Locke, Revolution Principles, And the Formation of Whig Ideology - Aschcraft e Goldsmith

Locke, Revolution Principles, and the Formation of Whig IdeologyAuthor(s): Richard Ashcraft and M. M. GoldsmithSource: The Historical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 773-800Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2639284 .

Accessed: 23/04/2014 17:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheHistorical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 141.161.91.14 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:17:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2639284?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Historical Journal, 26, 4 (I983) pp. 773-800

Printed in Great Britain

LOCKE, REVOLUTION PRINCIPLES, AND THE FORMATION OF WHIG

IDEOLOGY

RICHARD ASHCRAFT University of California, Los Angeles

AND M. M. GOLDSMITH

University of Exeter

In the immediate aftermath of the Glorious Revolution, there appeared an anonymous pamphlet, Political aphorisms, which purported to instruct its readers in 'true maxims of government'.' The identity of the author of this bold doctrinal claim is not known, and while it would be useful to have this knowledge, it is not, for reasons which will become clear, the most crucial element of the story. What is important is the historical significance of the role played by Political aphorisms as part of the process by which the 'revolution principles' of I 689 gained widespread acceptance in eighteenth-century England. In this essay, we offer one concrete illustration of the complex process by which political ideas are transmitted from one generation to another; and, we shall argue, the example provides a case study of the conscious effort to formulate an ideological defence of specific political principles and practices in order to preserve the historical meaning of a partisan perspective.

Seen in the context of the political debate as it existed in I690, Political aphorisms expressed the views of those at the radical end of the political spectrum.2 In addition to mounting a fierce assault on the doctrine of passive obedience and the de facto argument in support of William and Mary, the author of Political aphorisms argued for the equality of individuals in the state of nature, their consent as the foundation of all government, the right of the people to resist a king who violates the original contract, and the principle that power reverts to the people when the government is dissolved. Further, building upon the proposition that every individual is bound by the Law of Nature to exercise self-defence against those who violate that law or, within civil society, the common good, he establishes the legitimacy of the Revolution of I 689 as the fulfilment of a positive obligation on the part of those who fought

' T.H., Political aphorisms: or, the true maxims of government displayed, printed for Thomas Harrison (London, I690): hereafter cited as PA.

2 See Mark Goldie, 'The Revolution of I689 and the structure of political argument: an essay and an annotated bibliography of pamphlets on the allegiance controversy', Bulletin of Research in the Humanities, LXXXIII (I980), 473-564 (p. 553).

773 25-2



774 R. ASHCRAFT AND M. M. GOLDSMITH

againstJames II,' the common enemy and pest of mankind'. Political aphorisms, in short, provides an essentially Lockean defence of revolution principles.3

At this point, however, we encounter the first of a set of interlocking pieces of a puzzle. For Political aphorisms does not simply rely upon the theoretical argument advanced by Locke in the Two treatises of government; rather, the relationship between the two works can be more accurately and precisely described as plagiarism. That is, Political aphorisms contains numerous passages copied word for word from the Two treatises. These passages are reproduced without acknowledgement, without quotation marks, without any indication whatsoever to indicate their original source.4 The amount of plagiarism from Locke is substantial; it is distributed throughout the pamphlet's thirty-one pages; it is clearly deliberate, and its organization is premised upon a careful reading of the Two treatises.5 This fact is in itself interesting as an indication of the influence Locke's arguments had upon one contemporary political writer, albeit by way of a somewhat unethical acknowledgement.6

3 On the radical dimensions of Locke's political thought, see Julian H. Franklin, John Locke and the theory of sovereignty (Cambridge, I978); Richard Ashcraft, 'Revolutionary politics and Locke's Two treatises of government', Political Theory, VIII (I980), 429-86, and J. P. Kenyon, Revolution principles: the politics of party, i689-I72o (Cambridge, I977).

4 Unattributed borrowing from one author by another was not a common practice in I690,

although it did occur occasionally with respect to one or two sentences or paragraphs. Matthew Tindal, for example, cites, without acknowledgement, one or two passages from Locke's Two treatises in his An essay concerning obedience to the supreme power, and the duty of subjects in all revolutions (London, I694) (see note I9 below). However, we have discovered no example of extensive plagiarism comparable to that of Political aphorisms in our reading of the political literature of the period.

5 It is difficult to express the extent of plagiarism in quantitative terms. There are approximately twenty-five separate citations from the Two treatises. Some consist of one or two sentences, others are nearly a paragraph. In many instances, two sentences or phrases from different paragraphs in the Two treatises are run together in Political aphorisms. (These have been indicated in the notes by a + between the two phrases.) The reference in the text to a 'careful reading' refers not so much to the acuity of the author in his philosophical understanding of Locke's argument - though he is certainly not the least attentive of Locke's contemporary readers - but to the fact that only someone who was thoroughly familiar with the Two treatises could have reconstructed the text in the form in which it appears in Political aphorisms.

6 A recent controversy has developed over the reception accorded to and the influence exercised by Locke's Two treatises of government in the period following the Glorious Revolution. John Dunn, 'The politics of Locke in England and America in the eighteenth century', in John W. Yolton (ed.), John Locke: problems andperspectives (Cambridge, I969), pp. 45-80; Martyn P. Thompson, 'The reception of Locke's Two treatises of government, i690o-705', Political Studies, XXIV (I976), I84-9I; Jeffrey Nelson, 'Unlocking Locke's legacy: a comment', Political Studies, XXVI (I978),

IOI-8; Martyn P. Thompson, 'Reception and influence: a Reply to Nelson on Locke's Two treatises of government', Political Studies, XXVIII (I980), ioo-8. Without entering into the details of this controversy, in so far as recent scholarship has demonstrated that Locke's Two treatises did not immediately become the bible of Whig orthodoxy, as was previously assumed, this exchange has played a corrective and constructive part in the reassessment of the historical significance of that work. On the other hand, the propensity to attribute this separation of Locke's political thought from official Whig ideology to the 'philosophical' character of the former, and the failure to associate the Two treatises with any identifiable group or audience receptive to its ideas is mistaken. The political radicalism of Locke's ideas not only provides a basis for understanding why certain Whigs disassociated themselves from its arguments, but also indicates where (i.e. amongst which social groups) one ought to look to discover the influence of Lockean ideas. (See the works cited in note 3 above, and in note I I below.)



LOCKE AND REVOLUTION PRINCIPLES 775

Before presenting an account of the political theory contained in these two works, however, it seems advisable to provide a brief sketch of the scope of the problems yet to come. For Political aphorisms also reprints three passages copied verbatim without acknowledgement from An enquiry into the measures of submission to the supreme authority, by Gilbert Burnet.7 Moreover, twenty years after its original publication, most of the text of Political aphorisms was incorporated into another pamphlet. And this account barely scratches the surface of the problem of plagiarism which involves, in all, borrowings and incorporations from at least eight, and possibly as many as ten, political tracts which comprise the final version of the 'text' of the work that began in I690 as Political aphorisms. Unravelling this complicated network of plagiaristic growth requires considerable attention to detail. Since Locke's argument constitutes the core of the political theory advanced by Political aphorisms, we shall begin with a consideration of the relationship between the text of that work and the Two treatises of government. In the second half of the essay we will place the conceptual identity of the political theory expressed in these two works within the historical context of an attempt during the period, I690-I7I0, to produce a political manifesto which epitomized the views of the radical Whigs. In this form, as a popular tract in defence of revolution principles, Lockean ideas were widely disseminated. They were presented as part of a structure of meaning which was defined not in relation to philosophy or to a tradition of great political theory, but as constitutive elements of a particular ideological commitment.

I

The Two treatises of government was licensed for printing on 23 August I689,

and was probably in circulation by November of that year.8 Political aphorisms appeared in print towards the end of the following year, although the precise date of its publication is unknown. If the period September-October I690 is a reasonable guess, Political aphorisms was a popular and best-selling pamphlet, since by February I69I the term catalogues were advertising the appearance of its third edition.9 The work was of sufficient importance to be included in the State tracts published in I 705. And, when it reappeared in I 709 as Voxpopuli, vox dei, it proved to be one of the best-selling pamphlets of the eighteenth century.

Meanwhile, Locke's Two treatises went through two further editions before the end of the seventeenth century. The second edition of I694 contained so many printing errors that Locke and Awnsham Churchill, the publisher, agreed to sell it as a very cheap edition, so that it would be 'scattered amongst

7 Gilbert Burnet, An enquiry into the measures of submission to the supreme authority (n.p. [Holland], i688). The three paragraphs are to be found on pp. 2 (PA, pp. i6, i9) and 3 (PA, p. 26).

8 John Locke, Two treatises of government, Peter Laslett (ed.) (Cambridge, second edition, I967), introduction, pp. 49, I2I (hereafter cited as FT or ST). Spelling and punctuation have been modernized.

9 Edward Arber (ed.), The term catalogues, i668-I709, 3 vols. (London: privately printed, I905),

II, 352. Goldie, 'The Revolution of I689, p. 553. This date is also suggested in a private communication to the authors from Professor Lois Schwoerer, George Washington University.




common readers' who might be supposed to be both sympathetic to the political ideas of the Two treatises and less discriminating as to the technical defects in the text.'0 Throughout the last decade of the seventeenth century there was an active and articulate group of radical Whigs whose political activities and publications helped to keep alive the revolutionary doctrines which had been formulated during the early I68os. Both the Two treatises and Political aphorisms reflect the views of these radicals."

