flifi SOCIAL comm A5 EWE
HQ THE W mm

M {at film MM 0! M. A.
MICHQGAN “ATE UMWRSWY:
Jehn R. Céimemm
1957

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT AS EMBODIED
IN THE LEVELLER MOVEMENT

By
John R. Clingerman

An Abstract

Submitted to the College of Arts and Sciences
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Department of History
1957

R

““71; .‘f‘i‘fi‘?’ *‘;”’T““—I!
i

F

ABSTRACT

The broad term "Puritan Revolution" tends to cloud the
fact that the opposition to Charles I was divided into a
number of loosely organized parties which reflected a variety
of religious and political beliefs. One of these political
groups, known in history as the Levellers, sought to bring
the revolution against the King to its logical conclusion
by creating a democratic republic with biennial parliaments
elected by universal manhood suffrage. This, in itself, was
new indeed. However, the Leveller platform demanded many more
surprising reforms. Laws were to be codified and rendered
into understandable English. All men were to be equal in the
eyes of the law. Imprisonment for debt was to be abolished,
and punishment was to be assessed in relation to the serious-
ness of the crime. The Levellers also demanded the abolition
of monopolies. To protect the citizens' political and religious
rights, the Levellers foresaw a bill of rights included in a
constitution which was to be the supreme law of the land.

The Levellers were a product of the Puritan opposition
to the Anglican Church. Under Elizabeth and the first two
Stuarts, the religious dissenters broadly labeled "Puritans"
were unable to purify the Anglican Church, and were forced
into the role of a discontented opposition. During the long
absence from power, the Puritans gradually lost their

‘-—1——_——~——_r * ‘- — ”H-‘_,7
37 Z;

singleness of purpose. The Brownists, in the latter years
of Elizabeth's reign, accepted the Calvinist theology
advocated by the early Puritans, but insisted that each
congregation should govern itself. These exponents of
congregational autonomy were forerunners of the Congregation-
alists and Independents who so staunchly opposed the
Presbyterians during the 1640's. Congregational freedom of
choice was but one symptom of disintegration. To win adherents
to their cause the Puritans had to make palatable Calvin's
forbidding theology which predestined the election of the few
and the damnation of the many. Their solution was to
emphasize the personal relationship of the individual with
God and the accompanying reassuring mystical experience. To
their dismay, the Puritans discovered that this personal
relationship not only convinced each man of his election,
but also presented the opportunity for God to instruct him in
beliefs far different from those accepted by the orthodox
Puritans. Similarly, the Puritan insistence upon each man
reading his own Bible resulted in a multiplicity of
interpretations -- many opposed to the Puritan. From this
glorification of the individual sprang the Diggers, the Fifth
Monarchist, and the Levellers, each charged by God to alter
the governmental structure of England.

Those who held these conflicting beliefs which seethed
beneath the broad surface of Puritanism during the early

1640's wrote and spoke of "God's law," "the law of nature,"

and "the social contract," in defending their right to
unfettered existence. Their impassioned speeches and
pamphlets provided the Levellers with arguments which could

be applied, with equal justification, in the realm of political
reform. If all men were equal under God's law, why not under
civil law? If men's rights to free worship were guaranteed

by a contract between the ruled and the ruler, must not this
contract also guarantee his political rights? Thus reasoned
the Levellers.

Having reached these conclusions, they sought to change

 

the political structure of England in accordance with the law
of nature and its protecting contract between the governed and
the governor. Through pamphlet, petition and personal example
they spread their political philosophy throughout England.
Not content with propaganda alone, they infiltrated the New
Model Army and attempted to use its strength to force into
being a democratic government. On two occasions, in 1647 and
again in 1648, it seemed that their efforts might be successful.
However, their hopes for a government based on the social
contract were crushed in 1649 by the military dictatorship of
Cromwell. The importance of the Levellers lies not only in
their visualizing democratic reforms far in advance of
England's willingness and ability to accept them, but also in
their hard-headed fight to realize these reforms.

Failure to achieve their objective in no way minimizes

the historical significance of the Levellers. As the most

vigorous exponents of government by social contract which
the Puritan Revolution produced, they must be credited with
focusing the attention of political philOSOphers who followed
them upon this concept of government. Because the Levellers
lent such vitality to the social contract and the law of

nature that these theories commanded the attention and res-

 

pect of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, their ideas live on. {if
Through the years these essential elements of democratic g
political philosophy have proved the foundation upon which

the Levellers' dream of a democratic England has been {
gradually realized. L ‘

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT AS EMBODIED
IN THE LEVELLER MOVEMENT

BY
John R. Clingerman

A thesis

Submitted to the College of Arts and Sciences
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Department of History
1957

Approved

 

I would like to acknowledge the
assistance of Dr. Marjorie Gesner Who
gave freely of her time and experience to
advise, criticize, and encourage dur-
ing the preparation of this essay.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INT RODUfl ION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ii

I Puritan Origins of the Seventeenth
Century Levellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II Development of Natural Law and Social
Contract Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

III The Maturing of the Leveller Program
for a Democratic England . . . . . . . . . 52

IV‘ The Thrust for Power . . . . . . . . . . . 81
V Epilogue and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . 111
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

11

INTRODUCTION

On two occasions in the strife-ridden 1640's it seemed
possible that England might achieve democratic constitutional
and social reforms that actually lay two hundred and fifty
years in the future. Those who formulated these reforms
and pressed them to the verge of accomplishment are known
today as the Levellers. The name was given these advocates
of political equality by their political fees in an effort
to discredit them as potential destroyers of property rights.1
This damnation by label proved highly effective, so effective
that the name "Leveller" with its communistic connotation
helped bar the Levellers from serious study by historians
for two and one-half centuries. When referred to at all
during these years, they were considered one of the many
crackpot sects that flourished during the Great English
Civil 'ar.2

It has only been within our century that historians have
begun to re-evaluate the import of the Leveller movement.

1John Mlburne. W
P o e f E land (1 49 p. 3 . This pamphlet is reprin ed
i§7§fi§:§§E§ii§E;:£gg§§, 1647-1653 ed. William Heller and
God rey Davies New York), pp. 399-449.

2S. R. Gardiner dismissed the Levellers as impractical
dreamers when they failed to support Cromwell in 1649. His

account of the Leveller movement up to this point was
atypical, however of the nineteenth century historians in

the thoroughness of its coverage. See H stor f he Gr a
Civ l‘War, 1642-1649 (London, 1901), IV, 293.

iii

G. P. Coach in his English Democr9t1c_;dea§ in the Seventegnth
Century (1898) gave the Levellers credit for forcing the New
Model Army to accept the idea of a republic. The Leveller
Igvggent (1916) by T. C. Pease was the first detailed study
of the Levellers based on critical work with the pamphlet
literature of the day. He clearly demonstrated the
historical importance of the Levellers, who were, according
to Pease, primarily responsible for making the democratic
concept of government a real issue which had to be met and
defeated by the successful New Model Army. The sympathetic
appraisal of the Levellers has been continued in the studies

by‘William Heller. In his Trgcts on Liberty in the Puritan

Rgvglutiog, 1638-1642 (1933-34), and in.The Rigg of
Eggitggimg (1938) he portrayed the Levellers, with their

democratic aspirations, as the natural product of the Puritan
struggle for liberty in the first forty years of the seven-
teenth century. Moreover, he emphasized that the historian
would do well to look to the Levellers as the real source of
the democratic reforms which have transformed England during
the last three hundred years.

The main point of emphasis in this study of the Levellers
is the isolation of their use and development of two ideas
embodied in their writings -- the law of nature and the
social contract. Although these aspects of the movement
have not been overlooked, a study of this nature seems

Justified. Historians like T. C. Pease and Joseph Frank,

iv

when analyzing the whole Leveller movement, discuss the
Leveller use of the social contract. Others such as

G. P. Gooch and J. W. Allen note the same theme in tracing
the development of political thought in England. Despite
the illuminating efforts of these and others, an evaluation
of the Levellers which focuses upon their development and
use of these concepts has not been undertaken. In the
author's estimation this feature of the movement is of the
utmost importance to an understanding of the historical
significance of the Levellers. The social contract concept
of government did not die with the Leveller party in 1649.
Rather, it received new life in the writings of Thomas Hobbes,
and was brought to perfection by John Locke. The Levellers are
of historical significance because they were transitional
figures who gave the social contract, and the law of nature
theses an urgency which could not be denied by those who
followed them. This paper will seek to explore the effect-
iveness of the Levellers in develOping these concepts into
a vital feature of the Civil War which could not be oVer-
locked by those political theorists who sought either to
Justify or repudiate the Puritan Revolution.

CHAPTER I
PURITAN ORIGINS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY LEVELLERS

In presenting the Leveller development of the social con-
tract thesis it is necessary not only to outline broadly the
history of the movement, but also at least to suggest its
Puritan origins. In conjunction with this aim, the political
and religious rivals of the Levellers during the 1640's are
discussed. Their common Puritan origin is indicated, and
their basic differences are explained in order to provide
a frame of reference and to emphasize the consistency of
the Levellers in contrast with their contemporaries.

The roots of the Levellers reach back to developments
within the Puritan movement that occured during the
Elizabethan era. Under Elizabeth the Puritans were not
harried from the land -- far from it. Elizabeth believed in
ignoring, dividing, and disarming opposition.3 But, the
more the irrepressible Puritans were ignored the stronger
they became.4 To further their program for purifying the
Anglican Church they insisted upon a preaching ministry in
contrast to the sacramental emphasis of the established

church.5 The Puritan excelled as a preacher. He spoke the

3M. M. Knappen, Tud r P itani m A Ch ter in the Hi tor
Qf Igeglism (Chicago, T939), p. 24 .

4‘Knappen, Tudor P it nis , pp. 258-259.

SKnappen, Tudgr Puritanism, p. 221.

language of the common people. His sermons were richly
larded with earthy analogies and appropriate biblical
quotations. Contributing to the effectiveness of his
preaching was the absence of classical allusion, in sharp
contrast to the learned style of the Anglican divine when
6

he condescended to preach. The Puritan preachers used the
dramatic story of the fall and redemption of man to further
beguile his audience. Most damaging to the Anglican Church,
however, was the Puritan attack on the impurity which pre-
vailed within Anglicanism. "Impurity" meant the retention of
the sacraments, images, ornate church buildings, parts of the
399k gf Cgmmon Prayer, etc. These the Puritans labeled
Catholic.7 Bolstered by a dedicated preaching ministry,
they waxed strong at the expense of the established church.
In half a century they undermined the Anglican Church by win-
ning to their cause the very essence of any church -- its
members.

‘Ihile busily undermining the Anglican Church under the
lenient Elizabeth, the Puritans began to lose solidarity.
The key to Calvinistic reasoning was the Bible's provision,

as in all other affairs of life, of a rule for government, to

be followed by church and state.8 The early Puritans believed

6William Heller, The Rise of Puritanism (New Yerk, 1938),
P0 1330

ZKnappen clearly designates the area of disagreement between
the two groups. Tudgr Puritggigm, pp. 187-195.

8Heller, Puritanism, p. 14.

3.

that once these revealed rules were recognized, men would
agree to the creation of a Presbyterian form of church
government.9 This did not, however, prove to be the case.
Elizabeth and the Anglican bishops were content with the
church as it was and could see no biblical justification for
a change. Therefore, the Puritans were forced to undertake
long years of opposition during which their emphasis on
scripture as the final authority, and upon the individual's
direct inspiration from God began to bear strange fruit. The
conservative Presbyterian was disconcerted to discover that
not only were men capable of interpreting the Bible in many
ways, but also of voicing diametrically opposed opinions
relative to religious and secular matters.10

By the turn of the seventeenth century the Presbyterian
ideal of one Calvinistic Church for all England was shattered.
The Brownists, forerunners of the Congregationalists, held
that God instructed them to seek congregational autonomy.11
Baptists, though numerically few, found in the Bible Justifi-
cation for a democratic church government and preached, in
opposition to the Calvinists, that God's grace was available
to all. Ministers began to teach that the law of God was

superior to that of man.12 Confronted by widely differing

9Haller, P 1 n1 m, p. 14.
loHaller, Eggitanigm, p. 16.
11Knappen, T r tani m, p. 305.

1axnappen, Tpdg; Eggitgnism, p. 315.

4.

interpretations, men began travelling from church to church
in an attempt to discover which of the multitude of re-
ligious teachings was true. The grandsons of these men
became known as the Seekers in the 1640's.13 Under Arch-
bishops Bancroft and Laud these heresies went underground

only to reappear in 1641 stronger than ever, reinforced by a
number of more radical sects.14 Among these were the earliest
advocates of Leveller principles.

The same elements within the Calvinistic—Puritan teachings
(especially God's direct inspiration of the individual) which
led to the splintering of Puritanism, contributed to the fund
of democratic ideas expressed in the Leveller program. The
Leveller belief in man's basic rationality -- consider the
plea for universal manhood suffrage -— is seemingly in direct
conflict with Calvinistic tenets which emphasized the bondage
of the will, predestination, and a rigid theocracy in which
the few, not the many, were to rule.15 Although there was
much in the Leveller platform which would have startled Calvin,
the seeds of the movement were dormant in his teachings as
interpreted by the Puritan miniatry. These seeds needed only

a proper environment to bring about their violent growth; a

growth which was to destroy Calvin's logic-tight theology.

13Haller, Puritanism, p. 32.

14W. K. Jordan The Development of Religious Tglergtion in
En and From the Accession of James I t the Conventi n of the
59 pp.

gng Parl gmen , 1 03-1 40 Cambridge Mass., 193 197-139.

1siKnappen, Tudor Puritanism, p. 376.

In his preaching, the conservative Puritan minister
stressed the doctrine of predestination and the chosen few,
but to make such a doctrine palatable to a wide audience,
each individual had to be given the hope that he might be
among the elect. The rigid classification of all men, either
into the "chosen few" or the "damned multitude," led, quite
understandably, to a question of the utmost concern to the _
individual interested in the salvation of his soul. Who were
the damned and who the elect? How did one discover to which
group he belonged? On this vital point Calvin was vague.16
A godly life was one sign; willingness to fight and proselytize
in the name of Calvinism was another. However, these were only
signs, and because the question involved their destiny, heaven
or hell, men desired certainties.17 Unable to find a sat-
isfactory answer in the writings of Calvin or St. Paul, the
ministers fell back on their individual mystical experiences
in order to illustrate how one came to know that he was among
the chosen.18 This expedient proved satisfactory to the un-
certain individual, but fatal to the cohesiveness of
Puritanism.

The individual minister's experience with God followed a

set formula, patterned after the conversion of St. Paul, but

incorporating minor variations. Generally the chosen one had

16Knappen, Tudor Puritanism, p. 393.
171Knappen, Tudor Pur tani m, p. 394.
18Knappen, T r Puritanism, p. 396.

 

w

0: g.

nu“

u.'

1";

VI
4:5

..'.,
‘.“

a childhood background in which heaven and hell were vividly
real. The blazing furnaces of hell were pictured yawning at
the feet of wicked little boys. Heaven was reserved for
good boys who worked diligently at lessons and displayed

19 Despite this

proper deference to God and their elders.
early stress on reward and punishment, however, most
ministers seemingly had their youthful flings which consisted
of consorting with women, doubting the Bible, drinking,
gambling, failing to pray and lack of reverence -- depending
upon the proclivities of the individual. But the sins com-
mitted were never thoroughly enjoyed, because the baser
impulses were continually struggling with the desire to do
good, and always in the back of the mind lurked the picture
of the fiery pits.20 This inward conflict was won by the
forces of good only after tremendous battles. The victory
of godliness resulted from hearing a particularly per-
suasive sermon. Following such a sermon, the convert found
himself confronted by God, who assured him that he was among
the elect.21 This dramatic theme was presented to Puritan
congregations with all possible embellishments, and with
not unexpected results.
The individual, thrilling to the story of his

minister's election, soon began searching his soul for a

19Haller summarizes the elements common to the Puritan
minister's conversion as illustrated by the detailed account

of their mystical experience presented in diaries kept by
them. Puritanism, PP. 100-107.

20Heller, Puritanism, p. 103.

21Heller, Puritanism, p. 105.

 

7.

sign that might indicate that he too was among the elect.

If God spoke to the preacher, might he not speak to anyone?22
The minister might argue that the multitude was destined for
hell and that his personal communication with God was unique,
but he argued in vein. The desire for eternal salvation

was too basic in human nature to brook denial. Every man
who accepted Puritan teachings either believed in his per-
sonal membership in the Elect or was susceptible to
conversion. If he scanned his soul intensely enough, the
potential member of the elect reasoned, he might find

23

evidence of God's favor. In the light of modern psychology,
we would say he was certain to find evidence if he looked
long enough.

The importance of the individual was further heightened
by two other Puritan doctrines. Calvinism contained within
its theology one very significant and levelling aspect. All
men, taught Calvin, were depraved, contaminated by the
original sin of Adam. God's choice as to whom among the de-
praved should ascend into heaven was purely arbitrary.
Earthly riches or social position in no way influenced God's
selection. By thus eliminating earthly disparities between

men, this concept increased the individual's sense of self-

24
importance. The preacher might argue that temporal wealth

22Knappen, Tudor Puritanism, p. 393.
23Knappen, Tudor Puritanism, p. 394.
4

2 Heller, Puritanism; pp. 193-194.

was a sign of God's favor, but the poor and disenfranchised
would have none of this. If men were equal in the eyes of
God, they reasoned, why not in the law courts, or at the
polls?25 A second Puritan teaching that enhanced the in—
dividual's sense of his worth was: "They which are furnished
with gifts for their calling, namely aptness and willingness,
and are thereunto called or set apart by men may rest

assured that they are called by God. Moreover, when they
walk in a calling lawful in itself and suited to their
capacities, they are walking in his presence and under his

"26 This God-given command to men to develop

protection.

their talents depended upon the ability of the individual

to recognize, through introspection, the talents he possesed.

Inevitably, as men began to search their souls, a multi-

plicity of God-given talents, demanding expression in matters

religious, social, political, and economic, were found.27
The Puritan interpretation of Calvinistic theology,

by enhancing the value of the individual, unwittingly fost-

ered democratic, religious, and secular ideas in a wide

variety of sects and among political radicals.28 This

process may be seen in the evolution of two Leveller proposals.

252Haller, Puritanism, p. 194.

26The Ancient Bounds (1644), p. 3. This pamphlet is re-
printed in Puritanism and Liberty: Being the Army Debates

61642-2; frgm the Clarke Manuscripts with Supplementary

ocumen s, ed. A. S. P. Woodhouse Chicago, 19 O , pp. 247-265.
27Haller, Epyitanism, p. 125.
28Jordan, Religious Toleration, pp. 216-217.

9.

The first of these is universal manhood suffrage. If God
informed men of his will by directly contacting them, men
reasoned, did not this mean that the individual's opinion
was God-given, and as such, did not the lowliest mechanic
have equal right with the wealthiest lord to express his
views on all subjects?29 After the breakdown of authority
in 1642, men of the lower social orders found that God in—
spired them to proclaim that all men, regardless of their
station in life, were guaranteed by the law of God the rights
of life, liberty and property. If these rights were God-
given, it was argued, then any government that infringed
upon them could lawfully be destroyed, and a system of
government set up consistent with the will of God.30 By
advocating a government based on universal manhood suffrage,
the Levellers sought to bring the law of God into harmony
with the laws of men. Such a government would be directly
answerable to the electorate if it should tamper with the
individual's God-given rights.

Complete religious toleration, another of their major
objectiVes, had a similar history. The religious enthusiasts,
persecuted by the Anglican Church for heresy, argued that God

29Anc ent Bounds, p. 6.

30John Lilburne, The Free-Mans Freedoms Vindicated
ieu Col

True R lation Of The Cause And Manner Of'L t 3 ohfir
Lilburns Present Imprisonment In Newgate (1646) (reprintedA

inapart in Woodhouse, Puritanism and L erty, pp. 317-
31

 

10.

instructed men to believe different religious truths. Thus,
to suppress a religious group as heretical was to risk offend-
ing God.31 The practical Levellers considered this a valid
point, and in their proposed constitution protected religious
dissenters from persecution.32 The Levellers, when they
justified these reforms by citing the law of nature, used
the term interchangeably with the law of God hypothesis,
made popular by the religious sects. The evolution of
Leveller principles out of Puritan teachings as outlined
above, of course, over simplifies a process which took place
over a period of years. A more detailed account will be given
in a subsequent chapter.33
To understand the Levellers' position in the 1640's, as
they sought to implement their program for a democratic
England, it is necessary to view them in relation to their
rivals for power. These rivals, with the exception of the
Royalists, had the same religious heritage as the Levellers.
They were splinters from the Puritan movement, and some of
them dated back to the turn of the seventeenth century. As
has been pointed out, the Puritans' victory over the Anglican
Church in 1641, after long years of struggle, cost them their

31Roger Williams, The Bloody Tenent o§_Persecution (1644),
p. 2. This tract is reprinted in part in Woodhouse,

gppitanism and Liberty, pp. 266-292.

32John Lilburne, William Walwyn Thomas Prince, and Richard
Overtonl An Agreement of the Free eople of England (1649),

p. 9. n A reement is reprinted in Leveller Manife toe
the Puritan Revolution, ed. Don M. Wolfe (New York, 1944),
PD. 3 7-410.

33See below, pp. 33-35

 

11.

cohesiveness. The emphasis on the individual's direct
knowledge of God's will had, during years of persecution,
given birth to varying interpretations of the divine will.
This had caused some Puritan congregations to split so often
over questions of doctrine, that the final result was a one-
man church.34 For the most part, however, by 1641 the broad
term "Puritan" included a number of fairly well-defined
groups, so designated because of their rejection or accept-
ance of specified religious, social, and political beliefs.
With the breakdown of religious and political authority in
1641, these factions gave full voice to their aspirations.
During the opening phase of the conflict between King
and Parliament in 1641, a strong Presbyterian majority in
the House of Commons gathered into its hands the reins of
authority. This faction adhered to the old Puritan ideal
35

of one purified church for England. For seven years, with

varying degrees of success, this bloc controlled the destiny
of Parliament in its struggle against the King.36 When it
served their interest to rally support to oppose the King,
they labeled themselves "protectors of England's God-given
rights of liberty,"37 but they proved antagonistic towards

34Heller, Puritanism, p. 316.

352D. Brunton and D. H. Pennington, Members of the Long
Pgrliamenp (London, 1954), p. 35.

36Godfrey Davies, The Earlz.§tuarts, 1603-1660, (Oxford,
1952), PP. 190-1930

37See, e.g. The Grand Remonstrence (1641). The Remonstrence
is re rinted in'W .1 am Cob e Par amentar Histor of Enzland

From. he Norma Conquest in 106- o ; ’ea. 'Qk Queen, :0
, '4 .--- erea er c eo as 'ar . ‘ s .

9

12.

Leveller proposals for protecting these rights. In the final
analysis their proposal for reuniting the kingdom was con-
servative and dominated by religious interests. They
advocated reconciliation with the King, with no practical
restraint on his pre-revolutionary authority, on condition
that he would grant the Presbyterian Church pre-eminence in
England.38 The Presbyterian Church government which they
advocated was strikingly English. Instead of the Presbyters
electing the supreme governing body of the church, Parliament
was to be the highest church authority.39 This Erastian

plan alienated other Puritans in Parliament who favored a
reconciliation with the King only if the church were permitted
to organize along congregational lines. In advocating a
religious settlement of this nature, which essentially
demanded that the government should give up its right to
control the church, this group was in fundamental opposition
to the Erastian Presbyterian bloc.

