The Levellers’ ideas sound remarkably contemporary, often surprising us with their enduring relevance. However, interpretations of both the Levellers and the English Civil War vary. Some historians characterize the conflict as the last of the religious wars, while others view it as a political revolution.
Since 1975, the annual Burford Levellers’ Day has been observed. As Rachel Foxley notes:
“Levellers retain a place in the popular imagination, doing so as admirable radicals—of whatever kind—cruelly defeated by Cromwellian forces of reaction.” (2)
To understand the Levellers, it is essential first to consider the context of the English Civil War.
Context
A pivotal moment occurred in 1628 with the Petition of Right—a formal statement of grievances from Parliament to King Charles I. Although presented respectfully, the Petition insisted that no individual could be deprived of property without parliamentary consent. It was a call to uphold long-standing traditions and liberties.
King Charles rejected the Petition, asserting that Parliament was merely advisory and that he could govern as he saw fit. This rejection led to the period known as the “Eleven Years’ Tyranny” (1629–1640), during which the King ruled without Parliament and raised funds independently, including through unpopular taxes such as Ship Money.
By 1640, rising public discontent forced Parliament to reconvene, now led by figures like John Pym. The tone had shifted; Parliament moved beyond petitioning to assert legal authority. The English Revolution was underway.
Among Parliament’s bold new claims were the following:
- It would convene every three years, with or without royal consent.
- The Petition of Right would become law.
- New taxes required parliamentary approval.
- Parliament sought control over royal appointments.
When civil war broke out in 1642, a new kind of army emerged—Cromwell’s New Model Army—and with it, new political voices. Among the most radical were the Levellers. Though they fought for Parliament, they challenged both royal and parliamentary power, advocating for popular sovereignty, equal political rights, and a government truly accountable to the people.
The ‘Petitioner’ Party
The Levellers were not political philosophers in the traditional sense. They did not write in Latin, cite established authorities, or explicitly situate themselves within the political theory of their time. Yet, it would be mistaken to assume they lacked political coherence. While they did not present themselves as a political party in the modern sense, they shared a common programme and raised funds through subscriptions from supporters.
Thus, it is more accurate to describe them as a “petitioner party” rather than a party seeking governmental power.
In the decades preceding the English Civil War, London experienced rapid, unplanned population growth. People migrated from the countryside seeking work and opportunity, creating an increasingly diverse and dynamic urban environment. Simultaneously, the spread of inexpensive printed materials—pamphlets, petitions, and political tracts—placed new ideas into the hands of anyone literate. This burgeoning print culture empowered ordinary citizens to engage politically in unprecedented ways. Many actively participated by signing petitions, voicing grievances, and bringing their demands directly to Parliament.
It was in this climate that the Levellers emerged, advocating religious and political freedoms—not only for the elite but for all people. Their demands reflected a growing conviction that ordinary individuals should have a say in their governance.
The Leveller movement emerged in 1647 and effectively collapsed by 1649, following the imprisonment of its civilian leaders. However, the movement was not entirely extinguished. Even after the Restoration in 1660, elements of the Levellers’ agenda—such as popular sovereignty, legal equality, and expanded political rights—continued to circulate and influence later democratic thought. Key figures of the movement included John Lilburne, Richard Overton, and William Walwyn, whose ideas were notably expressed in the influential manifesto Agreement of the People (1647).
Some scholars have constructed a narrative portraying the Levellers as the first modern democrats of Western European history. (Gray S. De Cray, p. 11) Others dispute this characterization, arguing that their ideas were not fully democratic. Nonetheless, as Gray S. De Cray observes:
“Levellers did in fact address issues that have repeatedly arisen in different forms throughout the course of modern Western political theory.” (Gray S. De Cray, p. 11)
Lilburne and other Leveller leaders were not classical scholars, but they were extraordinary individuals representing a new and distinct political phenomenon. While terms such as “radical” or “revolutionary” may not perfectly capture the spirit of the era, the Levellers introduced ideas that challenged established norms. They rejected the traditional concept of a mixed constitution, asserting instead the supremacy of the House of Commons. Unlike philosophers such as Hobbes, Leveller leaders were prolific pamphleteers who responded rapidly to political events. They wrote in the vernacular of mid-seventeenth-century England, making their works accessible and rooted in the language of ordinary people, rather than composing lengthy philosophical treatises.
Political Ideas
In the 1640s, key Leveller thinkers such as John Lilburne and Richard Overton articulated a powerful vision of natural liberty and popular sovereignty grounded in natural law discourse. In The Free Man’s Freedom Vindicated (1646), Lilburne argued that God, by His sovereign will, endowed every human being with dominion over themselves and made them rational creatures. From Adam and Eve onward, all human beings were, by nature, equal—equal in power, dignity, authority, and majesty. No person, he insisted, had rightful dominion or authority over another. This reflects the standard natural law argument of the period, drawing on both biblical and classical ideas.
