Here are a couple of notes about the Malt Tax Riots in Scotland, as found in the London Gazette (the official government press organ).
First, an address delivered on (or about) :
An humble Addreſs of the Committee of His Majeſty’s Convention of Royal
Burrows, has been preſented to His Majeſty by John Campbell,
Eſq.; Member of Parliament
for the City of Edinburgh, introduced by the Right Honourable the Lord
Vilcount Townſhend one of His Majeſty’s Principal Secretaries of State.
To the King’s moſt Excellent Majeſty, The Committee of His Majeſty’s
Convention of Royal Burrows, Moſt humbly Repreſents,
That our Duty to your Sacred Majeſty, and Concern for our Country, make us
reflect, with the utmoſt Deteſtation, on the Tumults and Riots which of late
have happened in ſome Places of Scotland, on putting in Execution the late Act
impoſing a Duty on Malt.
That the Convention of your Majeſty’s Burrows, at the firſt Appearances of
theſe Diſorders, did what lay in their Power to prevent them, and it was with
peculiar Sorrow they heard that any of the Burrows were the unhappy Scene of
them.
That as it has been, ſo it always will be, our unwearied Endeavour to act on
the Principles of Loyalty to your Majeſty and your Royal Proteſtant Family,
ſent to us by the ſpecial and kind Providence of God, to ſupport and maintain
our Liberties and Holy Religion, and therefore to diſappoint all the bad Arts,
or open Attempts of the Endmies to your Majeſty’s Adminiſtration, and to our
ſacred and civil Rights, under whatever Maſk they diſguiſe themſelves.
That we cannot be more fully perſwaded of our own Firmneſs to your Majeſty’s
Perſon, Family, and Government, than we are of your royal and gracious
Intentions for the Welfare and Happineſs of all your People; and therefore are
encouraged to hope that your Majeſty will not be provok’d againſt us by the
inſolent and wicked Practices of thoſe who are ill affected to your
Government, and to all who faithfully adhere to it, and the true Intereſt of
their Country; and that your Royal Ear will be ſtill open to our moſt humble
and futiful Requeſts.
That we have been, and are for giving all due Obedience to your Majeſty’s
Laws; and cannot think of any Method of being relieved from ſuch Things, as we
apprehend to be heard upon us, but by humbly repreſenting it to your moſt
gracious Majeſty and your Parliament; and therefore we beg Leave, with the
moſt profound Submiſſion, to repreſent.
That the Malt Tax is a Burthen too heavy for this Country to bear, our Poverty
and want of Coin, the great Decay of our Trade, and the hitherto ſucceſsleſs
Attempts to relieve it, the Meanneſs of our Grain, eſpecially this Year,
occaſioned by the unnatural Seaſon, are melancholly Truths too certain and
univerſally known, and are ſo many Proofs of our Inability to ſupport the
Weight of this new Tax.
That this Burthen will further incapacitate us to carry on the Fiſhing Trade
and ſuch other Branches of Commerce and Manufacture as Scotland appears
peculiarly deſigned for, and whereby we hoped to improve this Part of your
Majeſty’s Dominions, and to render ourſelves and our Fellow Subjects more
able to ſerve your Majeſty on all Occaſions.
May it therefore pleaſe your moſt excellent Majeſty to conſider our
Circumſtances, and to grant us ſuch Relief as to your great Wiſdom and
Goodneſs ſhall ſeem fit.
May it pleaſe your Majeſty,
Your Majeſty’s moſt loyal, moſt dutiful, and moſt obedient Subjects and
Servants…
“To which Addreſs His Majeſty was pleaſed to return the following moſt gracious Anſwer:”
I Am very ſenſible of the Loyalty, Duty, and Affection of my Royal Burrows of
Scotland, which I have ſo often experienced, that I was greatly ſurpriſed to
find that the Arts and Endeavours of diſaffected and deſigning Men had been
able to raiſe ſuch Tumults and Diſorders in many Parts of Scotland, upon the
Execution of an Act of Parliament for raiſing a Duty, impoſed by Authority of
the Legiſlature of the United Kingdoms of Great-Britain; And as the Royal
Burrows do moſt juſtly reflect with the utmoſt Deteſtation upon ſuch dangerous
and illegal Proceedings, I can never think of giving the leaſt Countenance to
an open Defiance of My Authority, and Diſobedience to the Laws of the Land; a
dutiful Submiſſion and Compliance with the Laws under any ſuppoſed Hardſhip,
being a better Recommendation to obtain legal Redreſs, than Violence and
Contempt of the Legiſlative Authority.
