Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Locke on Government

David Lloyd Thomas

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134866779
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Filosofía
• Subtopic: Historia y teoría filosóficas

John Locke is one of the most important figures in the history of political thought. His Second Treatise on Government was one of the most significant political statements of its time and provides the foundations of liberal political thought. His views on the social contract, political obligation, rebellion, revolution and property remain strikingly relevant today.
Locke on Government introduces and assesses:
* Locke's life and the background to the Second Treatise on Government
*The text and ideas of the Second Treatise
*The continuing importance of Locke's work to philosophy
For student's coming to Locke for the first time, Locke on Government will be an invaluable guide to his political thought.

Chapter 1

Introduction

The context of the writing of the Second Treatise

Locke's Second Treatise of Government was written a little over three hundred years ago, in an immensely different world from that in which we read it. This prompts questions about how we should approach the text; questions we do not face when reading contemporary political philosophy. The answers fall into two groups, the historical and the philosophical. The former says that we should take seriously the fact that the Second Treatise is located in a very different world from our own, politically and intellectually. We should try to understand how the ideas and arguments of the Second Treatise were related to that world, in particular to the political situation of Locke's time. We should not assume that the concepts and arguments to be found in the book have any, or at any rate any straightforward, relationship to our political concerns. Our intellectual assumptions are not Locke's, and our political concerns are not his either. The Second Treatise is not to be read as if it were a contribution to a contemporary journal of political philosophy.

This approach is commonest amongst historians of ideas such as Richard Ashcraft (Ashcraft 1986) and John Dunn (Dunn 1969). By contrast, the philosophical approach, as represented, for example, by A.John Simmons (Simmons 1992 and 1993), invites us to lift Locke's text out of its context of three hundred years ago, and to examine its arguments on topics that continue to be of interest to contemporary political philosophy: the grounds of political obligation, democracy, the limits of the powers of government and the circumstances in which revolution is morally acceptable. As one with a philosophical background I incline towards the latter approach, but not without qualification: Locke's writings did address the particular political issues of his day; issues which, at least in that form, are no longer with us. Even so, there are sufficient general similarities between the political issues he thought about, and the issues which concern us now, for his ideas and arguments to remain relevant to us. This, indeed, is why the continued study of the Second Treatise in courses on political theory and political philosophy remains appropriate, and why Locke's political writings are not only of concern to students of English political ideas in the late seventeenth century.

The primary concern in what follows will be with whether the positions Locke is putting forward are true, or rationally defensible. Locke's arguments will be taken seriously as arguments: it will be of concern whether they really do follow. It is intended to take the text of the Second Treatise in the spirit in which it was offered; that is, as giving reasons why we should believe certain things about what we ought to do in the political sphere. The text will not be taken as merely an instance of a certain type of political ‘ideology’, stuck for all time in the mud of a particular historical context.

But this is not to deny that we can learn much of relevance from some awareness of the political situation in which Locke was writing. From time to time I will comment on how his theory connects up with the political situation of his time. Indeed, knowledge of the circumstances in which the Second Treatise was written tends to confirm my interpretation of the text itself: that it is primarily (if not always overtly) out to show that it can be morally justifiable for a people to embark upon all-out armed rebellion against those who claim to be their government.

A few remarks therefore are appropriate about the historical setting in which the Two Treatises were written. They were published in 1689, just after the ‘Glorious Revolution’ had replaced James II with William and Mary. They were probably written, however, in the early 1680s in the household of the Earl of Shaftesbury, to whom Locke was then a kind of private secretary and personal ‘think-tank’. Earlier Shaftesbury had been a leading member of the government of Charles II, but by the early 1680s he had fallen out with the King over his policies towards Catholics, towards France and particularly over his distaste for Parliament and his absolutist tendencies.

The impression that the Two Treatises were composed after the revolution is given by a few passages that prove to have been inserted just before publication. One such is the Preface, where King William is referred to as ‘our Great Restorer’, and where Locke remarks on the fact that the latter part of the First Treatise (a refutation of the monarchist views of Sir Robert Filmer) is missing. It is odd that Locke should have given the manuscript of the First Treatise to the publisher in a state where it breaks off abruptly in mid-sentence. Perhaps Locke thought it urgent to get the Two Treatises published, and their appearance did indeed suit the hour. Another apparent addition of 1689 is section 222 of the Second Treatise, which contains a direct reference to the policies James II was pursuing just before he was overthrown.