Similarly, in An Arrow Against All Tyrants (also 1646), Overton proclaimed that every man is by nature “a King, a Priest, and a Prophet” within his own moral and rational sphere. No one, he argued, has the right to encroach upon another’s natural liberty. For both Lilburne and Overton, natural sovereignty was not merely a theoretical ideal rooted in a pre-political past; it had real and enduring consequences for political order.
The Levellers went further, insisting that the natural rights and freedoms of individuals form the basis for legitimate political authority.
Parliamentarians in the 1640s reached similar conclusions about limiting royal power, though their routes differed. A core belief was that England’s fundamental constitution did not vest power solely in the king. Instead, authority was distributed among three estates—now reimagined not as clergy, nobility, and commons, but as King, Lords, and Commons. This innovation produced a mixed constitution, combining monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Throughout the First Civil War and beyond, Parliament professed loyalty to the king, framing its actions as corrective rather than revolutionary.
This equilibrium was disrupted by Pride’s Purge in 1648, which forcibly removed moderate MPs and cleared the way for more radical politics. Long before this event, however, the Levellers had adopted a more uncompromising stance. Though initially aligned with radical elements in Parliament, they pushed much further.
In July 1646, the Levellers published the Remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens—the first text in which they openly claimed to represent a mass political movement. It denounced King Charles and called on the House of Commons to abolish the monarchy altogether.
The Levellers rejected the coordination theory of parliamentary sovereignty, which regarded Parliament as the unified national will. Instead, they argued for a single representative chamber with strict democratic accountability. For them, representation meant identity: Members of Parliament were not rulers but deputies bound by the same laws as everyone else. Parliaments should be short in duration, frequently elected, and always subject to public scrutiny.
Popular Sovereignty
As Foxley writes, popular sovereignty became more tangible and less theoretical when popular activism was an everyday reality. Lilburne’s conception of the state of nature was not simply historical; he maintained:
“every particular and individuall man and woman, that ever breathed in the world since [Adam and Eve]… are, and were by nature all equall and alike in power, dignity, authority, and majesty” (Lilburne 1646).
For John Lilburne, being free-born was not merely a legal condition—it was a political identity. Every Englishman, by virtue of birth, was entitled to political rights, not just protection under the law. This was a radical departure from earlier ideas, such as those of Sir Thomas Smith, who claimed that lower-class free men were only “to be ruled, not to rule.”
Lilburne’s rhetoric of “free-born Englishmen” emphasized that freedom meant participation—in law-making, governance, and civil society. He regarded birthright not as a vague heritage but as a claim to citizenship: the right to vote, to trade freely, and to be governed with consent.
While the Levellers often employed inclusive and populist rhetoric, their actual proposals for the franchise were more nuanced. Early Leveller writings hinted at a broad electorate, including all freeborn men over twenty-one. However, successive proposals, such as the Agreements of the People, introduced restrictions—excluding servants, alms-takers, and royalists.
The May 1649 Agreement notably dropped the earlier requirement that voters be householders, suggesting a move toward broader inclusion. Yet servants remained excluded, indicating ongoing tension between radical democratic ideals and practical political boundaries.
Bibliography
- Como, David R. Radical Parliamentarians and the English Civil War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
- De Krey, Gary S. Following the Levellers: Political and Religious Radicals in the English Civil War and Revolution, 1645–1649. Northfield, 2017.
- De Cray, Gary S. Following the Levellers. Northfield, 2017.
- Dzelzainis, Martin. “History and Ideology: Milton, the Levellers, and the Council of State in 1649.” Huntington Library Quarterly 68, no. 1/2 (2005): 1–20.
- Foxley, Rachel. The Levellers: Radical Political Thought in the English Revolution. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013.
- Hill, Christopher. The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution. London: Penguin, 1972.
- Hotman, François. Francogallia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
- Kingdon, Robert M. “Calvinism and Resistance Theory, 1550–1580.” In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450–1700, edited by J. H. Burns with the assistance of Mark Goldie, 193–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
- Lilburne, John. The Free-man’s Freedom Vindicated. London, 1646.
- Overton, Richard. The Araignement of Mr. Persecution. London, 1645.
- Overton, Richard. A Defiance against all Arbitrary Usurpations. London, 1646.
- Overton, Richard. An Arrow against all Tyrants and Tyranny. London, 1646.
- Rees, John. The Leveller Revolution. London: Verso, 2016.
- Scruton, Roger. A Short History of Modern Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1995.
Image: The world turned upside down ; Date: 1646 (broadside pamphlet frontispiece) ; Author: Unknown (public domain) Source: British Library via Wikimedia Commons
Leave a Reply