The passing of this bill induced some persons in Scotland to form a design of proposing its extension to that country in the ensuing session of Parliament. To this they were moreover encouraged by the consideration, that in the General Assembly, sitting at the time the act was first in agitation, a motion for remonstrating against it was rejected by a majority of upwards of a hundred voices. Notwithstanding this appearance of moderation, a spirit of intolerance and jealousy was again rising, which, fostered by the circulation of virulent and calumnious pamphlets, soon displayed its effects in some of the provincial synods, where resolutions were passed expressing a determination to resist every attempt for the relief of Catholics. At the same time

some incendiary bigots, chiefly of the lowest class, in Edinburgh and Glasgow, formed an association for the like purpose, which assumed the appellation of "Friends of the Protestant interest." These persons, by their activity in diffusing pamphlets, hand-bills, and letters in the newspapers, kindled such a flame through the country, that it was thought advisable to relinquish the intention of applying for the bill. Fanaticism, however, was not thus to be appeased: letters were dropt in the streets of Edinburgh, calling upon the people to pull down "a Pillar of Popery," lately erected. A mob in consequence, assembled, attacked a building occupied by the Catholic bishop, which they pillaged and set on fire. They next proceeded to the Catholic chapel, the inside of which and of the house, together with the furniture, were demolished, and a considerable library belonging to the bishop was either destroyed or stolen. The rioters, emboldened by the absence of all energy and opposition on the part of the magistrates, attacked the houses of several Catholic tradesmen, whose property they served in like manner.

These disorders, to the disgrace of the police, continued several days unchecked; but when the rioters carried their designs further, and proceeded to attack the houses of Principal Robertson, and Mr. Crosbie, an eminent advocate, whom they considered as promoters of the intended bill, some dragoons were called in to the protection of the city, and peace was at length restored, though not before a proclamation was issued by the

Lord Provost, in which he took upon himself to assure the " well-meaning" people, that no repeal of the penal statutes against the Scotch Catholics should take place. Similar riots occurred at Glasgow, where the house and manufactory of an eminent potter, a Catholic, were destroyed; but the prompt exertions of the magistrates and principal inhabitants soon restored order. These disturbances, however, were but a prelude to those that took place in 1780, in London, which became the scene of riots the most disgraceful to its police, and dangerous to its safety.

At the head of the Scotch associations against any relaxations of the penal laws respecting Catholics was Lord George Gordon, brother to the duke of that name: a man whose character was compounded of enthusiasm, folly, and cunning. Chiefly through his proceedings, the same fanatical spirit was roused in London; where, as early as January, 1780, a deputation from a body calling themselves the Protestant Association, of which he was the patron, waited upon Lord North, to request he would present a petition to Parliament against the law that had been passed in favour of the Catholics, which his lordship positively refused to do.

During the subsequent session of Parliament, Lord George Gordon, who was a member of the House of Commons, frequently interrupted the business by speeches on religion, and the dangers of Popery, and by dividing the House on questions, on which he almost stood alone. His manners and dress were as singular as his language; but he was rather a subject of amusement to the house than of serious apprehension.

In the meanwhile, the association was secretly increasing its members, till, on the 29th of May, at a meeting called by public advertisement, at Coachmaker's Hall, Lord George Gordon took the chair, and made a most inflammatory harangue, in which he asserted the dangers of the rapid increase of Popery, and concluded with moving that the whole body of the Protestant Association should, on the next Friday, accompany him to the House of Commons, to present their petition, declaring at the same time that he would not deliver it if attended by fewer than 20,000 persons, wearing in their hats blue cockades.

On the 2nd of June the associators, marshalled in four divisions, proceeded in great order to the houses of Parliament; but they soon inflamed each other, and committed violent outrages on the persons of such members of both houses as came in their way, particularly those who were regarded as promoters of the obnoxious bill. Upon the motion of Lord George Gordon to have the petition admitted, some debate ensued, during which he often went out to inform the mob of what was passing, and who were the principal opposers of their cause. His motion was rejected by 192 to six. After much time spent in confusion and alarm, a party of soldiers arrived, with a magistrate at their head, who assured the mob that if they would disperse, the soldiers should be ordered away. Upon this they retired from the vicinity of the Parliament House; but it was for the purpose of destroying the Catholic Chapel in Duke Street, Lincoln's-Inn Fields, belonging to the Sardinian ambassador, and the Bavarian Chapel in Warwick Street, Golden Square, which they effected without opposition. The following day the tumult appeared to have nearly subsided; but this calm was but a prelude to a more furious storm. For the particulars of these widely extended scenes of destruction, caused by all the dregs of the metropolis, fired by a blind and indiscriminate rage for devastation and plunder, the periodical publications of the time afford ample information: it will be sufficient here to relate, that several chapels belonging to Catholics, together with many of their houses, and those of persons supposed to be their friends, were burnt or pillaged. On the 7th these disorders were at their height: no fewer than thirty-six fires were seen blazing at one time in different parts of the town, and two attempts were made to force the Bank.

