RESIDENCE IN FRANCE.--FURTHER RELATIONS WITH SHAFTESBURY.--EXPULSION
FROM CHRIST CHURCH.
The state of Locke's health had long rendered it desirable that he
should reside in a warmer climate, and his release from official duties
now removed any obstacle that there might formerly have been to his
absence from England. The place which he selected for his retirement
was Montpellier, at that time the most usual place of resort for
invalids who were able to leave their own country. He left London about
the middle of November, 1675, with one if not more companions, and,
after experiencing the ordinary inconveniences of travel in those days
of slow locomotion and poor inns, arrived at Paris on Nov. 24, and at
Lyons on Dec. 11. At Lyons, he remarks of the library at the Jesuits'
College that it "is the best that ever I saw, except Oxford, being one
very high oblong square, with a gallery round, to come at the books."
As before, in the North of Germany, so now in the South of France,
he is a diligent observer of everything of interest, whether in the
way of customs, occupations, or buildings, that falls in his way. He
reached Montpellier on Christmas Day, and, except when making short
excursions in the neighbourhood, resided there continuously till the
early spring of 1677, a period of fourteen months. At Montpellier I
have not been able to find any trace of him, either in the library
or elsewhere, but his journal shows that he was much interested in
the trade and products of the country, as well as in the objects
which usually excite the curiosity of travellers. At Shaftesbury's
instigation he wrote a little treatise, entitled, "Observations upon
the Growth and Culture of Vines and Olives, the Production of Silk,
and the Preservation of Fruits." It is curious that this small tract
was never published till 1766. It enumerates no less than forty-one
varieties of grapes, and thirteen varieties of olives, which were
grown in the neighbourhood of Montpellier. The ceremonial and doings
of the States of Languedoc attracted Locke's attention, but he does
not seem to have been present at their deliberations. He witnessed,
however, their devotions at the Church of Notre Dame, and remarks that
the Cardinal Archbishop of Narbonne, who took part in the offices,
kept "talking every now and then, and laughing with the bishops next
him." The increasing incidence of the taxation on the lower and middle
orders, and the growing poverty of the people, were topics which could
hardly fail to arrest the attention of any intelligent traveller at
that time. "The rent of lands in France is fallen one half in these
few years, by reason of the poverty of the people. Merchants and
handicraftsmen pay near half their gains." Among the more interesting
entries in his journal are the following:--March 18 (N.S.). "Monsieur
Rennaie, a gentleman of the town, in whose house Sir J. Rushworth lay,
about four years ago, sacrificed a child to the devil--a child of a
servant of his own--upon a design to get the devil to be his friend
and help him to get some money. Several murders committed here since
I came, and more attempted; one by a brother on his sister, in the
house where I lay." March 22 (N.S.): "The new philosophy of Des Cartes
prohibited to be taught in universities, schools, and academies." It is
plain from the journal that Locke's mind was now busy with the class
of questions which were afterwards treated in the Essay: reflections
on space, the extent of possible knowledge, the objects and modes of
study, etc., being curiously interspersed with his notes of travel. In
respect of health, he does not seem to have benefited much by his stay
at Montpellier, which, as before stated, he left in the early spring of
1677. By slow stages he travelled to Paris, where he joined a pupil,
the son of Sir John Banks, who had been commended to his supervision
by Shaftesbury. This tutorial engagement lasted for nearly two years,
and, in consequence of it, Locke remained in France longer than he had
originally intended. In a letter written to his old friend Mapletoft
from Paris in June, 1677, after some playful allusions to Mapletoft's
love affairs, he says:--"My health is the only mistress I have a long
time courted, and is so coy a one that I think it will take up the
remainder of my days to obtain her good graces and keep her in good
humour." There can be no question that, at this time, the state of his
health was a matter of very serious concern to him, and it may possibly
have been the cause of his not marrying. While in Paris he probably
took a pretty complete holiday, seeing the sights, however, making
occasional excursions, forming new acquaintances, and exercising a
general supervision over the education of his young charge.
