How ungovernable were seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Englishmen? Certainly, the historical evidence attests to an unruly and contumacious populace: riot was widespread, such criminal activities as the counterfeiting of coin flourished, disorder pervaded even London’s gaols, and men at all levels of authority were often hard pressed to enforce the law. On the other hand, the ruling elite had a powerful instrument—the courts—for regulating not only crime but also numerous aspects of social and economic life. Moreover, belief in the value of ‘the rule of law’ was widespread, even among lawbreakers. Knowledge of the law extended far beyond the patrician class, and men from all classes had recourse to the courts.

First published in 1980, An Ungovernable People investigates these paradoxes. Each chapter focusses on a particular source of conflict—village regulation, the price and shipment of grain, the building of turnpike roads, the imprisonment of debtors, the circulation of counterfeit coin—to assess attitudes to ‘the law’ and to authority.

Particular emphasis is placed on the judicial process—how the legal system actually worked; on how often popular protest was an attempt to remind authority of its duties rather than to challenge its legitimacy; and on the way in which law-breaking frequently formed part of a negotiative process between rulers and ruled. These chapters contribute to our understanding of the conflicts that arose when popular notions of what was just or legitimate clashed with authority and the letter of law.

How ungovernable were seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Englishmen? Certainly, the historical evidence attests to an unruly and contumacious populace: riot was widespread, such criminal activities as the counterfeiting of coin flourished, disorder pervaded even London’s gaols, and men at all levels of authority were often hard pressed to enforce the law. On the other hand, the ruling elite had a powerful instrument—the courts—for regulating not only crime but also numerous aspects of social and economic life. Moreover, belief in the value of ‘the rule of law’ was widespread, even among lawbreakers. Knowledge of the law extended far beyond the patrician class, and men from all classes had recourse to the courts.

First published in 1980, An Ungovernable People investigates these paradoxes. Each chapter focusses on a particular source of conflict—village regulation, the price and shipment of grain, the building of turnpike roads, the imprisonment of debtors, the circulation of counterfeit coin—to assess attitudes to ‘the law’ and to authority.

Particular emphasis is placed on the judicial process—how the legal system actually worked; on how often popular protest was an attempt to remind authority of its duties rather than to challenge its legitimacy; and on the way in which law-breaking frequently formed part of a negotiative process between rulers and ruled. These chapters contribute to our understanding of the conflicts that arose when popular notions of what was just or legitimate clashed with authority and the letter of law.

How ungovernable were seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Englishmen? Certainly, the historical evidence attests to an unruly and contumacious populace: riot was widespread, such criminal activities as the counterfeiting of coin flourished, disorder pervaded even London’s gaols, and men at all levels of authority were often hard pressed to enforce the law. On the other hand, the ruling elite had a powerful instrument—the courts—for regulating not only crime but also numerous aspects of social and economic life. Moreover, belief in the value of ‘the rule of law’ was widespread, even among lawbreakers. Knowledge of the law extended far beyond the patrician class, and men from all classes had recourse to the courts.

First published in 1980, An Ungovernable People investigates these paradoxes. Each chapter focusses on a particular source of conflict—village regulation, the price and shipment of grain, the building of turnpike roads, the imprisonment of debtors, the circulation of counterfeit coin—to assess attitudes to ‘the law’ and to authority.

Particular emphasis is placed on the judicial process—how the legal system actually worked; on how often popular protest was an attempt to remind authority of its duties rather than to challenge its legitimacy; and on the way in which law-breaking frequently formed part of a negotiative process between rulers and ruled. These chapters contribute to our understanding of the conflicts that arose when popular notions of what was just or legitimate clashed with authority and the letter of law.

How ungovernable were seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Englishmen? Certainly, the historical evidence attests to an unruly and contumacious populace: riot was widespread, such criminal activities as the counterfeiting of coin flourished, disorder pervaded even London’s gaols, and men at all levels of authority were often hard pressed to enforce the law. On the other hand, the ruling elite had a powerful instrument—the courts—for regulating not only crime but also numerous aspects of social and economic life. Moreover, belief in the value of ‘the rule of law’ was widespread, even among lawbreakers. Knowledge of the law extended far beyond the patrician class, and men from all classes had recourse to the courts.

First published in 1980, An Ungovernable People investigates these paradoxes. Each chapter focusses on a particular source of conflict—village regulation, the price and shipment of grain, the building of turnpike roads, the imprisonment of debtors, the circulation of counterfeit coin—to assess attitudes to ‘the law’ and to authority.

Particular emphasis is placed on the judicial process—how the legal system actually worked; on how often popular protest was an attempt to remind authority of its duties rather than to challenge its legitimacy; and on the way in which law-breaking frequently formed part of a negotiative process between rulers and ruled. These chapters contribute to our understanding of the conflicts that arose when popular notions of what was just or legitimate clashed with authority and the letter of law.