Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:45:40.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Locke, Revolution Principles, and the Formation of Whig Ideology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Richard Ashcraft  and
M. M. Goldsmith
Richard Ashcraft
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
M. M. Goldsmith
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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 1689 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.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 1983 , pp. 773 - 800
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

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

References

1 T.H., Political aphorisms: or, the true maxims of government displayed, printed for Thomas Harrison (London, 1690): hereafter cited as PA.Google Scholar

2 See Mark Goldie, ‘The Revolution of 1689 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 (1980), 473–564 (p. 553).Google Scholar

3 On the radical dimensions of Locke's political thought, see Franklin, Julian H., John Locke and the theory of sovereignty (Cambridge, 1978)Google Scholar; Richard, Ashcraft, ‘Revolutionary politics and Locke's Two treatises of government’, Political Theory, viii (1980), 429–86Google Scholar, and Kenyon, J. P., Revolution principles: the politics of party, 1689–1720 (Cambridge, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Unattributed borrowing from one author by another was not a common practice in 1690, 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, 1694) (see note 19 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 Yolton, John W. (ed.), John Locke: problems and perspectives (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 45–80Google Scholar; Thompson, Martyn P., ‘The reception of Locke's Two treatises of government, 1690–1705’, Political Studies, xxiv (1976), 184–91Google Scholar; Jeffrey, Nelson, ‘Unlocking Locke's legacy: a comment’, Political Studies, xxvi (1978), 101–8Google Scholar; Thompson, Martyn P., ‘Reception and influence: a Reply to Nelson on Locke's Two treatises of government’, Political Studies, xxviii (1980), 100–8. 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 11 below.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Gilbert Burnet, An enquiry into the measures of submission to the supreme authority (n.p. [Holland], 1688). The three paragraphs are to be found on pp. 2 (PA, pp. 16, 19) and 3 (PA, p. 26).

8 John, Locke, Two treatises of government, Peter, Laslett (ed.) (Cambridge, second edition, 1967), introduction, pp. 49, 121 (hereafter cited as FT or ST). Spelling and punctuation have been modernized.Google Scholar

9 Edward, Arber (ed.), The term catalogues, 1668–1709, 3 vols. (London: privately printed, 1905), II, 352. Goldie, ‘The Revolution of 1689’, p. 553. This date is also suggested in a private communication to the authors from Professor Lois Schwoerer, George Washington University.Google Scholar

10 Laslett (ed.) Two treatises, introduction, p. 9.

11 Mark Goldie, ‘The roots of true Whiggism, 1688–94’, History of Political Thought, 1 (1980), 195–236; Kenyon, Revolution principles.

12 ___,A character of popery and arbitrary government (London, 1681)Google Scholar; Henry, Care, English liberties: or, the free-born subject's inheritance (London, n.d. [1680])Google Scholar; Thomas, Hunt, Mr Hunt's postscript for rectifying some mistakes in some of the inferior clergy, mischievious to our government and religion (London, 1682)Google Scholar. See Richard, Ashcraft, The Two treatises and the Exclusion crisis: the problem of Lockean political theory as bourgeois ideology (Los Angeles, 1980), pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

13 Two treatises, preface, p. 156; FT, par. 3; cf. FT, par. 13.

14 FT, par. 1.

15 Two treatises, preface, p. 156.

16 PA, preface.

17 PA, 1–2. The phraseology is very close to that used by Robert Ferguson in the Declaration he wrote for Monmouth's Rebellion, and also in his Brief justification of the prince of Orange's descent into England (London, 1689), p. 5. Burnet's statement of this point in Enquiry is also similar to the passage in PA.Google Scholar

18 PA, 2; cf. ST, par. 4,11. 8–9; par. 7, 11. 14–15; par. 54, II. 1, 8–10.

19 PA, 2; ST, par. 4, II. 8–16. Tindal also cited these lines, without attribution, in his An essay concerning obedience, p. 3.

20 PA, 2; ST, par. 128, II. 7–8.

21 PA, 2–3; ST, par. 125, II. 3–8; cf. ST, par. 13, II. 1–7.

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. 13.

23 PA, 3; ST, par. 127, II. 9–13 + par. 131, II. 5–6.

24 PA, 3; FT, par. 10, II. 11–13+ II. 16–17.

25 PA, 3; ST, par. 164, II. 1–2 + par. 137, II. 11–18.

26 PA, 3. This is Locke's position, but not his words; cf. ST, par. 4, II. 1–3.

27 PA, 4; ST, par. 102, II. 21–3.

28 PA, 5; ST, par. 158, II. 1–2; ‘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. 134, 1. 17, comes from Book One, section 10. Richard Hooker, Of the laws of ecclesiastical polity, 2 vols. (New York: Dutton, Everyman's Library, 1907), I, 194.