One manifestation of this radicalism is a vehement attack upon the political role of the clergy which characterizes the prefaces of both works. This anti-clericalism was articulated most forcefully by the radical Whigs towards the end of Charles II's reign.12 Locke, for example, attacks the clergy for having 'so dangerously misled others' in the formation of their political opinions. Clearly, Locke intends to show that Filmer's political views are, in themselves, erroneous and absurd, but these ideas might simply have exhibited a dormant peculiarity had not the clergy made them an effective political force through their own political activity. 'In this last age', Locke observes, 'a generation of men has sprung up among us, who would flatter princes with an opinion that they have a divine right to absolute power.' This belief, which would 'subvert the very foundations of human society', is asserted by the clergy merely ' to serve their present turn '.13 It is the fact that Filmer's ideas have become ' useful' to those whose ' skill and business it is to ... blind the people, the better to mislead them', which provokes Locke's wrath.'4 For ' there cannot be done a greater mischief to prince and people, than the propagating wrong notions concerning government'.15

Similarly, the author of Political aphorisms devotes several pages of his preface to a castigation of the clergy as betrayers of the English heritage of liberty. These ' murmurers ... in our streets' have indoctrinated the people with notions of government founded on paternal authority or divine appointment, supported by an 'absurd ... slavish, inhumane' doctrine of passive obedience, 'which one sucks in with his milk'. The widespread acceptance of this political theory is not due to any careful consideration given to its arguments, but rather, because it has been foisted onto the people 'from the pulpit', and because the people have ' an implicit faith to believe whatever our guides declare to be the doctrine of the Gospel '16

The attack by Locke and the author of Political aphorisms upon the political role of the clergy is necessary because the ideological efficacy of the political

'0 Laslett (ed.) Two treatises, introduction, p. 9. " Mark Goldie, 'The roots of true Whiggism, I688-94', History of Political Thought, I (I980),

I95-236; Kenyon, Revolution principles. 12 , A character ofpopery and arbitrary government (London, i 68 i); Henry Care, English liberties:

or, the free-born subject's inheritance (London, n.d. [i68o]); Thomas Hunt, Mr Hunt's postscript for rectifying some mistakes in some of the inferior clergy, mischievious to our government and religion (London, I682). See Richard Ashcraft, The Two treatises and the Exclusion crisis: the problem of Lockean political theory as bourgeois ideology (Los Angeles, I980), pp. 79-80.

13 Two treatises, preface, p. I56; FT, par. 3; cf. FT, par. I3. i4 FT,. par. i. 15 Two treatises, preface, p. I56. 16 PA, preface.




theory they are opposing is so heavily dependent upon the activities and social importance of this particular group. These anti-clerical aspects of Lockean political theory, which have not received the attention they deserve, not only constitute an important part of the radical perspective, they also contribute to our understanding of the circumstances under which that argument was revived in I 709 in Vox populi, vox dei.

Political aphorisms begins with the declaration that 'it is evident that no rule or form of government is prescribed by the Law of God and Nature'. It is therefore 'left unto every nation and country to choose what form of government they like best, and think most fit for the natures and conditions of the people'.17 This assertion of indifferency with respect to forms of government, within the boundaries set by the Law of Nature, is grounded not only upon the absence of Scriptural evidence to the contrary, but also upon a positive acceptance of the condition of individuals as they are assumed to be in a state of nature. 'By the state of nature we are all equal, there being no superiority or subordination one above another.'"8 These Lockean presuppositions are supported by the following justification for the condition of natural equality:

there can be nothing more rational, than that creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties should also be equal one amongst another, without God by any manifest declaration of His Will had set one above another, and given him superiority or sovereignty.

Now, while other theorists declared themselves for the equality of individuals, only Locke appears to have been preoccupied with the 'promiscuous' equality of their birth, and these lines are the first of many in Political aphorisms taken from the Two treatises.19 The paragraph in the former work then continues with the sentence, ' were it not for the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men, there would be no need of any other state'. This statement is also borrowed from the Second treatise, but it is separated by more than one hundred and twenty paragraphs in that work from the lines previously cited.20 And, in Locke's words, the author of Political aphorisms explains,

for everyone in that state being both judge and executioners of the Law of Nature, which is to punish according to the offence committed. Men being partial to themselves, passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far in their own cases, as well as negligence and unconcernedness makes them too remiss in other mens.21

17 PA, I-2. The phraseology is very close to that used by Robert Ferguson in the Declaration he wrote for Monmouth's Rebellion, and also in his Briefjustification of the prince of Orange's descent into England (London, I689), p. 5. Burnet's statement of this point in Enquiry is also similar to the passage in PA.

18 PA, 2; cf. ST, par. 4, 11. 8-9; par. 7, 11. I4-I5; par. 54, 11. i, 8-io. 19 PA, 2; ST, par. 4, 11. 8-i6. Tindal also cited these lines, without attribution, in his An essay

concerning obedience, p. 3. 20 PA, 2; ST, par. I28, 11. 7-8. 21 PA, 2-3; ST, par. I 25, 11. 3-8; cf. ST, par. I 3, 11. I-7.




The significance of this endorsement of what Locke himself admitted was a peculiar doctrine, namely, that each individual is an executor of the Law of Nature on behalf of the natural community of mankind, deserves to be noted.22 Following Locke, Political aphorisms cites the 'inconveniences' attached to the practical application of this doctrine.

This makes every one willingly give up his single power of punishing to one alone, or more, as they shall think most convenient, and by such rules as the community, or those authorized by them to that purpose, shall agree on, with intention in everyone the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property.23

In other words, Political aphorisms has restated Locke's argument in the Two treatises relating to the conditions under which individuals institute civil society, the authoritative power they require to establish government (i.e. to execute the duties to which they are obligated by the Law of Nature), and the reason for their leaving the state of nature. At this point, the author interjects into the narrative a sentence from the First treatise. 'What is it', he asks, 'but flattery to the natural vanity and ambition of men, too apt of itself to grow and increase with the possession of any power, who would persuade those monarchs in authority that they may do what they please, because they have authority to do more than others? 24 The argument of the Second treatise then resumes with the assertion:

since rational creatures cannot be supposed, when free, to put themselves into subjection to another for their own harm, which were to put themselves in a worse condition than in the state of nature, wherein they had liberty to defend their lives and properties against the invasions of any man or men whatsoever; whereas by giving up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power of any man, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases.25

'I have been the longer in speaking of the state of nature,' the author explains, 'for that is the fountain of all the rest that ensueth in a Commonwealth.'26 Following some citations from Aristotle, Cicero, and Fortescue, he affirms that 'all politic societies began from a voluntary union and mutual agreement of men, freely acting in the choice of their governors, and forms of government '.27 Using this proposition from the Second treatise as a keystone, the author, like Locke, constructs an argument which draws together the notions of consent, property, the common good, and the Law of Nature in order to establish the theoretical limits of legitimate government. He cites the common maxim, 'the welfare of the people is the supreme law', and this assertion is supported with the same quotation from Hooker's Of the

22 That 'every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the Law of Nature... will seem a very strange doctrine to some men'. ST, pars. 8, 9; cf. par. I3.

23 PA, 3; ST, par. I 27, 11. 9-13 + par. 131, 11. 5-6. 24 PA, 3; FT, par. I 0, 11. I I-I 3 + 11. I 6-I 7. 25 PA, 3; ST, par. I64, 11. I-2 +par. I37, 11. I i-I8. 26 PA, 3. This is Locke's position, but not his words; cf. ST, par. 4,11. 1-3. 27 PA, 4; ST, par. I 02, 11. 2 1-3.




laws of ecclesiastical polity Locke cites in the Second treatise in his discussion of the limits of legislative power in civil society.28

For a brief period, Political aphorisms abandons the specific phraseology of Locke, though not his political perspective. 'As every man in the delivery of the gift of his own goods, may impose what covenant or condition he pleases; and any man is moderator and disposer of his own estate,' so, the author maintains, 'in the voluntary institution of a king, and royal power, it is lawful for the people, submitting themselves, to prescribe the king and his successors what law they please, so as it be not unreasonable and unjust.'29 This passage contains more than a few echoes of the language used by the Levellers, and at least one phrase bears a striking similarity to one used by Robert Ferguson in A briefjustification of the prince of Orange's descent into England.30

In one of several passages taken from the Vindiciae contra tyrannos, the author argues that 'no man can be born an absolute king' because all kings 'are constituted by the people' and 'because, by the Law of Nature, there is no superiority one above another'.31 Political aphorisms then sets forth some of the specific conditions under which any king might forfeit his authority. If he tries to establish popery 'contrary to the laws of the land', or 'to destroy the people, or make them slaves to his tyrannical will and pleasure' - two of the standard indictments levelled againstJames II - the people may lawfully reclaim their original collective authority.32 This claim is supported by a legal-historical narrative relating to the succession of kings in Europe and England, demon- strating that the people have in the past exercised their right to alter the succession.33

Following this interlude, the Lockean language of Political aphorisms reasserts itself:

By the Law of Nature, Salus Populi, the welfare of the people is both the supreme and first law in government, and the scope and end of all other laws, and of government

28 PA, 5; ST, par. I58, 11. I-2; 'Salus Populi, Suprema Lex, is certainly so just and fundamental a rule, that he, who sincerely follows it, cannot dangerously err.' The quote from Hooker, inserted by Locke at ST, par. I34, 1. I 7, comes from Book One, section Io. Richard Hooker, Of the laws of ecclesiastical polity, 2 vols. (New York: Dutton, Everyman's Library, I907), I, I94.

29 PA, 5. None of the passage in PA is taken from the chapter on property. 30 'And everyone being equally master of his own property and liberty...', Brief justification,

p. 6. Locke's own 'Leveller' language is expressed in ST, par. I94, 11. I-3: 'Their persons are free by a Native Right, and their properties, be they more or less, are their own, and at their own dispose, and not at his; or else it is no property.' For a discussion of the similarities between Locke's notions and those of the Levellers, see Richard Tuck, Natural rights theories (Cambridge, I979),

pp. I7I-2, and James Tully, A discourse on property (Cambridge, I980), pp. I69 ff. 31 Junius Brutus, Vindiciae contra tyrannos, I58o (Latin), p. 7I. An English translation was

published in I648 and reprinted in I689. This edition was subsequently republished under the editorship of Harold J. Laski with the title, A defence of liberty against tyrants (London, I924). It appears that the author of Political aphorisms used one of the Latin editions of the Vindiciae (I579 or I58o) rather than the available English version.

