Showing posts with label American Revolution in Britain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Revolution in Britain. Show all posts

Saturday, April 27, 2024

ARP309 North Government Falls


This week we’re going to look at the British Reaction to hearing the news of the surrender at Yorktown.

The first word of the loss of the army under General Cornwallis came from a ship that heard about the news in France.  On November 25, 1781, a packet ship sailing from Calais to Falmouth arrived with word that officials were celebrating in Paris over a great victory in Virginia.  

Frederick North
A messenger carried the news to Lord Germain, the American Secretary.  Although it was a Sunday, he sent word to the king and met with several other top officials. They personally carried the news to Prime Minister, Lord North, who exclaimed “Oh God, oh God, it is all over!”

That day, word of the loss was still really a rumor. That night, however, the navy ship Rattlesnake arrived carrying Admiral Thomas Graves’ report of the surrender.  For most of the government, officials seemed to share Lord North’s reaction, if not his emotional outburst.  The loss of the army under Cornwallis probably meant that it was time to end the war in North America.

One man who did not share that opinion was George III.  The king had long been the leading advocate for continuing the war, and was largely responsible for maintaining a government that had supported this position.  

Two days after word arrived, the King was due to give a speech before the opening of a new session in Parliament.  The speech had been written well before the news arrived, but called for continued efforts to defend and preserve the empire.  The King, however, addressed the news of Yorktown:  “The events of war have been unfortunate to my army in Virginia, having ended in the loss of my forces in that province.  But I retain the perfect conviction of the justice of my cause.”  Despite the setback, the king wished to continue the war in America.  

The King believed that North America was vital to the British empire.  Giving up there would only mean that other colonies around the world would also push for independence.  For him, the fight for the colonies in North America was a fight for the continuation of the British Empire itself.

The King’s speech helped to rally the Tories, but opposition to the war had been growing long before news of Yorktown.  This loss only strengthened the position of the opposition.

Revised War Plans

George III asked Germain to develop a new plan for the war.  The American Secretary’s response was a proposal that Britain should retain its occupation of New York, Charleston, and Savannah.  The two southern cities were particularly important as support bases for the war in the West Indies.  The recapture of Newport, Rhode Island and establishment of a base in Delaware to block trade to and from Philadelphia could provide valuable bases.

The British Navy would continue efforts to blockade or attack rebel ports, cutting off outside trade and assistance.  Loyalists and Indian tribes would continue to receive military aid that would be used to harass the rebels

Britain would give up on trying to control entire colonies or even large portions of land.  It would simply hold a few port cities, block most trade, and wait for the misery in the colonies to get the enemy to return to their senses and rejoin the British.  

George Germain
Germain’s memo also noted that the rebel governments had essentially put themselves under French control. When the colonists realized their choice would be between serving France or Britain, they would inevitably want a return of British rule. The King reviewed this plan and gave it his support.

In January, Germain began implementation of new plans.  He wrote to General Clinton in New York, telling him that he would not be getting significant numbers of reinforcements, but that he should continue to hold all current areas that were under British control. Those towns would support naval actions along the American coast.

Germain also sent instructions to General Frederick Haldimand in Quebec to continue providing support to loyalists and Indians who wanted to continue the fight with the Americans along the northern border and western frontier.  Haldimand should also work on a diplomatic effort to draw Vermont back into British control.

Despite putting the onus for North American on the navy, the leadership was not prepared to provide more resources for that effort. Instead, the focus was on other parts of the empire. Lord Sandwich, the first Lord of the Admiralty, sent instructions to Admiral Digby in New York to take the bulk of his fleet down to the West Indies to protect British interests there.

Sandwich also deployed a fleet to India, carrying several more regiments of infantry and cavalry.  As I discussed a few weeks ago, the French fleet under Admiral Suffren was attacking British interests in India, with the cooperation of Hyder Ali and the Mysore Kingdom.  Britain had to protect its interests there.

At the ministry’s request, a member of Parliament named David Hartley wrote a letter to Benjamin Franklin.  Hartley and Franklin were friends from when Franklin was living in London before the War.  Hartley broached the idea of trying to enter into separate negotiations with the American Peace Commissioners with the idea of calling a ten year truce between Britain and America.  

Franklin’s response shut down that option pretty quickly.  For starters, the Americans were not permitted to seek a separate peace from France.  Their treaty with France obligated them to remain in the war until France also secured peace with Britain.  Further, it didn’t take a diplomatic genius to see how bad an idea a ten year truce would be.  That would only give time for Britain to defeat France and Spain, then rebuild its military, then renew its war in America.  Franklin made clear that the US was not quitting until the war with France ended, and that any conclusion of that war would recognize permanent US independence.

