What was at stake in the
Putney Debates?
“’WEE HAVE ENGAGED IN THIS KINGEDOME AND VENTUR’D OUR
LIVES AND ITT WAS ALL FOR THIS: TO RECOVER OUR BIRTHRIGHTS
AND PRIVILEGES AS ENGLISHMEN” – EDWARD SEXBY
What were the Putney Debates?
“Putney was an argument about alternate versions of
politics- one oligarchic and exclusive, and the other popular
and democratic” – Samuel Glover
“The Putney debates… were inseparable from their military
venue. They were, to be sure, more than simply of military
interest, but they were the discussions of soldiers.” – Michael
Mendle
Two political futures for England?
Heads of Proposals, July 1647 The Agreement of the People,
October 1647






The King and House of Lords retain a power of
veto over the House of Commons
Biennale Parliaments
Redistribution of seats
Parliament to control the appointment of state
officials and officers in the army and navy
Greater Religious toleration
Episcopacy retained in church government, but
the power of the bishops reduced




Parliament (consisting of a single elected House)
to be the supreme authority in the land.
Biennale parliaments- “the people do choose
themselves a Parliament once in every two years”
Redistribution of seats- “ought to be more
indifferently proportioned according to the
number of inhabitants”
Religious freedom– “ matters of religion are not at
all entrusted by us to any human power”
What was the future of the New Model
Army?
Indemnity: Security against or exemption from legal
responsibility for one’s actions (Oxford Dictionaries)
“The Kinge might command his judges to hang them uppe
for what they did in the warre”- John Wildman
Conclusion
“the extraordinary atmosphere in Putney Church, the
mixture of fear and religious exaltation, of logical argument
and angry protest” – Lesley Le Claire
Selected bibliography
In Our Time, ‘The Putney Debates’
Mendle, Michael, (ed.), The Putney Debates of 1647: The Army, the
Levellers and the English State (Cambridge, 2001)
Glover, Samuel, ‘The Putney Debates: Popular versus Elitist
Republicanism’, Past and Present, Vol. 164 (1999)
How important were the Putney debates?
Can we truly understand what was at stake
when contemporary accounts are so limited?