Jump to content

Putney Debates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

St. Mary's Church,Putney,location of the Putney Debates

ThePutney Debates,which took place from 28 October to 8 November 1647, were a series of discussions over the political settlement that should followParliament's victory overCharles Iin theFirst English Civil War.The main participants were senior officers of theNew Model Armywho favoured retaining Charles within the framework of aconstitutional monarchy,and radicals such as theLevellerswho sought more sweeping changes, includingone man, one voteandfreedom of conscience,particularly in religion.

Alarmed by what they viewed as the dangerous radicalism and increasing power of the New Model Army, in March 1647 thePresbyterianmoderates who dominated theLong Parliamentordered the army to disband, a demand which was refused. In June, the army removed Charles from the custody of Parliament and in August established its headquarters atPutney,just outside theCity of Westminsterin South WestLondon.Its senior officers or "Grandees"hoped the debates would end political divisions with theAgitatorswho represented the rank and file, and allow them to reach consensus on a peaceful settlement. Collectively, the two sides were grouped together into theArmy Council.

The debates began on 28 October 1647 atSt. Mary's Church, Putneyand continued until 8 November, when senior officers includingThomas Fairfax,Oliver Cromwell,andHenry Ireton,grew concerned at the possible impact on military discipline and closed them down. The most contentious item was that of theright to vote:the Grandees wanted to restrict it to property-owners, but this was challenged by the Leveller spokesman, ColonelThomas Rainsborough,who encapsulated his and the Levellers' position by saying:

"...for really I thinke that the poorest hee that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest hee; and therefore truly, Sir, I thinke itt's cleare, that every man that is to live under a Governement ought first by his owne consent to putt himself under that Governement; 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." (Putney Debates record book 1647, Worcester College, Oxford, MS 65. Spelling and capitalisation as in the original manuscript.)

Background

[edit]

Earlier that summer SirThomas Fairfax,Commander-in-Chief of the Army,Oliver Cromwell(thenMember of ParliamentforCambridgeand second-in-command),Henry Ireton(Cromwell's son-in-law) and other officers, known as the "Grandees",attempted to negotiate an inclusive settlement withCharles I of Englandin the aftermath of theFirst English Civil War.Termed theHeads of Proposals,these included provisions for social justice, but the monarchy andHouse of Lordswould have retained a power of veto over theHouse of Commons.It also stipulated the king would be restored before the issues of the soldiers' indemnity for acts committed during the war and their arrears of pay were entrenched in law. This clear compromise position was contrary to theNew Model Army's Declaration on 14 June and consequently the Heads lost the support of those seeking social reform (at the time generally called Levellers and radicals).

Sometime before October 1647, five of the most radical cavalry regiments elected newAgitators– known as theNew Agents– to represent their views. The New Agents issued a political manifesto:The Case of the Armie Truly Stated.[1]The fundamental ideas of theCase of the Armiecame to be reflected in awritten constitutionaldraft: theAgreement of the People.[2]

The Putney Debates came about as a result of the publication of theCase of the Armie.According to the author of a book calledA Call to all the Soldiers of the Armie(a work usually ascribed toJohn Wildman), Ireton was so incensed by theCase of the Armiethat the New Agents were invited to debate theCase of the Armiebefore the General Council of the Army.

Debates

[edit]
ColonelThomas Rainsborough,the most senior officer to support theLevellercall forone man, one vote

The radicals wanted a constitution based uponone man, one vote,biennial Parliaments and a re-organisation ofparliamentary constituencies.Authority was to be vested in the House of Commons rather than the King and Lords. Certain "native rights" were declared sacrosanct for all Englishmen: freedom of conscience, freedom from impressment (conscription) into the armed forces and equality before (when judged under or seeking a judgement under) the law.

Since SirThomas Fairfaxwas unwell and could not be present, Cromwell chaired the debates. He flatly refused to accept any compromise in which the King was overthrown, while his son-in-law, Henry Ireton, pressed the case that his ownThe Heads of the Proposals[3]covered all of the concerns raised by the New Agents inThe Case of the Armie.The New Agents accepted the meeting, sendingRobert Everard(identified on the first day of the Putney Debates as 'Buff Coat') and another New Agent from Col. Whalley's Regiment only identified as 'Bedfordshire Man' (this was possibly Trooper Matthew Weale, a signatory of theCase of the Armieand theAgreement of the People). Other members of the Army present were ColonelThomas Rainsborough,a successful commander in the Civil War, and latelyMPforDroitwich,his brotherMajor William Rainsborough,and the AgitatorsEdward SexbyandWilliam Allen.The New Agents also brought John Wildman and Maximillian Petty, two civilian advisors who had been involved with Army affairs since at least July 1647.