What is clear from these communications, however, is that the North government realized that continued fighting in America at this time would only cause more problems.  The focus was on the rest of the empire, with the hope of keeping the war in America on hold for as long as possible.

British Opposition

Meanwhile, the opposition was moving in a different direction.  On December 12, Sir James Lowther introduced a motion that determined that the British war in North America had “proved ineffectual” and that the government should abandon its attempts to compel obedience in America.  The motion ignored trigger words like “independence” but the intent was clear.  Britain should give up on America, end the war there, and focus on France, Spain, and the Netherlands.  Debate on the bill was heated, but in the end, it failed 220 to 179 - a decisive win for Lord North’s government.

Charles James Fox
One of the opposition leaders at this time was Charles James Fox.  This leader in Parliament had begun his political career at age 19, when his father purchased a seat for him in the House of commons in 1768.  In his early years, Fox was pretty closely aligned with the king on many issues.  He had been one of the leaders seeking to punish John Wilkes.  His break with the king began in 1770 when he opposed the Royal Marriages Act, which gave the king the authority to veto any marriage choice by the royal family.  George III considered this very important and took any opposition as a personal rejection.  Several additional issues, having nothing to do with America drove the two men apart over the next few years.

By 1774 Fox was engaging more with Edmund Burke, another member of parliament and a firm Whig who focused on restricting the king’s authority in government.  Burke became a staunch opponent of government policy in America, supporting instead a negotiated peace that respected American rights.  Over the course of the war, both Fox and Burke recognized the need to accept American independence and led much of the opposition against the government’s war in America.

Burke had also started his political career as secretary to Charles Watson-Wentworth, the 2nd Marquess of Rockingham.  Lord Rockingham had been close to George II, holding the title of Lord of the Bedchamber.  After the death of George II, Rockingham became an early opponent of George III and was removed from most of his government positions.  Rockingham briefly served as Prime Minister in 1765-1766, during which time he repealed the Stamp Tax in America.  The king viewed this as the cause of all the troubles, since it rewarded the rioters in America and gave them the idea that they could win more concessions through violence.  In the king’s view, Rockingham’s accommodationist policies were a disaster.

Throughout the war, Rockingham led opposition to the North Government in the House of Lords.  He had long been a supporter of accommodation, and as early as 1779 believed that the war in America could not be won and that refusing to recognize that fact only created further harm to Britain.

Germain Leaves 

The vote on the Lowther motion to end the war took place at 2AM on the last day of the legislative session before Parliament left for Christmas.  More than 100 members were already gone and did not vote on that matter.  Both sides knew they would have to revisit the issue when Parliament returned in January, so both the North government and the opposition spent Christmas break lobbying for their side.

When I say the North government lobbied, I mean officials in the government led by Lord North. The Prime Minister himself did not do much talking at all.  After Parliament adjourned in December, North met with the King and told him that he believed it was time to recognize American independence. The King insisted that North remain publicly silent on the matter, only discussing it with Lord Stormont and Lord Hillsborough, two of the most pro-war leaders still in the government.  The King likely hoped these two men could bring North back to supporting the war.  In the meantime, he did not want North talking independence with anyone else.

As a way of placating the opposition, the North Ministry decided there needed to be a human sacrifice.  Lord Germain was the most outspoken supporter of continuing the war in America.  The king, North, and others decided he would have to go.  Simply firing Germain or having him quit over the failures in America would not do since that would only highlight the British failures in America.  Instead, they came up with a way to push Germain out quietly.

General Clinton had wanted to resign as commander of North America and return home.  This became more compelling when General Cornwallis returned in January and began blaming Clinton for Yorktown.  

The ministry decided to replace Clinton with General Guy Carleton. You may recall from earlier episodes that Carleton had managed to defend Quebec from rebel occupation at the beginning of the war.  He had been recalled after the loss at Saratoga, but was not blamed for that.  In fact, that loss highlighted the more conservative approach that Carleton had advocated.

Carleton’s main problem was Lord Germain.  Carleton had served on the court martial during the Seven Years War that got Germain kicked out the Army.  Germain never forgave him for that and made it his mission to damage Carleton’s career whenever he could.  So the decision to appoint Carleton as the new commander of North America would almost certainly result in Germain’s resignation as the American Secretary.

The parties discussed this maneuver ahead of time to make sure it had a minimal impact on the war effort.  Germain set the price for his resignation as a new title and a seat in the House of Lords.  After some debate, he received a title as viscount, which entitled him to sit in the House of Lords.