The Independents, during the years 1642 through 1647,
were handicapped by numerical inferiority and dissension among
themselves. Their lack of numbers in the House of Commons
forced them to assume the role of the opposition.40 On two
occasions the Independents in Parliament proved willing to
compromise their differences with the Levellers because by
so doing they could counter-balance Presbyterian power.

38"The Propositions of Peace from the Parliament presented
to the King at Newcastle" (1646), in E§;;;_fll§§., 111, 500-502.
39"Propositions of Peace," p. 502.

4OBrunton, Long Parliament, p. 36.

13.

Whereas the Presbyterians desired an all-powerful, nation-
wide church, governed either by Parliament of the ministers,
and in no case permitting dissent, the Independents advocated
congregational autonomy.41 Their demand for congregational
freedom of choice forced the Independents to give lip service
to the Leveller demand for religious toleration. However,
toleration, as viewed by the Independents, was not to extend
to Catholics, Anglicans, or the radical sects.42 As a
solution of the constitutional problems of England, the
Independents favored the restoration of the King; but with
concessions from him protecting Parliamentary privileges won
during the Civil War.43 The Independents couki not agree
among themselves on the degree of religious toleration to

be permitted, and on the details involved in the constitu-
tional settlement of the kingdom.44 However, numerical
inferiority and internal bickering did not prevent them

from posing strong opposition to Presbyterians end eventu-
ally the Levellers. Following 1646, they had 3 powerful

ally in the New Model Army.

41Thomas Goodwin Phillip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, Jeremiah
Burroughs, and William Bridge, An Apologetical Narratigpi644)
’

Humbly Submitped to the Honourable House of Parliament

PD. 14- . Th s_tract Is reprinted In Tracts on Libert in
th Puritan Revolution 1638-1647, ed. William Heller (New
York, 19335, II, 306-339

42Goodwin, Applggetical Narration, p. 31.

 

 

 

43See, e. g., The Heads of the Proposals Offered by the Army
(1647). This tract is reprinted in T e Consti utiona ocument
of the Puritan Revolution, 1628-1660, S. R. Gardiner (Uiford,
, pp. " G

44Wolfe, Leveller Manifestoes, p. 88.

 
 

14.

The New Model, under the leadership and organizing genius
of Oliver Cromwell, became, between 1643 and 1646, an all-
conquering fighting force and, as events proved, the
decisive political power in England. The New Model, in direct
contrast to Parliament, was primarily Independent and sec-
tarian. This condition, true not only of the rank and file
but also of the officers, resulted from the dominating
influence of Cromwell. Interested in creating a force
capable of winning battles, Cromwell placed the qualities of
a good soldier above religious conviction.45 Baptists,
Seekers, Fifth Monerchists, and Levellers were welcomed to
the rank and file of the New Model, if they could contribute
to its military strength. The higher officers tended to be
more conservatively Independent in their religious views.46
By the end of 1646, after the defeat of the Royalists, the
Army emerged as the one cohesive power in England capable of
bringing about a constitutional settlement by sheer force.
The Levellers, recognizing this fact, conducted a markedly
successful proselytizing campaign among the rank and file.47

However the high-ranking officers, not so dominated by radical

sects, were to prove immune to the democratic arguments of the

Levellers.

45C. H. Firth, Oliver Cromwell and the Rple of the Puritans
in England (London, 1924), p. 89.

46See, e. g., Henry Ireton's statements in.The Whitehall
These debates are reprinted in Woodhouse, ur anipm

D t .
fiat , p. 3890

47See Richard Baxter's report on the state of the New Model
in 1647, from Hell ui e Baxteriane (1696), Part I 71-73. This
part of Baxteriane is reprin e n Woodhouse, Puritanism and

m

Libert , pp. 387-389.

15.

The Levellers were not alone in recognizing the New
Model's potential power in deciding England's constitutional
fate. While the Levellers wooed the rank and file, the
Independents in the House of Commons sought support from
the influential Independents among the higher officers.48
An alliance between these two groups, however, was postponed
until the last months of 1647. Their failure to combine and
demand constitutional and religious reforms at an earlier
date can be attributed to two factors: first, in the midst
of the desperate conflict with the Royalists the New Model
had to subordinate all interests to winning the war.49
Secondly,among the Independents there existed a strong res-
pect for Parliament as the only legally constituted governing
body in England.50 This respect prevented them from seeking
to accomplish their own ends through unconstitutional means.
Then, too, the army leaders were slow to develop political
ambitions)"1 Without a political or religious program of
its own, the army became a powerful ally to be wooed by the
Levellers, Independents, Presbyterians, and eventially the
Royalists.

One of the less favored religious sects, that entertained

definite plans for governing the kingdom, was the Fifth

48Firth, Crgmwell, p. 171.

49Firth, Cromwell, p. 126.
59w61re, Leveller Manifestoes, p. 34.

leolfe, Levellgr Manifestoes, pp. 42-43.

l6.

Monerchists. This sect demanded that England be ruled by
the saints. Cromwell used this idea in the mid-1650's, but
in a manner that would have been unrecognizable to the early
Fifth Monarchists.52 These men had no doubt that ultimate
success was theirs. They believed that God had revealed to
them their important role in governing England}3 The con-
servative Puritan minister was dismayed to see the turn

that his emphasis on the Bible as final authority, and upon
men's direct contact with God, had taken at the hands of the
Monarchists. They taught that Daniel saw the vision of the
Four Monarchies: Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. The
first three had been overthrown. The fourth, in the person
and power of the pope, was soon to meet the same fate. Had
Daniel not prophesied a time of great confusion before the
collapse of the fourth monarchy? What could be more obvious
than that now, or at any rate, the approaching year of the
mystical date, 1666, was the time meant? With the destruction
of Rome the Fifth Monarchy would rise -- the kingdom of God
on earth. Christ would descend to earth and reign with his
saints beside him for a thousand years, and there would be a

new heaven on earth.54 Who were these saints who would rule

52Louis Fargo Brown, The Political Activities of the
ngtipts and the Fifth Monarchy Men in England During the
Interregnum Bel imore, 1913 , pp. - 9.

53Hanserd Knolly, A Glim se of Sions Glor (1641). This
pamphlet is reprinted in part in Woodhouse, uritanism and

Liberty, pp. 233-235.
54Ha11er, Puritanism, pp. 269-270.

17.

with Christ? They would be the poor and the humble; and
under their government there would be "liberty of churches
and men would be free to search for truth."55‘ This promised
rule by the poor was well received among the destitute of
England. The Levellers often found ready supporters for
their program among those who had come under the influence
of the Fifth Monarchists. This was particularly true in the
New Model Army.56
Another group that appealed effectively to the poor and
also revealed the extremes to which the Puritan teaching of
individual inspiration had been carried, was the Diggers.
The Diggers advocated a solution to the political, religious,
and economic problems of the 1640's, not through a kingdom
of God on earth, an agreement between king and Parliament,
or a written constitution, but through the redistribution of
property.57 They were the true Communists of the revolution.
Opponents of the Levellers deliberately confused them with
this group in an effort to discredit them. The Diggers
adhered to many of the social reforms listed below as part of

the Leveller program, but their attempts to level property
8
clearly distinguished them from the Levellers.5 They

5SSion Glor , p. 234.

56See Richard Baxter's account in Religuiae Baxterienae,
Part I, 72.

57Gerrard‘Winstanley, The New Law f Ri hteousness (1649).
This tract is reprinted in gerrard Winstanlegi Selecgions From
Hig'Workg, ed. Leonard Hami on on on, , p. .

58For the Leveller repudiation of communist intent see fig
Agreement of the Free PeOple of England, p. 7.

18.

actually began ploughing up the commons and wasteland
throughout England, disregarding the rights of ownership.
This conduct was greeted with cheers by the peasant, and with
cries of anguish and alarm from the properthd clas.ses.59 The
Digger program was, in its own.way, as unrealistic as that of
the Fifth Monarchy men. After digging up a few commons they
dispersed and lost all influence.60 They left behind them,
however, a legacy of fear among the well-to-do which later
hindered the Levellers in their campaign for converts.

The group least effected by the democratic impulse
unleashed by Puritan teaching, was the Royalists. The goal
of those who remained faithful to the king was essentially
unchanged. King Charles I was to regain his position as the
supreme executive, with his powers unrestricted; the negative
voice and the control of the Army were to be his. His right
to govern through a council responsible only to him was not
to be infringed. The House of Commons and the House of
Lords were to revert to their secondary role in governing
England; and the Anglican Church was to become again the
Church of England.61 These demands reflect the often-
reiterated statement by Charles, that he did not intend to
reign as a figurehead. From this position he was prepared

5'9Hamilton, r rd in ta , p. 2.

60Hamilton, Ger. rd W nsta 1e , pp. 3-4.
61
"The Kings Propositions" (1648), in Perl. Hist., III,
1032-1034.

19.

to bend -- as when he tried to obtain the support of the
Presbyterians, Levellers, and Independents when it suited his
needs -- but not to break; even in the face of beheading.

The strength of the Royalists lay, more than they real-
ized, in the common people's respect for the King as a
symbol of stability. Leveller rationality, Fifth Monarchist
godliness, and Cromwellian brute force were to bow before this
fundamental element which grew stronger with each uncertain
year.63 This force alone might have foredoomed the Levellers
as it did Cromwell. It was not,however, the factor which
defeated them.

By 1641 the Levellers had assimilated the vague demo-
cratic thinking prevalent in contemporary groups and had
synthesized it into a dynamic program for economic, religious,
and social reform. A receptive audience for their democratic
proposals was assured, because of the spade work of the re-
formers discussed above. The result of the doctrine that all
men are equal in the eyes of God can be seen in the Levellers'
proposals for advancing economic equality. In pamphlet and
petition the Levellers consistently advocated the suppression
of monopolies which they blamed for the economic suffering of
the poor.64 Along with this they urged that the excise be

62 2S. R. Gardiner, Histor of the Great Civil Wgr,
1642-l642 (London, 1901, IV 286—287.

63Davies, Early Stuarts, p. 152.

64
T The R ht Honorable Th Commons of En land In P rlia-
ment AssemBIeg The Humble Petition .of Persons InhaBiting
the CIt of London (1648), p. 5. This petition is reprihtéd
in Heller, Leveller Tracts, pp. 147- 156.

 

20.

replaced by a proportional system of taxation.65 Further, the
Levellers asked that imprisonment for debt be abolished.66
These reforms sought to benefit the poor who, the Levellers
claimed, were being reduced to shameful beggary by unjust
laws.67 However, in advocating relief for the poor, they
threatened the pocketbooks of the wealthy. The proposals were
not historically new, but they were denounced vigorously as
communistic -- designed to undermine the social structure of

England.68

The Leveller approach to a religious settlement reflected
the trend towards toleration engendered by the breakdown of
Episcopal authority, and the subsequent proliferation of
sects. All statutes, oaths, and covenants which in any way
interfered with the free exercise of religious practices, or.
which penalized any one for religious convictions, were to
be abolished.69 The Levellers differed from other advocates
of toleration such as the Independents, by carrying toler-
ation to its logical conclusion. They asked that: "No man
for preaching or publishing his opinion in Religion, in a

peacable way, may be punished or persecuted as heretical by

65An Agreement of the Peoplg, p. 6.

66Humble Petition, p. 6.

67Humble Petition, p. 6.
68

The Putne Debates At thep General Council of Officers
pt Putngy, 28th Octoher 1642., 69. These deEates are

reprinted n Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty, pp. 1- 124.
69Humble Petltion, p. 5.

21.

judges that are not infallible, but may be mistaken as well
as other men in their judgements, lest upon pretense of sup-
pressing errors, Sects, or Schismes, the most necessary
truths and sincere profeSSions thereof may be suppressed, as
upon like pretense it hath been in all ages."70 This per-
sonifies the Levellers' rational approach to correcting the
evils of their day. The last Leveller plank struck at the
heart of a state-supported church. It called for the ending
of tithes and all other compulsory means of maintaining the
clergy. They desired that ministers be paid "only by those
who voluntarily chose them, and contracted with them for
their labours."71
The rationality of the Levellers' program is demonstrated
further by their proposals for correcting what they considered
the evils in the English legal system. All people ought to be
equal before the law as they are before God, and "as the law
ought to be equal so they must be good, and not evidently
destructive to the safety and well being of the people."72
All of the Levellers' legal demands revolved around this
principle of equality. A just and speedy, plain and unburden-
some means for deciding controversies and suits in law was

requested. Laws were to be translated into simple English;

graft and bribery in the law courts were to be eliminated,

70Humble Petition, p. 7.

71An Agreement of the Peoplg, p. 6.

72lp Agreemgnt_Q§ the Peoplg, p. 5.

22.

punishment commensurate with the crime was to be assessed,
and the prisons were to be reformed by insuring that prison
keepers were honest men and by eliminating prison graft and

73

cruelty. Important to the Levellers three hundred years
ago, and still important today, was the plea for a bill of
rights which would include guarantees against self-incrimina-
tion.74 The Leveller program in the legal, religious and
economic fields could not be realized without a democratic
government. This they provided for.

The fundamental Leveller principle was this: the power
of all lawful government had as its basis the freely-given
consent of the governed. They justified this principle by
stating that the rights of men in the state of nature were
protected by the law of nature, and that it was the inalien-
able right of men to band together to form a government to
protect these rights.75 The governing authority which they
sought to establish embodied all of the above principles.

To insure that the power ruling over the pe0ple was res-
ponsible to their will, they asked that the negative voice
of the King be eliminated, and that the House of Lords be

abolished.76 The basis for the new government was to be a

73Hunb1e Petition, p. 6.

4
7 An Agreement of thg People, p. 5.

7SRichard Overton A remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens
and Other Free-Born People of England t9 their owne Hoppg of
Commons (1646), p. 1. This tract is reprinted in Wolfe,

Leveller Manifestoes, pp. 109-131.

76An Agreement of the Peoplg, p. 3.

23.

written constitution, which would provide for biennial, self-
perpetueting Parliaments, and a bill of rights to protect the
inalienable rights of the people. These rights included
liberty of conscience, of speech, and freedom from impress-
ment into military service.77 Further to insure Parliament's
responsiveness to the will of the people, a more equitable
distribution of seats in the House was called for, and suf-
frage was to be extended to include all male citizens of
England over twenty-one.78 These proposals were held to be
native rights of Englishmen and fully justified by the law

of nature.

The Leveller program was a logical, rational program
designed to meet the problems as they existed in the seventeenth
century. If the realization of these reforms was postponed
for two and one-half centuries, the fault was not theirs.

The Levellers waged an aggressive, intelligent fight for the
implementation of their program. Perhaps they were, in the
final analysis, victorious, for their endeavors may well have
stimulated the later movement towards government based upon
the consent of the governed. It is to this aspect of the

Leveller movement that our attention is now directed.

77An Agregment of the Peoplg, p. 5.

78An Agreement of the People, p. 3.

24.

Chapter II

DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATURAL LAW
AND SOCIAL CONTRACT CONCEPTS

To defy established authority reformers must justify
their actions. The Levellers realized fully that a campaign
to overthrow the existing political order could not be based
on the laws of the land, whose purpose was to perpetuate the
existing structure of society. To have authority, a demand
for change must rest upon something superior to present law.
One may argue that all man-made law must bow before the law
of God, the social contract, or the law of nature. However,
these nebulous terms can readily be interpreted to favor the
cause of the discontented. Further, the proof of their
validity rests upon the willingness to accept them as an act
of faith. They answer perfectly the reformer's need for a
philosophical basis for upsetting the ppappp 922.

Proper seeds and a favorable environment are necessary to
the maturation of plants; just so are they necessary to the
growth of ideas. The mature usage of the law of nature by
the Levellers, in formulating their democratic program, must
be considered in relation to conditions giving rise to it.
The seeds of democratic thought had been sown unwittingly
by overzealous Puritan ministers prior to 1641. A multipli-
cation of religious sects resulted. These sects interacting
with one another, and the chaotic environment engendered by

revolution, evolved vague demands that England be governed

25.

in a manner compatible with the interests of the peOple. Out
of this gestation period arose the concrete Leveller pro-
posals for a government based upon the social contract.

The cold war between King and Parliament, begun in 1604,
warmed gradually between 1640 and 1642 and finally burst into
flames of armed conflict at Edgehill. The trial and
execution of Strafford was rapidly followed by the Trien-
nial Actl; and by the abolition of the Star Chamber, the
Councils of the Marches, of Wales, and of the North.2
Legislation was passed proclaiming illegal the writs of
Ship Money and the knighting of reluctant gentry by force.

To these infringements on his kinglypnerogative, Charles I
was forced to agree. However, the Irish Rebellion gave rise
to demands for Parliamentary control of the Army, followed
by the publication of the Qrggg Remonstrance. These last
actions were more than the proud King could stomach. Bowing
to his belief in his divine authority and to the threats and
entreaties of his wife, he embarked on an ill-fated attempt
to arrest the five members of the House of Commons who dir-
ected the opposition. His ignominious failure irrevocably
widened the gap between King and Parliament. The King's
departure from London following the attempted £239 QLEEQE

made inevitable the outbreak of civil war.

216 c. I. c. 10.

3For a clear concise outline of these events see Davies,

The Early Stuarts, pp. 114-121.

26.

Each widening of the split between King and Parliament
was accompanied by an increase in the number of radical sects.
This proliferation symptomized the breakdown of theold social
and political order. Parliament touched off the process by
taking into its hands executive privileges belonging his-
torically to the King.4 Disintegration received further
impetus by the publication of the grand Remonstrence which
pictured Parliament as the friend of religious liberty, a
bulwark between the people and the tyranny of Archbishop
Laud and the Episcopal Church.5 Parliament‘s Presbyterian
majority between 1641 and 1643 by no means favored complete
religious freedom.6 However, in denying the authority of the
Anglican Church to enforce uniformity, and the subsequent
destruction of that Church in the name of religious liberty,
they set precedents soon followed by opposing sects. Tub
preachers, Familists, Baptists, Seekers, Independents, and
finally the Levellers cited Parliament's own arguments to
Justify their demands for liberty.7

The Presbyterian majority in Parliament, when awakened

to the anarchical danger presented by the sects, found itself

4Haller, Puritanism, p. 338.
5The gggnd Remonstrencg, reprinted in Parlg Hist. II, 945-946.

6Debate in the Lords on the Bill for restraining Bishops
etc., from intermeddling in Secular affairs" (1641), in Pgrl.
gist. II 945-946., and "Ordinance for restraining the
Lifizréy of the Press" (1643), in Parl, Hist., III, 131.

7See, e. g., Goodwin, Apologetical Narration p. 21., and
Henry Robinson, Liberty 0 Conscience or the Sole means to

obtaine P ace and Truth (16447 p. 3. This tract is reprinted
in Haller, Tracts on_Liberty, III, 105-178.

27.

not only confronted by its own arguments, but also by an
absence of effective machinery to suppress the religious
radicals. Taking their cue from Parliament, the sects
elected to use pamphlets through which to plead for public
support.8 Even before the outbreak of civil war, Laud had
been unable to control the publication of heretical pamphlets
by Bastwick, Prynne, and Lilburne.9 In the midst of chaos the
means of censorship inherited from the old regime proved
totally inadequate. The licensing of books before publica-
tion was entrusted to a few ministers. Prevention of
unlicensed publications was the responsibility of the
Stationers Company.10 Parliament faced a hopeless task.
Without the support of adequate law enforcement, the
Stationers could not hope to suppress the myriad unlicensed
pamphlets.11 Under these conditions, which lasted until 1649,
radical ideas readily found their way into print.

Another factor conducive to the growth of radical ideas
was the absence of control over dissenting leaders after
their commitment to prison. It seemed beyond the imagination
of those in authority to deprive the political or religious

prisoner of books, writing materials, and means of communication

8Heller, Puritanism, p. 326.

9M. A. Gibb, John Lilburn The Level er: A Christian
Democrat (London, 19475, pp. 40-41.

10"Ordinance for restraining the Liberty of the Press,"
p. 131.

11Heller, Puritanism, pp. 326-327.

 

28.

with friends. Authors imprisoned for publishing inflamatory
tracts, sent pamphlets to their publishers Justifying their
acts.12 In the Qgggg Remogstrance Parliament cited the
separation of a man from his wife, friends, and books as
evidence of Laudiantyranny.13 This condition Parliament
rectified, an act it later regretted. Lilburne, the leader
of the Levellers, took advantage of this leniency and con-
ducted the Leveller conspiracy from the Tower of London.
Given this laxity in censorship, it is not surprising that
democratic ideas matured during the early 1640's.

In retrospect, the grand Remongtzgngg assumes particular
significance as a precedent for the political theorizing that
flouridaed in the 1640's. This document appealed directly
to the people as the source of all rightful authority. True,
this was not recognized by Pym, Hampden, and Strode. ‘They
had urged the publication of the gzggg gemgngtrgncg in the
interest of gaining support from the common people for the
Parliamentary cause.15 However, in the R on a , the
House of Commons contrasted its role as the protector of the
people's liberties with the tyrannical "usurpations of the
King.16 In publishing its case for all to read, Parliament

12Gibb, b ne, p. 134.

13The Grand Remogstrangg, pp. 950-951.

4
See below, p. 'fl+.
15"‘Debates in the Commons, concerning a Remonstrence on the
State of the Kingdom" (1641), in ngl, H1§§., 11, 937-938.

16 h G a d Remonst a , p. 943.

29.

tacitly asserted that, in the final analysis, it was the people's
right to decide who or what power should lawfully govern them.17
The House of Commons was slow to realize the inherent danger
in this appeal for popular approval, but it was not blind to
the importance of gaining adherents to its cause. Both King
and Parliament waged propaganda campaigns designed to win
popular support for their position.18 In so doing they pointed
up the fundamental importance of the masses as a firm founda-
tion for politicalauthority.19 To the horror of Royalist
and Presbyterian alike, the recognition of the people, implicit
in their appeal, evolved into concrete demands for recog-
nition of the right of the common man to play a role in the
governing process.2O
Unhampered by effective censorship, and flattered by the

efforts of the two major opponents in the Civil War to gain
their allegiance, dissenting minorities began to demand tolera-
tion as their natural right. In justification, they spoke and
wrote of God's will and of God's law,21 and in so doing supplied
ideas, terms, and images which proved vitally significant to
the Levellers. Arguments for religious freedom, they pointed

17'Wilson H. Coates, 'Some Observations on "The Grand
Remonstrance,"' Journal of Modern History, IV (1932), 7-8.

18Heller, Tracts on Liberty, I, 24-25.

19Coates, "Some Observation," p. 10.

20See below, pp. 33-35.

21
See e. g. 'Williams The Blood Tenet of Persecution, p. 8.,
and William Walwyn, The ow_—er of—L-LOVg TIE—43Tfp. II. This

tract is reprinted in Heller, Tracts on Libert , II, 271-304.

 

30-

out, might also be used by men contending for freedom of thought,
expression, government, and trade. In formulating their reasons
to justify toleration, they brought into play supernatural law
and divine right. These, in their turn, evoked the rational
doctrine of natural law and of the natural rights vested in the
individual. Thus, the arguments for religious liberty and pol-
itical revolution. In the hands of the Levellers, the terms of
the debate, at first largely scriptural and theological, became
increasingly rationalistic, naturalistic, and secular.

