John Locke, Thomas Beconsall,

and Filial Rebellion

Mark Goldie
I
The first published critique of Lockes Two Treatises of Government has been entirely
overlooked. It is an attack which offers an illuminating reading of Lockes
politics as a theory of filial disobedience and which counters it with a doctrine of
fathers rights over their adult children and the states right of paternity over its
citizens. It is a critique which considers the Two Treatises as subtending from the
Essay Concerning Human Understanding and hence treats those books as aspects
of a single project. Its dissection of Lockes politics is subsumed into an account of
his moral philosophy. lthough it was the work of a hostile Tory! it offered a sober
analysis! in contrast to the frenetic harangues to which the Two Treatises would soon
be subjected.
This critique has been overlooked in part because it appears in a book entitled
The Grounds and Foundation of Natural Religion! which! on its title page! offers
no clue to its anti"Lockean intent.# bout the author! Thomas $econsall! we know
ne%t to nothing! e%cept that he was a &ellow of $rasenose 'ollege! (%ford! and
later became vicar of an (%fordshire parish.) The Grounds was his sole publication
besides a sermon in the *niversity church which also assailed Locke.+ The further
reason why the Grounds has been invisible is that those scholars who investigate the
# The full title is The Grounds and Foundation of Natural Religion, Discoverd, in the !rinci"al
#ranches of it, in $""osition to the !revailing Notions of the %odern &ce"tic's and (atitudinarians)
*ith an +ntroduction Concerning the Necessity of Revealed Religion ,London! for . -oper
in &leet .treet and /eorge 0est in (%ford1.
) #22+345#6789 $! #2:+9 ;! #2:29 &ellow! #2:29 $<! #2869 vicar of .teeple ston! #672. .ee
$,ford Dictionary of National #iogra"hy.
+ The Doctrine of a General Resurrection- *herein the +dentity of the Rising #ody is .sserted,
against the &ocinians and &ce"tic's) +n a &ermon !reachd /efore the University, at &t %arys
in $,ford, on Easter0%onday, ."r) 1 ,#2861. $econsall here argues that in Lockes location of
personal identity =purely in consciousness> there lurked a kind of ?latonism that denied that the
body was integral to the self. This he equated with an heretical .ocinian rejection of the 'hristian
doctrine of bodily resurrection.
.arah @utton! ?aul .chuurman ,eds.1! &tudies on (oc'e- &ources, Contem"oraries,
and (egacy! ' .pringer .cienceA$usiness ;edia $.B. )77:! #)65#4).
#)6
#): ;ark /oldie
early reception of the Two Treatises tend to e%plore a different te%tual corpus from
those who e%amine the impact of the Essay! the =political> and =philosophical>
works of the #287s and #677s being treated discretely.4
Two things are immediately striking about $econsalls Grounds. The first is its
dateC #28:. In the decade after the publication of the Two Treatises in #2:8! Lockes
book was scarcely noticed by anyone. Dot until #67+ did the Eacobite 'harles Leslie
launch his celebrated polemic against it.F $efore #28: the Two Treatises had been
mentioned in print only four times! in passing and favourably! by 0hig authors.2
The second striking fact is that $econsall publicly attributed the authorship of the
Two Treatises to Locke and so was able to read it alongside the Essay. Locke had
avowed the Essay from the outset! whereas he did not admit to authorship of his
political work until he made his will in #674. To what e%tent his authorship of the
Two Treatises was rumoured in the #287s remains unclear. Dobody hazarded the
rumour in print until #28:! when 0illiam ;olyneu%! in his Case of +reland! cited
it as =said to be written by my e%cellent friend! Eohn Locke.>6 It is now apparent
that in the same year $econsall also made the attribution. @is eleventh chapter is
called =-eflections on .ome ?assages in ;r Lockes Gssay of @uman *nderstanding!
and a Treatise of /overnment! ?art ).> rchly gesturing toward the anonymity!
he remarks that the =treatise HisI I presume! well known to ;r. Lock.>: .tanding
amid the twenty"one chapters of the Grounds! this analysis of the Two Treatises as
overthrowing paternal authority and civil government! is placed squarely within a
disquisition on the foundations of natural and moral law! filial obligation! the nature
of conscience! the dangers of Lockes denial of innate ideas! and the offensiveness
of his =law of fashion.>
$econsalls book is! as his contemporary Thomas @earne described it! =a discourse
about the law of nature!> rather than! as its title suggests! natural religion.8
It belongs to a considerable body of such treatises.#7 Lockes most conspicuous
4 The literature is discussed in ;ark /oldie! ed.! The Rece"tion of (oc'es !olitics! 2 vols.
,LondonC ?ickering and 'hatto! #8881! I! Introduction! which fails to notice $econsall.
F 'harles Leslie! The New .ssociation of Those Called %oderate Churchmen with the %odern
*higs and Fanatics! ?t II ,#67+1. The claim has been made that ;ary stell provided =the first
systematic critique> and that Lockes politics was a hidden target of her &erious !ro"osal to the
(adies ,#2841! but this claim is unsustainable. .ee ;ark /oldie! =;ary stell and Eohn Locke!>
in %ary .stell- Gender, Reason, Faith! ed. 0illiam Jolbrener and ;ichael ;ichelson ,ldershotC
shgate! )7761! 2F5:2.
2 &or early citations see /oldie! ed.! Rece"tion of (oc'es !olitics! I! Introduction! and
pp. l%%iii5l%%v.
6 Ibid.! #C))F.
: Grounds! #4+.
8 Remar's and Collections of Thomas Hearne! ed. '.G. <oble et al.! ## vols. ,(%ford! #::F5#8)#1!
#C )+#.
#7 .ee Eohn Kolton! 2ohn (oc'e and the *ay of +deas ,(%fordC (%ford *niversity ?ress! #8F21.
#)8
opponent in this tradition was Eames Lowde! in his Discourse Concerning the Nature
of %an ,#2841. In his later %oral Essays ,#2881! Lowde commended $econsall
for supporting him.## These authors defended the claim that there was a law of
nature knowable independently of! but confirmed by! revelation. 'hristian ethics
were rational! because they conformed to the intuitions of natural reason! and could
be found in the teachings of the best pagan moralists! the .toics! and above all in
'icero. .uch a view needed defence! they held! for it was challenged by =the modern
sceptics and latitudinarians> whom $econsall declared to be his enemies.#) These
sceptics! he claimed! aimed at nothing less than the overthrow of the idea of natural
law! by reducing morality to human artifice and convention.
