(This is Part One of a Two-Part Article)
Ariel Hessayon’s “What Happened at Bishopsgate. Part One”
initially appears to be a minor investigation: a detailed analysis of a small
mutiny in April 1649 and the execution of cavalry trooper Robert Lockier.
However, the essay fits into a genre familiar to Marxist historiography—meticulously
reconstructing a seemingly trivial military event to expose the underlying
conflicts ripping apart a revolution gradually being strangled by its own
leaders. Hessayon’s success lies in illustrating how a pay dispute, equal to
about a week’s wages, escalated in hours into a debate over the very meaning of
the English Revolution. This isn’t just historical curiosity. It’s a study of
how revolutionary groups create martyrs, how counter-revolutionaries enforce
discipline, and how both sides strive to shape their narratives around the same
event.
The Funeral as Political Theatre
Hessayon’s framing is masterful. He starts with Lockier’s
funeral two days after his execution: thousands march through the City;
sea-green and black ribbons indicate Leveller loyalty; trumpets play a
soldier’s farewell; a riderless horse is led as if for a fallen leader. This
scene resembles Marx’s descriptions of funerals as political spectacles — from
Baltimore textile workers to the Paris Commune — a familiar image. Death becomes
a stage where class struggles play out.
Karl Marx’s varied yet vivid accounts of funerals—from
Baltimore textile workers to the Paris Commune—view them not merely as private
ceremonies but as public expressions of class. For Marx, funerals are moments
when the oppressed turn grief into political power, using the dead as tools of
the living. Ariel Hessayon’s reconstruction of Robert Lockier’s funeral in
April 1649 aligns closely with this Marxian perspective, even without directly
referencing Marx. The similarities are evident.
Marx consistently highlighted that working-class funerals
served as visible displays of support. He believed a funeral procession could
showcase a movement's power more effectively than any written statement. In his
writings on American labour, he called funerals "marches of labour,"
noting that the coffin acted as a banner around which thousands gathered.
Hessayon’s description of Lockier’s funeral aligns with this
perspective. The sea-green ribbons, trumpets, riderless horse, and the
thousands marching through the City were not just mourning rituals but a
demonstration of Leveller power. The Levellers recognised, as Marx later
explained, that funerals reveal class distinctions. Lockier’s funeral served as
a political protest disguised as mourning.
In The Civil War in
France, Marx noted that the funerals of Communards acted as 'public lessons,'
where the revolution expressed its identity through martyrs. The fallen became
symbols of collective resistance, and various political groups debated their
importance. Hessayon points out a similar pattern in 1649: Lockier’s death was
quickly exploited by the Leveller leaders to rally support, seeking “fresh
martyr’s blood” to revive a struggling movement. Meanwhile, Cromwell and
Fairfax, from the opposing social class, also acknowledged the corpse’s
symbolic power. Lockier’s execution aimed to discipline the army and strengthen
the Grandees’ authority. Both sides fought to interpret the dead’s
meaning—mirroring Marx’s analysis of the funerals of Delescluze and other
Communards.
Marx’s insights on Ireland and Chartism highlight that
funerals serve as stages where different factions vie to shape their
narratives. The body becomes a focal point for ideological conflict. Hessayon’s
study of the pamphlet war involving Lockyer — including True Narrative, The
Army’s Martyr, and royalist newsbooks — exemplifies this dynamic. The funeral
was more than just a procession; it marked the start of a propaganda battle,
with each faction aiming to reinterpret Lockyer’s life and death to advance
their political agendas. Marx would have understood this struggle instantly.
Marx viewed funerals as events that turn individual death
into collective meaning, with the deceased often drawn into struggles they did
not choose. Hessayon’s main point—that Levellers did not mainly drive Lockyer’s mutiny and that they later co-opted his death—aligns with Marx’s idea of
revolutionary martyrdom. Lockier’s life remains largely unknown, and his
political stance unclear. However, his death became a symbol because political
groups needed it. Both the Levellers and the Grandees used him, reducing him to
a symbol. This exemplifies Marx’s funeral theory in action.