By the early 1680s Shaftesbury was a leading figure amongst the opposition Whigs. They attempted to get a bill through Parliament (an Exclusion Bill) to prevent the then Duke of York (later James II), a Catholic, from succeeding to the throne. These attempts failed. Charles II dissolved Parliament and Shaftesbury's thoughts turned from Parliamentary opposition to outright rebellion. Locke's task was to provide a defence of radical Whig policy which would appeal to educated, well-to-do Whigs, doubtful of going so far as outright revolution. In the event Locke had to go into exile in Holland in 1683 for reasons of personal safety, and the Two Treatises did not become public until 1689. So instead of persuading people to start a revolution, as Locke had intended, the Second Treatise ended up by providing an ex post facto justification of the revolution of 1688.

At present there is some reluctance, both on the left and on the right, to accept that the most influential political philosopher to have written in English was, in his theories and in practice, a committed revolutionary for something like a decade of his life. For Marxists and the left this may be because of difficulty in reconciling Locke's apparent defence of the propertied, and his bourgeois image, with his being a true revolutionary. However, he was much more of a revolutionary than most Western left-wing intellectuals of the last few decades. For the right this reluctance may be because of a desire to perceive British political history as an incremental and evolutionary process, and a lack of willingness to view the settlement of 1689 as indeed the outcome of a revolution.

Locke's life

Locke was born in 1632, and brought up near Pensford, in Somerset, not far south of Bristol. His family had Puritan leanings and Parliamentary sympathies during the Civil War. They lived in modest but comfortable circumstances. In later life Locke had sufficient income from family estates to live the life of a gentleman of modest means. He went to Westminster School in 1647, during the Civil War, and continued on to Christ Church, Oxford in 1652. He had his reservations about the intellectual atmosphere of Oxford at the time, especially its pedantry. Indeed his relations with Oxford were often uneasy. Even in the last years of his life a meeting of heads of Oxford colleges resolved that tutors should be instructed not to discuss Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding with their students (Cranston 1957, 468). Nevertheless, Locke stayed on at Oxford after his graduation in 1656, and retained his connection with Christ Church until 1684, when he was ejected from his place at the insistence of Charles II. After graduation Locke cultivated an interest in medicine, and became a friend of the great chemist Robert Boyle. Locke qualified for his M.A. in 1658, was Lecturer in Greek in 1661 and 1662, Lecturer in Rhetoric for 1663, and Censor of Moral Philosophy for 1664 (Milton 1994, 32).

Locke's first works were written at Oxford: the Two Tracts on Government (Locke 1967) between 1660 and 1662, and the Essays on the Law of Nature (Locke 1954), probably a course of lectures to begin with, in 1663–4. These works were not published during Locke's lifetime. They were not in keeping with his later ‘liberalism’. The Two Tracts argued against religious toleration. The Essays on the Law of Nature denied that legitimate government rested upon the consent of the people.

Locke briefly tried the diplomatic life as a member of a mission to Cleves in the winter of 1665–6, and with sufficient success for another post to be offered. But much the most important development for his political interests was his joining the London household of Anthony Ashley Cooper (in due course first Earl of Shaftesbury) in 1667. Shaftesbury was a leading Whig grandee at the time, with whom Locke became a very close friend and associate. The relationship was confirmed early when Locke made use of his medical knowledge to direct an operation on Shaftesbury which (miraculously) saved his life. Their association mostly depended, however, on their pursuit of common political objectives.

Living in Shaftesbury's household brought Locke into the centre of English political life and, as Shaftesbury became more resolutely opposed to the policies of Charles II, it involved Locke in the dangers and uncertainties of his patron's own situation. In the views of both Ashcraft (Ashcraft 1986, 121) and Laslett (Locke 1988, 29), Locke was suspected of being the author of A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country. This pamphlet infuriated the government, and may have led to Locke's hasty departure for France in 1675.¹ Locke travelled widely there, spending most of his time in Montpellier and Paris. He met several leading intellectuals of his day. By the time he returned from France in 1679 Locke may have made substantial progress with early drafts of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

Locke's ‘liberalism’ arose out of his association with Shaftesbury. An Essay Concerning Toleration (1667) (Locke 1993) and the Two Treatises of Government were probably written in Shaftesbury's household, and quite possibly in response to his requests. Ashcraft dates the composition of the Two Treatises at about 1680–2, and Laslett has them started a little earlier, in 1679.

