Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T15:20:27.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘The Rulers now on Earth’: Locke's Two Treatises and the Revolution of 1688

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Charles D. Tarlton
Charles D. Tarlton
Affiliation:
Rockefeller College, State University of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When we believed that Locke had written Two treatises of government to justify the Glorious Revolution, we could say a great deal about his purposes in relation to the events of 1688–89. The book served to interpret those events, to disclose their underlying meaning; philosophy and action were joined in such a manner that both gained lustre from the link. But, now we have generally accepted the view that Locke actually wrote Two treatises in the partisan heat of the Exclusion debate, and we have stopped saying very much of anything about the book's relation to William III and the events of the year in which Locke anonymously published it.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 279 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dunn, John, The political thought of John Locke (Cambridge, 1969), p. 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Thompson, Martyn P., ‘The reception of Locke's Two treatises of government 1690–1705’, Political Studies, XXIV (1976), 187, 189, 191Google Scholar. See, too, Kenyon, J. P., Revolution principles (Cambridge, 1977) pp. 17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Franklin, Julian, John Locke and the theory of sovereignty (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 87–126Google Scholar, ‘Locke and the Whigs’.

3 Laslett, Peter (ed.), Locke, John, Two treatises of government (Cambridge, 1967), p. 155Google Scholar.

4 Tarlton, Charles D., ‘A rope of sand: interpreting Locke's First treatise of government’, Historical Journal, XXI, 2 (1978), 43–73Google Scholar, and “The Exclusion controversy, pamphleteering, and Locke's Two treatises”, Historical Journal, XXIV, 2, (1981), 49–68Google Scholar.

5 A collection of state tracts (London, 1795), I, 265Google Scholar.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid. p. 266.

8 Ibid. pp. 276–7.

9 Ibid. p. 141.

10 Ibid. pp. 274–5.

11 A collection, I, 149.

12 Ibid. p. 276.

13 Ibid. p. 146.

14 Ibid. p. 253.

15 ‘An enquiry into the measures of submission to the supream authorities’ in Harleian Miscellany, I, 443–4.

16 A collection, I, 137.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid. p. 257.

19 Harleian Misc., I, 444–5.

20 Conquest theory (in varying degrees of plainness) was frequently offered as a basis for de facto acceptance of the new regime. While such theory, strictly speaking, did not ‘justify’ the Revolution, it did of course provide those who were too scrupulous in their abhorence of popular resistance and strapped by jure divino, doctrines of passive obedience, and solemn oaths previously taken, with a basis for accepting William's government. The accomplished fact makes it possible to sidestep questions of morality and legality. There is more than a hint, too, that William gave tacit approval to the force of conquest interpretations. See the very interesting discussion in Goldie, Mark, ‘Edmund Bohun and jus gentium in the Revolution debate, 1689–1693’, Historical Journal, XX, 3 (1977), 569–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Thompson, M. P., ‘The idea of conquest in controversies over the 1688 Revolution’, Journal of History of Ideas, XXXVIII (1977), 33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar. If we include jus gentium, conquest, and other de facto arguments among ‘justifications’ of the Revolution, Locke's ferocious repudiation of such notions puts him even farther out of phase with those whose purpose was to lend propaganda support to the events of 1688–9.

21 Ralph, James, The history of England (London, 1746), II, 77Google Scholar.

22 Quoted in Carswell, John, The Old Cause (London, 1954), p. 78Google Scholar.

23 Coxe, William A., Private and original correspondence of Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury (London, 1821), p. 15Google Scholar.

24 Grey, Anchitell, Debates of the house of commons, 1667–1694 (London, 1763), IX, 510Google Scholar.

25 Ibid. p. 30.

26 Ibid. p. 33.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid. p. 74.

30 Ibid. p. 187.

31 Ibid. p. 250.

32 Ibid. p. 267.

33 Ibid. pp. 266–7.

34 Ibid. p. 266.

35 Ibid. p. 267.

36 Ibid. pp. 262–73.

37 Ibid. p. 275.

38 Ibid. p. 64.

39 A collection of scarce and valuable tracts (“Somers tracts”) (London, 1809–1815), X, 195–6Google Scholar.

40 A collection of state tracts (London, 1705), 1, 228Google Scholar.

41 Somers tracts, X, 197.

42 Schwoerer, Lois G., ‘Press an d parliament in the Revolution of 1689’, Historical Journal, XX, 3 (1977), 563Google Scholar.

43 Somers tracts, X, 198.

44 Ibid. p. 201.

45 Ibid.

46 A choice collection of papers (London, 1703), I, 222Google Scholar.

47 Somers tracts, X, 327.

48 Ibid.

49 A choice collection, p. 223.

50 ‘Reflections upon the occurrences, from 5 Nov. 1688. to 5 Nov. 1689’, A collection (1706), II 740.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid. p. 733.

53 Ibid. p. 736.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid. p. 746.

56 Ibid.

57 Somers tracts, X, 328.

58 A choice collection, p. 228.

59 A collection, II, 737.

60 Ibid. Emphasis added.

61 Complaints reflecting similar disappointment continued to be published for the next several years. They testify to a frustration that did not go away. See, for example, the following later pamphlets: Dialogue betwixt whig and tory (1692); An impartial inquiry into the causes of the present fears and dangers of the government (1692); An inquiry; of a discourse between a yeoman of Kent, and a knight of a shire, upon the prorogation of the parliament to the second of May, 1693 (1693); Some short considerations concerning the state of the nation (1692); and The state of parties, and of the publick (1692) – all contained in A collection, vol. II (London, 1706)Google Scholar. Although written in a somewhat different context, these pamphlets not only argue in ways like the ones here discussed, but they refer back to the onset of problems in 1689–90 and to how these problems were even then accurately detected by the earlie writers.

62 deBeer, E. S. (ed.), The correspondence of John Locke (Oxford, 1978), III, 538Google Scholar.

63 Ibid. pp. 545–6.

64 Ibid. p. 674.

65 Laslett, , Locke's two treatises, p. 52Google Scholar.

66 Correspondence, III, 604.

67 Ibid.

68 Fox-Bourne, H. R., The life of John Locke (London, 1876), II, 318–19Google Scholar.

69 Laslett, , Locke's two treatises, 360–1Google Scholar.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid. p. 361.

72 Certainly in the publication of it. This whole section, according to Laslett, is an addition of 1689, and so the interesting little phrase ‘the Rulers now on Earth’ has no reference previous to that time.

73 Ibid. pp. 286–7.

74 Ibid. p. 286.

75 Ibid. p. 434.

76 Ibid.

77 The question of Locke's anonymous publication of his pamphlet has elicited many strange explanations from his interpreters; everything from fear of James II's return to some quirk in his personality. Apart from the fact that almost all the political pamphlets were published anonymously, it makes more sense to imagine that he thought he had something to lose if it became known he had written Two treatises. He clearly was not ashamed of the book (he recommended it so often), but if, as I have argued, it belongs among the disillusioned and was, to that extent, critical of William, his refusal to admit his authorship is easier to understand.