The history of English democratic ideas in the seventeenth century

Front matter

< CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND GIVEN IN 189I BY

HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE

Preface

r I THE Essay out of which the present work has grown obtained the Thirlwall Prize in 1897. My thanks are due to the Adjudicators for permission to recast and to expand it.

The design of the following Essay is to serve both as an illustration of English History in the seventeenth century and as a contribution to the history of political ideas. English political thinking from the Reformation to the opening of the eighteenth century can be divided broadly into what may be called the Monarchical and the Democratic ; for even among the more oligarchic systems of thought there is a democratic element. The former has been already adequately portrayed. An attempt is now for the first time made to relate the story of the latter.

Within the limits of an Essay covering so wide a field, it is impossible to do more than direct the

VI PREFACE.

attention to the salient points of the story. The justification for the treatment of the two middle decades of the century at what may at first sight appear disproportionate length is to be found both in the volume and the quality of the ideas which then made their appearance.

My best thanks are due to Lord Acton and Mr S. R. Gardiner for suggestions and criticism.

The chief abbreviations are the following : —

0. S. P. = Calendar of State Papers. T. P. =Thomason Collection of Pamphlets. C. S. = Camden Society Publications. A-C. L.= Anglo-Catholic Library.

When no details are given, the reference is to the single or the standard edition of a work.

I

That department of moderir- political thought i which may be broadly called democratic takes its rise in the sixteenth century. The spirit of the Reformation, neutralising where not moulding the teaching of its leaders, was individualistic '. Though it might be going too far to say, with Montesquieu 2 , that Catholicism has an innate affinity with Monarchy and Protestantism with Republicanism, the idea that underlies the_exa ggeratinn i s to some extent c orrect. The true nature of the Reformation is found not in its intention but in . its result. To its philosophic tendency, moreover, was added an historical influence. Its appeal to Christian antiquity as a model issued in familiarisation with the democratic organisation of the early Church.

That these tendencies were not noticed or were angrily denied by the accredited spokesmen of Protestantism was of slight importance. In his famous letter

1 Cp. Hegel's Philosophy of History, 433, 4, Hinrichs' Politische VorUsungen, i. etc.

3 Esprit des Lois, xxrr. 5.

to the German princes 1 , Pope Adrian asked if they could not see that under the name of liberty these children of iniquity were seeking to throw off all obedience. King Francis used to declare that 'cette nouveaut^' tended to the destruction of Monarchy 2 . And from the bosom of the movement, the Peasants' War and the rising of the Anabaptists gave evidence that some of its fundamental principles had been seized.

Luther himself, chiefly from not undertaking any serious reflection on the matter, held no definite political opinions. But with the need of defending the movement against its own excesses, this indifferentism was laid aside s . In one direction alone did he authorize, nay, insist upon, rebellion. 'The Pope/ wrote Luther in 1545, 'is a mad wolf against whom the whole world takes up arms without waiting for the command of King or Magistrate. And all who defend him must be treated like a band of robbers, be they Kings, be they Caesars*.' The teaching, however, of the first authoritative exposition of the tenets of the new movement is of a very sober character ". And yet in Melancthon, the principal author of the Confession of Augsburg, we find the first signs of the bursting of the bonds. With Luther the recognition of Natural Right is far from clear; but in the scheme of his colleague, the magistrate's claim to obedience is

1 Laurent, Droit des Gens, vin. 500.

4 Bossuet, Variations, Livre vni. § 1.

5 Augsburg Confession, Ranke's Deutsche Geschichte, vi. 89.

THE REFORMATION AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. 3

thwarted by that of the Law of Nature. Although it was left for others to carry on the tradition to Grotius, the recognition of the principle itself was of no small importance. And it was worked out democratically enough by Melancthon himself in the test question of the lawfulness of killing tyrants \ Injuries which were not flagrant should be forgiven; but no magistrate might command anything contrary to the Law of Nature. Priyate citizens might slay usurpers and even cruel officers under special provocation. With Bullinger, on the contrary, whose authority in some countries surpassed that of any other reformer, we return to an almost unqualified doctrine of submission. God had many ways to set us free; our duty was only/ to repent. Sometimes He would stir up valiant men( to displace tyrants. Of forms of Government, though! it was useless to dispute which was the best, Democracy was certainly the most perilous s .

