Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:09:30.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Edmund Bohun and Jus Gentium in the Revolution Debate, 1689–1693

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Mark Goldie
Mark Goldie
Affiliation:
Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The events of the Revolution of 1688 were the subject of an explosive pamphlet debate in which conservatives and radicals sought to capture the ideological initiative by imposing their rival interpretations upon events. The tories, who in large part brought about the Revolution, attempted to account for the nation's acceptance of the setdement in terms which could be accommodated within the traditional tory principles of non-resistance, hereditary right and monarchical prerogative. Recent scholarship has emphasized the extent to which the settlement was a compromise between conflicting whig and tory attitudes to monarchy, and within die context of this revision of the ‘whig’ interpretation a number of the arguments deployed by tories in 1689 and in subsequent years have now been elucidated.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 1977 , pp. 569 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For an emphasis on whig/tory compromise in the Revolution see: Western, J. R., Monarchy and Revolution (London, 1972);CrossRefGoogle ScholarJones, J. R., The Revolution of 1688 in England (London, 1972);Google ScholarCarter, Jennifer, ‘The Revolution and the constitution’ in Holmes, Geoffrey, ed., Britain after the Glorious Revolution 1680–1714 (London, 1969), pp. 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the tory response to the Revolution see: Straka, Gerald, ‘The final phase of divine right theory in England 1688–1702’, English Historical Review, LXXVII (1962), 638–58;CrossRefGoogle ScholarAnglican reaction to the Revolution of 1688 (Madison, Wisconsin, 1962);Google ScholarMullen, Charles, ‘Religion, politics, and oaths in the Glorious Revolution’, Review of Politics, X (1948), 462–74;CrossRefGoogle Scholar‘A case of allegiance: William Sherlock and the Revolution of 1688’, Huntington Library Quarterly, X (1946–1947), 83–103.Google Scholar

2 On the de facto school see: Straka, Anglican reaction, ch. v; Mullett, , ‘Religion, politics and oaths’;Google ScholarCragg, Gerald, From puritanism to the age of reason (Cambridge, 1950), pp. 177–82;Google ScholarHorwitz, Henry, Revolution politicks (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 82–3.Google Scholar

3 On conquest theory after 1688 see: Straka, Anglican reaction, ch. v, ‘Final phase’, pp. 641,648–9, 655; Pocock, J. G. A., The ancient constitution and the feudal law (Cambridge, 1957), pp. 15Google Scholar on, 211; Skinner, Quentin, ‘History and ideology in the English Revolution’, Historical Journal, VIII (1965), 171;Google ScholarFeiling, Keith, A history of the tory party 1640–1714 (Oxford, 1924), pp. 268, 294, 491.Google Scholar For diverse views on the prevalence of conquest theory before 1688 see: Pocock, , Ancient constitution, pp. 54–5, 159, 195Google Scholar and The Machiavellian moment (Princeton, 1975), pp. 367–8, 380–3;Google ScholarLocke, John, Two treatises of government, ed. Laslett, Peter (Cambridge, 1963), note to 11, para. 175;Google ScholarHill, Christopher, ‘The Norman yoke’ in Puritanism and revolution (London, 1968), pp. 68–9, 72, 78, 92;Google ScholarWallace, John, Destiny his choice: The loyalism of Andrew Marvell (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 19–38, 98–102, 132–4.Google Scholar

4 See e.g. Collier, Jeremy, Animadversions upon the modern explanation of…a king de facto [1689], p. 8. (All contemporary tracts cited below were published in London unless otherwise stated.)Google Scholar

5 Hobbes had argued that allegiance must be paid to a conqueror not because he has a legitimate title by conquest but because consent is owed to protection (Leviathan, ch. XXI; A Review and Conclusion). William Sherlock, , The case of allegiance due to sovereign powers (1691).Google Scholar

6 Collier, , Vindiciae juris regit (1689)Google Scholar (see below); Harbin, George, The English constitution fully stated (1709)Google Scholar and The hereditary right of the crown of England asserted (1713).Google Scholar

