Rainsborough R.I.P
October 30, 2009
Today is (or should be…) ‘Rainsborough Day’. Thomas Rainsborough is one of England’s greatest unsung heroes. He was the highest ranking Leveller in the New Model Army and, as such, was a very influential figure. The Levellers sought complete social and economic equality; a universal levelling of privilege and wealth. As Rainsborough himself said during the Putney Debates of 1647…
If it be a property, it is a property by a law; neither do I think that there is very little property in this thing by the law of the land, because I think that the law of the land in that thing is the most tyrannous law under heaven, and I would fain know what we have fought for, and this is the old law of England, and that which enslaves the people of England, that they should be bound by laws in which they have no voice at all. The thing that I am unsatisfied in is how it comes about that there is such a property in some freeborn Englishmen, and not in others.
Sir, I see that it is impossible to have liberty but all property must be taken away. If it be laid down for a rule, and if you will say it, it must be so. But I would fain know what the soldier hath fought for all this while? He hath fought to enslave himself, to give power to men of riches, men of estates, to make him a perpetual slave. We do find in all presses that go forth none must be pressed that are freehold-men. When these Gentlemen fall out among themselves they shall press the poor scrubs to come and kill each other for them…
Among other things the Levellers called for an end to Parliamentary and Judicial corruption; toleration of religious differences; the translation of law into the common tongue; and an elected judiciary - all of which remain all too relevant today! The Levellers were fighting to empower the people; and neither the Crown nor Cromwell could cope with that!
Cromwell sent Rainsborough to put an end to the siege of Pontefract Castle, but Rainsborough would never get as far as Pontefract. Whilst Rainsborough was staying at an inn in Doncaster market place four Royalists burst into his quarters and attempted to kidnap him; but in the heat of the moment Rainsborough was murdered by the would-be kidnappers. Many Levellers believed that Cromwell himself was behind the kidnap attempt.
Rainsborough’s funeral was attended by thousands of people wearing sea-green ribbons and bunches of rosemary in their hats for remembrance. Recently there have been calls to commemorate Rainsborough at an annual ‘Rainsborough Day’ in Doncaster market place and to erect a plaque at the place where he was killed (now a Primark of all things).
If it be a property, it is a property by a law; neither do I think that there is very little property in this thing by the law of the land, because I think that the law of the land in that thing is the most tyrannous law under heaven, and I would fain know what we have fought for, and this is the old law of England, and that which enslaves the people of England, that they should be bound by laws in which they have no voice at all. The thing that I am unsatisfied in is how it comes about that there is such a property in some freeborn Englishmen, and not in others.
Sir, I see that it is impossible to have liberty but all property must be taken away. If it be laid down for a rule, and if you will say it, it must be so. But I would fain know what the soldier hath fought for all this while? He hath fought to enslave himself, to give power to men of riches, men of estates, to make him a perpetual slave. We do find in all presses that go forth none must be pressed that are freehold-men. When these Gentlemen fall out among themselves they shall press the poor scrubs to come and kill each other for them…
Among other things the Levellers called for an end to Parliamentary and Judicial corruption; toleration of religious differences; the translation of law into the common tongue; and an elected judiciary - all of which remain all too relevant today! The Levellers were fighting to empower the people; and neither the Crown
A balanced assessment of Rainsborough’s career needs to take account of his role as Vice-Admiral of the Navy in 1647-48. In that role, he undoubtedly failed. His alienation of the seamen and of the Long Parliament’s fleet was a major factor in the naval revolt of 1648.
‘Failure’ features heavily in the lives of all great historical figures. Another 17th Century ‘hero’, Gerrard Winstanley, came to prominence only after suffering bankruptcy thanks to the effects of the first Civil War.
But I must question Christopher’s judgement…
Rainsborough was originally in the navy until 1645, he then became a Col. in the New Model Army. He did not return to the navy until January 1648, when he was appointed vice-admiral in place of William Batten, a prominent Presbyterian. Rainsborough was given command of a squadron guarding the Solent and Isle of Wight, where King Charles was held prisoner. However, Rainsborough’s radical views were unpopular in the Navy where many officers were Presbyterian in sympathy. On the outbreak of the Second Civil War in the spring of 1648, a number of Parliament’s warships declared for the King in a naval revolt. Rainsborough was seized by his crew and put ashore. Parliament re-appointed the Earl of Warwick in his place to restore the loyalty of the seamen. With his authority in the navy at an end, Rainsborough transferred back to the army and took command of a newly-raised London regiment known as the Tower Guards at the siege of Colchester.
