Sexby

Navigation menu

the pseudonym William Allen, Sexby, Silas Titus, and perhaps others wrote their pamphlet. Killing No. Murder deserves to be better known if only for its. EDWARD SEXBY (d. ), English soldier, "leveller" and conspirator, was a private soldier in Cromwell's regiment of horse when first heard of about "Saxby, Edward," in A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature, by John William Cousin, London: J. M. Dent & Sons (); "Sexby.

Edward Sexby (c–58) was a political radical who spoke strongly at the Putney Debates in and was involved in conspiracy against. the pseudonym William Allen, Sexby, Silas Titus, and perhaps others wrote their pamphlet. Killing No. Murder deserves to be better known if only for its. Colonel Edward Sexby or Saxby ( – 13 January ) was an English Puritan soldier and Leveller in the army of Oliver Cromwell. Later he turned against.

Edward Sexby (c–58) was a political radical who spoke strongly at the Putney Debates in and was involved in conspiracy against. Mary the Virgin, but moved to the nearby lodgings of Thomas Grosvenor, Quartermaster General of Foot, the following day.​ Edward Sexby was selected to be one of the soldiers to represent the views of the Levellers.​ Edward Sexby still had the confidence of Oliver Cromwell and he was. Colonel Edward Sexby or Saxby was an English Puritan soldier and Leveller in the army of Oliver Cromwell. Later he turned against Cromwell and plotted his assassination.






Edward Sexby, the son of Marcus Sexby, was born in Suffolk sexby The five men managed to escape before the soldiers arrived. Members of Parliament no longer felt safe from Charles and decided to form their own army. The Roundheads immediately took control of London.

Sexby joined the Parliamentary army and by was a member of the regiment led by Oliver Cromwell. He was a supporter of the Levellers and according to Austin Woolrych he was one of "the most radical of the original agitators". Sexby was interrogated at the bar of the House of Commons for his part in drafting and circulating radical pamphlets.

On 28th October,members of the Parliamentary army began to discuss their grievances at the Church of St. Mary the Virginbut moved to the nearby lodgings of Thomas Grosvenor, Quartermaster General of Foot, the following day.

This became known as the Putney Debates. Edward Sexby was selected to be one of the soldiers to represent the views of the Levellers. The speeches during the Putney Debates were taken down in shorthand and written up later.

As one historian has pointed out: "They are perhaps the sexby we shall ever get to oral history of the seventeenth century and have that spontaneous quality of men speaking their minds about the things they hold dear, not for effect or for posterity, but to achieve immediate ends.

Thomas Rainsboroughthe most radical of the officers, argued: "I desire that those that had engaged in it should speak, for really 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 at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under; and I am confident that when I have heard the reasons against it, something will be said to answer those reasons, in so much that I should doubt whether he was an Englishman or no that should doubt of these things.

John Wildman supported Rainsborough and dated people's problems to the Norman Conquest : "Our case is to be considered thus, that we have been under slavery. That's acknowledged by all. Our very laws were made by our Conquerors We are now engaged for our freedom.

That's the end of Parliament, to legislate according to the just ends of government, not simply to maintain what is already established. Every person in England hath as clear a right to elect his Representative as the greatest person in England. I conceive that's the undeniable maxim of government: that all government is in the free consent of the people. Edward Sexby argued strongly for increasing the franchise: "We have engaged in this kingdom and ventured our lives, and it was all for this: to recover our sexby and privileges as Englishmen - and by the arguments urged there is none.

There are many thousands of us soldiers that have ventured our lives; we have had little property in this kingdom as to our estates, yet we had a birthright. But sexby seems now except a man hath a fixed estate in this kingdom, he hath no right in this kingdom. I wonder we were so much deceived.

