bar of the House. Some appeared and were discharged, after
receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker.
Others evaded compliance; and one of them, John Miller, who
failed to appear, was arrested by its messenger, but instead
of submitting, sent for a constable and gave the messenger
into custody for an assault and false imprisonment. They were
both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr.
Alderman Oliver, and the notorious John Wilkes, who had
recently been invested with the aldermanic gown. These civic
magistrates, on the ground that the messenger was neither a
peace-officer nor a constable, and that his warrant was not
backed by a city magistrate, discharged the printer from
custody, and committed the messenger to prison for an unlawful
arrest. Two other printers, for whose apprehension a reward had
been offered by a Government proclamation, were collusively
apprehended by friends, and taken before Aldermen Wilkes and
Oliver, who discharged the prisoners as 'not being accused of
having committed any crime.' These proceedings at once brought
the House into conflict with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of
London. The Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were both
members of Parliament, were ordered by the House to attend in
their places, and were subsequently committed to the Tower.
Their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment, was one
long-continued popular ovation, and from the date of their
release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards,
the publication of debates has been pursued without any
interference or restraint. Though still in theory a breach of
privilege, reporting is now encouraged by Parliament as one of
the main sources of its influence--its censure being reserved for
wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long continued
beset with many difficulties. The taking of notes was
prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the
power of a single member of either House to require the
exclusion of strangers was frequently and capriciously
employed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons [until
1875] any one member by merely 'spying' strangers present
could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 17._
ALSO IN:
_R. F. D. Palgrave,
The House of Commons,
lecture 2._
_T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7 (volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1772.
The ending of Negro slavery in the British Islands.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1773.
Reconstitution of the Government of British India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress in America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
Advent in English industries of the Steam-Engine as made
efficient by James Watt.
See STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The colonies in arms and Boston beleaguered.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1776.
Successful defence of Canada against American invasion.
See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1776.
War measures against the colonies.
The drift toward American independence.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1776-1778.
The People, the Parties, the King, and Lord North, in their
relations to the American War.
"The undoubted popularity of the war [in America] in its first
stage had for some time continued to increase, and in the
latter part of 1776 and 1777 it had probably attained its
maximum. ... The Whigs at this time very fully admitted that
the genuine opinion of the country was with the Government and
with the King. ... The Declaration of Independence, and the
known overtures of the Americans to France, were deemed the
climax of insolence and ingratitude. The damage done to
English commerce, not only in the West Indies but even around
the English and Irish coast, excited a widespread bitterness.
... In every stage of the contest the influence of the
Opposition was employed to trammel the Government. ... The
statement of Wraxall that the Whig colours of buff and blue
were first adopted by Fox in imitation of the uniform of
Washington's troops, is, I believe, corroborated by no other
writer; but there is no reason to question his assertion that
the members of the Whig party in society and in both Houses of
Parliament during the whole course of the war wished success
to the American cause and rejoiced in the American triumphs.
... While the Opposition needlessly and heedlessly intensified
the national feeling against them, the King, on his side, did
the utmost in his power to embitter the contest. It is only by
examining his correspondence with Lord North that we fully
realise how completely at this time he assumed the position
not only of a prime minister but of a Cabinet, superintending,
directing, and prescribing, in all its parts, the policy of
the Government. ... 'Every means of distressing America,'
wrote the King, 'must meet with my concurrence.' He strongly
supported the employment of Indians. ... It was the King's
friends who were most active in promoting all measures of
violence. ... The war was commonly called the 'King's war,'
and its opponents were looked upon as opponents of the King.
The person, however, who in the eye of history appears most
culpable in this matter, was Lord North. ...
{936}
The publication of the correspondence of George III. ...
supplies one of the most striking and melancholy examples of
the relation of the King to his Tory ministers. It appears
from this correspondence that for the space of about five
years North, at the entreaty of the King, carried on a bloody,
costly, and disastrous war in direct opposition to his own
judgment and to his own wishes. ... Again and again he
entreated that his resignation might be accepted, but again
and again he yielded to the request of the King, who
threatened, if his minister resigned, to abdicate the throne.
... The King was determined, under no circumstances, to treat
with the Americans on the basis of the recognition of their
independence; but he acknowledged, after the surrender of
Burgoyne, and as soon as the French war had become inevitable,
that unconditional submission could no longer be hoped for.
