Leibniz on the Liberty of the English

James G. O'Hara

Paper presented at at the Tenth International Congress on the Enlightenment (Session: 'The Molesworth Circle'), University College Dublin, July 25-31, 1999.

The title of this paper is derived from that of a short piece by Leibniz, written in French and dated April 1699, published by Onno Klopp in 1873 (Die Werke von Leibniz, vol. 8, p. 121) under the heading ‘Sur la liberté des Anglois'. The following is the essence of Leibniz's text in translation : "The English make a great fuss at present about their liberty and say that virtually they alone are free in Europe whereas all the rest are under the slavery of princes. I have maintained in opposition to them, firstly, that the savages of America are indeed freer than they are, and that excessive liberty approaches savagery; secondly, that badly-constituted liberty stands in contradiction to the true happiness of a people. It seems to me that they tacitly despise these two objections and that the sloth and licentiousness of the savages of America do not displease them, caring little where they are concerned with popular well-being. However they were rather more affected by my third objection [which is] that, effectively, I consider the English to be blessed in their exclusive observance of laws, provided their laws be good, but I consider that, if others be the slaves of princes, as they maintain, they too are slaves of their mischievous laws, through which it is an easy thing to destroy an innocent person. And I consider it imperative to give allegiance to a prince, such as those Christian princes of today who do not normally commit injustices, whereas mischievous laws make injustice frequent and commonplace, and England provides daily examples of that, so that I consider it dangerous to be English, or even to live in England. See here what an Englishman named Mr. Carr has remarked concerning the above in the course of his journeys", he adds. Leibniz is referring here to incidental remarks made by William Carr in a book (p.162-167) entitled Remarks of the Government of severall parts of Germanie, published in 1688 at Amsterdam, suggesting that French refugee merchants preferred to settle at in Amsterdam or Hamburg rather than in England for a number of alleged reasons, namely religious persecution of dissenters, insolvency of the banks, prevalence of frauds in purchases and mortgages, and of false witness and crimes of perjury, exclusion of aliens from land purchase, and not least plots and confusions in and against Government. I believe the text I have quoted reflects Leibniz’s continuing discussion of the ideas of the Glorious Revolution and in particular his debate with the Commonwealth men who emerged in the wake of that event. In order to test this interpretation I have examined Leibniz’s political and non-philosophical correspondence which has now been published in the Academy Edition (G.W. Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Series I, 1923-) up to the year 1698. In particular I have searched for concepts like ‘English liberty’, or its opposite ‘slavery’. Here I would like to present three examples from the period 1694-1699; all three concern figures who lived in Ireland or had Irish associations. The first two reflect the information received by Leibniz from correspondents in England like Thomas Burnett of Kemney. Thus, on 7 February 1698 Burnett informs him - in a letter that also contains information about the condemnation of John Toland’s Christianity not misterious by the Irish parliament - that the grand question which has divided political writers here during the past two months is whether or not a standing army should be maintained in times of peace. More than twenty pamphlets had appeared on this question, Leibniz is told. The first was entitled ane argument proving a standing army inconsistent with the liberties of England (1697) which being highly esteemed by all sides had created a great fuss. The tract in question was by John Trenchard, known to have graduated from Trinity College Dublin. Burnett tells of response and counter response to this tract by Defoe, Somers and Trenchard himself. My second example concerns the constitutional position of Ireland. It is well known that William Molyneux in the tract The case of Ireland's being bound by acts of parliament in England, stated (1698) argued that, following the voluntary submission of the Irish kings, nobility and clergy to Henry II, English laws and liberties had been extended to Ireland. These English rights and liberties, thus granted to the Irish upon their submission to the crown and subsequently inherited by the loyal Protestants of English descent, were, in the eyes of Molyneux and his supporters, under attack from the English parliament seeking to extend their power. Once again it was Thomas Burnett who, on 15 August 1698, informed Leibniz of this affair. A certain Mar Molyneux, Burnett reports, a professor of law at Dublin had written a book in octavo and dedicated it to the king in order to prove that the parliament of Ireland is independent of that of England, or rather that the laws of England do not bind Ireland in any way since the Irish did not consent to them through their representatives in parliament; otherwise their own parliament would be superfluous, Leibniz is told. To say that the laws of