At the end of June, 1678, Locke, accompanied probably by his pupil,
left Paris with the view of making his way leisurely to Montpellier,
and thence to Rome. He travelled westward by way of Orleans, Blois,
and Angers. On the banks of the Loire he noticed the poverty-stricken
appearance of the country. "Many of the towns they call bourgs; but,
considering how poor and few the houses in most of them are, would in
England scarce amount to villages. The houses generally were but one
story.... The gentlemen's seats, of which we saw many, were most of
them rather bearing marks of decay than of thriving and being well
kept." Montpellier was reached early in October, and, after a short
stay there, he went on to Lyons, with the view of commencing his
journey to Rome. But the depth of the snow on Mont Cenis was fatal to
this design. Twice Locke had formed plans to visit Rome, "the time set,
the company agreed," and both times he had been disappointed. "Were I
not accustomed," he says, "to have fortune to dispose of me contrary
to my design and expectation, I should be very angry to be thus turned
out of my way, when I made sure in a few days to mount the Capitol and
trace the footsteps of the Scipios and the Cæsars." He had now nothing
left but to turn back to Paris, where he remained till the following
April. Here he seems to have spent his time in the same miscellaneous
occupations as before. In the journal we find the following entry,
dated Feb. 13:--"I saw the library of M. de Thou, a great collection
of choice, well-bound books, which are now to be sold; amongst others,
a Greek manuscript, written by one Angelot, by which Stephens's Greek
characters were first made." De Thou, the celebrated historian of his
own times, is better known under his Latinized name, Thuanus. On a
Friday, he notes:--"The observation of Lent at Paris is come almost to
nothing. Meat is openly to be had in the shambles, and a dispensation
commonly to be had from the curate without difficulty. People of sense
laugh at it, and in Italy itself, for twenty sous, a dispensation is
certainly to be had." Then follows an amusing story of "that Bishop of
Bellay, who has writ so much against monks and monkery."
"A devout lady being sick, and besieged by the Carmes, made her will
and gave them all: the Bishop of Bellay coming to see her, after it
was done, asked whether she had made her will; she answered yes, and
told him how; he convinced her it was not well, and she, desiring
to alter it, found a difficulty how to do it, being so beset by the
friars. The bishop bid her not trouble herself for it, but presently
took order that two notaries, habited as physicians, should come to
her, who being by her bedside, the bishop told the company it was
convenient all should withdraw; and so the former will was revoked,
and a new one made and put into the bishop's hands. The lady dies,
the Carmes produce their will, and for some time the bishop lets them
enjoy the pleasure of their inheritance; but at last, taking out the
other will, he says to them, 'Mes frères, you are the sons of Elijah,
children of the Old Testament, and have no share in the New.'"
It may have been the influence of fashion, and the eager thirst for
reputation, which were so rife in Parisian society, that inspired,
shortly after Locke's return to Paris, the following reflections, as
profound as they are true:--
"The principal spring from which the actions of men take their rise,
the rule they conduct them by, and the end to which they direct
them, seems to be credit and reputation, and that which, at any
rate, they avoid is in the greatest part shame and disgrace. This
makes the Hurons and other people of Canada with such constancy
endure inexpressible torments; this makes merchants in one country
and soldiers in another; this puts men upon school divinity in one
country and physics and mathematics in another; this cuts out the
dresses for the women, and makes the fashions for the men, and makes
them endure the inconveniences of all.... Religions are upheld by
this and factions maintained, and the shame of being disesteemed
by those with whom one hath lived, and to whom one would recommend
oneself, is the great source and director of most of the actions
of men.... He therefore that would govern the world well, had need
consider rather what fashions he makes than what laws; and to bring
anything into use he need only give it reputation."