7 Kenyon, J. P., The nobility in the Revolution of 1688 (Hull, 1963), pp. 11–14, 18;Google ScholarPinkham, Lucille, William III and the respectable Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), pp. 157, 198, 201–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Burnet, Gilbert, History of his own time (London, 1838), II, 509;Google ScholarMacaulay, Lord, The history of England from the accession of James the second (London, 1889), I, 615;Google ScholarPinkham, , Respectable revolution, p. 202;Google Scholarvon Ranke, Leopold, A history of England principally in the seventeenth century (trans., Oxford, 1875), IV, 483. Henry Pollexfen was probably one of these lawyers; possibly also Sir John Maynard.Google Scholar

9 The correspondence of Henry Hyde, earl of Clarendon, ed. Singer, S. W. (London, 1828), II, 225.Google Scholar

10 E.g. Reasons humbly offer'd for placing his highness the prince of Orange, singly, in the throne [January 1689] gives this as one of eight reasons; cf. The present conjuncture [January 1689], pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

11 Bodleian Library, MSS Tanner 459, fos. 1–12: ‘The present state of the English government considered’. This document is in Sancroft's hand and is attributed to him by D'Oyly, George, The life of William Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1821), I, 415–17,Google Scholar where it is partially reprinted. It is a copy of a paper by North: Simpson, Alan, The Convention Parliament 1688–1689 (unpub. Oxford D.Phil, thesis, 1939), pp. 67–72.Google Scholar

12 Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, ed. Browning, Andrew (Glasgow, 1936), p. 547.Google Scholar

13 Johnson, Samuel, Notes upon the phoenix edition of the pastoral letter (1694), pp. 39–40; cf. pp. 21–2.Google Scholar

14 The diary and autobiography of Edmund Bohun, ed. Rix, S. Wilton (Beccles, 1853), p. 105.Google Scholar

15 Burnet, , Own times, II, 522–3.Google Scholar

16 Collier, , Animadversions, p. 1;Google ScholarHickes, , An apology for the new separation (1691), p. 13;Google Scholar and A letter to the author of a late paper (1689), p. 5;Google ScholarGrascome, , Considerations upon the second canon (1689), p. 9.Google Scholar

17 Letters of Lady Rachel Russell (London, 1773), p. 135: Fitzwilliam to Lady Russell, 13 May 1689.Google Scholar

18 Clarendon, , Correspondence, II, 266Google Scholar (‘strange doctrine…from a Bishopl’); The auto biography of Sir John Bramston, ed. Braybrooke, P. (London, Camden Society, 1845), pp. 356–7.Google Scholar

19 Ascham's, AnthonyOf the confusions and revolutions of government (1649)Google Scholar reappeared in shortened form as A seasonable discourse (1689); the 9th edition of the Works of Francis Osborne appeared in 1689.

20 Foxcroft, H. C., ed., A supplement to Burnet's history of my own time (Oxford, 1902), pp. 387–8.Google Scholar

21 Proceedings of the present parliament justified, p. 7;Google ScholarA letter writ by a clergyman to his neighbour (1689), pp. 12–13;Google ScholarThe case of the people of England (1689), p. 2;Google ScholarWynne, Robert, The case of the oaths stated (1689), p. 11;Google ScholarThomas Long, A resolution of certain queries (1689), p. 57;Google ScholarLong, , A full answer to all the popular objections (1689), p. 67;Google ScholarLong, , The historian unmask'd (1689), p. 9;Google ScholarAllix, Peter, An examination of the scruples (1689), p. 31;Google ScholarTindal, Matthew, An essay concerning obedience to the supreme powers (1694), pp. 37–42;Google ScholarAnon., Enquiry into the nature and obligation of legal rights (1693), pp. 28–37;Google ScholarAnon., Just principles of complying with the new oath (1689), pp. 8–9, 14–15.Google Scholar