As early as 1638, John Lilburne prophetically wrote of
man's natural rights. In 1637 and 1638 the Court of Star
Chamber found William Prynne, John Bastwick, Henry Burton,2
and John Lilburne guilty of publishing unlicensed pamphlets

22See below, pp. 56-58.

23Prynne and Bastwick were the most vocal and violent
Puritan opponents of the Anglican Church in the years im-
mediately preceding the Long Parliament. Prynne had been
a successful lawyer; but in 1634 he had been deprived of
his academic degrees, expelled from Lincoln's Inn, fined, put
in the pillory his ears cut off and sentenced to life im-
prisonment by Btar Chamber for his attacks on the Church.
While in prison he continued his pamphlet assault on the
Church, and for this reason was again brought to trial in 1637.
Bastwick was a doctor turned pamphleteer. He too had been
fined and imprisoned in 1635 when he refused to retract his
denunciation of the Church. His reaction to imprisonment was
the publication of a more violent attack on the sinfulness
of the prelacy. Burton was a London Preacher, who having
angered Laud by his fiery sermons denouncing episcopacy was
brought before Star Chamber. The three men were tried
together. They were sentenced to life imprisonment, fined,
and had their ears cut off. Prynne, who had been left
the stumps of his ears from his previous mutilation, lost
these. See Gibb, Johg Lilburne, pp. 39—43.

31.

which attacked episcopacy.24 Following the example of his
older associates, Lilburne published, while imprisoned, an
account of his sufferings at the hands of the Anglican
Church. In Thg‘flgrke 9; Egg Eggspg, Lilburne, the future
Leveller chieftan, appropriately employed the concept of
natural rights to justify his defiance of the Court. In so
doing, he unwittingly outlined the theoretical assumptions
upon which arguments for religious toleration and political
liberty were later based.

tion of the natural law concept based on scripture, but also
demonstrated how Parliament's own arguments for liberty might
be turned against it. Lilburne, in describing his refusal

to take the High Commission Oath, which he considered an in-
fringement on his liberty, stated: "Now this oath I refused
as a sinfull and unlawfull 0ath...an Oath against the Law of
the Land; it is expressly against the Petition of Rights an
Act of Parliament Enacted in the second Yeare of our King."25
Many times in the years to come when it, and not the Anglican

Church, tried to silence Lilburne, Parliament was to be reminded

that it violated principles it advocated in the Petition 9;

 

 

Rights and the Grand Remonstrance. In his shotgun fashion,

24Lilburne, at the direction of Bastwick and Prynne, had
arranged for the publication and distribution of their
pamphlets. For this offense he was fined, set in the
pillory for a day, whipped through the streets of London
and finall thrown into solitary confinement. See John
Lilburne, the Worke of thg Beaste (1638), p. 10. This
pamphlet is reprinted in Haller, Tracts on Liberty, II, 1-34.

2sLilburne, The Beaste, pp. 12-13.

32.

Lilburne invoked, in a single paragraph, the law of the
land, God, Jesus Christ, and the law of nature, as pro-
tectors of his liberty.

It is absolutely against the Law of God,

for that law requires noe man to accuse
himselfe, but if anything be laid his
charge: there must come two or three
witnesses at the least to prove it. It

is also against the practice of Christ
himselfe, who in all his examinations before
the High Priest would not accuse himselfe:
but upon their demands, returned this answer:
Why aske yea mee, to them that heard mee...
With all this Oath is against the very law
of nature, for nature is alwaies a pre-
server of itselfe and not a destroyer:

But if a man takes this wicked Oathe he
distroyes and undoes himself.26

The mention of the law of nature captured the fundamental
hypothesis underlying all arguments for a representative
government based on social contract. Man, as a rational
being could not, and would not, willingly give his life into
the hands of a person or institution outside his control
which was capable of destroying him at will. This thesis
was not forgotten in the years immediately ahead.

One of the first acts of the Long Parliament, when it
met in 1640, was the release of Bastwick, Prynne, and
Lilburne.27 On the outbreak of the Civil War, the fiery
Lilburne devoted his energies to fighting in the Parliamentary

Army and rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.28

26Lilburne, The Beaste, p. 13.
27

28

Parl, Hist., II, 762.

Gibb, Lilburne, pp. 96-97.

33.

During his absence from the political scene, other
exponents of natural law, more clear-spoken and less bel-
ligerent, wrote pamphlets which profoundly influenced
Leveller thinking. Henry Parker, for example, proved one
of the most able defenders of Parliament in the pamphlet
warfare waged shortly before the outbreak of armed conflict.
Born in 1604, educated at Oxford, called to the bar at
9

Lincoln's Inn in the crucial year 1637,2 Parker combined a
lawyer's logic with a minister's theological training in pre-
senting the case for Parliament against the King. His

plausible application of the well-known social contract theory to
the crisis of 1642 provoked momentous discussion.30 In his
careful, reasoned, unemotional manner he justified Parlia-

ment's break with the King; but, in so doing, he provided

the Levellers with arguments which could be turned against
Parliament.

Parker, harking back to the teachings of Calvin, main-
tained that men's depravity, resulting from the fall of Adam,
necessitated a form of government which could keep them from
one another's throats. He reasoned that the law of God,
written on the breast of every man, was insufficient to re-

31

. strain him from mischief and to make him sociable. An

29W. A. S. Hewin "Henry Parker " in The Dictionary of
National Biography (New York, 18953, XLII, 240-241.

3OHaller, Trgcts on Liberty, I, 26.

31Henry Parker, Observations upon some of his Majesties Late

Answers and Expresses (1642) p.(13. This pamphlet is reprinEd
Ifi'fiafierj‘TFacts on Libert : II, 165-214.

34-

all-powerful authority had to be established, else, there
would be no standard by*which law could be executed justly,
nor any means for judging disputes between men.32 To save
itself from anarchy, mankind set about providing laws bind-
ing on all. These laws were agreeable to the dictates of
reason, and ratified by common consent. Their execution and
interpretation were entrusted to a government capable of

33

preventing injustices. Up to this point there was nothing

revolutionary in Parker's reasoning, for a king might well

provide the necessary authority for the interpretation of law.
However, Parker's insistence on the inviolable rights

of man forced him to repudiate absolute monarchy and to

insist on a government responsive to the will of the people.34

According to him, one fundamental law of nature written by

God on the hearts of men, was that of self-preservation,35

Governed by reason, men would never consent to commit their

destinies into the hands of a capricious power which might

36

take away life, liberty, and property. Where kings were

the judges of law, they represented the people's will on a
contractual basis, which specified that the king should rule

37

in the interest of his subjects. Should the king attempt

32Parker. thszzsiiana. p. 13-

33Parker, e on , pp. 13-14.
3‘Parker, beervat , p. 5.
35Parker, Observat on , p. 8.

36Parker, Observat on , p. 4.
37

Parker, Observations, pp. 4-5.

35.

an arbitrary rule, infringing on his subjects' inviolable
right of self-preservation, the people had the right to
38

revolt. To lend credence to this latter argument Parker
cited the commander in wartime who:
should he turn his cannons upon his owne souldiers,
they were ipso facto absolved of all obedience,
and all oathes of allegiance whatsoever for that
time, and bound by higher defence: if there
be such tacite trusts and reservations in all
publike commands, though of the most absolute
nature that can be supposed we cannot but
admit that in all well formed monarchies, where
kingly prerogative has any limits set this must
needs be one necessary condition that the subject
shall live both safe and free. The charter of
nature intitles all Subjects of a3§ Countries
whatsoever to safetie by its law.
Any governing authority must rule in the interest of the
people and be bound by the laws which it enforces. Kings
were prone to forget their responsibility for the welfare of
their people and to proclaim themselves the law.40 Because
it more directly represented the people and was, hence, more
responsive to their will, Parliament was a more desirable
41
governing authority than the King.
This adroit and plausible application of the social
contract theory to the crisis of 1642 had immediate and far-

reaching repercussions. Its immediate result was to stimulate

38
39

Parker, b rvat ns, p. 20.
Parker, Obseggationg, p. 4.

40Parker, Obserzationg, p. 21.
41Parker, gheervatigng, p. 22.

36.

the Royalists to their most ferocious attack on the sup-
porters of Parliament as exponents of anarchy. In the
closely reasoned arguments advanced in the Observations,
Parliament responded by justifying its defiance of the King,
and immediately popularized that defiance in its pamphlet

42 Sir John Spelman testified

warfare with the Royalists.
that no book had done so much to entangle and intoxicate the
vulgar. As a result of such licentious publications, he
said, Londoners had become like the citizens of Abedra who
"hearing a strange tragedy full of seditious designs,...they
were all stricken into such a fit of phrensie, that for many
dayes after, they did nothing but act the same Tragedy, with
furious gestures in their streets."43 In the five years
following the publication of the Observafiiggg, the public
grew accustomed to arguments predicated on the social con—
tract theory. Leveller leaders were quick to adapt Parker's
arguments in order to justify their defiance of Parliament.
Again and again in the writings of Lilburne and Walwyn the

imprint of Parker's influence is discernible.44

45

John Goodwin, a fiery, Independent London preacher

used the social contract theory as expressed by Parker as a

4
2See Haller's description of the effect of the
Observations in Tracts on Libert , I, p. 26.

4
3Sir John Spelman View of a printed Book (1643), cited
in Haller, ggaots on Lifi art 4, I, p. 27.

44See below, pp. 57-58.
45Gibb, Lilburne, pp. 103-104.

37.

means of arousing public support for Parliament in its
struggle with the Royalists. Goodwin forebore the calm,
reasoned approach of Parker. His Anti-Cavalierisme was de-
signed to arouse the passions of his readers, to incite them

to action against the King's followers.46

Parliament was
pictured as the champion of the people, trying desperately
to protect the rights of men as guaranteed in the law of
nature.47 The Cavaliers had willfully persuaded the King
to negate his obligations imposed under the social contract.
They urged upon him the destruction of his subjects' life,
liberty and property; and the King submitted to their will.48
Under these conditions, resistance to the Royalists was not
only justified by scripture and by the law of nature; it was
expressly commanded by the law of self-preservation.49
Parliament, in 1642, welcomed the support of Parker
and Goodwin, but in permitting them to popularize the ideas
of the law of nature and the social contract, exposed itself
to criticisms which had been directed earlier against the

Royalists. Attempting to calm the religious and political

46The tone of Goodwin's pamphlet is amply illustrated by
its title, Anti-Cavalierisme. or Truth Pleadin As Well the
Necessity,_ as the Lawfulness of this War._for the Sup ressing
of hat Butcherly Brood of Cavaliering Incendiaries Who ar

Now Hammering England to make an Ireland Of It. This tract
is reprinted in Haller, Tracts on Liberty, II, 215-270.

47Goodwin, Anti-Cavalierisme, pp. 40-41.
48

49

 

 

 

Goodwin, Anti-Cavalierismg, p. 2.
Goodwin, Anti-Cavalierisme, p. 10.

38.

passions which were rife in the kingdom, Parliament
confronted an alert populace, jealous of its rights which
were embodied in the social contract}:0 To its dismay,
Parliament was to find that the citizens of London con-
sidered suppression of dissenting religious and political
opinion to be a violation of their inherent rights, whether
that suppression was carried on under a king or an elected
Parliament.51 The members of the House of Commons might
argue that they represented the people and that thalacted
in the best interest of the country in suppressing heresy,
but to no effect. Hen like Roger Williams replied,
"Parliament hath no power to make any such laws about
indifferent things wherin nothing good or evil is shown
to the people, but only or principally the mere authority
or will of the imposer'for the observance of them."5'2 It
was to men who had been infected with ideas of this nature
that the Levellers made their most effective appeal.
Another group of writers who prepared ground for the
Levellers were those who demanded toleration. As would be

expected, the advocates of toleration were mostly members

50Gooch, ngocratic Ideag, p. 92.
51Gooch, Democratic Ideas, pp. 104-105.

5'2Williams, Bloody ngents, p. 20.

39.

of the smaller sects and Independent Puritans.53 The danger

these writers presented to the privileged position of the
Presbyterians was quickly recognized by the Presbyterian

4
majority in Parliament;5 but preoccupation with the con-
duct of the war, as well as an inadequate policing power
prevented them from suppressing these defenders of religious
toleration.55 With the passage of the years, John Goodwin,
Walwyn and Overton gradually won to their views a following
who were to lie susceptible to the more extreme plea of the
Levellers.

In the early 1640's, William Walwyn, a future Leveller
thinker, proved the most eloquent spokesman for religious
toleration. The second son in a middle-class family, Walwyn
served an apprenticeship to a cloth merchant in London. By
1643, he was himself a successful cloth merchant and a member

53Minorities tend to recognize the validity of toleration
when they are the object of repressive measures undertaken by
the majority. However, those who seek tolerance out of fear
for their own existence often prove intolerant when they
achieve power. This proved to be the case with the long
suffering Prynne once the Presbyterians controlled Parliament.
Independents, like Goodwin advocated toleration but only
for Independents. True believers in toleration were men like

Williams and William'Walwyn who plead for an equal right to
existence for all faiths.

5'4"The Ordinance for the restraining of the Liberty of the
Press" was directed equally at suppressing dissenting religious
and political opposition. See Perl- Hist., III, 131.

5fiiGardiner, Great Civil War, I, 267.
S6Gooch, Democratic Ideas, p. 115.

40.

of the Merchant Adventurers. From this respectable background
emerged the most consistently advanced thinker of the Leveller

57 His liberalism, reflected in his pleas for

movement.
toleration, and his lasting sympathy with the poorer classes
he traced to his acquaintance with the "humane authors"
over a period of twenty years. Seneca, Plutarch's Liygg,
Lucian, and Montaigne stood second only to the Bible in his
well-stocked library.58 A profound knowledge of the Bible
was typical of the articulate dissenters of the 1640's, but
Walwyn's wide range of reading, which included a life of
Mahomet, was atypical of the period;59 and it is the latter
which lends to his writings a rationality and sensitivity not
found in the works of Prynne or Lilburne.

Throughout his long life Walwyn remained a true seeker
in religion. Confronting the Bible's contradictions between
world and spirit, he diligently studied the text for enlighten-
ment; and finding no certainties other than the assurance of
universal grace in the Egg Testament, he resolved to investi-

gate the teachings of religious factions in his own England.

He wandered from congregation to congregation and found a

57C. H. Firth, "William Walwgn " in The Diction r of
National Biography (New York, 1 9%), LIK:-284. '3 ”

58William‘Walwyn Walwyns Just Defence (1649), p. 9. This
tract is reprinted in Haller, Leveller Tracts, pp. 350-398.

 

nghe typical plea for toleration reads like a lawyers
brief, but the one authority cited is the Bible. See, 9. g.,

Williams, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.

41.

multiplicity of conflicting beliefs.60 He concluded that no
sect monopolized Christian truth; and having arrived at
this view, was ready to establish himself as an intelligent
advocate of religious toleration.

Toleration was, for Walwyn, the only rational solution
of the problem posed by multifarious religious beliefs. The
intolerant were so because they feared for their own special
privileges and lacked understanding of other sects.62 This
lack Walwyn sought to alleviate by publishing the pamphlet,
Th5 Egggg Q; Lgyg. Here he described the plight of the mis-
understood Familists, who, although harmless, were condemned
by the Presbyterians. The Familists held that all men were
members of God‘s family of love, and that love should be the
force which bound men together.63 Their greatest heresy,
said the conservative Presbyterian, was their repudiation of
Calvinistic doctrine and their insistence that every man be
permitted to hold the religious view implanted in his heart

by God.64 Rather than condemn these men for their beliefs,

6QWilliam Walwyné A Whisper in the Hero of Mr.;ghoma§
4

Edwards Minister (1 9), pp. 5i6. A Whisper is reprinted
in Heller, lggcts on Liberty, III, 319-336.

61Walwyn, A Whisper, p. 6.

62Walwyn, Power of Love, pp. 6-7.

63Walwyn, Power of Love, p. 49.

64Walwyn, Power of Love, p. 55.

42.

Walwyn urged that their emphasis upon love be recognized

as a valid principle of true Christianity. If, by chance,
the doctrines of the Familists and other sects proved

false, their defeat would come through competition with those
who persuaded them of their error.65 This persuasion must

be accomplished, however, through love, not the pressure of
persecuting laws.6 "For," Walwyn argued, "Men never reforme
their vices till first their judgements be well informed, and
then they kindly reforme themselves."67 This rational
approach was typical of Walwyn, and distinguished him as one
of the foremost Leveller thinkers.

Th; 223$; QT Lgyg, written in defense of the sects, con-
tained in embryo the doctrine of the state of-nature from
which revolutionary impulses sprang. Walwyn, in this pamphlet,
transformed Christian images known to all men into revolu-
tionary doctrines. God's will became the law of nature,
discovered by reason. The state of innocence was the state
of nature. Man's fall was due only to ignorance68 and,
therefore, through proper training his fate could be altered.
"Life according to nature was to be content with little, with

what was ever ready, and easy to be had."69 In the state of

65Walwyn, Power of Love, p. 11.

66'Walwyn, Power of Love, p. 11.

67Walwyn, Power of Love, p. 45.
8Walwyn, Power of Love, p. 15.

60
'Walwyn, Power of Love, pp. 17-18.

43.

nature reason was the dominating factor which enabled men
to live together in peace and love.70 As for government:
"That great mountaine...tis but a molehill if you would
handle it familiarly, and bee bold with it; it is common
agreements to bee governed: and by common agreement men
chuse for governours, such as their vertue and wisdome make
fit to govern."71 If this government, established by man,
failed to justify the trust placed in it, than men must:

be bold as Lions, not fearing the faces of

men: You will when need requires, that is,

they tyrants and oppressors endeavor by might

and force to pervert the truth of God into a lie,

interpreting his sacred worke as patron of their

unjust power, as if any unjust power were of God,

and were not to be resissted: I say, such in-

solencies as these will inflame your Zeale and

set you all on fire manfully to fight the Lords

Battel, and to bring into subjection those 72

abominable imaginations and ungodly courses of men.
Walwyn, like Parker, was here supporting the right of man to
rebel if government trod on his rights as guaranteed in the
law of nature.

The revolutionary arguments for toleration outlined by
Parker and Walwyn gained unexpected support from the
Independents. Of the utmost respectability, orthodox in
doctrine, moderate in temper,73 this group, nevertheless,

opposed the rigorous centralization of control desired by

7OWalwyn, Power of LOVe, p. 20.
71Walwyn, Power of Love, p. 6.
72Walwyn, Power of Love, p. 50.

 

73Goodwin, Apologeticall Narration, p. 8.

44.

4
7 In no way did the Independents identify

the Presbyterians.
their plea for toleration with the similar demand from the
sects. Nothing was further from their thoughts than the aid
and abetment of the sects and, for that matter, free thinkers
in general.75 However, in lending their support to the
cause of toleration, they encouraged all groups to demand
this privilege for themselves.76 Roger Williams and the
Anabaptists stood ready to proselytize for separation of
church and state,77 at that period a revolutionary proposal.
Walwyn was prepared by 1644 to advocate toleration as the
basis for a democratic state.78 The impulse which the
Independents helped set into motion in 1644 had far greater
repercussions than they expected.

Five leading Independents,79 in.§g Appologeticall
Narration (1644), outlined their case for toleration. They
had no quarrel with the basic tenets of the calvinistic

Presbyterians, not did they advocate the toleration of all

74Goodwin, gpglogeticall Narration, p. 14.

75'Goodwin, gpologeticall Narration, pp. 23-24.

6
7 Gooch, Democratic Ideas, pp. 111-112.

77See Williams, Bloody Tenants, pp. 7—9.

78See below, p. hB.

79Thomas Goodwin Phillip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, Jeremiah
Burroughs, and William Bridge were members of the Westminster
Assembly convened July 1 l 43. They were educated clergymen
who had fled the persecution of Laud. In Holland they had
served English congregations which were of necessity self

governing. See Apologeticall Narration, pp. 1-2.

45.

sects. It was their position that they were "not clayming
ourselves an independent power in every congretation, to
give account or be subject to none others, but only a ful and
entire power compleat within ourselves, until we should be
challenged to erre grossly."80 Their plea was for peaceful
coexistence in which, in exchange for the congregation's
loyalty to the central authority, the congregation would re-
tain the privilege of deciding how it should worship.81

This was not a radical demand. No mention was made of the
state of nature or of the right to revolt if toleration were
denied; yet it, too, contained the democratizing factor --
freedom of choice.

Once the natural law hypothesis came into the open, it
became a ready bludgeon in the hands of those opposing
authority.82 Used first by advocates of toleration, it became,
in time, the assumption upon which arguments for political
reform were based. The Independents, in their own way, en-
couraged this evolution by sanctioning tolerance for their
own cause. Exponents of the theory found ready acceptance
on the part of the populace of London, who were awakening to
their important role as the real source of power in England.

Was it not the common people who were being continually wooed

by Parliament, Independents, and Royalists?

8O
Goodwin, gpologeticall Narration, p. 14.

81Goodwin, Apologeticall Narration, p. 15.
8289a below. p. 50.

46.

Roger Williams came to London in 1643, and was im-
mediately embroiled in the prOpaganda war. He had returned
to England to seek recognition of the independence of Rhode
Island. This he accomplished with the assistance of his

friends Pym and Cromwell,83

and having done so, focused his
attention on the conflict between the Independents and the
sects, and the Presbyterians. His sympathy lay with the
advocates of toleration.84 Their cause was, after all, the
cause of liberty which he had defended in New England.
Before returning to the New World he published the pamphlet,
The Bloudx Tenggt Q: Persecution8s (1644) which immediately
established him as one of the most extreme eXponents of the
natural right theory. Again the appeal was to the people;
and again, with the natural law hypothesis, Williams fed the
flames which were to burst forth in the Leveller movement.
Williams carried to its logical conclusion the Puritan
argument for permitting men to follow the dictates of God
as written on their breasts: "Idolaters, false worshippers,
Anti-Christians must be left alone and permitted in the world
to grow and fill up the measure of their sins, after the
image of him that hath sown them until the great harvest shall

make the difference."86 Christ had permitted false religious

83Thomas Secombe "Roger Williams," in The Dictionar of
National Biography (New York, 1895), LXI, 4'46.
84Williams, Bloody Tenents, p. 3.

8
5Becombe, "Williams," pp. 446-447.

86Williams, Bloody Tenants, p. 5.

47.

notions to occur, but was certainly strong enough to assure
final punishment to those who chose the wrong path to his
grace. Man lived in a:

twofold state, a civil state and a spiritual,
civil officers and spiritual, civil weapons and
spiritual weapons, civil vengeance and punishment
and a spiritual vengeance and punishment --
although the spirit speaks not here expressly of
civil magistrates and their civil weapons -- yea,
these states being of different natures and con-
sideration as far differing as spirit from
flesh, I observe that civil weapons are most
improper and unfitting in matters of the spiritual
state and kingdom tgaugh in the civil state most
proper and suitable.