Leaving Paris on the 22nd of April, 1679, Locke arrived, after his long
absence, in London on the 30th of the same month. In the political
world much had happened whilst he had been away. Shaftesbury, already
in disgrace when he left England, had been imprisoned in the Tower
for a year; but, by a sudden turn of fortune, was now reinstated in
office as President of the newly-created Council. Of the circumstances
which had brought about this change, the story of the Popish Plot,
the discovery of the king's nefarious negotiations with Louis XIV.,
and the impeachment of Danby, it is not necessary here to speak. That
Shaftesbury, when he saw the prospect of restoration to power, should
wish to avail himself, as before, of Locke's advice and services, was
only to be expected, and it was the expression of this desire which
had hastened Locke's return to England. What, however, were the exact
relations between the new Lord President and his former secretary
during Shaftesbury's second tenure of office we are not informed. That
the intercourse between them was close and frequent, there can be no
doubt, and, during the summer months of 1679, Locke again resided in
his patron's house. But the king soon felt himself strong enough to
reassert his own will. Under date of the 15th of October, we read in
the Privy Council Book, "The Earl of Shaftesbury's name was struck
out of this list by his Majesty's command in Council." Consequently,
Shaftesbury was again in opposition, and Locke, though still his
adviser and friend, and frequently an inmate of one or other of his
houses, was released from the pressure of official business. One of
his principal cares at this time was the supervision of the education
of Shaftesbury's grandson. The father, Locke's former pupil, "born a
shapeless lump, like anarchy," seems to have been but a poor creature,
and the little Anthony, when only three years old, was made over to
the formal guardianship of his grandfather. Locke, though not his
instructor, seems to have kept a vigilant eye on the boy's studies
and discipline, as well as on his health and bodily training. If we
may trust the memory of the third earl, writing when in middle life,
Locke's care was extended to his brothers and sisters as well as to
himself. "In our education," he says, "Mr. Locke governed according
to his own principles, since published by him" [in the _Thoughts on
Education_], "and with such success that we all of us came to full
years with strong and healthy constitutions--my own the worst, though
never faulty till of late. I was his more peculiar charge, being, as
eldest son, taken by my grandfather and bred under his immediate care,
Mr. Locke having the absolute direction of my education, and to whom,
next my immediate parents, as I must own the greatest obligation, so
I have ever preserved the highest gratitude and duty." The admiration
and gratitude which the author of the _Characteristics_ felt for his
tutor did not, however, prevent him from criticising freely Locke's
_Theory of Ethics_, and pronouncing it "a very poor philosophy." Of
the _Essay_, as a whole, notwithstanding his vigorous protest on this
particular point, Shaftesbury seems to have had as high an opinion as
of its author. "It may as well qualify for business and the world as
for the sciences and a university. No one has done more towards the
recalling of philosophy from barbarity into use and practice of the
world, and into the company of the better and politer sort, who might
well be ashamed of it in its other dress. No one has opened a better
or clearer way to reasoning." (See the Letters of the third Earl of
Shaftesbury to a Student at the University, Letters I., VIII.)
Of the parliament which met at Oxford on the 21st of March, 1680-81,
Locke was a close, and must have been an anxious, observer. He himself
occupied his rooms at Christ Church, and for Shaftesbury's use he
obtained the house of the celebrated mathematician, Dr. Wallis. The
fullest account we have of the earlier proceedings of this parliament
are contained in a letter from Locke to Stringer, Shaftesbury's
secretary. It was prematurely dissolved on the 28th of March, Charles
having succeeded in obtaining supplies from the French king instead of
from his own subjects, and no other parliament was summoned during the
remainder of the reign.
