We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Emotional religion was embedded in the hearts of eighteenth-century Britons. The veneer of culture and moderation, so often considered the hallmark of the age of reason, was perilously thin. Conjure up an image of the Gordon Riots of June, 1780, to see the mob, rising in hysterical fear of popery, terrorizing the city of London for a week. From Charles Dickens' classic account in Barnaby Rudge to the recent King Mob of Christopher Hibbert, the saga of those savage days has fascinated historians and readers alike. Few of us remember that the Gordon Riots were merely the climax of organized agitation which had brewed for nearly two years and had already achieved singular success in Scotland. Victory there made possible the London disorders. In Glasgow and Edinburgh, in the intellectual capital of Britain, the heirs of John Knox had rejected the overtures of reason and moderation.
1 “The Namier View of History,” The Times Literary Supplement, August 28, 1953, pp. xxii–xxiii.
2 Veitch, G. S., The Genesis of Parliamentary Reform (London, 1913)Google Scholar, Ch. II seq.
3 Stephen, J., “The Clapham Sect,” Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography, 2d ed., II (London, 1950), 382Google Scholar.
4 Defoe, D., “The Behavior of Servants,” p. 20Google Scholar, quoted from George, M. D., London Life in the XVIIIth Century (London, 1951), p. 119Google Scholar.
5 Lecky, W. E. H., England in the XVIIIth Century (New York, 1891), III, 545Google Scholar. Significantly, only one bishop voted against the measure. For the Irish reaction, see H[istorical] M[anuscripts] C[ommission], Fourteenth Report, Appendix, Part IX: The Manuscripts of James Round (London, 1895), pp. 307–308Google Scholar.
6 Parliamentary History, XIX, cols. 1143–1145, 1137–1145 for entire proceedings. Petre, M. D., The Ninth Lord Petre (London, 1949)Google Scholar, Ch. VIII describes the Catholic agitation for relief, but the government's motives were not exclusively eleemosynary. See HMC, Report on the Manuscripts of Mrs. Stopford-Sackville of Drayton House (London, 1904), I, pp. 249–251Google Scholar; HMC, Eighth Report, Appendix: Correspondence and Papers of Edmund Sexton Pery … Collection of Lord Emly (London, 1881), pp. 201–202Google Scholar; Diaries and Correspondence of James Harris, First Earl of Malmesbury, ed. Earl, of Malmesbury, (London, 1844), I, p. 315Google Scholar; Butterfield, H., George III, Lord North and the People, 1779–1780 (London, 1949), Chs. II–IIIGoogle Scholar.
7 Caledonian Mercury, July 8, August 12, 19, 22, October 3, 1778. The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, ed. Fitzwilliam, and Bourke, (London, 1844), II, 223–224, 226–237Google Scholar provides an excellent account of the Irish difficulties.
8 State Trials, XXI, 563.
9 Scotland's Opposition to the Popish Bill. A Collection of All the Declarations and Resolutions, Published by the Different Counties and Towns … throughout Scotland against a Repeal of the Statutes … for Preventing the Growth of Popery, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh, 1779 [sic, 1780]), pp. iii–v, 1–4Google Scholar. I am indebted to Mr. Wilmarth S. Lewis of Farmington, Connecticut, for permission to use Lord George Gordon's presentation copy of this rare publication.
10 Caledonian Mercury, October 7, 19, 31, November 4, 11, 1778; Edinburgh Advertiser, November 17, 1778; [Hay, G.], A Memorial to the Public …, 2d ed. (London, 1779), p. 5Google Scholar. Hay's correspondence with Burke establishes him as the author of this anonymous publication. Burke may have edited the pamphlet and secured a printer himself. [Wentworth-Woodhouse Muniments. Sheffield City Library] Burke 1/840–842, 844–847. [Hereafter cited as Burke MSS.] I must thank Earl Fitzwilliam, the Trustees of the Wentworth Woodhouse Settled Estates, and the Sheffield City Library for permission to use this collection.
