‘I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, 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 bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.”
Colonel Rainsborough’s famous appeal for democratic rights for all men. Putney, 1647
Boadicea's Chariot 
Sorry Claire,
Can I have that in English please? 🙂
It is, in English civil war speak, a way of saying that all men should be equal…
Nope I didn’t see it at all Ma’am.
Thanks for giving me the rub in laymans terms.
All men are not equal, some are criminal, lowlife scum with no rights to society at all. Discuss.
It reads to me more as a version of “no taxation without representation”, and I believe Claire’s inspiration for quoting it is “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”, but, oh dear, I’ve gone all frog myself = “There’s nothing new under the sun”.
But then you know that, doncha, Furry Ears? 😀
That makes more sense Bearsy but honestly, the whole lot went over my small furry napper. It was simply far too cryptic for me, and I can ace the DT crossword.
I’m all for history and learning from past mistakes but I have to be able to get the message.
It is a bit obscure and meandering, towards the end, but I honestly believe that the opening clauses are among the most beautiful and noble sentiments I have ever read in English.
Actually Rainsborough was speaking for the Levellers, a somewhat militant faction of Cromwell’s army. It was more to do with one man one vote. It was not popular with Cromwell and was quietly dropped.
Honestly Claire, I just don’t understand it.
The last part could be considered a bit revolutionary.
It could indeed, Sheona. The Levellers were said by some to be positively communist in their views.
We get the gunmint we deserve?
First it says a fellow should submit to the rule of the gubmint he has chosen. Unless he has the gubmint he didn;t choose, in which case all bets are off?
Sounds like complete and utter tripe to me.
Oh Furry One.
But not everyone was entitled to vote then. That’s the point!
Minty MBE,
I didn’t consider that, it is beginning to make some sense. 🙂
Not to mention monarchs taking no notice of parliament; think Civil War. 😉
As opposed to parliament taking no notice of the monarchy? 🙂
Quite, but I’m inclined to think this may be a Good Thing; for Cuprum anyway. 😉
Thanks, Araminta, for injecting a cold shower of historical reality. My tame historian is still abed, but I guess she will align her comments with yours when she eventually rises. 😎
G’mornin that bear!
You catch me as I am about to ascend the wooden hill to Bedfordshire.
Hopefully when I wake, Boadicea will have translated all this into something a mere mustelid can comprehend. Good night all. 🙂
I was just trying to enlighten a confused Mustelid, Bearsy.
I’m not sure that Boadicea will necessarily agree with my simplistic and somewhat Marxist view of events 😉
whoops. This has gone rather bigger than I expected – it was a sort of adjunct to Cuprum’s post really, so I should have put it on there.
Thanks for that, Ara. Rainsborough and the Levellers were about as close to communism as we ever got, you might say.
Hey Araminta – I bow to your superior knowledge on all things of this period. So if I have the following wrong – feel free to correct me 🙂
The Putney Debates of 1647 were a series of discussions between factions of Cromwell’s New Army and the Levellers concerning a new Constitution for England. The Levellers wanted wanted a constitution based upon manhood suffrage (“one man, one vote”), biennial Parliaments and a reorganisation of parliamentary constituencies. Authority was to be vested in the House of Commons rather than the King and Lords. Certain “native rights” were declared sacrosanct for all Englishmen: freedom of conscience, freedom from impressment into the armed forces and equality before the law.
Clare’s quote is part of the Leveller’s appeal for democratic rights for all men.
At that point Cromwell, Ireton and others were still trying to negotiate with Charles I and they both thought that manhood suffrage was tantamount to anarchy. Cromwell vetoed the abolition of the Monarchy and Ireton replied to the Levellers’ demands:
Translated that meant that if you weren’t a property owner you shouldn’t have a vote. And we all know who won that debate… 🙂
Thanks Claire, Araminta and Boadicea for adding a lot to my knowledge of that period. I’d heard of the Levellers, but didn’t know much else. Fancy old Cromwell thinking one man one vote was anarchy!
Pretty much how it was, Boadicea.
The Levellers were not a particularly organized bunch but they did find a platform for their ideas in the New Model Army. They fell rather uncomfortably between the aristocracy, the big landowners and the peasants. They were not content with political and religious reform and their social and economic notions were much too liberal for both.
The Levellers were much too radical for Cromwell!
As opposed to the government taking no notice of the Parliament? Or the Parliament taking no notice of the electorate? Or all of them p*ssing money away like it’s going out of fashion?
I have a reason for retaining the Monarchy. It depends on what you see as the role of the replacement. A figurehead like the Monarchy? If that is the case, what is the point? Specifically, if the role would be a figurehead, what does ‘accountability’ have to do with it? What would you get to fill the role? Some past-it politician whose pals want to see pensioned off? Rumpey Pumpey or ‘baroness’ what’s her face? Neil Kinnock? Edward Heath? That’s all you’d get, innit?
Or did you have an executive Head of State in mind? In which case, would you then wish to go the whole hog and institute a system something like the US, with a properly elected upper chamber of Parliament? In which case you would need to write a whole new constitution to ensure that the proper checks and balances were in place, including something like the US Supreme Court to look after it.
Is that enough reason not to fix a something that ain’t broke?
Obviously you need to have achieved a certain level of equality before being allowed to vote. As Orwell might have said.
#24. Oops, sorry, wrong post (blush.)
The matter of universal suffrage is hardly consigned to history. I am a white, middle-class, educated, sane, law-abiding property-owner, yet I have not been able to vote in a general election for many years, including my 14-year residency in Switzerland, the most democratic country in the world, where I had no vote at all.
The people who decide should be the ones who are affected, and proportionately, I think.
Ferret, I couldn’t agree with you more. And some of those are still paying themselves disgracefully large bonuses, and are, in practice, ruling over everybody and everything.
Quote right, too. I pay enough in taxes to decide better how it is spent than some sluggard who sits hia obese Rse on the couch all day watching Eastenders or some other equally enlightening crap. Multiple voters, that’s the way to go. (Has anyone not read ‘A town like Alice?’)
BugriT! That’s ‘his’ obese…
Yes, Bravo, but let’s not confuse absolute and relative amounts. A very rich man might pay a very high amount of tax, in absolute terms, which made little difference to his life-quality, whatever policies his government introduces, while to someone who pays very little or no tax, those same measures could have a devastating effect.
I’m talking about me, in particular. My vote is worth a lot more than that of the person I mentioned in my comment. I made no reference to who should pay what amount of tax – though I fail to see why my hard work means that I should give proportionately more of my money to the government – just that since I do pay more, I should have a bit more say in how my money is spent than the person I referred to in the comment.
I agree with Araminta and Bo that it has to do with enfranchisement not egalitarianism.
Julie, virtually no one that is not resident in the UK gets to vote. The time period for postal votes abroad is carefully constructed so that there is insufficient time to get it returned!
I have made complaint for decades to no avail but still they manage to find me for rates and tax demands with great expedition!
Of course this is not true if you are an immigrant and a liar as there is no proof of citizenship in the UK required as there is elsewhere.
Christina, frankly I have given up on the UK. I gloat from a distance. I do think one should get to vote in the place one lives.
I don’t in the USA. Can’t rather, one has to be a citizen to vote in Federal elections and prove it with a birth certificate to get on the electoral roll. Which is why so many people are a bit bothered over this Obama birth certificate issue, after all if you have to produce it to vote you should have to produce it to stand!
Do you still live in Switzerland?
No, I now live in France.