England bind Ireland where express mention is made in an act to the Kingdom of Ireland is not sufficient, says Mr. Molyneux, for Ireland does not send any representatives to the parliament of England. And England could mention Ireland in bills when it wanted to, if that were to suffice. He brusquely maintains that Ireland resisted arbitrary power and popery as much as any of the kingdoms, and that the king as a glorious restorer of liberty, as the common father should not allow the most senior of his children to bully the youngest. He speaks frankly and with all deference to the honor and dignity of such a wise and illustrious assembly as the parliament of England he is far from adopting a rude tone of expression. But nevertheless he says that he cannot conceive any other notion of slavery more real than that of being constrained to submit to laws to which one never consented to when they were passed. The voting of parliament and the London Gazette will inform you of the subsequent history of this book, the correspondent tells Leibniz and adds that the book had been contradicted by another author who had written in support of the English parliament; this author had dedicated his book to the House of Commons. My third example relates to Leibniz’s investigation of Robert Molesworth’s Account of Denmark as it was in the year 1692 in early 1694. Molesworth's Account came out in December 1693 and in February 1694 Leibniz reported to a correspondent having seen the book which had created such a stir in the London Gazette. His opinion on the anonymous tract we find in a letter sent to the newly-appointed Imperial vice chancellor Gottlieb von Windischgrätz on 22 March 1694. It must be confessed, Leibniz writes, that the author strangely exaggerates matters and one ought not to pay serious attention at all to his judgments. But it does appear that there is a degree of truth in his statement that Denmark has scarcely profited from her friendship with France. And he provides a measure of evidence that the northern crowns are jealous of the union of England and Holland. The result of Leibniz's study of the tract in March 1694, before he knew the identity of the author, can be divided into three parts: an eight folio-page and as yet unpublished "Extrait" of the contents of the whole book, a short critical note and a two folio-page report, consisting of a draft and two copies in his own hand, mainly of Molesworth's preface probably written for the Electress Sophie. In the short critical note Leibniz states that he had intended surveying the whole of the Account of Denmark but having been shocked by many places in the tract he was unwilling to act as an interpreter for such ideas and he criticized the author as being very impetuous, rash and at times ill-informed. Having thus abandoned his intention of reporting on the whole of the tract he had prepared a report on Molesworth's famous preface which I have paraphrased and summarized in English. The intention of this author, Leibniz explains, is to convey to the English an impression of their liberty by way of a comparison with other countries and to encourage its maintenance. It did not appear that he was ill-disposed to the present king but one could say that he did not like kings in general and in this he has passed the limits of reason or judgment in a strange manner; his preface was a veritable invective against sovereigns and was offensive even to their subjects. The author maintained that health and liberty were the two great blessings of mankind and just as an Italian who visited Greenland would begin to esteem the sweet influences of his native land so an Englishman will begin to esteem the liberty he enjoys having experienced the manner of government elsewhere. The author believed that the loss of liberty was the malady of states and peoples. In Leibniz's own view, he writes, it was not liberty but rather good order that was to be desired and an ill-regulated freedom was contrary to this. The author, he tells, maintained that the English were at an advantage in that many private persons of modest means were in a better position to travel than their counterparts elsewhere. Furthermore an Englishman had more reason to travel than any other since he was allowed to take an active part in public affairs by becoming a member of parliament where foreign affairs should often be examined, and which was more necessary than ever at the present time. Travel of course should be the privilege of the mature and those capable of making judgments. Just as the most barren of countries often produced good commodities, so too even badly-governed states could, according to the author, present a good appearance; thus there were some admirable regulations in Denmark just as there were among the savages of America. The author believed that only in England was there a system of mixed government to be found but that nevertheless there had often been great troubles with the kings attempting to extend their power beyond the laws and the people trying to maintain their rights. One can see from this, says Leibniz, that the author is a die-hard republican for it appears that he always sides with the people just as if they had never committed any excess. Just the same the author believed it necessary to keep in mind the means of consolidating public order and of preventing disorders. With