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. 194, II. 1—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, 1979), pp. 171–2Google Scholar, and James, Tully, A discourse on property (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 169 ff.Google Scholar

31 Junius, Brutus, Vindiciae contra tyrannos, 1580 (Latin), p. 71Google Scholar. An English translation was published in 1648 and reprinted in 1689. This edition was subsequently republished under the editorship of Laski, Harold J. with the title, A defence of liberty against tyrants (London, 1924). It appears that the author of Political aphorisms used one of the Latin editions of the Vindiciae (1579 or 1580) rather than the available English version.Google Scholar

32 PA, 6. On ‘oaths to a foreign power’ (e.g. the pope), see ST, par. 134, II. 21–2, and pars. 137, 210, 217.

33 PA, 7–11. 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.

34 PA, 12; cf. ST, pars. 134, 158, 159 (II. 17–19, 26–8). The last sentence quoted states the point made by Locke in ST, par. 135, II. 26–32, and it may also be a paraphrase of the passage from Hooker which Locke cites at that point, ST, par. 136, 1. 3. Hooker, Laws, I 326.

35 PA, 12; ST, par. 183, II. 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. 184, II. 31—2; par. 14, 11. 3–5.

36 PA, 12; FT, par. 93, II. 9–10. The passage in PA quotes lines 9–14.

37 PA, 12; ST, par. 159, II. 29–32.

38 PA, 12. The passage from Hooker is from the Laws, 1, 228.

39 PA, 16. This is another citation from the Vindiciae, p. 146.

40 ST, par. 200, II. 16–21. This speech by James I was widely used by the Whigs in their political literature. See Vox populi: or, the people's claim to their parliaments sitting (London, 1681)Google Scholar; Robert, Ferguson, A just and modest vindication of the proceedings of the two last parliaments (London, 1681). The speech is not in Political aphorisms, but it is quoted in Vox populi, vox dei, p. 20.Google Scholar

41 ST, par. 151.

42 PA, 16; ST, par. 151, II. 15–17.

43 PA, 16; 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. 151. 152, 156.

44 PA, 16–17. There is no single passage like this in the Two treatises, though Locke makes the same argument; cf. ST, pars. 176, 202. For a paraphrase of the last sentence cited, see ST, par. 7.

45 PA, 18.

46 PA, 18; ST, par. 94, II. 3–6 + II. 32–6; cf. pars. 91, 92.

47 PA, 25; ST, par. 90, II. 1–5.

48 PA, 25–6; ST, par. 135, II. 9–14 + II. 31–2.

49 PA, 18; ST, par. 16, II. 7–11.

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. 11, II. 21–6, but see also par. 8, II. 10–19, Par. 16, II. 12–18, and par. 230, II. 35–7. The second sentence contains phrases from two paragraphs: par. 172, II. 9–19, and par. 181, II. 16–20. Also see par. 10, II. 1–4, and par. 182, II. 19–21. For a discussion of Locke's extensive rewriting of these passages see Laslett's note, Two treatises, pp. 400–1.

51 PA, 19; cf. ST, par. 230, II. 35–7.

52 PA, 17.

53 PA, 31; ST, par. 208, II. 9–12 + par. 209, I. 4 + par. 223, II. 7–8; cf. par. 230.

54 PA, 31.

55 PA, 31; ST, par. 230, II. 4–8; cf. pars. 209, 225.

56 PA, 17; cf. ST, par. 202, II. 20–30.

57 PA, 31; ST, par. 230, II. 29–37. The concluding sentence in PA adds to this quote a reference to James II.

58 ST, par. 231; cf. pars. 218, 239. PA, 19: ‘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 polities’, pp. 469 ff.

59 PA, 27–8; cf. FT, pars. 39, 86, 87, II. 5–12.

60 PA, 28; FT, par. 69, II. 12–22; ST, pars. 65, 86. PA quotes (p. 29) the lines from the First treatise, par. 64, II. 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, II. 10–11; cf. ST, pars. 56, 60, 63, 67; FT, pars. 88–93. The author also quotes from the First treatise, par. 61, II. 38–49, to show that the child owes obedience to both parents and not to the father only (PA, pp. 28—9).

