1654. Untitled. Printed in Musarum Oxoniensium Helaiophoria (Oxford, 1654), pp. 45, 94–5. The first poem appeared in Latin: printed here in translation (‘Englished by Locke’) from Biographia Brittanica (1760), v, 2993; it was also printed in State Poems (1697). The second appeared in English. Both printed in Fox Bourne 1876, 1, pp. 50–2. The publishing of collections of congratulatory poems by the universities on state occasions was a regular practice; this collection was organised by the Vice-Chancellor, John Owen. Locke's poems, his first publication, appeared among dozens offered by Oxford scholars. The first follows the convention of likening great princes to the Emperor Augustus. The second was occasioned by the conclusion of the first Anglo-Dutch war at the Treaty of Westminster in April 1654; there had been no clear victory.

A peaceful sway the great Augustus bore,

O'er what great Julius gain'd by arms before:

Julius was all with martial trophies crown'd,

Augustus for his peaceful arts renown'd.

Rome calls them great, and makes them Deities,

This for his valour, that his policies.

You, mighty Prince! than both are greater far;

You rule in peace that world, you gain'd by war.

You, Sir, from Heav'n a finish'd hero fell,

Who thus alone two Pagan Gods excel.

1660 (September–December; preface added c. May 1661). The title is a modern usage, ascribed by Philip Abrams; also known as ‘the English tract’. MS headed: ‘Question: Whether the Civil Magistrate may lawfully impose and determine the use of indifferent things in reference to Religious Worship’. MS Locke, e. 7; the preface is in MS Locke, c. 28, fos. 1–2. Printed in Viano 1961, pp. 14–61; Abrams 1967, pp. 117–75; extracts in King 1829, pp. 8–9; 1830, 1, 13–15; Gough 1950, pp. 179–80; Wootton 1993, pp. 141–51. Discussed in Cranston 1957, pp. 59–63; Von Leyden 1954, pp. 21–30; Abrams 1967; Dunn 1969, ch. 2. Cited by Laslett, First Treatise, §§125, 131. The text printed here is reproduced from the Abrams edition. Locke's quotations from Edward Bagshaw are placed in inverted commas, with page references supplied in brackets. His incomplete or mistaken citations from Scripture are silently corrected. Locke's distinctions and divisions are complex: I have augmented his numeration to clarify the structure of the argument. Several items in Locke's correspondence relate to this tract: Letters 43, 66, 75, 81, 106, 108, 115, 118, 123, 127, 129. The antepenultimate paragraph of the Preface repeats verbatim the second half of Letter 108 (11 December 1660). Locke's colleagues urged him to publish his tract and he seriously considered doing so.

Locke's tract is a reply to Edward Bagshaw, The Great Question Concerning Things Indifferent in Religious Worship (September 1660), who is ‘our author’ referred to throughout; Locke's heading repeats the subtitle of Bagshaw's tract. […]

1669. PRO 30/24/47/3. This MS is dated 21 July 1669; the main text is in an unknown hand, but the first two paragraphs and the first sentence of the third, and most of the large number of amendments, are in Locke's hand; some amendments are in a third hand. This version, as amended, is printed here. A later version, embodying further amendments, and known only from printed copies, is dated 1 March 1670. The 1669 version is printed in Sainsbury 1872, pp. 258–69; the 1670 version in Locke 1720; Works 1801, x, 175–99; Wootton 1993, pp. 210–32; both versions in Parker 1963, pp. 132–85. There were yet further versions printed in 1682 and 1698. The amendments made in 1669 and 1670 were mainly clarificatory and cosmetic. I have indicated in square brackets the new numeration of articles in the 1670 version. The most important substantive addition in 1670 was an article specifying an Anglican Establishment – which Desmaizeaux said Locke opposed (Locke 1720, p. 42).

The subject matter of the Constitutions is as follows. Articles 1–26: the proprietors, nobility, offices of state, and division of land; 27–54: the courts and grand council; 55–64: the administration of justice; 65–73: parliament; 74–85: registration and town corporations; 86–100: religion; 101–11: miscellaneous. For discussion see Haley 1968, pp. 242–8; Farr 1986; Glausser 1990; McGuinness 1990; Milton 1990; Tully 1994. Cited by Laslett, First Treatise, §144; Second Treatise, §§12, 24, 119. […]

September–October 1697. ‘Draft of a Representation, Containing [a] Scheme of Methods for the Employment of the Poor’. PRO, co/388/5/86–95, fos. 232–49. Printed in An Account of the Origin, Proceedings, and Intentions of the Society for the Promotion of Industry (Louth, Lincolnshire, 1789), pp. 101–49 (from which the text below is taken); Fox Bourne 1876, ii, 377–90. There is a draft of part of the text in MS Locke, c. 30, fos. 87–8, 94–5, iii, which includes significant differences, some of which are recorded below. The essay is discussed in Mason 1962; Hundert 1972; Sheasgreen 1986; Beier 1988. It is sometimes referred to as an essay on working schools.