the accession of the present king, England was able to make a good figure in the world and had become in a certain way arbiter of the affairs of Europe at the head of a league that embraced more than the protestants, whereas the previous kings had reduced and all but destroyed the credit of he nation. But now Europe had its eyes on England and was guided by her counsels. Nevertheless it appeared that the education received by the English under the previous kings was preventing them from availing as they ought from the present juncture and had disposed them to be concerned with minor matters rather than grand affairs. Such complacency had cost the English dear in the past and had given the French the means of becoming formidable, even at sea. The previous administration had only striven to debilitate the nation, and even the Roman clergy had been able to migrate the young under the pretext of piety but in reality to improve their proficiency. Molesworth's anti-clericalism was evident to the reader Leibniz. The author, he explains, believed that the ecclesiastics, who preached blind submission were partly responsible for the fact that slavery ruled almost the whole of Europe at that time. Being responsible for the education of the youth they dissimulated politics and good morals, commended obedience alone and taught only a doctrine founded on authority and meaningless oratory. For this reason the youth ought to be educated by philosophers rather than priests, as had been practiced by the ancients; such philosophers would preach moral virtues and produce men fitted to serve their country. The author held that erudition and travel constituted an antidote to slavery and that books of the ancients extolled only liberty and that their heroes were renowned for overthrowing tyrants. However when reading the classics it had become customary to concentrate on grammar and style and the curiosities of antiquity to the neglect of the moral virtues that make men capable of defying tyrants in the face of punishment and death when public liberty was at stake. Education founded on such virtues would produce men of another character to those then found on the stage of the world, such as Brutus, Cato and their likes. Instead of which the ecclesiastics preached in the name of divine law a certain passive obedience contrary to common sense and accordingly mollified the evil of the right of kings attributed to the Prophet Samuel. Molesworth's Gothicism is likewise elucidated by Leibniz. According to the author, he says, almost the whole of Europe had been free not very long ago. Formerly the peoples of Europe or Francs had petty captains or judges whom they deposed once they abused their power. In these captains the origins of all the kings and princes of the present were to be found, their power arising from the joining together of several territories. The princes of Germany and elsewhere were descended from such petty captains, and the bishops owed their temporal power to the bigotry of Charlesmagne. It was commonly taught that the peoples had resigned their liberty and submitted to the princes, but such submission was invalid and contrary to natural law and should not be prejudicial to posterity; all laws could be abolished if they were contrary to the supreme law which is the public weal. The time had come to establish this doctrine now that the title of the present king was established on this natural right and on the original contract between king and people violated by the previous king. The author believed that the universities were badly governed by statutes passed in times of ignorance, that the disputations there predisposed the youth to hollow and useless thoughts, and that men of laws were more fitted than churchmen to preserve liberty. He would like to reform studies so that in reading the classics one would go beyond grammar and consider affairs of state which would nurture free and general sentiments. Studies should of course be followed by travel. Just as the Spartans used to show drunken slaves to their children in order to induce an abhorrence of intemperance, it was necessary to demonstrate to the English the misery of people living in slavery for which purpose the the northern kingdoms were the most appropriate. For in France, Spain or Italy the climate and entertainments, the magnificence of the buildings, the gardens and accoutrements distract the attention of the visitor and make him less sensible of the misery of the people; but in the north slavery appeared naked and in its natural state denuded of disguising ornaments. And for this reason, few English being tempted to to visit these northern kingdoms, it appeared proper to the author to publish this Account of Denmark on the basis of what he claimed to have experienced there himself. He concludes this long and strange preface, Leibniz tells, by saying that sovereigns seek only the martial arts which keep the people in misery and never the arts appropriate to peace which would allow them to flourish. Leibniz's concluded his report or address to the Electress Sophie with the following words which shall also be my final words: "Behold without doubt one of the most daring discourses that has been seen for a long time and which is in effect a violent satire, and totally indefensible, against princes and against the people who owe them allegiance".