|
|
| & etc |
FEEDBACK
(C)1998-2012
All Rights Reserved.
Site last updated
13 January, 2012
|
|
|
|
The Origins Of Modern Constitutionalism
The Agreement of the People
by Wormuth, Francis D.
|
The Leveller movement was closely identified with
the career of John Lilburne. Lilburne was the son of a gentleman of Durham, and
in 1630 was apprenticed to a London merchant. In London he became involved in
the Presbyterian attack upon episcopacy. Partly as a commercial venture,
apparently, and partly from disinterested motives he imported an anti-episcopal
book from the Netherlands for sale in England. For this he was examined by the
Star Chamber and was fined, pilloried, and imprisoned. In this ordeal he showed
the bellicose and litigious character, and the insistence upon the rights of
"free-born" Englishmen, that marked his whole public career. Lilburne was
liberated by the Long Parliament and entered the Parliamentary Army, where he
rose to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. But his religious convictions were
Independent and he refused to accept the Presbyterian Covenant imposed by
Parliament in 1645. He quit the Army and immediately became a center of
opposition to constituted government. He continued his subversive activities,
in and out of prison, for most of the remainder of his life.
But Lilburne was by no means the only Leveller leader. Closely
associated with him was Richard Overton, who in 1643 published a little book
called Man's Mortality, which argued from a materialistic philosophy
like that of Hobbes that the soul does not survive death. From Overton's
teaching arose the sect of "soul-sleepers." John Wildman was active in the
Leveller agitation in its period of greatest activity from 1647 to 1649, and
thereafter had a chequered career as insurrectionist, Royalist agent, and
Cromwellian spy. Edward Sexby was perhaps the ablest of the Agitators in the
Leveller period; he later came to believe that the Stuarts might be used to
advance the Leveller cause, and in 1657 he acted as intermediary in the
Royalist plot against Cromwell for which Sindercomb was convicted. Sexby was
author, or co-author with Titus, of the pamphlet Killing No Murder
(1657), which advocated the assassination of Cromwell. William Walwyn was a
retired merchant of London who appeared in all the radical intellectual
movements. He taught rationalism and free inquiry and welcomed the religious
experiments of the period. With Lilburne, Overton, and Thomas Prince, he was
jailed by the Council of State in 1649.
Underlying the thinking of men as different as Lilburne, Overton, and
Walwyn were two common assumptions, the basic assumptions of all the radical
religious sects. First was the belief in the utility of free inquiry, which
expressed itself in the demand for freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
In its extreme form this led to the Quaker doctrine of the inner light. Second
was the expectation of a glorious outcome, of a new and brighter day about to
dawn. This optimism took various forms. There was a belief in an impending
revelation of new religious truths for which men should seek and hold
themselves in readiness. Cromwell was forever talking of new dispensations.
When this idea was translated to the political field, it meant the imminent
achievement of liberty from "Norman bondage." Milton gave the most eloquent
expression of the radical creed in his Areopagitica, which describes the
vision of an England "purging and unsealing her undazzled eyes at the fountain
itself of heavenly radiance," while those that love the twilight "flutter
about, amazed at what she means, and in their envious gabble prognosticate a
year of sects and schisms."
The political creed of the Levellers was the logical outcome of the
argument adopted by Parliament at the opening of the wars. Political power
derived from the people. The king therefore held his power in trust and was
responsible to Parliament for its misuse. Thus far went Pym and his associates
of the Long Parliament. But as early as 1646 the Levellers took a more radical
step; they declared that kingship was incompatible with the liberty of the
people. Moreover they interpreted the consent of the people to imply manhood
suffrage. As Colonel Rainsborough, whose mysterious death was laid by the
Levellers at the door of Cromwell and Ireton, told the Council of the Army,
"The poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he."
With the demand for political equality went the attack upon the privileges of
the nobility and the power of the House of Lords. Finally Parliament itself,
according to the Levellers, was a mere trustee for the people and might not
deny to them the rights of freeborn Englishmen. We can trace the stages by
which these propositions were formulated into the proposed constitution called
the Agreement of the People.
The first significant document is A Remonstrance of Many Thousand
Citizens, and other Free-born People of England, to their own House of
Commons. This was written in 1646, apparently by Richard
Overton.1 It reminds the Commons that they have been chosen only to
exercise a power in trust, and rebukes them for ignoring that trust. The
continual oppressors of the nation have been kings, yet the Parliament flatters
Charles and begs him to return to his royal office. The people expect
Parliament to denounce him as an enemy and to declare its resolution never to
have any more kings. Likewise the Commons should affirm that the House of Lords
has no voice in legislation and should relieve the commoners from the
oppressions of the Lords. The Commons have opened the printing presses only to
Presbyterians; this is an imposition on consciences. The laws of the land, the
courts and lawyers are vexatious and abusive. Imprisonment for debts is
un-Christian; and to press men for war is to enslave them.