32 PA, 6. On 'oaths to a foreign power' (e.g. the pope), see ST, par. I34, 11. 2 I-2, and pars. I37, 2I0, 2I7-

33 PA, 7-I I. This legal-historical discussion, which is apparently taken from Ferguson's Brief justification, is reproduced in Vox populi, vox dei. The importance of this point in relation to the attribution of the latter to Lord Somers is discussed below, p. 797.




itself; because the safety of the body politic is ever to be preferred before any one person whatsoever. No human law is binding which is contrary to the Scripture, or the general Laws of Nature.34

While this paragraph might best be described as a paraphrase of Locke's argument, several other sentences on the same page of Political aphorisms appear as they are printed in the Second treatise. The author notes, for example, that 'all Commonwealths are in a state of nature one with another', a statement made by Locke in paragraph I 83 of the latter work.35 And, after declaring that 'the reason of all law and government is the public good', and that the obligation of subjects to obey magistrates must be understood as being contingent upon the latter's acting for the public good, he includes another citation from the First treatise:

government being for the benefit of the governed, and not for the sole advantage of the governors.36

This sentence is followed by another quotation from the Second treatise relating to the ends of government.37 Finally, Political aphorisms quotes Hooker- a passage also cited by Locke - to show that 'the public power of all society' is superior to that of any individual member and is derivative from the Law of Nature.38 This appeal to higher principles forms the conclusion to the argument the author has been making, incorporating the historical evidence mentioned, that the welfare of the people overrides in its juridical force any claims relating to hereditary succession or to particular forms of government, since these must always give way to the common good.

The specific corollary of this general proposition the author wishes to emphasize is that kings 'always have been, are, and ought to be subject to the laws of their kingdoms'. In addition, therefore, to the general natural-law obligation to act for the common good, Political aphorisms argues that kings are 'obliged by their coronation oaths' which establish 'a mutual obligation between the king and people', viewed as a tacit or express agreement, to enforce the fulfilment of these duties.39 This argument, which was very popular, does not figure prominently in Locke's political thought. Nevertheless, there are two important qualifications to this point, neither of which has received sufficient attention in the secondary literature on Locke. First, Locke does quote at length from a speech ofJames I to show that 'the King binds himself by a double oath, to the observation of the Fundamental Laws of the kingdom.

34 PA, I 2; cf. ST, pars. I 34, I 58, I 59 (11. I 7- I 9, 26-8). The last sentence quoted states the point made by Locke in ST, par. I35, 11. 26-32, and it may also be a paraphrase of the passage from Hooker which Locke cites at that point, ST, par. I36, 1. 3. Hooker, Laws, I, 326.

35 PA, I2; ST, par. I83, 11. 7-8. It is worth noting that Locke himself makes the same point at two other places in the Second treatise, though not in the same language, par. I84, 11. 3I-2;

par. I4, 11. 3-5-

36 PA, I2; FT, par. 93, 11. 9-IO. The passage in PA quotes lines 9-I4. 37 PA, I2; ST, par. I59, 11. 29-32.

38 PA, I2. The passage from Hooker is from the Laws, I, 228.

39 PA, i6. This is another citation from the Vindiciae, p. I46.



LOCKE AND REVOLUTION PRINCIPLES 78I

Tacitly, as by being a King, and so bound to protect as well the people as the laws of his kingdom, and expressly by his oath at his Coronation', which means that 'every just King in a settled kingdom is bound to observe that paction made to his people'.40 Secondly, what Locke says about the oaths of allegiance sworn by subjects to the king makes it clear that whatever the express form of such an oath, it must always be tacitly understood to relate to and be limited by the king's adherence 'to the public will of the society'.41 It is possible, therefore, that his seventeenth-century readers may have understood this as a version of the 'coronation oath-contract' argument with which they were familiar. Some support for this view may be derived from the fact that, in the midst of his own presentation of the coronation oath-contract position, the one sentence that the author of Political aphorisms cites from the Second treatise is taken from this particular paragraph:

Allegiance is nothing but obedience according to law, which when the Prince violates, he has no right to obedience.42

This corollative argument concerning the limited authority of kings concludes with the insertion of the first of the three paragraphs taken from Gilbert Burnet's Enquiry into the measures of submission, which portrays executive power as fundamentally a relationship of trust.

The supreme authority of a nation belongs to those who have the legislative authority reserved to them; but to those who have only the executive, which is plainly a trust when it is separated from the legislative power: and all trusts by their nature import, that those to whom they are given are accountable, though no such condition is specified.43

The second half of Political aphorisms presents the case for a theory of resistance, which logically begins with the question, what is to be done if the executive violates his trust by acting contrary to the common good, and the Law of Nature, thereby subverting the foundations of government? 'If the subject may in no case resist,' the author argues, 'then there can be no law' and all government is reduced to its simplest terms, 'the will and pleasure of the Prince.' To this view, he counterposes the claim that 'every man has a right to preserve himself, his rights and privileges against him who has no authority to invade them', a right which 'the Law of Nature gives every man'.44

40 ST, par. 200, 11. I 6-2 I. This speech byJames I was widely used by the Whigs in their political literature. See Vox populi: or, the people's claim to their parliaments sitting (London, i68i); Robert Ferguson, A just and modest vindication of the proceedings of the two last parliaments (London, i 68 i ). The speech is not in Political aphorisms, but it is quoted in Vox populi, vox dei, p. 20.

41 ST, par. I 5 I .

42 PA, i6; ST, par. I5I, 11. I5-I7-

3 PA, i6; Enquiry into measures of submission, p. 2. Locke's position on executive power as a 'fiduciary trust', which is in agreement with the passage cited in PA, is contained in ST, pars. I5I, I52, I56.

44 PA, I6-I7. There is no single passage like this in the Two treatises, though Locke makes the same argument; cf. ST, pars. I76, 202. For a paraphrase of the last sentence cited, see ST, par. 7.




Moreover, if the law is not above the actions of the Prince, 'there can be no civil society', and he 'is no member of a Commonwealth, but a mere tyrant '.4 To which the author appends another passage from the Second treatise:

No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it; for if there be no appeal on earth, for redress or security against any mischief the Prince may do, then every man in that society is in a state of nature with him, in respect of him.46

With Locke, he concludes from this that 'absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil society; and therefore can be no form of civil government, which is to remedy the inconveniences of the state of nature . Thus, the argument seeks to join the discussion of the conditions of legitimate government with the proscription of a particular form of government, viz., absolute monarchy; the latter is identified, ipso facto, with 'tyranny', and so is to be resisted. The ultimate foundation for this view rests upon an interpretation of the Laws of Nature and the authorization they provide for the institution of civil society. From the Lockean perspective, restated in Political aphorisms, no individual or society can yield the power of their self-preservation 'to the absolute will of any man'.

As no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life and property of another, therefore a man cannot give such authority to any, or subject himself to the arbitrary power of another... For the Fundamental Law of Nature being the preservation of mankind, no human law can be good or valid against it.

Since 'the Law of Nature is an eternal rule to all men, whose actions must be conformable to that law, which is the will of God... No power can exempt princes from the obligation to the eternal laws of God and nature.'48

Notwithstanding these evident natural-law constraints, magistrates do sometimes act in a manner 'plainly destructive' to the good of the community. In these circumstances, the community is not only discharged from its duty to obey the magistrate, it is 'indispensably obliged by the Law of Nature to resistance'. In its advocacy of the right to resistance, the language of Political

aphorisms is unmistakably that of Locke. 'Is it not reasonable and just', the author asks, 'I should have a right to destroy him who threatens me with destruction? for by the Fundamental Law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred.'49 The bestial imagery employed by Locke in the Second treatise is also reproduced:

I say, he who having renounced his reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, by endeavoring to destroy me, is thereby become as a beast of prey,

45 PA, i8. 46 PA, i8; ST, par. 94, 11. 3-6+11. 32-6; cf. pars. 9I, 92.

47 PA, 25; ST, par. go, 11. I-5. 48 PA, 25-6; ST, par. I35 11. 9-I4+ 11. 3I-2.

49 PA, I 8; ST, par. I 6, 11. 7- I I.-




and ought to be treated accordingly... He who is destructive to the being of another, hath quitted the reason which God hath given to be the rule betwixt man and man ofjustice and equity, hath put himself into the state of war with the other, and is as noxious as any savage beast that seeks his destruction.50

In short, the author agrees with Locke that tyrants are 'the pests of mankind', and must be destroyed.51

Like the Second treatise, however, Political aphorisms attaches some qualifications to the exercise of this destructive power. Not any fault or failure of the Prince transforms him into a tyrant. 'If now and then he obey not reason', this merely reveals the weakness he shares with other men. Hence, he must 'willfully pervert the laws' or 'willfully subvert the Republic' in order to be classified as one who has 'renounced' the precepts of natural law.52 The author poses the same question raised by Locke, namely, if government can be lawfully resisted, how can any government be safe from violence?

To which I answer, that it is not lawful for every private man to fly into the bosom of his Prince... It is impossible for one, or a few oppressed men, to disturb the government, where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it, and that the consequences seem not to threaten all; yea when it does, yet the people are not very forward to disturb the government.53

This Lockean response is supported by a curious and ambiguous reference to the political struggles of the i 68os. Under Charles II, the author observes, 'the Charters were condemned, and seized upon in order to make us slaves, and the laws perverted to the loss of many innocent lives, and many other oppressions too many to insert, and yet nobody offered to disturb the government'. The passage is interesting both for what it says and for what it does not say concerning the Rye House Plot and Monmouth's Rebellion as attempts 'to disturb the government'. If, as seems likely from the context, the author regards Charles II's actions as those of a tyrant, then his message is that even in those instances in which the people should have resisted, it is not so easy to organize a revolution as some people imagine.54 With Locke, and the benefit of hindsight, he maintains that 'till the mischief be grown general, and the designs of the rulers bec6me notorious, then, and then only, will the people be for righting themselves'.55

Nevertheless, for both authors, tyranny is not merely a crime, but the worst of all crimes, since it is destructive of the common welfare.56

50 The language and point of these two sentences can be found in nine paragraphs in the Second treatise. The closest verbal parallel to the first sentence is par. I I, 1l. 2 i-6, but see also par. 8, 11. IO-I9, par. I6, 11. I2-i8, and par. 230, 11. 35-7. The second sentence contains phrases from two paragraphs: par. I72, 11. 9- I9, and par. I8I, 11. I6-20. Also see par. IO, 11. I-4, and par. i82, 11. I 9-2i . For a discussion of Locke's extensive rewriting of these passages see Laslett's note, Two treatises, pp. 400-I.