$econsall regarded Lockes Essay as belonging in outward form to the natural
law tradition! but as subverting its foundations. This generic identification of the
Essay as a disquisition on the moral law is alien to the dominant modern presumption
that it is a treatise on epistemology. $econsall chiefly confined his attention to
Lockes critique of innate ideas in $ook I and account of ethics in $ook II. @e would
not have been surprised to learn of the e%istence of Lockes earlier! unpublished
Essays on the (aw of Nature! and would have seen the Essay as a continuation of
the same project! not least in Lockes revisiting of his doubts about the knowableness
of the law of nature from the common consent of mankind. $econsall was not
alone in responding to the Essay in terms of moral philosophy and natural law! for
this was the dominant reading in the first phase of the books reception! between
its publication in #2:8 and #282! when $ishop Gdward .tillingfleet opened a new
front in the war on Locke! turning attention toward Lockes putative theological
failings! principally the inadequacy of his doctrine of the Trinity. Lowde! $econsall!
Thomas $urnet! @enry Lee! and 0illiam .herlock all thought natural morality
was jeopardised by the denial of innate ideas. The reports of Lockes friend! Eames
Tyrrell! on the initial reading of the Essay point to its perceived ethical implications.
=<iscoursing with some thinking men at (%ford . . . I found them dissatisfied with
what you have said concerning the law of nature . . . whereby we distinguish moral
good! from evil>9 some =think you . . . resolved all virtue and vice . . . into the praise!
or dispraise that men give to certain actions.> Dor was it only critics who read the
book as a prolegomenon to moral philosophy. Tyrrell urged Locke to publish his
Essays on the (aw of Nature! while his <ublin friend 0illiam ;olyneu% hoped he
would e%trapolate from the Essay by writing =a treatise of morals! drawn up according
to the hints you frequently give.>#+ (%onian suspicion that Lockes philosophy
pointed to ethical conventionalism and seemed all too @obbesian is confirmed in
Isaac Dewtons response from 'ambridge! that! upon first reading the Essay! =I
## Eames Lowde! %oral Essays ,#2881! 4! 4#.
#) Grounds! 42. The use of the protean term =latitudinarian> is interesting. $econsall does not
allude specifically to the party of clergy to whom the label was usually attached9 rather to those
who held fashionable sceptical doctrines in moral philosophy.
#+ Locke! Corres"ondence 4C#7#! #78! F7: ,+7 Eune #287! )6 Euly #287! )6 ug. #28)1.
#+7 ;ark /oldie
took you for a @obbist.>#4 That $econsalls critique is consonant with these early
readings of the Essay! and pays minimal attention to .tillingfleets new theological
charges! suggests a lengthy gestation for his book. dense work of +77 pages! the
Grounds publication date of #28: belies an earlier intellectual conte%t.#F
This is not to say that $econsall failed to convict Locke of irreligion! for he had
also read the Reasona/leness of Christianity! which appeared in #28F. @e had no
doubt that Locke! even in the Essay! for all its guarded judiciousness! its =reserved
way of writing!> belonged among the deists! whose =cargo of infidelity and irreligion>
is =now vented by the liberty of the press.>#2 In the Reasona/leness! he noted!
Locke =hinted> at a principal ma%im of the deists! namely that religious creeds were
merely =profitable inventions> that derived from the =arts or mystery of priestcraft.>
The deists identified revealed religion as a =cant or jargon formed by the priests!>
=a contrivance of . . . creedmakers . . . to secure an empire! as well as maintenance
from a silly populace.>#6 @owever! $econsalls sally against deism is brief! since his
treatise is not primarily a defence of revelation or the church! but of natural moral
intuitions.
$econsall provides an unremarkable iteration of a conventional theory of the
moral law. There is an =eternal distinction of good and evil.> It is deducible from the
nature /od created. The good is that which tends toward the perfection of nature.
The rational principles of the good can be identified as laws! properly so called!
when understood as the commands of /od! such commands being implicated in the
act of sovereign creation as much as e%pressed in the positive commands known by
revelation. These laws are =implanted in the minds of men! as rational beings!> and
were perfectly known to dam before the &all. -eason! though dulled and distorted
by mans postlapsarian passionate nature! is not destroyed. 0hile knowledge of
the law is innate! it is not achieved without mental effortC it is implanted in the
well"ordered conscience! but e%amination and reflection are needed to activate natural
potentiality. 0hat lends assuredness to the best of our ratiocinative efforts are
the teachings of the $ible. &urther evidence for natural law is discernible from the
common consent of those parts of humanity which are not sunk in barbarism. In
sum! the moral law may be said to be =written in our hearts!> and conscience is =the
candle of the Lord.> These two phrases from .cripture are unfailingly quoted in the
#4 Ibid.! 4C 6)6 ,#2 .ept. #28+1. .ee /..E. -ogers! =Locke! Dewton! and the 'ambridge ?latonists
on Innate Ideas!> 2ournal of the History of +deas 47 ,#8681C #8#5)72.
#F There are no citations of .tillingfleets Discourse ,#2861 but one from Lockes (etter to the
#isho" of *orcester ,#2861 ,Grounds! pp. 42561. The Reasona/leness of Christianity ,#2821 is
discussed only in the Introduction. @e refers to the second edition of the Essay ,#2841 but not the
third ,#28F1. 0e may infer that most of $econsalls book was written by c.#28F. $econsall made
no mention of Lockes &ome Thoughts Concerning Education ,#28+1! which was anonymous until
the third edition of #28F.
#2 Grounds! iv! vii. ?ress censorship lapsed in #28F. @earne records that $econsall wrote a pamphlet
=about the press!> but this has not been identified! Collections! II! )#4.
#6 Grounds! iv5vii! sigs. $4v! ')r9 cf. ))6! )+6.
