INTRODUCTION

In the last chapter we saw how important the solidarity of the elite was in maintaining stability. But it has also been argued that the limited formal coercive powers available to the aldermen meant that the perpetuation of elite control depended on a degree of responsiveness to popular grievances. It will be one of the major contentions of the next two chapters that the substructures of government, the livery companies, and the parishes and wards played crucial roles in containing tensions by providing channels of communication between rulers and ruled and institutional frameworks within which the redress of grievances could be pursued. Thus, for example, the acute tensions between freemen and strangers, which lay behind so much of the aldermen's anxieties about the fragile fabric of order were largely contained because artisans pursued their campaigns against the strangers by lobbying the authorities for ameliorative action rather than by taking to the streets. They chivvied the rulers of their livery companies into suing aliens in the law courts and promoting legislation in parliament to tighten restrictions on non-free labour, and they promoted petitions through the wardmotes to pressurise the aldermen into supporting their campaigns.

The success of these institutions in channelling popular grievances depended to a large extent on the degree to which they focused loyalties, integrating their members by creating communities.