62 PA, 27; cf. FT, pars. 135, II. 4–10, 140, 144, II. 30–34.

63 PA, 29; cf. ST, pars. 175, II. 6–8, 177, II. 18–27.

64 PA, 29; cf. ST, pars. 175, 179, 185–92, 196.

65 PA, 30; FT, par. 156, II. 6–7.

66 PA, 29; cf. ST, pars. 182, II. 27–31, 183, II. 1–5, 11–13, 189. The author also restates and paraphrases the point from the First treatise, pars. 41–3, 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, 1691). 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.

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, 60.

69 In considering the identity of the author below, we have assumed him to be living in 1710, 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 1691 and 1709 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, 1705).Google Scholar

71 Benjamin, Hoadly, Works, 3vols. (London, 1773); II, 18 ff. An enlarged version of this sermon was published in 1706 as The measures of submission to the civil magistrate considered. Kenyon, Revolution principles, pp. 117–19.Google Scholar

72 Much of Charles Leslie's writing is in The rehearsal, which he edited from 1704 to 1709. There is also a brief discussion of his views in Schochet, Gordon J., Patriarchalism in political thought (New York, 1975), pp. 220–4Google Scholar. Francis Atterbury's reply is entitled An enquiry into the nature of the liberty of the subject. Bennett, G. V., The Tory crisis in Church and state, 1688–1730: the career of Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester (Oxford, 1975).Google Scholar

73 Offspring Blackall, Works, 2 vols. (London, 1723), II, 1121—35. Nelson, ‘Unlocking Locke's legacy’, pp. 101–8.Google Scholar

74 Blackall, Works, II, 1161–73. The sermon was preached before Queen Anne on 8 March 1708, and was printed with the date 1709. Blackall's 1705 sermon was reprinted in 1708, and again in 1709.

75 Professor Schochet has noted that there were at least sixteen tracts written in 1709 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 1709, refers to Vox populi, vox dei as a pamphlet which has just been published, probably in mid-September.

77 Bennett, The Tory crisis, pp. 109–10. Holmes, G., The trial of Doctor Sacheverell (London, 1973), pp. 56–8.Google Scholar

78 Henry, Sacheverell, The perils of false brethren, both in church and state (London, 1709; reprinted Exeter, 1974), p. 19.Google Scholar

79 Holmes, Trial, pp. 69–74. W. A. Speck (ed.), F. F. Madan: a critical bibliography of Dr Henry Sacheverell (Lawrence, Kansas, 1978), pp. 19–25.

80 Sacheverell's sermon was printed on 25 November 1709, but The Post Boy, 24–26 November 1709 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, 1709), appeared on 12 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. 18; Holmes, Trial, pp. 77 f.; The Post Boy, 10–13 December 1709.

81 The Tatler, 20–22 December 1709; The Evening Post, 12–14 January 1710; The Post Man, 12–14 January 1710; The Flying Post: or, The Post Master, 12–14 January 1710; The Post Man and the Historical Account, 10–12 January 1710. On 21 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.

83 The Post Boy, 10–12 January 1710. Schochet, Patriarchalism, p. 209 n. A second edition of this tract appeared in 1710.

84 The Post Boy, 17–19 January 1710.

85 See The Post Boy, 23–25 February 1710, 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. 142.

86 The Post Boy, 22–24 September 1709.

87 The third edition - Vox populi, vox dei being the first, and the February 1710 edition published as The judgment being the second - appeared in mid-May 1710. Speck, Critical bibliography, pp. 55–8.

88 The judgment (3rd edn, 1710, ‘corrected with additions’), title page. Kenyon remarks upon this passage, but since he erroneously takes it to be a reference to Ferguson's Brief justification 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. 209–10.

89 PA, 32.

90 The doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, ’by a layman of the Church of England’, published by Randal Taylor (London, 1689). A.AGoogle Scholar., 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, 1689), 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’.Google Scholar

91 The doctrine was licensed on 7 May 1689. 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, 1689), 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 1689. Arber, Term catalogues, II, 255. Since The doctrine had already been written before May (see note 90 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.Google Scholar

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, 16 (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, 15; PA, 24–5 (primitive Christians and Julian the Apostate); The letter, 8–9; PA, 23 (Bishop Athanasius); The letter, 21, 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, 17; PA, 31. 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.

99 The letter, 22; Brief justification, 8.

100 The letter, II; Brief justification, 10.

101 The letter, 17–18; Brief justification, 26–8; Vox populi, vox dei, 15–16.

102 Vox populi, vox dei, 3–10; Brief justification, 5–17.

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. 11 (VPVD, p. 6), p. 17 (VPVD, p. 15). It is true, however, that The letter was reprinted in A collection of state tracts, 3 vols. (London, 1705), vol. 1.

