Page 116 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes The preface had convinced many that the tract articulated and defended the philosophical concepts
and the political solution of the Glorious Revolution. (Cranston 1957; Laski 1920: 29; Lamprecht
1918: 141–143; Plamentaz 1963: Vol. I: 212ff; Sabine 1973: 518ff; Stephen 1902: 135; Tawney 1954:
214). Locke was seen as the apostle of the Revolution, and the Second Treatise as a justification of
the Revolution.
Laslett was among the earliest to digress from this accepted version. He contended that the Two
Treatises might have been written during the Exclusion crisis of 1679–1681. Though the books were
published in 1690, their purpose was not to justify the Revolution. He built his argument on a hint
by Fox-Bourne that the Second Treatise could have been written before, instead of after, the accession
of King William to the throne. The substantial part of the text might have been written in 1682–
1683 when Locke was in exile in Holland. The First Treatise could have been written during 1681–
1682. However, Fox-Bourne, unlike Laslett, thought that the two texts might have been prepared
fully after the Revolution. Though they were not written for the purpose of defending the
Revolution, they could be seen as the basis of Whig orthodoxy. “The Two Treatises turns not to be
a demand for a revolution to be brought about, nor a rationalization of a revolution in need of a
defence”.
Cranston argued out that the texts were written 10 years before the Revolution, in order to justify
and create the arguments for the revolution that was being planned. He agreed with Laslett that
Locke was a philosopher writing about politics, as evident from the first sentence of the preface.
Thou hast here the beginning and the end of a discourse concerning government; what fate has
otherwise disposed of the papers that should have filled up the middle and were more than all the
rest, it is not worthwhile to tell thee [for it shows that] it belonged not to settled years of the reign
of William and Mary but to the perilous years of the Protestant Plot against Charles II. The Two
Treatises when it was first written was a seditious and inflammatory document.
In the entire sequence of events leading up to the Glorious Revolution was the crucial figure of the
Earl of Shaftesbury. “Without Shaftesbury, Locke would not have been Locke” (Laslett 1960: 40).
Very likely, Locke articulated the ideas of Shaftesbury, considering they shared a “community of
ideas”. One could discern a shift and subsequently a change in Locke’s political outlook. Till 1659,
he was a right-wing monarchist welcoming the Restoration. Till 1664, he was an authoritarian
endorsing the Hobbesian position in the Leviathan. It was only after 1666, when he met the Earl,
that the ideas which were characterized as Lockeian took shape. Prior to this, Locke willingly
granted the civil magistrate absolute and arbitrary power over the individual, was opposed to
toleration of religious dissent, did not believe in parliamentary supremacy—a theory of inalienable
natural rights—nor did he defend the right of the people to resist their rulers. At this time he
accepted the distinction between secular and spiritual power, political and religious authority.
“The Second Treatise was not a text in philosophy but a party book, a work of propaganda designed
to promote the political objectives of Shaftesbury and the Whigs”.
Ashcraft asserted that the Second Treatise was written in 1681–1682. This was followed by the First
Treatise. Franklin (1978) pointed out that contrary to the compromise formula that emerged during
the Glorious Revolution the Lockeian position was not even the majoritarian perspective within
the Whig Party. The Whigs in 1688, more than in 1680, were willing to accept parliamentary
supremacy and limited constitutional monarchy. Locke accepted the argument of the Whigs that
political power was in the nature of a trust, but he understood people to mean the general
community, and not when constituted as a parliament. This was a Whig position which became a
part of the settlement after the Revolution. Thus, Locke was more radical than the Whigs. The Two
Treatises contained radical and moderate ideas. Its radicalism was clothed in a language of
moderation. Moreover, the Whigs built their case of parliamentary supremacy and constitutional
monarchy by invoking an argument of ancient constitution based on tradition history and customs,
whereas Locke espoused liberal constitutionalism by appealing to reason.

110 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY