Locke made a great advance on this, for he saw that a change of government could be accomplished without any very serious disturbance in the order of society or the peace of a nation.

Hobbes did not believe that the people could be trusted to effect a change of government, while Locke had to justify the change which had just taken place in 1688.
Only when we have dropped all Locke's theories of primitive man's happiness, and the social-contract fiction, does the real value of his democratic teaching become clear, and the lasting influence of his work become visible.
Mankind is compelled to adopt some form of government if it is to sleep at nights without fear of being murdered in its bed, or if it wishes to have its letters delivered by the postman in the morning.

As the only purpose of government is to secure mutual protection, mankind must obey this government, or the purpose for which government exists will be defeated.
But the powers of government must be strictly limited if this necessary consent of the governed is to continue, and if the government has ceased to retain the confidence that gives consent, then its form may be changed to some more appropriate shape.
Now all this theory of Locke's has proved to be true in the progress of modern democracy.

It was pointed out that the danger of his doctrine--that a nation had the right to choose its form of government, and to change or adapt its constitution--lay in the sanction it gave to revolution; but Locke answered that the natural inertia of man was a safeguard against frequent and violent political changes, and as far as England was concerned Locke was right.

The average Englishman grumbles, but only under great provocation is he moved to violent political activity.