#+#
tradition which $econsall recapitulates! the tradition against which Locke reacted
in penning his critique of innate ideas.#:
&rom these premisses flow $econsalls objections to Lockes Essay. @e discovers
Lockes moral scepticism in the apparent reduction of moral rules to =custom! education
and . . . traditions!> more generally to =the law of fashion> or =law of opinion.>
Locke is identified as a moral conventionalist! who holds that those principles which
we imagine to be impressed upon our minds by /od and nature! and knowable
also from the common consent of mankind! are in fact inculcated merely by the
=power of education.>#8 $econsall particularly deplores Lockes technique of using
the practices and beliefs of barbarous /reeks and benighted fricans and Indians as
evidence in aid of disrupting claims that there are universal moral beliefs. =This
gentleman has industriously amassed together all the filth and off"scouring of a
reprobate mind! and a defiled conscience.> =@e has sent us to all the creeks and
corners of barbarity under the verge of heaven! to see rapes! murders! and the vilest
incests practised! with universal approbation and allowance.> @e takes us to frica
and the Indies! =the most rude and uncultivated parts of the world! to e%plode the
doctrine of an universal consent.> $econsall holds Locke to be inviting his readers
to consider the habits of =uncultivated negroes> as morally relevant data.)7 @e
repudiates Lockes reduction of conscience to mental habits! inculcated by this or
that circumstance of =custom! education! the superstition of a nurse . . . the authority
of old women.> In Locke! moral rules are apparently reduced to the contingent
mental furniture of individuals! groups! and cultures. @ence it is that =;r Locke
makes consciousness and conscience the same!> so reducing conscience to a mere
=chimera.>)#
There is something parado%ical! even perversely misguided! about $econsalls
reading of Lockes moral philosophy! though he was scarcely alone in his depiction.
@e devotes a whole chapter to denigrating =;r Lockes law of fashion!> as if Locke
were a pure conventionalist! whereas Locke himself deplored the fact that what
counts as moral judgement in too many minds is the accumulated rubbish of unconsidered
habit! custom! opinion! and fashion. In the ?reface to the second edition
#: Ibid.! sig. $4r! #5)! 2! )8ff! 2#! ##8! #)2! #:8ff9 -omans )C#F! ?roverbs )7C)6. .ee Kolton! (oc'e
and the *ay of +deas! ch. ). Kolton discusses $econsall at pp. F45F! too briefly to disclose the
engagement with Lockes politics. $econsall holds the non"naive form of innatism which Kolton
finds characteristic of his generation. @e concedes that the law of nature is never presented to the
mind as an =angelic intuition> ,sig. Fv1! and that =its well known! those that contend for innate
ideas . . . do not think they discover Hi.e. revealI themselves without the e%ercise of our natural
powers and faculties> ,p. 6+1.
#8 Grounds! sig. $+v! #:8! #4#9 cf. sig. $4r.
)7 Lockes e%ample of the natives of .oldania $ay in .outhern frica is persistent in his writings!
appearing in the early Essays on the (aw of Nature! the Essay! and one version of the Two Treatises.
.ee Essay I.iv.:. The perception! which was not $econsalls alone! that Locke took seriously the
moral diversity of humankind casts doubt on some current post"colonial critiques of Locke. .ee
<aniel 'arey! (oc'e, &haftes/ury, and Hutcheson- Contesting Diversity in the Enlightenment and
#eyond ,'ambridgeC 'ambridge *niversity ?ress! )7721.
)# Grounds! 445F)! )48! ))2ff! citing Essay I.ii.+! I.iii.85##! I.%iii.85##! I.iii.)7.
#+) ;ark /oldie
of the Essay! Locke defended himself against Lowdes similar misreadingC =I was
there! not laying down moral rules! but showing the original and nature of moral
ideas! and enumerating the rules men make use of in moral relations! whether those
rules were true or false.>)) $econsall was alarmed by the thought that! if natural
moral intuition was taken away! only human artifice would be left. Ket in his more
patient moments he allows that Locke was not a pure conventionalist! still less a
libertine! for his alternative charge is that Locke! having abandoned moral intuition!
could only avoid the chaos of moral happenstance by a forthright defence of divine
positive law. 0hereas modern readers have identified in Lockes Reasona/leness a
sceptical move away from the epistemic optimism of the EssayLa fideist turn toward
revelation as a bulwark against failing reasonL$econsall sees Locke moving
in the reverse direction in his revisions of the Essay. close enough reader of the
Essay to track changes between editions! he finds the first over"reliant on revelation
,for without revelation! and without natural moral intuition! mankind is left to its
own moral brutishness1! but notes that the second edition partially backtracked by
adding a brief caveat in defence of the =light of nature.>)+ s recent readers have
also noted! the Essay hesitates between revelation as =the only true touchstone of
moral rectitude> and confidence in the capacity of reason to discover moral rules.)4
II
The moral principles which $econsall takes to be cardinal =branches> of the law of
nature are parental and filial duties! and this claim lies at the heart of his engagement
with the Two Treatises. Dothing! he argues! is more plainly inscribed in the natural
order! nor more =carries the appearance of being innate!> than the obligation of parents
to children and children to parents. Locke is accused of taking the e%ample of
filial reverence as a key instance of mistaken innatism. ?eople submit to this principle!
Locke writes in the Essay! =not because it is natural . . . but because having been
always so educated! and having no remembrance of the beginning of this respect!
they think it is natural.> In quoting this passage $econsall signals the contiguity
of the Essay and the TreatisesC both are anti"patriarchal. &ilial respect! $econsall
retorts! is a =propension> with which children are =naturally endowed!> and =the
bare perception of the idea or term parent! would naturally actuate these native
)) Latterly transferred to Essay II.%viii.##! note.
)+ Grounds! )7+54. In Essay II. %%viii.: Locke originally wrote! =That /od has given a law to
mankind!> i.e. by revelation9 in the second edition he elaborated over four lines! speaking of the
law of /od =whether promulgated . . . by the light of nature! or the voice of revelation.> .ee Locke!
Corres"ondence! 4C #765:.
)4 Essay II. %%viii.:9 IB.%ii.#. .ee /..E. -ogers! =Locke and the .ceptical 'hallenge!> in /..E.
-ogers and .ylvana Tomaselli! eds.! The !hiloso"hical Canon in the &eventeenth and Eighteenth
Centuries ,-ochester! DKC *niversity of -ochester ?ress! #8821! 2#5+. -eprinted in /..E. -ogers!
(oc'es Enlightenment ,@ildesheimC (lms! #88:1.