If we had not a right to the kingdom, we were mere mercenary soldiers. There are many in my condition, that have as good a condition, it may be little estate they have at present, and yet they have as much a right as those two Cromwell and Ireton who are their lawgivers, as any in this place. I shall tell you in a word my resolution. I am resolved to give my birthright to none. Whatsoever may come in the way, and be thought, I will give it to none. I think the poor and meaner of this kingdom I speak as in that relation in which we are have been the means of the preservation of this kingdom.

These ideas were opposed by most of the senior sexby in the New Model Armywho represented the interests of property owners.

One of them, Henry Iretonargued: "I think that no person hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom, and indetermining or choosing those that determine what laws we shall be ruled by here - no person hath a right to this, that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom First, the thing itself universal suffrage were dangerous if it were settled to destroy property.

But Sexby say that the principle that leads to this is destructive to property; for by the same reason that you will alter this Constitution merely that there's a greater Constitution by nature - by the same reason, by the law of nature, there is a greater liberty to the use of other men's goods which that property bars you.

It has been claimed that Sexby was instrumental in forestalling the even more radical agenda at Putney. Even so he openly avowed his anti-monarchical loyalties. The agreement was never put before the House of Commons. Despite his radical political views Sexby became Governor of Portland Castle in The following year he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel and commanded an infantry regiment in Scotland.

After being promoted to the rank of colonel he took part at the siege of Tantallon Castle in February In the following June Sexby was charged by a court martial with a host of irregularities, including false musters and the execution of a soldier contrary to justice. Edward Sexby still had the confidence of Oliver Cromwell and he was sent on a mission to France. In the spring of he even had a hand in drawing up a manifesto an edited translated version of the Agreement of the Peoplethat applied to French conditions.

The manifesto called for land reform, religious toleration, and the establishment of a government modelled on the Puritan regime in England. Sexby returned to England in about August Sexby grew disillusioned with the dictatorial policies of Cromwell and in joined John Wildman and Richard Overton in developing a plot to overthrow the government.

The conspiracy was discovered and Sexby fled to Amsterdam. It was later discovered that Overton was by this time acting as a double agent and had informed the authorities of the plot.

In May Sexby published, under a pseudonym, Killing No Murdera pamphlet that attempted to justify the assassination of Oliver Cromwell. Sexby accused Cromwell of the enslavement of the English people and argued for that reason he deserved to die. After his death "religion would be restored" and "liberty asserted". He hoped "that other laws will have place besides those of the sword, and that justice shall be otherwise defined than the will and pleasure of the strongest".

The following month Edward Sexby arrived in England to carry out the deed, however, he was arrested on 24th July. He remained in the Tower of London until his death on 13th January Thomas Sexby : I desire that those that had engaged in it should speak, for really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he; and therefore truly. Henry Ireton : Give me leave to tell you, that if you make this the rule I think you must fly for refuge to an absolute natural Right, and you must deny all Civil Right; and I am sure it will come to that in the consequence I would fain have any man show me their bounds, where you will end, and why you should not take away all property?

Thomas Rainsborough : As to the thing itself, property in the franchise. I would fain know how it comes to be the property of some men and not of others.

As for estates, and those kind of things, and other things that belong to men, it will be granted that they are property; but I deny that that is a property to a Lord, to a Gentleman, to any man more than another in the Kingdom of England. 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 sexby freeborn Englishmen, and not in others. John Wildman : Our case is to be considered thus, that we have been under slavery. Our very laws were made by our Conquerors; and whereas it's spoken much of Chronicles, I conceive there is no credit to be given to any of them; and the reason is because those that were our Lords, and made us their vassals, would suffer nothing else to be chronicled.

And therefore I should humbly move that if the Question be stated which would soonest bring things to an issue - it might perhaps be this: Whether any person can justly be bound by law, who doth not give his consent that such persons shall make laws for him?

Edward Sexby : We have engaged in this kingdom and ventured our lives, and it was all for this: to recover our birthrights and privileges as Englishmen - and by the arguments urged there is none.

Thomas Rainsborough to Ireton Sir, I see that it is sexby 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.

Henry Ireton : First, the thing itself universal suffrage were dangerous if it were settled to destroy property. To his Highness, Oliver Cromwell.