Hessayon’s reinterpretation of Lockyer’s funeral functions
as a Marxist critique, albeit without directly mentioning Marx. It portrays
funerals as acts of class performance, with martyrs serving as tools for
political agendas, and the deceased as battlegrounds for ideological conflict.
The analysis illustrates how both revolutionary groups and
counter-revolutionary elites vie to shape the narrative surrounding the same
body.
Hessayon correctly states that this event was not mere
spontaneous grief but a carefully coordinated political message. The Levellers,
whose movement had suffered repression and was losing influence within the
army, recognised the power of martyrdom. They quickly worked to turn Lockier —
a largely obscure figure — into a symbol of their mission. The funeral was more
than an act of mourning; it was an effort to reassert control over the
revolutionary army and challenge the authority of the Grandees, who were
increasingly bringing the army under their discipline.
The dispute over Lockyer’s significance started even before
his body was cold. Hessayon outlines how competing print outlets—including the
officially approved True Narrative, the Leveller-backed Army’s Martyr, and
numerous royalist newsbooks—all aimed to shape the event to serve their own
agendas. The funeral marked the first act in this propaganda battle.
The Mutiny: A Footnote That Refuses to Stay Small
The traditional view, inherited from Brailsford, Manning,
and Rees, sees Bishopsgate as a Leveller mutiny, described as the “penultimate
act” before Burford. However, Hessayon’s archival research undermines this
straightforward story. His evidence shows the arrears amounted to just three to
eleven days’ pay—hardly a sign of a principled rebellion. Whalley’s regiment
was not randomly selected for the unpopular Irish service, which typically
ignited Leveller protests. Additionally, sources offer no reliable information
about Lockier’s ideological stance—whether Baptist, Leveller, or Dissenter.
This conclusion challenges familiar Leveller veneration: the mutiny appears to
have been mainly a spontaneous response to economic grievances. Leveller
leaders like Lilburne and Overton only arrived later and exploited Lockier’s
death for their own purposes.
This does not criticise the Levellers but clarifies how
revolutionary politics truly operate. Leaders often do not originate events;
rather, they interpret, frame, and use them. Hessayon’s detailed account is
more grounded than the romantic view because it forces us to consider the link
between grassroots discontent and political leadership’s efforts to stay
coherent under repression.
Grandees and Levellers: Opposing Politics, Parallel Needs
Hessayon’s key insight, evident even through a simple
reading of his document, is that Cromwell and Fairfax, on one side, and
Lilburne and Overton, on the other, arrived at similar conclusions despite
having different political aims. For the Grandees, setting an example was
crucial; the army was divided over issues like Ireland, unpaid wages, and
political unrest. A swift execution would serve as a disciplinary act and
demonstrate that the revolution’s military authority was now securely in place.
Conversely, for the Levellers, Lockyer’s death became a source of
inspiration—serving as martyrs’ blood—to motivate supporters who felt
discouraged by repression and the consolidation of power by the Grandees.
Both factions reduced Lockyer to a symbol, using his death
to serve their own interests. They competed over how his story was told. This
isn't about morality; it's about class power. The elites aimed to protect
property and social order, while the Levellers sought to keep democratic
activism alive. Both sides recognised the political value of a martyr's body.
Historiographical Comparison: Brailsford, Manning, Rees,
and the Revisionists
A mid-20th-century Marxist perspective has historically
influenced the historiography of Bishopsgate and the Leveller mutinies. This
view regarded the Levellers as the ideological leaders of the revolutionary
army. Christopher Hill’s broader interpretation — viewing the English
Revolution as a bourgeois uprising propelled by plebeian radicalism — created
the intellectual environment in which scholars like H. N. Brailsford, Brian
Manning, and John Rees developed their accounts. Although these historians
differed in details, they all shared the assumption that Leveller influence
within the army was widespread, organised, and ultimately decisive.
H.Brailsford, active in the 1910s and 1920s, provided the
basic narrative. His book, The Levellers and the English Revolution, depicted
Bishopsgate as an early Leveller mutiny—a principled protest by politically
aware soldiers against the Grandees' shift towards counter-revolution.
Brailsford’s notable strength was his moral clarity, but he tended to overreach
with evidence. He regarded sparse sources as supporting the disciplined
ideology of the Levellers, even though the historical record is actually ambiguous.
