WRITERS ON GOVERNMENT.
The hinge of the controversies on government which agitated England in
the seventeenth century, and produced the great treatises of Locke and
Algernon Sidney, was a feeble book by Sir Robert Filmer, a Cavalier,
written about the end of the Civil War, but published at a period which
brings it within the scope of this volume. Filmer, though not a man of
conspicuous mental power, was able to discern that the right of the
nation to resist the arbitrary encroachments of Charles I. could not
well be disputed so long as it continued to be held that 'Mankind is
naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjection, and at
liberty to choose what form of government it please, and that the power
which any one man hath over others was at first bestowed according to
the discretion of the multitude.' This opinion, which he admits to be
that generally held, he endeavours to overthrow by the argument that no
man was ever born in a state of freedom, for everyone comes into the
world subject to the authority of his parents. 'Not only Adam, but the
succeeding patriarchs had, by right of fatherhood, royal authority over
their children.' How they came to have royal authority over the children
of other patriarchs Filmer does not explain; and it seems obvious on his
own showing that either this latter authority does not exist, in which
case there must be as many monarchies as families, or that it exists in
virtue of a mutual contract among individual families; so that royal
authority derives from the people after all. Illogical, however, as
Filmer might be, his views were too agreeable to the Court and to the
supporters of absolute power not to find much encouragement, and men of
first-rate powers found it necessary to take the field against them.
Seldom indeed has a writer of such slender abilities made so much stir,
or unintentionally laid the cause of liberty and reason under such deep
obligations. As a measure of his own qualifications, it is sufficient to
state that he seriously takes Samuel's dissuasion of the Israelites from
setting up a monarchy on the ground of the oppressions to which they
would subject themselves, for a luminous exposition of the rights of the
sovereign and the duties of the subject.
Filmer was answered by three writers of great distinction--Locke,
Algernon Sidney, and the Rev. George Johnson, a memorable pamphleteer
who scarcely vindicates a place for himself in literature. The merit of
their polemic, and the obligation under which it has placed posterity,
must of necessity be ill appreciated by an age which finds it difficult
to believe that Filmer could ever be thought to require an answer. The
propositions that the first man was invested by Heaven with monarchical
privileges, and that these privileges had in some manner devolved on
King Charles I., seem to us so palpably absurd that Locke himself
appears chargeable with folly for having spent his time in refuting
them. The steady intellectual upheaval which has been going on ever
since the revival of letters has lifted us into a region where the
conceptions of divine right and non-resistance cannot live; and we are
inclined to attribute to the improvement of our understandings what
really proceeds from the alteration of our environment. Ideas as
baseless as Filmer's are now daily advanced, and daily combated by
opponents whose services will one day be requited by the neglect that
has overtaken Locke. Had Locke been a wit, he might indeed have
immortalized himself and his antagonist together; but although he can
and does make the latter ridiculous, he cannot make him amusing. There
is more vitality in the second of his two _Tracts on Government_, for
this in part deals with speculative questions regarding the origin of
civil society as yet unsettled, and therefore not as yet commonplace.
Locke deduces the mutual relations and obligations of rulers and ruled
from a contract which he supposes to have been entered into in the
infancy of society. The theory was highly salutary for the age,
abolishing all superstitious notions of divine right, and providing
sufficient justification for popular resistance to evil rulers. It must
be owned, however, that it lacked the only safe basis of theory, the
historical; the constitutions of uncivilized man were little known in
Locke's day, and the better known they have become the less affinity
they have seemed to present to the parliament which his imagination
transported back from Westminster to Shinar. His essay nevertheless
represents a necessary phase in the development of opinion, and exerted
the most beneficial influence in generating the enlightened political
sentiment of the eighteenth century. It is amusing to remark that, in
spite of the Israelites, Locke stoutly refuses his imaginary society the
right to contract itself out of its freedom by establishing an absolute
monarchy, the only form of government which, according to his opponents,
could be legitimate in any sense.
Algernon Sidney's _Discourse on Government_ has attracted less attention
than Locke's, mainly because it claims more. So elaborate and ambitious
a work was not required to crush Filmer, who had in fact been crushed by
Locke some years before the appearance of Sidney's belated refutation.
