A “Complete Anachronism”? Common Informing, Popular Participation, and Social Philosophy in Eighteenth- and Twentieth-Century England

This article analyses the tensions between popular participation and democracy using the example of common informing in eighteenth- and twentieth-century England. Common informing describes the enforcement of penal laws by private citizens from the Middle Ages until its abolition in 1951. The instrument was always controversial, but for different reasons: in the early modern period, the populace often rebelled against the use of the instrument by governments. Going to court for the common good was set against the higher social value of freedom from blackmail, harassment, and denunciation. In the twentieth century, on the other hand, the instrument was regarded by MPs as a “complete anachronism” precisely because it allowed too much political participation. The article thus aims to contrast the debates around common informing in the eighteenth and twentieth centuries with a view to the underlying ideas and contradictions of fundamental rights, popular participation, and democracy.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Published
2025-10-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25365/oezg-2025-36-1-5
Primary Topic
Historical Economic and Social Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A “Complete Anachronism”? Common Informing, Popular Participation, and Social Philosophy in Eighteenth- and Twentieth-Century England

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Historical Economic and Social Studies
article

A “Complete Anachronism”? Common Informing, Popular Participation, and Social Philosophy in Eighteenth- and Twentieth-Century England

article en

Abstract

This article analyses the tensions between popular participation and democracy using the example of common informing in eighteenth- and twentieth-century England. Common informing describes the enforcement of penal laws by private citizens from the Middle Ages until its abolition in 1951. The instrument was always controversial, but for different reasons: in the early modern period, the populace often rebelled against the use of the instrument by governments. Going to court for the common good was set against the higher social value of freedom from blackmail, harassment, and denunciation. In the twentieth century, on the other hand, the instrument was regarded by MPs as a “complete anachronism” precisely because it allowed too much political participation. The article thus aims to contrast the debates around common informing in the eighteenth and twentieth centuries with a view to the underlying ideas and contradictions of fundamental rights, popular participation, and democracy.

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Historical Economic and Social Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.