... He consented, too, though apparently with extreme
reluctance, and in consequence of the unanimous vote of the
Cabinet, that new propositions should be made to the
Americans." These overtures, conveyed to America by three
Commissioners, were rejected, and the colonies concluded, in
the spring of 1778, their alliance with France. "The moment
was one of the most terrible in English history. England had
not an ally in the world. ... England, already exhausted by a
war which its distance made peculiarly terrible, had to
confront the whole force of France, and was certain in a few
months to have to encounter the whole force of Spain. ...
There was one man to whom, in this hour of panic and
consternation, the eyes of all patriotic Englishmen were
turned. . . . If any statesman could, at the last moment,
conciliate [the Americans], dissolve the new alliance, and
kindle into a flame the loyalist feeling which undoubtedly
existed largely in America, it was Chatham. If, on the other
hand, conciliation proved impossible, no statesman could for a
moment be compared to him in the management of a war. Lord
North implored the King to accept his resignation, and to send
for Chatham. Bute, the old Tory favourite, breaking his long
silence, spoke of Chatham as now indispensable. Lord
Mansfield, the bitterest and ablest rival of Chatham, said,
with tears in his eyes, that unless the King sent for Chatham
the ship would assuredly go down. ... The King was unmoved. He
consented indeed--and he actually authorised Lord North to make
the astounding proposition--to receive Chatham as a
subordinate minister to North. ... This episode appears to me
the most criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my
own judgment it is as criminal as any of those acts which led
Charles I. to the scaffold."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 14 (volume 4)._
"George III. and Lord North have been made scapegoats for sins
which were not exclusively their own. The minister, indeed,
was only the vizier, who hated his work, but still did not
shrink from it, out of a sentiment that is sometimes admired
under the name of loyalty, but which in such a case it is
difficult to distinguish from base servility. The impenetrable
mind of the King was, in the case of the American war, the
natural organ and representative of all the lurking ignorance
and arbitrary humours of the entire community. It is totally
unjust and inadequate to lay upon him the entire burden."
_J. Morley,
Edmund Burke: a Historical Study,
page 135_.
"No sane person in Great Britain now approves of the attempt
to tax the colonies. No sane person does otherwise than
rejoice that the colonies became free and independent. But let
us in common fairness say a word for King George. In all that
he did he was backed by the great mass of the British nation.
And let us even say a word for the British nation also. Had
the King and the nation been really wise, they would have let
the colonies go without striking a blow. But then no king and
no nation ever was really wise after that fashion. King George
and the British nation were simply not wiser than other
people. I believe that you may turn the pages of history from
the earliest to the latest times, without finding a time when
any king or any commonwealth, freely and willingly, without
compulsion or equivalent, gave up power or dominion, or even
mere extent of territory on the map, when there was no real
power or dominion. Remember that seventeen years after the
acknowledgment of American independence, King George still
called himself King of France. Remember that, when the title
was given up, some people thought it unwise to give it up.
Remember that some people in our own day regretted the
separation between the crowns of Great Britain and Hanover. If
they lived to see the year 1866, perhaps they grew wiser."
_E. A. Freeman,
The English People in its Three Homes
(Lectures to American Audiences),
pages 183-184._
ALSO IN:
_Correspondence of George III. with Lord North._
_Lord Brougham,
Historical Sketches of Statesmen
in the Reign of George III._
_T. Macknight,
History of the Life and Times of Edmund Burke,
chapters 22-26 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1778.
War with France.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).
ENGLAND: A.D. 1778-1780.
Repeal of Catholic penal laws.
The Gordon No-Popery Riots.
"The Quebec Act of 1774 [see CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774],
establishing Catholicism in Canada, would a generation earlier
have been impossible, and it was justly considered a
remarkable sign of the altered condition of opinion that such
a law should be enacted by a British Parliament, and should
have created no serious disturbances in the country. ... The
success of the Quebec Act led Parliament, a few years later,
to undertake the relief of the Catholics at home from some
part of the atrocious penal laws to which they were still
subject. ... The Act still subsisted which gave a reward of
£100 to any informer who procured the conviction of a Catholic
priest performing his functions in England, and there were
occasional prosecutions, though the judges strained the law to
the utmost in order to defeat them. ... The worst part of the
persecution of Catholics was based upon a law of William III.,
and in 1778 Sir George Savile introduced a bill to repeal
those portions of this Act which related to the apprehending
of Popish bishops, priests, and Jesuits, which subjected these
and also Papists keeping a school to perpetual imprisonment,
and which disabled all Papists from inheriting or purchasing
land. ... It is an honourable fact that this Relief Bill was
carried without a division in either House, without any
serious opposition from the bench of bishops, and with the
concurrence of both parties in the State. The law applied to
England only, but the Lord Advocate promised, in the ensuing
session, to introduce a similar measure for Scotland.