So suspicious of treachery had the rival parties in the State now
become, that most of the members of the Oxford parliament had been
attended by armed servants, while the king was protected by a body of
guards. The political tension was, of course, by no means relaxed,
when it became plain that the king intended to govern without a
parliament, and we can hardly feel surprised that ministers took the
initiative in trying to silence their opponents. On the 2nd of July,
1681, Shaftesbury was arrested in his London house on a charge of
high treason, and, after a brief examination before the Council, was
committed to the tower. Notwithstanding many attempts, he failed to
obtain a trial till Nov. 24, when he was indicted before a special
commission at the Old Bailey. The grand jury, amidst the plaudits
of the spectators, threw out the bill, and on the 1st of December
following he was released on bail. Shaftesbury's acquittal was
received in London, and throughout the country, with acclamations of
joy, but his triumph was only a brief one. The rest of his story is
soon told. In the summer of 1682, Shaftesbury, Monmouth, Russell, and a
few others began to concert measures for a general rising against the
king. The scheme was, of course, discovered, and Shaftesbury, knowing
that, from the new composition of the juries, he would have no chance
of escape if another indictment were preferred against him, took to
flight, and concealed himself for some weeks in obscure houses in the
city and in Wapping. Meanwhile he tried, from his hiding-places, to
foment an insurrection, but, when he found that the day which had been
fixed on for the general rising had been postponed, he determined to
seek safety for himself by escaping to Holland. After some adventures
on the way, he reached Amsterdam in the beginning of December. To
preserve him from extradition, he was on his petition admitted a
citizen of Amsterdam, and might thus, like Locke, have lived to see
the Revolution, but on the 21st of January, 1682-83, he died, in
excruciating agonies, of gout in the stomach.
There is no evidence to implicate Locke in Shaftesbury's design of
setting the Duke of Monmouth on the throne, though it is difficult to
suppose that he was not acquainted with it. Any way, in the spring of
1681-82, he seems to have been engaged in some mysterious political
movements, the nature of which is unknown to us. Humphrey Prideaux,
afterwards Dean of Norwich, in his gossiping letters to John Ellis,
afterwards an Under-Secretary of State, frequently mentions Locke, who
was at this time residing in Oxford. These notices were probably in
answer to queries from Ellis, who was already in the employment of the
government. From Prideaux's letters (recently published by the Camden
Society) I extract a few passages, interesting not only as throwing
light on Locke's mode of life at this period in Oxford, but also as
showing the estimate of him formed by a political enemy who was a
member of the same college:--
"_March 14, 1681_ (O.S.).--John Locke lives a very cunning and
unintelligible life here, being two days in town and three out; and
no one knows where he goes, or when he goes, or when he returns.
Certainly there is some Whig intrigue a managing; but here not a
word of politics comes from him, nothing of news or anything else
concerning our present affairs, as if he were not at all concerned in
them.
"_March 19, 1681_ (O.S.).--Where J. L. goes I cannot by any means
learn, all his voyages being so cunningly contrived. He hath in his
last sally been absent at least ten days, where I cannot learn. Last
night he returned; and sometimes he himself goes out and leaves his
man behind, who shall then to be often seen in the quadrangle, to
make people believe his master is at home, for he will let no one
come to his chamber, and therefore it is not certain when he is there
or when he is absent. I fancy there are projects afoot.
"_October 24, 1682._--John Locke lives very quietly with us, and
not a word ever drops from his mouth that discovers anything of his
heart within. Now his master is fled, I suppose we shall have him
altogether. He seems to be a man of very good converse, and that
we have of him with content; as for what else he is he keeps it to
himself, and therefore troubles not us with it nor we him."
After Shaftesbury's dismissal from the Presidentship of the Council,
Locke must have had a considerable amount of leisure. The state of
his health, however, and the consequent necessity of his frequently
changing his residence, must have interfered a good deal with the
progress of his studies. It is plain from his correspondence that he
still took a lively interest in scientific and medical pursuits, nor
does he appear to have yet given up the hope of practising medicine in
a regular way. By his friends he was usually called Dr. Locke, and at
the period of life we are now considering he still continued to attend
cases, and to make elaborate notes of treatment and diagnosis.
It is probable that about this time Locke wrote the first of the _Two
Treatises on Government_, which were published in 1690. Materials
for the Essay were, undoubtedly, being slowly accumulated, and on a
variety of questions, political, educational, ethical, theological,
and philosophical, his views were being gradually matured. Several
pamphlets of a political character were, during these years, attributed
to him, but we have his own solemn asseveration, in a letter written to
the Earl of Pembroke in November, 1684, that he was not the author "of
any pamphlet or treatise whatever, in part good, bad, or indifferent;"
that is, of course, of any published pamphlet or treatise, for he had
already written a good deal in the way of essays, reflections, and
commonplaces.