#++
propensions in such a manner! as to command . . . filial obedience.>)F $econsalls
tenth chapter! on parental and filial obligation! serves as a bridge between discussion
of the Essay and of the Treatises. The Two Treatises is seen as the application of
Lockean moral scepticism to the social and political sphere. $econsall ignores the
passages of moral realism in the Treatises which have perple%ed modern readers as
being apparently incompatible with the anti"innatism of the Essay.)2
In turning to the Two Treatises $econsall reveals himself to be a thoroughgoing
patriarchalist. @e defends patriarchalism as a political truth about the origins
and nature of civil government and as a moral framework for the obligations of
fathers! mothers! and children. Like other early readers of the Treatises! $econsall
sees Lockes book as pre"eminently a critique of patriarchalism. @e goes on to e%amine
what Locke has to say about consent and turns briefly to Lockes chapter on
property. $econsalls political patriarchalism is entirely predictable in the generation
of clergy which came of age during the high Tory #2:7s! the decade in which .ir
-obert &ilmers !atriarcha was published as a flagship of divine right monarchism.
Ket! in the wake of the -evolution of #2::! $econsall carefully detaches his Toryism
from any suspicion of Eacobitism. @e flatly denies any =disloyalty towards
our present sovereign!> as =all that know me> can confirm. This seems ingenuous!
for the Eacobite Thomas @earne irritably called him =an admirer of Jing 0illiam.>
There are! insists $econsall! =principles that will maintain as true fealty and allegiance
towards his present majesty> as the newly fashionable =opinion of original
contract.>)6 $econsall was typical of the repositioning of post"-evolution Toryism!
which made possible a stubborn persistence of patriarchal political theory! while no
longer beholden to the claims of the fallen @ouse of .tuart.
$econsall opens his account of the Two Treatises by declaring that it overturns
paternal power! and that it does so by a factitious =contending for a joint jurisdiction
in the mother.> =This gentleman! as well as ;r @obbes ,though both in a different
way1 thinks he has gained the field! by proving! that the mother is an equal sharer in
that power which accrues to a father as a parent.> This feminist doctrine $econsall
takes to be contrary to both .cripture and nature! which award the male =superiority
and pre"eminence> over =the weaker vessel.> Gve was created out of dam! and
the injunctions in /enesis +C#2 and Gphesians FC)) cannot be gainsaidC =*nto the
woman he said . . . he shall rule over thee>9 =0ives submit yourselves unto your husbands.>
'onsequently! it is =evident the revealed law gives a supereminent power to
the father.> Dature tallies with revelation! for it awards to the man greater =strength
and vigour of body> as well as =courage and resolution of mind.> Locke! in contrast!
uses =tricks and insinuations> to evade the fact =that /od has . . . placed the woman
in a state of subjection> to the man. In remarking that Locke would =droll away> the
)F Grounds! 47! #)6! #4#5)9 citing Locke! Essay I. iii. #)! )+
)2 Gspecially Two Treatises! II! ##C =the great law of nature . . . writ in the hearts of all mankind.>
)6 Grounds! #:#9 @earne! Collections! #C )+#.
#+4 ;ark /oldie
account of dams majesty in the book of /enesis! $econsall further intimates that
he is a deistical sneerer at revelation.):
Ket $econsall goes on to argue that Lockes feminist critique of masculine authority
is only a skirmish! for Lockes principal aim is not to elevate mothers but to
subvert the authority of fathers over sons. @e holds that Lockes dividing of paternal
from political power! his arguing that they are =distinct and separate!> disastrously
undermines the authority of fathers. $econsall insists that civil power is a form
of paternal power! derived from and grounded in it. @e concedes that there has
been change over time in the authority of fathers! for the nearly limitless primordial
authority of =private parents> is now largely superseded =by the ample provision
of the civil power in all regular governments.> $ut! in a nice revision of Lockean
fiduciary theory! he holds that civil government e%ercises paternal power in trust!
and! if it fails in that trust! power devolves again to fathers! where it originally lay.
Thus! for instance! a father who kills an intruder to protect his child e%ercises a
paternal right that ordinarily devolves upon the police powers of government. Dor is
the fathers right to use force only one of self"preservation! for it is also a judicial act
of punishment. In speculating on the original patriarchal right of capital punishment!
he argues that such a right e%isted not only against an assailant in order to protect
a child! but also over the child him or herself! if a miscreant. In ancient -ome! the
father had the right of e%ecuting his errant offspring. @ere $econsall echoes earlier
patriarchal theorists! such as $odin! who mourned the disappearance of this -oman
right of filicide. $econsall invokes a key contention of divine right theory! that! given
the commandment =thou shalt not kill!> the right of the father and of the sovereign
to take life must be directly /od"given. $oth rights lay originally with dam! the
first father and first monarch. $econsall is especially affronted by Lockes notion
of =an e%ecutive power in the e%ercise of laws of nature Hresiding in sonsI as much
as their father.> There is no such general power! for it resides only in fathers and
sovereigns.)8
$econsall goes on to argue that civil government has no business in many spheres
of life! and that a substantial residue of paternal power persists in individual fathers!
undevolved at all times. The fiduciary and limited nature of government is such that
original paternal power endures in contemporary civil society.+7 $econsall sketches
a patriarchalist conjectural history. t the beginning of time =the supreme power was
both parent and sovereign.> <own the ages! there have been successive =devolutions!
): Grounds! #4+58! citing Two Treatises! II! F)5+! 445F. @e also cites # 'orinthians ##C+58C =The
head of the woman is the man.> $econsall accepts that wives choose their husbands and he adopts
the familiar doctrine of =designation>C matrimony is entered into by =compact!> but the authority
of the husband is /od"given and not derived from the compact. &or @obbes! see (eviathan! ch. )79
De cive! 8.6.
)8 Grounds! #22! echoing Two Treatises! II! :9 Eean $odin! &i, #oo's of a Commonwealth ,H#F62I!
Gnglish tr. #27:9 facs. edn.! 'ambridge! ;! #82)1! I.4! )7549 I.2! 4256. &ilmer also regretted the
passing of filicideC !atriarcha and other !olitical *or's! ed. E.?. .ommerville ,'ambridge! #88#1!
6! #:5#8.
+7 Grounds! #F#52+! citing Two Treatises! II! 6! F:! 245F! 2658! 64.
