Leaders of the People: Studies in Democratic HistoryClayton, Joseph
History
Leaders of the People: Studies in Democratic History
Clayton, Joseph
Democracy; Great Britain -- History
In vain the Levellers exclaimed, in 1648, “We were ruled before
by King, Lords, and Commons, now by a General, Court Martial, and
Commons: and, we pray you, what is the difference?” Cromwell, at all
costs, was determined to preserve the discipline of the army, and to
suppress mutiny with an iron hand. For him the army which had beaten
the cavaliers was the one safeguard against the return of the old
order in Church and State. Lilburne and the Levellers, with the “Fifth
Monarchy” men, had been the strength, the very life of the army that
had conquered at Marston Moor and Naseby. The petition of the Fifth
Monarchy men for the reign of Christ and His saints (which, according
to prophecy, was to supersede the four monarchies of the ancient
world) had no terrors for Cromwell; in other words, they demanded
government exclusively by the godly, Independents and Presbyterians
combining to elect all representatives, “and to determine all things
by the Word.” “Such a proposal might attract fanatics; it could not
attract the multitude. The Levellers who stood up for an exaggeration
of the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy were likely to be far more
numerous.”[115] To Cromwell the immediate thing was the royalist
danger; it was no season for embarking on democratic experiments
with which he had no sympathy. The breach between Cromwell and the
Levellers widened, and as Cromwell became more and more impatient
of their agitation, distrust and suspicion of Cromwell and of the
newly-appointed Council of State ripened, in 1649, into revolt.[116]
It is the perennial misunderstanding between the statesman and the
agitator. The one weighted by responsibility can rarely travel at
the pace of the other, untrammelled by office, and as the distance
between the two lengthens, it seems they are not even pursuing the same
course--as, indeed, very often they are not.
Lilburne had none of Cromwell’s anxieties as to a possible royalist
reaction; for him the danger could not come from the dethroned king
and his defeated cavaliers, but from a parliamentary oligarchy or
a military dictatorship. But he overestimated the strength of the
Leveller movement in the army. With the presentation of the “Agreement
of the People” the bulk of the discontent in the army diminished, and
while the Levellers who remained became in several regiments openly
mutinous, the movement generally died down, so that when the revolt
came, it was suppressed without difficulty.[117]
Lilburne was out of prison at the beginning of 1649. He took no part in
the trial of Charles I., and let it be known that he doubted the wisdom
of abolishing monarchy before a new constitution had been drawn up.
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