After Shaftesbury's flight, Locke must have found his position
becoming more and more unpleasant. During the year 1682 he had resided
pretty constantly in Oxford, but we can well understand that Oxford
was not then a very eligible place of residence for a whig and a
latitudinarian. He appears to have left it for good at the end of
June or beginning of July, 1683, and to have retired for a while
into Somersetshire. Shortly afterwards, however, he quitted England
altogether, and when we next hear of him it is in Holland. That he was
implicated in the Rye House plot is, on every ground, most improbable,
notwithstanding the malicious insinuations of Prideaux to the contrary.
Nor is there any evidence that he had any concern with the more
respectable conspiracy of Monmouth, Russell, and Sidney. But in those
times of plots and counter-plots, and arbitrary interference with the
courts of justice, any man who was in opposition to the government
might well be in fear for his life or liberty. Specially would this be
the case with Locke, who was well known as a friend and adherent of
Shaftesbury. Moreover, had he been thrown into prison, the state of his
health was such that his life would probably have been endangered. His
flight, therefore, affords no countenance whatsoever to the supposition
that he had been engaged in treasonable designs against the government.
It would, I conceive, be no stain on Locke's character, had he, in
those days of misgovernment and oppression, conspired to effect by
violent means a change in the succession, or even a transference of the
crown. But the fact that there is no evidence of his having done so
removes almost all excuse for the tyrannical act which I am presently
about to describe. In connexion with Locke's flight to Holland, it
may be mentioned that the idea of leaving England was by no means new
to him. The proposal to emigrate together to Carolina or the Île de
Bourbon, possibly, however, thrown out half in jest, is a frequent
topic in the correspondence with his French friend, Thoynard, during
the two or three years succeeding his return from France. That he
was becoming disgusted with the political game then being played in
England, and despondent as to the future of his country, is evident
from several letters written by him at this time.
The account of Locke's life in Holland may be deferred to the next
chapter. It will be convenient here to tell the story of his expulsion
from Christ Church, which marks the issue of his connexion with
Shaftesbury, and of the part which he had so far taken in English
politics. We have already seen that he was suspected of having written
a number of political pamphlets against the government. This suspicion
was not unnatural, Locke being a literary man and a well-known friend
of Shaftesbury. After his retirement to Holland, the suspicion of his
having written various pamphlets, supposed to have been printed in that
country, and surreptitiously conveyed into England, was one which very
naturally occurred, and, according to Prideaux, he was now specially
suspected of having written "a most bitter libel, published in Holland
in English, Dutch, and French, called a Hue and Cry after the Earl of
Essex's murder." But the government had no proof of these surmises,
and therefore no right to take action upon them. Their suspicions
were, however, probably sharpened by the malicious reports of their
spies in Oxford, and by the not unlikely supposition that Locke was
taking part in the intrigues, on behalf of Monmouth, now being carried
on in Holland. For the latter suspicion, as for the one with regard
to the authorship of the pamphlets, it happens that there was no
justification, but it is impossible to deny that there was some _primâ
facie_ ground for it. Compared with other arbitrary acts of the reigns
of Charles II. and James II., the measures taken against Locke do not
seem exceptionally severe, utterly abhorrent as they would doubtless be
to the usages of a constitutional age.
About fourteen or fifteen months had elapsed since his disappearance
from England, when, on the 6th of November, 1684, Lord Sunderland
signified to Dr. Fell, Dean of Christ Church, who was also Bishop of
Oxford, the pleasure of the king that Locke should be removed from
his studentship, asking the Dean at the same time to specify "the
method of doing it." "The method" adopted by the Dean was to attach a
"moneo" to the screen in the college hall, summoning Locke to appear
on the 1st of January following, to answer the charges against him.