Moſt gracious indeed. Next comes an article recounting the riots themselves, also from the Gazette (), and so with the caveat that this is the official government version of what took place:
Edinburgh, . The Malt-Tax in North-Britain commencing on
,
the Maltſters in and about this City gave ready Admittance to the Officers of
Exciſe, to take an Account of the Stock in Hand. But the Officers who were to
do the like at Glaſgow, were obliged to ſend Letters
to the
Commiſſioners of Exciſe here, acquainting them, that ſome of the People of
that Town had threatned to ſtone them if they ſhould attempt to viſit the
Malt-houſes there. The Commiſſioners hereupon made Application to
Major-General Wade Commander in Chief of his Majeſty’s Forces in this Part of
the Kingdom, who on ſent two Companies to Glaſgow, with
Orders to aſſiſt the Civil Magiſtrates, as alſo the Officers of the Cuſtoms
and Exciſe, in the Execution of their Duty, and to protect them from the
Inſults of Rioters. The Companies marched with great Expedition, and arrived
there .
At their Entrance into the Town, they found a great Mob conſiſting moſtly of
Women and Boys, who gave them abuſive Language, and threw Stones at them as
they marched along the Streets, crying out no Malt-Tax. The Officer deſired
them to forbear, for he intended them no Harm. He applied himſelf to the
Provoſt, who gave him Billets for Quartering his Men, but told him he could
not put him into Poſſeſſion of the Guard-Room, becauſe it had been locked up
and the Key taken away by the Rabble when they heard the Soldiers were coming
thither. The Officer unwilling to exaſperate them by forcing open the Door,
ordered the Guard to be kept at a publick Houſe which he hired for that
Purpoſe. ſeveral Thouſands of the Mob got together, and marched towards
the Houſe of Mr. Daniel Campbell Repreſentative in Parliament for Glaſgow,
threatning to plunder it. Upon which Captain Buſhel who commanded the two
Companies, ſent an Officer to the Provoſt, letting him know the Miſchief they
deſigned to commit, and that he was ready with his Men to aſſiſt him in
preventing it, but his Anſwer was, that he thought the Number of his Soldiers
was too ſmall, and therefore he would not make any uſe of them. Thus the
Rabble finding no Oppoſition, nor even the Appearance of a Magiſtrate to
reſtrain their Fury, with Hatchets and other Inſtruments forced into the
Houſe, and turned out two or three of Mr. Campbell’s Servants (he with his
Wife having the Day before retired to his Country-Houſe) and fell to
plundering every thing that they could carry away, and deſtroying what was not
portable. This Riot continued , when ſeveral of the Mob were lying drunk in the
Houſe, with the Wine and Liquors they found in the Cellars, but the
Magiſtrates did not get any of them ſecured. The Officers of the Exciſe during
this Time were forced to hide, but ſome of them being diſcovered by the
Rioters were beaten ſeverely. It was hoped, that the Rage of the Mob had been
ſufficiently gratified in the plundering of Mr. Campbell’s Houſe, and
the Town in Appearance was very quiet, when the Rioters began
to meet again, Women or Men in Women’s Cloaths beating Drums about the Streets
to call them together.…
There’s that mysterious motif again! Men dressed in women’s clothing leading a mob against an unpopular tax.
