Reign of Charles 11," ambridge Historical Journal (1941): 42-71; Carolyn Edie, "Succession and Monarchy: The Controversy of 1679-8 1 ," American Historial Review (1964- 1965): 35CL370. 9. The Glorious Revolution was made >cry largely by men at the top of theexisting social and political structure, who naturally wished to avoid radical change"(J. R. Western, Monarchy and Revolution: The English State in the 1680's. [London: Blandford, 19721, p. I; cf. J. P. Kenyon, 7he Nobility in the Revolution of 1688 (Hull: 1963); J . H. Plumb, h e Originr of Political Stability: England, 1675-1725 [Boston: Houghton Mifflin, University of Hull Publications, 19671). As a political party, the Whigs were faced with the problem of defeating the political theory of Toryism while, at the same time, divorcing themselves from l h e i r damaging association with political radicalism under Charles 11" (Kenyon, Revolution Principles, p. 2). 10. The combination of conservative and radical elements in the Two Treatises is a matter of great historical-theoretical importance, but one which I cannot take up here. Therefore, I wish to stress the point that the object of this essay is to emphasize the radical dimensions not to deny the conservative features of that work.

I. Bishop John Fell to the Earl of Sunderland, November 8,1684, cited in H. R. FoxBourne, The Lije of John Locke, 2 vols., (London. 1876). 1: 483-484. 2 K.H.D. Haley, 77ie First Earl of Shaftesbury (New York: Oxford University Press, (1968). p. 739. 3. Ibid, p. 670. 4. Jean LeClerc, An Account of the Lije and Writings of John Locke, 3rd. ed., (London, 1714). p. 8; Pierre Coste, "The Character of Mr. Locke," in John Locke, Works. 9 vols., 12th ed. (London, 1824). 9:161-174. 'With the exception of Locke." Shaftesbury "had no intimate friends" (Dictionary of National Biography [DNB], S.V. "Cooper, Anthony Ashley [Shaftesburyp').

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLlTlCAL THEORY

477

5. Leopold von Ranke, 73e History of England. 6 vols. (Oxford, 1875). 4: 166. 6. LeClerc, An Account, p. 8; Locke, Two Treatises, p. 26. 7. Maurice Cranston, "The Politics of John Locke," Hislory Today (September 1952): 620. 8. Locke, Two Treatises, p. 27. 9. Maurice Cranston, John Locke. A Biography (London: Longmans, 1957). p. l l l112 10. Locke, Two Treatises. p. 29; Haley, Shaffesbury, p. 257. I I. Locke, Two Treatises, pp. 29-30. 12. Haley, Shaftesbury, p. 308. 13. Ibid, p. 28. 14. LeClerc, An Account. p. 10. 15. Haley, Shaflesbury, p. 502. 16. The essential argument of the Letter is that there is 'a distinct party.. . of the high episcopal men and the old cavaliers" who"declare the government absolute and arbitrary, and allow monarchy . .. to be jure divino" to diminish the power of Parliament. The ultimate consequence of this policy is the "overthrow [ofj the government" of England and its replacement by a French-style absolute monarchy supported by popery (Locke, Works. 9:299-222). 17. The Letter is included in the first authoritative collection of Locke's works, edited by his close friends and followers, Desmaizeaux and Collins, who 'were well placed to know what Locke had a hand in" (Locke, Two Treatises, p. 29n). Desmaizeaux wrote that Shaftesbury "not having time to exercise himself in the art of writing, he desired Mr. Locke to draw up this relation; which he did under his lordship's inspection, and only committed to writing what my Lord Shaftesbury did in a manner dictate to him." The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, who also believed Locke was responsible for the Letter. emphasized the dangers to his person as a result of that authorship as the primary reason for Locke's sudden departure for France (Haley, Shaftesbury p. 392). 18. Cranston. Locke, p. 202, Humphrey Prideaux, a graduate of Christ Church who knew Locke, was one of those who suspected Locke's authorship of this pamphlet (Edward M . Thomson [ed.], Letters of Humphrey frideauxto John Ellis[London, 18751. p. 115). 19. Laslett, Two Trealises, p. 27. 20. Cranston, "Politics of Locke," p. 622. 21. Haley, Shafresbur,~.p. 738. 22. According t o Robert Ferguson, "there was not the least conspiracy set on foot against the King's person nor the government" prior to the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament at the end of March, 1681 (James Ferguson, Robert Ferguson the Plotter [Edinburgh, 18871. p. 412). Lord Grey is less precise in his dating, but places the first consideration by Shaftesbury of 'the taking up of arms" around the time of the Oxford Parliament, though he adds that no plans were actually formulated until much later, in 1682 (Ford Lord Grey, The Secret History of the Rye House Plot, 2nd ed. [London, 17541, pp. 11-23. 23. Laslett, Tu.0 Treatises, p. 58. 24. Haley. Shafteshury, p. 559ff. 25. Jones. Firsr Whigs, p. l15ff.