{937}
It was hoped that a measure which was so manifestly moderate
and equitable, and which was carried with such unanimity
through Parliament, would have passed almost unnoticed in the
country; but fiercer elements of fanaticism than politicians
perceived were still smouldering in the nation. The first
signs of the coming storm were seen among the Presbyterians of
Scotland. The General Assembly of the Scotch Established
Church was sitting when the English Relief Bill was pending,
and it rejected by a large majority a motion for a
remonstrance to Parliament against it. But in a few months an
agitation of the most dangerous description spread swiftly
through the Lowlands. It was stimulated by many incendiary
resolutions of provincial synods, by pamphlets, hand-bills,
newspapers, and sermons, and a 'Committee for the Protestant
Interests' was formed at Edinburgh to direct it. ... Furious
riots broke out in January, 1779, both in Edinburgh and
Glasgow. Several houses in which Catholics lived, or the
Catholic worship was celebrated, were burnt to the ground. The
shops of Catholic tradesmen were wrecked, and their goods
scattered, plundered, or destroyed. Catholic ladies were
compelled to take refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The houses of
many Protestants who were believed to sympathise with the
Relief Bill were attacked, and among the number was that of
Robertson the historian. The troops were called out to
suppress the riot, but they were resisted and pelted, and not
suffered to fire in their defence. ... The flame soon spread
southwards. For some years letters on the increase of Popery
had been frequently appearing in the London newspapers. Many
murmurs had been heard at the enactment of the Quebec Act, and
many striking instances in the last ten years had shown how
easily the spirit of riot could be aroused, and how impotent
the ordinary watchmen were to cope with it. ... The fanatical
party had unfortunately acquired an unscrupulous leader in the
person of Lord George Gordon, whose name now attained a
melancholy celebrity. He was a young man of thirty, of very
ordinary talents, and with nothing to recommend him but his
connection with the ducal house of Gordon. ... A 'Protestant
Association,' consisting of the worst agitators and fanatics,
was formed, and at a great meeting held on May 29, 1780, and
presided over by Lord George Gordon, it was determined that
20,000 men should march to the Parliament House to present a
petition for the repeal of the Relief Act. It was about
half-past two on the afternoon of Friday, June 2, that three
great bodies, consisting of many thousands of men, wearing
blue cockades, and carrying a petition which was said to have
been signed by near 120,000 persons, arrived by different
roads at the Parliament House. Their first design appears to
have been only to intimidate, but they very soon proceeded to
actual violence. The two Houses were just meeting, and the
scene that ensued resembled on a large scale and in an
aggravated form the great riot which had taken place around
the Parliament House in Dublin during the administration of
the Duke of Bedford. The members were seized, insulted,
compelled to put blue cockades in their hats, to shout 'No
Popery!' and to swear that they would vote for the repeal; and
many of them, but especially the members of the House of
Lords, were exposed to the grossest indignities. ... In the
Commons Lord George Gordon presented the petition, and
demanded its instant consideration. The House behaved with
much courage, and after a hurried debate it was decided by 192
to 7 to adjourn its consideration till the 6th. Lord George
Gordon several times appeared on the stairs of the gallery,
and addressed the crowd, denouncing by name those who opposed
him, and especially Burke and North; but Conway rebuked him in
the sight and hearing of the mob, and Colonel Gordon, one of
his own relatives, declared that the moment the first man of
the mob entered the House he would plunge his sword into the
body of Lord George. The doors were locked. The strangers'
gallery was empty, but only a few doorkeepers and a few other
ordinary officials protected the House, while the mob is said
at first to have numbered not less than 60,000 men. Lord North
succeeded in sending a messenger for the guards, but many
anxious hours passed before they arrived. Twice attempts were
made to force the doors. ... At last about nine o'clock the
troops appeared, and the crowd, without resisting, agreed to
disperse. A great part of them, however, were bent on further
outrages. They attacked the Sardinian Minister's chapel in
Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. They broke it open, carried
away the silver lamps and other furniture, burnt the benches in
the street, and flung the burning brands into the chapel. The
Bavarian Minister's chapel in Warwick Street Golden Square was
next attacked, plundered, and burnt before the soldiers could
intervene. They at last appeared upon the scene, and some
slight scuffling ensued, and thirteen of the rioters were
captured. It was hoped that the riot had expended its force,
for Saturday and the greater part of Sunday passed with little
disturbance, but on Sunday afternoon new outrages began in
Moorfields, where a considerable Catholic population resided.