In Polit ical Philosophy the Reformation i s most fully rep resented by .Cal vin- Not only was he the one leading reformer who had enjoyed the training of a Jurist, but he alone was .called on to apply his p olitical principles to the actual conduct of government. It has been, however, a matter of lively controversy from Calvin's day to our own as to the real extent of. his liberalism or democracy ; for, though repossesses a

1 A collection of the passages in Melancthon's works relating to political principles appeared in England under the title of 'A Civil Nosegay,' 1550. I quote from this convenient summary. Cp. the remarks of Ealtenborn, Vorldufer des Hugo Grotius, 211 — 17.

2 Decade n. Sermon 6, ed. Parker Society, i. 309—22 ; cp. his equally cautious answers to Knox's questions, Knox's Works, in. 221—6.

1—2 certain superficial clearness, his system is as full of inconsistencies and confusions as that of Hobbes.

The famous chapter in the Institutes on Civil Government 1 opens with the remark that rule is necessitated by the fanaticism of those who try to overturn order and live like rats in straw, pell-mell, and by those who unduly extol the power of princes. It is as natural and necessary as food. 'Those who maintain that restraint accords not with the Christian law betray their pride and arrogate to themselves a perfection of which they do not possess the hundredth part.' Some form of government being clearly necessary, it is a more difficult matter to determine which form is best ; indeed, having regard to circumstances, it is almost impossible. But if the author were pressed to indicate a preference, it would be for an aristocracy, either pure or modified by some element of popular control. In the famous discussion of the duty of obedience to bad rulers is to be sought the key of some of the most momentous incidents in modern history. Calvin admits that the natural feeling of the human mind is to hate tyrants ; but with his usual contempt for natural instincts, he makes it an evidence of respect to God to obey princes, ' by whatever means they have so become, and though there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes. For an unjust ruler fulfils the purposes of God by punishing the people for their sins. If we remember that the worst kings are appointed by the same decree as the best, we shall never entertain the seditious thought that a king is to be treated according to his deserts, and that we are not 1 Institutes, Bk. iv. o. 20.

THE REFORMATION AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. 5

compelled to act the part of good subjects to him because he does not act the part of a good king to us. Are not wives bound to husbands and children to parents?' But rulers, it may be objected, owe duties to those under them. To this Calvin replies, as the Stuarts were afterwards to reply, that they are re - s ponsible to God alone, and thst_r§ssngSi..is, not c ommitted to men.

It might seem as if there was nothing that could bend this iron teaching. But at this point two qualifications are introduced, involving what is hardly less than a volte-face. Vengeance, the author has just told us, is not for men, to whom, indeed, no command has been given but to suffer and obey. B ut we learn th at he has been speaking of private individuals alone : a nd that where magistrates have b een appointed to curb the tyrann y of the ruler , to .faiffer.J^i_ia_tp_betray the lib erty of the people . Such a right was possessed of old by the Ephors and Tribunes and is perhaps exercised to-day by the Three Estates. But, as Calvin's critics pointed out, no civilised nation was without some such machinery as he had indicated, and .his el aborate inculcation of obedience j3rovided_ therefore no effective guarante e against ^sedition.

The first qualification, then, of unvarying submission is that which allows a people's accredited representatives to voice its discontent, allows a nation to resist as a nation 1 . But the second is still more iar-reaching. ' The - readers of the Institutes were instructed to wi thhold obedience w hen i ncompatib le

1 This is wholly omitted in the discussion of the question of obedience in the Commentary on Romans xiii.

J w ith obedience to God. They were indeed subject to their rulers, but subject only in the Lord. Had God resigned His own rights to certain mortals in appointing them to rule over their fellows ? And Calvin only refrains from saying that the Bible was to decide when the duties of the Christian conflicted with the duties of the subject because his meaning was too obvious to

fjieed stating. But when politics and theology were (inseparable and when each individual found in the [Bible what he desired to find, Calvin's authorisation made each man the judge in his own case of conscience.