51 PA, I9; cf. ST, par. 230, 11. 35-7. 52 PA, I7. 53 PA, 3I; ST, par. 208, 11. 9-I2+par. 209,1. 4+par. 223, 11. 7-8; cf. par. 230. 54 PA, 3I. 55 PA, 3I; ST, par. 230, 11. 4-8; cf. pars. 209, 225. 56 PA, I7; cf. ST, par. 202, 11. 20-30-




Whosoever, either ruler or subject, 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, he is guilty of the greatest crime, I think, a man is capable of, being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine and desolation, which the breaking to pieces of governments brings on a country; and he who does it, is justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind, and is so to be treated accordingly.57

In the Second treatise, Locke had insisted that there is no essential difference between the subversion of the constitution by foreign invasion or by a tyrant acting against his own subjects; in both instances, armed resistance by the people is justified. This point is also reaffirmed in Political aphorisms.58 In other words, with respect to the basic conditions for establishing a legitimate government, the criteria for determining when a violation of those conditions had occurred, and the response the people are expected to make in such a situation, the argument in Political aphorisms is not merely 'Lockean', it is Locke's argument.

Finally, there are a few other matters of detail concerning the text of this work which are worth noting. The last few pages of Political aphorisms appear to be a hurried and summary listing of assertions and rhetorical questions which the author has no time to discuss. Most of these passages recapitulate some of the arguments employed by Locke against Filmer in the Two treatises. 'With what ignorance', the author writes, 'do some assert, that Adam was an absolute monarch, and that paternal authority is an absolute authority?' To which he replies that it cannot be supposed that Adam had 'an absolute authority of life and death over man' when he did not even have the authority to kill any beast to satisfy his hunger, precisely the point made by Locke in the First treatise.59 In his attack upon paternal authority as a foundation for political authority, the author, quoting Locke, declares that 'the Law of God and Nature gives the father no absolute dominion over the life, liberty, or estate of his child', and thus no political claim to absolute authority can be founded upon this relationship.60 On the contrary, the latter is governed by natural law, since 'there is an eternal obligation on parents to nourish, preserve, and bring up their offspring'.61 Political aphorisms also repeats the questions, discussed at length by Locke in the First treatise, viz., who was the rightful heir of Noah?

57 PA, 3I; ST, par. 230,11. 29-37. The concluding sentence in PA adds to this quote a reference to James II.

58 ST, par. 23I; cf. pars. 2i8, 239. PA, I9: 'It is as lawful, and more reasonable, to prevent the overthrowing of our religion, laws, rights and privileges, from any man or men whatsoever amongst ourselves, as from a foreign power.' On the importance of this point to the radical

perspective see Ashcraft, 'Revolutionary politics', pp. 469 ff. 59 PA, 27-8; cf. FT, pars. 39, 86, 87,11. 5-12.

60 PA, 28; FT, par. 69, 11. I2-22; ST, pars. 65, 86. PA quotes (p. 29) the lines from the First

treatise, par. 64, 11. 3-7, to show that neither the father nor grandfather can 'dispense' with the child's obedience to the laws.

61 PA, 28; ST, par. 66, 11. io-i i; cf. ST, pars. 56, 6o, 63, 67; FT, pars. 88-93. The author also quotes from the First treatise, par. 6i,11. 38-49, to show that the child owes obedience to both parents and not to the father only (PA, pp. 28-9).




if there is only one lawful monarch in the world, how do we discover him? And, if we cannot, then why are we not entitled to assume that 'all men [are] equal and independent as being the offspring of Adam and Noah' ?62

The theory of government which seeks its roots in conquest receives an even briefer treatment in Political aphorisms. William the Conqueror, it is alleged, made a contract with his subjects, and his political authority was thus premised upon their consent.63 Historical details in support of this view aside, the real ground of the author's position, like Locke's, is that 'conquest gives no right' because it is 'consent only that can transact or give a right '.64 To suppose otherwise would be to treat individuals 'as if men were made as so many herds of cattle, only for the use, service, and pleasure of their princes '.65 Political

aphorisms repeats Locke's argument that even in cases of justified conquest, a conqueror can claim no right of dominion over the wife and children of the conquered.66

Having rejected patriarchalism and conquest as alternatives to consent as the basis for the institution of government, Political aphorisms concludes with a resounding defence of resistance theory, supported by a flurry of quotations from Locke. Although it is more than this, Political aphorisms might with some justification be viewed as a precis of the Two treatises' defence of the people's right to revolution. It is true that some of the arguments in both works were employed by other writers, and also that the author of Political aphorisms is not unique in his indebtedness to the Two treatises. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there is no comparable example of a political tract published during I69o-I 7 I0 which exhibits the degree of specific detailed dependence upon the language and arguments of the Two treatises of government as does Political aphorisms.

Interestingly, while the former work seems to have been largely ignored by Tory or Jacobite opponents, a pamphlet entitled The Church of England doctrine of non-resistancejustified and vindicated does appear to have been written as a reply to Political aphorisms.67 The author lists the various arguments which comprise

62 PA, 27; cf. FT, pars. I 35,11- 4-10, 140, 144, 11- 30-34- 63 PA, 29; cf. ST, pars. I75, 1. 6-8, I77, 11. I8-27. 64 PA, 29; cf. ST, pars. I 75, I 79, I85-92, I 96. 65 PA, 30; FT, par. I56,11. 6-7. 66 PA, 29; cf. ST, pars. I82, 11. 27-3 I, I83, 11. I--5, I I-I 3, I89. The author also restates and

paraphrases the point from the First treatise, pars. 4I-3, that even if one had 'possession of the whole earth', this would not entitle him to 'arbitrary authority over the persons of men'. PA, 29.

67 Lewes Sharp, The Church of England doctrine of non-resistance justified and vindicated (London, I69I). Sharp begins his tract by citing a passage from Political aphorisms, p. 26: 'In all disputes between power and liberty, power must always be proved, but liberty proves itself; the one being founded upon positive law, the other upon the Law of Nature.' The reason this pamphlet 'appears' to be a reply to Political aphorisms is that this quote is one of those taken from Burnet's Enquiry into the measures of submission (p. 3) . Sharp, therefore, might have been attacking Burnet rather than the author of Political aphorisms. Still, there are many arguments peculiar to Burnet's Enquiry which are not addressed by Sharp, and the doctrines he does discuss are often more radical than those contained in the Enquiry, although they can all be found in Political aphorisms. Also, Burnet's work had been in print for more than three years, while Political aphorisms had only recently been published, with a challenge issued to its critics to answer it if they could.




the social contract-resistance theory and then undertakes to answer each of them. Although the general tone of the tract is restrained and cognizant of the ' very popular' character ofthe viewpoint being criticized, the basic commitment of the author of The Church of England doctrine is summarized in his statement that subjection 'under the most corrupt and tyrannical government is more tolerable than freedom in such a state of anarchy and confusion' as would follow from the adoption of revolution principles as 'the true maxims of government .68

In view of its initial popularity, it is something of a mystery as to why no further editions of Political aphorisms were printed between I69I and the end of the seventeenth century.69 Throughout this period, revolution principles were defended by a small group of radicals, the Two treatises remained in circulation, gradually increasing in popularity, as it became known that Locke was its author, but, comparatively, Political aphorisms receded into the background.

II

In I705 Political aphorisms was resurrected for inclusion in the State tracts. In that same year, the radical views of Locke, his 'Republican schemes', were subjected to their first direct attack by the anonymous author of An essay upon government.70 Lockean principles, however, were defended in a notable sermon preached by Benjamin Hoadly, which was twice reprinted in I 705.71 Hoadly's position met with replies from the Jacobite, Charles Leslie, and from Tories such as Francis Atterbury.72 A sermon by Offspring Blackall, entitled The subject's duty, which put the case for a defacto acceptance of political institutions, found favour with neither Tories nor Whigs who defined the problem of political obligation in terms of adherence to certain principles and not as the outcome of a practical accommodation to unforeseen 'exceptional

68 The radical version of the resistance theory Sharp is attacking is, according to him, 'a very popular one, and therefore in great reputation with too many amongst us'. Church of England doctrine, pp. 33, 39, 43, 6o.

69 In considering the identity of the author below, we have assumed him to be living in I7IO,

when new additions were made to the text of Political aphorisms when it appeared as Vox populi, vox dei, and The judgment. For various reasons, this seems a reasonable assumption to make. However, it is possible that the sudden disappearance of Political aphorisms between I 69 I and I 709

may relate to the personal circumstances of the author; his death (Wildman), or his conversion to Jacobite beliefs (Ferguson).

70 An essay upon government: wherein the republican schemes revived by Mr Locke, Dr Blackall, etc. are fairly considered and refuted (London, I 705).

71 Benjamin Hoadly, Works, 3 vols. (London, I773); II, i8 ff. An enlarged version of this sermon was published in I 706 as The measures of submission to the civil magistrate considered. Kenyon, Revolution principles, pp. I I 7- I 9.

72 Much of Charles Leslie's writing is in The rehearsal, which he edited from I 704 to I 709. There is also a brief discussion of his views in Gordon J. Schochet, Patriarchalism in political thought (New York, I975), pp. 220-4. Francis Atterbury's reply is entitled An enquiry into the nature of the liberty of the subject. G. V. Bennett, The Tory crisis in Church and state, i688-i730: the career of Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester (Oxford, I975).




circumstances ' Whether by design or coincidence, therefore, the republication of Political aphorisms in I 705 occurred in a context in which revolution principles were the focus of an intense political debate. In the fifteen years since the Glorious Revolution this debate had never been extinguished, and it continued to smoulder after I 705. But in I 709 another sermon by Blackall, now Bishop of Exeter, set alight this smouldering controversy about obedience and resistance to rulers.

Blackall's sermon was entitled The divine institution of magistracy and the gracious design of its institution. In it he reiterated the arguments he had previously advanced in The subject's duty on behalf of the absoluteness of the authority of the sovereign and the corresponding absoluteness of the subject's obedience to rulers. Supreme powers, even if elected by the people, he declared, were accountable only to God for their actions. Not only was there no right of resistance lodged in the people collectively but, he argued, there had never been such an authoritative body, nor any state of nature prior to the establishment of government, since parental authority constituted the original source of political sovereignty.74 The fact that Blackall thought of himself as a moderate Tory and that some of his contemporaries were prepared to defend more extreme versions of the doctrines contained in The divine institution hardly mitigated against the directness of its challenge to Lockean ideas.

