Henry Ireton
was born in Attenborough, Nottinghamshire, in 1611. On the outbreak
of the Civil
War Ireton
joined the Parliamentary army and fought at Edgehill
(1642) and
Naseby
(1645).
He also took part in the siege of Bristol.
In 1646 Leveller
supporters were elected from each regiment of the army to participate
in the Putney Debates that began
at the Church of St. Mary on 28th October, 1647. The debate was based
on An Agreement of the People,
a constitutional proposal drafted by the Levellers. Oliver
Cromwell asked Ireton to represent the views of the senior officers
of the New Model Army.
In the debate Ireton argued
that the vote should be based on the ownership of property. Others
such as Thomas Rainsborough, a member
of the House of Commons supported the demands
of the Levellers. He advocated "that
every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own
consent be put himself under that government."
A compromise was eventually
agreed that the vote would be granted to all men except alms-takers
and servants and the Putney Debates came to an end on 8th November,
1647. The agreement was never put before the House
of Commons. Leaders of the Leveller movement, including John
Lilburne and
John Wildman, were arrested and their
pamphlets were burnt in public.
In 1647
Ireton married Bridget Cromwell, the daughter of Oliver
Cromwell.
Ireton, who signed
the death warrant of Charles
I, accompanied
Cromwell to Ireland and in 1650 was appointed
as Lord Deputy. Henry
Ireton died of the
plague in 1651 and was buried in Westminster Abbey.
As a result of the Restoration
in 1660, Ireton's body was disinterred from Westminster Abbey and
was hung from the gallows at Tyburn.
(1)
The Putney Debates (October, 1647)
Thomas
Rainsborough: I desire that those that had engaged in it should
speak, for really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath
a life to live as the greatest he; and therefore truly. Sir, I think
it's clear that every man that is to live under a Government ought
first by his own consent to put himself under that Government; and
I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in
a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to
put himself under; and I am confident that when I have heard the reasons
against it, something will be said to answer those reasons, in so
much that I should doubt whether he was an Englishman or no that should
doubt of these things.
Henry Ireton:
Give me leave to tell you, that if you make this the rule I think
you must fly for refuge to an absolute natural Right, and you must
deny all Civil Right; and I am sure it will come to that in the consequence
... I would fain have any man show me their bounds, where you will
end, and why you should not take away all property?
Thomas
Rainsborough: As to the thing itself, property (in the franchise).
I would fain know how it comes to be the property of some men and
not of others. As for estates, and those kind of things, and other
things that belong to men, it will be granted that they are property;
but I deny that that is a property to a Lord, to a Gentleman, to any
man more than another in the Kingdom of England.
If it be a property, it
is a property by a law; neither do I think that there is very little
property in this thing by the law of the land, because I think that
the law of the land in that thing is the most tyrannous law
under heaven, and I would
fain know what we have fought for, and this is the old law of England,
and that which enslaves the people of England, that they should be
bound by laws in which they have no voice at all. The thing that I
am unsatisfied in is how it comes about that there is such a property
in some freeborn Englishmen, and not in others.
John
Wildman: Our case is to be considered thus, that we have been
under slavery. That's acknowledged by all. Our very laws were made
by our Conquerors; and whereas it's spoken much of Chronicles, I conceive
there is no credit to be given to any of them; and the reason is because
those that were our Lords, and made us their vassals, would suffer
nothing else to be chronicled.
We are now engaged for
our freedom. That's the end of Parliament, to
legislate according to the just ends of government, not simply to
maintain what is already established. Every person in England hath
as clear a right to elect his Representative as the greatest person
in England. I conceive that's the undeniable maxim of government:
that all government is in the free consent of the people.
And therefore I should
humbly move that if the Question be stated which would soonest bring
things to an issue - it might perhaps be this: Whether any person
can justly be bound by law, who doth not give his consent that such
persons shall make laws for him?
Edward
Sexby:
We have engaged in this kingdom and ventured our lives, and it was
all for this: to recover our birthrights and privileges as Englishmen
- and by the arguments urged there is none. There are many thousands
of us soldiers that have ventured our lives; we have had little property
in this kingdom as to our estates, yet we had a birthright. But it
seems now except a man hath a fixed estate in this kingdom, he hath
no right in this kingdom. I wonder we were so much deceived. If we
had not a right to the kingdom, we were mere mercenary soldiers.
There are many in my condition,
that have as good a condition, it may be little estate they have at
present, and yet they have as much a right as those two (Cromwell
and Ireton) who are their lawgivers, as any in this place. I shall
tell you in a word my resolution. I am resolved to give my birthright
to none. Whatsoever may come in the way, and be thought, I will give
it to none. I think the poor and meaner of this kingdom (I speak as
in that relation in which we are) have been the means of the preservation
of this kingdom.
Thomas
Rainsborough (to
Ireton) Sir, I see that it is impossible to have liberty but all property
must be taken away. If it be laid down for a rule, and if you will
say it, it must be so. But I would fain know what the soldier hath
fought for all this while? He hath fought to enslave himself, to give
power to men of riches, men of estates, to make him a perpetual slave.
We do find in all presses that go forth none must be pressed that
are freehold-men. When these Gentlemen fall out among
themselves they shall press the poor scrubs to come and kill each
other for them . . .
Henry
Ireton: First, the
thing itself (universal suffrage) were dangerous if it were settled
to destroy property. But I say that the principle that leads to this
is destructive to property; for by the same reason that you will alter
this Constitution merely that there's a greater Constitution by nature
- by the same reason, by the law of nature, there is a greater liberty
to the use of other men's goods which that property bars you.
(2)
Richard
Overton,
Hunting the Foxes (March, 1649)
O Cromwell, O Ireton,
how hath a little time and success changed the honest shape of so
many officers! Who then would have thought the army council would
have moved for an act to put men to death for petitioning? Who would
have thought to have seen soldiers (by their order) to ride with their
faces towards their horse tails, to have their swords broken over
their heads, and to be cashiered, and that for petitioning, and claiming
their just right and title to the same?
Was there ever a generation
of men so apostate so false and so perjured as these? Did ever men
pretend an higher degree of holiness, religion, and zeal to God and
their country than these? These preach, these fast, these pray, these
have nothing more frequent than the sentences of sacred scripture,
the name of God and of Christ in their mouths: you shall scarce speak
to Cromwell about anything, but he will lay his hand on his breast,
elevate his eyes, and call God to record, he will weep, howl and repent,
even while he doth smite you under the first rib.
Available
from Amazon Books (order below)