Germain’s replacement, Wellbore Ellis, was a longtime member of Parliament.  He was pushing 70 and was selected primarily because he would be a nonentity who would sit quietly and not rock the boat.  Ellis’ only demand in taking the job was the promise of a pension.

Votes to end the War

Several weeks after Parliament returned, a moderate member of Parliament, former General Henry Conway, put forward another resolution that called for an end to the offensive war in America.  This was a bit less aggressive. Ending the war only meant things went on hold.  It did not mean recognizing American independence. This motion also failed by only a single vote, 194-193.  A week later, Conway tried again with a slightly revised resolution.  North proposed an amendment to have the government “treat with America on the footing of independence.” By introducing the “i” word to the debate, North hoped to increase opposition to the measure.  When that failed, North called for a delay on the vote for a few weeks.

Henry Seymour Conway
The members rejected all these efforts.  The members knew that North was simply maneuvering in an effort to avoid losing the vote.  Parliament remained in session, finally voting in favor of the motion at 2:00 AM on February 28 by a vote of 234-215.  Later that day, the General Advertiser hit the streets with the headline PEACE WITH AMERICA.

This headline may have been premature.  The Crown was not ready to concede.  The following day, the King received the leaders of the House of Commons to discuss the matter. Standing next to the King during this discussion was General Benedict Arnold.  A few days later, the King gave a vague and evasive reply which seemed to indicate that he was not ready to concede the war.

In response, Conway proposed another resolution that said “the House of Commons would consider as enemies to His Majesty and this country” anyone who “advised or attempted to prosecute an offensive war in America.”  This resolution passed as well.

A few days later, things got even worse when news arrived that the British outpost at Menorca had fallen to the Spanish.  The opposition was confident enough by this point that they prepared to call for a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister.  Such a vote would remove Lord North from office and put a peace candidate in charge of the government.  North began a counteroffensive, reminding members of all the other things the opposition might do once they were in charge.  This went well beyond ending the war. There were a whole bunch of other issues the opposition supported to which many members objected. He managed to defeat the motion by 10 votes, but in doing so, North knew his days in office were numbered.

Opposition coalesced around Lord Rockingham as its leader.  Burke insisted that if he did take office, Rockingham could not let the king veto American independence.  That was the critical change that needed to happen.   Burke was also interested in purging the civil list, that is terminating jobs for a great many government workers, something the King used to reward his friends and manipulate votes in Parliament.

When the King heard all this, he drafted a speech abdicating the crown, turning his office over to his son, the Prince of Wales, and that George III would move back to Hanover and no longer reign over Britain.  Lord North managed to talk the king out of giving the speech and remaining on the throne.  But this gives some idea of where the King's head was.

Still, the king absolutely hated Lord Rockingham.  Although the king normally meets with a would-be prime minister who is seeking to form a new government, in this case, the king refused such a meeting.  George could not stand to be in the same room with Rockingham.

On March 20, the House of Commons prepared to move a vote of no confidence against Lord North.  Before they could do so, North demanded the floor.  Lord Surrey was scheduled to take the floor, to call for the vote of no confidence. So when north demanded the floor, everyone expected him to resign.  The opposition wanted to embarrass the ministry by forcing a no confidence vote rather than a resignation, so Parliament got into a heated argument about who was allowed to speak first.  During the arguing, North just blurted out that they were wasting their time since the entire government had already resigned.  North then moved for an adjournment and went home.

The Rockingham Government

Lord Rockingham already had majority support lined up.  The king still refused to meet with him, instead agreeing to meet with Lord Shelburne.  Rockingham had Shelburne provide the king with a list of new government officials, none of whom the king liked.  Even so, the king had no choice but to approve.  Edmund Burke became the new paymaster of the forces.  Lord Shelburne would be secretary of state for home and colonial affairs. Charles James Fox would be secretary of state for foreign affairs.  The position of the American secretary was abolished.

Lord Rockingham
Most of the new ministers wanted an immediate recognition of American independence.  Shelburne was an exception to this.  He was still hoping the government might negotiate some sort of reconciliation by making other concessions to the colonies.   For this reason, Fox demanded a role on the team that would negotiate with the Americans, preventing Shelburne from dragging out the negotiations.  Burke, even before the new government was created, had written to Benjamin Franklin in France, informing the Americans that Parliament now supported American independence and that it was just a matter of working out the details.

On April 1, the Rockingham Government purged the government of North loyalists, replacing government officials with their own people.  That same month, the ministry sent Richard Oswald to France to open up peace negotiations with the American Commissioners.  It would take months for the negotiations to begin, but the process of ending the war had begun.