Furthermore, the use of the civil weapons available to mag-
istrates in order to force a man to profess or practice that
which he did not believe, was to offer God a sacrifice of
violence on the part of the compeller, and was, therefore,
necessarily unacceptable.88 Men banded together and appointed
magistrates to rule over them, but these magistrates could not
infringe upon the lives and liberties of the citizens without
89

their consent. Williams made the social contract even more
binding by maintaining that "in a free state no magistrate
hath power over the bodies, goods, lands, liberties of a

free people but by their consent. And because free men are
not free lords of their own estates, but are only stewarts

under God therefore they may not give their free consent to

87Williams, Bloody Tenants, p. 9.

88Williams, Blood enents, p. 23.

89Williams, Bloody Tenants, p. 18.

48.

any magistrate to dispose of their bodies, goods, lands,
liberties at large, as themselves please, but as God, the
sovereign Lord of all alone."90 Man, in his natural or
political aspects, was the servant of man as long as those
in power did not by tyranny infringe upon his God-given
rights. But, man as a spiritual being was only the servant
of God, and was completely free to worship as his conscience
dictated.

Williams' division of church and state was adopted in
Leveller political thinking. The Levellers accepted his
emphasis on man's right to religious freedom limited solely
by conscience.92 Moreover, they chose to stress his con-
tention that this right extended into the realm of political
liberty as well. Accepting this thesis, they recognized the
need for a democratically oriented government -- a govern-
ment based on man's consent and incapable of infringing on
his God-given rights.

William Walwyn's pamphlet, the ggmpgggignggg §gmgyyggng
(1644), bridged the gaps between the movements for religious
toleration, liberty of conscience, and political liberty.
Walwyn maintained that liberty of conscience should be granted
to every man for the following reasons:

Because of what judgement soever a man is, he
cannot chuse but be of that judgement, that is

90Williams, Blgggy Tenentg, p. 21.

91willians, Blood Tenant , p. 23.
928ee The Humble Petition, p. 5.

49.

so evident in it selfe that I suppose it will

be granted by all, whatsoever a mans reason doth
conclude to be true or false, to be agreeable or
disagreeble to Gods Word, that same to that man
is his opinion or judgement and so man is by

his own reason necesitated to be of that mind

he is, now where is a necessity there ought to

be no punishment, for punishment is the recom-
pence of voluntary action, therefore no man ought
to be punished for his judgement. Secondly the
conscience being subject only to reason (either
that which is indeed, or seems to him which

hears it to be so) can only be convinced or
perswaded thereby force makes it runne backe,
and struggle; it is the nature of every man to

be of any judgement rather then his that forces.
Tis to be presumed, that tis upon good grounds

of reason that a man is of that judgement whereof
he is. Wouldest thou have him be of thine? Shaw
him thy grounds and let them both worke and sea
which will get the victory in his understanding. 3

Here he states clearly and concisely the fundamental basis

for toleration, which had been discussed only in part by
Parker, Goodwin and Williams. He maintained that man was
rational, that he held his opinions because he considered

them reasonable. If someone disagreed with his views, let him
present his reasons for doing so, and should they be good,

' perhaps the rational man would change hiw views.94 Force
should play no part in supressing dissenting opinion.95 To

insure that all men were guaranteed liberty of conscience, the

political order of the day must be radically changed.96 Other

93William Walwyn, The Compassionate Samaritans (1644),
pp. 13-14. This tree is reprinted in Heller, Trgcts gn
Liberty, III, 59-104.

94Walwyn, Samaritane, p. 14.
95"Welwyn, Samaritane, pp. 10-11.

96Walwyn, Samaritane, p. 18.

50-

advocates of toleration steered clear of this fact. Walwyn
did not .97

In a statement prophetic of the demands to be made by
the Levellers three years later, Walwyn asserted that all
legitimate governments rest upon the consent of the people.
He stated:

that the world being growne so vicious and corrupt
as it is, there can possibly be no living for
honest man without Government: That the end of
making Government, is the peoples quiet and
safety, and that whatsoever doth not conduce
thereto is tyranny or oppression, not government.
That the Government of England is of all others
that they know the most excellent the people by
their chosen men, being the makers & reformers
thereof: That therin the Parliament is the sup-
reme power, andthat the King is accountable 50
than for the non performance of his office.9

Here we have the essentials of a social contract theory of
government. Men bound themselves together by contract to live
under a supreme authority. They placed their trust in that
authority to protect themselves from one another and from
foreign dangers. If this government proved tyrannical and
harmful to their interests, the citizens might recall into
their hands the rights guaranteed them by the law of nature
written on their breasts. Further, an assembly chosen by
97Walwynwas not alone in stressing the rationality of
toleration. Henry Robinson argued for individual freedom
in commerce, industry, and religion as the means for
attaining imperial greatness in Libert of C nscien (1644).
It was also during this period that Milton presents his

classic arguments for liberty of expression in Aregpggigigg
(1644) .

98Walwyn, Samgritane, p. 69.

51.

the people was, above all others, the proper means of govern-
ing.

Between the years 1641 and 1645, the philosophical basis
for the Leveller democratic program evolved. From the battle
waged over toleration emerged the principles of natural
rights, the state of nature, and the law of nature. These
were by no means new principles; their origin reached back
into antiquity. For the first time, however, these principles,
now clothed in religious terms which rendered them fully ac-
ceptable, were made known to a receptive, popular audience
which with the passage of years grew to believe that its rights
of liberty of conscience rested upon laws, not subject to man
but answerable only to God. The revolutionary implications
of this view were not fully realized by many pamphleteers
advocating toleration. Among the people reading their argu-
ments, however, were those who began to ask themselves whether
this law of nature might not also guarantee political freedom.

The future Leveller leader, "alwyn, carried the argument
for toleration based on natural right into the realm of
political liberty. His example was soon followed by Levellers
like Overton and Lilburne who, upon initiating propaganda
campaigns through the press, found a public fully acquainted
with the terminology with which they justified their defiance
of Parliament, and their advocacy of a democratic republic.
The struggle over religious toleration had unwittingly

provided a receptive audience.

52.

Chapter III

THE MATURING OF THE LEVELLER PROGRAM
FOR A DEMOCRATIC ENGLAND

The years 1645-1647 witnessed the transformation of the
hypothetical doctrines of the law of nature, state of
nature, and the social contract into realistic demands for
the re-shaping of society in accordance with these demo-
cratic principles. William Walwyn fulfilled his early
promise by becoming the recognized theoretician of the
Leveller movement. Unhampered by religious cant, he demanded
the implementation of his democratic convictions. The leader-
ship of the Leveller movement, however, fell to one who lacked
theciarity of mind, and fundamentally humanistic approach of
Walwyn. The transformation of hypotheses into concrete pol-
itical realities required not a theoretician, but a man of
action, a standard bearer around whom all those impregnated
with democratic ideas could rally. John Lilburne was such
a man.

A discussion of the social contract and law of nature
concepts as used by the Levellers can scarcely be undertaken
without repeated reference to the remarkable Lilburne.
Between 1645 and 1649 his belligerent personality prepelled
him continuously into the limelight, a position he seemed to
find not unpleasant; and during this period Lilburne did
everything within his power to make himself the symbol of all

53-

the rights being denied Englishmen, who were meant to be free.
He blatantly defied the House of Lords and the House of
Commons when they attempted to try him for crimes against
the State.1 His justification for doing so was based on the
inherent rights of all men to liberty as guaranteed by the
law of nature, common law, and the social contract.2 The
publicity given his defiance popularized democratic doc-
trines, and lent Lilburne the aura of martyr to the cause of
liberty.3 Had Lilburne been an impractical visionary he
would have been content with the martyr role. He chose
instead to become the driving force which welded democratic
hypothesis into a concrete political platform.

Following his release from prison in 1640, Lilburne em-
barked on a tumultuous tour of duty with the Parliamentary
Army. His career as a soldier included capture by the enemy,
courageous conduct in the face of the enemy and promotion to
the rank of Lt. Colonel. After his release, he was charged
with insubordination.4 This occurred when the impulsive
Lilburne defied specific orders of his commander and success-

1"Procedings against Col. John Lilburne before the House
of Lords, for aspersing the Earl of Manchester," (1646), in

Pgri, Higt., III, 498.
2Lilburne, Eugdamgntal Liberties, p. 23.
3Richard Overton, A Ramon trance of Many Thousand Citizens,
Ep. 1-2. This pamphlet s reprinted in No fa, Leve ler
gnifgsgggs, pp. 112-113.
4Lilburne, Fundamental; Liberties, pp. 22-24.

540

fully captured a Royalist stronghold.5 The timely inter-
vention of his old friend Cromwell saved Lilburne from the
hanging threatened by General Manchester.6 This episode,
coupled with Lilburne's refusal to subscribe to the Solemn
League and Covenant, a precondition to service in the New
Model, forced him to resign from the army in April 1645.7
In January 1645 Lilburne made it known publicly that
he had cast his lot with the supporters of toleration. He
challenged his old comrade in suffering, William Prynne, to
a public debate on the merits of toleration.8 Prynne who
had suffered terribly at the hands of Laud for the cause of
religious liberty, had become Parliament's most effective
spokesman for intolerance.9 With total disregard for the
similarities between a Prynne demanding toleration from the
Anglican Church for the Presbyterians, and a Walwyn seeking
toleration from the Presbyterians, Prynne advocated, in the
most violent language, suppression of all religious thought
not conforming to Presbyterhnflhm.lo Lilburne recognized the

strength of his foe. "I am," he wrote to Prynne, "desirous

5"Lilburne, Fundamentall Liberties, p. 23.
6Lilburne, amenta Liberties, pp. 22-23.

7Lilburne, Fundamentall Liberties, p. 24.

8John Lilburne, A c i of L tter to Mr William Pri e
Egg. (1645) p. 3. Thgs letter is reprinted in Heller,
Trggtg 9n Liberty, III, 179-188.

9Heller, Leveller Tractg, p. 79.

10William Prynne, Truth Trium hin over Falseho (1645):
pp. 4-5-

55.

to try a fall with you, though one of your friends not long
since told me there was as great disproportion betwixt you
and me...as there is betwixt a tall Cedar and a little shrub...
I replyed, goe you and tell this tall cedar the little shrub
will have a bout with him."11 This dramatic challenge was
the opening gun in Lilburne's running battle with Parliament.
Lilburne's letter to Prynne does not reflect an aware-
ness of the state of nature, or the social contract theories
as expressed by‘Walwyn and Parker. Lilburne complained of
the curtailment of the freedom of the press to those who had
most actively combatted tyranny.12 Further, he protested
against the persecution of the sects by the Presbyterians.13
To justify his stand, however, he did not refer to natural
rights. His central argument was that "to persecute for the
conscience is not from God, but from the Divell and Anti-
christ."14 The "little shrub" had not as yet developed the
rationalistic approach to toleration achieved by Walwyn.
June 1645 saw the beginning of a fruitful association
between the philosopher Walwyn and the political leader Lilburne.

In the middle of this month, both men attended a political
ll
Lilburne, Letter to Prinne, p. 2.

12Lilburne, Lgtter to Prinne, pp. 2-3.

13Lilburne, Letter to Prinne, p. 5.

14Walwyn, A Whisper, p. 6.

56.

gathering at Windmill tavern.15 What passed between them is
a matter for speculation. It is known, however, that here
the man who were to become the nucleus of the Leveller party
met, conversed, and found much common ground.16 This meeting
was to posses great importance for the future development of
the natural rights theory. Lilburne soon put to a practical
test Walwyn's arguments concerning the natural rights of man;
and it was from this time that the Levellers began to organize
as a political party.17

Absent from this meeting at Windmill Tavern was Richard
Overton, the third member of the Leveller triumvirate. Less
is known about Overton than any of the other leading Levellers.
He appears deliberately to have surrounded himself with a
cloak of mystery, and to his contemporaries he was the most
elusive of the prominent radicals.18 Sometime before 1641,
Overton became an unlicensed printer in London. His print-
ing press was readily available to Lilburne and others who

1
expoused the cause of religious liberty. 9 In his own right
Overton established himself in the years 1641-1645 as the

IEWalwyn, A Whisper, p. 5.

16Walwyn, A Whisper, p. 6.

17John Lilburne, The Just Defence of John Lilburn (1653),
p. 7} This pamphlet is reprinted in Haller, Levellgr Tractg,
pp. 450-464.

18C. H. Firth, "Richard Overton " in The Dictionar of
National Biography (New York, 18955, LXI?‘§8§T“"""1"'

19Firth, ”Overton," p. 386.

57.

most radical exponent of religious skepticism.2O This
skepticism eventually led him to support the sects intheir
struggle against Presbyterian intolerance.

Overton, like Walwyn, condemned all persecution as the
work of irrational bigots, fearful of their own special
privileges.21 His condemnation of the suppression of rel-
igious liberty is more akin to eighteenth century
rationalism than to his own non—persecuting contemporaries.22
The latter tended to advocate freedom of conscience, either
through desire to survive as a minority or because religion
hallowed the concept of a personalized and inviolabla inner
light. Persecution to them was sinful. To Overton, it was
foolish when viewed in the light of history, for: "is it not
frequent amongst us that the thing we judged herasie we now
believe is orthodox?"23 This rational approach signified the
reasoning that would be employed by Overton when he shifted
his interests from the religious to the secular.

While still engaged in defending the sects Walwyn sig-
nified his belief in the people as the foundation of all

lawful authority. Men are rational, educable beings who

2OFirth, "Overton," p. 386.

21Richard Overton, The Araignemant of Mr, Persecution
(1645), p. 10. This pamphlet is reprinted in Heller, Tractg

n Libe t , III, 205-256.
22

23

Overton, Araignement, pp. 12-13.
Overton, Araignement, p. 24.

58.

receive what they know "by degrees, now a little and than a
little; he that knowes the most was once as ignorant as he
that knows theleast."24 This rational being that is man
could, by no stretch of the imagination, be said willingly to
make himself dependent on the arbitrary will of a tyrant.25
The truly radical degree of Ovarton's thinking is evidenced
by his rejection of Parliament as tyrannical when it did not
respond to the will of the people. "The people did not in
chusing your Lordships [Parliamang7 to this place...intend
the makeing of themselves slaves in any the least kind...or
to put themselves at so vast a distance, as to make their
addresses to you as to some Dietie, but...authorized and en-
trusted you to vindicate and preserve their native and just
Liberties...Therefore you cannot, without betraying this
Trust, by any coercive power subject any of their consciences,
persons, or estates to any Ecclasticall Jurisdiction whatso-
ever."26 From denying the right of Parliament to wield
ecclesiastical jurisdiction without the people's consent it
was but a short step to denying Parliament the right to
secular jurisdiction without the consent of the governed.

The arrest of John Lilburne in July of 1645 hastened the
transformation of arguments for religious liberty into

arguments for political reform. Lilburne was arrested at the

24Overton, Araignemant, p. 24.

250verton, Araignement, p. 43.

260verton, Araignement, p. 44.

59.

order of the House of Commons for slandering Lenthall, the
speaker of the house. His accuser was John Bastweck, who, '
like Prynne, had become a staunch defender of the Presby-
terian cause.27 The real reason for Lilburne's arrest,
however, was his impudent defiance of the House of Commons'
spokesman, William Prynne.28 Lilburne immediately pub-
licized his martyrdom for the cause of religious and political
liberty.‘29 In so doing, he provided a central issue upon '
which latent and expressed democratic attention could focus.
Further, out of his irritation at being unjustly handled by
Parliament, Lilburne began to think and to write in revolu-
tionary terms.30
In England's Birth-Right (October, 1645), Lilburne used

his own predicament as an example of tyrannical suppression of
liberty.31 However, he now enjoined all Englishmen to act in
concert to bring about democratic reform. He clearly stated
that, regardless of birth, all Englishmen had the right to
make their wishes known to the governing authority.32 In the
final analysis, he maintained, power was vested in the hands

27John Lilburne, Englands Birth-Bight Justified (1645),
pp. 26-27. This tract is reprinted in Haller, Tgacts on
Libert , III, 258—307.

28Lilburne believed this to be the ease and considering
the violent disagreements between the two it seems reasonable.
See Lilburne, Fundamental Liberties, p. 24.

29Lilburne, Fundamental_Libert;g§,p. 49.

3°Lilburne, En lands Birth-Hi ht, pp. 2-4.

31Lilburne, Englands Birth—Right, p. 3.

32Lilburne, Englands Birth-Right, p. 2.

60.

of the people any governing body, be it king or parliament,
which sought to negate the authority of the people was no
legitimate government.33 These views were justified, Lilburne
went on to say, by the rights guaranteed in the Magna Carta.34
To insure that its provisions were carried out and that all
men achieved political and religious equality, law must be
subject to equity, and rulers to law.35 Furthermore, the
fundamental laws of the state should be written so that men
may know their rights.36 These demands had to be implemented
if the common people were to secure the liberties and privileges
bought with the blood of so many in the struggle against the
Royalists.37 Lilburne made no mention of the social contract,
nor did he recommend violence as a means of achieving reform;
but once again he used a highly respected, vague document to
justify a change in the status quo; in this case, the Vagna
Carta. -

One feature of special interest in this pamphlet is
Lilburne's reference to the desirability of universal suf-
frage.38 Lilburne did not elaborate on this aspect of his

proposals, but Overton and Walwyn must have been impressed

33Lilburne, Englands Birth-Bight, p. 5.
34Lilburne, Englands Birth-Right, p. 2.

35Lilburne, Englands Birth-Right, p. 8.
36Lilburne, Englands Birth-Right, p. 8.
37Lilburne, Englands Birth-Right, pp. 11-12.
38Lilburne, Englands Birth—Right, p. 3.

61.

by the idea. They immediately incorporated it into their
thinking, and developed the concept until it became a
central Leveller demand.

A few days after the appearance of Englands Birth-Right,
‘Walwyn published a pamphlet in defense of Lilburne.39 He
chided Lilburne for relying too strongly on the charter as the
basis for England's liberties. Magna Carta, in Walwyn's
estimation, had never proven an adequate protection of
rights. Too often it had been interpreted to the advantage
of the ruling classes, and it had been amended overthe years
until the little protection for the common people which it
once contained was lost.40 Lilburne, in his protest against
self-incrimination, could have appealed with more justifica-
tion to the laws of nature and of reason, for to urge a man
"to accuse himselfe is as unnaturall and unreasonable as to
urge a man to kill himselfe for though it be not so high a
degree of wickednesse, yet it is as really wicked."41 The laws
of reason and nature were the supreme protectors of man's
inviolabla rights. Magna Carta was but a part of the people's
liberties.

Parliament should be responsible to the people for its
conduct, for "Parliament was preserved and established by the

39WilliamWalwyn Englands Lamentable Slaverie (1645).
It is reprinted in Heller, Trag;§_9n:iIEEFEEI‘ITT, 309-318.

40Walwyn, Englands Slaverie, p. 4.

41Walwyn, Englands Slaverie, p. S.

I) ‘

 

m...

62.

love and affections of the people."42 If Parliament is re-
miss in protecting the inalienable rights of the people, the
people should be "free therin even to alter and change the
publique forme, as may best stand with the safety and freedome
of the people."43 Walwyn clearly asserted the right of men
to destroy as tyrannical any government which infringed on
the rights of man as embodied in the law of nature and incor-
porated in the social contract.44 If a new government was
necessary to protect men's liberties, than it should be based
on a written document, clearly stating the limits of the
supreme authority's power. This document should not be a
rehash of the Magna Carta, but rather a new, enlightened
instrument reflecting the will of the people.45

Lilburne was released from prison soon after Walwyn made
his appeal for democratic reform,46 but the struggle between
the tolerationists and the exponents of intolerance continued
unabated. Overton, Walwyn, and Lilburne carried on a running
battle with Prynne. The language of the Levellers became
vitriolic and more openly revolutionary as they became con-

vinced of the unwillingness of the Presbyterian-controlled

42
Walwyn, Englands Slaverie, p. 3.

43Walwyn, Englands Slaverie, p. 6.

44‘Walwyn, Englands Slaverie, pp. 6-7.

45Walwyn, Englands SlaVerie, p. 7.
46Gibb, Lilburne, PP. 140-141.

63.

Parliament to reform its attitude toward the liberty of
Englishmen. The attempted suppression of Leveller pamphlets
which resulted, brought Overton, Walwyn and Lilburne into
closer contact,47 and from this close association arose a
more unified program for the achievement of political and
religious reform.

By April 1646, Lilburne was once again in serious trouble
with the authorities. Colonel King, his old commanding
officer, brought charges of slander against him in the court
of Common Pleas.48 In a pamphlet, Lilburne protested that
he should not be answerable to an inferior court when he was
witness to a charge of high treason (Lilburne was chief wit-
ness against King) pending before the House of Commons.49
Lilburne's point was a valid one, but in another pamphlet
he managed to insult the House of Lords -- in the concluding
section he demanded that Colonel King be brought to trial for
50

treason on twenty-two counts; in a marginal note to this

section, he pointed out that the Earl of Manchester would have

lost his head for treason had Cromwell pressed the charges of

47Joseph Frank, The Levellers A History of the Writin ngs
of Three Seventeenth-Century Social Democrats: John Lilburne,
Richard Overton. William Walwyn Cambridge, Mass., 195

pp. 55—37-
48Lilburne, Fundamental ILiberties, p. 25.

49John Lilburne, The Free-Mans Freedom Vindicated: or a
true Relation of the Cause and Manner of Lieut. Col. John
Lilburns Present Imprisonment in Newgate (1646), pp. 2-3.

50
494.

 

"Proceedings against Col. Lilburne," in Earl. Hist., III,

64.

treason that he had lodged against him.51 Unfortunately,
Manchester was at this time the Speaker of the House of
Lords. And this body, as it grew smaller and revolutionary
ideas loomed larger, was becoming more sensitive about its
own prestige, rights, and privileges. It held Lilburne in
contempt of the Lords.52

Lilburne's arrest on June 10, stimulated the movement
towards democratic revolution. Lilburne‘s first action on
being arrested was to deny that the Lords had any juris-
diction over a commoner.S3 His argument was that the Lords
were not representatives of the people; therefore, they pos-
sessaino valid authority to judge them.54 The only legally
supreme power in England, he argued, was the House of Commons,
which was elected by the people.55 In denying the right of
the Lords to govern because of their lack of responsiveness to
the will of the people, Lilburne prepared the ground for a
similar attack which he later launched against the House of
Commons, declaring that this institution was equally unres-
ponsive.

In justifying his opposition to the authority of the Lords

in terms of the social contract theory, Lilburne clearly reflected

51"Proceedings Against Lilburne," p. 494.
52"Proceedings against Lilburne," p. 499.
53Lilburne, Freedom Vindicated, p. 6.
5V’J'Lilburne, Freedom Vindicated, pp. 6-7.
5'5I.ilburne, Freedom Vindipppgd, p. 8.

65.

the influence of Walwyn and Overton. He no longer depended
on Magna Carta, but now boldly declared:

by nature all men are equal and alike in power,
dignity authority, and majesty, none of them
having by nature any authority, dominion, or
magisterial power one over or above another;
neither have they or can they exercise any but
merely by institution or donation, that is to say,
by mutual agreement or consent, given, derived,

or assumed by mutual consent and agreement, for
the good benefit and comfort of each other, and
not for the mischief, hurt or damage of any; it
being unnatural, irrationa ....wicked, and unjust,
for any man or men whatsoever to part with so much
of their power as shall enable any of their
Parliament-men, commissioners, trustees, deputies,...
or servants, to destroy and undo them therewith...
And unnatural, irrational, sinful, wicked unjust,
devilish, and tyrrannical for any man wha soever...
to appropriate and assume unto himself a power,
authority and jurisdiction, to rule, govern or
reign over any sort 8f men in the world without
their free consent.s

Under the stimulus of what he considered tyrannical sup-
pression of his liberty, Lilburne had come to accept the natural
right and social contract theories as valid grounds for repud-
iating a governing authority unresponsive to the will of the
people.