To your Highness justly belongs the Honour of dying for the people, and it cannot choose but be unspeakable consolation to you in the last moments of your life to consider with how much benefit to the world you are like to leave it. You will then be that true reformer which you would be thought. Religion shall be then restored, liberty asserted and Parliaments have those privileges they have fought for.

We shall then hope that other laws will have place besides those of the sword, and that justice shall be otherwise defined than the will and pleasure of the strongest; and we shall then hope men will keep oaths again, and not have the necessity of being false and perfidious to preserve themselves, and be like their rulers. All this we hope from your Highness's happy expiration, who are the true father of your country; for while you live we can call nothing ours, and it is from your death that we hope for our inheritances.

Let this consideration arm and fortify your Highness's mind against the fears of death and the terrors of your evil conscience, that the good you will do by your death will something balance the evils of your life. Women in the Civil War Answer Commentary. World Turned Upside Down. Left-Wing Democracy.

Sexby played a part here, acting as messenger between Cromwell and Lilburne. This alliance was shaky and mistrustful, and only lasted as long as Cromwell needed radial support for the purge of Parliament and to launch a trial of the king.

But around this time Sexby began to gravitate away from the radical milieu and towards the orbit of Cromwell. The levellers and agitators certainly saw Cromwell as a comrade for a long time, and the arguments within the Army and around it as being disagreements in policy within a movement they all saw as having greater beliefs in common than their differences.

How much of this was genuinely felt on Cromwell and other grandees part, and how much he cynically exploited when needed, is still debated. He certainly played to the radicals when it was politically expedient, and then shafted the Levellers and the Army rank and file when their support was no longer vital. Cromwell must have taken note of Sexby, at Putney if not before, and marked him as a capable organiser who was worth winning to his side. Sexby played no part in the doomed Leveller agitations of or the mutinies of that year, but was promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel, acted an intelligence officer and governor of Portland in Dorset, and given command of a regiment which fought in under General Monck in Scotland and prepared to embark for Ireland.

Sexby returned to England in He continued to work for Cromwell for another year, but was obviously disillusioned by the whole affair. By Sexby was plotting against Cromwell. Sexby fled to the west country and then to the Netherlands Fellow conspirator Leveller John Wildman ended up in the Tower.

Sexby, his new royalist allies and what other Levellers and republicans would work with them launched a series of assassination plots aimed at the protector. The schemes to knock off Cromwell varied from plans to shoot him as he rode to Parliament, or to Hampton Court, where he spent most weekends, or to ride in Hyde park — to a plan to blow up Whitehall palace. He had met Sexby in the Netherlands and then returned in secret to England. The plans kept foundering on small changes of plan by the Protector, or when those charged to do the actual shooting bottled out, or had second thoughts.

Sindercombe was caught in January , after the Whitehall plot was revealed to Thurloe by John Toope, a plotter who had a change of heart. Sindercombe gave up nothing under questioning, was convicted of high treason, sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered, but poisoned himself in the Tower the night before his execution. Sexby is generally thought to have written, or co-written Killing No Murder, a pamphlet justifiying the assassination of tyrants and the Protector in especial, which was clandestinely distributed around London in May I would guess that it was written by more than one writer — perhaps two or more texts jammed together.

There are tips to royalism in it that may come from Titus, but other sections that read like an ex-leveller agitator. What partisan of Charles II would state that government only comes from the people? Can we get a handle on what drove Sexby at heart? But he was obviously extremely pragmatic, a realist and a practical organiser. At some times he can be seen attacking Cromwell and the Grandees, at others he clearly suppressed doubts and accepted pay, rank and promotion instead of holding out for what by then were looking like lost causes.

How did he feel about the defeat of the mutinies of , the lost chance for the revolution to press on into deep social change to the benefit of the people he had spoken out out for at Putney? If he did write or part-write Killing No Murder , does this offer clues to his thinking at this time? On the on hand it asserts that government can only legitimately come from the will of the people, or from God, and if not they have no right to govern.