478 / POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1980 26. von Ranke, History, 4:95; Roger North, Examen (London, 1740). p. 541. 27. Narcissus Luttrell, A B k f Relation of Sfare Affairs. 6 vols. (Oxford, 1857). 1:2728; Earl of Ailesbury, Memoirs, 2 vols. (London, 1890). 1:45 Gilbert Burnet, History of My Own Tim, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1900). 2:248. 28. von Ranke. Hisrory. 497; North, Eromen, p. 542; David Hume. History of figland. 6 vols. (Philadelphia, 1796), 6: 139, Reverend J. S. Clarke, The Lifeof James 11. 2 vols. (London, 1816). 1581. 29. Thomas Dare had made this point in a famous face-tc-faceconfrontation with the King (Bryan Little, The Monmouth Episode [London: Werner Laurie. 1956J p. 74; Hume. History. 6: 143; Great Britain, Calendar of Stole Papers Domestic (CSPD). vol. 28, p. 478; North. Eromen, p. 543). Roger North was a rabid Tory with an implacable hatred for Shaftesbury who would not have failed to accuse the latter of plotting revolution in 1679.1680 if there were the slightest shred of evidence to support the charge. The best he can do is to complain that the Whigs forged some names on these petitions. 30. Joncs,.Fimt Whigs. pp. 118-119. 3 1. John Lockc. Correspondence. 8 vols., cd. E S. D e k r (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976). 2226227. 3 2 Laslett, 'lko Treatises, p. 61. 33. Ibid, p. 56. 34. Ibid, p. 5 2 35. Ibid, p. 35. 36. John Harrison and Peter Laslett, eds., The Librory of John Locke (New York: Oxford University Press, 19651. The numben listcd.!xlow refer to titles in this catalogue:

37. Oxford, England. Oxford University, Bodleian Library, Locke MS. c 1. f. 135. 38. Laslett, Two Trearises, p. 133. 39. Locke "receivedw his Garcilasso de la Vega. and other travel books, on August 27, 1682 (Bodleian. Lockc MS., f. 6).

Ashcraft / LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY / 479 40. Bodleian, Locke MS., c. I., f. 135, 102. 41. Laslett, TWOTrearises. p. 65. 4 2 Bodleian, Locke MS., b.2. f. 35. 43. Ibid.,c.I., f. 124. 44. Ibid, f. 124; c. 25, f. 30. 45. Ibid, c.1, f. 124. 46. Ibid, f. 6. 47. Laslett, TH'O Trearises. p. 59. 48. Burnet, Hisrory. 2: 2 16. 49. Anchitell Grey, Debates of the House of Commons. 1667-1694, IOvols. (London, 1763) 7: 418-420.447. William Wynne, The Liye of Sir Leoline Jenkins. 2 vols. (London, 1724). 1:xlviii. ci-ciii. Moreover, it was after the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament that "the clergy struck up to a higher note, with such zeal for the duke's succession, as if a popish king had been a special blessing of heaven" (Burnet, Hisrory, 2: 290). 50. Jones, Firsr Whigs, p. 67. 51. J.G.A. Pocock, The Ancient Consritution and the Feudal Low (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957). ch. 8, 9. Regrettably, this proposition has become a shibboleth in the interpretive literature. 52. For examples of this approach, see the works cited in n. 8. 53. Three Great Quesrions Concerning the Succession and Dangers of Popery . . . (London, 1680). p. 3-4. 54. Ibid, pp. 5-1 1. 55. (White Kennett) A Dialogue at Oxford Berween a Turor and a Genrleman. Formerly his Pupil. Concerning Government (London. 1681). p. 5. 56. Ibid, pp. 6 1 0 . 57. Vox Populi: Or rhe PeopleS Claim ro 7heir Parliamenr's Sitring . . . (London, 1681). p. 5. 58. Robert Ferguson, A Jusr and Modest Vindication of rhe hoceedings of [hi. Two Losr Parliomenu (London, 168 1). pp. 3 1.43-44.48. For a discussion of my attribution of this pamphlet to Ferguson, see 11, n. 13 below. 59. 1 have discussed at greater length elsewhere these parallels of Tyrell's argument and that of others with the Second Treatise. See my The Two Trearises and the Exclusion Crisis: The Problem of Lockean Political Theory as Bourgeois Ideology (Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Library, 1980). Also, see John W. Gough, 'James Tyrell, Whig Historian and Friend of John Locke," Hisrorical Journal. (1976): 581-610. 60. Tn'o Grear Questions Derer~ninedby rhe Principles of Reason and Divinity (London, 1681). p. 2. 61. Ibid. pp. 10-12. 62. Thomas Hunt, The Grear and Weighty Considerarions Relaring ro the Duke of York . . . (London, 1680). pp. . . 7-16. 63. Robert Brady, The Grear Poinr of Succession Discussed (London, 1681). pp. 25-26. 64. Ibid, pp. 1, 25. 65. Josias Pleydell, Lqvalry and Conformiry Asserted in Two Sermons (London, 1682). pp. 6 8 .