It is nevertheless a more interesting work than Locke's, partly from the
fineness of the style, a noble specimen of dignified though vehement
English prose, partly from the reflection of the striking personality of
the author, 'a Roman in un-Roman times.' Though a patrician both on the
father's and the mother's side, Sidney was theoretically a republican.
Born in 1622, second son of the Earl of Leicester, he had served the
Commonwealth in the Civil War, and distinguished himself afterwards by
his resistance to what he deemed the usurpation of Cromwell. The
Restoration found him envoy to the northern courts. Exchanging embassy
for exile, he remained abroad until 1677, when he returned under an
engagement to live quietly. Whether he had any actual concern in the Rye
House plot is one of the problems of history; certain it is that no good
evidence was produced, and that he was iniquitously condemned on the
testimony of one witness of infamous character, and of papers in his
handwriting written years before. These seem to have formed part of a
brief reply to Filmer, never published; the stately work that has come
down to us was written after the publication of Filmer's manuscript in
1680, and was evidently prompted by the debates on the Exclusion Bill.
The style precisely corresponds to the author's character, haughty,
fiery, and arrogant; but thrilling with conviction, and meriting the
highest praise as a specimen of masculine, nervous, and at the same time
polished English. Much additional zest is imparted to the author's
argument by his continual strokes at the political abuses and the
unworthy characters of his own day, from Charles II. downwards. He had
the advantage of writing under the stimulus of fiery indignation kindled
and maintained by the actual existence of a tyranny. He is thus never
tame, and depicts himself as one of that remarkable class of men of
whom Alfieri is perhaps the most characteristic type--aristocrats by
temperament, champions of democracy by intellectual conviction.[10]
Although the controversy in which he engaged now belongs entirely to the
past, he is often modern in sentiment as well as in style; sometimes we
are reminded of Shelley, at other times, and more frequently, of Landor.
It certainly indicates some want of good sense to have written so
grandiose a reply to a tract so diminutive in every point of view, and
most will be contented with his biographer's, Miss Blackburne's,
excellent analysis. As a fine writer, however, Sidney has a right to a
place in any collection of Restoration prose:
'No man can be my judge, unless he be my superior; and he
cannot be my superior, who is not so by my consent, nor to any
other purpose than I consent to. This cannot be the case of a
nation, which can have no equal within itself. Controversies
may arise with other nations, the decision of which may be left
to judges chosen by mutual agreement; but this relates not to
our question. A nation, and especially one that is powerful,
cannot recede from its own right, as a private man, from the
knowledge of his own weakness, and inability to defend himself,
must come under the protection of a greater power than his own.
The strength of a nation is not in the magistrate, but the
strength of the magistrate is in the nation. The wisdom,
industry, and valour of a prince may add to the glory and
greatness of a nation, but the foundation and substance will
always be in itself. If the magistrate and people were upon
equal terms, as Caius and Sejus, receiving equal and mutual
advantages from each other, no man could be judge of their
differences, but such as they should set up for that end. This
has been done by many nations. The ancient Germans referred the
decision of the most difficult matters to their priests; the
Gauls and Britons to the Druids; the Mahometans for some ages
to the caliphs of Babylon; the Saxons in England, when they had
embraced the Christian religion, to their clergy. Whilst all
Europe lay under the popish superstition, the decision of such
matters was frequently assumed by the pope: men often submitted
to his judgment, and the princes that resisted were for the
most part excommunicated, deposed and destroyed. All this was
done for the same reasons. These men were accounted holy and
inspired, and the sentence pronounced by them was usually
reverenced as the judgment of God, who was thought to direct
them; and all those who refused to submit were esteemed
execrable. But no man or number of men, as I think, at the
institution of a magistrate, did ever say, if any difference
happen between you or your successors and us, it shall be
determined by yourself, or by them, whether they be men, women,
children, mad, foolish, or vicious. Nay, if any such thing had
been, the folly, turpitude, and madness of such a sanction or
stipulation must necessarily have destroyed it. But if no such
thing was ever known, or could have no effect, if it had been
in any place, it is most absurd to impose it upon all. The
people therefore cannot be deprived of their natural rights
upon a frivolous pretence to that which never was, and never
can be. They who create magistracies, and give to them such
name, form, and power, as they think fit, do only know, whether
the end for which they were created be performed or not. They
who give a being to the power which had none can only judge,
whether it be employed to their welfare, or turned to their
ruin. They do not set up one or a few men, that they and their
posterity may live in splendour and greatness, but that justice
may be administered, virtue established, and provision made for
the public safety. No wise man will think this can be done, if
those who set themselves to overthrow the law are to be their
own judges.'
