Andy Wood:The place of custom in plebeian political culture
England, 1550-1800
Older view of the plebeian defence of custom: pre-political and failing to develop into some
modern form of protest or participation in the politican nation.
Although contemporary usages of the term were ubiquitous, it was in its legal form that
custom held its greatest force within plebeian political culture. In law, local custom applied
only to specific jurisdictions, typically manors, parishes or boroughs. Manoral, parochial and
borough custom had long enjoyed a conflictual relationship with national, common law. But
from the middle of the sixteenth century onwards, that conflictual relationship between
custom and central law was given a new expression with the growing strength of a variety of
central equity law courts based in Westminster.
Customary law applied to a variety of rights, access to which depended upon social, spatial or
gendered conceptions of place. Custom had a significance for the rulers of early modern
society, it was taken to refer to a way of organizing law and life in such a way as to ensure the
continuation of the social order. Lords might hope that the popular acceptance of customary
rights would lead their tenants to assume the existence of mutual reciprocities and duties.
In much of England by the middle of the seventeenth century, wealthier freeholders had
turned decisively against the customary rights of the poor. For those who benefited from the
resources guaranteed by custom, the denial of commons or the restriction or abolition of
customary entitlements implied more than simply the loss of access to land, food, pastures,
minerals or shorter work hours. The economics of custom were intimately bound up with
senses of community. Customary law allowed plebeians to define themselves in space and in
time.
From the late sixteenth century and onwards, just as conflict over customary rights intensified,
so plebeian understandings of custom underwent important change, becoming both more
assertive and definitive.
Custom was thought to have its basis not only in the laws of nature and of nations, but also in
the laws of God. Those called to give evidence to equity courts in customary disputes were
not only required to be aged and of good memory, but were also almost exclusively male.
Custom could clearly be as important a source of female plebeian collective identity as it
could be for men. It was therefore in custom that many plebeians found important elements of
their individual and collective identities.
England, 1550-1800
Older view of the plebeian defence of custom: pre-political and failing to develop into some
modern form of protest or participation in the politican nation.
Although contemporary usages of the term were ubiquitous, it was in its legal form that
custom held its greatest force within plebeian political culture. In law, local custom applied
only to specific jurisdictions, typically manors, parishes or boroughs. Manoral, parochial and
borough custom had long enjoyed a conflictual relationship with national, common law. But
from the middle of the sixteenth century onwards, that conflictual relationship between
custom and central law was given a new expression with the growing strength of a variety of
central equity law courts based in Westminster.
Customary law applied to a variety of rights, access to which depended upon social, spatial or
gendered conceptions of place. Custom had a significance for the rulers of early modern
society, it was taken to refer to a way of organizing law and life in such a way as to ensure the
continuation of the social order. Lords might hope that the popular acceptance of customary
rights would lead their tenants to assume the existence of mutual reciprocities and duties.
In much of England by the middle of the seventeenth century, wealthier freeholders had
turned decisively against the customary rights of the poor. For those who benefited from the
resources guaranteed by custom, the denial of commons or the restriction or abolition of
customary entitlements implied more than simply the loss of access to land, food, pastures,
minerals or shorter work hours. The economics of custom were intimately bound up with
senses of community. Customary law allowed plebeians to define themselves in space and in
time.
From the late sixteenth century and onwards, just as conflict over customary rights intensified,
so plebeian understandings of custom underwent important change, becoming both more
assertive and definitive.
Custom was thought to have its basis not only in the laws of nature and of nations, but also in
the laws of God. Those called to give evidence to equity courts in customary disputes were
not only required to be aged and of good memory, but were also almost exclusively male.
Custom could clearly be as important a source of female plebeian collective identity as it
could be for men. It was therefore in custom that many plebeians found important elements of
their individual and collective identities.