480 1 POLITICAL THEORY 1 NOVEMBER 1980 66. For a more comprehensive discuss~onof the various themes of theexclusion crisis debate, see the work cited in n. 59 above. 67. Locke's location and travel for 1680 is recorded in Bodleian, Locke MS., f. 4.

I. Locke, First Treatise, par. 148. 2 For a fuller discussion of this point, see Ashcraft. TWOTrearisesand the Exclusion Crisis. p. 70 ff. 3. Locke, Firsr Treatise, pars. 6, 106. 4. Grey, Debares, 7: 245. 406, 413. 5. Grey, Secret History, p. 9-10. 6. The Complere Sratesman, Demonsrrated in he Lye, Actions, and Polirics of that Great Minister of Srare, Anthony, Earl of Shafiesbury, (London, 1683), pp. 144-145. 7. Locke, Second Treatise. par. 155. 8. Grey, Secret Hisrory. p. 15. Charles 11 had told Ailesbury that "1 will have no more parliaments," and this decision was very widely suspected (Ailesbury, Memoirs. 2: 21). " ( I h e general belief that he was never to summon another" parliament (John Dalrymple, Memoirs of Great Brirain and Ireland. 3 vols. [London, 17901 I: 3; cf. 1:285,37 1. 9. Locke, Second Treatise, par. 168. Lord Delamere, one of those involved in the planning of the Revolution, and later, of Monmouth's Rebellion, also argued in his An Ersay upon Gokrernmenr that "when parliaments are not suffered to meet and sit according to the usual times that the law or necessity of affairs d o require," the government will almost certainly 'become entirely despotic." (Henry Booth [Lord Delamere], Works [London, 16941, pp. 38-39). 10. Locke, Second Treatise, par. 212; The Presentment and Humble Petirion of [he Grand Jury for the Counry of Middlesex. May 18. 168 1. p. 2. I I. Ferguson, Ferguson [he Plorter, p. 67. It was also the view of another radical, Robert West, that there was "a dissolution of the government" (North, Examen, p. 390) For Lord Essex's similar statement, see Burnet, Hisrory, 2:356. 12. Ferguson. Ferguson the Plotter, appendix I. This is Robert Ferguson's manuscript account of the revolutionary movement (p. 414). 13. Ferguson, A Just and Modest Vindication. pp. 44.48. Authorship of this tract is a matter of some dispute. It is often said to be thejoint work of Algernon Sidney. William Jones. and John Somers. This attribution comes from Bishop Burnet. Aside from the implausibility of these three cooperating in a joint writing venture, Burnet was never close to Sidney, whom he disliked, nor was he close to Shaftesbury's group (Burnet. his tor.^. 2:278, 352-353). Burnet also disliked Ferguson and would not be well-placed to know whether the latter was the author (Ibid, p. 358). On theother hand,attribution ofthework to Ferguson comes to us from Ferguson who identified himself as the author to Zachary Bourne. Bourne was a friend of Ferguson'sand a Rye House conspirator,and I accept him as a relatively more trustworthy source in this matter than Burnet (Ferguson, Ferguton the Plotter. p. 1 17).