Benjamin Hoadly again replied to Blackall in Some considerations humbly offered to... the lord bishop of Exeter, which provoked an answer from Blackall, to which Hoadly published a rejoinder. Intervention in this exchange between the two clerics by Leslie, Atterbury and others once more produced a full-scale debate focusing upon the theoretical problem of political obligation, and the historical significance and meaning of the Glorious Revolution.75 In the midst of this controversy, Political aphorisms, now revised and remoulded to suit the occasion, made its reappearance in print under the title Vox populi, vox dei: or the true maxims of government.76 This restatement of revolution principles only spurred on the already committed combatants to press their respective cases further, while at the same time new protagonists now entered the fray. One of these, Henry Sacheverell, preached a sermon at St Paul's on 5 November I 709 on the text (2 Corinthians I I: 26), 'in perils among false brethren '.77 'The grand security of our government, and the very pillar on which it stands', Sacheverell asserted, 'is founded upon the steady belief of the subjects' obligation to an absolute,

73 Offspring Blackall, Works, 2 vols. (London, I723), II, I I 2I-35. Nelson, 'Unlocking Locke's legacy', pp. ioi-8.

74 Blackall, Works, II, I 6I-73. The sermon was preached before Queen Anne on 8 March I 708, and was printed with the date I 709. Blackall's I 705 sermon was reprinted in I 708, and again in I 709.

75 Professor Schochet has noted that there were at least sixteen tracts written in I 709 on one side or the other of this controversy, which continued for another two or three years. Patriarchalism, p. 220 n.

76 An advertisement in The Post Boy, 22-24 September I709, refers to Vox populi, vox dei as a pamphlet which has just been published, probably in mid-September.

77 Bennett, The Tory crisis, pp. I o9- I o. G. Holmes, The trial of Doctor Sacheverell (London, I 973), pp. 56-8.




and unconditional obedience to the supreme power, in all things lawful, and the utter illegality of resistance upon any pretence whatsoever.' Not only were all dissenters, republicans and Whig ministers secret subversives seeking to undermine the established authority of church and state, Sacheverell argued, but anyone who deviated from the church's doctrines, advocated toleration, countenanced constitutional change, or rejected passive obedience was a traitor.78 Hence, in addition to the obvious threat posed by radicals and fanatics, the 'false brethren' holding positions of power within the church or state, he warned, might constitute an even greater danger to the preservation of the public order.

From the moment of its delivery, Sacheverell's sermon provoked an outcry and generated a debate which in its bitterness and intensity dwarfed by comparison the long-standing dispute between Blackall, Hoadly and Leslie, to which it was, in effect, a contribution.79 Even before the sermon itself was available in print, a reply to it had been published. Other replies soon followed.80 Meanwhile, the exchange between Hoadly and his critics was carried forward. At the end of December 1709 The divine rights of the British nation and constitution vindicated was published, preceding by a few weeks the appearance of Hoadly's The original and institution of government discussed, as well as a defence of Hoadly's position by the author of A modest reply to the unanswerable answer to Mr HoadleyA.

Although Sacheverell had been invited to preach at St Paul's by the Tory Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Garrard, the Court of Aldermen refused to order the sermon printed. Despite this refusal, Sacheverell arranged for its publication,

apparently believing that he had the Lord Mayor's permission to do so. The perils offalse brethren appeared in several sizes and editions, with at least six printed versions. It sold, as a reasonable estimate, one hundred thousand copies in English, and the tract was translated into Dutch, French and German as well.82 As an attack upon revolution principles and as an effective piece of propaganda in reaching such a wide audience, Sacheverell's sermon could hardly be ignored. He had preached it in London as a tirade of abuse directed

78 Henry Sacheverell, The perils offalse brethren, both in church and state (London, I 709; reprinted Exeter, I974), p. I9.

79 Holmes, Trial, pp. 69-74. W. A. Speck (ed.), F. F. Madan: a critical bibliography of Dr Henry Sacheverell (Lawrence, Kansas, I978), pp. I9-25.

80 Sacheverell's sermon was printed on 25 November I 709, but The Post Boy, 24-26 November I 709 carried an advertisement for a reply (to be published on November 28) to the sermon, entitled The peril of being zealously affected, but not well, or, reflections on Dr Sacheverell's sermon. According to Speck, Remarks on Dr Sach-'s sermon, by William Bisset (London, I 709), appeared on I 2 November, thirteen days before the sermon itself was published. Early in December another attack, Dr. Sacheverell's recantation: or, the fires of St Paul's quickly quenched, was published. Speck, Critical bibliography, p. i8; Holmes, Trial, pp. 77 f.; The Post Boy, i0-I3 December I709.

81 The Tatler, 20-22 December I709; TheEveningPost, I2-I4January I7I0; ThePostMan, I2-I4

January I7Io; The Flying Post: or, The Post Master, I2-I4 January I7Io; The Post Man and the Historical Account, I0-I 2 January I 7 I0. On 2I January 1710 a third edition of Hoadly's The measures of submission to the civil magistrate considered was published.

82 Holmes, Trial, pp. 69-75.




against the government, and he had printed it without authorization. From the government's standpoint these were provocative actions, and the Whig Ministry decided to make an example of Sacheverell. The House of Commons voted for his impeachment on I 4 December, and his trial began on 27 February 1710.

The pamphlet war, pro and con, raged throughout this period, and indeed for many more months following the trial. In addition to specific commentaries on the sermon itself, there was a general revival and prominence given to the doctrine of passive obedience. In earlyJanuary 17 I O A defence of Dr Sacheverell: or, passive obedience proved to be the doctrine of the Church of England was published. From remarks in the preface, it appears that this tract was intended to serve as a reply to Vox populi, vox dei. In fact, the situation is a bit more complicated, since A defence of Dr Sacheverell was a retitled reprint of Abednego Seller's A history of passive obedience, published in I 689. Seller's pamphlet was one of those specifically singled out for attack by the author of Political aphorisms. The republication of the former, therefore, not only carried forward the I689-90

debate on passive obedience, but it also represented a recognition of the intimate relationship between Political aphorisms and Vox populi, vox dei.83 A defence was quickly followed in print by The doctrine of passive obedience, a compilation of sermons preached in defence of passive obedience by some of the leading clergy of the Anglican Church, including Burnet, Tenison, Fowler and Tillotson.84 Some time in early February, Voxpopuli, vox dei was republished under the new title, The judgment of whole kingdoms and nations.85 As the advertisement for its earlier version had proclaimed a few months before, the work was 'printed for the author, who wrote, in the year I689 and go against passive obedience and in vindication of the Revolution '.86 Thus, in a new form, first as Vox populi, and then as The judgment, the Lockean arguments of Political aphorisms were once more conscripted into the battle against passive obedience and, incidentally, against Dr Sacheverell on the eve of his trial. More important, since The judgment of whole kingdoms was one of the best-selling pamphlets of the eighteenth century, it was through the means of its influence that not only Lockean principles, but also actual phrases taken from the Two treatises, entered into the political consciousness of many Englishmen.

Having sketched the immediate historical circumstances surrounding the revival of Political aphorisms, two interrelated paths of inquiry remain to be explored; the first concerns the internal structure of the revised text of Political aphorisms, while the second relates to the identity of its author. Success in either endeavour, however, necessarily depends upon retracing our steps. For, as was

83 The Post Boy, I -I2 January I 7I0. Schochet, Patriarchalism, p. 209 n. A second edition of this tract appeared in I7I0.

84 The Post Boy, I 7-I 9 January I 7 I 0.

85 See The Post Boy, 23-25 February I7I0, where Vox populi, vox dei is described as 'a late pamphlet, now printed as The judgment of whole kingdoms and nations'. Kenyon mistakenly asserts that The judgment was republished in the wake of Sacheverell's trial. Kenyon, Revolution principles, p. I42.

86 The Post Boy, 22-24 September I 709.




previously indicated, Political aphorisms was itself a composite of writings drawn from other pamphlets, and there is reason to believe that at least two of these other works were actually written by the same person who wrote Political aphorisms.

Apart from the incorporation of substantially the entire text of Political aphorisms into Vox populi, vox dei, the relationship between the two works is further established by a note on the title page of the latter which informs the reader that Vox populi is printed for an author 'who wrote in the year I689-90

by way of challenge to Sir Roger L'Estrange, Dr. Sherlock, and eleven other divines'. This challenge appears on the title page of Political aphorisms. A prefatory note to the third edition of The judgment of whole kingdoms refers to the inclusion of Political aphorisms in the State tracts of I 705.87 That note offers additional information and a clue to the author's identity, revealing him to be 'a true lover of the Queen and country, who wrote in the year I689 in vindication of the Revolution in a challenge to all Jacobites, which was answered and printed with a reply annexed to it; and who wrote in the year I690 against absolute passive obedience and in vindication of the Revolu- tion. . .'. The author of Vox populi and The judgment was not only the author of Political aphorisms, but also, it would appear, of at least two other works in defence of revolution principles which were published in i689-9o.88

At the conclusion of Political aphorisms, there is a postscript by the author stating that,

Just as I had finished this book, I received a reply to my former book, which I thought to have answered: but finding the arguments to be frivolous and weak, and my necessary avocations allowing me but little time, therefore I forbore answering it.

Printed immediately below this postscript is an advertisement for two pamphlets: The doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, and The letter which was sent to the author of the doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, answered and refuted.89 The reference in Political aphorisms by the author to 'my former book' and the answer to it printed with a reply, as well as the reference in the third edition of The judgment to the work written in I689 'which was answered and printed with a reply annexed to it', thus seems to point to these two tracts.90

The doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved was published in I 689. It is clearly a defence of revolution principles, though since it appeared before the Two treatises, it contains none of the Lockean language of Political

87 The third edition - Voxpopuli, vox dei being the first, and the February 1 7 I O edition published as Thejudgment being the second - appeared in mid-May I7I0. Speck, Critical bibliography, pp. 55-8.

88 The judgment (3rd edn, I7IO, 'corrected with additions'), title page. Kenyon remarks upon this passage, but since he erroneously takes it to be a reference to Ferguson's Briefjustification rather than to the two works cited below, he is misled into believing that the claim is either false or misleading. Kenyon, Revolution Principles, pp. 209-IO. 89 PA, 32.