Lilburne's conduct before the House of Lords made severe
punishment inevitable. He was dragged before the Lords, loudly
protesting that they had no authority over commoners. He flatly
refused to kneel. For his contempt, Lilburne was placed in

close confinement in New Gate prison.57 While there he

6
5 Lilburne, Freedom Yipdicated, p. 32.

57Lilburne, Fundamental Liberties, p. 26., and "Proceedings
against Lilburne," p. 483.

- all.

‘1

in

‘N.

.3

lie

66.

published Freemans Freedom Vindicated, which contained passages
violently insulting to the Lords.58 Once again he was called
before the House of Lords to answer for his latest insults.
Lilburne again refused to kneel to his superiors. To make
matters worse, he dramatized his refusal by stopping his ears
while the charges were read against him}:9 Despite his pro-
test that the Lords had no jurisdiction over his case, Lilburne
was fined 2,000 pounds, sentenced to seven years' imprison-
ment in the Tower of London, and barred forever from holding

office or place in military or civil government, in Church or

Commonwealth. Further, his two pamphlets were ordered burned

60

by the common hangman.

An immediate reaction to Lilburne's arrest and subsequent
sentencing was the publication of a pamphlet by Overton demanding
changes in the governmental structure of England. Overton
abruptly dismissed the House of Lords as a burdensome acces-
sory which had "no roots in the choice of the people, from
whom the Power that is just must be derived."61 He repeated
the argument that the House of Commons was the only valid
governing authority because it had roots in the consent of the

people.62 As for the King, this symbol of tyranny should be

58Lilburne, Freedom Vindicated, p. 2.

L’
’9Lilburne, Fundamental Liberties, pp. 26-27, and "Proceed-
ings against Lilburne," p. 499.

60"Proceedings against Lilburne," p. 499.
61Overton, Remonstrence, p. 6.

62Ovarton, Remonstrangg, p. 6.

67.

63

dispensed with forever. However, the Presbyterian-
controlled Parliament had begun to forget the source of its
power and was taking on the airs of arbitrary authority dis-
played by the King and Lords.64 Parliament's suppression
of freedom of the press, and the House of Commons' acquiescence
in Lilburne's sentence signified a neglect of their duty to
protect the liberties of all Englishmen.6s Such neglect
might well call for the creation of a new governing body
unless the House of Commons reformed.66

Overton's assertion of the rights of man was even more
extreme than Lilburne's. He now spoke in terms of "we the
people." The people had the native right, upon which
rested the social contract, to name and instruct rulers to
do their will.67 This right could not and had not been
destroyed by centuries of tyrannical rule by kings, nobles
and the church.68 In ringing tones Overton spoke for all
Englishmen when he proclaimed:

I'le not sell my birth-right for a messe of

pottage, for Justice is my naturall right, my
heirdome, my inheritance by lineall descent from

63
64

Overton, Remonstrance, pp. 6-7.
Overton, Remonstrance, pp. 10—11.

65Overton, Remonstrance, p. 11.

66

Overton, Remonstrance, p. 17.

67OVerton,‘Remonstrance, p. 3.

68

Overton, Remonstrance, pp. 3-4.

68.

the loins of Adam, and so to all the sons of
men as their proper right without respect of
persons. For by naturall birth, all men are
equally and alike borne to like propriety,
liberty and freedome, and as we are delivered
of God by the hand of nature into this world,
everyone with a naturall, innate freedome and
propriety (as it were writ in the table of
every mans heart, never to be obliterated) even
so we are to live, every one equally and alike
to enjoy his Birthright and priviledge; even
by nature hath made him free...Every man by
nature being a King Priest and Prophet in

his owne naturall circuit and compasse, where—
of no second may partake, but by deputation,
commission and free consggt from him, whose
right and freedome it is.

If the House of Commons were topove itself the bonafide
leader of the people, it should recognize the latent power
of the common people and act accordingly.

Overton outlined his proposals to reform Parliament in
the People's interest. First, all men must be made equal
before the law. No worldly rank or ecclesiastical privilege
was to protect a man from his just deserts at the hand of the
law courts.70 Second, imprisonment for debt must be abolished.
This was but a means whereby the privileged controlled the
poor.71 Third, censorship of the press must cease. Fourth,
the House of Commons must make provision for its own dis-
solution, for "they have sate full five yeeres, which is

.foure yeeres longer than were intended, for wee could choose

69Richard Overton, An Arrow Against all Tyrants and Tyranny,

Shot from the Prison of New ate into the Preo ative Bowels_9§
E Erfiflrari E2§u§e o_i_' L§r§s (I6465' , pp. 2-3.

7OOverton, Remonstrancg, p. 7.

71Overton, Remonstrence, p. 8.

 

 

 

69.

you but for (at most) one yeere."72 By fixing the term of
Parliament at a year, Overton felt the House of Commons

would remain responsive to the People's will and would
hesitate before taking on "lordly airs."73 Fifth, matters

of Government must be carried on openly where all men could
view them. In a remarkable affirmation of man's rationality,
and of man as the basis of all legitimate authority, Overton
urged the House of Commons to forsake "and utterly renounce
all crafty and subtill intentions; hide not your thoughts from
us, and give us encouragement to be open-breasted to you:
proclaim aforehand what ye determine to do, in establishing
anything for continuance; and hear all things that can be
spoken with or against the same, and to that intent set the
imprisoned Presses at liberty, that all men's understandings
may be more conveniently informed, and convinced by the equity
of your proceedings."74 These phrases illuminate for all

time the good to be striven for in a state governed by a

truly representative institution.

The laws of nature and the social contract were now more
than a justification of tolerance; they had become the prin-
ciples which dictated the erection of a truly democratic
government. Overton and Lilburne had reached this position

by June 1646, and were not to retreat from it in the years to

72

Overton, Remonstrance, p. 17.
73Overton, Remgpgtrance, pp. 17—18.

74Overton, Bemonstrance, p. 18.

70.

come. Theirs was the logical and ultimate expression of
the movement started by the Puritans some sixty years before,
which had sought recognition of the worth of the individual.
Overton's violent attack on the Lords coupled with his
criticisms of the House of Commons resulted in his arrest,
and he conducted himself before the Lords in the best
Lilburnian tradition. He had to be dragged into the
chamber. He refused to kneel or to listen to the charges
read against him.75 As a result, the Lords wasted no time
in committing him to Newgate Prison.7 It was from their
respective prisons that Lilburne and Overton led the Leveller
movement for the next seven months. Despite their close con—
finement, they managed to write and publish bitter,
inflamatory accounts of their unjustified sufferings.77
As weeks stretched into months the tone of the pamphlets
grew more violent. The House of Commons which both men had
recognized as the legitimate governing force refused to hear
their case.78 This neglect caused both Leveller leaders to

75[Richard Overton, The Commoners Complaint Or a Dreadful
Warning From Newgate to the Commons of England (16475, p. 3:

76 .
Overton, Commoners Complaint, p. 4.

77See, e. g., Overton, Commoners Complaint, pp. 8-9., and
Lilburne, Freedom Vindicated, pp. lO-l3.

 

78The growing disillusionment of the two imprisoned Level-
lers is well illustrated by the title of one of Overton's

tracts, An Appeale From the Degenerage Representative Body of
the Commons of En land Assembred a Westminster._ To...T 8 Free

PEOple in General 16477. This tract—is reprintedtin Wolfe,
Leveller Maniiestogfi, pp. 154—195. .

 

 

 

71.

appeal directly to the people directly bypassing the House of
Commons.79 These appeals became more revolutionary. Instead
of a reformation of the existing Parliament, the Levellers
demanded a new type of government, one based on a written
constitution; and they urged that it be created by an agree—
ment of the people.(5 Society had fallen into a state of
nature, Parliament had given up all title to legitimate rule;
therefore, the time had arrived for a new social contract.“
During the declining months of 1646 and the spring of
1647 the Levellers, guided by Lilburne and Overton from the
inside, an Walwyn from the outside, set up a rudimentary
party organization dedicated to the reform of Parliament.‘
The petitions, which were presented to Parliament in behalf
of the two imprisoned Levellers, gave evidence of a central
hand controlling their construction and signing. This hand
was probably Walwyn's.83 Pamphlets were printed and dis-
tributed with a speed which could only indicate a well-run

political organization.84 Planned meetings were held, fund-

raising drives were conducted, and by the Spring of 1647 a

79

80Overton, An Appeale, p. 25.

81Overton, An Appeals, p. 26.

82The Presbyterians described in alarmist language the
growth of the Levellers as a party in A Declaration of some

Proceedings of LtL Col. John Lilburn (Wfi‘p‘fiT‘E-m a
;ngߤgg;_;gg s reprinted in Haller, Leveller Tracts, pp. 88-134.

83Frank, The Levellers, p. 11.

Overton, An Appeale, pp. 25-26.

 

84A Declaration, p. 7.

M

72.

system of Wards was taking shape in London. The Levellers
did not neglect other areas in England. Branches of their
organization were established in the North and West.85 This
political activity points clearly to the fact that the
Levellers were no longer content with endless debate about
the inherent rights of man. They now determined to take action
to secure these rights.

Before the Levellers could transform their social con—
tract hypothesis into a workable political reform, they
needed three things: a closely knit, politically enthusiastic
audience; an effective scapegoat; and a guiding hand. The
New Hodel Army provided the first, Parliament the second, and
William.Walwyn the third.

Discontent was rife in the New Model in the Spring of
1647. Under the leadership of Fairfax and Cromwell, this
Army of sectarians and Independents willingly suffered all the
hardships of war in successful campaigns against the Royalists.86
Now that victory was theirs they had time to consider
grievances, of which the chief was back pay. Gardiner des-
cribed the prevalent sentiment within the New Model thus:
"Large numbers of the soldiers cared little for politics or
religion. On a question of the pocket they were ready to

stand up as one man, and the question of the pocket was, in a

85A Declaration, p. 6.

86Gardiner, Great Civilyfiar, III, 224.

73.

very real sense, a pressing one. The pay of the foot—soldiers
was now eighteen weeks in arrears, and that of the horse and
dragoons no less than forty-three."87 Further augmenting
discontent was Parliament's failure to provide pensions for

88

the wounded, and the dependents of the slain. Anyone or
any party offering to alleviate these very real grievances
could be assured of a sympathetic audience.

The Levellers showed true political acumen in trying to
convert the New Model to their cause, for with the Spring of
1647, the New Model became the one force without which no
successful government could be formed.89 Parliament realized
this also, and worked for its dissolution.90 Its efforts met
unexpected resistence, for as early as the Autumn of 1646,
the Levellers had begun an intensive propaganda campaign
among the rank and file.91

Richard Baxter, a chaplain, reported the effects of this
propaganda on the men within the New Model, stating that many
had been "seduced into a disputing vein." State democracy

and church democracy were common topics for debate, as were

the rights of men to liberty of conscience. Baxter listened

87Gardiner, Great Civil War, III, 225.
88Gardiner, Great Civil War, III, 225.
89Gooch, Democratic Ideas, p. 124.

 

9OJohn Rushworth, Historical Collections, Containing the
Principal Matters Which Ha oened From the e nn n o the Year
4 to the Death o§:King Charles the First 1648 ELondon,
701 , , 4 1-432.

91Baxter, R i uiae Baxterianae, Part I, 71-73.

74.

with horror to advocates of the subversion of church and
state. The most radical adherents to the principles of
liberty were those influenced by men later known as Levellers.92
Baxter asserted that "a great part of the mischief was done
among the soldiers by pamphlets, which were abundantly dis-
persed, such as Overton's, iartin Nar-Priegt, and more of his,
and some of J. Lilburne's...and divers against the King, and
against the ministry, and for liberty of conscience, & etc.
The soldiers being usually dispersed in quarters, they had such
books to read when they had none to contradict them."93 The
Levellers' attempt to convince a heterogeneous populace of the
need for radical change in England's governing institutions had
met with small success. However, if Baxter can be accepted as
a reliable witness, and subsequent events support his analysis,
the Levellers must be credited with arousing democratic
agitation where it was most valuable -- in the politically
powerful New Nodel.

Parliament unwittingly assisted the Leveller campaign
for the New Nodel's support. In February, 1647, both houses
were dominated by Presbyterians, who made no effort to appro-
priate money for the complete payment of arrears owed to the

independent New Model.94 This in itself was enough to incite

92Baxter, Religuiae Baxterianae, Part I, 73.

93Baxter, Religuiae Baxterianae, Part I, 72.

94Rushworth, Collections, I, 489., and "Votes relating to
the Disbanding of the foot, ' in Parl; Hist., III, 582.

75.

revolutionary action. In addition, however, Parliament, to
protect itself, sought to cut taxes by disbanding the New

95 and further alienated the Independents by beginning

Model,
negotiations with the Scottish Army. The motive was to
support English Presbyterianism through Scottish inter-
vention.96 As a crowning touch, Parliament subjected the
revered Cromwell and Fairfax to sharp criticism.97 It is
not surprising, then, that the Leveller propaganda efforts
met with marked success in the New Model.

William Ualwyn, the only Leveller leader with freedom
of movement, guided the organization of the campaign in the

98

Spring of 1647. In the Summer and Fall of 1646, he had

gained experience in shaping public opinion by circulating
99

petitions in behalf of Lilburne and Overton. The experience
thus gained was put to good use in 1647. Walwyn's rational
sagacity and experience were evident in the pronouncements
and tactics employed by the Levellers.

It was Walwyn who penned the first Leveller manifesto
which took the form of a petition to Parliament. The
petition was circulated in March, 1647, when feeling was

beginning to run high between the New Model and Parliament.100

9SHushworth, Collections, I, 499.

96Bushworth, Collections, I, 517.

97Gardiner, Great Civil Wgr, III, 260.
98Wolfe, LeVeller Manifestoes, pp. 131-132.
99Pease, Leveller Movement, p. 158.

lOOPease, Leveller Hovement, pp. 158-159.

Upon securing a copy of the petition, the House of Commons
labeled it a seditious paper and took action to suppress it.
Leveller followers were arrested and jailed for circulating
it and even for publicly hearing it read.101 Despite this
hostility, the "Large Petition" was circulated, signed, and
presented formally to Parliament early in May. Parliament's
reply, on May 20, was to order the petition burned by the

common hangman.102

Though moderate in tone, the petition contained threats
to the Parliamentary position which justified its violent
reception by that body. The social contract theory was no
longer argued. It was advanced as irrefutable fact. The
preamble stated: "That no Government is more just in the
Constitution, than that of Parliament, having its foundation
in the free choice of the People, and as the end of all
government is the Safety and freedome of the governed even
so the people of this Nation in all times have manifested
most hearty affections unto Parliament as the most prOper
remedies of their grievances."103 This pledge of loyalty to
the House of Commons completely ignores the Lords as having

101Richard Overton gives an impassioned account of those
who suffered at the hands of Parliament for circulating the

"Large Petition" in An Appeale, l5-l6.
102Parl, Hist., III, 581., and Overton, An Appeale, p. 16.
103The Humble Petition of Many Thousands, earnestly desiring
the glogy of God. the Freedome o t e ommon-wea t gand the
eace of all mpg (1647) p. 1. This petition is reprinted in
'fiolfe, Leveller Manifestogg, pp. 135-141.

 

77.

any lawful role in governing England, and through the omis-
sion, the Levellers silently pledged themselves to a radical
change in the existing organs of government. After crediting
the House of Commons with eliminating some aspects of royal
tyranny (Star Chamber, the Episcopacy, etc.),104 the petition
takes it to task for not protecting the citizens' liberties
as they were bound to do by the social contract.105 To
insure the safety and well-being of the common people, the
petition demanded that Parliament undertake a series of reform
measures.

These measures, as advocated in the Leveller platform
consisted of thirteen planks all beginning with the instruction
"you will." The first proposal informed the House of Commons
that it must diSpense with any negative voice not originating
in the people, the negative voice referring to the House of
Lords and the king. All who had unjustly suffered arbitrary
trial by the Lords or Commons were to be released immediately
and subsequent tampering with the due process of law was to
be made a capital crime. All men were to have absolute free-
dom of conscience and all statutes, oaths, and covenents
contrary to this must be immediately abolished.106 Nonopolies

were to be diSSOIVed. The process for obtaining justice in the

law courts was to be simplified in the interests of the poor

104Petition of Thousands, pp. l-2.

105Petition of Thousands, pp. 3—4.
106Petition of Thousands, p. 5.

78.

people. Imprisonment for debt would be eliminated and the
prisons reformed, with honest, Christian men assigned to run
them.107 For a Presbyterian parliament to comply with these
demands was unthinkable; to have done so would have been to
admit that their policy of years standing was wrong. Further,
to abolish the House of Lords and the kingship was a far more
radical step than the conservative Presbyterians cared to
contemplate.

Leveller hope for democratic reform under the auspices of
the existing Parliament was greatly shaken on May 20, and from
this day onward they concentrated on finding an ally strong
enough to counterbalance the power of Parliament.108 The
instrument selected for this task was the New Model. The
attempted suppression of the "Large Petition" in the latter
part of May was accompanied by the formation of political
action committees in the New Nodal.109 Each of eight cavalry
regiments elected two representatives from their own rank and
file, who were to exert pressure on the military high command,

on Parliament and, by means of judicious publicity, on public

opinion at large.110 Their objectives were the democratic

107Petition of Thousandg, p. 6.

108599, e. ., Overton's reaction as expressed in $2

 

A eale, pp. 1 -l7. .
109Gardiner, Great Civil War, III, 243-244.
110

Gardiner, Great Civil War, III, 243.

reform of Parliament and the winning of back pay.111 By

the end of May, all regiments had their agitators.112 Con-
tinually stimulated by advice from the civilian Levellers,
Lilburne among them, the agitators not only set up an
elaborate organization of their own but outlined a rational
program for the Army to present to Parliament.113 By the end
of May some of the more radical members of the New Model,
smarting under the fate of the "Large Petition," were ready to
engage in armed conspiracy to overthrow Parliament and set up
a new government to protect the people's liberty.114
The ground work had been well done for the attempt to

remold the government. The intangible doctrines of the social
contract, law of nature and state of nature had justified the
formulation by Overton, Walwyn and Lilburne of a concrete
platform. However, the realistic Levellers had done more than
frame proposals; they had begun constructing a political
organization dedicated to achieving their goals. Further,
they had recognized the importance of the New Model Army and
had begun systematically to proselytize among its discontented
members. The agitators, when they formed their own well-run

111See "Advertisements for the Managing of the Counsels of

the Army, Walden 4th May 1647 " reprinted in.Woodhouse,
Puritanism and Liberty, pp. 39 -399.

112Gardiner, Great Civil War, III, 244.

113”Grievances of Regiments Presented at Saffron Walden,
13th May, 1647 " reprinted in Woodhouse, Ppyitapism and
Libert , p. 39$.

114"Letters to the Agitators," reprinted in Woodhouse,
Puritanism and Liberty, pp. 400-401.

80.

organization were thoroughly steeped in Leveller principles.
It was this last force which made the supreme effort to
reconstruct the government of England in a democratic mold --

a government cognizant of the rights of men as guaranteed by

the law of nature.

81.

Chapter IV
THE THRUST FOR POUER

The period between June, 1647, and November, 1648,
offered the Levellers two opportunities for realizing their
program of democratic reform. At Putney and at'Whitehall
they met with high-ranking officers of the New Model Army to
discuss England's constitutional fate. Records of these
meetings reveal why the Levellers failed to transform into
political realities the democratic ideals inherent in the
law of nature concept. Guided by civilian Levellers, the well-
organized agitators, as the debates show, won the rank and
file of the New Model to the espousal of democracy. Efforts
to win the support of the influential, officer Grandees,
however, were unsuccessful. The debates at Putney and
Whitehall were devoted, for the most part, to the concepts
and ramifications of the law of nature and the social con—
tract. The Levellers, during the course of the discussion,
expounded these theories lucidly. Conversely, the officer
Grandees displayed the resentment and fear which this nebulous
doctrine generally aroused in conservative property owners.
Because of their importance to the Leveller movement and
their clear statement of the law of nature hypothesis, these
two debates will be the main point of emphasis in succeeding

pages. However, the events leading to the debates cannot be

totally neglected.

82.

The revolutionary temper of the Leveller-inspired
agitators was revealed by the New Model's acceptance of the
Solemn Engagement at a general rendezvous held at Kentforth
Heath on June 5, 1647.1 The Engagement provided for a
General Council of the Army composed of officers and agitators
from the various regiments. The vote of the common soldier in
the council was to equal that of the officer, and when the
soldier laid down arms, military discipline was to be for-
gotten and all were to be equal as civilian legislators.2
The general Council was to be responsible for framing and
transmitting demands of the Army to Parliament.3 Underlying
the formation of the Council was the principle of the social
contract. The Council wascreated by the will of the soldiers
to protect the liberties promised them by the law of nature.
Neither the Council nor the New Model was to be disbanded
until Parliament granted them these rights.5 In the light
of future developments it is interesting to note that the
addition of a few high officers, soon after its inception,
diminished the radical nature of the Council.

lRushworth, lelections, I, 504.

2A Solgmn Engagement of the Army._under the Command of hip
heir resolu-

Excellency sir Tho Fairfax with a'Declaration of ti
tion as to disbandin (16473. The Engagement is reprinted in
fiarl2 Hist., TTI, 604-608.

3

 

 

 

En a ement, p. 607.
4Engagement, p. 608.

5"Engagement, p. 607.
6Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty, p. 24.

83.

The first effort of the General Council was A Representa-
tign from the ....Army, a pamphlet which set forth the
soldiers' immediate grievances and justified the New Hodel's
interference in effecting a national settlement. The pamphlet
was composed by Henry Ireton, the Commissary General of the
New Model. Ireton was later to tangle bitterly with the
Levellers over the social contract doctrine. The immediate
grievances of the New Model were, of course, back pay, lack
of pensions for families of slain veterans, and the threat
of military service in Ireland.7 Ireton also called for the
reformation of Parliament. Parliaments were to be biennial
and responsive to the will of the people, for this was the
only way corruption could be prevented in a governing body.8
This statement is surprising coming, as it does, from the pen
of one who later viciously damned a like proposal made by the
agitators.9 Even more startling were Ireton's reasons for
asserting the authority of the New Model which, he said, was
not "a mere mercenary army, hired to serve any arbitrary
power of a state but called forth and conjured by the several
declarations of Parliament to the defence of our own and the

7A Declaration. or Representatign from His Excellency
Sir Thomas Fairfax and of the Army under his Command.

Ihnnbly tendered to arliament (1647), p. 2. This document
is reprinted in Rushworth, Collections, I, 564-570.

8A Declaration, p. 5.
9869 below’ po 93.

