This chapter examines the development of an ideology of middle-class behaviour based on the ability to save and to maintain enough capital to prevent a cash flow crisis that would result in being arrested or imprisoned. This led to a new type of class-based thinking about society that was closely linked to the security that new forms of capital provided to successful savers. Such individuals were those who were able to accumulate large amounts of capital through entrepreneurship or inheritance, and not dissipate it though overspending. This was a small elite group who gradually came to be termed the middle class, to differentiate themselves from the middling sort of smaller traders. They also increasingly thought of their capital as a form of property created out of righteousness, and that the role of the law was to protect it from those who were less able.

The conclusion lays out the four key arguments of the book. Firstly, manorial structures remained important to community governance across the late medieval and early modern eras. Secondly, the impetus for this continued vitality came from communities of tenants who recognised the value of manorial structures for their own needs. Thirdly, manorial governance could create a degree of inequality within communities, but this was constrained and varied between villages. Fourthly, state formation did not radically disrupt these manorial structures. These arguments lead to several historiographical interventions. They challenge the notion of a late medieval decline, support positive interpretations of lord-tenant relations, demonstrate that long-term dynamics could create a ‘middling sort’ and suggest some reasons for England’s early development of high state capacity. Finally, the chapter makes some comparisons with other European regions, demonstrating that while the emergence of local elites managing aspects of their community’s economy and society was universal, the exact relationship between lord, state and community created different governance structures.

This chapter explores the concerns about their community which might have led manorial officials to govern their communities in the way described for the middling sort by historians of early modern England. It begins by examining the way officials controlled misconduct, finding that elites did use office to monitor those perceived as troublemakers, but the level of attention varied significantly over time and space. It then examines the way management of the landscape and resources led to governance which promoted community coherence but also differentiation. It finds that while officials everywhere were concerned with preventing the abrogation of communal rights by neighbouring communities, the extent of monitoring of tenants varied by settlement type and landscape. While in communities which were heavily enclosed, or consisted of dispersed hamlets, there is little evidence of hierarchical governance, in communities with large nucleated villages and extensive commons, officials utilised bylaws to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbours. This suggests that a ‘proto-middling sort’ could be created through officeholding but this was a locally specific process.

The introduction starts by showing how the Swallowfield Articles, the famous record of the early modern ‘politics of the parish’, reveal the persistent importance of the ‘medieval’ manorial court leet to local governance. It then provides an overview of both the medieval and early modern historiography, showing how a newer set of contributions has emphasised continuity between these eras by revealing the importance of manor courts after 1500, a long-run connection between state and locality stretching back into the Middle Ages, and the existence of a medieval local elite. It shows that a flaw in the literature remains the lack of cross-period studies which this book tackles by exploring the functions of manorial offices, who filled these offices, and the ways in which officeholding systems changed in response to the decline of lordship and the process of state formation using a long-run time frame stretching from 1300 to 1650. Next, the key features of the case-study manors (Horstead, Cratfield, Little Downham, Worfield and Fordington) are discussed. The final section provides a plan of the book.

This chapter examines the extent to which service in manorial office was characterised by relative inclusion of all members of the community or whether official positions were controlled by a narrow elite, and how this changed over time. Through examining the systems by which officials were selected, it finds that communities of tenants had significant power over who was chosen for office owing to traditions of collective liability. A further quantitative analysis of selection patterns reveals a two-tier system. While a significant proportion of the adult male tenant population likely served in office across their lifetimes, an elite dominated office through repeat service across a number of different roles. These findings demonstrate that a single designation of ‘participatory’ or ‘restrictive’ cannot be applied to manorial officeholding, as patterns of selection encompassed both elements. It also reveals little change into the early modern period, challenging a narrative of the rise of the ‘middling sort’.