90 The doctrine ofpassive obedience and jure divino disproved, 'by a layman of the Church of England', published by Randal Taylor (London, i689). A.A., The letter which was sent to the author of the doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved answered and refuted, published by Thomas Harrison (London, I689), written in answer to N.N., The letter is a paragraph-by-paragraph commentary on a letter to the author of The doctrine, and is literally, therefore, a work 'printed with a reply annexed to it'.



LOCKE AND REVOLUTION PRINCIPLES 79I

aphorisms.9' Nevertheless, some of the latter's text is borrowed from The doctrine. On the second page of the I689 tract the author writes "Tis an acknowledged aphorism, that the safety of the people is the supreme law', a proposition which appears on page five of Political aphorisms.92 Another sentence from the same page of The doctrine is also quoted in Political aphorisms.93 There are, in addition, non-Lockean notions, such as 'allegiance is due to him from whom we receive protection', or that the Coronation Oath is a mutual covenant, which appear in both works.94 Several examples of phraseology, including the author's issuance of a specific 'challenge' to his opponents, also link The doctrine ofpassive obedience with Political aphorisms.95

The connections between the latter and the second tract, The letter. . . answered and refuted, are even more obvious. If, according to the Scriptures, it is reasonable for a man to renounce his wife on grounds of adultery, the author of The letter asks, why is it not reasonable for a people to renounce a king who seeks to destroy them? This analogy reappears in Political aphorisms, along with references to the primitive Christians under Julian the Apostate, to Bishop Athanasius and citations from the New Testament, and several other examples common to both works.96 A sentence from page seventeen of The letter is quoted on page thirty-one of Political aphorisms, and another sentence, with minor word variations, taken from page twenty-nine of the former work is reprinted on page twenty-seven of the latter.97 Several other sentences and arguments from The letter are paraphrased in Political aphorisms.98

91 The doctrine was licensed on 7 May 689. It was written to encourage 'obedience to the present government'.

92 The doctrine, 2; PA, 5. This sentence also appears in Daniel Defoe, Reflections upon the late Great Revolution (London, I689), p. 62. It is the one piece of direct evidence we have discovered linking Defoe with the authorship of these two tracts. The Term catalogues list the Reflections for May I689. Arber, Term catalogues, II, 255. Since The doctrine had already been written before May (see note go above), it is more likely that the same author wrote this sentence into both tracts than that the anonymous author of The doctrine copied it from Defoe's Reflections.

93 'I ask where was the doctrine of passive obedience, when Queen Elizabeth assisted the Hollanders against their lawful sovereign' [and the French Protestants against Charles the Ninth and Henry the Third?], The doctrine, 2; PA, 22.

94 The doctrine, 2; PA, 24 (protection and allegiance); The doctrine, 2; PA, I6 (Coronation oath); The doctrine, 2; PA, 25 (Christians under the Roman emperors).

95 The.doctrine, 2: 'I ask whether it is not reasonable... I ask whether the authority... I ask where was the doctrine... etc.', PA, 20-2: 'Where was the doctrine of passive obedience when...', The doctrine, I; PA, 6, on 'the body' and 'head' imagery of the body politic; The doctrine, 2: 'I challenge all the passive obedience and jure divino men in England, nay in the whole world, to answer these assertions and propositions...' and to leave their answers with the printer; see the similar challenge issued in PA on the title page and in the preface.

96 The letter, 4; PA, 25 (renouncing a wife); The letter, 8, I5; PA, 24-5 (primitive Christians and Julian the Apostate); The letter, 8-9; PA, 23 (Bishop Athanasius); The letter, 2I, 23; PA, 24

(protection and allegiance). 97 "Tis not the title, but the office, that makes him a king', and 'governing according to the

laws'. The letter, I 7; PA, 3 I . On God not having given Adam absolute dominion over the beasts (and hence, not over man either), The letter, 29; PA, 27.

98 An individual who allows another to kill him when he could have defended himself by resistance has tacitly consented to his own death, and is therefore guilty of a sin. The letter, 23; PA, 28. Paternal authority is not kingly authority, The letter, 29; PA, title page.




One of the most interesting features revealed by a comparison of these two works is that there is a third intervening pamphlet containing passages common to both of them; namely, Robert Ferguson's A brief justiJfcation of the prince of Orange's descent into England. It seems likely, therefore, that some time between the writing of 7he doctrine and the writing of The letter, the author read Ferguson's tract and incorporated some of its arguments into his own pamphlet, as he was later to do with Locke's Two treatises. Some of these borrowings from Ferguson in The letter are carried forward and reproduced in Political aphorisms, while other passages from Brief justification which do not appear in The letter are transferred directly to the text of Political aphorisms. Thus, the author of The letter cites Ferguson's argument that allegiance is owed to the constitution or to the government, not to the king.99 He quotes the statement that those who 'defend the lawful power of government are not rebels'.'00 He also reproduces a number of Ferguson's examples and some of his phraseology from the latter's discussion of legal-historical precedents illustrating past alterations in the succession of the English crown.10' Some of these references in The letter appear in Political aphorisms while others do not. In a few instances, these passages from Brief justification, absent in Political aphorisms, are subsequently incorporated into the text of Voxpopuli, vox dei. Even more striking is the fact that the first seven pages of Voxpopuli are lifted verbatim from Ferguson's tract.'02 Finally, there are several passages in The letter which do not appear in Political aphorisms, but are directly incorporated into Vox populi.'03 This last point is significant because, unlike Ferguson's Briefjustification, Locke's Two treatises, or even Political aphorisms itself, The letter was not an especially popular or particularly noteworthy pamphlet. It is unlikely that, twenty years after its publication, anyone but the author would return to it as a source for the two or three obscure passages which were incorporated into the text of Vox populi, vox dei.

The reader cannot be blamed for being slightly confused at this point regarding the nature of the' text' being discussed. Its solidity seems constantly to evaporate into shared passages with two or more other works. The following, however, appears to be the case: The doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, The letter which was sent to the author of the doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, answered and refuted, Political aphorisms, Vox populi, vox dei and The judgment of whole kingdoms and nations are all by one arnd the same author. The letter contains passages plagiarized from Ferguson's Brief iustification. These

99 The letter, 22; Briefjustification, 8. 100 The letter, I I; Briefjustification, Io. 101 The letter, I 7- I 8; Briefjustification, 26-8; Vox populi, vox dei, I 5- I 6. 102 Vox populi, vox dei, 3- I 0; Briefjustification, 5- I 7. 103 'It is not the Doctrine of the Gospel, or of Jesus Christ, to be passive beyond the laws and

customs of the country; this were to make Christ the author, or approver of all the persecutions, and innocent blood that have been spilt in the world by evil princes or governors.' Vox populi, vox dei, 36; The letter, 25. Vox populi omits a few words from the passage as it appears in The letter. For other passages from The letter in Vox populi, see p. i I (VPVD, p. 6), p. I7 (VPVD, p. I5). It is true, however, that The letter was reprinted in A collection of state tracts, 3 vols. (London, I 705),

vol. I.




passages, plus others from that pamphlet, also appear in Political aphorisms, while all these references, in addition to many pages from Briefjustification not in Political aphorisms, form part of the text of Voxpopuli, vox dei. And, as previously stated, Political aphorisms contains extensive plagiarism from the Two treatises, several passages from Burnet's Enquiry into the measures of submission, and a number of unattributed quotations from the Vindiciae contra tyrannos, which are carried forward with the text of Political aphorisms when it is reprinted and incorporated into Vox populi. The text of Political aphorisms, therefore, is comprised of sections taken from at least six other pamphlets published during the I689-9O debate on the Glorious Revolution.

The text of Vox populi, vox dei is a compound of all of the above as well as the repository for a number of new borrowings. The latter include two paragraphs from Gilbert Burnet's The revolution vindicated, printed in the State tracts of 1 705.104 There are many new passages in Voxpopuli, and it seems likely that some of these are quotations from other works, although we have not located their original source. The judgment of whole kingdoms and nations is an expanded edition of Vox populi, with no important omission and several new additions to the text. A new paragraph, an acknowledged quotation from Pufendorf s History of Europe designed to illustrate the disorderliness of government in its early patriarchal form, has been inserted into the material from Ferguson's Brief justification which forms the beginning of The judgment. Also, passages selected from Clarendon's History of the Great Rebellion, Rushworth's Historical collections and Whitlocke's Memorials, all purporting to prove the tyrannical nature of Charles I's actions, have been added to the conclusion of The judgment.105

Vox populi, vox dei, and its successor, The judgment of whole kingdoms and nations, are thus composite works, consisting of borrowings from at least eight tracts. Their primary purpose was to provide a defence of the Glorious Revolution and of its principles from the standpoint of a radical political perspective. It is a particular reading of history and politics under the heading of revolution principles which the author/compiler wishes to preserve for the reader. This intention is made plain in a prefatory note to the first edition of The judgment, which appears in the form of a self-advertisement for the pamphlet:

Recommended as proper to be kept in all families, that their children's children may know the birthright, liberty, and property belonging to an Englishman.'06

Successful indoctrination of families and children in The judgment's 'true maxims of government' would thus ensure the perpetuation of a revolutionary tradition which for the author had been a living reality.

104 State tracts, iII, 694-728. Vox populi, vox dei, I 2:' All that know anything of England. . .'; The revolution vindicated, 698; Vox populi, vox dei, 26:' The greatest and wisest nations. . .'; The revolution vindicated, 695. The appearance of this last paragraph in Vox populi was first noted by Professor Kenyon, Revolution principles, p. 2 I 0.

105 The judgment, 70-I. 106 The judgment, preface. The 4th edition added a sentence: 'And that they may have a just

notion of government and of obedience, according to Scripture, Law, and undeniable reason.'