We’ll get to those negotiations in an upcoming episode.  In the meantime, we turn to America next week as disputes with native Americans result in the Gnadenhutten Massacre.

- - -

Next Episode 310 Gnadenhutten Massacre

Previous Episode 308 Congress After Yorktown

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on Twitter @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast 

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 
 
Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more.  Get your favorite American Revolution logo today.  Help support this podcast.  http://tee.pub/lic/AmRevPodcast

American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give.  Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20) or Zelle (send to mtroy1@yahoo.com)


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar.  For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"


Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop.  Support local bookstores and this podcast!





Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

Solomon M. Lutnick, and Soloman M. Lutnick. “The Defeat at Yorktown: A View from the British Press.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 72, no. 4, 1964, pp. 471–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4247059

Lord Frederick North: https://history.blog.gov.uk/2015/08/12/lord-frederick-north

Frederick North: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederick-North-Lord-North-of-Kirtling

Lord Rockingham: https://www.britannica.com/event/Stamp-Act-Great-Britain-1765

Charles James Fox: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-James-Fox/The-Fox-North-coalition-1783

Edmund Burke: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/burke

Rockingham's Second Ministry: https://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/ministry/rocky2s.htm

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Donne, W. Bodham The Correspondence of King George the Third with Lord North, Vol. 2, London: John Murray, 1867. 

Keppel, George Memoirs of the Marquis of Rockingham and His Contemporaries, Vol. 2, London: Richard Bentley, 1852

Lucas, Reginald Lord North, Second Earl of Guilford, London: A.L. Humphreys, 1913. 

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Fleming, Thomas The Perils of Peace: America's Struggle for Survival After Yorktown, Harper Collins, 2007.  

Hoffman, Ross The Marquis: A Study of Lord Rockingham, 1730-1782. Fordham Univ. Press, 1973 (borrow on Archive.org). 

Mitchell, L.G. Charles James Fox, Oxford Univ. Press, 1992.  

Pemberton, W. Barring Lord North, Longmans, Green and Co. 1938 (borrow on Archive.org). 

Roberts, Andrew The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III, Viking, 2021. 

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.


Sunday, August 7, 2022

ARP252 Gordon Riots


This week we return to England to go over some important events of 1780.  The American Revolution was beginning its sixth year, and had only become more of a mess with the entry of France and Spain into the war.

Gordon Riots
As with any war, the costs of fighting this one caused pain and sacrifice among the people. Taxes were up to pay for a large army and navy.  Trade was risky due to privateers and enemy naval vessels. After years of pain and sacrifice for the war effort, people begin asking each other, what are we really fighting for, and is it worth it?

More and more criticism circled around King George III.  It was literally treason to criticize the king directly.  For decades, there had been an understanding that the king would remain aloof from politics and that criticism for bad policy would be directed at his ministers only.  But George was much more involved in policy than his predecessors, and saw maintaining control of his North American colonies as something he had to advocate.  As the war’s popularity fell, the king’s reputation sank along with it.

In Episode 237, I discussed some of the demonstrations in Ireland in late 1779 that were an expression of unrest caused by the economic impact of the war.  Workers in England also seemed to be increasingly upset by their situation, and were looking for changes in policy that would make things better.

Yorkshire Association

In December of 1779 a group of freeholders in Yorkshire formed the Yorkshire Association.  The Association sought to petition Parliament for “Economical Reform”.  Specifically, they wanted to do something about high taxes and wasteful positions within the government.  

The Reverend Christopher Wyvill was a large landowner in the Yorkshire area.  He became the driving force behind the new movement.  He hoped to organize not only his area but surrounding counties.  The plan was to coordinate a series of petitions to Parliament to give them more emphasis by them all arriving at once, and to spark reform by responsive politicians in the months leading up to the 1780 parliamentary elections.

Christopher Wyvill
Wyvill began a media campaign, getting area newspapers to print articles about the extravagant spending by the government, the loss of trade, and the general decline in the standard of living for the landed gentry.  He encouraged anonymous letters to newspapers to encourage more people to support his petitions, including a suggestion that the government may revamp its land-tax assessments, to the great disadvantage of the region.

One key line in the petition said “Whence the Crown has acquired a great and unconstitutional influence, which if not checked, may soon prove fatal to the Liberties of this Country.” Many Whigs had been arguing that the king should have nothing more than a ceremonial role in government, much like George I and George II had.  George III’s active involvement in recommending policy to his ministers was seen as an overstep.  The fact that the king’s recommended policies resulted in disaster for Britain was evidence of why kings should not behave this way. The Yorkshire Association, which met in late December 1779 with over 600 landowners present, approved this petition to Parliament. 

