THE PUTNEY DEBATES EXHIBITION ST MARY’S CHURCH PUTNEY THE LEVELLERS social rank, driven by principle rather than personal material grievance. Lilburne, in particular, had been an active campaigner for a decade. In 1637, he had been flogged, pilloried, and imprisoned for publishing pamphlets critical of the bishops; nine years later, he was imprisoned by the House of Lords on various charges of seditious conduct (and indeed was still in the Tower at the time of the Putney Debates.) Lilburne argued that true sovereignty derived from the people. Popular sovereignty, he maintained, was an inalienable right, which had only been subverted after the Norman Conquest by the new landowning class as it developed institutions and The Putney Debates are an important practices which consolidated its own landmark in English political history. power. Following the Civil War, it was At St Mary’s Church, Putney, in the not enough to replace monarchical autumn of 1647, leading members of tyranny with a system which the Army Council, which then perpetuated the power of the effectively controlled England in the landowners represented in parliament. aftermath of Charles I’s defeat in the As Lilburne told the Lords at his trial Civil War, deliberated on proposals for in 1646, “all you intended when you a radical overhaul of the constitution. set us a - fighting was merely to These proposals, which for their time unhorse and dismount our old riders were breathtaking in their and tyrants, so that you might get up revolutionary boldness, anticipated and ride in their stead.” What was many of the ideological fault lines of needed was a system which reflected the next three to four centuries. Should the interests of, and was directly the electorate be widened to form accountable to, the people. something approaching a democracy? Should the monarchy and the House of Lilburne and other radicals might Lords survive? And how should the simply have operated on the margins condition of the people be improved? of political debate had it not been for three important developments. First, These proposals emanated from a the breakdown of censorship, as group of radicals, known to history as Charles I’s authority collapsed in the the Levellers (a term coined by years immediately before the Civil opponents who believed that they War, allowed radical ideas to circulate envisaged a “levelling down” of social far more freely. An increasingly distinction.) Prominent amongst these literate population, especially in the Levellers were three prolific urban centres, read an ever growing pamphleteers and consistent critics of number of pamphlets and newspapers autocratic governance, John Lilburne, (722 in 1645 alone), many highlighting Richard Overton, and William Walwyn. the Leveller agenda. Second, the All three were men of a reasonable country was in economic crisis. A poor THE PUTNEY DEBATES EXHIBITION ST MARY’S CHURCH PUTNEY THE LEVELLERS harvest in 1646 pushed grain prices up People, proposing widespread by about a quarter in a year, while constitutional change. wages remained depressed. When Lilburne and others talked about ending the “oppression” of the people, they had a captive audience. The most important single factor in the emergence of popular radicalism in 1646-7 was the politicisation of the New Model Army. The soldiers, who had delivered victory over the King, shared in the economic distress of the country, but had particular grievances of their own. Many looked on with suspicion as firstly their supposed political masters in Westminster and then their own commanders tried to forge a settlement with the King on relatively lenient terms. Was this not a betrayal of the “cause” for which they had fought? Worse, many in the parliamentary leadership wanted to Assuming the end of the monarchy, the ease the tax burden on the country by Agreement advocated a totally elective disbanding the troops without meeting representative assembly, itself their arrears of pay, which amounted to explicitly inferior to a sovereign people, some 43 weeks in the case of some as well as elections every two years cavalry regiments. Was this not and a redistribution of seats according confirmation of Lilburne’s argument to population. This posed a real that only a more representative and dilemma for the Army’s commanders, fully accountable parliament, rather Sir Thomas Fairfax (commander-in- than one dominated by landowners, chief), Oliver Cromwell, and Henry lawyers, and merchants, could enact Ireton. While they needed to retain the the priorities of ordinary people? The support of their radicalised rank-and- response of many regiments was swift. file, they could hardly endorse such a Increasingly influenced by Leveller package. This was not so much attitudes, they elected agitators to because, as members of the gentry plead their case