New Parliament of 1735-Peace of Vienna-The Gin-Act-The Porteous Riots-Parliamentary proceedings on these Riots-Unpopularity of the king-Marriage of the prince of WalesRoyal animosities-Birth of a princess-Illness of queen Caroline-Death of queen Caroline. THE first Session of the new Parliament, which met in January, 1735, was prolonged only till May. The king announced his determination to visit his dominions in Germany, and the queen was appointed regent. George was sorely tempted to engage in the war by an offer of the command of the imperial army on the Rhine. Walpole had foreseen such a possible flattery of the king's military ambition; and had prepared him to say, that he could not appear at the head of an army as king of England, and not have an Englishman to fight under him. The summer passed without any important military operations. On the 22nd of October the king returned from Hanoveraccording to lord Hervey in very bad temper, and dissatisfied with everything English. His majesty had left a lady in Hanover, Madame Walmoden, to whom he wrote by every post. Soon after his return the preliminaries of a • Lord Hervey, vol. ii. p. 7. 78 PEACE OF VIENNA THE GIN-ACT. [1736. general peace were signed at Vienna. Europe would be at rest again for four years. "The happy turn which the affairs of Europe had taken" was announced at the opening of Parliament in January, 1736. The tranquillity of England and Scotland was seriously disturbed in this season of foreign pacification. On the 20th of February a Petition against the excessive use of spirituous liquors was presented to the House of Commons from the Justices of Peace for Middlesex. The drinking of Geneva, it was alleged, had excessively increased amongst the people of inferior rank; the constant and excessive use of distilled spirituous liquors had already destroyed thousands, and rendered great numbers of others unfit for labour, debauching their morals, and driving them into every vice. Upon the motion of sir Joseph Jekyll, it was proposed to lay a tax of twenty shillings a gallon upon gin, and to require that every retailer should take out an annual licence costing £50. Walpole gave no distinct support to this measure, nor did he oppose it. He saw that a greatly reduced consumption of spirituous liquors would affect the revenue; that a high duty would produce less than a low duty; and he therefore proposed that £70,000 which had been appropriated to the Civil List from the smaller duties on spirits should be guaranteed, if the prohibitory rate were -adopted. Pulteney opposed the Bill altogether, upon the principle that he had heard of sumptuary laws by which certain sorts of apparel had been forbidden to persons of inferior rank; but that he had never before heard of a sumptuary law by which any sort of victuals or drink were forbidden to be made use of by persons of a low degree. Yet the magnitude of the evil certainly warranted some strong legislative measure. It was stated that within the bills of mortality there were twenty thousand houses for retailing spirituous liquors. Sudden deaths from excessive gin-drinking were continually reported in the newspapers. The extent of this vice was too obvious, to allow the arguments against the impossibility of preventing evasion of the duties to have much weight. Compliance with the Statute was to be enforced by the machinery of the Common Informer. So the Bill was passed, and was to come into operation after the 29th of September. On that day the signs of the liquor-shops were put in mourning. Hooting mobs assembled round the dens where they could no longer get "drunk for a penny and deaddrunk for twopence." The last rag was pawned to carry off a cheap quart or gallon of the beloved liquor. As was foreseen, the Act was evaded. Hawkers sold a coloured mixture in the streets, and pretended chemists opened shops for the sale of "Cholick-water." Fond playful names, such as "Tom Row," "Make Shift," "The Ladies' Delight," "The Baulk," attracted customers to the old haunts. Informers were rolled in the mud, or pumped upon, or thrown into the Thames. Gin riots were constantly taking place, for several years. "The Fall of Bob" was the theme of ballad and broadside, which connected the minister with "Desolation, or the Fall of Gin." * The impossibility of preventing by prohibitory duties the sale of a commodity in large request, was strikingly exemplified in this gin-struggle. It became necessary in 1743, when the consumption of gin had positively increased, to reduce the excessive duty. A ludicrous example of one of the abortive attempts at * See Wright's "England under the House of Hanover," vol. i. p. 159 to p. 163. .1736.] THE PORTEOUS RIOTS. 