#+F
which the reasons and necessities of civil government have made in the chiefest
branches of parental power.> Thereby political and paternal power have gradually
become distinguishable. 0hile $econsall accepts the utility of this development!
he fears that =a great deal of filial reverence and duty is worn off by those devolutions!>
and that the =highest veneration> for fathers subsisted only =under the first
government.> The evidence of natural reason! and of the authority of the patriarchs
in the (ld Testament! shows that paternal =sovereignty and dominion> was once
so complete that it is impossible to =imagine! that such a tremendous power was
e%erted purely to secure an obedience during minority!> that is! during the nonage of
children. The (ld Testament attests a time when =the obedience of children in the
first ages of the world was as remarkable as the parents commands! after a state of
maturity.> It is plainly false to hold that the =commanding power of parents ceases
with nonage.>+#
It is noticeable that $econsalls patriarchalism does not depend on a thesis about
the genealogical succession of the kings of Gngland from dam. &ew seventeenthcentury
patriarchalists attempted so fragile a claim. Dot even &ilmer did so9 for
them! damic fatherhood was archetypal rather than ancestral. ll humankind are!
of course! the children of dam! and royal succession should proceed by primogeniture!
but the descent of dam is lost to history! and the world is divided into
many kingdoms. $econsall made no claim about English kings9 his is a thesis about
the generic authority of fathers and sovereigns9 and he does not e%clude the possibility
of =paction> in the creation of civil authority! a pact among fathers. It is
doubtful that his principal source was &ilmer9 rather it was ?ufendorf. In De 3ure
naturae et gentium! ?ufendorf spoke of the original pact =by fathers!> =the heads of
families who first undertook to establish a state.> sharp distinction is drawn here
between citizens and subjectsC those who form states become its citizens9 women
and children are not citizens but subjects. ?ufendorf took up the $odinian theme of
the fathers original right of life and death over children! holding that it subsisted
only while fathers remained sovereign. =$ut after separation into states! some rights
were taken away from the heads of families! while others were restricted.> @ere was
$econsalls notion of the historical =devolution> of paternal power to civil states.+)
In the sphere of their retained authority! $econsall held that fathers have =empire>
and =dominion> over their adult as well as their underage children. .ince this
derives not only from their duty of care! which is all that Locke allowed! and which
lapses when nurture ceases! but also from the act of generation! the obligation of
children to fathers is necessarily perpetual. s mankind is constantly beholden to its
heavenly creator! so children are indefinitely beholden to their earthly. Eust as =the
true original of /ods right of dominion . . . undoubtedly results from his creative
+# Grounds! #+F! #4+! #F25:9 cf. pp. #F75#.
+) .amuel ?ufendorf! De 3ure naturae et gentium H#26)I! trans. '.@. and 0.. (ldfather ,(%fordC
'larendon ?ress! #8+41! :.##.)! p. #+F79 6.).)7! p. 88F ,citing @obbes! De cive! F.##9 2.).#75##1!
p. 8)+ ,citing $odin! &i, #oo's! #.4.1. $odin likewise remarked that =every subject is not a citizen!>
and that! historically! civil magistrates =little by little> drew jurisdiction to themselves and
=e%tinguished all domestical powers>C &i, #oo's! #.2! pp. 465:9 #.4! p. )4.
#+2 ;ark /oldie
and preserving power!> so likewise does parental authority. The =right of dominion
and obligations of obedience> derive from the =creative! preserving power> of the
maker! and there is a =right to give laws to those creatures to whom Hthe makerI
gave a being.> The human se% act is a sacred and =strict imitation> of the divine
seminal act of creation.++ child not only owes gratitude for benefits received from
its parent! but also obedience to him who has makers rights. Locke is condemned
for holding that paternal authority is merely temporary! and $econsall finds shocking
Lockes notion that when =once arrived to the enfranchisement of the years of
discretion! the fathers empire then ceases.>+4 Lockes doctrine is one in which! at the
age of reason! =children . . . are not only discharged from their paternal allegiance!
but acquire a state of freedom equal to their father.> This is a view which gives rise
to the Lockean notion that the descendants of dam may! in their pretended =state of
freedom! and equality! . . . enter into a compact at pleasure! and consequently establish
a government upon a majority against their fathers.> It is a licence to overthrow
and banish fatherly authority.+F
$econsall suggests an e%tension of the argument from makers rights! which
parado%ically inverts a characteristic concept of Lockes. @e takes hold of Lockes
theory of property grounded in labourLin =creation> or makers rights over thingsL
and points out that! in a significant sense! a nations people subsists only because of
the =labour! care! and conduct of the government.> @ere the state is the labourer who
makes and nurtures the citizen! much as the parent makes and nurtures the child. 'itizens
are thus! within the sphere of the =true ends and purposes of government!> the
=property of the government!> and owe it obedience and service. Lockes doctrine of
property in labour! of makers rights! tells against his doctrine of natural freedom.+2
There may have been pacts by patriarchs! but there was never a state of nature.
$econsall dilates upon the absurdity and impiety of supposing! in the face of damic
history! that there ever was a primeval state of natural freedom! from which political
society was derived by individuals consenting together. =Its unpardonable
++ Grounds! #)85+7. s ?ufendorf pointed out! the debate over whether the right of fatherhood
derives from the act of generation or the rearing of children goes back to ristotle! Nicomachean
Ethics! :.#+5#4 ,De 3ure naturae! 2.).#)! p. 8):1. (n the debate over whether the se%ual begetting
of children by itself confers rights on fathers! see Eames Tully! . Discourse on !ro"erty- 2ohn
(oc'e and his .dversaries ,'ambridgeC 'ambridge *niversity ?ress! #8:71! pp. F:58.
+4 Grounds! 8256! #7#5)! #F+52#! citing Two Treatises! II! 2F! F:! 28.
+F Grounds! #2:58. This line of thought has produced a &reudian reading of Lockes re5enactment
of the =primal crime> of parricide. =Liberty means sonship> and =brotherhood>9 =fraternity> entails
=castration of fathers.> Thus! Dorman (. $rown! (oves #ody ,Dew KorkC -andom @ouse! #8221!
+58. Likewise 'arole ?ateman! The &e,ual Contract ,'ambridgeC ?olity! #8::1! chs. +54C =The
sons! in an act of symbolic! if not actual! parricide! withdraw their consent to the fathers power
and claim their natural liberty>9 =classic contract theory is HaI story of the masculine genesis of
political life . . . told over the dead body of the father>9 =the men who defeat the father! claim their
natural liberty and! victorious! make the original contract! are acting as brothers> ,8+! ::! 6:1.
