Leaders of the People: Studies in Democratic HistoryClayton, Joseph
History
Leaders of the People: Studies in Democratic History
Clayton, Joseph
Democracy; Great Britain -- History
And now monarchy having fallen from its high estate, Lilburne at once
saw elements of tyranny in the Parliamentary government, and did not
hesitate to say so. Courageous and intrepid, with considerable legal
knowledge, a passion for liberty, and clear views on democracy, John
Lilburne might have given invaluable service to the commonwealth. He
had shown skill and daring in the war, his character for fearless
endurance had been proved, his ability as a pamphleteer was
considerable, and his capacity for work enormous; the government had
either to treat Lilburne as a friend or foe--he was not to be ignored.
The government, unwisely, decided Lilburne was an enemy, and for the
next ten years he fought the rule of parliament and the army, his
popularity increasing with every new pamphlet he produced. The price
the commonwealth government paid for its opposition to Lilburne was to
be seen on the death of Cromwell.[114]
From 1645 to 1649 Lilburne’s vigorous criticisms of the men in power
provoked retaliation, and brought him to Newgate. But in prison or out
of prison Lilburne went on hammering away to establish a democratic
constitution. The time was to come when Cromwell would find the Long
Parliament had outlived its usefulness and would end it by main force.
Lilburne was anxious in 1647 for a radical reform of parliament and a
general manhood suffrage. His proposals were popular in the army, and
had Cromwell supported him the whole future of English politics would
have been changed.
When the Presbyterian majority in parliament proposed the disbandment
of the army in 1647, the regiments chose their agitators, and, refusing
to disband, drew up the “Agreement of the People” and the “Case for the
Army.” These documents give the political standpoint of the Levellers
and the particular grievances to be remedied.
The distribution of parliamentary seats according to the number of
inhabitants was the chief proposal in the “Agreement of the People,”
and the principles maintained are that “no man is bound to a government
under which he has not put himself,” and that “all inhabitants who have
not lost their birthright should have an equal voice in elections.”
The particular demands in the “Case for the Army” were the abolition
of monopolies, freedom of trade and religion, restoration of enclosed
common lands, and abolition of sinecures.
While Cromwell and Ireton were both bitterly against manhood suffrage,
the council of officers to whom the Levellers appealed agreed to
support it, without approving the rest of the programme.
Cromwell, relying on the army to prevent a royalist reaction--for
Charles was plotting from Carisbrooke for aid from Scotland, and
the royalists in the House of Commons were anxious to effect a
reconciliation--would give neither time nor patience to the demands of
Lilburne and the Levellers.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account