Tt is thus per fectly plain from the Institutes, tha t th e nation might resist as a nation and the individ-uak . a s an individual . But it is equally certain that Calvin had no desire that the qualifications should override the thesis. We shall only read him aright if we figure to ourselves the proclamation of the duty of submission by a herald in the market-place, and the whispering of the right of resistance in the by-lanes of the city. For Calvin dedicated his Institutes to Francis, as Beza tells us, 'pour luy faire entendre que faussement et calpmnieusement ses plus loyaux sujets estoient charges des crimes d'heresie et de rebellion V

r> And this interpretation is confirmed in various

| ways. In the first place, whenever Calvin was invited to decide on definite issues, he , counselled no n-resis t-

c ance. When, for instance, Knox and Goodman published books in Geneva, Calvin took the utmost pains to dissociate himself from them and told Elizabeth that he strongly disapproved of their doctrines and had 1 Beza's Hist. EccUe. des Eglises Ref<yrm4es, i. 37, ed. 1883.

THE REFORMATION AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

prohibited their circulation 1 . And, in an even moi important case, the famous letter to Coligny in refei ence to the conspiracy of Amboise reveals the tendenc not to take advantage of his own teaching 2 . In th second place, Calvin had a very low opinion of th Plebs, In many passages of the Fourth Book of th Institutes the cup is withdrawn from the very lips i the people. The election of a minister, for instance, i of course, to be made with the consent and approbatio of the congregation ; but he is careful to add that th pastor must preside, ' in order that the multitude d not proceed with precipitancy or in tumult V Excon munication, again, can only take place with the conser and knowledge of the whole Church; it must t done, nevertheless, ' in such a way that the multitud have not the chief power in its determination Finally, he was of opinion that human nature had tendency to obedience, or, as he phrases it, the mine of all men had the impression of civil order, and then fore, being by nature a social animal, man was dispose by instinct to cherish and preserve society 6 .

But do what he could, Calvin was unable to coi vince .the world of his sincerity 6 , though some of h critics were ready to confess that the scholars had gor

1 Calvin to Cecil, Zurich Letters, i. 34—6 ; op. Beza to Bullingc i. 131, Parker Society.

9 Laurent's Droit des Gens, vm. 511, 12. But cp. Bossuet, Vari lions, Livre x. § 33.

8 Barclay's De Regno et Begum Potestate adversus Monarchomaclu 7, ed. 1600; Blackwood, Adversus Buchananum, 13, ed. 1581.

far beyond their master 1 . And as we trace the development of the theory and practice of resistance through the next century, we shall convince ourselves

7that despite his guarded reservations, th e_ teachin g of Calvin, even though we do not care to describe it"with Mignet as the ' religion of insurrection,' made steadil y for po pular righ t 2 .

( The tendency of Reformation teaching now became unmistakeabTe. The famous De Jure Magistratuum, with some reason attributed to Beza, was so far in advance of Calvin's own position that its publication was forbidden by the Senate as unseasonable, though it was admitted to contain nothing but the truth 8 . And, finally, Pareus may close the list of the theologians. The famous explanation of the verse in Romans was to be more quoted than any other single passage from the political teachings of the Reformers. Henceforward it was competent for Calvinists to believ e th at St Paul intended the office and no t the officer to

i be guaranteed against destructi on.

i Mod ern Democracy is the child of the Ref ormation , not of the Reformers. Of the latter, inconsistency is the chief characteristic. Not only is the man not the doctrine, but the doctrine itself is found to contain

1 Heylyn, Tracts, ed. 1681, 652, 3; but see also his History of the Presbyterians, ed. 1672, 435.

3 MSS. Records of Geneva, in M c Crie's Life of Melville, i. 427—8; cp. Baum's Beza, in. 54, 'Le nom mesme de Beze est epouvantable a nos ennemis.' Morel to Calvin.