104 State tracts, III, 694–728. Vox populi, vox dei, 12: ‘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. 210.

105 The judgment, 70–1.

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.’

107 Speck, Critical bibliography, pp. 55–8.

108 The judgment, 4th edition, preface. We have consulted the following editions of The judgment: 1st (Vox populi), 1709; 2nd (1709); 3rd (1710); 4th (1710); 5th (1710); 6th (1710); 8th (1713); 10th (1713); 11th (1714); 1717; 1747, Birmingham; 1771, London. We have not seen the edition mentioned in this note, i.e. ‘in a large print…of very fine paper’.

109 In addition to those cited in note 108 above, there is an edition of The judgement published by J. 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 1747. This edition is not included in the bibliographics compiled by Madan and Speck. Other editions are noted, however, for Dublin (1716); Philadelphia (1773); Boston [1774]; Rhode Island (1774); London (1810).

110 Edward, Fisher, An appeal to thy conscience (London, 1710)Google Scholar. Speck, , Critical bibliography, p. 58.Google Scholar

111 F.A.D.D., The voice of the people no voice of God (London, 1710), p. 24.Google Scholar

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. 210; Goldie, ‘The Revolution of 1689’, 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 1689. Little information about Harrison is provided by Henry, Plomer, Dictionary of printers and booksellers, 1668–1725 (London, 1922). Harrison died in 1714, 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.Google Scholar

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. 315–18.

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, 1932), VI, 199. 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.Google Scholar

116 The judgment of whole kingdoms and nations, 10th edition corrected, reprinted and sold by Williams, J. in Fleet Street (London, 1771), ‘by Lord Somers’ (copy in British Library).Google Scholar

117 Cannon, J. (ed.), The letters of Junius (Oxford, 1978), letter XLVI (22 May 1771), p. 240.Google Scholar

118 Richard, Cooksey, Essay on the life and character of John Lord Somers (Worcester, 1791).Google Scholar

119 Henry, Maddock, An account of the life and writings of Lord Chancellor Somers (London, 1812), p. 234.Google Scholar

120 Maddock, An account, p. 235 n.

121 Sachse, William L., Lord Somers: a political portrait (Madison, Wisconsin, 1975).Google Scholar

122 John, Somers, A brief history of the succession (London, 1681). See note 33 above.Google Scholar

123 See note 92 above.

124 George, Chalmers, The life of Daniel Defoe (London, 1790), p. 85.Google Scholar

125 Walter, Wilson, Memoirs of the life and times of Daniel Defoe, 3 vols. (London, 1830); II, 95, 97.Google Scholar

126 William, Lee, Daniel Defoe: his life and recently discovered writings, 3 vols. (London, 1869).Google Scholar

127 Moore, John R., A checklist of the writings of Daniel Defoe: Bloomington, Indiana, 1960).Google Scholar

128 Daniel, Defoe, The original power of the collective body of the people of England examined and asserted (3rd edn, London, 1701), pp. v, vi, 7, 19Google Scholar. Daniel, Defoe, Jure divino: a satyr in twelve books (London, 1706), 1, 2, 10.Google Scholar

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, 1–2.

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, 1710, p. 11; Original power, p. 2; Reflections, p. 62.

133 Daniel Defoe, The advantages of the present settlement and the great danger of a relapse (London, 1689), p. 20; Daniel Defoe, A new test of the Church of England's loyalty: or, Whiggish loyalty and Church loyalty compared ([London], 1702), p. 27.

134 Reflections, p. 44; Original Power, p. 6; A new test, p. 16, 22; Advantages, p. 21.

135 Advantages, p. 10; Reflections, p. 39; Daniel, Defoe, The succession to the crown of England considered (London, 1701). 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.Google Scholar

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, 1958), pp. 52–8. ‘The cause…I never doubted of, and freely ventured for’, The succession, p. 32.Google Scholar

138 In his defence of ‘the principle of revolutionary liberty’, Defoe's ‘writing took on a distinct Jacobin tinge’ in 1709. Kenyon, Revolution principles, p. 123; cf. p. 179. Defoe, Queries, pp. 10–12.

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. 213), was the publisher of Defoe's Review until 1710 (p. 352). Defoe hurriedly returned to England from Scotland some time before February 1710, during the period Vox populi, vox dei was being revised and republished (in mid-February) as The judgment of whole kingdoms (p. 190).