The memorandum was written by Locke in his capacity as a Commissioner on the Board of Trade: in Letter 2398 he refers to it as ‘my project about the better relief and employment of the poor’. He continues, ‘It is a matter that requires every English-man's best thoughts; for there is not any one thing that I know upon the right regulation whereof the prosperity of his country more depends.’ It was presented to the Board in October 1697, and in due course rejected. A minor enactment ensued: 8 and 9 W. III, c. 30. See also Letter 2084.

Locke's plan was to reinvigorate and amend the Elizabethan Poor Law (39 Eliz., c. 4; 43 Eliz., c. 2), under which each parish was obliged to provide work for able-bodied men and subsistence for the poor, and could levy a poor rate. […]

1667. There are four manuscript versions: (1) MS Locke, c. 28, fos. 21–32; (2) PRO 30/24/47/1; (3) Huntington Library, California, HM 584 (Bodleian Library, MS Film 151); (4) Adversaria 1661, pp. 106–25 (Bodleian Library, MS Film 77). MS 3 is the earliest and is in Locke's hand, but is a rough draft. The others are copies. MS 1 is probably the latest draft, and is extensively amended by Locke. MS 1 is printed in Viano 1961, pp. 81–103; Inoue 1974; Wootton 1993, pp. 186–210; extracts in Gough 1950, pp. 197–9; MS 2 is printed in Fox Bourne 1876, 1, 174–94; an extract in King 1829, p. 156; 1830, 1, 289–91. There is no full critical edition. MS 4 has two unique, detached paragraphs, which are printed later in this volume as ‘Toleration A’. On textual matters see Milton 1993. Fox Bourne's is the most widely used version. The version printed below follows MS 1, but records significant variants. The essay is cited by Laslett, Second Treatise, §§110, 120.

The essay marks a decisive shift from the position that Locke had adopted in the Two Tracts and towards the tolerationist views espoused in the Letter Concerning Toleration. It marks the first fruit of his close association with Lord Ashley (later the Earl of Shaftesbury). The period between 1667 and 1674 saw an intensive debate about toleration, launched by Simon Patrick's inaptly named Friendly Debate (1666), a savage attack upon the Dissenters. […]

c. 1662. The title is a modern usage, ascribed by Philip Abrams; the work is also known as ‘the Latin tract’. MS headed: ‘An Magistratus Civilis possit res adiaphoras in divini cultus ritus asciscere, easque populo imponere? Affirmatur.’ (‘Whether the civil magistrate may incorporate indifferent things into the ceremonies of divine worship and impose them on the people: Confirmed.’) MS Locke, c. 28, fos. 3–20. There is a draft, with some variations, in MS Locke, e. 6, fos. 91–69 (retro). The tract was composed some time between autumn 1660 and the beginning of 1663, most likely late in 1662. Printed in Viano 1961, pp. 62–80; Abrams 1967, pp. 185–209, with English translation at pp. 210–41; Wootton 1993, pp. 152–77. Cited by Laslett, First Treatise, §129. The text given here is Abrams' translation.

Locke takes up the same themes he discussed by way of point-by-point refutation in the First Tract and now presents them in the more formal mode of an academic presentation or oration. He draws heavily upon Bishop Robert Sanderson's De Obligatione Conscientiae, published in 1660 but based on lectures given in 1647. Locke proceeds as follows. After a preamble, he turns to define (I) magistracy; (II) religious worship (with an excursus on the magistrate' right and the subject's duty); and (III) indifferent things, this last turning into an account of the nature of law. […]

c. 1663–4. Nine essays in Latin, of which I–VIII are printed here. There is no general title, each essay being individually titled. MS Locke, e. 6 is in Locke's hand but contains only Essays IV–IX; f. 31 is a copy of the whole text in the hand of an amanuensis with corrections and additions by Locke; there is a later copy in f. 30, pp. 122–84 (which Locke marked ‘Lex Na[tur]ae’). Printed in Von Leyden 1954; Horwitz et al. 1990 (under the title Questions Concerning the Law of Nature); extracts in Raphael 1969, 1, 160–66; Wootton 1993, pp. 177–83. Discussed in Von Leyden 1954 and 1956; Singh 1961; Seliger 1963; Abrams 1967, pp. 84–107; Dunn 1969, chs. 3, 14; Snyder 1986. Cited by Laslett, First Treatise, §86; Second Treatise, §§12, 14, 51, 57, 77, 93. Letters 104, 106, 932 and 957 are pertinent. The present text reproduces Von Leyden's translation (1954, pp. 109–215). He used MS f. 31 as his copy-text; arguably he should have used MS e. 6 for Essays IV–IX. For criticism of his edition see Horwitz et al 1990 and Stewart 1992. Horwitz argues, inter alia, that Von Leyden's use of such Christian terms as ‘Almighty God’ and ‘Adam’ is not warranted by the Latin text. I have retained Von Leyden's numbering of the essays: in fact, Locke numbered from 1 to XII, but left three as titles only, without corresponding text. […]