?atemans book is an important restatement of $econsalls reading of Locke! though from the
opposite! feminist! end of the moral lens.
+2 Grounds! 8:! #6456! citing Two Treatises! II! )6! 4F.
#+6
arrogance> to =erect a scheme> contrary to =the story of the creation.>+6 $econsalls
defence of the book of /enesis against 0hig political theory was a Tory commonplace!
as was his reference to the heretical! anti"damic! myth of the =mushroom>
men! the multiple spontaneous appearance of people! springing up independently.+:
Locke offered a diseased fantasy of a world without parents.
This was to construe the Lockean state of nature as an impious speculation about
primeval history. Ket this is not $econsalls sole understanding of the theory of a
natural state! and what is striking is his recognition in Locke of a jural state of nature!
one that subsists implicitly in contemporary societies.+8 (n $econsalls reading!
Locke holds that political legitimacy is constantly recreated by every generation
as it comes of age. The cru% of Lockes theory is taken to be the repudiation of
filial obligation at the age of majority. &or Locke! government is not a pooling of
patriarchy! but a civil association grounded in the consent of all those who have
entered upon adulthood. The age of majority is seen as the critical juncture at which
Locke inserts his theories of the natural freedom and equality of mankind and of
=compact> and consent. In Locke! at their coming of age! young adults acquire =absolute
. . . freedom> from their fathers authority and enter into civil society. Locke
=placeHsI everyone in a state of liberty upon their arrival at years of discretion! till
they shall recognize the governing power by an e%press! or tacit consent.> The theory
of contract and consent is therefore a dangerous doctrine of filial independence.47
This leads $econsall to consider those perple%ing paragraphs in which Locke
ambiguously specifies those actions which signify consent. @e notes Lockes distinction
between two sorts of consentC e%press! which $econsall does not hesitate
to identify with oaths of allegiance! and tacit! which he equates with the possession
or enjoyment of property. These signifiers of consent are found to be flawed. (aths
of allegiance are sworn only by a minority of people! =upon special occasions!> and
thus cannot comprehend everyone within citizenship. nd allegiance derived from
the enjoyment of property pertains only to the propertied! and lasts no longer than its
possession. Locke! he shows! allows the termination of allegiance! if a citizen should
donate or sell their property! whereupon he is at liberty to abandon his allegiance!
enter into a new commonwealth! or create one afresh in the empty places of the
world. &urthermore! Locke leaves at liberty the adult children of property"owners
until they inherit their fathers property! as well as =the poor! or labouring part of a
nation> who are not proprietorsC all these =still remain in a state of nature! unless the
government has actually required an oath of fidelity.> Locke hence has left the mass
+6 Grounds! #42.
+: Ibid.! )+! #47! citing @obbes. The notion of =mushroom men> was suggested by theories of
spontaneous generation in certain species of plants and animals. nti"damic theories of the multiple
origination of mankind were widely discussed in the wake of Isaac de la ?eyrMeres scandalous
%en #efore .dam ,#2F21.
+8 $econsall also makes a @umean point. It may be that government is founded on contract! but
we first need =proof of the obligations of compact or voluntary promises> ,Grounds! :#! 8F1.
47 Grounds! #F+! #6#! citing Two Treatises! II! 24! 26! 28! =etc.>
#+: ;ark /oldie
of people at liberty. This is a fatal hazard to settled government! the beginning of its
=total dissolution!> for it licenses a people to abandon or destroy governments! and
leaves them free to be =e%ecutioners of the law of nature! and consequently . . . have
right of war!> at their discretion. 0hy! therefore! might not a body of =rich malcontents>
dispose of their property and =become generals to worthy mobile>Lthat is!
become commanders of the mobN4#
III
@owever! $econsall did not dwell long on the notion of Locke as an insurrectionist
patron of the mob. @e was more concerned! as a matter of political economy! with
the folly of permitting the uncontrolled withdrawal of people to other commonwealths
or to empty places! Lockes =vacuis locis.>4) Lockes doctrine offended a
key precept of mercantilist demography! that the nations population should be augmented
and not dissipated. In that pre";althusian age! commentators were acutely
an%ious about population decline. $econsall echoed a host of contemporary writers.
=&ewness of people is real poverty!> wrote 0illiam ?etty. =?eople are in truth
the chiefest! most fundamental! and precious commodity!> agreed 0illiam ?etyt.4+
.ome commentators! for this reason! were sceptical of the benefits of overseas
colonies! for they were drains upon the population of the metropole.
$econsall took Locke to be a proponent of unrestricted emigration. Lockes =dissolution>
of government need not be construed as a right of rebellionC it could
as readily be construed as a right of withdrawal. 0hen ?ufendorf wrote on =The
0ays in 0hich a ;an ;ay 'ease to be a .ubject!> he opened with a substantial
disquisition on migration.44 This was characteristically how a seventeenth"century
Guropean dissolved the bonds of allegiance. This construal would be fundamental to
merican readings of the Two Treatises in the #627s! which argued that mericans
had detached themselves from $ritish allegiance by emigration and hence were i"so
facto independent. $econsall read the idea of withdrawal in the conte%t of domestic
political economy! with the implication of a fatal undermining of the nations demographic
strength. Lockes doctrine of the natural freedom attained at the age of
majority violated the right and power of the state to mobilise its human resources.
$econsall reverts to his former argument that governments have! in a manner! a
property in their citizens! because they have =made> them! second only to parental
=making.> @e notes that Locke grounds property and dominion in labour ,=whatever
. . . has labour mi%ed with it! becomes a property>1 and he stresses that the
4# Grounds! #675+! #62! #68! citing Two Treatises! II! 2+! 22! ##8! #)#. The word =mob> was
beginning to be coined from =mobile!> itself a derivation of mo/ile vulgus.
4) Two Treatises! II! #)#. &or the right of withdrawal see esp. II! ##F.
4+ &or these and the wider conte%t see <aniel .tatt! Foreigners and Englishmen- The Controversy
over +mmigration and !o"ulation, 455674856 ,Dewark DEC *niversity of <elaware ?ress! #88F1!
pp. 42! 4:! and "assim.
44 ?ufendorf! De 3ure naturae! :.##.)54! pp. #+4:5F).