84.

people's just rights and liberties."10 These liberties,
stated Ireton, were guaranteed by the law of nature and could
not with impunity be violated by a man-made institution.11
The New Model was acting as an agent to protect man's liberty
guaranteed by the social contract and the law of nature.12
Ireton ended the pamphlet in a tone more consistent with his
later conservatism. He asserted that when Parliament had
reformed itself, the army would entrust itself fully to
Parliament and even be willing to restore the king.13

The publication of the Representation by Ireton, marked
the beginning of an uneasy alliance between the radical
agitators and the more conservative property-owning officers.
Toward the middle of June, the army moved closer to London.
Parliament reacted to this threat by making partial concession
to the demands in A Representation: back pay was assured, and
committees were to be appointed to study the other New Hodel

demands.15 The officers were inclined to accept these

guarantees.l6 The agitators, however, were not satisfied,

10A Declaration, p. 5.

11A Declaration, p. 6.
12A Declaration, p. 6.
13A Declaration, pp. l4-15.

l4Rushworth, Collectiops, I, 557, 558.
315

l6

Rushworth, Collections, I, 558-559.
Gardiner, Qreat Civil War, III, 292.

l7

and urged an immediate march on London. The high command
delayed a decision by holding a debate at Reading in mid-
July on some of the agitator proposals.18 While the meeting
was in progress, under threat of a civilian Presbyterian mob,
the Independent members of Parliament fled to the Army.19
Early in August, the army entered London bringing with them

20 For the moment it seemed as if

the expelled Independents.
the agitators and officers would work together to reconstruct
the government of the kingdom.

The Army brought with it to London a compromise plan for
settling the Kingdom, a plan which was largely the work of
Ireton, and was titled The Heads 9; the Proposals.21 It pro-
vided for many of the Levéfler demands. It proposed to
guarantee biennial parliaments; to effect a more equitable
distribution of Commons seats, to assure liberty of con—
science, reform the courts of law, and curb monopolies.22
But the Levellers were hostile to the proposal, claiming

that it made no adequate provision for eliminating the King's

negative power, that the people's liberties were not protected

l7Rushworth, Collections, I, 621-622.
18Gardiner, Great Civil Wag, III, 307.
19Parl. "ist., III, 627.
zogarig_g;§§., III, 754.

211 follow Gardiner in giving Ireton credit for authoring
fiLhe Proposals. See Gardiner, Constitu ional Documents, p. 231.

22

 

Heads of Proposals, pp. 233-234.

86.

by a bill of rights, and that the implementation of the pro-
posals was to be left to Parliament to accomplish through a
series of bills.23 Further, while the proposals suggested

a redistribution of Parliamentary seats, no mention was made

of extending suffrage, and the House of Lords, unresponsive to
the people's will, was to retain considerable power.24 Failure
of the Proposal; to provide adequate guarantees of liberty,

and a government responsive to the people rendered this
document unsatisfactory to firm adherents of the law of nature

95

and the social contract.h
Despite the objeCtions of the Levellers, The geggg 2;; page

Proposals waspbrought before the General Council of the Army
in Septemberf6 The violent debates that ensued between
officers and agitators indicated the widening gulf between
them. Cromwell spoke most effectively for the Proposals, and,
largely because of his influence, the Council finally accepted
them.27 This, however, did not indicate Leveller approval.
The agitators who participated in the debates and the civilian
Levellers supporting them left the debates feeling betrayed by

23John Wildman, Putney Prgigcts. Or the Old Serpent in a
NeW'Forme (1647). This tract is reprinted in part in
‘Noodhouse, Puritanism and Libert , PP. 426-429.

24Wildman, Putney Projectg, p. 428.
2SWildman, Putney Projects, p. 428.

 

 

26Rushworth, Collections, I, 815.

27Thé Levellers held Cromwell responsible fog Ehe agceptapce
of the Progosals by the Council. See Wildman, u ney rgjec 3,
pp. 428-42 .

97.

o

the New Model officers.bk In their minds, permitting Parlia-
ment to reform itself repudiated the earlier Solemn Engagementq
This agreement, which they considered binding, had assured
the Army a primary role in reforming Parliament. The Army
was to remain together until Parliament had been reformed.
Now not only was Parliament to reform itself, but the Army
was to be dispersed at Parliament's discretion.29 This might
well mean that once the Army was dispersed Parliament would
cease to reform.3

The civilian Levellers during this time prodded the
agitators to assert their demands for a constitutional settle-
ment compatible with the social contract doctrine. In mid-July
Richard Overton had published a pamphlet in which he appealed
directly to the Army as the only instrument capable of execut—
ing the will of the people.31 Parliament, wrote Overton,
forfeited all claim to govern England by "failing to discharge
their trust in moving and acting only for the weale and safty
of the people."32 Therefore, it was the New Nodel's right
and duty to replace Parliament with a body reflecting the will
of the people.33 The New Model was, after all, the most

8

John Wildman, The Case of the Armie T;glx_§§g§gd (1647) This
pamphlet is reprinted in Wolfe, Leveller Manifestoes, pp. 196-222.

29Wlldman, Case Of the Armie, pp. 2'30

3OWildman, Case of the Armie, p. 12.
31

32

Overton, An Appealg, p. 12.

Overton, An Appealg, pp. 5-6.

33Overton, An Appeale, p. 13.

88.

representative body in England; hence, perfectly within its
rights in setting up a government which would protect people's
natural rights.34 Lilburne, from his quarters in the Tower,
urged the New Model to take action by publishing a series of
letters, some of which were directed to Cromwell and Fairfax;
others to the common soldiers.3s

By mid-August the continued confinement of Lilburne and
Overton had become one of the most heated issues separating
the Independent officers from the more radical agitators.
Overton's and Lilburne's constantly reiterated identification
of their suppressed rights with those of the people had been
accepted by few of the officers and by many of the New Model
rank and file.36 As long as these leaders remained imprisoned
they symbolized to the common soldier Parliament's power to
trample on the rights of Englishmen.37 Cromwell and Ireton,
on the other hand, feared the results if the two were forcibly
freed. Their release would have denied what was, to the
officers, the legitimate judicial powers of the Lords, and

Overton asserted that the "Body Natural for its own
safety may prune, amputate and cut off the corrupt putrified
lfiembers from the Body Representative, yea utterly renounce,
oppose, resist and dissolve all the members therein...it is
znost evident and clear....that this Natural Body by virtue

of its instincted, inherent natural sovereignty may create
cnéciepute any person for their deputy. See An Appealeg pp. 23.

356mb, Lilburne, p. 191.

6
3Wildman speaking for the agitators in Case of the Armie,
pp. 2‘3, makes this pOinto

‘37wildman, Case of the Armie, p. 3-

89.

might precipitate a movement for a complete reshaping of
Parliament along the lines advocated by the Levellers.3; The
conservative officers could not risk such an outcome, for it
would jeopardize their own privileged position. There seemed
to be no room for compromise between these two stands, and
the gap between them widened.

The fundamental difference between the army Grandees and
the Levellers was soon transmitted into words and actions.
Following the acceptance, by the General Council of the Army,
of The flgagg of Proposals, a hue and cry arose among the rank
and file for election of new agitators.39 The common
soldiers felt that their agitators had betrayed them by not
preventing the Council's acceptance of the Proposals. The
continued confinement of Lilburne and Overton signified that
the agitators were not pressing for their release. This
view was intensified by the constant propaganda efforts of
Lilburne and Overton.41 New agitators were soon elected in
five regiments, and they promptly denounced the General

Council's action on the Proposals in The Case of the Army

42
Truly Stated.

8

3 "Cromwell's Speech in the Commons, October 20,1647," in
The Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell with an Intro-
duction Notes and a Sketch of his Life, ed. W. C. Abbott

(Cambridge, Mass., l937l, I, 12.

39Abbott, Writings and Speeches of Cromwell, I, 511.
4OWildman, Putney Projects, p. 428.
41Pease, Leveller Movement, pp. 196-197.

42Wildman, Case of the Armie, pp. 2-7.

90.

The geee e; 523 eemy makes clear the rank and file’s
dissatisfaction with the progress of constitutional reform.
Parliament had promised to institute legislation in compliance
with the Representation and the fleeee e; Proposele, yet no
action was forthcoming. No provisions had been made to dis-
solve Parliament or to call a more representative one. Nor
had Parliament attacked the problem of law reform.43 Adequate
steps had not been taken to protect the people's just
liberties. The agitators reiterated their despair at the
King's retention of the negative voice, especially since
Parliament seemed prone to await his restoration before con-
sidering demands for reform. If this were the case, then they
surrendered all hope of securing justice in the matter of back
pay, or of reforming the government along more democratic lines.44

The agitators blamed the high officers of the New Model
for frustrating their program of Parliamentary reform.

Cromwell and Ireton's action of the past month seemed geared

to preserving the old political order, rather than inaugurating
reforms. Pointed reference was made to Ireton's change of
heart towards the social contract. Whereas in June he had
boldly hailed the law of nature as the one true basis for
government, in.Tee fieeee ef EQe EEQEQfiélé, two months later,

no mention was made of the law of nature or of the social

43
Wildman, Case of the Arm;e, pp. 2-4.
44w11dman, Case of the Armie, p. 12.

contract.45 Instead, he provided for the retention of the
King and the house of Lords with much of their old power, in
violation of the principle that all legitimate governing bodies
must receive their power from the people.4 The Grandees had
been guilty of "supine negligence" in attempting to com-
promise the demands of the agitators with the counter sugges-
tions of the Presbyterians in Parliament.47 While they were
trying to compromise, the regiments of the New Model were
dispersed to areas at a distance from London. The officers,
by permitting this to happen, had lessened the effective
pressure that the New Nodal could bring on Parliament.48
Cromwell not only minimized the New Nodel's strength but, in
attempting to effect a constitutional settlement acceptable
to everybody, forced the General Council to accept the Egeeeeele
which militated against a true democratic government for England.
In The geee ef gee Aggy the Leveller-inspired agitators
asserted their undeviating support of the social contract
theory.49 "All power is originally and essentially of the

people of this Nation," wrote the agitators, and "all just

4E'vifildman, Case of the Armie, p. 5'

46Wildman, Case of the Armie, p. 12.

47Wildman, Case of the Armie, p. 21.

48Wildman, Case of the Armie, p. 4.

49The Case of the Armie was signed by the agitators on
October 9. It appeared in London on October 15 and was
resented to Fairfax October 28. See Wolfe, Leveller
ianifestoes, p. 197.

92.

government rests upon the free choice or consent of the
governed." This principle was to "be insisted on possitively."§O
The "law of nature and of nations" is sufficient justification
for changing the constitutional order in England, which had
failed to protect the liberties of Englishmen "for all formes
are but as shadowes and subject tO'the end, & the safety of
the people."51 To insure that Parliament would reflect the
will of the people, the agitators insisted "that all free—
born at the age of 21 Years and upwards, be the electors
excepting those that have or shall deprive themselves of

their freedome."52 Parliament must take immediate steps to
disband, proclaimed the agitators, and allow the desires of
the people to be reflected in a truly representative assembly}:3
The agitators, as events proved at Putney, were not prepared

to retreat from this advanced democratic position.

Confronted by growing discontent among the rank and file,
the Grandees of the New Model called a meeting of the General
Council of the Army. It took place at Putney Church during
the last days of October and the first days of November

1647.34 The spokesman for the Levellers at Putney was not,

as might be supposed, Iilburne, Nalwyn, or Overton, but a

50

Nildman, Case of the Arnie, p. 15.
51Wildman, Case of the Armie, p. 17.
52

Wildman, Case of the Armie, p. 15.
53‘Wildman, Case of the Armie, p. 4.
5'A'The PutneygDebates, pp. 8-10.

:r’
young lawyer named John Wildman.’9 Vpholding the con-

servative view for the high army officers was the Commissary
General and son—in-law of Cronwell, Henry Ireton}:6 These

two men, in the course of the ensuing debates, voiced the

basic percepts of those who visualized a new political order,
free from the mistakes of the past, and those who sought to
represent the conservative property owner withlfis vital interest
in preserving the traditions.

On the opening day of the Council (November 28), it soon
became apparent that the officers would not acquiesce to any
plan for radical changes in England's governmental structure.
Ireton's opening statement to the assembly made clear his
rejection of an absolutely representative government. He

stated: "I shall declare it again that I do not seek, or
would not seek, nor will join with them that do seek, the
destruction either of Parliament or King. Neither will I con-
sent with those, or concur with them who will not attempt all
the ways that are possible to preserve both."57 Cromwell

SSJohn Wildman was a twenty-four year old lawyer and
pdlitician at the time of the Putney debates. During the
sunnmer and early fall of 1647 he had acted as an intermediary
tnatween the imprisoned Lilburne and the agitators. He is
‘given.credit for having written The Case of the Armie which
:as we have seen expressed the views of the rank and file.

See Maurice Ashley, John Wildmang Plotter and Postmaster:
TA Study of the English Republican Movement in the Seventeenth

{Century (New Haven, 16177, pp. 29-31.

56Ashley, Wildman, pp. 34-35.

57Putney Debates, p. 5.

94.

joined Ireton in condemning constitutional proposals that
eliminated features of the old political order. "How do we
know if, whilst we are disputing these things," said Cromwell,
"another company of men shall not gather together, and put out
a paper as plausible perhaps as this? I do not know why it
might not be done by that time you have agreed upon this, or
got hands to it if that be the way. And not only another,

and another, but many of this kind. And if so what do you
think the consequence of that would be? Would it not be
confusion?"58 Anarchy must inevitably result, he insisted,
when men take it into their own hands to change the institu-
tions of King and Parliament. If a group were successful, a
precedent would be established which would be followed by
others who argued as convincingly for a different social and
political order. Utter chaos would reign in England with a

resulting loss of liberty and property to all},9

The reason Cromwell and Ireton rejected the law of nature
or any other justification for radical political reform rested
upon the threat that such a change would pose to the privileged
position of the propertied classed. Ireton argued: "What
right hath any man to anything if you...will resort only to
the Law of Nature, by the Law of Nature you have no more
right to this land, or anything else, than I have. I have as

much right to take hold of anything that is for my sustenance,

S8PUtney Debateg, p. 70

59Putney Debates, pp. 7-8.

95.

to take hold of anything that I have a desire to for my
satisfaction, as you...For matter of goods, that which does
fence me from that right which another man may claim by the
Law of Nature, of taking my goods, that which makes it mine
really and civilly, is the law."60 Ireton's reasoning
appeared irrefutable to all who had a vested interest in the
status gug. Wildman could only argue vainly that two months
before, this same Ireton had upheld the law of nature in a
public pamphlet.61 If the opposition, led by Ireton, now
chose not to accept the law as a basic premise, there re-
mained no rational means by which to resolve the differences
between them and the Levellers. The first day's discussion
made clear the gulf between the proponents of vested interest
and the advocates of reform.62 Nothing in succeeding days
closed the gap; it could only widen.

The issue of universal suffrage served to heighten the
conflict on the second day of the debate. Universal manhood
suffrage was axiomatic to all who believed in the law of
nature. Only through a government responsive to the will of
all the people could individual liberties guaranteed by the
law of nature be preserved. Rainborough made this clear when
he stated: "I think that the poorest he that is in England
hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly,

60
Putney Debates, p. 26.

Putney Debates, p. 24.
2
Putney Debates, pp. 24—30.

61

96.

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."

Ireton took immediate exception to this democratic doctrine.

"No person hath a right to an interest or share in the dis-

posing of the affairs of the kingdom....no person hath a

right to this that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this

kingdom, and consequently are also to make up the representers

64
of this kingdom."

"All the main things I speak for, is
65

because I would have an eye to propertY,"

Ireton went on.

If the vote were given to those without property their

immediate action.would be to enact laws depriving their betters

of property, for "those that hold up this Law of Nature, I

would fain have any man show me their bounds, where they will

66
end, and why should they not take away all property."

who held with universal suffrage must realize that such a

policy "tends to anarchy, must end in anarchy,"

In the face of these

Cromw

63

ell, supporting

Putney Debatgg,

64£utney Debates,

65
66

67

Putney Debates,

aptney Debates,

Putney Debates,

his son-in-law.

D.
p.
p.
p.
P.

53 .
54.

argued

Those

63

97.

arguments, Wildman and his followers held to their position
"that it is the undeniable maxim of government: that all
government is in the free consent of the people."

When, after three full days of debate, the General
Council had made no progress in resolving the differences,
a committee of agitators and officers was appointed. 9 This
small group was to meet during the next week and attempt to
bring the two groups closer. The endeavor proved fruitless.
The questions of franchise, reform of Parliament, and the
diaposition of King Charles proved unreconcilable. Crom-
well, attempting to break the deadlock, took the military
approach. On November 8 he purged the committee of its more
radical exponents of the law of nature.71 This action,
coupled with the General Council's failure to meet the demands
of the rank and file, stimulated the rising tide of unrest in

2
the New Model.7

A series of rapid moves enabled Cromwell to assert his full
military authority over the restive army. At a rendezvous of
a large part of the army on November 15, Cromwell dramatically

rode among the assembled rebellious troops and personally

8
Putney Debateg, P. 70.

69"A Letter from Several Agitators to their Regiments,"
reprinted in Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty, pp. 452-454.

7O"A Letter from Several Agitators," p. 4530

71nA Letter from the Clarke NSS," reprinted in Woodhouse,
Puritanism and Liberty

h

72Abbott, writings and Speeches of Cromwell, I, 556.

 

chastised those wearing the Leveller emblem. The public
execution of one of the more outspoken agitators followed.73
Four days later after two other summary executions, the New
Model formally agreed to obey its proper leaders.74 Cromwell,
on that same day, received from a grateful House of Commons
its personal hanks for services rendered.75 Thus, the
Putney debates ended in a flurry of mutiny, followed by a
restoration of discipline and the eclipse of the agitators.
When they failed to win the Grandees' acceptance of the
law of nature as a valid basis for constitutional reform, the
Levellers lost their chance to reshape England. In 1647, as
has been pointed out, the one real military and political
power in England was the New Model. The political sagacity
and practicality of the LeVellers is revealed by their re-
cognition of this fact. Events were to prove them correct in
assessing the importance of the army in deciding the constitu-
tional fate of England. Their program for gaining control of
the Army through agitators had met with marked success among
the rank and file, but this in itself had not been enough.
Cromwell, Ireton, and Fairfax had successfully led the New
Uodel through campaign after campaign against the Royalists,

and had won the respect and love of the rank and file. The

men of the New Model would have followed Cromwell wherever he

73Rushworth, Collections, I, 875—876.

74Rushworth, Collections, I, 378.

O

75Rushworth, Collectiogg, I, ECO.

99.

led; he chose the road that led to military dictatorship
instead of democratic government. This loyalty of the common
soldier to his leaders, in the final analysis, defeated the
Levellers' plans to embody the law of nature and social con-
tract concepts in a practical political system. To this
irrational emotion, all of the Levellers' carefully-reasoned
proposals were forced to bow. It is ironic that the edifice
of government erected by Cromwell was later to succumb to a
similar irrational love and respect for a king.

Failure to win the Army as an instrument for constitu-
tional reform stimulated the Levellers to appeal directly to
the people to curb the unjust authority of Parliament and the

Grandees. In November, a petition to Parliament was cir-

76

culated, entitled AB Agreemgnt g; thg People. This was a

distillation of the Leveller program, presented at Putney,
and embodied the new standard demands for elimination of the
negative voice, biennial Parliaments, universal suffrage, and
legal reforms.77 Parliament's reaction to this summons

voluntarily to limit its own power was the prompt imprisonment

76The number of people actually signing a given Leveller
petition is impossible to ascertain. The Levellers spoke of
“many thousands," or of "mulXitudes"to€hsigniri. ngr the

etition which contained An greemen ey c a me we

Eundred thousand signatures. This Is probably an unrealistic
estimate. Parliament set the figure at a more likely ten
thousand. Even this low figure is impressive when one con-
siders that London had an estimated population of 250,000.
See Lilburne, Fundamental Liberties, p. 22., and Rushworth,

W. I. 87-
77An Agreement of thg Peoplg for A firmf and present Pefifie,
o o - h f 4 PP- 2-3-

s
jpetit on s repr n ed in‘Wo e, evel er Manifestoes. pp. 226-236.

100.

of the three men who presented the petition.78 Undaunted,
the Levellers, two days later, (November 25) requested that
Parliament accept the original petition. In true Leveller
style, this secondgmmition reviled Parliament for refusing

the first one.79 The net result of these two petitions was

a great deal of publicity for the cause -- and that was all.80
During December, the Levellers waged a vigorous campaign
against the Grandees' restoration of discipline in the New
Model. Lilburne, still in prison, published England;
Egpggpmg, Soulgiers Rights, in which he took Cromwell and
Ireton to task for invoking martial law among the troops in
peacetime in violation of the rights of man as guaranteed by
the law of nature.81 Lilburne argued further that the New
Model was no ordinary Army. Since the Engagement of the
previous June, the New Model was irrevocably committed to
.reforming England's governmental structure. Cromwell had
committed treason in repudiating the Engagement with its

reform implications.82 John Wildman, at the end of December,

78Rushworth, Collectipns, I, 887., and Tp the Supreme
Autpfiritz of Eng a p The Commonpgin.£prliament assem led,
T umble Petiti n of man free-boppreoplg (16475, p. 3.
This petition is reprinted in'Wolfe, Level er M nifesto ,
pp 0 237~241 0

79Petition of many free-born peoplg, p. 4.

80Pease, gggeller Movement, p. 264.

81 '
England§_Freedome,_Souldiers Righps (1647), p. 3. This
tract is reprinted in Wolfe, LeV§ 1er Manifestoes, pp. 243-258.

82En l nds Freedoms, p. 4.

 

 

A.

 

101.

Joined Lilburne in castigating Cromwell and Ireton. He pub-
lished Esther __i_Pro e____ct . m me am series: .13.: .a. as! Esme-
Particularly, he was incensed by the two Generals' adher-
ence to the King when he was negotiating with the Scots to
invade England.83 But the conduct that evoked the most bitter
invective was the repudiation by Cromwell and Ireton of the
law of nature concept. Having so recently given credence to
the doctrine, this action was, to Wildman, sheer treachery.
Despite these attacks, discipline remained firm in the New
Model. Once again, as in the case of their petitions, the
Levellers' total gain was publicity.

The practical Levellers were not content with publicity;
the early months of 1648 were devoted to perfecting a political
organization. Several active men, appointed to every ward and
division in London, were charged with "reading the Petitions
at set meetings for that purpose, and to take Subscriptions,
and to move as many as can possibly to goe in person when the
day of delivering it shall be appointed."85 Other faithful
Levellers were sent to the counties on similar organizational
missions.86 To finance their organization they set up a system

of collection among members and appointed treasurers to handle

83Wildman, Putnez Projects, p. 428.
84
‘Wildman, Putney Projecps, p. 427.

8

5h Declgrgtipn of 50mg Proceedin s, p. 21.
86

A.Declgration, p. 22.

 

102.

the money coming in.87 The man behind this new activity was
John Lilburne, Lilburne had been permitted partial freedom
‘during the last months of 1647. Finding himself free, he
had supported the agitators at Putney.88 Failing there, he
turned his hand to constructing an instrument which could
replace the New Model in bringing about democratic reforms.89
The first effort of the revitalized Levellers, as might
be expected, was another petition which was delivered to
Parliament in mid-January.90 Its emphasis was less strongly
constitutional than 5p Agpggmgpp pf thg Eggplg. The economic
plight of the poor, suffering from harsh excise taxes, and the
continuance of monopolies were stressed.91 The House of
Commons was requested to declare itself the supreme power in
England, but there was no mention of the people's right under
the law of nature to create a new political order through
agreement among themselves.92 The Levellers repeated their

demands for universal suffrage and for more equal distribution of

87

88A Declaration, pp. 24-25.