Ashcraft

I LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY 1 481

14. 7he Magistracy and Government of England Vindicated (London, 1683?). T h ~ s pamphlet is reprinted in Thomas Salmon, ed. A Complete Collection of Stare Trialsand Proceedings Upon High Treason. 4 vols., 2nd ed. (London, 1730. 3:681-699) following Lord Russell's trial (State Trials). 15. J o n a , first Whigs. pp. 208-209; Haley, Shajiesbur): pp. 722-723. 16. Jones, First Whigs. p. 209; B. S. Capp, 7he F#h- Monarchy Men (London. 1972). p. 219 ff. 17. The 'monstrous conspiracies . . . against our liberties, and t o change the government both of church and state" (Grey, Debates, 3:214; cf., p. 196). 18. An Impartial Enquiry into the Administration of Affairs in England (no place of publication given, but it was probably printed in Holland, 1683). p. 23. 19. Ibid, p. 79. 20. At a meeting of thecommittee o n foreign affairs, June21.1681, Lords Halifaxand Clarendon had urged Charles 11 t o arrest Shaftesbury. DNB, "Shaftesbury." 21. Stare Trials. 3:436-437. 22. Grey, &bates; 8:162-167, 273; Laurence Echerd, 7he History of England. (London, 1720). pp. 998-999: Burnet, History. 2:256-266. 23. Echerd. History, p. 1018; John Rercsby, Memoirs, (London, 1734). p. 127. 24. Keith Feiling and F.R.D. Needham, eds.. "The Journals of Edmund Warcup, 1676-84." English Historical Review. (April 1925): 258. 25. John Lauder. Historical Observes of Memorable Occurrents in Church and Stare (Edinburgh. 1840). p. 97. 26. Roger L'Estrange, A Brief Histor.v of the 'Times (London. 1687). p. 27. 27. Echerd, History. p. 1015. Most of the text of this document is printed in Benjamin Martyn and Dr. Kippis, 7he Life of the First Earlof Shaftesbury. 2vols. (London, 1836). 2:309-3 10. 28. Grey, Secret Histor): p. 50 ff. Lord Howard also makes this point (Stau Trials. 3:716-717). 29. Dalrymple. Memoirs, I :44 (italics given); Lord John Russell, 7he Li/e of William Lord Russel/. 2nd ed.. 2 vols. (London, 1820). 2:60; State Triab. 3:649. 30. CSPD, vol. 24. p. 336. 31. On the social composition of the radical movement, see Peter Earle, Monmouthi Rrhrls (London. 1977) and Iris Morley, A Thousund Livrs: An A(,c,ountof the English Revolutionar.~Morrmenr. 1660-1685 (London. 1954). 32. Ferguson was I h e heart and soul of the conspiracy" (George Kitchin, Sir Roger L'Ertrange. [London, 19131. p. 308; Thomas Sprat, A True Account and Declaration of the Horrid Conspirac:,. Against the tote King [London, 16851. p. 28). 33. Ferguson, Ferguson the Plotter, p. 420. 34. CSPD. vol. 24, p. 23. 35. Ferguson is preaching and assisting Owen in his church in 1674(CSPD, vol. 28, p. 443). 36. As one illustration of this point: At the end of October, 1682, Locke was summoned to London by "your friends in the city.. .because I have reason to believerhat all circumstances considered, they have as much need as ever of the best advice and assistance" Locke could provide (Clark to Locke, Correspondence. 2:556). On December

