poet, being his familiar and confident friend, dissuaded him from tampering with poetry, and to apply himself to the improvement of his proper talent, viz. politics and political reflections. Whereupon he wrote The Commonwealth of Oceana, and caused it to be printed at London. At the appearance of which, it was greedily bought up, and coming into the hands of Hobbes of Malmsbury, he would often say that H. Nevill had a finger in that pie; and those that knew them both were of the same opinion, and by that book and both their smart discourses and inculcatures daily in coffee-houses, they obtained many proselytes. In 1659, in the beginning of Michaelmas term, they had every night a meeting at the then Turk's-head in the new palace yard at Westminster, (the next house to the stairs where people take water) called Miles's coffee-house, to which place their disciples and virtuosi would commonly then repair; and their discourses about government and of ordering of a commonwealth, were the most ingenious and smart that ever were heard, for the arguments in the parliament house were but flat to those. This gang had a balloting box, and balloted how things should be carried, by way of tentamens; which being not used or known in England before, upon this account the room every evening was very full. Besides our author and H. Nevill, who were the prime men of this club, were Cyrack Skinner, a merchant's son of London, an ingenious young gentleman, and scholar to John Milton, which Skinner sometimes held the chair; Major John Wildman, Charles Wolseley of Staffordshire, Roger Coke, Will Poultney (afterwards a knight), who sometimes held the chair; John Hoskyns, John Aubrey, Maximilian Pettie of Telsworth in Oxfordshire, a very able man in these matters, and who had more than once turned the council board of Oliver Cromwell; Michael Mallet, Ph. Carteret of the Isle of Guernsey, Francis Cradock, a merchant; Henry Ford; Major Venner, nephew to Dr. Tobias Venner the physician; Thos. Marriett of Warwickshire, Henry Croone, a physician; Edw. Bagshaw of Christ Church, and sometimes Robert Wood of Lincoln College and James Arderne, then or soon after a divine, with many others besides, antagonists or auditors of note, whom I cannot now name. Dr. Will Petty was a Rota-man, and would sometimes trouble John Harrington in his club, and one Stafford, a gent. of Northamptonshire, who used to be an auditor, did with his gang come among them one evening, very mellow from the tavern, and did much affront the junto, and

tore in pieces their orders and minutes. The soldiers who commonly were there as auditors and spectators would have kicked them downstairs, but Harrington's moderation and persuasion hindered them. The doctrine was very taking, and the more because as to human foresight there was no possibility of the king's return. The greatest of the parliament men hated this design of rotating and balloting, as against their power. Eight or ten were for it, of which number Henry Nevill was one, who proposed it to the House, and made it out to the members thereof, that except they embraced that way of government they would be ruined. The model of it was, that the third part of the senate or House should rote out by ballot every year, so that every ninth year the said senate would be wholly altered. No magistrate was to continue above three years, and all to be chosen by ballot; than which choice nothing could be invented more fair and impartial, as 'twas then thought, though opposed by many for several reasons. This club of commonwealths' men lasted till about the 21st of February 1659; at which time the secluded members being restored by General George Monk, all their models vanished. After the king's restoration, our author Harrington retired and lived in private, but being looked upon as a dangerous person, he, with Major John Wildman, and Praisegod Barbon a notorious schismatic, were committed prisoners to the Tower of London, 26th November 1661, where, continuing for some time, Harrington was transmitted to Portsea Castle, and kept there for several months. Afterwards being set at liberty, he travelled into Italy, where, talking of models, commonwealths, ' and government, he was reputed no better than a whimsical or crack-brained person. 'Tis true that his close restraint, which did not agree with his high spirit, and hot and rambling head, was the protarctic cause of his deliration or madness; I do not mean outrageousness, for he would discourse rationally enough, and be facetious in company, but a deep conceit and fancy that his perspiration turned into flies, and sometimes into bees. Which fancy possessed him a whole year before he died, his memory and discourse being then taken away by a disease. So that he, who had been before a brisk and lively chevalier, was then made a sad example of mortality to H. Nevill (who did not leave him to his last) and others of his intimate acquaintance, who much lamented his loss.

(From the Life of Harrington in the Athena Oxonienses.)

JOHN LOCKE

Weak

[John Locke, the son of a Somersetshire attorney, was born in 1632. He was educated at Westminster School, under Dr. Busby, and passed to Christ Church in 1652, where after taking his degree he became Greek Lecturer. Being relieved of the condition of taking orders, which was attached to his studentship, he devoted himself chiefly to the study of medicine, and continued this study in later life, in the intervals allowed him by public employment and by philosophical pursuits. It was in his medical capacity that he formed the close friendship with Lord Shaftesbury (the Achitophel of Dryden's Satire) which greatly influenced his life, and which subsequently involved him in a suspicion of complicity with Shaftesbury's revolutionary designs, and led to his expulsion from Christ Church. health enforced, and a sufficient competence made possible, a life of considerable leisure, which he spent largely in travel and in discursive scientific and philosophical researches. In these he reflected the spirit of the Royal Society (of which he was a leading member) and of the Latitudinarian party of the day. An ardent supporter of the Revolution, he returned to England with the Prince of Orange and published the Essay on Human Understanding (his most important work) in 1690. His Two Treatises of Government, written in opposition to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, appeared in the same year. His first Letter on Toleration had been published in 1686; and three other letters on the same subject followed-the last appearing after his death. In 1693 he published his Thoughts on Education. He filled some important public offices, especially in connection with the scheme for the colonisation of Carolina (in the reign of Charles II.), and the Commission on Trade (under William III.) He died in 1704.]