And therefore our advice is, that ye order a meeting for the choosing of
Parliament-men, to be expressly upon one certain day in November yearly
throughout the land in the places accustomed, and to be by you expressed, there
to make choice of whom they think good, according to law, and all men that have
a right to be there, not to fail upon a great penalty, but no summons to be
expected. ...
And that a Parliament, so chosen in November, succeeding year by year,
may come instead of the preceding Parliament, and proceed with the affairs of
the commonwealth; nor would we have it in the power of our Parliament, to
remove any member from his place or service of the House, without the consent
had of those counties, cities and boroughs respectively that chose him; great
inconveniences depending thereon, whereof we have seen and felt too much.
Until 1647 the movement was largely a civilian affair. Its leaders were
the authors of manifestoes and petitions — Lilburne, Overton, Walwyn, and
others; the followers were the radical sectarians of London. But there was
close contact between the gathered churches and the men in the ranks of the New
Model Army, and Lilburne's doctrines won many adherents among the common
soldiers. The selection of the Agitators gave expression to the opinions of the
radical soldiers and led to the further extension of Lilburne's influence in
the Army.
In the spring of 1647 relations between the Army and the Presbyterian
House of Commons were strained. The officers were afraid the Parliament would
make a settlement inconsistent with their interests and beliefs. The common
soldiers were resentful because Parliament had failed to provide adequate
indemnity for acts committed during the war and was attempting to disband the
Army without paying the arrears of wages due. On April 27, 1647, eight
regiments agreed each to choose two Agitators or agents to watch over their
interests and to make representations to authority on their behalf. The
practice spread; soon there was an entire organization of Agitators, a sort of
soldiers' soviet, disseminating radical ideas and laying plans for collective
action by the Army.
The officers were obliged to recognize the Agitators. On June 5 the
entire Army accepted the Solemn Engagement. This was a declaration to the
nation that the Army would permit itself to be disbanded as soon as Parliament
offered the soldiers satisfaction of their grievances and security against
oppression by their enemies in Parliament. More important, it provided that the
proposals of Parliament should be approved or rejected by majority vote of a
General Council of the Army, which was to consist of two Agitators and two
commissioned officers from each regiment and those of the general officers who
accepted the Engagement. This arrangement was probably more advantageous to the
officers than to the Agitators, for the Council was to meet only when General
Fairfax summoned it, and the Agitators, even though they had sympathizers among
the officers, were in the minority.
Ireton framed the Engagement, probably with the assistance of Cromwell
and Lambert. The same authors produced the Representation from Sir Thomas
Fairfax and the Army nine days later. This was addressed to Parliament. The
Army appealed to the law of nature to justify its insubordination. It demanded
the ouster from Parliament of persons who for delinquency, corruption, abuse of
the state, or undue election ought not to sit, and also of the eleven members
guilty of misrepresenting the Army to the Parliament. Since the House of
Commons possessed the legislative power, which was supreme and arbitrary, its
members should sit only for a limited term. Parliament should be chosen and
meet at a regular time, and be dissolved at its own rather than the king's
pleasure. The representation of decayed towns in the House of Commons gave "men
of power" the opportunity to frame parties to promote particular interests, to
the detriment of the common interest; therefore the seats should be
reapportioned among the communities according to the taxes paid, or by some
such rule. When the king should agree to a bill establishing these and other
reforms, his rights should be taken into consideration and settled in a way
consistent with the freedom and security of the people. Finally, indulgence
should be given to tender consciences. The subsequent negotiations between
Army, Parliament, King, and Scots were too intricate to be recounted here.
Fortunately, it is possible to trace the course of constitutional discussion in
the Army without detailed reference to events. Ireton now busied himself with
the Heads of the Proposals for the settlement of the kingdom. Parliament
was to meet biennially, not to sit more than 240 days nor to be adjourned in
less than 120. The representation of decayed towns in the Commons was to be
apportioned among the counties in proportion to their share of the tax burden.
Commoners were not to be tried or imprisoned by the Lords on their sole
authority. For ten years the control of the militia was to be in the two
Houses, and after that time in the King with the advice and consent of
Parliament. The great officers for the kingdom should be chosen by Parliament
for ten years, and thereafter when a vacancy occurred Parliament was to
nominate three candidates from whom the King might choose one. For seven years
the King's Privy Council was to consist of persons selected by the present
Parliament.