The movement spread to surrounding counties and the petitions to Parliament grew.  By early 1780, Parliament had received 40 such petitions signed by thousands of voters.  Considering that only a little over 200,000 people had the right to vote in Britain at this time, members of Parliament took these numbers seriously.

Discussion began of organizing these protest groups into a “National Assembly” or “Anti-Parliament” to return political power to the people, by which they meant the full 3% of the population who owned land, and the right to vote - not just a few hundred aristocrats, who really controlled all power at this time.  The freeholders wanted their own influence on government to be greater.  They were not looking to  give political power to the other 97% of British subjects who could not vote.

Criticism

Even this limited assertion of power by the landed class was unprecedented.  The movement drew great controversy for involving small landowners in public policy, something that should be left to their betters.  Stirring up the voters was bad enough.  But criticizing the king’s role in government was arguably criminal sedition.    

While controversial, these ideas were not new. Radical Whigs had discussed the idea of a new national body before, and also had traditionally supported that the king be limited to a ceremonial role only.  Many earlier pamphlets had also suggested creating a new political organization. But this had only been talk until this time.  The current political climate seemed to be giving these ideas a chance of actual enactment.

Opponents derisively referred to the new protest organizations as a “Congress” making reference to the treasonous Continental Congress in America that also challenged government authority.  The House of Commons was supposed to represent the common people, again, by which I mean the 3% of voters who owned land but who did not have aristocratic titles.  Having another political body organized by these same people to counter the House of Commons seemed absurd, unless the criminal motive of overthrowing the government was the real motive.  The House of Commons was really controlled by a small elite group through some very creative districting and other practices that really kept the Commons under the effective control of aristocratic families.

Other proposals suggested greatly expanding the House of Commons to allow in new blood that would help enact these popular reforms.  Again, opponents saw this as dangerous interference in the fundamental structure of the government, by people who could not possibly understand the ramifications of their suggested changes.

Members of parliament especially saw this as a direct attack on their authority.  Although these were just petitions, talk at the political meetings already predicted that Parliament would reject them and that they would have to take more extreme measures to reassert political power.  Calls to take “the Irish receipt” meant to emulate Ireland, which was on the verge of revolution itself, to take extra legal actions to force the change.  One option discussed was a tax boycott, everyone simply refusing to pay their taxes.  Such action might not only cause the war effort to fail, it might lead to another civil war within Britain.

Dunning Motion

There were radical Whigs in Parliament, particularly the Rockinghamites who tried to use this movement to their advantage.  Another prominent Whig, John Wilkes, also got involved.  Wyvill and the Yorkshireists, were reluctant to join with current career politicians, believing they would simply co-opt the movement and real reforms would not happen.

John Dunning
Even so, many members of Parliament who were up for reelection in these areas wanted to show they were on the side of the radicals and could be instruments of change.  On April 6 John Dunning called for a vote on two questions.  Dunning was a member of the radical Whig establishment.  He had been solicitor general of England and Wales, and had been a member of Parliament for more than a decade.  At the same time, he aligned himself with the radicals.  Dunning had served as one of the attorneys who defended John Wilkes many years earlier when the crown was trying to destroy Wilkes.  Dunning had a reputation as a liberal reformer and someone who fought against costly pensions and sinecures for well-connected elites, although he was not above taking them himself..  

Dunning’s motions called on Parliament to vote on a resolution that said "the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished."  The second motion said that "it is competent to this house to examine into and correct abuses in the expenditure of the civil list revenues, as well as in every other branch of the public revenue, whenever it shall appear expedient to the wisdom of the house so to do".  In other words, Parliament should address the concerns of the petitioners.

The Prime Minister, Lord North, strongly opposed these motions as a direct attack on the King.  The first motion could have been treated as sedition.  It was not, in part because the ministry knew the position was a politically popular one.  Whigs especially, and the government more generally wanted the king to remain aloof from policy and to leave that to his ministers.  That was what the Yorkshire petitions were demanding.  Despite the Prime Minister’s opposition, Dunning's motion passed by a vote of 233-215.  The vote was a warning to both the ministry and to George III himself.  A king who involved himself in public policy that became unpopular, could result in the king himself becoming unpopular with his subjects.

Dunning’s other motion was a little less controversial.  Of course Parliament had the authority to review expenditures which Parliament had to pay for, and it passed by acclamation, with no real opposition.  Looking into waste fraud, and abuse at a time when voters are unhappy with expenses is a time-honored practice for politicians of any age.