11 Scotland's Opposition, pp. 3–8, 293–295; Caledonian Mercury, October 17–November 25, 1778.
12 Caledonian Mercury, November 11, 1778. Abstracts of the debate, being of considerable public interest, were published from November 23 to December 23, 1778. The final resolutions were a compromise apparently arranged by the Rev. Dr. Dick, a much respected and aged father of the Church. Cf. Scotland's Opposition, pp. 8–9.
13 Hay, , Memorial, p. 7Google Scholar; Scotland's Opposition, pp. v, 10–11.
14 Hay, , Memorial, p. 9Google Scholar; Scotland's Opposition, p. vi. Only after Lord George Gordon assumed the presidency of the London Protestant Association did any Committee of that organization have a touch of social respectability. Hay's list differs slightly from that of the Association. He called Patrick Bowie, a merchant, “formerly a Weaver, now Accomptant's Clerk in Old Bank,” and his list includes Alexander Bonner, a banker's clerk, as a committeeman. Bonner is not on the Association list. Hay did not include the treasurer, David Lindsay (merchant) or John Watson of Leith (merchant). Memorial, pp. 9–10. Father Hay was probably correct regarding the original Committee, for his list was taken from the Caledonian Mercury. The Association list includes alterations and additions.
15 Hay, , Memorial, pp. 10–11Google Scholar; Scotland's Opposition, pp. 309–356. See Thoughts on the Present State of the Roman Catholics in England, and on the Expediency of Indulging Them with a Further Repeal of the Penal Statutes … (London, 1779), pp. 14–15Google Scholar, for the striking naiveté of at least one English pamphleteer as the Scottish agitation reached fever pitch. There is a summary of anti-Catholic arguments taken from English newspapers in Glasgow Mercury, Supplement, January 28, 1779.
16 Scotland's Opposition, pp. 11–307. On December 19, 1778, the Caledonian Mercury reported that associations “are forming vigorously to oppose the intended act for the relief of the Roman Catholics in Scotland, upon the same principle with the association for that purpose in Edinburgh.”
17 Scotland's Opposition, pp. vii–viii; Caledonian Mercury, December 23, 26, 28, 1778.
18 Only one councillor objected. The request, he observed, came “from people who were not legally convened, who were not nomen juris, and therefore no regard should be paid to it. It was answered that this was not a time to enter into critical discussions of this nature when the whole country was alarmed.” Edinburgh Advertiser, January 8, 1779. The Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Edinburgh addressed petitions to both houses of parliament praying to be heard by counsel against the bill. Glasgow Mercury, January 28, 1779.
19 Hay, , Memorial, pp. 11–12Google Scholar; Scot's Magazine, XLI (1779), 106–107Google Scholar. An open letter from the Roman Catholics of Scotland to Lord North to this effect was published in the London Chronicle, January 28, 1779.
20 Scotland's Opposition, pp. 21–22, 33–34, 166–167, 227–228; Glasgow Mercury, January 7–February 4, 1779.
21 Chapmen, Combmakers, Cowfeeders, Journeymen Hammermen, Late Defenders, Antiquity Society, Musicians, Tobacconists, and the Old Men, Widows and Orphans will serve as examples.
22 Scotland's Opposition, pp. 93–96. The organization continued to thrive. By 1780 it was known as the Eighty-Five Societies. See the correspondence between Paterson and Lord George Gordon in the Abstract of Gordon's Papers prepared by William Chamberlayne, Treasury Solicitor. [Public Record Office.] T[reasury] S[olicitor's Papers, General Series] 11/1212.
23 Quoted from Sketches of Popular Tumults (London, 1837)Google Scholar. Many valuable documents not to be found elsewhere are in this curious volume.
24 Scot's Magazine, XLI (1779), 412, 409–415Google Scholar for the entire speech.
25 Hay, , Memorial, pp. 12–15Google Scholar.
26 Scotland's Opposition, p. ix.
27 Hay, , Memorial, pp. 17–18Google Scholar.
28 Hay, , Memorial, pp. 24–27Google Scholar.
29 The proclamation is quoted in full in Hay, , Memorial, pp. 28–29Google Scholar.
30 Scotland's Opposition, p. x.
31 Hay, , Memorial, pp. 15–42Google Scholar, is the most complete and accurate description of the riots. The Edinburgh authorities and other crown officers summoned the publishers of all of the Edinburgh newspapers and gave them strict orders not to publish anything about the disorders without approval. Ibid., p. 47. Thus the newspaper and periodical accounts are confused and incomplete. The Protestant Association's defense is brief but interesting. Scotland's Opposition, pp. ix–xi. Cf. Annual Register, XXII (1779), 30Google Scholar; State Trials, XXI, col. 502. The Glasgow magistrates attempted to apprehend the rioters; the Edinburgh magistrates did not. Glasgow Mercury, February 11, 1779.