The Heads of the Proposals was accepted by the General Council of the
Army. However, many of the common soldiers were impatient at the temporizing
and the conservatism of the Council. Five regiments, believing that their
Agitators had been corrupted by the officers, elected new ones, and these in
October published a manifesto called The Case of the Army Truly Stated. Ireton
charged that Wildman was the author; however that may be, the document
demonstrates the complete conjunction of Lilburne's faction with the Agitators.
The demand was for a democratic government. Power was in the whole body
of the people of the nation. Therefore Parliaments should be chosen by manhood
suffrage, excluding delinquents. Neither King nor Lords were to have any share
in government. The present Parliament must dissolve within nine or ten months
and make way for a constant succession of biennial Parliaments.
The sponsors of the Case of the Army then proceeded to frame an
Agreement of the People, which was to be offered to all the people of the
nation for subscription. This first Agreement was a brief document. It called
for reapportionment of seats in proportion to population. The present
Parliament was to dissolve on September 30, 1648, and thereafter biennial
Parliaments were to be chosen to sit for a fixed time. King and Lords were
tacitly abolished. All power was declared to be in a popular Representative,
except for the rights which the people expressly or impliedly reserved to
themselves. There were five such reserved rights: there was to be no power over
consciences; no man was to be impressed to serve in war; all were to have
indemnity for actions in the wars save those under judgment of the present
House of Commons; there was to be no privilege from equal operation of the law;
and, "as the laws ought to be equal, so they must be good, and not evidently
destructive to the safety and well-being of the people."
On October 28 the Agitators of the five regiments presented the
Agreement to the General Council as a substitute for the Heads of the
Proposals. Wildman and other civilian supporters of the Agreement were
permitted to be present. The debate was hot. Ireton protested that the notion
of natural rights would undermine all law and property. Government belonged to
those that "do comprehend the local interest of this kingdom; that is, the
persons in whom all land lies, and those in corporations in whom all trading
lies."2 It was to settle power thus that the war had been fought. To
this the Agitator Sexby replied that "it would have been good in you to have
advertised us of it, and I believe you would have had fewer under your command
to have commanded." On November 3, while the Council was still considering the
Agreement, the five regiments published the text, announcing that it had
received the concurrence of eleven other regiments and more would follow, and
inviting the subscription of the general public. The Council debated the
Agreement until November 9, when it adjourned to prepare for a general
rendezvous of the Army announced for the fifteenth. In this debate the
Agitators succeeded in carrying a vote for manhood suffrage but for no other
part of the Agreement. The officers, fearing the temper of the soldiers,
divided the Army and held three separate rendezvous. There were demonstrations
for the Agreement of the People, but Cromwell faced the soldiers down and
carried the day.
It was about this time that the term "Leveller" was first used to
describe the party of the Lilburnites and the Agitators. Lilburne himself
charged Cromwell and Ireton with fastening the name upon the faction in order
to make it odious to the people. Lilburne preferred to call his party "the
Agreers of the People." It was not until 1659 that the Levellers accepted the
name by which they were commonly known.
The Levellers could exercise influence on Army policy only when the
officers were at odds with Parliament. The Scotch invasion and the Royalist
risings of 1648 caused the Army and the Parliament to draw together. But in the
fall of 1648, when peace had been restored, the Presbyterian Parliament
reopened negotiations with Charles. Ireton, Cromwell, and Harrison realized
that an agreement between the King and the Parliament would make the position
of the Army untenable. The dissolution of Parliament seemed to be the only
course open, but before undertaking it they must secure the consent of the
Levellers, who by virtue of their influence in the Army and in London held the
balance of power between the officers and Parliament. Ireton undertook to win
the Council of War to his view and at the same time opened negotiations with
Lilburne. Lilburne and his friends agreed to countenance the action only if an
Agreement of the People were framed and offered to the Army and the people.
Ireton acceded to this demand and also permitted Lilburne to introduce
modifications in the resolution he had drafted for the Council of War.
This resolution was entitled A Remonstrance of His Excellency, Thomas
Lord Fairfax ... and of the General Council of Officers Held at St. Albans.
On November 18 the Council adopted the Remonstrance and voted to send it
to Parliament. The proposals of the Remonstrance were a curious medley
of the ideas of Ireton and Lilburne. They called upon the Parliament to bring
the king to trial for his crimes. There was to be no king in the future unless
chosen by the Commons, nor should he possess a negative voice in legislation.
There should be a certain succession of Parliaments, annual or biennial, with
secure provision for the certainty of their meeting, sitting, and ending. There
should be a reapportionment of seats "to render the House of Commons, as near
as may be, an equal Representative of the whole people electing." This
Representative was to possess supreme legislative power, and the ordinary
government of the people was to be carried out by administrative officers
following fixed rules. However, the Representative was not to be entrusted with
power to question anyone for actions performed during the late wars and public
differences except those already under censure for serving the king, nor might
it "render up, or give or take away, any of the foundations of common right,
liberty, or safety contained in this settlement and agreement." Specific
reference was made to an Agreement embodying the settlement, subscription to
which was to be the condition of holding office or claiming benefit under the
Agreement.