22 Jurieu, Pierre, Lettres pastorales addressées aux fidéles de France. Troisième année (Rotterdam, 1688 [i.e. 1689]),Google Scholar letter 18, 15 May 1689: ‘Justification du prince d'Orange & de la nation Angloise’. Riley, Patrick, ‘An unpublished MS of Leibniz on the allegiance due to sovereign powers’, Journal of the History of Philosophy, XI (1973), 319–36;CrossRefGoogle ScholarJolley, Nicholas, ‘Leibniz on Hobbes, Locke's Two treatises and Sherlock's Case of allegiance’, Historical Journal, XVIII (1975), pp. 27–9.Google Scholar

23 As early as January 1689 Bohun put out a reply to a broadside in favour of recalling King James and was labouring to convert Sancroft and Dean George Hickes (Diary, pp. 82–3).Google Scholar

24 This post was established under the Regulation of Printing Act, 1662. See Siebert, F. S., Freedom of the press in England 1476–1776 (Urbana, Illinois, 1952), pp. 243ff.Google Scholar

25 Licensed on die 11 th, published on 15th or 16th. For the full story of what followed see Bohun, , Diary, pp. 101–12;Google ScholarMacaulay, , History, II, 409–16;Google ScholarThe parliamentary diary of Narcissus Luttrell 1691–1693, ed. Horwitz, Henry (Oxford, 1972), pp. 376–83;Google ScholarGrey, Anchitell, Debates of the house of commons (London, 1763), X, 297–8.Google Scholar

26 Bohun, , Diary, pp. 101, 103.Google Scholar

27 C[ambridge] U[niversity] L[ibrary], Bohun collection, Sel. 3.238, no. 357: Charlett to Bohun, 9 Feb. 1693.

28 See Mysticus (pseud.), Charles Blount (London, [1917]);Google ScholarRedwood, J. A., ‘Charles Blount (1654), deism, and English free thought’, Journal of the History of Ideas, XXXV (1974), 490–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 There is not space here fully to give reasons why this story is untrue but it will be evident that two of Macaulay's assumptions are false: that the conquest doctrine was peculiar to Bohun and that no whig could have held it.

30 Burnet, , A Pastoral letter writ by the…Lord Bishop of Sarum (1689). One M.P. shouted ‘Burn-it! Burn-it!’.Google ScholarLloyd, , A discourse of God's ways of disposing of kingdoms (1691).Google Scholar

31 The parliamentary history of England, V, 756.Google Scholar

32 Gallaway, William, Reflections upon Mr Johnson's notes on the pastoral letter (1694).Google Scholar

33 Bohun, , Diary, pp. 103, 102.Google Scholar

34 CUL, Sel. 3.238 no. 357: Charlett to Bohun, 9 Feb. 1693; no. 358: ? to Bohun, 9 Feb. 1693; Bohun, , Diary, p. 113.Google Scholar

35 Grey, , Debates, X, 298;Google ScholarLuttrell, , Parliamentary diary, p. 380.Google Scholar Morduant replied that he was glad Finch thought William I a king de jure and would ‘wish that all his relations were of the same opinion’; a reference to the earl of Nottingham's de facto views. There is here an acknowledged distinction between the tory legitimist and tory de facto positions. Other contemporaries made the distinction too: Wynne, Case of the oaths, pp. 11–12;Google ScholarCollier, , Animadversions, p. 1;Google ScholarLetter to a bishop concerning the present settlement (1689), p. 27.Google Scholar

36 The Sacheverell clause, the duke of Bolton's proposals for a legitimist oath, and the attack in the commons on de facto principles in Dec. 1692, were also parts of this campaign.