The debates opened on 28 October and were transcribed by secretary William Clarke and a team ofstenographers.From 2 November however, all recording ceased. The debates were not reported and Clarke's minutes were not published at the time. They were lost until 1890 when they were rediscovered at the library ofWorcester College, Oxford,and subsequently published as part of the Clarke Papers.[4]

Cromwell and Ireton's main complaint about theAgreementwas that it included terms for near universal male suffrage, which Ireton considered to be anarchy. Instead, they suggested suffrage should be limited only to landholders. The Agitators, on the other hand, felt they deserved the rights in payment for their service during the war. Thus Thomas Rainsborough argued:

For really I think that the poorest hee that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest hee; and therefore truly, Sr, I think itt 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.

— Putney Debates record book 1647, Worcester College, Oxford, MS 65. Spelling and capitalisation as in the original manuscript.

And Ireton, for the Grandees:

no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom.[5]

Conclusion

[edit]

The debates concluded with the understanding that a modified version of theAgreement,approved by a committee chosen mainly from the ranks of the Army's officers, would be the basis of any future constitutional settlement and that it would be presented to the Army itself at a mass meeting.[6]However, the Agitators wanted to discuss the future of the King, leading the Grandees, fearing a complete breakdown of discipline in the Army, to propose on 8 November that the Agitators and New Agents return at once to their regiments to restore order, thereby suspending the meetings.[7]This was reinforced on 11 November when King Charles escaped fromHampton Court Palace,apparently fearing (possibly on the advice of Oliver Cromwell) that the Grandees could easily lose control of the more radical elements in the Army.[8][9]The King's flight brought all debate to an end as the New Model Army was faced with a more immediate threat. On the same day, the General Council drafted a new manifesto to be presented at the mass meeting which contained, among other provisions, a clause in which the members of the army would sign a declaration of loyalty to Lord Fairfax and the General Council (and hence making further agitation when ordered to desist a mutinous offence).[10]

The presentation itself was split from one mass meeting to three smaller ones. Those regiments invited to the first meeting on 15 November agreed with the manifesto, but two regiments arrived uninvited and objected, sparking theCorkbush Field mutiny.Fairfax and Cromwell suppressed the mutiny and at the other two meetings the other regiments agreed to the terms in the manifesto.[11]

On 7 December 1647, at a meeting in Windsor the General Council drew up a non-political petition to present to Parliament called theHumble Representation of the General Council of the Army(which requested that Parliament pay the soldiers arrears and secure the future funding of the army), and a month later, on 8 January 1648, the General Council voted to terminate itself.[10][12]

The symbolic importance of the debates may have been a factor, 36 years later, following theRestorationof the monarchy, when King Charles II chose Putney Heath as the site of a parade of 6,000 soldiers, in October 1684.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^The Case of the Armie Truly Stated
  2. ^The Agreement of the PeopleArchived2007-06-09 at theWayback Machineas presented to the Council of the Army at Putney on 28 October 1647(alternative site)
  3. ^The Heads of the Proposals offered by the Army
  4. ^Le Caire 2001,p. 19-35.
  5. ^Quotation as given byE. P. ThompsonThe Making of the English Working Class
  6. ^German & Rees 2012,p. 54.
  7. ^Woolrych 1996,p. 7.
  8. ^Adams 1856,p. 50.
  9. ^d'Aubigné 1847,p. 97.
  10. ^abEllis 1973,p. 12.
  11. ^Baker 2007,p.[page needed].
  12. ^Bennett 2010,p. 113.

References

[edit]
  • Adams, William Henry Davenport (1856),The History, Topography, and Antiquities of the Isle of Wight,Smith, Elder, and Company, p.50
  • Baker, Philip, ed. (2007),The Levellers: The Putney Debates,London and New York: Verso Booksselected and annotated texts with an introduction byGeoffrey RobertsonQC.
  • Bennett, Martyn (2010),The A to Z of the British and Irish Civil Wars 1637–1660,The A to Z Guide Series, vol. 197, Rowman & Littlefield, p.113,ISBN9780810876262
  • d'Aubigné, Jean Henri Merle (1847),The Protector: a vindication(2nd, revised ed.), Oliver & Boyd, p.97
  • Ellis, John (1973),Armies in revolution,Taylor & Francis, p.12,ISBN9780856640254
  • German, Lindsey; Rees, John (2012),A People's History of London(illustrated ed.), Verso Books, p.54,ISBN9781844678556
  • Hsiao, Andrew; Lim, Audrea, eds. (2020).The Verso Book of Dissent: Revolutionary Words from Three Millennia of Rebellion and Resistance.Verso Books.ISBN978-1-78873-911-5.
  • Le Caire, Claire (2001). "The survival of the manuscript". In Mendle, Michael (ed.).The Putney Debates of 1647. The Army, The Levellers and the English State.Cambridge University Press. pp. 19–35.ISBN0521650151.
  • Woolrych, Austin (1996), "Agitators", in Fritze, Ronald H.; Robison, William Baxter (eds.),Historical Dictionary of Stuart England: 1603–1689(illustrated ed.), Greenwood Publishing Group, pp.7–8,ISBN9780313283918

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Putney_Debates&oldid=1222216281"