…The Captain of the two Companies, not knowing what their Deſigns might be,
ordered the Soldiers to be near the Guard-Houſe, which the Provoſt had opened
for them in the Morning: But the Mob did not long keep their Secret, for they
advanced towards the Guard, ſaying their next Buſineſs was with the Soldiers:
They gathered from all Quarters of the Town, began to throw Stones at the
Soldiers, crying Drive the Dogs out of Town, we will cut them to Pieces: The
Officers told them they did not intend them any Harm, but if they continued to
provoke them they ſhould not be able to refrain from firing at them: They
anſwered that they durſt not fire with Ball, and continued throwing Stones in
ſuch Quantities and ſo large, that they broke ſome of the Locks of their
Pieces, and their Bayonets, and wounded ſeveral of the Men: Upon which ſome of
the Men were ordered to fire over their Heads, in hopes to terrify them, but
they advancing ſtill upon the Soldiers, and throwing Stones in greater
Quantities, the Soldiers fired on them and killed or wounded three or four;
upon which they retired to ſome Diſtance. In this ſhort Interval, the Provoſt,
ſent to the Commanding Officer, deſiring him to ſave himſelf and Men by
retreating out of the Town, for the Rioters were collecting all the Arms they
had, and if he did not ſpeedily march away there would be a great deal more
Bloodſhed. The Captain taking his Advice, immediately marched for Dunbarton,
being followed by great Numbers of the Mob, and ſo cloſely, that he was forced
to fire now and then a Shot to ſecure his Retreat out of the Town. He was
followed ſix Miles by 3 or 400 of the Rioters armed, but they durſt not come
up with him. Captain Buſhel has ſent an Officer hither, from Dunbarton Caſtle,
to give Major-General Wade this Account of what had paſſed; and the
Major-General has received the like Account by ſeveral Perſons come from
Glaſgow. The ſaid Officer relates further, that they miſs ſix of their Men,
and that they left their Baggage (which he ſuppoſes is plundered) in the Town
of Glaſgow.
I also found this interesting note in the Falkirk Herald:
Passive Resistance in Scotland
In these days, when the ethics of “passive resistance” are being discussed by
all politicians [this was the time of the Education Act nonconformist tax
resistance campaign], few people are aware that in
the people of Scotland were faced with very
serious possibilities owing to the “passive resistance” of the members of an
influential trade.
When the famous Malt Tax Act (which caused, among many serious disturbances,
the Shawfield Riot in Glasgow) was put in force, the brewers of ale began to
use bad raw materials in order to evade the duty on malt. In order to end this
abuse the Government passed a measure with the singularly attractive
designation, “An Act for Preventing the Sale of Bad Ale.” In those days the
familiar methods adopted at the beginning of the twentieth century for
improving the quality of the workman’s beer were not available. All that the
Government could do was to provide that “the brewers shall sell to retailers
and private families the aforesaid ale at the rate of one merk Scots per
gallon, and are not to give any allowance, by way of drink money or otherwise,
above the rate of one barrel to the score; and the retailers shall sell the
said ale at the rate of twopence the pint.”
To this paternal proposal the brewers objected. And they took the bold course
of refusing to brew at all after the Act came into force. The country was
faced with a curious problem. Beer was a staple article in the menu of the
poorest. In the words of the Lord Advocate, the famous Duncan Forbes, of
Cullenden, “This wicked project would in the course of five or six days reduce
the city of Edinburgh to an utter want of beer and ale, and also of bread, to
the working whereof barm or yeast from new ale is necessary, and would produce
the greatest tumults and confusions, to the overthrow of all right and
government in the city and irreparable misfortunes to the most innocent of His
Majesty’s subjects.” Such was the effect of a “dear-food” scare two centuries
ago.
The Court of Session dealt rigorously with the resisters. They declared their
conduct to be “highly criminal” and “severely punishable” and commanded them
to go on brewing and to give security for their continuance in the business.
Such a course is not in accordance with latter-day views either of politics or
social economy. But the Judges brooked no question of their authority. At
first the brewers were inclined to hold out, and to go to prison in a body,
believing that the popular clamour for food and drink, and their position as
the providers of these necessaries, would shortly procure their release. The
Lord-Advocate was equal to the occasion. He proposed to have them prosecuted
for conspiracy. What the result of such a charge would have been one cannot
say. There certainly was no evidence which would impress a modern jury that
the worthy brewers were doing more than taking advantage, for their own ends,
of a public emergency. In those days the Court was not so scrupulous in
deciding causes in a purely judicial manner. In any case, the threat of a
prosecution for conspiracy squashed the brewers. One of them relented, and the
others had to protect themselves against the enterprise he thus showed by
exchanging the role of political agitator for the more commonplace character
of beermaker. In thanking Duncan Forbes for his conduct in suppressing these
passive resisters, Sir Robert Walpole wrote:– “It is hard to determine whether
your zeal, ability, or resolution is most to be commended.” So ended one of
the most formidable “passive resistance” movements engendered even in days
when England and Scotland worked together but jealously. The brewers found
discretion the better part of valour, as men usually do when they attempt to
starve their countrymen into submission.