After Rainsborough’s success at the fall of Colchester, Fairfax ordered him to march north to the siege of Pontefract Castle, but he was murdered in Doncaster while travelling to Pontefract.
Rainsborough ‘failed’ in the navy because he stayed true to his own beliefs. It is also highly likely that these beliefs got him killed as the Levellers were becoming a real threat to Cromwell’s emerging dictatorship.
Warren, for the YAG.
I am afraid this response from ‘Warren’ is not really convincing. Rainsborough certainly did fail in his command in the Long Parliament’s navy as ‘Warren’ himself admits. This made the threat from the R0yalists in the second Civil War in 1648 more, not less, serious: a high price had to be paid for Rainsborough “staying true to his own beleifs”. There was no “emerging dictatorship” on the part of Oliver Cromwell in 1647 or in the autumn of 1648 nor were the Levellers a serious threat to the leaders of the New Model Army or to the Independents (religious or political in the Long Parliament). The Levellers are interesting for their ideas, which drew on a number of themes, not all of them compatible with one another, but their numbers and support were much less than their latter day admirers have supposed (See John Adamson, ed., The English Civil War, Pp.214, 299 note 64). Rainsborough, in any case, was not murdered by would-be kidnappers but killed, along with his Lieutenant, in a fight with four of his royalist captors (See Michael Braddick, God’s Fury, England’s Fire, P.549).
“There was no “emerging dictatorship” on the part of Oliver Cromwell in 1647″
Cromwell may not yet have been a tyrant, but the existence of dissenting groups like The Levellers, along with a vast quantity of independently published pamphlets, would suggest that a lot of people at the time recognised an emerging problem. And I’m afraid history was to prove them right.
As for Leveller numbers and influence; history is – and historians are… – influenced as much by the present as by events of the past. Lately there has been a denial that ‘the Ranters’ ever existed and there has been a bit of a backlash against the likes of Christopher Hill. But regardless of who’s ‘truth’ one chooses to follow it’s hard to deny that a plaque to Rainsborough would be preferable to a Primark
I was one of Christopher Hill’s postgraduate pupils at Oxford. His influence on seventeenth-century English history receded rapidly from the mid-1970s onwards and cannot now be detected. J.C.Davis’s controversial claims about the Ranters were a matter of academic dispute thirty years ago and were not found to be convincing. Philip Baker has argued recently that the Levellers were only part of a broader radical spectrum. The numbers involved in this spectrum, including Levellers, were relatively small as recent academic research has tended to indicate. Whatever view one takes of the Levellers, they should be studied in the context of their own time, not viewed as precursors of twentieth or twenty-first century groups. Throughout his career, Oliver Cromwell sought a constitutional and religious settlement that would command wide assent, particularly from the landed elite: he never achieved this aim, hence the collapse of the Protectorate after his death. The Levellers and Diggers on the other hand thought a constitutional and religious settlement could be imposed. They were even more in error than Cromwell was.
Christopher Thompson follows current academic fashion is seeking to downplay the Levellers. Of course they were “only part of a broader radical spectrum”. That’s the point; they were an important element of a political strand which challenged the views of men like Ireton and Cromwell. As for Rainsborough’s role he was a major military figure and M.P. who led the five regiments which invested London against the wishes of Parliament, his own regiment in the vanguard. His appointment as Vice-Admiral of the Channel fleet was undoubtedly a setup; an apparent promotion which separated him from his base in the infantry regiments. Just who and why he was murdered remains something of a mystery. There were certainly pamphlets circulating at the time which alleged that Cromwell had a hand in it. There is little point in elaborating counter-factuals as to what might have happened had he retained his army presence and, perhaps, not hesitated in making any direct challenge to Cromwell. But the huge demonstration which followed his funeral along a route from Tottenham to Wapping suggests that his popular base was not just a small group. They lost. But Rainsborough’s challenge at Putney that people should assent to their governance and not have it imposed from on high remains probably the earliest recorded of this basic principle of democratic government. Suggestions that the Levellers believed in some kind of enforced settlement are nonsense.