It was now high time to think of saving the capital itself from utter ruin, and even the whole frame of the Government from dissolution. Hitherto the magistrates of London and Westminster, and even the Government, had shewn great supineness and timidity; but the King himself now began to act: troops were ordered from all quarters, with directions that they should not wait for the civil magistrate, but use their arms whereever the rioters appeared. This order was effectually

obeyed; for besides the numbers who were supposed to have perished in the ruins of the conflagration, the return of the killed and wounded amounted to no fewer than 458. By this resolute conduct of the King, tranquillity was soon restored, and the author of the calamity, Lord G. Gordon, was apprehended, committed to the Tower, and subsequently tried for high treason, of which charge he was, however, acquitted. Some years after, he was convicted of publishing a libel on the Queen of France, the French ambassador, and the Empress of Russia, sentenced to five years' imprisonment, and to find bail for his good behaviour in £10,000, which not being able to do, he continued in Newgate till his death.

46

These disturbances appear to have made some impression upon the Commons, for a bill was proposed for affording security to the Protestant religion from the encroachments of Popery, by more effectually restraining Papists from taking upon themselves the education of Protestant children." This was rightly considered by the Lords as a concession to that spirit which had produced so many lamentable effects, and therefore unworthy the dignity of Parliament; it was accordingly rejected by a vote of their house for deferring the third reading of the bill to a day beyond the sitting of Parliament.

Some time after the ferment occasioned by the riots had subsided, a meeting was held of some of the principal Catholic nobility and gentry; five of whom were formed into a committee for a limited time, to promote and attend to the affairs of the Roman Catholic body in England. Among the objects which appear to have occupied their attention, was a plan to change the vicarial form of their ecclesiastical government into a regular hierarchy, by the appointment of bishops in ordinary, which they conceived was not only more conformable to the general practice of the church, but would moreover obviate the objection made by their adversaries, of the absolute dependance of the vicars apostolic upon the see of Rome.

The formation of a committee composed solely of laymen, appointed for the express purpose of new-modelling the Catholic hierarchy in this kingdom, certainly

appeared a mode of proceeding not likely to procure the concurrence of those who thought, and with reason, that in a business so immediately concerning the ecclesiastical body, not only should the bishops and clergy have been consulted, but that they should have had the principal direction of the whole affair.

As might have been foreseen, discord, animosity, and reproaches, were the consequence; the project was abandoned; and the time for which the committee had been appointed having expired, they were dissolved, and a new one appointed in 1787, consisting also of five members, to whom were added in the following year, Bishop Talbot, of the London district; Bishop Berrington, coadjutor of the Midland district; and the Rev. Jh. Wilks, a Benedictine monk. Previous to the latter nomination, a memorial was delivered by the committee to Mr. Pitt, which, as it enumerates the principal grievances to which Catholics were subject, is summarily inserted. It begins by shewing that "they are prohibited under severe penalties from exercising their religion.

"That they are subject to heavy punishments for keeping schools to educate their children at home, and to heavy fines for sending them to schools abroad.

"That they are rendered incapable of serving in his majesty's armies and navies.

"That they are restrained from practising in the law. "That they are obliged to expose the most secret transactions of their families, by the obligation of enrolling their deeds.

"That they are subject to the ignominious fine of the double land-tax.

"That they are deprived of the right of freeholders to vote for county members, and not allowed to vote for any other members.

"That they are excluded from all places, civil and military.

"That they are disqualified from voting in either house of Parliament.

66

"That their clergy are exposed to heavy penalties, imprisonment, and even death, for exercising their functions. That, by the Act passed in 1778, the law which most prevented their enjoying their landed property was repealed, and an oath prescribed to them, by which