Several houses were attacked and plundered, and the chapels
utterly ruined."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of English in the 18th Century,
chapter 13 (volume 3)._
"On Monday the rioters continued their outrages. ...
Notwithstanding, however, that the town might now be said to
have been in the possession of the rioters for more than three
days, it does not appear that any more decided measures were
adopted to put them down. Their audacity and violence, as
might have been expected, increased under this treatment. On
Tuesday afternoon and evening the most terrible excesses were
perpetrated. Notwithstanding that a considerable military
force was stationed around and on the way to the Houses of
Parliament, several of the members were again insulted and
maltreated in the grossest manner. Indeed, the mob by this
time seem to have got over all apprehensions of the
interference of the soldiers." The principal event of the day
was the attack on Newgate prison, which was destroyed and the
prisoners released. "The New Prison, Clerkenwell, was also
broken open ... and all the prisoners set at large. Attacks
were likewise made upon several ... private houses. ... But
the most lamentable of all the acts of destruction yet
perpetrated by these infuriated ruffians was that with which
they closed the day of madness and crime--the entire
demolition of the residence of Lord Mansfield, the venerable
Lord Chief Justice, in Bloomsbury Square. ...
{938}
The scenes that took place on Wednesday were still more
dreadful than those by which Tuesday had been marked. The town
indeed was now in a state of complete insurrection: and it was
felt by all that the mob must be put down at any cost, if it
was intended to save the metropolis of the kingdom from utter
destruction. This day, accordingly, the military were out in
all quarters, and were everywhere employed against the
infuriated multitudes who braved their power. ... The King's
Bench Prison, the New Gaol, the Borough Clink, the Surrey
Bridewell, were all burned today. ... The Mansion House, the
Museum, the Exchange, the Tower, and the Bank, were all, it is
understood, marked for destruction. Lists of these and the
other buildings which it was intended to attack were
circulated among the mob. The bank was actually twice
assaulted; but a powerful body of soldiers by whom it was
guarded on both occasions drove off the crowd, though not
without great slaughter. At some places the rioters returned
the fire of the military. ... Among other houses which were
set on fire in Holborn were the extensive premises of Mr.
Langdale, the distiller, who was a Catholic. ... The worst
consequence of this outrage, however, was the additional
excitement which the frenzy of the mob received from the
quantities of spirits with which they were here supplied. Many
indeed drank themselves literally dead; and many more, who had
rendered themselves unable to move, perished in the midst of
the flames. Six and thirty fires, it is stated, were this
night to be seen, from one spot, blazing at the same time in
different quarters of the town. ... By Thursday morning ...
the exertions of Government, now thoroughly alarmed, had
succeeded in bringing up from different parts so large a force
of regular troops and of militia as to make it certain that
the rioters would be speedily overpowered. ... The soldiers
attacked the mob in various places, and everywhere with
complete success. ... On Friday the courts of justice were
again opened for business, and the House of Commons met in the
evening. ... On this first day after the close of the riots,
'the metropolis,' says the Annual Register, 'presented in many
places the image of a city recently stormed and sacked.' ...
Of the persons apprehended and brought to trial, 59 were
capitally convicted; and of these more than 20 were executed;
the others were sent to expiate their offences by passing the
remainder of their days in hard labour and bondage in a
distant land. ... Lord George Gordon, in consequence of the
part he had borne in the measures which led to these riots,
was sent to the Tower, and some time afterwards brought to
trial on a charge of high treason," but was acquitted.
_Sketches of Popular Tumults,
section 1, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
chapter 34 (volume 2)._
_H. Walpole,
Journal of the Reign of George III.,
volume 2, pages 403-424._
_Annual Register, 1780,
pages 254-287._
_C. Dickens,
Barnaby Rudge._
_W. J. Amherst,
History of Catholic Emancipation,
volume 1, chapters 1-5._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
Declining strength of the government.
Rodney's great naval victory.
The siege of Gibraltar.