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
1. What were the Putney Debates?
In the autumn of 1647, on the outskirts of London, the General Council of the New Model Army held
discussions on the constitutional future of England. Since the King and Parliament were very much at
its mercy, the outcome of debates had potentially great significance for the whole country.
“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
2. 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
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”
3. 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
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)