89A Declaration, pp. 26-27.

A Declaration, p. 23.

quo The Supreme Authority of England.gThe Commons Assembled

Parliament The Earnest Petition g; many Free-born People
0% thi§_ngtion (15185. This petition is reprinted in WOlfe

I'Té'veiier Manifestoes, pp. 263-272.
91Earnept Petition, p. 3.
92

 

Egrnest Petition, p. 7.

103.

electoral districts,93 but they did not threaten revolution
should these be denied. There was no demand for imposing
restrictions on a tolerant, established church, and freedom
of conscience was scarcely mentioned.94 The Levellers had,
in effect, altered their demands so that they could be sup-
ported by any liberal Presbyterian, dissatisfied Royalist,
or Independent, disgruntled with Cromwell. The Levellers
had learned well the lesson of Putney. They had now begun to
compromise in order to gain, through the support of many
elements, at least a part of their constitutional aims.

Lilburne's activities in organizing the Levellers and
stimulating the January petition brought him once more into
conflict with Parliament. On January 19, 1647 Lilburne was
called before the House of Commons to answer to charges of
treason. The accusation involved his utterances at a gather-
ing of Levellers at Smithfield. He was accused of advocating
the assasamation of the King and the forcible overthrow of
Parliament.95 Despite his plea that the witnesses were un-
reliable, he was again confined to the Tower; this time a
close prisoner.

With Lilburne's confinement, the newly revitalized

Levellers lost cohesiveness and underwent a period of

93Egrnest Petition, p. 8.
94Earnest Petition, pp. 1-5.
95h Declargtion, pp. 17-18.

96Rushworth, Collections, I, 969-970.

104.

disintegration. As in the past, Lilburne gave full pub-
licity to his loss of liberty. Demonstrations were arranged
by his friends to influence the House of Commons in his

favor, and petitions requesting his release were presented.97
By May of 1648, however, the Nation's attention was gripped
by renewed civil war. Leveller arguments for a democratic
England had little appeal for the Independents, Presbyterians,
or agitators when prospects seemed to indicate the return of
unrestrained monarchy backed by the Scots.

The undercurrent of competition between the Presbyterians
in Parliament and the Independents in the New Model did bring
about Lilburne's release from prison. On August 1, 1648, a
moderately-worded, pro-Lilburne petition was presented to
Parliament. To the surprise of the petitioners, both houses
voted almost unanimously for Lilburne's immediate release with
provisions for reparations for his term of imprisonment.
Underlying this reversal was the fear among the Presbyterian
majority in Parliament of Cromwell's increasing power. They
believed an unshackled Lilburne would provide Cromwell with so
much trouble that he would have no time to attempt to secure

supreme power in England.99 The Presbyterians underestimated

97Gibb, Lilburne, pp. 222-224.

98Rushworth, Collectiopg, I, 1212.
991 follow Gibb's interpretation here. Considering

Lilburne's pugnacity and violent dislike for Cromwell,
it is reasonable. See Gibb, Lilburne, 231.

105.

Lilburne's character. In a public letter he vowed to support
his former friend and enemy as long as a Scottish-imposed
settlement of the kingdom threatened.100

The end of the second civil war in October again forced
the nation to face the question of a constitutional settlement
for the kingdom. A shift to the left in the attitude of the
New Model Independents gave the Levellers another opportunity
to realize the democratic principles implied in the law of
nature. The Independents, led by Ireton and Cromwell, were
becoming increasingly disillusioned by Charles' inept, evasive
plots to bring back an uncontrolled monarchy. His tactics had
precipitated the second civil war, and, not content with this,
he had continued to intrigue with the Scots and Presbyterians
in Parliament. The Presbyterians, in their turn, clung to
the hope for a constitutional settlement which would retain
the kingship and declare Presbyterianism the state religion.101
These developments, which threatened to militate against the
Independents, caused them to look more favorably on the
republican-type of settlement urged by the Levellers. They
needed the Levellers' support in order to strengthen their

bargaining position in their struggle with the Royalists,

the right wing Independents of the New Model, and the
100
Lilburne, Fundamental Liberties, p. 28.

IOIGardiner, Great Civil Wgr, Iv, 216-217.

106 .

102
Presbyterians in Parliament.

In mid-November, the Levellers once again engaged in con-
ferences with the officer Grandees to decide the immediate
constitutional fate of England. At the first meeting between
the two groups, the Levellers, represented by Wildman and

Lilburne, again let it be known that they had learned a

0
political lesson from the results of Putney.1 3 The Inde-

pendents urged the immediate beheading of the King and the

104
dissolution of the Parliament. A year previously the

Levellers might have concurred with this proposition. Now
they replied:

I look upon the King as an evill man...but the
Army has couzened us the last year, and fallen
from all their Promises and Declarations, and
therefor could not rationally any more be trusted
by us without good cautions and security: In
which regard, although we should judge the king
as arrant a Tyrant as they suppose him...and the
Parliament as bad they make them; yet there being
no other balancing power in the Kingdoms against
the Army but the King and Parliament it was our
interest to keep up one Tyrant to balance another,
till we certainly knew what the Tyrant that pis-
tended fairest would give us as our freedoms. 5

Lilburne ended his shrewd analysis by stressing that the only
rational means of settling the constitutional fate of the

Kingdom was through an agreement of the people, and prophet-

102Gardiner, Gregt Civil War, IV, 218-220.

103Lilburne, Eggfiamental Liberties, p. 29.

104L11burne, migmentaLLipgrtie 9 pe 290

losLilburne. Wheaties. pp- 29-30-

107.

ically warned that rule by the sword might well be the country's
greatest danger.

The results of the meeting immediately following this
first conference between the Levellers and Independents seemed,
for a time, to belie Lilburne's warning. At this meeting,
a committee of three Levellers and three Independents was
appointed to outline a program for accomplishing an Agreement
of the People. These men, including Lilburne and Wildman, met
at Nag's Head Tavern in London on November 15, 1648.107 They
resolved that a convention made up of representatives from the
Army and counties should draw up an Agreement of the People
which would act as the nation's constitution, to be followed
by a popular ratification of the Agreement.108 The Council
of Army Officers promptly adopted and incorporated these
proposals in the "Remonstrence of the Army," which was formu-
lated in separate committee. The "Remonstrence" was in its
turn presented to Parliament for action.109 At this point
the Levellers finally seemed about to achieve a democratic
government capable of protecting their rights as guaranteed
'by the law of nature. Leveller modifications of the

"Remonstrence" provided for the establishment of biennial

106Lilburne, Fundament§l_L1222§;g§, P' 30'
107Lilburne, Fundamenta1_L;2§£El§§, Pa 30.
108L11burne, Fundamental Liberties, p. 31.
109Gardiner, Qggat Civil War, Iv, 239-241-

108.

Parliaments fully responsive to the wishes of the people,
and unhindered by the negative voice of King or Lords.110
This settlement would be "established by a general contract
or agreement of the people, with their subscriptions there-
unto, and...none may be capable of any benefit by the
agreement who shall not consent and subscribe thereunto."111

Leveller expectations were further stimulated by con-
ferences held on November 28 and 29. One week after
Parliament received the army demands, however, consideration
of the "Remonstrence" was postponed.112 This would not have
upset the Levellers unduly but for the fact that a group of
Independents, alarmed by the thorough-going reforms demanded
by the Levellers, opened negotiations with the King. The
Levellers pressed for another conference with the officers
and negotiations were renewed between the two groups on

113 It soon became apparent that the Levellers

November 28.

and officers were still in fundamental disagreement regarding

universal suffrage and the extent of religious liberty to be

permitted.114 However, the Grandees were anxious to retain

Leveller support to help balance the Presbyterian power. To
o"Remonstrence presented to the House of Commons, from

Lord Fairfax and the General Council of the Army demanding

Justice upon the King, &c., in Perl, Hist., III, 1124-1125.

1"Remonstrence," p. 1125.

2Parl Hist., III, 1137.

113Lilburne, Fundamental; Libertips, p. 30.

114Lilburne, Eu_pdamental Liberties, p. 31.

ll

 

109.

assure themselves of this support, they agreed to form a
committee to draw up an Agreement of the Peeple.115 The
constitution agreed on by this committee, composed of
sixteen men representing the Levellers, the Army, the
Independents, and the Presbyterians, was to be final. There
was to be no appeal to Parliament or Council of Officers for
modifications. The Levellers left the conference confident
that they were on the threshhold of establishing a con-
stitutional democracy for England.116

The series of events, which followed in rapid succes-
sion, shattered their high expectations. On December 2,
the Army arrived in London. Pride's Purge took place on
December 6.117 The same day, Lilburne held the first meeting
of the Committee of Sixteen. The Committee rapidly drew up
An Agreement of the People.118 Contrary to the promises

of the Grandees, it was then sent to the now all-powerful

119

Council of Officers for further debate. On December 14,

the Council of Officers began its discussion of the Agreement.
In the course of these debates, which lasted until January 14,
1649, the Leveller-inspired Agreement was emasculated. The
officers, while accepting the principles of government by

115i11burne, Fundamentall_Liberties, p. 33.
116

Lilburne, Eggggngppall Liberties, p. 33.
llngrl Hipt.. III, 1147, 1240.

118Lilburne, Fundamental; Libefllfi, P“ 35'
119Lilburne, Fundamentall Libertigéa pp. 35'36'

110.

contract, eliminated the provisions for a bill of rights to
protect religious and political liberty.120 In so doing,
they again displayed their fundamental disagreement with the
democratic principles of the Levellers as they had done at
Putney over the matter of universal suffrage. On January 20,
the revived Agreement was presented to Parliament for con-

121 The same day saw the completion of charges

sideration.
against King Charles. In the excitement of the trial the
Agreement was tabled.122 Charles was sentenced on January 27,
and on January 30 he went to the block. The Agreement
remained tabled until February when it was supplanted by

the act appointing a Council of State to govern England.123
The Levellers were through as a political power in England.
The rule of the sword had begun. Military dictatorship had
won out over a democratic government, responsive to the will

of the people, over the government cognizant of its respon-

sibility to uphold liberty as guaranteed by the law of nature.

120The Whitehall Debates, pp. 171-172.

 

12lrarl. Hist, III, 1261.
122

 

Pease, Leveller Movement, p. 269.

123Pease, Leveller Movement, pp. 275-277-

111.

Chapter V
EPILOGUE AND CONCLUSION

Confronted by an established, thinly-veiled, military
dictatorship, the Levellers resumed their revolutionary
character. While their constitutional aims remained un-
altered, the arch enemy was now their one-time friend, Cromwell.1
During the early months of 1649, the Levellers, in pamphlet
and petition, denounced the officer Grandees as tyrants who
had usurped the peeple's right to self-government.2 Their
vituperation proved little more than an irritating burr to
the all-powerful Cromwell, and the Levellers were brushed
contemptuously aside.3 However, in retrospect the concepts
and ideals embodied in the Leveller constitutional program
have proven to be of greater historical significance than
the hastily-ended dictatorship of their antagonist.

Even before the execution of Charles, the Rump Parlia-
ment, backed by the Grandees, opposed the Levellers more
rigidly than had the Presbyterians. The coalition of
Independents had no intention of permitting religious or
jpolitical dissent. On January 11, 1649, Parliament authorized

IFairfax to call upon the Army to enforce restraints on the

1John Lilburne, Anggmpeachepgnt of High Treagpp (1649), pp. 2-4.

2John Lilburne, Richard Overton and Thomas Prince, Tpe
'Picture of the Councel:pf State (1649), pp. 4-5.

3Lilburne, Councel of State 8., and John Lilburne, The

p.
.Just Defence of John Lilburn (1653), pp. 8-9. This pamphlEE'
Is reprinted In Heller preiler Tracts, pp. 450-464.

112.

press.4 These censorship measures had previously been

enacted into law, but lax enforcement had allowed the
Levellers to operate with impunity. With the Army's backing,
the laws now threatened the Leveller's very existence.

Aware that the censorship measureswere directed partially at
them, the Levellers petitioned the Rump for freedom of the
press.5 They reminded the Independents that they, them-
selves, would not be in power had censorship been rigidly
enforced under the old Parliament; and that truth triumphs
only when ideas compete freely with one another. If the Rump
was confident that its cause wasjust, it need not fear liberty
of the press.6 Parliament responded by assigning the
petition to a subcommittee for consideration, where it was
promptly forgotten.7 Once the King had been executed and
their power had been consolidated, the Independents pre-
pared to deal more harshly with democratic agitators.

The creation of the Council of State, unresponsive to
the will of the people, in direct opposition to the precepts
_of the law of nature as interpreted by the Levellers,

4nusbworthé Collections, I $1387.,p and John Lilburne

Englands New hains Discovered (1649 8. This tract is
reprinted in Heller, Leveller wTracts, pp. 157-170.

5The humble Petition of firm and constant Friends to the

Parliament and Common-wealth Presenters and Promoters of the
Large Petition of September 1;. mdcxlvii. l 49 T is
petition is reprinted in Wolfe, Leveller Manifestogp,

pp-6326 -332.
Petitiop of firm and constant Friendp, pp. 3-4.

 

 

 

 

7Petition of firm and constant Friendp, p. 5.

113.

stimulated a revival of Leveller activities. It began in

the ranks of the New Model. A few men demanded an election

of new agitators, to be followed by the revival of the
democratic General Council of the Army. The Council was then
to represent the army in effecting a democratic settlement for
the kingdom.8 In response to this demand, the Officer's
Council ruled that all petitions originating in the Army

must go through proper military channels.9 This emphasis

on proper channels pointedly eliminated the possibility of
extraordinary devices like the General Council. The officers
further requested that Parliament draw up an act making any
attempt by civilians to arouse discontent in the Army sub-
ject to severe penalties.10 Five soldiers challenged this
stand by petitioning Fairfax and the Council of Officers.

The petition decried the curbing of the soldier's rights
freely to petition and conduct themselves as free men. This
restriction, the five men claimed, was in direct contradiction
to the officer's stand in 1647. However, wrote the men, many
strange things had come about which had worked out to the

detriment of freedom. The Council of State, never known in

8S. R. Gardiner, fiiptory of the Commonwealth gnd Protectorate,
1642-16 :6 (London, 19037, I, 30-32.

9Lilburne, Fundamentall Liberties, p. 74.

10Richard Overton The Hunting of the Foxes from New-Market
and Triploe Heaths to Whipe~Hall B five ppall Bea les late
of the Arnie.) Or the Grafidie-Deceivers Unm§§k53_(164gx p. 15.
{This tract is reprinted in Wolfe, ngeller Manif35toes,

pp 0 358-3830

 

 

 

114.

England before, had taken over all the tyranical powers
of the monarch.11 The Council, as might be expected,
promptly court martialed the five men.12 Having obtained
power in Parliament and the Army, the Independents would
not brook any activity which threatened their position.

The repressive actions of the Council of Officers
incited the Levellers to a last attack on the forces of
tyranny. In Englandflg New Chains Discovereg, Lilburne
appealed to Parliament to take action against the arbitrary
authority of the army officers.13 However, while portraying
the Rump as the protector of freedom in England, he
chastized this body for establishing courts in conflict with
the common law and for not attempting to alleviate the economic
evils plaguing the common people.14 Lilburne also demanded
that the Council of State be dissolved. He promised that
Leveller demands would be backed by a mass petition.15 On
March 21, Overton published a pamphlet defending the five
court-martialed soldiers.16 Three days later, Lilburne
presented to the House of Commons Th; Spgppd Egg; pf Epglgpgg

New-Chaines Discovered, reiterating the Leveller complaint

11Overton, Hunting of the Foxes, pp. 16-17.

12Overton, Hunting of the Foxes, pp. 21-22.

13Lilburne, New Chains, p. 9.
14Lilburne, New Chains, pp. 3-4.
15Lilburne, New Chains, pp. 13-14.

16Overton, Hunting of the Foxeg. P. 12.

115.

against arbitrary authority.17 This was the mass petition
promised at the end of Englgnds New Chaines,18 and proved
to be the last concerted effort of the Leveller organiza-
tion. Parliament took prompt action on the petition.
Lilburne, Overton, Walwyn and Prince were arrested as
traitors for having authored Englands Np! Chaines.19 The
rout of the Levellers was almost complete.

Throughout the remainder of 1649, the Levellers tried
desperately to arouse the populace to fight for their liber—
ties and incidentally, for the imprisoned Levellers. In May
pp ggpggpppp 9; thg Free Peonle pf England was published.
This was the Levellers' most thoroughly worked-out program
for reshaping England on democratic lines.20 It was to be
the rallying point for all who were interested in a demo-
cratic government.21 Unfortunately, the time had passed when
the Levellers might hope to organize an effective force to
further their demands. Their constitution, with its bill of
rights foreshadowing that of the American Constitution, was
rudely suppressed. Its authors (Lilburne,‘Wa1wyn, and Prince)

22
were subjected to close confinement. In September, the

17John Lilburne, 12g Second Pgrt of Englgnds New-Chaines
Di covered (1649), pp. 7-8. This tract is reprinted in Heller,
Eaveiiér Tracts, pp. 172-189.

18Lilburne, pggond Nep-Chaines, pp. 2-3.
19Gardiner, Commonwealth & Protectorate, I, 49-51.
20An Agreement of the Peoplg, pp. 3-5.

21An Agreement of the Peoplg, p. 2.
22Gardiner, Commonweglph & Protectorate, I, 50-52.

116.

disillusioned Levellers declared that disobedience, passive
or active, to the arbitrary government was not only justi-
fied, but obligatory. They announced that they would resist
until the Rump was replaced by a supreme authority based on
the principles of the law of nature and the social contract.23
This appeal, like that of the Agrpement, fell upon headless
ears. The people, discouraged after eight years of political
turmoil, were content to support the Rump as long as it
promised stability. They could no longer be aroused to
fight for their liberties.

The Leveller leaders, with the exception of Walwyn,
continued an unavailing opposition to Cromwell's arbitrary
regime. In October, the four prisoners were tried for
treason and found not guilty.24 Lilburne's talents as a
lawyer, developed through years of controversy with the
government, were largely responsible for the verdict.2
Following his release, Lilburne left politics for two years.26

However, he soon tangled again with the authorities. In

23

The Rem nstr nce of man Thousand of ppe Free People pf
Englgnd (1649), pp. 6-7.
24The account of Lilburne's trail is presented in the con-
temporary pamphlet: The Triall of Ligut. Col, Jghn Lilburne
t the Guildhall of London, 24th Octo er 1 42, e ng
Thursday. This is reprinted in A Complete Collection of

tate Trials gpg Proceedings for High Treason and other Crimes
and Misdemeanours From the Earliest Peripd to the Yep; 1713,

ed. T. E. Howell (London, 1816), IV, 1270-1470.

25Lilburne directed his own defence, and though his argu-
ments were tedious and repititious they proved effective. See
Statg Trigls, IV, 1324-1330.

26Lilburne, Just Defence, p. 9.

 

 

117.

January 1652, he was found guilty of slandering a member

of Parliament, was fined, and exiled from England with a
penalty of death should he return.27 While exiled in Holland,
he actively plotted with the Royalists to overthrow Cromwell.28
In June 1653, he returned to England and was immediately
arrested. In August he was brought to trial for his life

for having broken his exile. To the chagrin of Cromwell,
Lilburnes' histrionics were once again successful.‘ The jury,
in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, found him
not guilty.29 The Council of State, however, was not pre-
pared to take any chances with Lilburne. It ordered him
imprisoned on its own authority, and he remained in various
degrees of confinement until his death in 1657. In his last
months, the once-militant Lilburne became a pacifist Quaker.3O
Walwyn, following his release from prison, returned to his
profitable linen trade and to obscurity.31 Overton embarked
upon a career as a professional revolutionary, and his name

was involved in Royalist and Republican plots until 1663,
when he finally dr0pped out of sight.32 ‘Wildman, the

27Lilburne, Just Defepgp, p. 10.
28

Gibb, Lilburne, pp. 304-305.

29The story of his trial and remarkable acquital was told by
‘Lilburne in The Triall of Mr. Johh Lilburne, Prisoner in New-

ate .at Justice Hallin.the Old-Baily_upon,..,the l3E 14, and
{S of July, 1653. This account is reprinted n.The S a e Tria ,
30Gibb, Lilburne, pp. 334-337.
31Firth, "Walwyn," in.D N B (1895), LIX, 285.
32Firth, "Overton," in D N'B (1895), XLII, 387.

 

 

 

118.

youngest of the Levellers, continued to plot for a republican
government for England until he died in 1693. At the time of
his death he was engaged, in true Leveller fashion, in an
intrigue against King William III.33

The Levellers stand as transitional figures in the
development of the social contract theory of government. In
varying forms, the social contract can be traced through
medieval thinkers back at least as far as the Dialogues of
Plato.34 As we have seen, it is highly probable that Walwyn
was aware of this. His addiction to the "profane" authors
and to free-thinking moderns like Montaigne gave him ample
opportunity to acquaint himself with the philosophical
tradition that embodied these themes. Lilburne is the more
typical Leveller exponent of the social contract. Although
indebted to the same philosophical heritage as Walwyn, he
was more directly influenced by concepts which had arisen
during the Puritan struggle for recognition. For Lilburne,
the law of nature approximated the law of God, or the common
law as it existed before the Norman conquest. The social
contract between king and people was eXplicitly commanded
by the Bible and had been further sanctified by English
tradition before the corrupting influence of the Normans had

33Ashley, Wildmen, pp. 296-297.

34For a concise, lucid analysis of the historical back-
ground of the social contract theory see J. W. Gough, The
Social Contract, A Critical Study of its Development (fifford,

119.

taken effect. Whereas Walwyn drew his ideas directly from
their original sources in the philosophers, Lilburne re-
vitalized these same ideas after the inevitable process of
half-comprehending usage had rendered them almost unrecog-
nizable when compared with the original.

Whatever the source, be it original or corrupted, of
the Leveller belief in the social contract, the important
fact remains that they fought to give practical expression to
this theory. The Levellers were not ivory-tower thinkers.
Had they contented themselves with this role, their con-
tribution to the seventeenth century development of the
social contract theory would have been slight. ‘When compared
with contemporaries who also held that government should rest
on the consent of the governed, the uniqueness of Walwyn and
Lilburne lay in their hard-headed pragmatism. If the law of
nature guaranteed man's rights to life, liberty, and pro-
perty; if it were true that the social contract was the only
just means of evolving a governing authority to protect these
rights; than, argued the Levellers, man should enter into an
agreement of the people to erect such a government. To insure
that this government would rule in the interests of the
people, the Levellers proposed to limit the power of the
created authority through a written constitution. As further
insurance against arbitrary rule, the members of the govern-
ing body were to be elected annually by vote of all men over

'twenty-one. The Levellers, having clearly formulated their

120.

objectives, embarked on a four—year campaign to bring them

to fruition. In pamphlet, petition, and personal appearance
they publicized their program, and within a short time a
considerable minority of Englishmen came to know them and
their objectives. Their plan for a democratic England was
crushed by Cromwell, but in their struggle for real political
power they made the question of government by contract one
that could not be ignored.