32 Parliamentary History, XX, cols. 280–282.
33 MSS notes for speech and debate on the Edinburgh Riots. Burke MSS 8b. For the Burke-Hay correspondence see ibid., 1/769, 801, 838, 840–842, 844–847.
34 Parliamentary History, XX, cols. 322–327; Edinburgh Advertiser, May 28, 1779.
35 Burke MSS 1/841, 845. The problem of compensation was beclouded by Hay's lack of legal standing as a Roman Catholic priest. His losses and those of his tenants amounted to £6,800. The Glasgow Mercury reported incorrectly on April 29, 1779, that the Edinburgh claims were settled by the Lord Advocate for £2,500. Bagnall suffered £2,000 damages in Glasgow — £1623/14/5 on inventoried stock in trade alone. Bagnall was fortunate, for the Glasgow authorities came to terms after one attempt to force him to a low settlement. Burke MSS 1/801(2). Settlement was finally arranged with Hay in July 1779; ibid., 1/801(1).
36 Scotland's Opposition, pp. 299–300, 208–210, 260–262, 280, 289–290. For a discussion of the pressure on the General Assembly see the Glasgow Mercury for February 11, 1779.
37 Hay to [Burke], July 12, 1779. Burke MSS 1/801(1).
38 There are several biographies of Lord George Gordon; other works consider him within the context of the London riots. The oldest biography is the obituary memoir by his close friend Watson, R., The Life of Lord George Gordon, with a Philosophical Review of His Political Conduct, 2d ed. (London, 1795)Google Scholar. The most complete is Colson, Percy, The Strange History of Lord George Gordon (London 1937)Google Scholar of which there is a condensed version in a chapter of Colson's, Their Ruling Passions (London [1949])Google Scholar. One scholar takes Lord George's strangest tergiversation seriously: Solomons, I., “Lord George Gordon's Conversion to Judaism,” Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society, VII (Edinburgh, 1913)Google Scholar. Christopher Hibbert — the first to utilize Gordon's own narrative of his activities during the riots (British Museum. Additional Manuscript 42,129) — takes a highly tolerant view of George, Lord in King Mob (New York, 1958)Google Scholar, while John Paul de Castro seeks to make him a subversive in The Gordon Riots (London, 1926)Google Scholar.
39 Abstract of Gordon's Papers, 1: T.S. 11/1212 [hereafter cited as Gordon's Papers]. The original letters are no longer in the Treasury Solicitor's files. The only record preserved, aside from Gordon's own narrative, is this extensive calendar prepared by William Chamberlayne with his comments. Many of these notations are woefully incomplete, as on page 32, where the subscription books of the London Protestant Association are noted as being in Packet H, no. 8/1, but no further information exists about them, nor are the books to be found in any other files germane to the cases of Lord George and the Gordon rioters.
Typical of Gordon's parliamentary behavior was his speech when Burke introduced the famous Economical Reform Bill on February 11, 1780. It was, cried Lord George, a most “unconstitutional speech”; “the whole business was a juggle between the worthy member for Bristol, and the noble lord [North] in the blue ribbon.” Demanding a division Gordon found himself in a minority of one, a situation much to his taste. Parliamentary History, XXI, cols. 72–73.
40 Gordon's Papers, 3–4. His heads of argument reveal much about him. “Vizt. That the K[ing] is making War against the Presbyterians. That he has already established Popery where it was in his Power [Canada], contrary to the pious Petitions of his Protestant Subjects Countenanced and supported in his endeavours by the Bishops. The Bishops (the Propagators of Christianity) arming the Heathen Savages against the Disciples of Christ. Their own Congregations also turned into Destroyers of Innocence and Religion by the Bishops. The Tomahawk being put into those Hands which our Saviors Blood was spilt on the Cross to purify and whiten.”
