speech could have had little
expectation of what the maturity of that career was to bring.

{56}

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE PORTEOUS RIOTS.

[Sidenote: 1736--The gin riots]

A good deal of disturbance and tumult was going on in various parts of
the provinces. Some of our readers have probably not forgotten the
riots which took place in the early part of the present reign, in
consequence of the objection to the turnpike gate system, and in which
the rioters took the name of "Rebecca and her daughters." Riots almost
precisely similar in origin and character, but much more extensive and
serious, were going on in the western counties during the earlier years
of George the Second's reign. The rioting began as early as 1730, and
kept breaking out here and there for some years. The rioters assembled
in various places in gangs of about a hundred. Like "Rebecca and her
daughters," they were usually dressed in women's clothes; they had
their faces blackened; they were armed with guns and swords, and
carried axes, with which to hew down the obnoxious turnpike gates. The
county magistrates, with the force at their disposal, were unable at
one time to make any head against the rioters. The turnpike gates were
undoubtedly a serious grievance, and at that time there was hardly any
idea of dealing with a grievance but by the simple process of
imprisoning, suppressing, or punishing those who protested too loudly
against it.

The Gin riots were another serious disturbance to social order.
Gin-drinking had grown to such a height among the middle classes in
cities that reformers of all kinds took alarm at it. A Bill was
brought into Parliament by Sir Joseph Jekyll, the Master of the Rolls,
in 1736, for the purpose of prohibiting the sale of gin, or at least
laying so heavy a duty on it as to put it altogether out of {57} the
reach of the poor, and absolutely prohibiting its sale in small
quantities. The Bill was not a ministerial measure, and indeed Walpole
seems to have given it but a cool and half-hearted approval, and the
Patriots vehemently opposed it as an unconstitutional interference with
individual habits and individual rights. The Bill, however, passed
through Parliament and was to come into operation on the 29th of the
following September. At first it appears to have created but little
popular excitement; but as the time drew near when the Act was to come
into operation, and the poorer classes saw themselves fa