37 Rix, , Diary, p. xxiii;Google Scholar Stephen, D[ictionary of] N[ational] B[iography], art. ‘Bohun’; Macaulay, , History, II, 410;Google ScholarStraka, , ‘Final phase’, pp. 648–9;Google ScholarFeiling, , Tory party, p. 295;Google ScholarPocock, , Ancient constitution, p. 211.Google Scholar

38 Macaulay is outspoken in claiming a tory volte face: History, II, 102–3.Google Scholar The claim has a long pedigree: see, e.g., Johnson, Samuel, An argument proving; That the abrogation of king James… (1692), p. 36.Google Scholar Others have followed: e.g. Feiling, , Tory party, pp. 245, 275, 479, 484, 490;Google ScholarSirClark, George, The later Stuarts 1660–1714 (Oxford, 1955), pp. 147, 181, 257, 285.Google Scholar

39 Bohun, , Diary, p. 127.Google Scholar Anglican preparedness to resist monarchy earlier in the century is pointed out by Lamont, William M., Godly rule (London, 1969), pp. 57–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Compare his statements of principle in pre- and post-Revolution tracts. 1682–5: An address to the free-men and freeholders of the nation (1682-1683), pt 1, pp. i ff.; pt III, pp. 63–4;Google ScholarReflections on a pamphlet (1683), p. 95;Google ScholarDefense of Sir Robert Filmer (1684), passim;Google ScholarThe justice of the peace (1684), pp. 64, 68;Google ScholarPatriarcha (1685),Google Scholar preface and conclusion. 1689–93: Diary, pp. 119–20, 128;Google ScholarThe history of the desertion (1689), p. 158;Google ScholarThe doctrine of non-resistance (1689), pp. 1, 10, 15, 35–7;Google ScholarThree charges delivered at…Ipswich (1693), p. 27.Google Scholar

41 Bohun, , History, sig. A3V.Google Scholar

42 In his edition of Patriarcha he asserted that kings are bound by the rule of law and even denied that Filmer was a proponent of ‘Absolute Monarchy Jure Divino’: preface, sigs. A2v, A5r, C3r; Conclusion, pp. 170–1; cf. Defense of Filmer, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

43 CUL, Add. MSS 4403 (BB), fo. 35: Bohun to Isaac Girling, ?8–19 Mar. 1689; cf. CUL, Sel. 3.238, no. 359, fo. lv: ‘Is not this Government founded on the same Principles with the former?’

44 Bohun, , Diary, p. 81.Google Scholar

45 Bohun, , History, sig. A3r.Google Scholar

46 Bohun, , Geographical dictionary (1688),Google Scholar preface; Patriarcha, preface, sigs. D5V-D7r; Diary, pp. 63–4.Google Scholar

47 Patriarcha, preface, sigs E4r-E4V. On Brady see Pocock, Ancient constitution, ch. VII.

48 Letters in A vindication of the present great revolution in England (1689).Google Scholar

49 CUL, Add. MSS 4403 (BB), fo. 31: ? to Bohun, 16 Feb. 1689; fo. 35: Bohun to Girling, ?8–19 Mar. 1689.

50 On its early influence see Reeves, J. S., ‘Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis: A bibliographical account’, American Journal of International Law, XIX (1925), 251–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar By 1688 three editions had appeared in English: trans, by Clement Barksdale (1654 and 1655) and by Evats (1682). Zouche's, RichardJuris et judicii fecialis (Oxford, 1650) systematized Grotius.Google Scholar

51 Wallace, , Destiny his choice, p. 32;Google Scholar cf. pp. 32–8. But cf. Skinner, , ‘History and ideology’, pp. 163–7.Google Scholar

52 E.g. Reflections, p. 51;Google ScholarNon-resistance, p. 9;Google ScholarDefense of Filmer, passim.

53 Bohun, , Diary, pp. 4, 1 -2;Google Scholar (Henniges, Henry, De summa imperatoris Romani potestate circa sacra [Nuremberg, 1667]).Google Scholar

54 Grotius, , De jure belli ac pacis, trans. Kelsey, Francis (Oxford, Classics of International Law, 1925); cited below as JBP with book. chapterand paragraph numbers. JBP, 1.4.7–1.4.14.Google Scholar

55 Bohun, , Non-resistance, p. 31.Google Scholar

56 Long, , Resolution, sig. A3r-v;Google ScholarFull answer, pp. 69–71;Google ScholarHistorian unmask'd, pp. 11–12 and passim.Google Scholar