41 Bowie's first letter to Lord George was dated April 8, 1779. Gordon, who regularly wrote to Bowie about proceedings in the House of Commons, particularly insofar as they related to his own motions, “sent paragraphs to be inserted in the Scotch Papers, Corrected publications of their — all tending to the Good of the Cause: that is all tending to keep up the Animosity between Papists & Protestants.” Gordon's Papers, 5–6.
42 Grant to Gordon, July 5, 1779; Bowie to Gordon, 17 June 1779. Bowie felt certain that the ministry was intimidated; Grant still had hopes that more could be done. The Treasury Solicitor observed: “In many cases Bowie seems to check the Ardor of Lord George. And thinks the Party in Scotland should stand upon the defensive.” Grant was more ambitious. He admitted “that he has imbibed Sentiments unfit for his humble Rank in Life.” He was, moreover, a severe critic of the regular clergy, which had denied him a benefice. Gordon's Papers, 5–6, 8–9, 11, 13–15.
43 The phrase is Gordon's own. He suggested that it would be a fitting address from Glasgow to himself. Gordon to Paterson [c. July 30, 1779]; Grant to Gordon, July 27, 1779; and particularly Grant to Gordon, July 28, 1779, in which he recommended a strong answer touching on other complaints than Popery, suggesting “Large Farms — High Rents — Laws of Patronage — Encouragement of French Cambricks — Neglect of the Fisheries” and reminded Gordon that this same body resisted “even unto blood the Malt Tax.” Gordon's Papers, 16–17, 18–19.
44 Nisbett to Gordon, July 27, 1779. Gordon's Papers, 19–20.
45 Testimony of the Rev. Erasmus Middleton, founder of the Protestant Association in London. State Trials, XXI, cols. 562–570. A witty satire on these meetings was published by Kearsley, G.. Account of a Debate in Coachmakers' Hall. By Harum Skarum, Esq. (London, 1780)Google Scholar. Cf. Cox to Ward, November 27, 1779. Benenden Letters: London, Country, and Abroad, 1753–1821, ed. Hardy, C. F. (London, 1901), p. 188Google Scholar.
46 “Minutes of Mr. Fisher's [secretary to the London Committee] Examination on the 10th June [1780, by William Chamberlayne],” 1. T.S. 11/1212. [Hereafter cited as Fisher's Examination.]
47 Bowie to Gordon, August 9, 1779. Gordon's Papers, 8.
48 Grant to Gordon, July 28, 1779. Gordon's Papers, 18.
49 “Had no Correspondence with Bath on Religious Subjects nor Exported any petition.” Fisher admitted “a correspondence with Bristol with a very Scandalous Man, therefore Dropped the Correspondence.” He denied ever corresponding with Canterbury. Fisher's Examination, 6. Cf. Gordon's Papers, 29, 32. Gordon did his own missionary work in Carlisle and Ayr; ibid., 25–26.
50 Fisher's Examination, 4. Lord George had always supported the Yorkshire Association and Associated Counties in parliament.
51 Bowie to Gordon (private), January 31, 1780. See also Bowie to Gordon, January 8, 25, 31, 1780. Gordon's Papers, 22–23.
52 Paterson to Gordon, February 18, 1780. Gordon's Papers, 25–26.
53 Gordon's Papers, 27–28.
54 Tomlinson to Fisher, January 25, 1780. Gordon's Papers, 29. See also J. Lenox to Gordon, January 4, 1780, and William Augustus Miles to Gordon, March 9, 1780; ibid., 28–29.
55 London Magazine, XLIX (1780), 282–283Google Scholar; Scot's Magazine, XLII (1780), 282Google Scholar; T. Holcroft [pseud. Vincent, William], A Plain and Succinct Narrative of the Gordon Riots (London, 1780: reprinted Atlanta, 1944), p. 19Google Scholar. There is a copy of the Protestant petition in T.S. 11/1212 which runs 425 pages, 423 of signatures. Gordon did very well. A surprising number of the radical London aldermen and metropolitan politicians signed. On the question of Gordon's initiative on the mass meeting, cf. Fisher's Examination, 1–3 and State Trials, XXI, cols. 565–566.
