Some excerpts from the Putney Debates, October to November 1647:

Thomas Rainsborough, the 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 was another who supported the idea of 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 in determining 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."