It links Cromwell to the tyrants of the Greek classical era, who often arose as supposed champions of the common people against aristocracy but ended as dictators. Large numbers of copies Killing No Murder were smuggled into England, being scattered in the streets on several occasions; many more were seized by the authorities. The spies and betrayals, the bitter double-dealing of the times, was to be the death of Sexby. In summer he came to England in disguise, still trying to stir up a successful plot against Cromwell.

Though nothing was ever proved, Wildman was a sharp opportunist, happy to act as a double agent, playing both sides against he middle for his own gain. The confession may have been coerced out of him or invented, but just as likely Sexby really did own up to his own part in actions he felt were justified. Sexby became ill in the Tower, and died there in January Sexby remained a man of action, whether in radical agitation, swallowing his doubts to work for the Protectorate, or plotting to bring it down.

Screenwriter Peter Flannery focuses on the politics of the wars for much of the time and helps scotch the myth deliberately built-up in the aftermath of the restoration that what happened in England was not a revolution but instead a temporary falling-out leading to an "interregnum". It's true that many of the parliamentary forces were never interested in overthrowing the monarchy but events overtook them and they found themselves embroiled in civil strife as radical forces such as the Levellers and the Diggers threatened to overwhelm not just the monarchy but the Parlimentary landed aristocracy.

Whilst England was a republic following the King's execution it was no democracy and the conditions that lead to the betrayal of Cromwell's allies and his own rise of near unassailable-power are simplistically but dramatically detailed. The acting was, in general, of a very high quality with the best performances coming from Peter Capaldi as Charles I and Dominic West as Cromwell.

Both managed to portray these deeply-flawed men as more than the monstrous caricatures history can present them as. Tellingly, two of the most emotionally engaging moments in the series for me were King Charles, sentenced to death and stripped of his arrogant autocracy, saying goodbye to his children and Cromwell preparing to be installed as Lord Protector talking to his old comrades in arms who had become his honour guard and reflecting on the fact he had betrayed his own revolution.

For me, there were only a few flaws with this series. Edward Saxby, whilst well-played by John Simm, often felt like too much of a "modern" man with his tendency to attack what we can now see as inconsistencies on the Cromwellian side.

Similarly, Angelica appeared too much of a modern woman and the scene where she addressed a church and told them there was no heaven and hell something that would probably have seen her attacked by a mob in the s was slightly farcical. I also felt that the ending was too optimistic. Yes, Angelica had defeated her personal demons but all that her loved ones had fought for remained in tatters with the restoration simply turning the clock back and I felt that this should have been reflecting in a more sombre conclusion.

Overall, though, this is a highly-enjoyable piece of historical drama and an excellent introduction to an important and much-misrepresented period of English history.

An amazingly compact narrative packs a remarkable amount of emotion and philosophical musing into a sweeping narrative; this is television that delivers all the satisfactions of the old-fashioned novel. With a title like "The Devil's Whore" we are prepared for a rip-roaring bodice-ripper Love long-denied over decades of tumultuous civil war, labyrinthine tests of loyalty, vengeance played out over decades, and various other devices create a nonstop narrative drive; try coming to the end of one episode without wanting to watch the next one at once.

But at the very heart of this story is an inquiry into the deepest questions of existence: who are we amid our fellow humans, what force or forces rule the universe, and what does freedom really mean? A restless intelligence moves through this story, suffusing it with heartbreaking insight. Kudos to the whole cast, to a counter-intuitive musical track, and to the splendid visual sense that informs the whole production. The only thing that stops me from giving 10 stars is a certain dissatisfaction with the ending.

Granted, the filmmakers face an almost impossible task to create a moment of transcendence to match all that has come before. Maybe on a second viewing I will change my mind about that. Peter Flannery wrote one of the finest dramatic accounts of recent history, the epic television series 'Our Friends in the North', but sadly, his attempt to write about the English Civil War is a far inferior affair.