56 For the Gordon Riots see the studies cited in note 38; Rudé, G., “The Gordon Riots: a Study of the Rioters and Their Victims,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Series, VI (1956), 93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and my forthcoming The Association: British Extraparliamentary Political Organization, 1769–1793, Ch. IV. For Bath and the peripheral disorders and threats of riot see Diary and Letters of Madame d'Arblay, ed. Barrett, C. (London, 1893), I, 293–298Google Scholar; A Prime Minister and His Son: from the Correspondence of the 3rd Earl of Bute and … Sir Charles Stuart, ed. MrsWortley, E. S. (London, 1925), pp. 191–192Google Scholar; London Magazine, XLIX (1780), 290Google Scholar; HMC, Fifteenth Report, Appendix, Part I: the Manuscripts of the Earl of Dartmouth (London, 1896), III, 250–251Google Scholar; HMC, Report on the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Lothian (London, 1905), p. 368Google Scholar; [Public Record Office.] S[tate] P[apers, Domestic, George III] 37/21/55–58, 83–85, 123, 151–154, 157, 262–263; Correspondence of King George the Third, ed. Fortescue, J. (London, 1928), V, no. 3077Google Scholar; HMC, Fifteenth Report, Appendix, Part VII: Manuscripts of the Marquis of Ailesbury (London, 1898), p. 236Google Scholar; Jenkinson to Houghton, June 11, 1780. Add. MSS 38, 307, fol. 182; Henry, Elizabeth, and George (1734–80): Letters and Diaries of Henry, Tenth Earl of Pembroke and His Circle, ed. Herbert, Lord (London, 1939), pp. 489–492Google Scholar.
57 Burke MSS 8b. Cf. Fitzpatrick to Ossory, [June 8, 1780], Add. MSS 47,579, fols. 75–76.
58 Parliamentary History, XXI, cols. 702–726, 754–766; Correspondence of George III, V. no. 3083; Burke MSS 8b; Burke, , Correspondence, II, 361–363Google Scholar; Add. MSS 37,837, fol. 127; Add. MSS 38,307, fol. 182. For wavering by important leaders on both sides of the House see Albemarle, Lord, Memoirs of the Marquis of Rockingham (London, 1852), II, 416–418Google Scholar and Journals and Correspondence of William, Lord Auckland (London, 1861), I, xviiGoogle Scholar.
59 Parliamentary History, XXIX, cols. 115, 682.
60 The Last Journals of Horace Walpole, ed. Steuart, F. (London, 1910), II, 348–349Google Scholar; HMC, Fifteenth Report, Appendix, Part VI: the Manuscripts of … the Earl of Carlisle at Castle Howard, Yorkshire (London, 1897), pp. 451–459Google Scholar; Notes and Queries, 12th Series, XII (1923), 310Google Scholar; HMC, Sixth Report, Appendix: The Manuscripts of Lord Monboddo (London, 1877), pp. 676–677Google Scholar; Twining, T., Recreations and Studies of a Country Clergyman, ed. Twining, R. (London, 1882), pp. 89–90Google Scholar; Memoirs of the Life of Sir Samuel Romilly Written by Himself, 2d ed. (London, 1840), pp. 220–221Google Scholar; Add. MSS 30,866, fol. 244; George, M. D., Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires Preserved in … the British Museum (London, 1935), V, 408, 420Google Scholar; London Magazine, XLIX (1780), 362–366, 459–463Google Scholar.
61 Walpole, , Last Journals, II, 365Google Scholar; George, , Catalogue, V, 506Google Scholar.
62 Stormont to the King, September 10, 1780. Correspondence of George III, V, no. 3411. Cf. Monboddo MSS, p. 121. For the cabinet meetings see Correspondence of George III, V. no. 3408–3412, 3414–3416; Add. MSS 37, 835, fols. 194, 196.
63 Glasgow Mercury, January 21, 1779.
64 Walpole, , Last Journals, II, pp. 372–374Google Scholar.
65 [Public Record Office.] H[ome] O[ffice Papers] 42/2/120–121.
