Edward Sexby was born in
Suffolk in 1616. On the outbreak of the Civil
War Sexby joined the Roundheads
and by 1643 was a member of the regiment led by Oliver
Cromwell.
A supporter of the Levellers
Sexby was one of those soldiers involved in the Putney
Debates. He demanded the immediate establishment of male suffrage
and opposed any attempt to reach a compromise with Charles
I.
Despite his radical political
views Sexby became Governor of Portland in 1649. The following year
he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel and commanded an
infantry regiment in Scotland. He also raised an infantry regiment
for service in Ireland.
In February 1651 Colonel
Sexby took part in the siege of Tantallon Castle. A few months later
he was sent as an agitator to France. He distributed a French translation
of The Agreement of the People
and worked closely with republicans living in Bordeaux. Sexby returned
to England in August 1653.
Sexby grew disillusioned
with the dictatorial policies of Oliver
Cromwell and in 1655 joined John Wildman
and Richard Overton in developing a
plot to overthrow the government. The conspiracy was discovered and
Sexby fled to Amsterdam.
In May 1657 Sexby published,
under the pseudonym William Allen, Killing
No Murder, a pamphlet that attempted to justify the assassination
of Oliver Cromwell. The following month
he arrived in England to carry out the deed, however, he was arrested
on 24th July.
Edward Sexby died in the
Tower of London on 13th January 1658.
(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)
Edward Sexby, Killing No Murder (1657)
To his Highness, Oliver
Cromwell.
To your Highness justly
belongs the Honour of dying for the people, and it cannot choose but
be unspeakable consolation to you in the last moments of your life
to consider with how much benefit to the world you are like to leave
it. 'Tis then only (my Lord) the titles you now usurp, will be truly
yours; you will then be indeed the deliverer of your country, and
free it from a bondage little inferior to that from which Moses delivered
his. You will then be that true reformer which you would be thought.
Religion shall be then restored, liberty asserted and Parliaments
have those privileges they have fought for. We shall then hope that
other laws will have place besides those of the sword, and that justice
shall be otherwise defined than the will and pleasure of the strongest;
and we shall then hope men will keep oaths again, and not have the
necessity of being false and perfidious to preserve themselves, and
be like their rulers. All this we hope from your Highness's happy
expiration, who are the true father of your country; for while you
live we can call nothing ours, and it is from your death that we hope
for our inheritances. Let this consideration arm and fortify your
Highness's mind against the fears of death and the terrors of your
evil conscience, that the good you will do by your death will something
balance the evils of your life.
Available
from Amazon Books (order below)
