The Real John Locke Peter Myers, January 13, 2001; update October 2, 2002.

Write to me at contact.html.

You are at

John Locke, philosopher of Private Property, and the rule of Private Property, was the legitimator of the "Glorious" English Revolution of 1688, which first put Britain in the clutches of the bankers (up to then, based in Amsterdam, after their expulsion from Spain). He is a major "mentor" of the "Free Trade" movement and "English Parliamentianism". His "Liberty" is only for those at the top.

1. At, is found the following article Celebrate the 4th of July by Learning American History: Leibniz, Not Locke, Inspired the Declaration of Independence

by Phil Valenti

Printed in The American Almanac, July 7, 1997:

{quote} Locke had revealed his intense hostility to American liberties almost 30 years before, as a paid functionary of the aristocrat Lord Ashley, later the First Earl of Shaftesbury. When King Charles II revoked all earlier patents, and granted the territory of Carolina to eight "lords proprietors," including Ashley, Locke became the company's chief secretary. In that capacity, he wrote the "Fundamental Constitutions for the Government of Carolina" in 1669, an abominable plan to transplant European-style feudalism to America.

Locke's preamble stated: "that we may avoid erecting a numerous democracy;" Locke's "constitution" established the eight lords proprietors as a hereditary nobility, with absolute control over their serfs, called "leet-men":

"XIX: Any lord of a manor may alienate, sell, or dispose to any other person and his heirs forever, his manor, all entirely together, with all the privileges and leet-men there unto belonging....

"XXII: In every signory, barony and manor, all the leet-men shall be under the jurisdiction of the respective lords of the said signory, barony, or manor, without appeal from him. Nor shall any leet-man, or leet-woman, have liberty to go off from the land of their particular lord, and live anywhere else, without license from their said lord, under hand and seal.

"XXIII: All the children of leet-men shall be leet-men, and so to all generations."

Black chattel slavery received particular sanction and protection under Locke's law:

"CX: Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever." {end quote}

2. More on Locke's position on slavery:

From J. H. Parry, Trade and Dominion, Praeger, New York 1971, p. 320: "Locke's theories of social contract and of inalienable rights might seem, at first sight, to exclude any justification of slavery, and certainly he wrote of slavery with deep and evident dislike. Yet he invested in the Royal Africa Company ...."

At, is found Transfer of Jurisdiction for Education: A Paradox in Regard to the Constitutional Entrenchment of Indian Rights to Education and the Existing Treaty No. 3 Rights to Education,

by Dennis H. McPherson, Thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research for the LL.M. degree in Law, University of Ottawa, April, 1997:

{quote} Locke had extensive knowledge of and interest in European contact with aboriginal peoples. A large number of books in his library are accounts of European exploration, colonization and of aboriginal peoples, especially Amerindians and their ways. As secretary to Lord Shaftesbury, secretary of the Lord Proprietors of Carolina (1668-71), secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations (1673-4), and member of the Board of Trade (1696-1700), Locke was one of the six or eight men who closely invigilated and helped to shape the old colonial system during the Restoration. He invested in the slave-trading Royal Africa Company (1671) and the Company of Merchant Adventurers to trade with the Bahamas (1672), and he was a Landgrave of the proprietary government of Carolina.

Locke's theory of political society and property was widely disseminated in the eighteenth century and was woven into theories of progress, development, and statehood throughout subsequent intellectual history. Debates - between jurists and humanists, free traders and merchantilists, and capitalists and socialists - over the great questions of political and economic justice have tended to work within [Locke's] basic conceptual framework. {end quote}

3. The 1688 Revolution saw a Dutchman take the English throne - a Dutchman wedded to the moneylenders of Amsterdam, where they had been welcomed after the expulsion from Spain. In the years after 1688, as a result of a costly war with France, England, sending its best gold and silver coins abroard to pay for foreign purchases, suffered a currency crisis. John Locke put England in the hands of those moneylenders:

From Fernand Braudel, Civilization & Capitalism 15th-18th Century, Volume III, tr. Sian Reynolds, Fontana London 1985:

{p. 358} gentlemen of quality have left London, being unable to live there, although having incomes of six or seven thousand pounds sterling, because no money can be extracted from the provinces'.

Pamphleteers naturally discoursed to their hearts' delight, endlessly discussing the true causes of the crisis and the remedies to be applied. Everyone was agreed on one point: the coin in circulation had to be improved, the silver had to be re-coined. But was the new money to be issued on the same basis as during the Elizabethan reform? Or would a devaluation be announced? Another worrying question was who would bear the expenses of the operation - likely to be very heavy if the first course was followed, though lighter of course if the pound was to be devalued. The secretary to the Treasury, William Lowndes, was in favour of a devaluation of 20 per cent, among other reasons because he was seeking to protect the government's finances. The best-known of his opponents, John Locke, the philosopher and economist, fought tooth and nail for the immutability of sterling, which he said should remain 'an invariable fundamental unit'. Perhaps he had in mind not only the defence of a sound policy but also the rights of property-owners, the validity of contracts, the inviolability of funds lent to the state - in short the property of the minority ruling class. But why should the views of John Locke have prevailed over those of the secretary to the Treasury?

One reason no doubt was that the government of the former prince of Orange, now on the throne of England, when faced with serious financial problems, had committed itself to a policy of loans and long-term debt, an unaccustomed policy in England and one that inspired distrust and criticism on the part of many Englishmen, particularly since the new king was Dutch - and among the state's creditors were to be found moneylenders from Amsterdam who were beginning to invest in public stocks and shares in England. An absolutely unassailable credit standing was necessary if the state was to pursue the still unpopular policy of appealing for large loans, and if the newly-created bank was not to be placed in difficulties, its funds having been scarcely assembled before they had been lent to the state. This is probably the most satisfactory explanation of the government's decision not to devalue, and to adopt, for all its difficulties, the costly solution called for by Locke and speedily approved by both the Commons and the Lords in January I696. The expenses of the huge re- coining operation (£7 million) were entirely borne by the state which was already burdened by the war. But the object was attained: as a sign of the recovery of credit, the pound went up in Amsterdam, prices in England began to return to reasonable levels, and English stocks were soon to be found in greater quantities on the London and Amsterdam markets.

{end quote}

In other words, Locke served the moneylenders rather than the people; he placed England in the bankers' hands, where it has remained ever since.

Roger Scruton on John Locke: correctness.html.

Write to me at contact.html.