#+8
whole population owes its protection! education! and subsistence to =the labour!
care! and conduct of the government! as well as that of their natural parents.> This
creates a right of dominion antecedent to contractC it is grounded in generation and
nurture and not in =arbitrary deputation or commission.> @e concludes that governments
have a right to command =the labour and service of every adult native!> and
that citizens have a duty to =maintain the strength and grandeur of the community.>
0ithin the proper =rational ends and purposes> of government! there lies a right
in the state to command the human capital as well as the =riches and treasures of
a country.> /overnments have =authority to impose laws for the regulation! and
e%acting of this labour! and industry.> There cannot be a natural right of withdrawal
or desertion! and no one may emigrate without governmental permission. t this
point $econsall calls in /rotius and ?ufendorf to corroborate his claim that people
=cannot rightfully withdraw gregatim! because it must destroy the foundations of
government.> $y Lockes principle of the right of withdrawal! =a nation may not
only be dispeopled at pleasure! and consequently drained of her riches and treasure!>
but also ruinously e%posed to its enemies.4F
$econsall treated his sources with insufficient care! for it is /rotius rather than
?ufendorf who can help him. /rotius! in a section entitled =0hether it is ?ermissible
for Dationals to 0ithdraw from a .tate!> allowed that individuals might leave but
denied that people might do so in a large body! for =if such migration were permissible
the civil society could not e%ist!> for it would be =drained of its population.>
?ufendorf disagreedC if the right to leave e%isted in one! it must e%ist in many. &urthermore!
a state might benefit equally by inward migration. nd! in any case! states
do not flourish for ever! and rise and fall with patterns of migrationC =the destruction
of one is the creation of another.> Thus! for ?ufendorf! there was no inhibition upon
the principle that =in the pact of subjection . . . every man reserved to himself the
privilege of migrating.>42 (n this point! ?ufendorf was at one with Locke.
In a remarkably alert linkage of Lockes philosophy with his biography! $econsall
turned to the circumstances of Lockes current public employment. @e knew
that Locke was! from #282! a member of the $oard of Trade and ?lantations! the
cockpit of the nations commercial and colonial policy"making. nd he did not
think Lockes public ,and lucrative1 responsibilities were compatible with what he
had written in the Two Treatises. =This author! hes so highly sensible how much the
number of subjects contributes to the trade! riches! strength and glory of a nation!
that were the question formally put and argued in the 'ouncil of Trade! and his
preferments! as well as judgement! engaged upon it! Im persuaded he would think
himself obliged to declare against his former sentiments.> Locke the irresponsible
anarchist was now a counsellor of state. The (%ford Torys resentment at the o%ymoron
of a 0hig in power breaks forthC =(hO $lessed politics! to be the spawn
of one that is called into the counsels of a government! eats its bread! and enjoys
4F Grounds! #645:7.
42 @ugo /rotius! De 3ure /elli ac "acis H#2)FI! tr. &rancis0. Jelsey ,H(%fordIC (%ford *niversity
?ress! #8)F1! ).F.)4! p. )F49 ?ufendorf! De 3ure naturae! :.##.)54! #+485F).
#47 ;ark /oldie
places of trust as well as profit.>46 $econsall was making the astute observation that
the Locke who wrote the Two Treatises! a propaganda piece for 0hig insurrection!
might sit uneasily beside the 'ourt 0hig Locke who served the 0illiamite regime.
Locke did not respond to $econsalls book. Ket it is a striking fact that one of the
longest additional passages he inserted into the Two Treatises! written in the margin
of his copy of the third edition of #28:! and which only appeared in printed editions
much later! reflected his new employment at the $oard of Trade and the mercantilist
demographic agenda. ?art of it readsC =numbers of men are to be preferred to largeness
of dominions! and . . . the increase of hands and the right employing of them is
the great art of government.>4:
IB
0e have seen that $econsall worried that the Two Treatises might provide a handbook
for rebellious youth by licensing their liberation from fatherly authority at the
age of majority. This essay closes by turning to the wider conte%t of early modern
an%ieties about youth. It is not easy to connect intellectual history with social! and
the risk is of reducing philosophical arguments to symptoms of social tensions. Ket
$econsalls dwelling on intergenerational relations consorted with a wider contemporary
preoccupation with wayward adolescents. It was a society in which youth
formed a high ratio of the population! which had a prolonged phase of adolescence!
and in which the average age of marriage was high and apprenticeships long9 a
society with a strong tradition of primogeniture! in which the heirs of the propertied
were frequently at war with their fathers! and with a perennial problem of refractory
and unplaced younger sons. .ocial commentary! conduct books! and admonitory
sermons dwelt on the insubordination of youth! while the theme of the =corruption>
of youth ran through the jeremiads of those who demanded a =reformation of
manners.> .pecifically! there was a tendency to argue that twenty"four or twenty"five
might be a better age than twenty"one for =coming of age.>48 $econsall was scarcely
alone in insisting on the =respect!> =reverence!> and =awe> owed to parents! and also
on the duty of submitting to =the regulation of our lives and actions> by them! for
a parent is =a kind of priest within the district of his own family.>F7 $econsall was
,just as the young Locke had been at 'hrist 'hurch1 a teacher in a university! with
daily care of pupils and regular contact with their parents.
46 Grounds! #6+! #6:.
4: Two Treatises! II! 4). The standard edition has =lands> rather than =hands!> but =hands> is
the plausible reading. Locke endorsed immigration as the =easiest way of increasing your people>
in his unpublished paper! =&or a /eneral Daturalisation.> Eohn Locke! !olitical Essays! ed. ;ark
/oldie ,'ambridgeC 'ambridge *niversity ?ress! #8861! +))52.
48 Jeith Thomas! =ge and uthority in Garly ;odern Gngland!> !roceedings of the #ritish
.cademy 2) ,#8621! )7F54:9 Ilena Jrausman $en"mos! .dolescence and 9outh in Early %odern
England ,Dew @avenC Kale *niversity ?ress! #88419 ?aul /riffiths! 9outh and .uthority- Formative
E,"eriences in England, 4156745:6 ,(%fordC 'larendon ?ress! #8821.
F7 Grounds! #)8! #+45F.