79 minute legislation is exhibited in a rejected clause of the Act of 1736. In the wish to protect the sugar-colonies by encouraging the consumption of rum, it was proposed to exempt punch-houses from the operation of the Gin-Act, provided the agreeable liquor so retailed was made of one-third spirit and two-thirds water, at the least, so mixed in the presence of the buyer. If the liquor were stronger than what sailors call "two-water grog," the tippler might pay for his bowl by laying an information. romance. * The Porteous tragedy of Edinburgh in 1736 has become the property of One writer appears to think that the function of the historian has been superseded by that of the novelist. "The tale of the Porteous riot scarcely needs telling, for it has been told by Sir Walter Scott in one of the best and most read of the exquisite Waverley novels." The judicious historian of "England from the Peace of Utrecht" approaches the subject apologetically. "Some year's back, the real events might have excited interest; but the wand of an Enchanter is now waved over us. * * * How dull and lifeless will not the true facts appear when no longer embellished by the touching sorrows of Effie or the heroic virtue of Jeanie Deans!" + Possibly. But "the real events," "the true facts," have a significance which the writer of fiction does not always care to dwell upon. They strikingly illustrate the condition of society. They are essentially connected with the history of public events which preceded them, and of public events which came after. They illustrate the policy of the government and the temper of the governed. We cannot pass them over or deal with them slightingly. They form the subject of very important parliamentary proceedings in 1737, which are necessary to the proper understanding of the relations between England and Scotland. An impartial review in this, as in most other cases, is as much to be aimed at as a picturesque narrative. Smuggling in England, as we have seen, had been long carried on to an enormous extent. The seafaring population were accustomed to look upon many gainful adventures as lawful and innocent which we now regard as criminal. The slave-trade, with all its odious cruelties, was a regular mercantile undertaking. Buccaneering in the South Seas was a just assertion of the rights of the British flag. The contraband trade in brandy, tea, and tobacco, was a laudable endeavour to sell their countrymen goods at a cheap rate bought in a fair market. But the principle of smuggling was not recognized as a national benefit. The merchant was opposed to it. The wealthy consumer had conscientious scruples against encouraging it. In Scotland the nation, with the exception of a few flourishing trading communities, abetted smuggling, and regarded smugglers as useful members of society. In a report attributed to Duncan Forbes, it is said, "The smuggler was the favourite. His prohibited or high-duty goods were run ashore by the boats of whatever part of the coast he came near. When ashore, they were guarded by the country from the custom-house officer. It seized, they were rescued; and if any seizure was returned, and tried, the juries seldom failed to find for the defendant.‡" Mr. Burton points out the difference in the circumstances of England and Scotland which made * "Cabinet History of England," vol. xvi. p. 32. + Lord Mahon, vol. ii. p. 285. Quoted in Burton's "History of Scotland," vol. ii. p. 267. 80 THE PORTEOUS RIOTS. [1736. the principle of equality of taxation odious; and emphatically says, "For more than half a century after the Union, English fiscal burdens were as unbearable to the Scots as they would be to the Norwegians at the present day." Mr. Patrick Lyndsay, the member for Edinburgh, in a remarkable speech in the House of Commons on the subject of the Porteous riot, said, “I must beg leave to explain the source of these late disorders that have given so much trouble to the legislature. The pernicious practice of Smuggling, prejudicial to the fair trader, and so hurtful to the common and general good of the nation, has prevailed but too much in that country, as well as in this. Whoever may be the importers and proprietors of run goods, it is most certain that the lowest class of men, the dregs of the people, those persons who compose mobs, are the persons employed in the running of these goods; and they get so much more by their illicit trade than they can by honest labour, that they neglect their labour for the sake of this vile and destructive trade."