THE REFORMATION AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

much that its author never could or never cared to fii in it. Omitting its political and moral causes, t Reformation largely owed its origin to the enunciati of two intellectual principles, the rightful duty free^inijuiry^ and the priesthood of all believers. 1 1 justification could be found in no others. And tl practical necessity of keeping the philosophical ba of the religious revolution well in view^led, as could not fail to lead, to the application of cogra principles to other departments of thought. Fi inquiry, though those who invoked it intended th it should mean nothing more than the right for ea to read t he Bible for himself, yet punished ma of those who did so, led straight from theological political criticism, and the theory of universal priei hood indicated the general direction of the investig tion. The first led to liberty ; the second to equality The importance of the fact that the principles modern democracy, however mutilated by a theocra bias, advanced under the wing of the Reformats is difficult to exaggerate. I n the eman cipation of t pe ople, the Reformation played a part it is lmpossil to overlook. So far from being hostile to the princip] with which it was associated, the theocratic element truth protected and even fostered them. For withe the fighting power, if the phrase be allowed, whi they derived from their patron and ally, they won have failed to make any progress in an age where t struggle of creed was the dominant factor of natior life. And with the decline of the theocratic spirit, t popular basis came ever more clearly into view.

II

From those who wrote of politics indirectly to those who treated of them professedly is but a step.

Anticipations of democratic thought begin very earlvJH-^rench history; but though there was much to^point the way to the most revolutionary teaching, there had never been such an outbreak as that which accompanied the rise of the Huguenots. For, on the one hand, the working classes in their revolts had urged their claims with no theoretical basis except a few generalities which they took for axioms; and, on the other, the teaching of the pulpit, however apparently democratic, contained throughout an explicit or implicit reference to Papal or theocratic pretensions, During the twelve years preceding the great Massacre, the Huguenots are still content with attacking the government of favourites 1 ; and even after the Civil Wars have begun, the pretence that the king is a prisoner is still maintained in order to allow the rebels to disown the name. T hey teach the doctrines of his - torical C oaatiitnlianailism. They express equal aversion for absolutism and anarchy. They declare the existence of a body of rules which form a constitution, not indeed written but traditional. A series of events, however, nay, a single event, might make it inevitable that they should adopt far more audacious principles 2 .

1 Beza's Eglises Beformees, I. 241, 2.

THE POLITICAL IDEAS OF THE HUGUENOTS.

The notoriety of the king's share in the origins of the Massacre of St Bartholomew, though Chi assured the Swiss Protestants that it was an accidi brought into prominence the radicalism latent in earlier teaching of the reciprocal engagement of I and People. The change of front that was forcet the Huguenots was explained in a sentence of Mornay's: 'L'e'tat s'est ebranle' depuis la journey St-Barth&emy, depuis, dis-je, que la foi du pr envers le sujet et du sujet envers le prince, qui e seul ciment qui entretient les e*tats en un, s'et outrageusement de'mentie' 2 . The existing Consl tion had been weighed and found wanting, an discussion of political principles by the injured p became inevitable. This discussion took two forms

The author of the Franco-Gallia illustrates connection of the Reformation with Huguenot poli thinking in a very remarkable way. Hotman's ca as a teacher of law and a diplomatist had made name and writings familiar in Germany 8 . He wa terms of intimacy with Sleidan and Peter Mai Calvin had come to Strassburg to hear him/lect and he was a constant correspondent of every refoi of note. His part in the actual march of events been no less important. He had counselled the ( spiracy of Amboise, and on its failure had despati

2 Weill, Les Theories sur le Pouvoir royal pendant les Gueri Religion, 81.

3 Cp. Besson's Fischart.

the famous letter to Le Tygre de la France 1 . He had been designed as a victim of the great Massacre ; and the event condemned him to leave his country for ever.

The prefatory dedication declares that the author has been induced to write by the miseries of the times, and by noticing that nobody attempts to assuage but rather seeks to inflame the passions of his countrymen. Hotman's panacea is the return of the country to what he supposed to be the ancient constitution. His book at first glance seems merely a grave treatise on French history, and his proposals and opinions require to be gleaned from the general story. Before the Roman occupation, Gaul was the country of perfect liberty 2 ; and she invited the Franks 3 to assist her to throw off the Roman yoke when it became intolerable. The first two dynasties saw the restoration of the golden age of freedom; for hereditary succession was merely a custom 4 , and the first of the duties of the * sacro-sanctum concilium ' was the creation and deposition of kings 5 . The people, too 6 , were consulted in legislation and were only bound by such laws as they had sanctioned. The laws themselves were administered with perfect justice 7 . The accession of the third race, with its entire cessation of the National Council 8 , marked the commencement of an era of degeneracy, which became rapid with the creation of the Peers

