Project II: Common Informing as an Instrument of Government? Participation in Law Enforcement and the English State, c. 1558-1625

Research conducted by Christine Gerwin

The project aims at examining the role of common informers in the functioning of the ruling apparatus during the Tudor and early Stuart period. Common informers acted within the framework of the legal principle qui tam, which allowed persons untouched by the violation of law to accuse offenders in court in the name of the monarch. They were furthermore able to determine the type of proceedings and the charge, and to claim a share of the fine. Even though political and legal writings emphasized the need for informers to secure law enforcement, they had a notorious reputation. Whether in 16^th century pamphlets, dramas, poems, ballads, or sermons, the stereotypical common informer like the infamous Griffin Flood was usually portrayed as a conniving and constantly spying citizen, who was concerned with self-enrichment rather than morality and justice. As early as the reign of Henry VIII, voices were raised calling for reforms of common informing to curb any abuses and shady practices. But it was not until the reign of Elizabeth I that protracted and constant broader political debates about the legal practice of common informing developed.

© British Library

While the legislative processes surrounding common informing under Elizabeth I and James I have already been partially studied, a classification of common informing as an instrument of rule has so far been lacking. The project therefore explores the question of what role informing played in the functioning of the state. In particular, the participatory character of informing raises questions, since theoretically every subject, regardless of class and gender, was allowed to accuse suspects in the name of the monarch. How was this participation perceived and to what extent did the general participation of third parties and their access to exclusive rights of rule create insecurity? Could the corresponding measures and alternative models, such as the common granting of licenses to informers, be understood as a means of selection? The project attempts to situate these questions by placing the debates in the context of their political and legal discourses about state, commonwealth, and sovereignty. Furthermore, it tries to examine particular interests of the respective actors in the debates by exploring their political and social networks.