In 1683, following the discovery of the Rye House plot on the life of Charles II (in which Locke may have been implicated) he had to go into exile again, this time to Holland. Locke had probably completed the Two Treatises by this time, and wished to avoid the fate of Algernon Sydney, who had been executed for writing a treasonable manuscript. Shaftesbury died in 1683. Locke lived in Holland with many other English refugees from the oppression of Charles II and James II until returning to England in 1689, after the success of the Glorious Revolution. In that year Locke also published (also anonomously) the Epistola de Tolerantia, probably written in Amsterdam in 1685 (Horton and Mendus 1991, 5). An English translation of this, made by William Popple, also appeared in that year under the title A Letter Concerning Toleration (see Horton and Mendus 1991, or Locke 1993). The only publication of that memorable year Locke acknowledged was the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, probably completed by the end of 1686 (Cranston 1957, 208). Locke was angry when he discovered that his Dutch friend Limborch had disclosed his authorship of the Epistola de Tolerantia (Cranston 1957, 332). He never publically acknowledged his authorship of the Two Treatises during his lifetime, despite the fact that many knew of it.

It is hard to say why Locke was so secretive. We must remember, though, that the Two Treatises were written in a far from tolerant political environment, and that Sydney's execution had been for views no more radical than Locke's. In the 1670s and 1680s, under Charles II and James II, some of the methods of the modern police state had already been deployed: spies, informers, the manipulation of juries to gain convictions and the kidnapping of political exiles. It was dangerous to argue for the right of the people to resist established government, with force if necessary. We study the Second Treatise in liberal societies and in an academic context, but these were not the circumstances in which it was composed. These are reasons why Locke may have been reluctant to acknowledge authorship of the Two Treatises. It is true that Locke's side had won by 1689, but Locke could not know when he published that the settlement would last. On the other hand, he must have wished to make a contribution to helping it last. It is also true, however, that Locke did not acknowledge authorship of other much less controversial works, so it may be that he was just inclined to be secretive. He lived in times when it was not wise to be too open. In the text of the Second Treatise, as we shall see, Locke was also occasionally less than completely frank about the views that are in fact to be found in it. This is partly due to its being intended to be politically persuasive, and the wish to avoid alienating potential allies.

Locke spent much of the remainder of his life in the household of Sir Francis and Lady Masham in the countryside not far north of London. Locke had had a close relationship with Lady Masham before her marriage. She was Damaris Cudworth, daughter of the Cambridge Platonist Ralph Cudworth. Locke was not inactive in the later years of his life, and made frequent visits to London. He had a prominent role in the political life of the country now that he was on the ‘right’ side. He was Commissioner for Appeals, and a Commissioner for Trade, a very responsible position dealing mostly with the problems of the English colonies. He influenced the repeal of the Act for the Regulation of Printing in 1695 and also the re-coinage of the debased English currency in the 1690s. Before his death in 1704 Locke was not only an internationally renowned intellectual figure, but also moved in the most influential political circles in England. Apart from further editions of the Essay, Locke published a number of minor works in his later years. Some Considerations on the Lowering of Interest and Raising the Value of Money appeared in 1691, though it had been written in 1668 (Cranston 1957, 117). The Second Letter for Toleration (1691) and the Third Letter for Toleration (1692) were responses to criticisms of A Letter Concerning Toleration made by Jonas Proast. Some Thoughts on Education followed in 1693, and The Reasonableness of Christianity in 1695.

Locke's character

What kind of a man was Locke? This is not an easy question to answer, for in the space of 300 years even the categories in which we assess character change. We know, from the elderly of our acquaintance, or, if we are old enough, from our own recollections, how certain types of attitude and traits of character once common disappear in later generations. Some of the external circumstances of Locke's life are easier to reconstruct. Locke never seems to have lacked friends, but in most periods of his life he was rootless. In no place did he live very long continuously, and often he lived between two places, for example, between London and Oxford in the Shaftesbury days, and between the Mashams' house and London in his later years. He travelled frequently, not only when abroad, but also in England. He settled down with no one, had no wife or children, and was always a lodger or guest in someone else's establishment. For much of his life Locke was quite comfortably off. Though he had neither the means nor the desire to live lavishly, his life was not circumscribed by lack of money, and he died quite well off. By the standards of modern academic life he enjoyed considerable leisure. For long periods his time was largely free for tra...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Social contract and the state
• 3 Rebellion
• 4 Property
• 5 Epilogue: Locke’s legacy
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index