‘Open’ or ‘Closed’? Participation in English Manorial Presentment Juries, c.1310–c.1600: A Quantitative Approach

Abstract

Historians of both the medieval and early modern eras have characterised the governing structures of rural communities as being dominated by local elites. However, interpretations are hampered by a lack of clear criteria against which to evaluate whether a village-governance regime was ‘open,’ and characterised by wide participation, or ‘closed’, and characterised by the narrow restriction of office to an elite group, making it difficult to draw comparisons across time and space. This article uses a set of quantitative methodologies to solve this problem. It examines presentment juries in the manorial court, a governing institution which straddles the late medieval and early modern period, in three case-study communities for the period from 1310 to 1600. By applying four measures of participation, the article reveals that post-Black Death juries were characterised by a nuanced system of restriction. They were open in the sense that a large proportion of the male population, drawn from a wide range of families, acted as jurors and there was a continuous turnover in jury panels. However, they were also closed in that a small group of prominent individuals and families served a disproportionately frequent number of times. The results also question an established narrative of increasing monopolisation of village governance by a new ‘middling sort’ over the sixteenth century. Instead, change over time and space reveals a variable set of trends, with no universal linear pattern. The inflexibility of manorial institutions, combined with local demographic regimes and trends in landholding, led to significant differences in political participation between communities.

The Changing Role of Manorial Officers and Manor Courts

“…26 Amercements of jurors for failure to keep deliberations secret show that presentment juries clearly met at some point either before or during the court session, presumably to discuss the information they had gathered and turn this into a set of presentments. 27 Writing likely had a role in this process. Michael Clanchy has emphasised that many medieval villagers even by 1300 were 'pragmatically literate', while Johnson has emphasised a 'documentary revolution' in the fifteenth century as written materials became deeply entrenched in the legal culture of the commons.…”

Review of periodical literature for 2022: (ii) 1100–1500

“…While sindacati of the later fourteenth century became more formalised, she argues that this does not necessarily reflect the exclusion of popular groups, who instead sought satisfaction in the alternative forum of a court of appeal. Gibbs examines presentment juries in English manorial courts between 1310 and 1600, to see whether these were characterised by wide participation or dominated by cliques of elites. Through applying four different measures of participation to three case‐study manors, he shows that juries after the Black Death were open in that a large proportion of the population served and there was continuous turnover in panels, but closed in that a subset of individuals served a disproportionate number of times.…”

Coroners’ inquest juries in sixteenth-century England

“…21 A persuasive recent formulation, based on analysis of three contrasting manors over three centuries, is that elements of oligarchy and wider participation could coexist and could fluctuate over time in different ways in different places, and that the sixteenth century saw no decisive move to a narrowing of representation and in some places a widening. 22 Analysts of courts and inquisitions of all types have understandably called for more research into jurors. Steve Hindle has wished for 'further research into the social status, legal experience and literacy of trial jurors' to 'illuminate the parameters within which participation, discretion and exemplary punishment operated'.…”