Thomas Hobbes was the first of two great seventeenth
century philosophers to analyze the concept of government so
boldly affirmed by the Levellers. In 1651 he published the
Leviathan. While seeming to affirm the idea of government by
social contract, Hobbes advanced a theory of government
acceptable to the Council of State and Opposed to the
Council's enemies -- the Levellers. Hobbes challenged the
Levellers on two fundamental issues: the conditions as they
existed in the state of nature, and the nature of the social
contract. Man in the state of nature, according to Hobbes,
was a ravaging beast. He lived in a state of war "of every
man against every man." The only law of nature that had
real meaning was the law of force. Men were not guaranteed
life, liberty, and property in the state of nature; they
were guaranteed nothing beyond that which could be held by
force. Driven to the point of despair by their animal
passions, men did enter into a social contract. However, it

was a contract among themselves by which they agreed to set up

121.

a supreme authority who could, through the power of the
sword, keep them from one another's throats. The contrac-
tual obligations lay with those who agreed to create a supreme
authority to rule over them. There was no contract between
the governed and the governor.35’ This line of argument
directly attacked the Leveller's assumption that man in the
state of nature was basically a rational animal, and that
the social contract was an agreement between the people and
the governing body.

In attempting to reduce to absurdity the point of view
advanced by the Levellers concerning the social contract,
Hobbes actually insured that the ideas would survive the
death of their party, for by clearly marking the basic
premises of those who would affirm representative government
and those who would affirm dictatorship or monarchy, Hobbes
set the stage for constitutional arguments which culminated
in the writings of John Locke.

It is in the writings of John Locke, who undertook the
task of refuting Hobbes, that one finds the fullest develop-
ment of the social contract theory of government as it had
been advanced by the Levellers and refuted by Hobbes. Locke,

in the Two Treatises 9; Government, wrote and argued in

rm and Power

35'Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan: or the Matter Fo
of Commonwealth Ecglesiastiggland Civil. (This reference
Is go selectionsgfrom the first and second parts of Leviathan
reprinted in The En lish Philoso hers from Bacon to M111, ed.
Edwin A. BurtFTF—gY—ew orfi‘l, 9_§9‘)",]2p"p“". 12912377," pp". 162—”,

168-169.

 

122.

images which had been employed by the Levellers some forty
years before. In the state of nature man was a reasonable
being protected by the law of nature which guarded his life,
liberty, and property. Governments were formed when men
made mutually-binding agreements with those who were to
govern. Contrary to the arguments of Hobbes, men would
not and could not agree to put their lives into the hands
of a lion over whom they would have no control. Therefore,
the contractual relation must be reciprocal. If a government
failed to rule in the best interest of the subjects, then
that government might be lawfully dissolved.36 Although the
calm, reasoned arguments put forward by Locke in support of
representative government were the same as those advanced by
the more passionate Levellers, the representative body
visualized by Locke bore little resemblance to the democratic
body elected by universal manhood suffrage for which the
Levellers strove. Nevertheless, the core of Leveller
thought -- the social contract and the law of nature -- was
preserved and has proven far more historically significant
than the ephemeral dictatorship of Cromwell.

Because the Levellers lent such vitality to the social
contract and the law of nature that these theories commanded

36John Lockei An Essay Concerning The True Original, Extent

and End_of Civi Government (This reference is to a reprint of

the Essag to be found in Burtt, The English Philosophers,
pp. 03- 03). pp. 404-4060

 

123.

the attention of the political philosophers who followed them,
their ideas live. Through the years these essential elements
of democratic political philosophy have been the foundation
upon which the Levellers' dream of a democratic England

has been gradually realized.

12h.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Discussed below are those sources which proved of most
value in the construction of this paper. A complete biblio-

graphy follows the note.

Primary Sources:

The Leveller development of the social contract theory
of government followed logically Parliament's taking up arms
against the King in the name of religious and political lib-
erty. This evolution is readily discernable in key tracts
written by the Levellers between léhB and 16h9. The solid
core of Leveller political thought is at times concealed
by excessive verbiage. William Walwyn was the one Leveller
who consistently resisted the impulse to rant at the Opposi-
tion. The Power of Love (16h3), written in defence of the
persecuted sects, displays Walwyn's rationality at its best.
He argued that the Presbyterians in Parliament, who had
taken the drastic step of revolution to protect their right
to dissent in matters religious and politic, were now per-
secuting those who disagreed with them. This inconsistency
was due to ignorance. Persecution would cease when the
Presbyterians acquainted themselves with the true nature
of the sects. In defending the dissident religious groups,

'Walwyn enunciated a principle which was to become the basis

125.

for the Leveller demand for democratic government. He
argued that the "great mountain" government was constitu-
ted by the people to protect all men. To create a govern-
ment unresponsive to its creators and which Could at its
own caprice destroy or persecute them was irrational--and
men were incapable of violating the dictates of reason.
Richard Overton was a far more violent and acid-tongued

advocate of government by social contract. In The Araign-

 

ment of Mr. Persecution (léhS) he pictured persecution

 

as a monster born of stupidity. Men, he averred, had
innate rights guaranteed by the law of God which protected
them.from the tyranny of government, whether in the reli-
gious or secular Sphere. The satirical humor of Th3

Araignment fails to conceal its essentially revolutionary

 

message. Overton, by 16h6, had cast aside satire and
arguments depending on God's law. He now boldly and logi-
cally asserted, in A Remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens
and other Freeborn Pe0ple of England to their House of Com-
mgng_(16h6) that all legitimate governments were founded
upon an agreement between the governed and those chosen to
govern. This agreement specified that the government thus
established would protect the rights of the people as
guaranteed by the law of nature. An Appeals from the
Degenerate Representative Body...the Commons of England

(16h?) carried Overton's argument to its logical conclusion.

 

126.

In a bitter, disillusioned tirade he proclaimed that when
a government failed to protect the rights guaranteed to
the peeple by the law of nature, the contract was broken.
The peeple had then the right and the duty to overthrow

such a government. A Solemn Engagement of the Army (16h7),

 

composed by Henry Ireton, illustrates the Leveller influ-
ence on the General Council of the Army. Ireton, who

later became the outstanding defender of vested interests,
heralded the New Model Army not as a mercenary force, but
as a representative instrument of the people, empowered to
protect their fundamental liberties from the encroachment
of an arbitrary, tyrannical parliament. John Wildman,

The Case of the Armie Truly Stated (16h7), concisely stated
the Leveller program for a democratic government based
upon universal manhood suffrage. He argued that the en-
franchisement of all male citizens over twenty-one was the
only logical way to elect a governing body, which had, as
Justification for existence, the social contract. There is

a note of despair in The Case of the Armie arising from

 

Wildman's realization that the Levellers had been deserted
by the Grandees in the New Model. John Lilburne's writings

were fired with the conviction of a fanatic. In The Legall

 

Egndamentall Liberties of the People of England (16h9)

however, his tone was chastened. Although Lilburne reaffirmed

127.

the Leveller's belief in a democratic government, he did so
after all hope for its realization had been shattered by the
erection of the Council of State. In this tract Lilburne
defiantly related the history of the Leveller aspirations
and disillusionment. This tract is the sole authority for
much that has been written about the Levellers. However,
where it has been possible to check its veracity through
comparison with other sources, it has proven reliable.

The Levellers were prolific propagandists. It is not
surprising, therefore, that their pamphlets and petitions
should be found in collections of documents under a variety
of headings. William Cobbet, Parliamentary History of
England. From the Norman Conquest, in 1066. To the‘Year,
lggé (h vols. London, 1806), is a fertile source of material
pertinent to the development of the Leveller movement.

Some thirty Leveller pamphlets and petitions are reproduced,
and equally important, the conservative, contemporary reac-
tion to their advanced program comes to life in the debates
recorded. Historical Collections, Containing the Pringipal
Matters Which Happened From the Beginning of the Year 1645
to the Death of King Charles the First l6h8, ed. John Rush-
worth (2 vols. London, 1701) is a day-by-day record of
events in England. Here again, the irrepressible Levellers
make frequent appearance. A number of their manifestoes

along with Parliament's reactions to them, are contained

128 .

in this collection. Cobbet's Parliamentary History and
Rushworth's Collections complement one another in that
petitions pertinent to the Leveller movement which fail to
appear in one are almost certainly reprinted in the other.
In view of John Lilburne's pugnacious character, it is

not surprising to find that he had the dubious distinction
of appearing on three separate occasions in A Complete
Collection of State Trials and Proceedings For High Treason
and other Crimes and Misdemeanors From the Earliest Period
‘to the Year 1783, ed. T. B. Howell (21 vols. London, 1816).
ILilburne's own account of his defence as recorded in the

State Trials is convincing proof of the consistency and

 

tenacity of the Levellers' democratic convictions. The
1nain.pr0posals of the Leveller-inspired New Model Army for
tune settlement of England's constitutional problems are
reprinted in S. R. Gardiner, The Constitutional Documents
5;? the Puritan Revolution, 1628-1660, ed. S. R. Gardiner
(Oxford, 1889). A study of these documents in their chron-
ological order leaves one with the conviction that the
Levellers alone fully realized the logical consequence of
taking up arms against the King.

There are four volumes primarily devoted to reprinting
Laveller writings. Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolu-
EEEEL_1638-l6h7, ed. William Haller,3 vols. (Columbia, l93h)

is (If vital significance because it contains Leveller

129.

pamphlets written during the transitional stage of their
democratic evolution. The emphasis on religious liberty
that dominates the tracts printed in l6h2 has, by l6h7,
taken a back seat to demands for political reform. The
mature Leveller political philOSOphy is to be found in

the Leveller Tracts, 164171653, ed. Godfrey Davies, and
William.Haller (New York, lth). This collection has fur-
ther value in that it contains pamphlets in which the Level-
lers tell of their frustrated attempts to secure a demo-
cratic form of government for England. No less important
are the pamphlets which display the Presbyterian reaction
to continued pressure from Overton, Wildman and Lilburne.
Leveller Manifestoes of the Puritan Revolution, ed. Don M.
Wolfe (New'York, l9hh) reprints important Leveller tracts
not contained in Haller's two works. Puritamism.and
Liberty, Being the Army_Debates (l6h7-l6h9) from the Clarke
ygpmscripts with Supplementary Documents, ed. A. S. P.
Woodhouse (Chicago, 1951) makes available to the student of
the Leveller movement, in well-edited form, the contents of
the Putney Debates. Knowledge of these debates in indispens-
able to an understanding of the Leveller democratic program,
as it was based on the social contract theory of government.
At Putney, this thesis was challenged by the conservative,
Ireton, and in the arguments which followed, the position

Of both parties was clearly and boldly presented. The sup-

130.

plementary documents reproduced by Woodhouse give an excel-
lent account of the Leveller's hopes prior to the debates

and of their disillusionment following them.

Secondary Sources:

I draw upon the scholarship of two men for this paper's
interpretation of the influence wielded by Puritanism in
shaping seventeenth century democratic ideas. M. M.
Knappen, Tudor Puritanism, A Chapter in the History of
Idealism (Chicago, 1939), traces, with admirable clarity,
the disintegrating forces present in the Puritan faith prior
to the turn of the seventeenth century. He also demonstrates
an awareness of the democratic potentialities of the Calvin-
istic doctrines upheld by the Puritans. Knappen approaches
his subject without a noticeable trace of the dislike for
the Puritans, which is so often displayed by historians.

For the seventeenth century develOpments of Puritanism, I
have followed William Haller, The Rise of Puritanism or,
,Ehe Road To The New Jerusalem As set Forth In Pulpit and
lgpess From Thomas Cartwright to John Lilburne And John
kgilton, lS?0-l6h;_ (New'York, 1938). His thesis, that the
(lemocratic aspirations of men of the l6h0's were rooted in
earlier developments in the Puritan faith, is carried out
logically and consistently. His monograph is the result

of intensive study, and is unclouded by preconceived distaste

131.

for the Puritans. It remains the most satisfying explana-
tion of how a wide range of Englishmen of the lower order
were impregnated with democratic ideas at the outset of the
Civil War.

For an understanding of the Civil War period in English
history, S. R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War,
16h2-16h9, h vols. (London, 1901) is indiSpensable. This
account, based on unimpeachable scholarship, gives almost
a day-by-day account of these tumultuous years. It remains
the starting point from which all other works on this period
must proceed. A less detailed, but still reliable, record
of the revolutionary period may be found in Godfrey Davies,
The Early Stuarts, 1603-1660 (Oxford, 1952).

Histories of the Leveller movement, as such, are few.
The most outstanding of those available is T. C. Pease,

The Leveller Movement: A Study in the History and Political
Theory of the English Great Civil War. (Washington, 1916).
This is the first history of the Levellers based on careful
examination of the pamphlet literature of the day. It re-
tmains the authoritative account of the movement. Pease is
especially helpful in establishing the authorship of many
pamphlets which had been previously classified as anonymous.
(The most recent monograph on the Levellers is Joseph Frank,
Eghe Levellers: A History of the Writings of Three Seven-
]ieenth Century Social Democrats: John Lilburne, Richard

C>verton, William Walwyn. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1952).

 

132.

Concentrating on the Levellers as writing stylists, Frank
minimizes the significant contributions of the movement to
the develOpment of seventeenth century democratic ideas.

He classifies it as interesting but anachronistic. His
account is useful, however, as a bibliographical reference.
G. P. Gooch, English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth
Century. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1927), gives an impar-
tial account of Leveller thinking as it related to the poli-
tical philOSOphy of the seventeenth century. Unfortunately,
he fails to recognize the significance of the Levellers as
transitional figures between the half-formed social contract
theory of government in pro-revolutionary England, and the
mature expression of the theory in the political philOSOphy
of Hobbes and Locke. C. H. Firth has contributed to Th3
Dictionary of National Biography, some excellent articles on
the Leveller leaders. M. A. Gibb's, John Lilburne, The
Leveller, A Christian Democrat (London, 19h7) is the only
available biography of this Leveller leader. Gibb's account

is scholarly but it fails to capture the spirit of the man

‘ or of the movement.

133.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST

PRIMARY SOURCES:
Collected Documents

Abbott, Nilbur 0., ed. The Writings and Speeches of Oliver
Cromwell. h vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts,fil938.

 

Burrt, Edwin A., ed. The English PhilosoPhers From Bacon
to Mill. New York, 1939.

Cobbet, William. Parliamentary History of England. From
the Norman ConquestL in31066. ’To the Year;
1803} h vels. London,*1806.

Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, ed. The Constitutional Documents
of the Puritan RevolutionL 1628-1660. London, 1901.

Haller, William and Davies, Godfrey, ed. The Leveller TractsL
1647-1653. New York, 19hh.

 

Haller, William., ed. Tracts on Liberty inifluaPuritan Revo-
lutioni 1638;16h7} 3 vols. New'York, 193h.

Hamilton, Leonard, ed. Gerard Winstanley: Selections From
His Works. London,‘l9hh.

 

Howells, T. B., ed. A Com lete Collection of State Trials and
Proceedings or High Treason and other Crimes and
Misdemeanours From the Earliest Period to’the
Year—1738. 21 vols. Ibndon,1816.

 

Wolfe, Don M., ed. Leveller Manifestoes of the Puritan
Revolution. New York, 19hh.

 

Woodhouse, A. S. P. ed. Puritanism.and Liberty, Being_the
Army Debates7(16h6-164973From.the Clarke Manu-
scripts with Supplementary Documents. Chicago, 1951.

Pamphlets, Tracts, and Petitions

Advertisement for the Managing of the Counsels of the Army.
London, l6h7.

13h.

The Ancient Bounds. London, 16AM.

 

A Declaration or Representation. London, 16h7.

 

Everard, Robert, and others. Two Letters from The Agents of
the Five Regiments of Horse. 16h7.

 

 

Frost, Walter, and others. A Declaration of Some Proceed-
ings. London, l6h8.

 

Goodwin, John. Anti-Cavalierisme. London, 16h2.

 

Goodwin, Thomas, and others. An Apologeticall Narration.
London, 16hh.

 

 

The Grand Remonstrance. London, l6hl.

Grievances of Regiments Presented at Saffron Walden, 13th
May, 16h7.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: or the Matter, Form and Power
of a Common-wealth_Ecclesiéstical'and Civil.
tendon, I651.

 

 

Ireton, Henry. The Heads of the Proposals offered_by

the Army. London, 16h7.

 

. A Representation of the Army. London, 16h7.

 

 

. A Solemn Engagement of the Army. London, 16h7.

 

 

Knolly, Hanserd. A Glimpse of Sions Glory. London, léhl.

 

Letters to the Agitators. 16h7.
Two Letters from the Agitators. 16h7.

The Levellers. An Agreement of the Free People of England.
London,16h9.

. An Agreement of the People. London, 16h7.

 

 

Lilburne, John. A Copie of a Letter...To Mr. William Prinne
Esq. London, l6h§7

. Englands Birth-Right Justified. London, léhS.

 

 

. Englands FreedomeL_Sou1diers Rights.
London,‘l6u7.

 

135.

. Englands New Chains Discovered. London, l6h9.

 

 

__, The Free-Mans Freedome Vindicated.
London, 16h6.

 

 

. An Impeachment of High Treason. London, l6h9.

 

 

. The Just Defence of John Lilburne Against
Such as charge him withfiTurbulencey of Spiritf
London, 1653.

 

. The Just Mans Justification. London, 16h7.

 

 

. The Legall Fundamentall Liberties of the
PeOple offiEngland. London, l6h9.

 

 

. The Picture of the Councel of State.
London, l6h9.

 

. The second Part of Englands New Chaines
discoveréd. London, 16h9:

 

 

Lilburne, and others. To the Supream Authority... The Earnest
Petition of many Freeiborn’Pegple o?:this NatIOn.
London,I6h7.

Lilburne, John. The Trial of Mr. John Lilburne, at tgg
Sessions or the Peace held for the City of Londogg
at JuEticeJHall in the 01d Baileyi_f6r returning
into Englangi being banished by Act of’Parlfa-
ment. London, 1653.

. A Norke of the Beast. London, 1638.

 

Locke, John. An Essgy Concerning the True Original,Extent
and End of Civil Government. London, 1690.

Milton, John. Areopagitica. London, 16hh.

 

Ordinance for restraining the Liberty of the Press. 16h3.

Overton, Richard. An Appeale from.the Degenerate Repre-
sentative Body...the Commons of England.
Lendbn, 16h71

. The Araignement of Mr. Persecution,
London, 16h5.

 

 

. An Arrow Against all Tyrants and Tyranny,
ShOt from the Prison of;Newgate.... London,tl6h6.

 

. The Commoners Complaint, Or a Dreadful
Warning From Newgate To The Commons of England.
London,l6h7.

 

 

 

. The Hunting of the Foxes. London, l6h9.

 

 

. A Remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens.
London,_16h6.

 

Parker, Henry. Observations upon some of his Majesties late
Answers and Expresses. London, 16h2.

 

Proceedings against Col. John Lilburne before the House of
Lords, for aspersing the Earl of Manchester. 16h6.

The PrOpositions of Peace from the Parliament presented to
the King at Newcastle. l6h6.

Prynne, William. Truth Triumphing over Falsehood. London, l6h5.
The Putney Debates, l6h7.

Reliquae Baxteriane. London, 1696.

 

Remonstrance presented to the House of Commons, from.Lord
Fairfax and the General Council of the Army de-
manding Justice upon the King, &c. 16h8.

Robinson, Henry. Liberty of Conscience. London, l6hh.

 

To the Supream Authorityg..The humble Petition of many free-
bornpeople. London, 1611‘K

 

To the...Supream Authority...The humble Petitionlgf...
Presenters...of3the Large Petition of Sgptember
2;, 'London, l6h9.

The Triall of Lieut. Col. John Lilburne at the Guildhall of
Lendon, 2hth October, 16h9,_being Thursday.
LBhdon, l6h9.

Walwyn, William. The Compassionate Samaritane, London, 16hh.

. Englands Lamentable Slaverie. London, 16h5.

 

. The Power of Love. London, 16h}.

 

 

. Walwyns Just Defence. London, 16h9.

 

 

137.

,. A Whisper in the Eare of Mr. Thomas
Edwards. London, 16h6.

 

Walwyn, William, and others. To the right honourable and
supreme Authority 3? this Nation, The Commons in
Parliament Assembled, The humble Petition or
many‘thousands.... London, 16h7.

 

 

 

Walwyns Wiles. London, l6h9.

 

The Whitehall Debates. 16h8.

 

Wildman, John. The Case of the Armie truly stated.
London, 16h7.

Williams, Roger. The Edoudy Tenent of Persecution.
London, lbhh.

 

 

Winstanley, Gerrard. The New Law of Righteousness.
London, 16h9.

 

SECONDARY SOURCES

Ashley, M. P. John Wildman,_Plotter and Postmaster: A
Stugy ofthe English’hepublican Movement in the
Seventeenth Centu_y. London, 19h7.

 

 

 

Brown, Louise Fargo. The Political Activities of the
Baptists and Fifth MonarChy Men in‘England
Dirtngthe Interregnum. Washington, 1912.

 

 

 

Brunton, D. and Pennington, D. H. Members of the Long,
Parliament. Aberdeen, England, l95h.

 

 

Coates, Wilson H. "Some Observations on 'The Grand Remon-
strance'." The Journal of Modern History, IV
(1932), 1-17.

Davies, Godfrey. The Early Stuarts, 1603-1660. Oxford, 1952.

 

 

Dictionary of National Biography.

 

Firth, Sir Charles Harding. Oliver Cromwell and the Rule of
the Puritans in England. tLofidon, l92h.

 

 

Frank, Joseph. The Levellers: A History of the Writings
of Three Seventeenth‘Century Social Democrats:
JBhn Lilburne, RicharJCOvertbn, William Walyyn.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1955.

Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, ed. History of the Commonwealth
and Protectorate, 16h9-1656. London,1903.

 

 

. History of the Great Civil War,
16h2316h9. h vols. Londbn, 1901.

 

 

 

Gibb, M. A. John Lilburne The Leveller, A Christian Demo-
crat. London, l9h7.

 

Gooch, G. P. English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth
Century. Cambridge,tEngland,tl927.

 

Gough, J. W. The Social Contract, A Critical Study of its
Development. OXford, 1936}

 

 

Haller, William. The Rise of Pdritanism or, The Road to
the New Jerusalem As Set Forth in Pulpit and
Press From Thomas Cartwright’to John Lilburne
and John—Milton. *New York, 1938.

 

 

 

 

Jordan, W. K. The Development of Religious Toleration in
England. wCambridge, Massachusetts, 1936.

Knappen, M. M. Tudor Puritanism, A Chapter in the Histogy
of Idealism. Chicago, 1939.

 

 

Milton, John. The Prose works of John Milton. 5 vols., ed.
J. A. St. J01 . London, 1878;81.

 

Pease, Theodore Calvin. The Leveller MOvement: A Study
in the History and Political Theory of the
English Great Civil War. Washington, 1916.

 

Rushworth, John, ed. Historical Collections, Containing
the PrincipaI'Matters Which Happened From the
Beginning of the Yéar l6h5 to the Death offKing
Charles the First l6h8: 2 vols. London, 1701.

 

 

_ _ -_4—‘

 

 

4.2m._wv_

r

woos us:- can

. ‘i ‘
I‘ “a." ‘e-’

Demco-293

%Date (”LEM

Circ 199 d“?

 

 

.l. -