Brian Manning, working in the 1960s–90s, refined the class
analysis but retained the same interpretive architecture. For him, Bishopsgate
was part of a rising wave of plebeian radicalism driven by material grievances
and Leveller agitation. Manning’s emphasis on social depth — artisans, small
producers, and soldiers as the revolutionary engine — strengthened the Marxist
reading but did not substantially question the assumption that Leveller cadres
were central to mutiny dynamics.
John Rees, writing from a modern socialist viewpoint, emphasises
the political importance. In The Leveller Revolution, he describes Bishopsgate
as the “penultimate act” before Burford, marking a critical moment when
Leveller influence in the military was at its peak. Rees considers factional
complexities more carefully than Brailsford but still portrays Lockyer and his
associates as deliberate Leveller activists. His storytelling is engaging, yet
it relies on a level of ideological confidence that the sources do not fully
support.
Revisionists like Morrill, Kishlansky, and Foxley oppose the
traditional Marxist view. They minimise ideology, overlook class conflict, and
see mutinies as administrative issues rather than political struggles.
Kishlansky, for instance, dismisses Leveller influence in the army, considering
them minor pamphleteers with little impact on military reality. While the
revisionists excel at source interpretation, they lack political insight. By
removing ideological elements, they reduce the revolution to a constitutional
dispute among elites.
Hessayon’s approach falls between these extremes. He
preserves class analysis and resists dismissing ideology, instead scrutinising
the traditional Marxist story with detailed archival research. His
conclusion—that Bishopsgate was not mainly a Leveller mutiny and that Leveller
leaders later claimed Lockyer’s death—contradicts Brailsford, Manning, and
Rees, yet avoids endorsing revisionist doubt. Hessayon maintains complexity
while upholding political significance.
In doing so, he forces a reconsideration of how
revolutionary leadership relates to spontaneous rank‑and‑file discontent. The
Levellers were neither omnipresent nor irrelevant; they were a political
movement operating under severe constraints, capable of rapid ideological
framing but not always in command of events. The Grandees were not merely
administrators but active agents of counter‑revolution. The revisionists miss
this entirely; the older Marxists overstated it. Hessayon threads the needle.
Avoiding the Trap
of Source‑Critical Agnosticism
This type of source-critical
reconstruction risks becoming a form of agnostic even-handedness, where
propaganda from Grandees and Levellers is seen as equally distorted versions of
a truth beyond reach. Hessayon avoids this by situating Bishopsgate within the
broader revolutionary crisis. That week, following Lockyer’s death, was marked
by intense upheaval: the Diggers occupied St George’s Hill, a women’s petition
with 10,000 signatures was presented to Parliament, Colonel Poyer was executed
by a firing squad—the same size as the one that would kill Lockyer two days
later—and mutinies broke out at Salisbury, Banbury, and Burford. Weeks later,
Captain William Thompson, killed at Wellingborough, still referenced Lockyer’s
blood among his grievances.
This was part of the Grandees’ broader effort to dismantle
the revolutionary army that enabled their victory, not an isolated barracks
dispute. Hessayon’s contextualization maintains the episode's class
significance and avoids drifting into postmodern relativism.
Hessayon’s intervention
matters because it challenges two simplistic narratives: the romantic Leveller
myth—which claims every mutineer was a dedicated Leveller and every Leveller a
near-socialist hero—and the revisionist view that ideology was irrelevant. The
Civil War was merely a misunderstanding among aristocratic gentlemen. He
rejects both, restoring complexity without ignoring class. Hessayon depicts the
Levellers as a political movement with genuine influence but limited scope,
capable of effective propaganda but not pervasive throughout the army. He also
portrays the Grandees as evolving into counter-revolutionaries, intent on
disciplining the soldiers who propelled them to power. This is the precise area
where serious Marxist scholarship must engage.
Part two's success is
anticipated because it will present one of the most significant Leveller
studies in recent years — not by dismissing the Levellers, but by placing them
within their true historical context.