In fact, The judgment made remarkable progress towards the achievement of this objective. The first three editions sold eight thousand copies in less than seven months and, within the space of a little more than four years, eleven editions of the work had been printed.'07 The publisher's note to the fourth edition (I7'O) indicated that,

Many gentlemen having desired to have this book in a large print, this is to give notice that it is now printed on nine sheets and a quarter, of very fine paper at is. per book stitched.108

Rather generously, the notice also declared that 'any person may buy this book of most booksellers of London and Westminster and read it for two days for nothing, provided they do not damage it'. The judgment was thus widely distributed through its sales and, it seems likely, widely read through such borrowings. Subsequent editions of the work appeared in 1747 and in I771,

and it is clearly one of the most important instruments of Whig propaganda to be published in eighteenth-century England.'09 To a considerable degree, therefore, the author of The judgment succeeded in providing all 'true Britons' with a political manifesto in defence of revolution principles.

Some attempts were made to answer the arguments of The judgment. On 25 February 1 7 I O Edward Fisher's An appeal to thy conscience, first published in I 643,

was reissued as 'an unanswerable answer to a late pamphlet entitled Voxpopuli: now printed under the title of The judgment of whole kingdoms and nations'."10 A few months later another tract, The voice of the people no voice of God, presented itself as a refutation of the 'mistaken arguments of a fiery zealot', i.e. the author of The judgment. The latter was accused of being a victim of' the most dangerous of enthusiastic delusions', which was 'to bring all things into common'; in short, the author of The judgment was 'a Leveller'."' While this specific charge is fanciful, the general perception of the work's opponents that it advocated radical political doctrines is not. As Charles Leslie had observed a few years earlier, there was still 'a set of men among us' whose heads were filled with the dangerous ideas of Locke and Ferguson. The popularity of The judgment of whole kingdoms confirmed that assertion.

If, despite the complicated interrelationships amongst the various texts discussed, the identity of the author of Political aphorisms, Vox populi and The

107 Speck, Critical bibliography, pp. 55-8. 108 The judgment, 4th edition, preface. We have consulted the following editions of The judgment:

Ist (Vox populi), I709; 2nd (I709); 3rd (I7Io); 4th (I7Io); 5th (I7Io); 6th (I7Io); 8th (I713);

Ioth (I7I3); IIth (I714); I7I7; I747, Birmingham; I77I, London. Wehave notseen theedition mentioned in this note, i.e. 'in a large print.. .of very fine paper'.

109 In addition to those cited in note io8 above, there is an edition of The judgement published byJ. Cotton in Shrewsbury. A copy of this edition exists in Cambridge University Library. The date of publication is missing - a line has been cut off the title page - but it is listed in the University catalogue as I 747. This edition is not included in the bibliographies compiled by Madan and Speck. Other editions are noted, however, for Dublin (I7i6); Philadelphia (1773); Boston [I774]; Rhode Island (I774); London (i8io).

10 Edward Fisher, An appeal to thy conscience (London, I 7 Io). Speck, Critical bibliography, p. 58. . F.A.D.D., The voice of the people no voice of God (London, I7IO), p. 24.




judgment were known, this fact might clarify some of the mysteries which surround the appearance of these pamphlets. Of the five works by the same author, three of them, viz., The doctrine, Vox populi and Thejudgment appeared anonymously. The letter is signed A.A., while Political aphorisms is signed T.H. Except for the first tract, The doctrine, all of them were published by Thomas Harrison. This fact has given rise to the speculation that he may have also been the author of these works."2 So far as we can determine, Harrison is not known to be the author of any other pamphlet."13 Since, for the most part, we are dealing with compilations taken from the works of other authors rather than with original writing, this fact does not necessarily count against him, though it does rule out any comparisons of style or types of argument employed. Yet it does seem odd that Harrison would issue one of his own tracts - and one he had actually written - through a rival publisher. Also, it will be recalled that the author of Political aphorisms claimed as an excuse for not responding further to the answers he had received to his earlier tracts the fact that his 'necessary avocations' did not allow him time for such a response, hardly a credible reply from someone whose only avocation is the publication of pamphlets. Moreover, since Harrison's name appears so prominently as the publisher, why should he demonstrate such reticence about claiming authorship? In those instances in which the government instigated judicial action against pamphlets, such as Political aphorisms, for the political views they expressed, the publisher was frequently summoned before the authorities, especially where the identity of the author was doubtful. Harrison thus was not protected from such a summons by concealing his identity as the author, and had very little to gain by doing so.

Both Vox populi and The judgment are described as having been 'printed for the author', which from the standpoint of Harrison's candidacy as author is misleading. Indeed, Harrison attached a note to the fourth edition of The judgment in which he chastised his rival publisher, John Baker, for having 'lately published a scandalous book, which he is ashamed to put his name to called The voice of the people no voice of God, which he calls an answer to this book by F.A.D.D. This is to give notice', Harrison wrote, 'that the aforesaid book is not made by Dr Francis Atterbury, and the putting in those letters in the title

112 This was first suggested by Maurice Goldsmith on the basis of the attribution of Political aphorisms and Vox populi to Harrison in the catalogue of the Bodleian Library, Oxford University, in an exchange of letters with J. P. Kenyon. The authors wish to thank Professor Kenyon for permission to quote from this correspondence. Also, see Kenyon, Revolution principles, p. 2 I O; Goldie, 'The Revolution of I689', p. 553.

113 Thomas Harrison is not an uncommon name, but on the basis of a review of Wing and other reference sources for publications in the late seventeenth century it does not appear that Thomas Harrison, the printer, is the author of any known work. Harrison is listed by Wing as a publisher of tracts, the earliest date of which was I689. Little information about Harrison is provided by Henry Plomer, Dictionary of printers and booksellers, 1668-I725 (London, I922). Harrison died in I 7I4, and from his will it appears both that he held radical political views, and that many of his close friends were Dutch, which may indicate that he spent some time living in Holland during the period many radical Whig exiles - including Locke - were there. The authors wish to thank Dr Michael Treadwell for supplying the information on Harrison's will.




in order to make people believe it was made by the Doctor, is a knavish trick, and a cheat upon the world, in order to make it sell the better."'l4 Would Harrison, therefore, feeling as strongly as he did about the misleading use of 'author's' initials by publishers, first mislead his own readers by appending his initials to Political aphorisms, and then mislead them by omitting them from Vox populi and The judgment? It is likely that, as with A.A. on The letter, T.H. does not refer to the real name of the author, but to some pseudonym ('tyrant hater', perhaps?). Nevertheless, Harrison remains a plausible candidate for authorship of Political aphorisms and its progeny.

Various suggestions for the identity of the author of Voxpopuli were advanced during the eighteenth century. The two individuals most frequently mentioned as the work's author were Lord John Somers and Daniel Defoe."15 There is little evidence to support the former's claim. The case for Somers's authorship

appears to rest entirely upon the fact that the I 77I edition of The judgment of whole kingdoms and nations, published byJ. Williams of London, was printed with Lord Somers's name on the title page."16 No explanation was offered for this removal of the author's anonymity after sixty years, nor was any evidence presented to substantiate the publisher's assertion. In that same year there is a reference in one ofJunius's Letters to Somers's authorship of The judgment, but this appears to be merely a repetition of the bookseller's claim."7 Richard Cooksey, in his Essay on the life and character of john Lord Somers, published in I79 I, does not even refer to the The judgment or claim that Somers is its author."18 Twenty years later, Henry Maddock in An account of the life and writings of Lord Chancellor Somers says that The judgment is 'very generally attributed to Lord Somers', but he offers no specific information to give substance to this view."19 Later, in a footnote, Maddock cites the reference in Junius's Letters, but this, again, leads no further than the I77I edition of The judgment.'20 Somers's most recent biographer does not accept the attribution of Somers's authorship and, so far as we can determine, there never was any solid basis for it.'2'

To these considerations must be added the fact that Somers is not known

114 The judgment, 4th edition, preface. Although The voice of the people has sometimes been attributed to Atterbury on the basis of these initials, Bennett's bibliography of works written by Atterbury, including those attributed to him, does not mention this tract. Tory crisis, pp. 3 I5-I8.

115 The British Library catalogue says Defoe or Somers. Halkett and Laing simply note that Vox populi, vox dei is usually attributed to Defoe. Samuel Halkett and John Laing, Dictionary of anonymous and pseudonymous English literature, 7 vols. (London, I 932), VI, I 99. Other names have been mentioned, e.g. Charles Povey and John Dunton, with less evidence or credibility attached to the attribution, and neither individual claimed authorship.

116 The judgment of whole kingdoms and nations, ioth edition corrected, reprinted and sold by J. Williams in Fleet Street (London, I77I), 'by Lord Somers' (copy in British Library).

117 J. Cannon (ed.), The letters of Junius (Oxford, I978), letter XLVI (22 May I77I), p. 240. 118 Richard Cooksey, Essay on the life and character of John Lord Somers (Worcester, I 79I). 119 Henry Maddock, An account of the life and writings of Lord Chancellor Somers (London, I8I2),

p. 234. 120 Maddock, An account, p. 235n. 121 William L. Sachse, Lord Somers: a political portrait (Madison, Wisconsin, I975).




to have been especially interested in attacking the doctrine of passive obedience, as the author of the five tracts in question clearly was. Nor were Somers's political views as radical as those expressed in these pamphlets. The most politically radical work Somers is known to have written, Jura populi Anglicani (I70 I), pales by comparison when its views are set alongside the arguments and language contained in Political aphorisms and Vox populi. That Lord Chancellor Somers would have engaged in such extensive plagiarism, or even that he would have cited Robert Ferguson's views as reflecting his own, seems extremely unlikely. Finally, some of the material included in Political aphorisms and Vox populi discussing the legal-historical succession of English kings and queens had already been treated extensively and with scholarly pretensions by Somers in his work, A brief history of the succession, published in i68i. The phraseology, and even some of the facts in Political aphorisms and Vox populi are different from - and, in terms of historical scholarship, markedly inferior to - those in A brief history. It seems unreasonable to suppose that Somers would have reproduced an inferior version of his own work rather than cite the material from A brief history in a work (e.g. Political aphorisms) containing so many borrowings from other pamphlets.'22

Defoe's claim to authorship, however, cannot be so easily dismissed. He certainly was capable, both from the standpoint of plagiarizing from other authors, as well as in terms of his own specific views on passive obedience and the Glorious Revolution, of having written the works in question. The manner in which he read Locke, his favourable attitude towards Monmouth's Rebellion and the radical views expressed by Ferguson, and the extreme radicalism of his own political perspective on occasion, make Defoe a plausible candidate, None the less, we have uncovered only one piece of direct evidence which would identify Defoe as the author of Political aphorisms.'23