To me, the essence of good historical drama is that it distances us from our own times, and allows us to see how others could have held positions that seem to us indefensible; but 'The Devil's Whore' invents a fictitious female heroine, beautiful and anachronistically feisty and involved in a story line that could have been borrowed from 'Thelma and Lousie'! The writer also clearly wanted a share of the market for posh-frock romances, and the possibility of a happy end, while also putting this unlikely figure on the "right" side of the conflict - hence, wholly implausibly, our heroine is rendered as an aristocratic Leveller.

The drama's general sympathy for the Levellers and associated proto-socialist movements is also overdone, in that the characters with attractive politics are consistently shows to be morally superior, and more likable, than those without. Against, the contrast with 'Our Friends', whose general sympathies for the Labour cause did not reduce the story to a black and white tale, is clear.

The only really interesting character in this story is the Charles I, knowledge of whose execution perhaps invokes a certain involuntary sympathy on the part of the viewer, and who is suavely played by Peter Capaldi. But overall, 'The Devils Whore' is part Hollywood narrative , part Jane Austen and a sprinkling of socialism: an odd combination, and a disappointment compared with Flannery's best.

Blueghost 12 December Well, I had high hopes for this mini series from across the Atlantic, and some of those expectations were met, but, as I should have expected, others were dashed. The production values are of high caliber. Costumes, sets and locations, particularly for a British mini series, are all exceptional. There's very little in the way of criticism when it comes to poking at the amount of money and care that went into the recreation of late renaissance Britain.

Truly, a first rate production where all imagery is concerned. So where does this small collection of films fall flat? This is going to sound sexist, but it truly isn't, it's a comment aimed at the continued market trend for television; the series was aimed specifically at a female audience with only the superficiality of placating to masculine interests. Every male in this series of films is portrayed as boorish on some level. From Royalists to Parliamentarians, and shades of gray in-between, few of these men have a spine.

Additionally, they're all sex starved. They either are biding their time for sexual favors, or are so wanton as to be willing to force themselves on he fairer sex. They seem to have little else on their minds. And when they are granted female accompaniment, they then squander their "victory" in some sort of stupidity. That's not really a comment on what I think of society as I think of what TV producers think their audiences want to see. Again, as I've written in other reviews, the TV producer thinking is that since women buy things for the home, it is therefore that audience that the shows must cater to.

The concepts and ideals for which both sides of the English Civil War fought are hardly ever mentioned. It seems to be the assumption that said notions have no place within the female psyche, and therefore are not worth exposition. Female concerns are for family, friends and young ones. So what does one do?

The man who watches this can do little but shake his head, and maybe say "Huh, the 60's film with Richard Harris was a bit more entertaining But the film with Harris had the benefit of being a high budget major theatrical film. It wasn't some one off made for TV mini series that had to compete with "Dancing with the Stars" or other sub-IQ fodder that masks for entertainment.

You may say, "Mister Blueghost, what were you expecting? Something intelligent. Something with a little more purposeful action than the banal placation presented in this film's battle-sequences. In short, it was a pleasure to see something not made by and for American house-wives and professional women, but it was equally disappointing to see something made for British house-wives and professional women. Watch at your risk. This is a confusing historical period; the cavaliers were not bad or good the roundheads were not good or bad.

Neither was there a single cause - religion, unfair tax and national debt, autocracy and trying to debase parliamentary powers, sounds like Gordon Brown!!

Puritains, church of England, Catholics, Levellers the causes were numerous. Nor can we say it was aristocracy against common people. In the end Oliver Cromwell had his head cut of his dead body, and the people welcomed back Charles II with open arms. This series is very pretty, but it is going to fast to set up the story properly. If you want to see a period romp, it may be enjoyable. If you want to learn about history and the lessons we can learn today from it, read a good book.