So far as subject is concerned, Locke's writings deal with matters of perennial interest, and his treatment of these matters is 'such as to secure for him the undivided support of one large section of mankind. His aim in philosophy is to establish a system which satisfies a certain sort of reasoning, which shuts the door against metaphysical speculation, and which, within certain circumscribed limits, furnishes a logical and consistent explanation of intellectual processes. It was in no sense fruitful of great results, and almost inevitably provoked, first, a materialism which Locke himself would have disowned, and next a critical

VOL. III

N

reaction, under the influence of which his system, except as a specious exposition of commonplace thought, inevitably crumbled into decay. In education his chief object was to combat existing methods, which he believed to be connected with creeds and systems to which he was opposed, and to propound a theory which was easier of acceptance, simpler in practice, and less severe in its demands upon natural instinct than these were. In politics he had to demolish theories of divine right and authority, which had been strained and exaggerated in their application, and to find a rational basis for an accident of politics—the Revolution of 1688-with which he, in common with the mass of his fellow-countrymen, happened, upon good and sufficient grounds, to find themselves in agreement. In each sphere Locke was certain to find supporters, and although a larger and more extended view may find in his theories much that is inadequate and unsatisfactory, he was certain of wide authority in his own day, and of much respect amongst a large section at least of posterity. All that we can object to his views -and the objection is a large one-is that they have the essential vice of compromise, that they represent a passing phase as a permanent solution of historical problems, that they attain to no logical completeness, and that they satisfy only those doubts which can be persuaded to forego a large and fruitful domain of speculation. In philosophy he was more popular in his own day than Berkeley, and his works have continued to be accepted as educational manuals, while Berkeley's remain unread. carried his theories to the logical conclusion of Hume's materialism, and never roused against himself a body of orthodox partisanship, so strong as that roused by Hume. The insufficiency of his system was proved by the reaction typified by Kant; but Kant is read by the specialist, and Locke is accepted, if not read, by the adherents of popular rationalism. In education he represented a school which has never ceased to have its votaries, and which has that speciousness that comes from basing its dictates on a natural development, which minimised difficulties, and paid a complimentary homage to the tendencies of human nature. But in his theories, and in his practical direction, Locke shows a knowledge of life and of character which has not always been vouchsafed to those who have made a business of pedagogy. In politics Locke sought to find a rational basis for what was the arbitrary result of the circumstances of his own day. He propounded a theory of society, which was admirably reasoned on an a priori method,

He never

but which was, historically, altogether untrue. It was to his advantage that its rationalising was at the moment acceptable, and that its lack of historical basis was undetected in his own day, and even when detected, did not destroy its sufficiency as a defence of the Revolution, which was the greatest event of his time.

It

But it is not our business here to present in detail, or to criticise, the theories of Locke, whether in philosophy, education, or politics. We have only to examine his style. And here he is entitled to the praise of entirely subordinating style to subject. This is no small sign of literary art and such literary art we cannot deny to Locke. He was a man to whom the niceties of language were of little moment; but he was of calm and equable temper, impressed with a sense of what was dignified and becoming, adequately acquainted with the masterpieces of literary genius, and always scrupulous, in his language, to observe rules and to obey the dictates of what in literature is analogous to courtesy in social intercourse. It would be absurd to say that Locke's style is nervous, or original, or instinct with any impulse of feeling, or stimulated by any current of imagination. But it is almost always correct; it flows evenly and smoothly, and has dignity and even grace, if it lacks variety and force. is seen at its worst, perhaps, in his philosophical work, where his very limitations of thought made him prone to argue in a circle, and give to his style a character of dull and heavy monotony. It is much more easy in his Treatise on Education, where he is made more direct and practical by contact with the facts of life, and where he often inculcates his precepts in homely and racy English. In his political writing he endeavours, not always successfully, to be popular, and to gain the ear of a wider audience. In the opening chapters of his Two Treatises on Government the effort to attain this popularity in phraseology is clearly seen, and the effort is not unsuccessful. But it quickly dies away. The student and the literary recluse assert themselves over the pamphleteer and the style presently falls into the orderly and correct prose of the literary theorist, and deserts the more lively outbursts of the partisan politician. But if Locke is never original in his style, and never shows the force and vigour of one who speaks straight to the deeper instincts of human nature, we must still accord to him the praise of regularity, of dignity, of scrupulous accuracy in diction, up to the measure of logical accuracy to which his thought attained.

H. CRAIK.