1 Dareste's Hotman, 1—48.

THE POLITICAL IDEAS OF THE HUGUENOTS.

and Parlement, the rise of the lawyers 1 and the grow of absolutism. For a nation to be governed by the n of a single man was worthy not of men but of beasts 1

It is not a book of republicanism; the autl respects hereditary Monarchy and is content if t rights of the nation are preserved and the old traditic maintained. But the very conservatism of the positii the historical basis on which it affected to rest, made all the more dangerous a missile against the rdgime the day.

The historical side of the Huguenot teaching h been put with rare power by Hotman and creat the profoundest impression. The Franco-Gallia h demanded the old constitution. The most remarkal piece of philosophical politics produced by the Huguer movement represents a profoundly different attitude mind ; for the Vi ndiciae contra Ttrranno -i pipped t he rights of man. Though Bayle's famous disserl tion a was long supposed to have proved the^authorsl of Languet beyond possibility of cavil, an attempt 1 recently been made to reverse the time-honoui judgment 4 - But even if Duplessis-Mornay were t actual author 5 , so close was their intimacy 6 that t work would have scarcely less claim to represent t

3 'Dissertation concernant le livre de Junius Brutus. ' Diet. C xv. 124—48.

* By Lossen, in the Munich Sitzungtberichte of 1887.

B Cp. Memoires de Mme Duplessis-Mornay, 81.

6 Mornay: (Ewvres, n. 80 — 4, etc.

thought of the disciple of Melancthon and the correspondent of Philip Sidney 1 -

- (The key-note is struck by the explanation in the Preface that the object, of the work is to replace the State on its true basis, from which it had been removed by Macchiavelly and that this is to be found by application of certain moral axioms to the problems which arise from the relationship of rulers and subjects. The syllogistic method, for it is little else, is announced in the very wording of the query as to whether it is necessary to obey the command of princes when it conflicts with the Law of God 2 . The second question 8 is whether the people may resist an infringement of the Divine Law ; and the answer reveals the influence both of the teaching of the Institutes and the later inspiration of the St Bartholomew. It is the right and i duty of the entire body of the officers of the nation to \ resist, and even of the principal men in provinces and towns. But God has not put the sword into the hands of private men. With the third query", we pass to the broader question of resistance to the oppression and ruin of a state by the prince ; and here it is that the fullest exposition of the Huguenot theories is to be found. (The people, we read, established kings, and

1 There can be little doubt that, like many of the most famous Huguenot writings, the authorship was joint; There are evident traces of two hands; and while the classical vein may come from him who had tasted of the Renaissance, the Biblical element may well be attributed to the young Huguenot. The almost hopeless confusion of the dates of composition and publication confirms this view of dual workmanship.

THE POLITICAL IDEAS OF THE HUGUENOTS.

put the sceptre into their hands 1 . And God wish that kings should acknowledge that, after Him, th hold their power and sovereignty from the people, th they may not imagine that they are formed of matt more excellent than other men. For kings are mere the administrators of the Commonwealth ; the pilot not the owner of the vessehj Since the people on submitted to the curtailment of liberty in the expect tion of special profit, and dynasties are only tolerati to avoid certain evils, if the medicine prove w orse th the disease, it must be stopped. So far from derogatii froiBT a king's dignity to have his will bridled, nothii is more royal than to be ruled by good laws. If ] disobey them he is no less guilty of rebellion than ai other individual. Furthermore, he may not make ne laws ; he does not possess the power of life and deat and he may not pardon. The name of king does n denote a possession or an usufruct but an office an d stewardship 1 . All kings covenant to keep the lav and history tells us of no states worthy the nan where there was not some such covenant. Final! where a Christian people is afflicted by its princ it is the_duty of neighbouring princes to come to i assistance 3 .

It will have been noticed that whereas the methc of Hotman was inductive, that of the Vindiciae

1 Yet the text-books, till recently, have contained statemer such as the following: 'Locke a le premier ressaissi au nom de liberte la doctrine d'un contrat primitif.' Lerminier, Philosophie i Droit, 287.