Whig Principles

Dunning’s motion looked as though it might cause serious problems for government policy.  But another event quickly overtook Parliament’s vote to recommend that the king stay out of politics.  

Gordon leads Anti-Catholic Rally
Whig ideology held as its core principles not only the role of Parliament over the King in running the government, but also the supremacy of Protestantism and suppressing Catholicism.  To the modern listeners the anti-Catholic sentiment might seem strange.  For those in the Church of England, the fight with Catholics was not over obscure doctrine like whether transubstantiation was real, or if confession should be a sacrament.  Rather, it was much more political.  Protestants viewed Catholic loyalty to the Pope as a risk to all liberties.  Protestants often derisively referred to Catholics as “papists” for their slavish obedience to the Pope.

Papal authority was seen as absolute and would not safeguard traditional rights of Englishmen.  English Protestants looked at the rights in Catholic countries like France or Spain as proof of this point.  Allowing Catholics to have a place in British society put fundamental liberties at risk.  

A good modern comparison might be the way some modern conservative Christians in the west view Islam.  Whatever the disagreements over religious doctrine, the driving antipathy has more to do with the way Christians view the governments and lack of freedom in self-proclaimed Islamic countries, and they don’t want that to be imported. 

That is what Protestants thought of Catholicism in the 18th century.  The English Civil War, only a century earlier, had been fought primarily because Parliament wanted to prevent King James II from allowing more Catholics to have a place in British society, and also to ensure the primacy of Parliament over the king in setting policy.

George Gordon

Another radical Whig member of Parliament was George Gordon.  As the third son of a Duke, Gordon was not in line to inherit a title, but did come from a wealthy and influential family.  At the age of seven, his family purchased an army ensign’s commission for him.  When he was eleven, however, he decided to join the navy instead.  Several years before he resigned his naval commission at the ripe old age of twenty-five, Gordon got elected to parliament.  Another member of parliament essentially bought him a seat so that Gordon would not run against him for a different seat.

George Gordon
Gordon was an outspoken opponent of the war in America and even spoke in favor of American independence.  A regular critic of the North Ministry, Gordon was also a pretty disagreeable guy who would also attack other radical Whigs. He regularly attacked the Whig leader James Fox.

As the Yorkshire movement was gaining steam in late 1779 and early 1780, Gordon had another issue that he was used to stir up the public.  In 1778, Parliament had passed the Papists Act, which was actually a reform to an earlier 1698 law.  Now before you get too excited that I’m going to do a deep dive into the legislative history of this matter, I’ll warn you that I need to keep it short.

The 1698 Popery Act was passed by Parliament a few years after the Glorious Revolution that threw out James II and brought in William and Mary because James was seen as too friendly to Catholics. The Popery Act, along with laws passed around this time, barred Catholics from purchasing or inheriting land, which also meant that they could not vote.  It also prevented Catholics from serving in the British Army and called for life imprisonment for any priest saying mass or educating students in Britain. 

The 1778 Papists Act was a liberal reform of some of these earlier measures.  It was sponsored by John Dunning, the same radical Whig, who I just mentioned earlier had sponsored the motion to tell the King to stay out of  politics.  Dunning’s 1778 bill said that if a Catholic subject took an oath they could have certain rights restored.  

The oath rejected the authority of Catholic claimants to the British throne.  It rejected the Pope’s legal authority over British subjects.  It also swore that the oath taker would not follow any Catholic edicts to kill the Protestant King of Britain.  If a Catholic subject took this oath, the 1778 act permitted him to purchase or inherit land, and also to join the army.  The act also removed the penalty of lifetime imprisonment for a priest saying mass within Britain.

The 1778 Act was an important wartime measure.  It would help with enlistments by allowing Catholics to enlist in the army.  It was also seen as a way of preventing a rebellion by Catholics, particularly in Ireland, if the government grew too weak as a result of the war.

Gordon Riots

Some radical Whigs, like Gordon, were horrified when these reforms passed.  The following year, Gordon formed the Protestant Association, devoted to repealing these reforms.  Gordon successfully prevented the Scottish Parliament from passing a reform bill similar to the Papists Act passed by Parliament.  With that success, he attempted to get the British Parliament to repeal the bill.

Gordon Riots
On May 29, 1780, Gordon called for a march on Parliament, to take place on June 2.  The purpose of the march was to deliver a petition to repeal the Papists act of 1778 and to make sure Catholics had no place in Britain. Gordon gave numerous speeches about the dangers of letting Catholics into the army, that these reforms would allow Catholics to restore an absolute monarchy and that, despite any oaths, they would work with Catholics on the continent to overthrow the Protestant government in Britain.