to their commanders; class, they were seeking to defend the and, over the summer and early political and social status quo from autumn of 1647, agitators and civilian which they all profited. It was rather Levellers collaborated in the that the Agreement threatened their publication of a series of pamphlets entire strategy. In order to achieve a setting out an alternative constitutional political settlement with the King, an manifesto which would deliver the end to which they remained committed, sovereignty of the people. they needed an Army united around broadly conservative objectives. They In late October 1647, agitators also needed to be mindful of the presented their commanders with a interests of the traditional political document, The Agreement of the classes in the shires, for, if the Army THE PUTNEY DEBATES EXHIBITION ST MARY’S CHURCH PUTNEY THE LEVELLERS leadership endorsed Leveller the agitators were proposing. They radicalism, the established “political were not advocating universal suffrage, nation” would have little option but to for, despite the important role played support the King. When the Army by many women in the Leveller cause, Council, comprising both leaders and there was no suggestion that women agitators, met at Putney Church on 28 should have the vote. Nor was it clear October 1647, the ideological battle that they wanted full adult male lines were drawn. suffrage. But a vast extension of the electorate was nevertheless envisaged. As Colonel Thomas Rainsborough put it: “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 a voice to put himself under.” In response, Ireton, the commander most at ease in discussing political ideas, endorsed the status quo: “No person hath a right to a share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom that hath not a permanent fixed interest.” In other words, participation in the political process had to be left to the property owners. Cromwell backed him up, observing that manhood suffrage must end in anarchy because “all bounds and limits” are taken away if men who had “no interest but the From the outset, the debates revealed a interest of breathing” vote. In his reply, great divergence of views and Sexby pointed out that men without significant personal animosities. On interest had been “the means of the the first day, the agitator Edward preservation of the kingdom.” Sexby put forward the view of the rank and file, complaining about the King Over the next week, the ideological and a “rotten parliament.” In his chasm between the two sides remained response, Cromwell highlighted the huge. The commanders tried different radicalism of the Agreement (“truly tactics to break the Leveller inspired this paper does contain in it very great resistance. Ireton maintained his alterations of the very government of principled defence of the propertied the kingdom”) and emphasised the franchise, while Cromwell, a far more severe “consequences” of any political animal, tried a variety of alteration. stratagems – giving the appearance of compromise to divide the opposition On the second day, the issue of (he was “not wedded and glued to suffrage was discussed. At this point, it forms of government”), then calling is important to recognise exactly what for unity (“let us be doing, but let us be THE PUTNEY DEBATES EXHIBITION ST MARY’S CHURCH PUTNEY THE LEVELLERS united in our doing”), then subsequent centuries and beyond these recommending that a committee look shores. In England, most of their objectives gradually came to fruition, albeit slowly. Regular, though not biennial, elections became the norm in the eighteenth century; more equal constituencies were established in 1885; universal suffrage was finally conceded in 1928 after a century of agitation; and the powers of the monarchy and the House of Lords have been steadily trimmed. Their ultimate goal, the sovereignty of the people, remains, however, a more elusive concept. into the problem, and finally summoning a prayer meeting. None of this had any effect. On 4 November, the Army Council voted, in defiance of Cromwell and Ireton, in favour of extending the franchise to all except Richard Allnatt teaches History at servants. The following day, it passed Westminster School and is a a resolution for a general rendezvous member of the Cromwell of the Army, where “things (would be) Association. settled.” This was clearly a situation which the commanders could not tolerate; and so the tactics switched Illustrations: Fairfax and the Council of War; from discussion to suppression. An Agreement of the People, The Christian Cromwell put the agitators to the Mans Triall, A Word for the Armie: Worcester College Oxford, John Lilburne, Cromwell sword at their rendezvous at Ware (15 Museum November), and subsequent mutinies, as at Burford in 1649, were crushed with equal severity.