would be
able to dictate to the Crown and Parliament, when he occasionally
interrupted his wild utterances to break into floods of tears, men
sneered or yawned or laughed. They were soon to learn that the man was
something more than divertingly contemptible.

In the excitement that followed on the passing of the relief measure
Lord George Gordon found his opportunity for being actively noxious. A
gloomy fanaticism in Scotland took fire at the fear lest kindred relief
should be extended to the North Briton, and, as we have said, displayed
itself in savage speech and savage deed. In the press and from the
pulpit denunciations of the Catholics streamed. The Synod of Glasgow
solemnly resolved that it would oppose any Bill brought into Parliament
in favor of Scottish Catholics. In Edinburgh and in Glasgow houses
were wrecked and lives menaced. In Glasgow a worthy potter, Mr.
Bagnal, who had brought from Staffordshire its famous art, had his
property wholly destroyed. In Edinburgh the house of a Catholic priest
was wrecked in obedience to a brutal handbill which called upon its
readers to "take it as a warning to meet at Leith Wynd, on Wednesday
next, in the evening, to pull down that pillar of popery lately erected
there." The "pillar of popery" was the dwelling occupied by the
priest, which was duly wrecked in obedience to the bidding of the
nameless "Protestant" who signed the manifesto. It is curious to note
a postscriptum to the handbill, which ran thus: "Please to read this
carefully, keep it clean, and drop it somewhere else. For King and
country.--UNITY." The means which were adopted to spread fanaticism in
Scotland were carefully followed when the time came for carrying the
agitation into England.

[Sidenote: 1778-80--The English "Protestant Association"]

It was indeed not necessary to be a Catholic to call down the fury of
fanatical persecution. To have expressed any sympathy for Catholicism,
to have taken part in any way, {195} no matter how indirect, in the
advocacy of the relief measure, was enough to mark men out for
vengeance. Dr. Robertson, the historian, was threatened because he
advocated tolerance in religious matters. A lawyer named Crosbie was
denounced merely because he had in the way of his regular business
drawn up the Bill intended for Parliament. It was inevitable that the
action of intolerance in Scotland should come before the notice of
Parliament. Wilkes, always ostentatious in