#4#
Jeith Thomas has argued that the early modern period was =conspicuous for
a sustained drive to subordinate persons in their teens and early twenties and to
delay their participation in the adult world.>F# ?olitical speculators in the seventeenth
century tended to be gerontocratic. Eames @arrington proposed to confine the
parliamentary franchise to those over thirty. /erard 0instanley and Eohn $ellers
thought nobody should be eligible for public office under forty. In English (i/erties
,#2:71! @enry 'are complained of =beardless politicians.> The marquis of @alifa%
and the earl of .haftesbury thought thirty or forty the appropriate minimum age to
be a member of parliament.F) Locke was unusual in displaying few such an%ieties
about youth! though he! too! argued that =age . . . may give men a just precedency.>F+
The Tory $econsall criticised the 0hig Locke for favouring the claims of the
young. Ironically! e%actly the reverse presumption is at work in a recent analysis
of the political theory of age in early modern Gngland and merica. @olly $rewer
has argued that there is a systemic reason why political theorists of a radical hue
were inclined to asperse beardless statesmen and propose high age thresholds for
political participation.F4 It was a parado% of patriarchy that under a system of primogeniture
young men often came to responsibility and office early! if parental
mortality allowed them to inherit when young! or if they benefited from nepotism.
The 'avalier ?arliament of the -estoration was rife with youthful aristocratic ;?s!
and this became an object of 0hig reproach. 0hig and republican thinking! because
meritocratic in aspiration and committed to the truer nobility of acquired wisdom
and virtue! leaned toward imposing age restrictions on access to political office.
nti"patriarchal theory therefore tended to be gerontocratic! and! from the late seventeenth
century! Gnglish laws steadily imposed age restrictions on various aspects
of responsible adult life. The end point of $rewers argument is the prevalence of
such restrictions in merican constitutional arrangementsC the &ounding &athers
tended to be gerontocratic and =senatorial.> .he places Locke within this frame!
seeing him as limiting the child! by his emphasis on the attainment of reason rather
than the inheritance of paternal estate. The argument is suggestive! for it arrests the
lazy assumption that =radicals> applauded youth! and it has the virtue of engaging
with Locke and patriarchy through the topic of parent"child relations! whereas recent
reflection in this area has tended to occur through the lens of feminism. Ket it runs
counter to $econsalls reading and to the wider alarm of patriarchalists that Locke
licensed the precocious citizenship of youth. It is not at all clear that hostility to
youth was the special preserve of 0higs and republicans.
In fact! in the generation before $econsall! 'avaliers had been apt to identify in
republican thought an argument for youthful rebellion. In the revolutionary era of
the #247s! when 'romwells army defeated 'harles I! a royalist protested that =the
new doctrine of the peoples sovereignty e%tends to give power to all . . . children
F# Thomas! =ge and uthority!> )#4.
F) &or these and other e%amples! ibid.! )):58.
F+ Two Treatises! II! F4.
F4 @olly $rewer! #y #irth or Consent- Children, (aw, and the .nglo0.merican Revolution in .uthority
,'hapel @illC *niversity of Dorth 'arolina ?ress! )77F1.
#4) ;ark /oldie
grown up!> whereas by =the law of nature! that gives all authority originally to the
father . . . the residue Hi.e. restI of the family cannot avoid the government agreed
upon by their fathers and masters! and have nothing to do to overrule it in the least!
though they be ever more in numbers than the fathers or masters of families.>FF
fter #2::! 0hig ideologues were conscious that their doctrines might seem to
license filial! as well as female! liberty! and! more cautious than Locke! they sought
to ward off such worrying implications. Two years after the -evolution! the 0hig
journalist /uy ;iege stated the disjunction all too starklyC =all men are born free>L
e%cept for the subordination! by =the law of nature!> of =children to their parents>
and =wives to their husbands.>F2 Tory critics rapidly took to accusing 0higs of
hypocrisy because they did not apply to the family the doctrine of the consent of the
governed they trumpeted for civil society. 'harles Leslie challenged 0higs to =go
home! and call a council of their wives! children! and servants.>F6
This dissociation was the source of the feminism of ;ary stell! in her celebrated
question to the 0higs! =If all men are born free! how is it that all women are born
slavesN> It was a challenge echoed in the remark of Lady $rute in Eohn Banbrughs
play The !rovo'ed *ifeC =The arguments good between the king and the people!
why not between the husband and the wife.> nd again in;ary 'hudleighs remark
that 0higs kept a Tory doctrine in reserve in order to keep women downC =?assive
obedience youve transferred to us.>F: 0hat applied to wives applied equally to
children. It is not! however! apparent that any ideologist of youth liberationLunless
it be Locke himselfLemerged to speak against parental patriarchy as stell spoke
against conjugal. $ernard ;andeville! writing in #678! momentarily did so. @e
satirised a father for =preaching nothing but passive obedience and non"resistance to
his daughter.> The daughters advocate responds with Lockean sentiments. -espect
is indeed owed to parents! =but when we come to be of age! we are no more tied
to . . . obedience to their commands! but we have liberty to e%amine into the equity
of them9 nay! may justly refuse to comply with them.>F8
FF The Case of the .rmy &o/erly Discussed ,#2461! 2.
F2 /uy ;iege! The New &tate of England ,#28#1! pt II! :7.
F6 Leslie! The New .ssociation! pt II! p. 2F. 'f. -oger LGstrange! earlierC =@ow would all your
popular sticklers for the sovereignty of the people take it! to be beaten out of doors by their own
servants! and to have their children rise in rebellion against their fathersN> ,The $/servator! III!
no. )2! 2 pr. #2:F1. &or conte%t see -achel 0eil! !olitical !assions- Gender, the Family, and
!olitical .rgument in England, 45567484: ,;anchesterC ;anchester *niversity ?ress! #8881.
F: ;ary stell! !olitical *ritings! ed. ?atricia .pringborg ,'ambridgeC 'ambridge *niversity
?ress! #8821! #:9 Eohn Banbrugh! The !rovo'ed *ife ,#2861! ct #! .cene #9 ;ary 'hudleigh!
The (adies Defence ,#67#1! +.
F8 $ernard;andeville! The ;irgin Unmas'd ,#6781! +8! #8). This and the previous quotations are
cited in Lawrence .tone! Family, &e,, and %arriage in England, 416674<66 ,LondonC 0eidenfeld
and Dicolson! #8661! )475#. &or commenting on a draft of this essay I am indebted to @omyar
?ahlan! Eacqueline -ose! and .ylvana Tomaselli.