Well, The Devil's Whore gets two cheers for trying — OK, make that two and a half - and if in some ways it failed, I don't think it should get all the blame. It seems that what was conceived of a part series hit the financial buffers of necessity became a four-part series and, unfortunately, in many ways it shows. What finally hit the screens over four one-hour episodes is by no means bad and is most certainly very entertaining, but it is something of a mongrel, a hotch-potch of this, that and t'other.

The background - well, more than the background - the whole context to what purports to be a true account of a fictional character is a period in British history which is not only fascinating but which led to the foundation of democracy throughout the world. But it was anything but straightforward: it wasn't simply a question of 'the people' rising up against 'the king' as many believe, but an intricate and complex realignment of authority and power.

It began in the reign of Charles I and more or less concluded when his son, Charles II, was restored to the throne and England and Scotland once again had a monarchy.

But it was a very different monarchy which now existed and over the next led to the creation of parliament which Brtitain likes to boast was the template of all other parliaments. It wasn't really, but that is here not the issue. But for a very nasty period of 20 years, Britain was convulsed by strife and civil war in which many died and which saw a great deal of death and brutality. In the Levellers, the country experienced what would later be known as communism but it also saw how privilege and property is so engrained in the fabric of this and all other countries that it takes more than ideals and violence to dislodge them.

That is the background, and a part series from the same team which produce this cutdown lite version might well have made a good fist of explaining the complexities of that time. In the event they don't, and what we do get at the historical and political level is akin to a primary school textbook account. I conceive that's the undeniable maxim of government: that all government is in the free consent of the people. Edward Sexby argued strongly for increasing the franchise: "We have engaged in this kingdom and ventured our lives, and it was all for this: to recover our birthrights and privileges as Englishmen - and by the arguments urged there is none.

There are many thousands of us soldiers that have ventured our lives; we have had little property in this kingdom as to our estates, yet we had a birthright. But it seems now except a man hath a fixed estate in this kingdom, he hath no right in this kingdom. I wonder we were so much deceived. If we had not a right to the kingdom, we were mere mercenary soldiers. There are many in my condition, that have as good a condition, it may be little estate they have at present, and yet they have as much a right as those two Cromwell and Ireton who are their lawgivers, as any in this place.

I shall tell you in a word my resolution. I am resolved to give my birthright to none. Whatsoever may come in the way, and be thought, I will give it to none.

I think the poor and meaner of this kingdom I speak as in that relation in which we are have been the means of the preservation of this kingdom. These ideas were opposed by most of the senior officers in the New Model Army , who represented the interests of property owners.

One of them, Henry Ireton , argued: "I think that no person hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom, and indetermining or choosing those that determine what laws we shall be ruled by here - no person hath a right to this, that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom First, the thing itself universal suffrage were dangerous if it were settled to destroy property.

But I say that the principle that leads to this is destructive to property; for by the same reason that you will alter this Constitution merely that there's a greater Constitution by nature - by the same reason, by the law of nature, there is a greater liberty to the use of other men's goods which that property bars you. It has been claimed that Sexby was instrumental in forestalling the even more radical agenda at Putney.

Even so he openly avowed his anti-monarchical loyalties. The agreement was never put before the House of Commons. Despite his radical political views Sexby became Governor of Portland Castle in The following year he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel and commanded an infantry regiment in Scotland.

After being promoted to the rank of colonel he took part at the siege of Tantallon Castle in February In the following June Sexby was charged by a court martial with a host of irregularities, including false musters and the execution of a soldier contrary to justice.

Edward Sexby still had the confidence of Oliver Cromwell and he was sent on a mission to France. In the spring of he even had a hand in drawing up a manifesto an edited translated version of the Agreement of the People , that applied to French conditions. The manifesto called for land reform, religious toleration, and the establishment of a government modelled on the Puritan regime in England. Sexby returned to England in about August Sexby grew disillusioned with the dictatorial policies of Cromwell and in joined John Wildman and Richard Overton in developing a plot to overthrow the government.

The conspiracy was discovered and Sexby fled to Amsterdam.