* Mr. Lyndsay did not hesitate to say-for which boldness he was called to account by a portion of his constituents-that some high-church Presbyterians, "who assert and maintain an absolute independency on the civil power," and taught that any statute "is iniquity established by law," indirectly encouraged the outrages of "men of weak understanding and strong passions." The small sea-ports on the coast of Fife were more remarkable than any other districts of the wide and ill-defended sea-board of Scotland, as the haunts of the most daring bands of systematic smugglers. Two such persons, named Wilson and Robertson, having had some goods seized by the officers of revenue, entered with two associates the custom-house of Pittenween, and, when the collector fled, carried off a large sum of money. Wilson and Robertson were apprehended, were tried, and were sentenced to death. Mr. Lyndsay related that Wilson maintained, to the last moment, that he was unjustly condemned. "He admitted," to one of the reverend ministers of Edinburgh, "that he had taken money from a collector of the revenue by violence; that he did it because he knew no other way of coming at it; that the officers of the revenue had by their practice taught him this was lawful, for they had often seized and carried off his goods by violence; and so long as they had goods of greater value in their hands than all the money he took from them, they were still in his debt, and he had done no wrong." There can be no doubt that the mob of Edinburgh, and many above the mob, took the same view of Wilson's offence; and held the same opinion about revenue laws. The attempt of Wilson and Robertson to escape from the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, when Wilson, a bulky man, stuck fast in the iron bars of his cell, is as well known as any of the adventures of Jack Sheppard. His generous effort to save his comrade after the condemned sermon in the Tolbooth church, has redeemed his memory from the ignominy of the common malefactor. Surrounded by four keepers, Wilson held two with his hands and a third with his teeth, whilst Robertson knocked down the fourth and escaped. This heroism made Wilson's own fate certain. He was executed on the 14th of April; whilst the populace looked on with stern compassion. + Ibid., col. 254. * "Parliamentary History," vol. x. col. 253. 1736.] THE PORTEOUS RIOTS. 81 No attempt at rescue was made, for the place of execution was not only surrounded by the city-guard, but by a detachment of the Welsh Fusiliers. After the body was taken down, a rush was made to seize it from the hangman. The populace then attacked the city-guard, who were under the command of John Porteous, their captain. Porteous was a man of strong passions, very often brought into conflict with the blackguards of the city, and now in peculiarly ill-temper from his dignity being interfered with by the unusual presence of a military force, called to assist in keeping the peace. He is said to have fired himself; he certainly ordered his gen darmerie to fire upon the people. Several persons were killed or wounded. The Fusiliers also fired; but in firing above the heads of the mob, they hit several who were lookers-on from the adjacent windows. Porteous was brought to trial in July, before the High Court of Justiciary, on a charge of murder, for having caused the death of citizens without authority from the civil magistrate. He was convicted, and sentenced to capital punishment; but his conduct being considered by the Council of Regency in London as an act of self-defence, he was reprieved by the English Secretary of State. His execution had been fixed by the authorities of Edinburgh for the 8th of September. The news of the reprieve produced a sensation that foreboded mischief. room. The 8th of September fell on a Wednesday. A report had gone forth that some tumult would take place on that day, when the populace, being disappointed of a legal sacrifice to their revenge, would attempt some daring act against Porteous. This was deemed a foolish story; but the Lord Provost of Edinburgh took some precautions to resist any outrage on that Wednesday.* Porteous himself had no fears. A Scottish clergyman, Mr. Yates, had preached in the Tolbooth church, Porteous being present, on Sunday the 5th; and he afterwards saw Porteous, and told him of the report, and advised him to be cautious about admitting persons to his Porteous slighted his information; and said, "were he once at liberty, he was so little apprehensive of the people, that he would not fear to walk at the Cross of Edinburgh with only his cane in his hand as usual." + The Tolbooth of the Scottish capital, like most other places of confinement, had its feasts for those who could pay, and its starvation for those who were destitute. On the evening of Tuesday, the 7th of September, Porteous was surrounded by a jolly party, draining the punch-bowl in toasting the speedy liberation of their friend. There was another remarkable festal assembly in Edinburgh that night. Mr. Lind, captain of the city-guard, deposed that, "being informed that the mob was gathering, he went to Clark's tavern, where the Provost was drinking with Mr. Bur, and other officers of his majesty's ship the Dreadnought, then stationed in the road of Leith; and upon acquainting him with the danger, the Provost desired him to go immediately back, and draw out his men, and that he would instantly follow him, and put himself at the head of the guard to face the mob." The mob was quicker than the Provost or his captain. They had disarmed the guard; had taken possession of the guard-house; and were arming themselves with * Evidence before Parliament-"Parliamentary History," vol. x. col. 267. |