482 I POLITICAL THEORY 1 NOVEMBER 1980 6, 1682. Thomas Stringer, one of Shaftesbury's Yamily" and Locke's close friend and correspondent. was arrested carrying some pamphlets to the printer, includingonecalled, A Vindicarion of rhe Associarion. After "being examined." Stringer 'confessed that they were written by Robert Ferguson" (Anthony Wood. Li/e and Times. 5 vols. [Oxford, 18921. 3:33). Ferguson, then in exile with Shaftesbury in Holland,denied being theauthor (CSPD. vol. 23, pp. 581-582). Since the pamphlet was clearly written by someone in 'Shaftesbury's family," the interesting, but speculative possibility arises that Locke's 'advice and assistance' found its expression in theseseized papers, and that Stringer named Ferguson as their author knowing that he was in Holland safely beyond the reach of the English government, while Locke, of course. was not. 37. Haley, Shafreshury. p. 732. Lady Masham refers to Ferguson in a letter to Locke, Correspondence. 3:238 (July 29, 1687). Locke owned at least six pamphlets written by Ferguson (Harrison and Lasslet, Locke's Library. p. 134). 38. Wood, Life and Times. 3: 1 17. 39. Echerd, Hisrory, p. 1039. 40. Thomas B. Macaulay, The Hisrory of England. 5 vols. (New York, n. d.) 1:482; Little, Monmourh Episode, p. 98. The Declaration is printed in George Roberts, h e w e . Progresses, and Rebellion of James, Duke of Monmourh. 2vols.. (London, 1844). 1:235249. 41. Except for a few excerpts published by James Welwood, this notebook is lost, or. more likely. was destroyed. The passages cited appear James Welwood, Memoirs of rhe iMosr Marerial Transac,rions in England,for rhe Lost Hundred Years (London, 1700). p. 374. The names in Monmouth's notebook were in cipher, which Welwood could not decipher. This was successfully accomplished by John Willcock, 'The Cipher in Monmouth's Diary," English Hisrorical Review, ( 1905): 730-735. 4 2 Cranston, Locke, p. 195. 43. Correspondence. 2:354. Since Monmouth had resided in Christ Church during the London plague years (1665-6), it isjust possible he met Locke at that time (Wood, tifeand Emes. 3:64). 44. Maurice Ashley, John Wildman. (London: Jonathan Cape. 1947). p. 30 if. 45. Ferguson. Ferguson the Plorrer, p. 419. 46. Burnet, Hisrory. 2:363. Wildman and Owen were part of Buckingham's entourage in 1667-68 (Ashley. Wildman. p, 207). 47. Ashley, Wildman, p. 218 ff; North, E.wmen, p. 683. It will be recalled that the Duke of Buckingham was one of those "much taken" with Locke's wit and intelligence. 48. Wildmam and Henry Neville were both asked to join Locke's 'Dry Club'' in the 1690's (Caroline Robbins ed.. Two English Republican Tracrs [Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 181). Also. see Cranston, Locke, p. 357. 49. Roben Herbert Story, William Carsrares. (London. 1874). p. 63; Alex Charles Ewald. The Li/p and Times qf Hon. Algernon Sidnes. 2 vols. (London, 1873). 2244.283. 50. Ewald, Sidney. 2:54-56, 60. Locke had known William Penn when the latter wasa student of Christ Church from 1660-1662 (LeClerc. A n Account. p. 13). Penn was at this time attending religious services in the home of John Owen (T. Forster. Original Lerrersqf Lockr. Algernon Sidney. ant/ Anthon., LortlSha/rrshury. [London. 18301). In his preface. Forster says Sidney was a 'great friend and corrapondent" of Locke, but I am aware of no evidence to support this statement.

Ashcraft

LOCKEAN POLITICAL THEORY i 483

51. Ashley. Wildman. pp. 1 1, 217; Burnet, History. 2:363. 52. Cranston, Locke. p. 244. 30. Edward M. Thompson. ed., Correspondence of the Family of Harron. (London, 1878). p. 24. 54. Elizabeth D'Oyley. James. Dukeof Monmourh. (London: Goeffry Bles, 1938). pp. 206, 218; Ashley. Wiklman. p. 233. West however, admitted that he "had long been acquainted with" Ferguson. "Information" of Robert West. Sprat. True Accounl, p. 27. (These "informations" are printed as appendices to Sprat.) Colonel Rumsey was one of those for whom Locke had secured lodgings for the meeting of the Oxford Parliament (Correspondence. 2362). 55. Echerd, Hisrory, p. 1028; CSPD, vol. 25, p. 70; Burnet, Hisrory. 2:357. 56. J. H. Salmon, "Algernon Sidney and the Rye House Plot." Hisrorjv Today. (October 1954):698-705. 57. Sprat. True Account. pp. 57-58; Ferguson, Ferguson rhe Plorrer. p. 1 l I; North, Examen, p. 38 1. 58. Russell, Li/e of Lord Rursell. 2:27; North, Eramen. p. 382. Howard told Russell that he had told West virtually everything concerning the plans of the Council of Six (Burnet. Hisrory. 2: 369). 59. Lerrers of Humphrey Prideaux. pp. 139- 140. 60. Macaulay, Hisfor.,*. 1 :409. 61. Ashley. Wildman. p. 23 I . Since Rumsey had been as acustoms collector at Bristol, it is likely that Wade also knew him some years before the exclusion crisis (Srare Trials. 4: 149. 62. Ashley, Wildman, p. 233; Allan Fea, King Monmourh (London, 1902). p. 213; Srare Tria/s4:222. Locke owned a copy of the Earl of Argyle's treason trial (Harrison and Lasslet, Lockei fibrary. p. 218). 63. Roberts, Lije of Monmourh, p. 256. Cranston jumbles the evidence on this point, accepting the crediblity of a government spy, who, in all likelihood, did not know who Locke was, while rejecting the evidence of two men who knew him rather well (Cranston, Locke. p. 251-252. 64. LeClerc, An Accounr. p. 24. Pierre Coste also stressed this point. He was particularly struck by Locke's free association with "all sorts of men" and his interest in their conversation. "This condescension," Coste remarks. is "not very common among men of letters." Moreover, those who assumed from reading his writings that because he was "one of the greatest philosophers of the age," Locke was like "one of those scholars . . . [who] are incapable of familiarizing themselves with the common sort of mankind" were grossly mistaken ("Character of Locke," Works. 9:165-168). 65. Lerrers of Prideau.~.pp. 80. 84; Wood, Life and Times. 2:463. 496. 66. CSPD, vol. 25, pp. 325, 381. 67. Ibid, pp. 109-110. 68. Wood, Lye and Times. 3: 1 17; Lerrers of Prideau.~.p. 139. 69. Wood, bye ond Times 3: 145, 155- 156. 70. Clarke was a trustee for part of Shaftesbury's estates, and stood, unsuccessfully,as a candidate for Parliament from Taunton in 1685: but later. in 1690, he waselected (Haley. Shafteshur.~,p. 727; Currespontlentr. 2:479). 7 1. Locke. Correspondenc,e. 2:M)O.