In The life of Daniel Defoe, published in I 790, George Chalmers faced the problem of dealing with Defoe's prolific writings by dividing them into works which were 'known' to be by him, and those of which he was 'supposed' to be the author. Chalmers assigns The judgment of whole kingdoms to the latter category. However, he adds the notation that, 'this has been ascribed to and lately printed as a work of Lord Somers'124 This appears to be another reference to the I 77 I edition of The judgment. Walter Wilson, in Memoirs of the life and times of Daniel Defoe, wrote that Vox populi and The judgment have 'been usually ascribed to Defoe', but he offers no specific information to support this ascription. He also notes the recent claims of Somers, and seems generally sceptical of either Defoe or Somers having written Vox populi.'25 Still later in the nineteenth century, William Lee published his three-volume study of Defoe's life and writings, rejecting Wilson's attribution of Vox populi to Defoe,

122 John Somers, A brief history of the succession (London, i68i). See note 33 above. 123 See note 92 above. 124 George Chalmers, The life of Daniel Defoe (London, I 790), p. 85. 125 Walter Wilson, Memoirs of the lifeand times of Daniel Defoe, 3 vols. (London, i830); II, 95,97.




though without indicating to the reader his specific reasons for doing so.126

Similarly, J. R. Moore omits the work from his recent bibliography, A checklist of the writings of Daniel Defoe, without comment on the earlier ascriptions.127

So far as we can determine, therefore, no one has ever actually made a case for the authorship of Voxpopuli, vox dei on behalf of anyone. Nor has the problem ever been viewed in its proper context, involving the relationship between that pamphlet and the other tracts we have discussed. According to the common opinion of their contemporaries, either Defoe or Somers was thought to be the author of Vox populi, but specific evidence to support such suspicions was apparently never offered, and modern scholars have generally rejected or ignored such claims with respect to either individual. We are thus returned to a state of uncertainty as to the author's identity. While we cannot say with confidence that Defoe is the author of Vox populi, it does appear to us that his name may have been precipitately removed from the list of plausible candidates, and that the possibility of his authorship should be reconsidered.

The general requirements for the author of the five tracts in question are the following: (i) he must be someone who wrote several pamphlets in defence of the Glorious Revolution and against passive obedience in i 689-go and whose writing career extended at least until I 7 IO and the publication of The judgment of whole kingdoms; (2) he must be someone who defended the radical con- tractarian, right-of-resistance theory, and who was willing to apply this theory in retrospect not only againstJames II, but also against Charles II as examples of monarchs to be resisted; (3) he must be someone with strong anti-clerical views; and (4) he must be someone whose thinking was strongly influenced by the ideas of Locke, and also by those of Robert Ferguson (prior to the latter's Jacobite conversion). Defoe is of course not the only person who fulfils these requirements, but on the other hand neither is the field of possible candidates an exceedingly large one.

More specifically, there are some similarities between the language employed by Defoe in his political writings and that contained in the five tracts assigned to the author of Political aphorisms. For example, Defoe frequently uses the phrase, 'vox populi, vox dei' in his pamphlets, referring to it as a fundamental maxim of his political theory.'28 Indeed, it is the precept he sets out to defend in The original power of the collective body of the people of England examined and asserted, one of Defoe's most radical and Lockean tracts.'29 In The doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, the author referred to 'acknowledged aphorisms' and 'maxims' of government in stating his own principles of

126 William Lee, Daniel Defoe: his life and recently discovered writings, 3 vols. (London, I869). 127 John R. Moore, A checklist of the writings of Daniel Defoe (Bloomington, Indiana, I960). 128 Daniel Defoe, The original power of the collective body of the people of England examined and asserted

(3rd edn, London, I 70 ), pp. v, vi, 7, I9. Daniel Defoe, Jure divino: a satyr in twelve books (London, I 706), I, 2, I0.

129 Defoe criticizes those 'gentlemen' (i.e. Somers) who attach 'fine specious titles' (e.g. Jura populi Anglicani) to their books in defence of the 'interest' of their 'party'. He, on the other hand, defends 'the people' against all institutions of government as the radical source and reservoir of all political power. Original power, I-2.




political theory. This trait is repeated in The letter.'30 In The originalpower, Defoe similarly begins by asserting that since he is dealing with 'fundamentals and principles...'tis necessary to lay down some maxims' of politics, and he proceeds to list a number of propositions he intends to discuss in the 'following discourse', in a manner similar to that employed by the author who lists the ' maxims' he proposes to discuss in The doctrine, The letter, Political aphorisms and Voxpopuli.'3' Defoe is the kind of writer, in other words, who was likely to have written a work called Political aphorisms, listing the general propositions to be discussed in the text, along with the claim that these were 'the true maxims of government'.

Amongst the maxims frequently cited by Defoe, in The original power, and also in his Queries to the new hereditary-right men, is saluspopuli, suprema lex est, which is quoted several times in Political aphorisms.'32 This was hardly a propensity peculiar to Defoe, however, since the phrase was widely quoted in the contemporary political literature. In his Advantages of the present settlement, and later, in his A new test of the Church of England's loyalty: or, Whiggish loyalty and Church loyalty compared, Defoe offers to present the examples drawn from English history as well as those relevant to Spain, Portugal, France, and other European countries to illustrate the interruptions and alterations which have occurred in the succession of kings, such as those which are included in the texts of Political aphorisms and Vox populi.'33 But, again, such references were common and widely used. Nor is the coronation oath-contract argument one which can be used to discriminate one political thinker from all others, Still, this particular argument appears to have had a special significance for Defoe; he repeats it in a number of his pamphlets, and it is characteristic of him as a political writer in a way in which it is not of Locke, Ferguson, Burnet or Somers, for example.'34 There is a statement by Defoe in his Reflections upon the late Great Revolution which repeats a sentence from The doctrine of passive obedience andjure divino disproved, and given the interconnections between that tract and Political aphorisms this is an important, but not conclusive, piece of evidence linking Defoe to the latter's authorship.

Defoe was a writer inclined to rake up the pre-Revolutionary past, declaiming against actions taken during the exclusion crisis, and defending Monmouth's Rebellion, even when many of his contemporaries - including prominent Whigs - maintained a discreet silence about pre-Williamite events.'35 There is a concluding sentence in the preface to Political aphorisms

130 The doctrine, 2; The letter, 6, 32. 131 Defoe, Original power, p. 2; Reflections upon the late Great Revolution, pp. 62-3. 132 Daniel Defoe, Queries to the new hereditary-right men, London, I 7 I 0, p. I I; Original power, p. 2;

Reflections, p. 62.

133 Daniel Defoe, The advantages of the present settlement and the great danger of a relapse (London, I689), p. 20; Daniel Defoe, A new test of the Church of England's loyalty: or, Whiggish loyalty and Church loyalty compared ([London], I702), p. 27.

134 Reflections, p. 44; Original Power, p. 6; A new test, p. i6, 22; Advantages, p. 2I.

135 Advantages, p. I0; Reflections, p. 39; Daniel Defoe, The succession to the crown of England considered (London, I 70 I). This entire tract is devoted to a consideration of the claims of the heirs of 'that gallant man', the Duke of Monmouth, to the crown.



8oo R. ASHCRAFT AND M. M. GOLDSMITH

which might be interpreted as a claim by the author to have fought for his country.'36 Could this be an oblique reference to Defoe's own claim to have participated in Monmouth's Rebellion?'37 In a larger sense, Defoe had an almost proprietary concern about preserving 'revolution principles', presenting himself as their exclusive custodian whenever he felt they were being subjected to intensive criticism, as they were in I 709.138 There are, finally, one or two minor matters of detail relating to Defoe's life which may possibly have a bearing on the question of authorship.'39

None of this establishes a convincing case for Defoe's authorship of Political aphorisms and Vox populi, but he remains, in our judgement, a plausible candidate. Further research on Defoe and these pamphlets may shed some light upon the mysteries which still surround the latter. It is curious, for example, that given the popularity of The judgment and its defence of a viewpoint so close to his own, Defoe has nothing to say about the work in his Review or in his other writings. It is also strange that other authors and publishers registered no complaint regarding the plagiarism of their writings in Political aphorisms. These, along with the author's identity, are only a few of the questions which remain unanswered.

Yet, for reasons we have tried to suggest, the 'collective identity' of Political aphorisms as a work reflecting the views of Locke, Ferguson, and the Vindiciae contra tyrannos outweighs in importance the singular identity of its author. And, specifically, we have sought to illustrate the manner in which the ideas and arguments of a great political philosopher, John Locke, found their way into a popular political manifesto, which offered itself as an ideological defence of a radical political perspective. This manifesto also identified itself with a particular set of revolution principles which emerged during the I689-90

debate over the meaning of the Glorious Revolution. In seeking to preserve the meaning of a historical event and in perpetuating a theoretical framework in terms of which all political phenomena were to be interpreted, Political aphorisms illustrates two of the most important roles performed by a political theory.

136 'I have hitherto (says Cato) fought for my country's liberty, and for my own, and only that I might live among free men. I wish that every Englishman could say that he had either fought or done something else for the good of his country, which is the ambition of T.H.' PA, preface.

137 On Defoe's participation in Monmouth's Rebellion see John Robert Moore, Daniel Defoe: citizen of the modern world (Chicago, I958), pp. 52-8. 'The cause... I never doubted of, and freely ventured for', The succession, p. 32.

138 In his defence of 'the principle of revolutionary liberty', Defoe's 'writing took on a distinct Jacobin tinge' in I709. Kenyon, Revolution principles, p. I23; cf. p. I79. Defoe, Queries, pp. Io-I 2.

139 Defoe's home and place of business in Cornhill was in close proximity to Thomas Harrison's bookshop in Cornhill. Moore, Defoe, pp. 83-4. John Matthews, whose son had worked as a printer on Vox populi (p. 2I3), was the publisher of Defoe's Review until I7I0 (p. 352). Defoe hurriedly returned to England from Scotland some time before February I 7 I 0, during the period Vox populi, vox dei was being revised and republished (in mid-February) as The judgment of whole kingdoms (p. 190).



Documents

Locke, Revolution Principles, And the Formation of Whig Ideology - Aschcraft e Goldsmith