Sir William Temple, in an essay on government written in 1672, arrives
at substantially the same conclusion as Sidney by a different path.
Fletcher of Saltoun, the illustrious Scottish patriot, wrote _An
Account of a Conversation for a right Regulation of Governments_ (1704).
The development of the English periodical press during the Restoration
epoch is a matter of such moment that the two men principally connected
with it cannot be left unnoticed, although, at least in one instance,
their claim to rank as men of letters is very slender. Marchamont
Needham (1620-1678) had scarcely any other character than that of a
pamphleteer who only escaped the designation of hired scribbler by his
political infidelities and a certain rough effectiveness in his
ephemeral writings. This 'most seditious, mutable, and railing author's'
position in the history of the press is nevertheless important; for if
not the first strictly professional journalist, he is the first whose
name has descended to posterity. Having from 1641 to 1647 made war
against the king in his _Mercurius Britannicus_, he changed sides and
wrote as a royalist in _Mercurius Pragmaticus_, recanted again and
supported Cromwell as the conductor of _Mercurius Politicus_; and, after
a short exile, ultimately made his peace with the Restoration. He had
already excited the animosity of the stricter Puritans, one of whom thus
anticipated and refuted the best plea that could be made for him: 'He is
a man of parts, and hath a notable vein of writing. Doubtless so hath
the Devil; must therefore the Devil be made use of?' He subsequently
made war upon schoolmasters and physicians, and died suddenly as he was
about returning to his old trade of political pamphleteer. Roger
L'Estrange (1616-1704) was a man of much higher character, being a
consistent royalist. His connection with the periodical press in Charles
II.'s day was brief, lasting only from 1663 to 1666, when his
_Intelligencer_ and _News_ were extinguished by the appearance of an
official journal, the _Oxford_, afterwards the _London Gazette_. But he
has a permanent place in history as the first 'able editor,' who not
only made his journal the vehicle for political discussions, and availed
himself of regular news-letters, but employed a regular staff of
assistants to collect news. He was no friend to his own trade, for he
says in a prospectus: 'Supposing the press in order, the people in their
right wits, and news or no news to be the question, a public Mercury
should never have my vote, because I think it makes the multitude too
familiar with the actions and counsels of their superiors, too
pragmatical and censorious, and gives them not only a wish but a kind of
colourable right and licence to the meddling with the government.' A man
who thought thus must have seemed admirably qualified for the office of
licenser of the press, which he held from 1663 to the Revolution, and in
the discharge of which he inevitably accumulated the odium which even
now somewhat undeservedly rests upon his memory. In 1681 he returned to
newspaper editing, and successfully carried on _Heraclitus Ridens_ and
_The Observator_ until March, 1687, when James II., who was enacting
liberty of conscience to serve his own ends, silenced the old Cavalier
just as the latter was demonstrating this liberty to be 'a paradox
against law, reason, nature, and religion.' L'Estrange's prose style is
bad, but he was the author of several useful translations, of which
those from AEsop, Josephus, Quevedo, and Erasmus are the best known. He
was a courtly and well-bred man, of considerable culture, and would be
mentioned with more respect if he had not exercised a function
detestable to the entire republic of letters. Dr. Johnson regarded him
as the first writer upon record who regularly enlisted himself under the
banners of a party for pay, and fought for it through right and wrong.
This is probably correct as a mere statement of fact, but unjust if it
was intended to imply any doubt of the purity of L'Estrange's motives
in serving the high monarchical party, or of the sincerity of his
advocacy of its principles.
The _Political Arithmetic_ of Sir William Petty (1623-1687), and the
_Discourse of Trade_ of Sir Josiah Child (1630-1699), take high rank
among economic publications, but can scarcely be regarded as
literature.
FOOTNOTES:
[10] Sidney and his friends are frequently taxed with having accepted
money from France. It is worth noting that their conduct in so doing is
vindicated by so powerful and, in this instance, so unprejudiced a
reasoner as Warburton, in an unpublished letter to Balguy now before us.