57 Bohun, , Diary, p. 127;Google ScholarNon-resistance, p. 8.Google Scholar Many prominent tories used this argument, e.g. Danby, : Memoirs of Thomas, earl of Ailesbury, ed. Buckley, W. E. (London, 1891), II, 621;Google Scholar Halifax: Horwitz, , Revolution politicks, p. 81.Google Scholar

58 JBP, 1.3.8, 1.3.9, 1.4.1–1.4.6.

59 JBP, Prol[egomena], 15.

60 Twice in the Diary: pp. 101–12,Google Scholar 119–20; six times in published works in 1689: History, pp. 112, 153;Google ScholarNon-resistance, pp. 5–6, 9, 24–6, 31;Google Scholar once in a tract of 1693: Three charges, p. 13; and in the 1693 MS.Google Scholar

61 CUL, Sel. 3.238, no. 359, two folio sheets written on all four sides in an amanuensis’ hand except for a lengthy footnote on the fourth page in Bohun's hand. The date is established from the chronology of the collection; the authorship from its presence in the collection, from internal evidence, and from comparison with his other writings. On 12 February 1693, concluding his relation of the affair of his dismissal, he wrote in his Diary (p. 113): ‘there are in the folio collection many things that will give further light to these things’. The collection is a bound chronological series of newspapers, tracts, broadsides, ballads, and MS notes and letters covering the period 1675–92.Google Scholar

62 JBP, Prol. 3, 5, 26, 28.

63 JBP, 3.15.1, 1.3.8; Bohun, , History, p. III.Google Scholar

64 Bohun, , Non-resistance, p. 5;Google Scholar cf. History, p. III;Google ScholarDiary, pp. 119–20.Google Scholar

65 JBP, 2.1.2.

66 JBP, 2.3–2.7 passim.

67 CUL, Sel. 3.238, no. 358, fo. Ir; cf. Diary, pp. 119–20.Google Scholar

68 Diary, pp. 81, 119–20, 128;Google ScholarHistory, p. 2.Google Scholar

69 JBP, 2.7.12–2.7.27.

70 Bohun, , Three charges, p. 13.Google ScholarJBP, 2.25.8: ‘Subjects cannot justifiably take up arms… nevertheless it will not follow that others may not take up arms on their behalf’. Bodin also allowed this: Six livres de la république, bk II, ch. v.

71 CUL, Sel. 3.238, no. 359, fol. IV.

72 Bohun, , History, p. 153; JBP, 1.2.1.Google Scholar

73 JBP, 1.3.4, 3.3.4–3.3.5.

74 For the Declaration see: Bohun, , History, pp. 52–65;Google ScholarWilliams, E. N., The eighteenth-century constitution (Cambridge, 1960), pp. 10–16.Google Scholar

75 Bohun, , Non-resistance, p. 6;Google Scholar cf. History, p. 153.Google Scholar

76 Bohun, , History, sig. A4r, pp. 92–3, 111.Google Scholar

77 CUL, Sel. 3.238, no. 359, fo. Ir; cf. Diary, p. 112.Google Scholar

78 Rights of the victor: JBP, 3.6–3.8; leniency: 3.11.5, 3.11.7, 3.15.7, 3.15.12; government of the vanquished may not be altered: 3.8.1, 3.15.7–3.15.10.

79 Printed in History, pp. 68–9.Google Scholar Johnson, among others, used the Additional Declaration to attack the conquest case: Argument proving, pp. 15, 26–7.Google Scholar

80 Bohun, , Diary, p. 112;Google ScholarJohnson, , Notes upon the phoenix edition, p. 41Google Scholar and Argument proving, pp. 11–16, 39–40.Google Scholar

81 Johnson, , Argument proving, p. 21;Google ScholarLowthorp, J., A letter to the bishop of Sarum (1690), p. 21.Google ScholarLong's Resolution of certain queries (8 Apr. 1689) was licensed two days after Bohun's History and contains a postscript introducing the Grotian conquest argument.Google Scholar

82 Measures of submission (1689 [i.e. 1688]);Google Scholar sermons of 23 Dec. 1688 and 11 Apr. 1689. For Burnet on conquest see Foxcroft, , Supplement, pp. 387–8.Google Scholar The Pastoral letter was published in London and Edinburgh and in a Dutch trans, in 1689; and reprinted in 1693 and 1704.