484 / POLITICAL THEORY I NOVEMBER 1980 72. Ibid. p. 479. 73. Grey, Secret History, pp. 26, 112. C S P D . vol. 25, p. 100. 74. Luttrell. Brief Relation. 1 :342 75. Cranston, Locke, p. 248-249: Charles Trench, 7he Western Rising. (London: Longmans, 1969). p. 71. 76. Roberts, Li/e of Monmouth, p. 232. 77. Little, Monmouth Episode. p. 84: Cecil Price, Cold Caleb: The Scandalous Lye of Ford Grey. (London. 1956). p. 165. Locke received his mail through Dare throughout 1684-1685, until Dare sailed with Monmouth's invasion force (Correspondence. 2:623696). Locke's financial dealings for this period are recorded in Bodleian, Locke MS.. f. 8. 78. Cecil Price, *Thomas Chudleigh on John Locke. 16&4," Notes and Queries. 26 (November 1949): 5 19. 79. Haley. Shafteshur)*, p. 715; Burnet, History. 2:351. 80. Laslett, Two Treatises, p. 3211. 81. Grey. Secret Histor!., p. 56. 8 2 Bodleian, Locke MS., ff. 7, 93. 83. Laslett, Two Treatises. p. 3211; Cranston, Locke. p. 250. 84. Ferguson. Ferguson the Plorter, p. 185. Also. see George Speke, The Secret History of the Happy Revolution of 1688 (London, 1715); Sprat, True Account. pp. 145146. 85. Wood, Life and 7imes. 3.1 17; Letters of Prideaux. p. 142. 86. Cranston, Loc.ke, p. 249. Locke owned a pamphlet, Essex's Innoc.enc:,'and Honor Vindicatecl, which also defended this viewpoint (Harrison and Lasslet, Locke's Library. p. 131. 87. Ferguson. Ferguson the Plotter, p. 185; Roberts, Lge of Monmourh. p. 247. 88. Bodleian, Locke MS.. ff. 7, 1 I I. Joseph Keeling made his first confession to Secretary of State Jenkins on June 12 but was told to supply more confirming evidence. which he did on June 14, the day Locke left London. At this time, therefore, only the government and the conspirators knew, o r strongly suspected, that the plot had been discovered (Sprat, True Aci.ount, pp. 18, 66). *Within threedays after Keeling'sdiscovery of the plot," however, it 'became the whole discourse of the town" (Burnet. History. 2: p. 363. ~ p. 31. 89. Locke. T N . Treatises, 90. Maurice Crarston, "The Politics of a Philosopher." The Listener. 5 January 1961, p. 18.

I. An Impartial Enquir?. . . . (See 11. n. 18 above). This tract attempts to justify the actions of those e n g a ~ e din the Rye House Conspiracy. It is worth notingthat Locke was suspected of being its author. Chudleigh, a Christ Church graduate who certainly knew Locke personally. wr,Jtr that "I can think none more likely for such a work." a "horrid libel," than Locke, who shares Lord Shaftesbury's "spirit and his malice" toward Charles 11's government (Price. "Chudleigh on Locke. 1684". p. 519). 2. Grey. Sec,ri,t Hi.stor\,, p. 30: Oyley, Monmouth. p. 202. 3. Grey. Src.rrr his tor^,, p . 24: Sprat, True A