3 135—48.

deductive. And it is from this that the latter derives its importance. ^It is the first work in modern history ,that constructs a political philosophy on the basis of ertain inalienable rights of man.J For this reason its relevance was not confined to France. It was utilised by, even if not specially composed for, the United Provinces 1 , was quoted to justify the trial and execution of Charles I. 2 , and reprinted to justify the Revolution of 1688. Its faults however are obvious. Like all other Calvinist treatises, confusion is introduced by attempting to combine the theories of the divine and human origin of Government. The introduction of a Contract, again, though appearing to simplify the relations of governor and governed, merely serves to complicate it, unless some fixed mode of interpreting the covenant is suggested. Further, though the sovereignty of the people is admitted, nay, insisted on, the sovereignty of the majority is tacitly denied where it might endanger the supposed interests and liberty of a part. In a word, the capital fla w of the book is in its method ; and yet it was essential that an appeal should be made to the Law of God and Nature as well as to tradition, essential that it should be proclaimed that the right to freedom and self-government rests on philosophical and ethical as well as on historical grounds.

With the death of Anjou in 1584 and the commencement of the real power of the League, the Huguenots swung round to a more conservative creed,

1 Lossen.

2 People's Right briefly asserted; 7, T. P. vol. 538; Canne's Golden Rule, 12, T. P. vol. 543, etc.

and their philosophical position is to some extent occupied by their opponents 1 . Regicide teaching was heard of no more. Indeed, between the Politiques and the Huguenots there was now little difference 2 . The same veneration for the historic royalty ; the return to the position that the patience of Christians should be more longsuffering than that of others ; the distrust of the plebs; the conviction that resistance should be undertaken solely by the States-General ; so much at least was common ground 3 . But the rapprochement was in large measure rendered possible by the impression that their theories had made on that school of political thinkers. /■ What, then, is the final judgment on the political philosophy of the Huguenots ? In the first place, d espite the comm on i mpression that it was republi can 4 , OVAr Y_CI2!!l' npr 'fr TTlfi Tn1 '' pr nf +, k ft jiariy. a/ ^epted m onarchical government 5 . Though the Huguenot doctrine

1 Cp. Barclay, De Regno; addressing Boucher, he remarks: 'Magnam partem ex Bruto paene ad verbum descripsisti,' 387. It is significant that this work should attack writers of both communions indifferently. t

2 The Vindiciae was often disowned and attributed to a Bomauist hand; cp. James I. 'Defence of the Bight of Kings,' Works ,1616, 480, and Haag, La France Protestante, vi. Art, 'Languet.' ^

3 Bodin, La ESpuUique, Livre vi. ch. 4, especially 937—948, 971—2, ed. 1580.

6 With the rank and file it was sometimes otherwise. When the name of the King was mentioned, relates Monluc, the Huguenots would burst out, 'Quel Boy? Nous sommes les roys, nous. Estuy-la que vous dictes, nous luy donnerons des verges.' He adds, 'Hz tenoient ce langaige partout I ' Mimoires, n. 362. Satires were also written against the ' Bepublicans.' Lenient's Satire en France au 16eme siecle, n. 44.

would suit a republic, the proposal to transform the government was not once made. The single exception, if, indeed, he deserves to be called an exception at all, is La . Boe'tie. But although the ' Contre-un ' was printed in the company of Huguenot pamphlets, and was" eagerly read by Huguenots, it cannot fairly be taken as a specimen of their opinions at any time, much less at the date of its composition in 1548 1 . The author drew his inspiration from antiquity, and pleaded not so much for republicanism as for an individualism almost amounting to anarchy 2 . The i£entury was sincerely royalist. ) It is one of the P capital differences between the political philosophy of j France in the sixteenth and of England in the seventeenth century, that though starting from the same I premises, the English alone pressed on to their Uogical outcome 3 . The contribution of the Huguenot theorists to practical politics was their demand that "; the sovereignty of the people should be expressed in the machinery of government in some definite way. T he cry for the States-General owed its rise .and its strengrti_to_them. Under Henry II. not aTvoIce was raised in their -favour ; under Francis II. they were