After admitting that Locke, as having a physician's place among the
students, was not obliged to residence, and that he was abroad upon
want of health, the Dean, in his reply to Sunderland, proceeds to show
his readiness to accommodate himself to the requirements of the court:
"Notwithstanding that, I have summoned him to return home, which is
done with this prospect, that if he comes not back, he will be liable
to expulsion for contumacy; if he does, he will be answerable to your
lordship for what he shall be found to have done amiss." Ingenious,
however, as the "method" was, it was not expeditious enough to satisfy
the court. A second letter from Sunderland, enjoining Locke's immediate
expulsion, was at once despatched. This curious document is still
shown in the Christ Church library, and, as I have never seen an exact
transcript of it, I here subjoin one:
"_To the Right Reverend Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Oxon,
Dean of Christ Church, and our trusty and well-beloved the Chapter
there._
"Right Reverend Father in God, and trusty and well-beloved, we greet
you well. Whereas we have received information of the factious
and disloyall behaviour of Lock, one of the students of that our
Colledge; we have thought fit hereby to signify our will and pleasure
to you, that you forthwith remove him from his said student's place,
and deprive him of all the rights and advantages thereunto belonging.
For which this shall be your warrant. And so we bid you heartily
farewell.
"Given at our Court at Whitehall, 11th day of November, 1684, in the
six and thirtieth year of our Reigne.
"By his Majesty's command,
SUNDERLAND."
On the 16th of November the Dean signified that his Majesty's command
was fully executed, whereupon Lord Sunderland acquainted him that his
Majesty was well satisfied with the college's ready obedience.
Thus the most celebrated man, perhaps, that Oxford has sheltered within
her walls since the Reformation was summarily ejected at the dictation
of a corrupt and arbitrary court. The Dean and Chapter might have won
our admiration had they resisted the royal command, as was done in
the next reign by the Fellows of Magdalen College, but it was hardly
to be expected that they should risk their own goods and liberties
in attempting to afford a protection which, after all, would have
been almost certainly attempted in vain. Moreover, as Lord Grenville
(_Oxford and Locke_) has pointed out, Christ Church being a royal
foundation, the Dean and Chapter might well regard the king as having
full power either to appoint or remove any member of the foundation,
and themselves as only registering his decree. The same power, as
we have already seen, had been exercised in Locke's favour by the
dispensation from entering holy orders accorded by the crown in 1666.
After the Revolution, Locke petitioned William the Third for the
restitution of his studentship, but "finding," according to Lady
Masham, that "it would give great disturbance to the society, and
dispossess the person that was in his place, he desisted from that
pretension."
In Fell's first letter to Sunderland, he speaks of Locke's extreme
reserve and taciturnity. As this seems to have been one of his
distinguishing characteristics, and as the passage is otherwise
remarkable, as showing the vigilance with which Locke was watched at
Oxford, I give it at length:
"I have for divers years had an eye upon him; but so close has
his guard been on himself that, after several strict inquiries,
I may confidently affirm there is not any one in the College,
however familiar with him, who has heard him speak a word either
against or so much as concerning the Government; and although very
frequently, both in public and in private, discourses have been
purposely introduced to the disparagement of his master, the Earl of
Shaftesbury, his party and designs, he could never be provoked to
take any notice or discover in word or look the least concern; so
that I believe there is not in the world such a master of taciturnity
and passion."
This account of Locke's reserve, as well as the illustration here
incidentally afforded of the abominable system of college espionage
which then prevailed in Oxford, is amply confirmed by Prideaux's
letters to Ellis. In the _Thoughts on Education_ parents and tutors
are recommended to mould children betimes to this mastery over their
tongues. But the gift of silence was exercised by Locke only in
those matters where other men have no right to be inquisitive or
curious--matters of private concernment and of individual opinion.
In conversation on general topics, he seems always to have been open
and copious. His taciturnity, though the effect of prudence and
self-control, was certainly not due to any lack of geniality or any
want of sympathy with others.