Historians who looked into the matter argue that the protesters who marched on June 2 were not just motivated by anti-Catholic views.  They represented a much larger anti-government sentiment, motivated by a stagnating economy, inflation, and unemployment.  There was also a large contingent of anti-war protesters - although many were probably against the war primarily because of its impact on the economy.

With the mob outside of Parliament, Gordon entered the House of Commons to deliver the petition.  As the protesters waited outside, some of them began attacking the carriages of members who were just arriving at Parliament.  House members scrambled to summon a detachment of regulars to disperse the mob.  They then overwhelmingly voted down the petition by a vote of 192-6.

Rioters at Newgate Prison
Although the crowd left Parliament, angry protesters continued to march through the streets of London. That night, they attacked several foreign embassies which were known to have Catholic chapels in them.   They also destroyed the homes of several wealthy Catholics who lived in London.  Officials called out the constables who arrested a number of rioters, but the mayor did not read the Riot Act, which would have permitted authorities to force the rioters to return home or face violent consequences.

The following night, June 3, the rioters invaded the neighborhood of Moorefields where many poor Irish Catholic immigrants worked. The rioters burned homes and beat up suspected Catholics.  The rioters also attacked Newgate Prison, freeing rioters being held there from the prior night.  Someone scrawled on the wall that the prisoners were freed by  “His majesty, King Mob”

Regulars suppress riots
Over the next three nights, mobs rampaged through London, wreaking havoc and destroying property.  One June 7 the protesters burned the home of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield.  They also attacked the Bank of England, and were only thwarted by the arrival of several companies of regulars who defended the bank.  Similarly soldiers had to block a mob trying to assault the prime minister’s home at 10 Downing Street.

Even after five days of open and uncontrolled rioting, the Lord Mayor still refused to read the Riot Act.  He was a radical Whig himself and did not want to be seen as crushing his own political supporters.  By the night of June 7th, however, military officials had had enough.  They issued orders to regulars to go out into the streets and fire on any groups of four or more people who refused orders to disperse.

The regulars ended up shooting and killing 285 protesters and wounding an estimated 200 more.  I suspect that number is low because many wounded people probably returned home and did not seek medical care since it might result in their arrest.  Authorities did end up arresting about 450 protesters.

Aftermath

The Gordon Riots, as they came to be known, were probably the worst London had ever seen.  I think only the Great Fire of London before the Riots, and the Battle of Britain much later during WWII were the only events that did more damage to the city.

Between twenty and thirty leaders were tried and executed.  Lord Gordon was charged with high treason for his role, but was acquitted.  His lawyers argued successfully that Gordon had only intended to create political pressure for his petition, which was designed to protect Britain and the King from outside threats.  Because he did not intend for the riots to destroy Britain, he could not be found guilty of treason.

The riots also damaged the political career of John Wilkes, who led a militia against the rioters in an attempt to restore order. The rioters were just the sort of people who usually supported Wilkes, so his attempts to subdue them cost him politically.  Lord Mayor Brackley Kennett, who had refused to read the riot act against the protesters, was later convicted of criminal negligence and fined.

The riot also damaged Britain’s reputation abroad. The ministry had been attempting to draw Catholic Austria into an alliance against Spain and France.  These anti-Catholic riots in London resulted in an end to those talks. Britain had also opened secret negotiations with Spain to get it to end its war with Britain.  After hearing of the riots, Spain also ended negotiations, not necessarily because of the anti-Catholic sentiment of the riots, but because the Spanish believed the British government was close to collapse.

The Gordon Riots remained a deep scar on London and would be remembered for generations.

Next time, we return to New Jersey, where British forces from New York destroy the town of Connecticut Farms.

- - -

Next Episode 253 Connecticut Farms 


 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on Twitter @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution   Podcast: https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 


American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more.  Get your favorite American Revolution logo today.  Help support this podcast.  http://tee.pub/lic/AmRevPodcast


American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give.  Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20), Zelle, or popmoney (send to mtroy1@yahoo.com)


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar.  For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"



Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop.  Support local bookstores and this podcast!





Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

Black, Eugene Charlton. “The Tumultuous Petitioners: The Protestant Association in Scotland, 1778-1780.” The Review of Politics, vol. 25, no. 2, 1963, pp. 183–211. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1405622 

Butterfield, H. “The Yorkshire Association and the Crisis of 1779-80.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. 29, 1947, pp. 69–91. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3678550

Christie, Ian R. “The Yorkshire Association, 1780-4: A Study in Political Organization.” The Historical Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, 1960, pp. 144–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3020473 

Christie, Ian R. “Economical Reform and ‘The Influence of the Crown’, 1780.” Cambridge Historical Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, 1956, pp. 144–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3021092

Kilburn, Matthew Association Movement https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-104413

The Papist Act of 1778 (full text): https://members.pcug.org.au/~ppmay/acts/relief_act_1778.htm

The Popery Act of 1698 (full text): https://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol7/pp586-587

Donovan, Robert Kent. “The Military Origins of the Roman Catholic Relief Programme of 1778.” The Historical Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, 1985, pp. 79–102. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2639376

Rudé, George F. E. “The Gordon Riots: A Study of the Rioters and Their Victims: The Alexander Prize Essay.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. 6, 1956, pp. 93–114. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3678842

Jones, Brad A. “‘In Favour of Popery’: Patriotism, Protestantism, and the Gordon Riots in the Revolutionary British Atlantic.” Journal of British Studies, vol. 52, no. 1, 2013, pp. 79–102. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41999182

The Gordon Riots: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/rights/gordon.htm

The Gordon Riots Mapped: https://georgiasouthern.libguides.com/gordonriotsmapped/home

Gordon Riots of 1780: https://penandpension.com/2015/11/24/the-gordon-riots-of-1780

Gordon Riots: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06649c.htm

White, Jerry "The Gordon Riots, 1780" London Historianshttps://www.londonhistorians.org/index.php?s=file_download&id=45

VIDEO Gordon Riots, Prof. Ian Haywood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gd4Mbh8tm8

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

“Protestant gentleman” A Dispassionate Enquiry into the Causes of the Late Riots in London: in which the arcana of popery are candidly disclosed, London: Printed for J. Almon and J. Debrett, 1781. 

Butterfield, Herbert George III, Lord North, and the People, New York: Russell & Russell, 1949 (borrow only).

Burke, Edmund Some Thoughts on the Approaching Executions (from The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke - Google books).

Dickens, Charles Barnaby Rudge: a tale of the riots of 'eighty, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1874. 

Holcroft, Thomas A plain and Succinct Narrative of the Gordon Riots of 1780, Emery Univ. 1944 (from Hathitrust).

O'Beirne, Thomas Lewis Considerations on the late disturbances, London: Printed for J. Almon, 1780. 

Smelt, Leonard, An Account of some Particulars relating  to the Meeting held at York, London: T. Becket, 1780 (Qspace). 

Smelt, Leonard, The Yorkshire question, or petition, or address: (being a short and fair state of the case, upon the principles, the views, the means, and the objects of both parties as confessed by themselves) : most earnestly and seriously addressed to the consideration of the people of England assembled in their several county, city, and other meetings, London: J. Almon, 1780.  

Watson, Robert The Life of Lord George Gordon: with a philosophical view of his political conduct, London, Printed for H. D. Symonds, 1795. 

Williams, David A plan of association on constitutional principles, for the parishes, tithings, hundreds, and counties of Great Britain, by which the outrages of mobs, and the necessity of a military government will be prevented, and the English constitution in a great measure restored, in 3 letters to a Member of Parliament, London: Printed by G. Kearsly, 1780. 

Wyvill, Christopher A state of the representation of the people of England, on the principles of Mr. Pitt in 1785; with an annexed state of additional propositions, by the Rev. Christopher Wyvill, W. Blanchard, 1793.

Wyvill, Christopher Political papers, chiefly respecting the attempt of the county of York, and other considerable districts, commenced in 1799 ... to effect a reformation of the parliament of Great-Britain, Vol 1, York: W. Blanchard, 1794 (Google Books). 

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Bindman, Yirmeyahu Lord George Gordon, Cis Pub, 1991. 

Christie, Ian R. Myth and Reality in Late-Eighteenth-Century British Politics, and Other Papers, Univ. of California Press, 1970.

Christie, Ian R. Wilkes, Wyvill and reform; the Parliamentary reform movement in British politics, 1760-1785, London: Macmillan; New York, St. Martin's Press, 1963 (borrow on Archive.org).

Frasier, Antonia The King and the Catholics: England, Ireland, and the Fight for Religious Freedom, 1780-1829, Doubleday, 2018.  

Haywood, Ian (ed) & John Seed (ed) The Gordon Riots: Politics, Culture and Insurrection in Late Eighteenth-Century Britain, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012. 

Hibbert, Christopher King Mob: The Story of Lord George Gordon and the Riots of 1780, Hippocrene Books, 1989.

Nicholson, John The Great Liberty Riot of 1780, BM Bozo,1985


* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.