In 1646
John Lilburne,
John Wildman, Richard
Overton and William Walwyn formed
a new political party called the Levellers.
Their political programme included: voting rights for all adult males,
annual elections, complete religious freedom, an
end to the censorship of books and newspapers, the abolition of the
monarchy and the House of Lords, trial by
jury, an end to taxation of people earning less than £30 a year
and a maximum interest rate of 6%. The
Levellers started publishing their own newspaper, The
Moderate. They also organised meetings where they persuaded
people to sign a Petition supporting their policies.
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. Senior officers in the New
Model Army such as Henry 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.
In the debate he argued: "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. Oliver
Cromwell is reported to have said: "What is the purport of
the levelling principle but to make the tenant as liberal a fortune
as the landlord. I was by birth a gentleman. You must cut these people
in pieces or they will cut you in pieces."
(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)
John
Lilburne, Richard Overton and William
Walwyn, Preamble to the third draft
of The Agreement of the People (1st May, 1649)
We, the free People of
England, to whom God hath given hearts, means and opportunity to effect
the same, do with submission to his wisdom, in his name, and desiring
the equity thereof may be to his praise and glory; Agree to ascertain
our Government to abolish all arbitrary Power, and to set bounds and
limits - both to our Supreme, and all Subordinate Authority, and remove
all known Grievances. And accordingly do declare and publish to all
the world, that we are agreed as followeth.
That the Supreme Authority
of England and the Territories therewith incorporate, shall be and
reside henceforth in a Representative of the people consisting of
four hundred persons, but no more; in the choice of whom (according
to natural right) all men of the age of one and twenty years and upwards
(not being servants, or receiving alms, or having served the late
King in Arms or voluntary Contributions), shall have their votes.
Available
from Amazon Books (order below)