Martyrdom and Counter‑Revolution
Lockyer’s death is not merely a moral lesson. Instead, it
serves as a detailed example of how revolutions are initiated, challenged, and
ultimately betrayed. Hessayon’s essay, along with the broader context he
describes, reveals a fundamental truth: each revolutionary movement creates
martyrs, and each counter-revolution fosters the conditions for their
emergence. The debate over their significance itself becomes part of the class
struggle. As the English Revolution of 1649 neared its end, the leading figures
solidified their authority, the Levellers fought to maintain their influence,
and ordinary soldiers were disciplined into submission. Lockyer’s execution
marked a pivotal moment—not because of his identity, but because of what his
death might symbolise.
Hessayon reopens the case of Robert Lockyer. In doing so, he
reopens the question of how revolutions die, how their meanings are fought
over, and how the dead are conscripted into battles they never chose.
Sources and Bibliography
I. Primary Sources: Karl Marx and Revolutionary Funerals
Marx, Karl.
- The
Civil War in France (1871). Marx’s most substantial discussion of
funerals as revolutionary theatre, especially the burial of Communards
such as Charles Delescluze.
- Articles
on the American Labour Movement (1850s). Includes descriptions of
Baltimore textile workers’ funerals as demonstrations of class strength.
Collected in Marx/Engels Collected Works (MECW), vols. 12–15.
Engels, Frederick.
- “Speech
at the Grave of Karl Marx,” Highgate Cemetery, 17 March 1883.
- “Karl
Marx’s Funeral,” Der Sozialdemokrat, 22 March 1883. Essential for
understanding how Marx’s closest collaborator interpreted funerals as
political acts.
Liebknecht, Wilhelm.
- “Speech
at the Graveside of Karl Marx,” Der Sozialdemokrat, 22 March 1883.
A key example of how the German Social Democrats immediately politicised
Marx’s death.
II. Primary Sources: Lockyer, Bishopsgate, and the
Levellers (1649)
Pamphlets and Newsbooks
- A
True Narrative of the Late Mutiny (Grandees’ official account).
- The
Army’s Martyr (Leveller-sponsored pamphlet).
- Royalist
newsbooks including Mercurius Pragmaticus, The Moderate
Intelligencer, Mercurius Elencticus, etc.
These constitute the propaganda battlefield Hessayon
reconstructs — 33 newsbook references across 17 titles, each shaping
Lockier’s meaning.
Hessayon, Ariel.
- “What
Happened at Bishopsgate. Part One” (2024). The central modern source for
Lockier’s funeral, the mutiny’s chronology, and the competing narratives.
III. Secondary Sources: Marx, Funerals, and Political
Symbolism
Draper, Hal.
- Karl
Marx’s Theory of Revolution, Vols. I–IV. Contains discussions of mass
demonstrations, symbolic politics, and Marx’s treatment of public rituals.
Stedman Jones, Gareth.
- Karl
Marx: Greatness and Illusion (2016). Offers contextual analysis of
Marx’s political journalism and his use of public spectacle.
Sperber, Jonathan.
- Karl
Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life (2013). Provides biographical context
for Marx’s political engagements, including funeral culture.
Musto, Marcello (ed.).
- Workers
Unite! The International 150 Years Later (2014). Contains essays on
Marx’s political strategies and symbolic practices.
IV. Secondary Sources: Levellers, Mutinies, and the
English Revolution
Classic Marxist Historiography
Brailsford, H. N.
- The
Levellers and the English Revolution (1912; reissued 1961).
Foundational narrative treating Bishopsgate as a Leveller mutiny.
Manning, Brian.
- The
English People and the English Revolution (1976). Emphasises plebeian
radicalism and Leveller influence.
Rees, John.
- The
Leveller Revolution (2016). Presents Bishopsgate as the “penultimate
act” before Burford.
Revisionist Historiography
Kishlansky, Michael.
- The
Rise of the New Model Army (1979). Minimises Leveller influence;
treats mutinies as administrative breakdowns.
Morrill, John.
- Essays
on the English Civil War (1980s–2000s). Representative of the
constitutionalist revisionist school.
Foxley, Rachel.
- The
Levellers: Radical Political Thought in the English Revolution (2013).
Modern scholarly reassessment of Leveller ideology.
Robertson, Geoffrey.
- The
Levellers: The Putney Debates (2007). Useful for political context and
modern interpretations.