83 A letter to a bishop concerning the present settlement, and the new oaths (four editions, 1689).Google Scholar Sometimes attributed to Thomas Comber, but though he approved the argument he denied authorship: The autobiographies and letters of Thomas Comber, ed. Whiting, C. E. (Durham, Surtees Society, 1946-1947), II, 170–2.Google Scholar

84 A vindication of the divines of the church of England (1689), p. 5 (attribution in some doubt).Google Scholar

85 An answer to the paper delivered by Mr Ashton (1690 [i.e. 1691]; attribution here certain).Google Scholar See DNB, art. ‘Fowler’.

86 Bohun was familiar with several of the bishops: Diary, pp. 65, 67, 81, 88, 108.Google Scholar

87 God's ways, sig. A2r. Extracts from this tract are reprinted in Straka, , The Revolution of 1688: whig triumph or palace revolution? (Lexington, Mass., 1968), pp. 25–8.Google Scholar See also Hart, A. Tindal, William Lloyd 1627-/1717 (London, 1952), pp. 233–5.Google Scholar

88 God's ways, pp. 31, 54–6. ‘Where die cause of War was certainly Just…then there is no Usurpation’ (p. 58).Google Scholar

89 Macaulay, , History, II, 413;Google ScholarMysticus, , Blount, pp. 26–7.Google Scholar

90 Blount, , King William, sig. A3V, pp. 31–4, 47. See n. 29 above.Google Scholar

91 Blount, , King William, p. 22.Google Scholar

92 Burnet, , Pastoral letter, pp. 19–21;Google ScholarLetter to a bishop, pp. 18–22, 27–31;Google ScholarFowler, , Vindication, pp. 5–10;Google ScholarFowler, , Answer, pp. 10–15, 31, 23;Google ScholarLloyd, , God's ways, pp. 19–20, 27–30, 30–36, 50, 67;Google ScholarBlount, , King William, sigs. A2v-A3r, pp. 4–10, 21, 31, 44, 47, 50.Google Scholar

93 Burnet, , Pastoral letter, pp. 19–30;Google ScholarLloyd, , God's ways, pp. 8, 51–3;Google ScholarLetter, pp. 27–31;Google ScholarBlount, , King William, pp. 28–31;Google ScholarLloyd, , God's ways, pp. 37–9.Google Scholar Grotius allowed religion as a cause of war in a case of extreme impiety or atheism but not merely for difference of sect (JBP, 2.20.50–2.20.51); recognizing this Lloyd attempts to subsume religious oppression under tyranny and so this third cause is part of Bohun's second just cause. Fowler, , Answer, p. 23.Google Scholar

94 In the same year Collier himself attacked the use of conquest: Animadversions, pp. 1, 8.Google Scholar In taking the baths, Brady had more or less cut himself off from a cause he might usefully have served.

95 Ferguson, , A brief account of some of the late incroachments and depredations of the Dutch upon the English (1695), p. 12.Google Scholar

96 Locke, , Two treatises, II, ch. xvi;Google Scholar Laslett's note to para. 175 is surely incorrect in saying that ‘an argument about conquest would have been irrelevant’ in 1689; Locke discusses both unjust conquest and conquest in a lawful war. Burke, Edmund, Reflections on the French revolution (London, 1910), p. 28.Google Scholar

97 Pinkham, , Respectable Revolution; Jones, Revolution of 1688Google Scholar and Carswell, John, The descent on England (New York, 1969), interpret the Revolution as a military invasion; interestingly Pinkham frequently cites Bohun's History as a source.Google Scholar

98 I am much indebted to Quentin Skinner for valuable criticism of earlier drafts of this paper.