As Ireton no doubt expected, the House of Commons refused to act on the
Remonstrance. On November 30 the Army published a Declaration in
which it announced that it was marching to London, "there to follow Providence
as God shall clear our way." The Declaration invited those members of
the House who had remained faithful to their trust to take refuge with the
Army, which would acknowledge them as the lawful power until a more formal
settlement could be made. The Independent members of the House, however, would
consent to a purge but not a dissolution. Accordingly, on December 6 Colonel
Pride arrested the Presbyterian members as they sought to enter the House.
The task of framing an Agreement of the People had been entrusted to a
committee consisting of four Levellers, four officers, four civilian
Independents, and four members of the House. The Levellers did the actual
writing, but they were obliged to modify their proposals in order to win the
approval of the committee. Eventually a compromise version was ratified by a
majority of the members. Lilburne presented the text of the Agreement in a
pamphlet entitled Foundations of Freedom published on December 10. The
Agreement stipulated that the Parliament should dissolve on or before April 30,
1649. In the future the Representative of the nation was to consist of 300
members, chosen from districts recited in the instrument. The electors were to
be "natives or denizens of England, such as have subscribed this Agreement, not
persons receiving alms, but such as are assessed ordinarily towards the relief
of the poor; not servants to, or receiving wages from, any particular person."
Executive power was to be in the hands of a Council of State chosen by the
Representative. Eight limits were placed on the Representative: there was to be
no compulsion in religion; men should not be impressed to serve in war; no one
should be further questioned for actions performed during the wars; no
privilege of exemption from the laws should be given in the future; all past
exemptions were to be void; the Representative should not meddle with the
execution of the laws, except to call public officers to account; no member of
a future Representative might hold another post at the same time, saying that
of member of the Council of State; no Representative should render up, or give,
or take away the foundations of common right, liberty, or safety contained in
the Agreement, or level men's estates, destroy property, or make all things
common.
The Agreement was referred to the Council of Officers and was debated
extensively there. Modifications were introduced, the most important of which
was a great narrowing of the provision for religious toleration. Lilburne
disowned the Agreement as it left the officers' hands. Nevertheless it was
presented to the House of Commons on January 20, 1649. There it was laid to
sleep.
The officers were now able to dispense with the Levellers. An attempt
was made in February to revive the Agitators and the Council of the Army, but
the officers refused to permit it. Mutinies of the Leveller soldiers in April
and May were suppressed. On May 1 Lilburne published another Agreement of the
People in which manhood suffrage was restored and a considerable number of
additional limitations were placed on the Representative. Throughout 1649
Leveller tracts continued to appear, but the circumstances which had made the
party important no longer existed. Individual Levellers played prominent parts
in the 1650's, and there was a kind of Leveller revival in 1659. One Leveller,
Richard Rumbold, participated in the Rye House Plot in 1683; John Wildman
actually attained a knighthood under William and Mary.
There were two great, and indeed fatal, flaws in the Leveller scheme.
The first error was the assumption that the people of England would consent to
a democratic government. Cromwell knew better. When Ludlow in 1656 told
Cromwell his government was not legitimate because it was not based on consent,
Cromwell replied, "I am as much for a government by consent as any man; but
where shall we find that consent? Amongst the prelatical, Presbyterian,
Independent, Anabaptist, or Levelling parties?"3 This was
unanswerable.
The second weakness was the failure of the Agreement to provide any
sanction for its enforcement. It did indeed authorize resistance to any
Representative that should violate the Agreement, but as William Ashurst, a
Presbyterian member of the House, pointed out, this left every man to judge
whether the Agreement was broken: "Therefore every man that will but say they
have broken this Agreement, and hath power to make it good, shall not offend,
but justify his disobedience, opposing their laws and orders by
force."4 The Levellers of 1659 undertook to remedy this by supplying
regular machinery for supervision of the Representative.
NOTES
(1) The pamphlet is attributed to Overton by William
Haller, Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution (New York, 1938),
III, Pt. II, p. 349.
(2) A. S. P. Woodhouse, ed., Puritanism and Liberty,
Being the Army Debates (1647-1649) from the Clarke Manuscripts (London,
1938), p. 54.
(3) C. H. Firth, ed., The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow
(Oxford, 1894), ii, 11.
(4) Reasons against Agreement with a Late Printed
Paper, Entitled Foundations of Freedom: Or, The Agreement of the People
(London, 1648).
|
|
| |
