If this doctrine had been first broached in this paper, the ignorance of it would not have been worth remarking; but it is in truth a repetition only of what hath been formerly said by men who must have known better. Whoever remembers the political writings published twenty years ago, must remember that among the articles exhibited against a former administration, this of passing the Riot Act was one of the principal.

Surely these persons mean to insinuate that by this statute riots were erected into a greater crime than they had ever before been esteemed, and that a more severe punishment was enacted for them than had formerly been known among us.

Now the falsehood of this must be abundantly apparent to every one who hath any competent knowledge of our laws. Indeed whoever knows anything of the nature of mankind, or of the history of free countries, must entertain a very indifferent opinion of the wisdom of our ancestors, if he can imagine they had not taken the strongest precautions to guard against so dangerous a political disease, and which hath so often produced the most fatal effects.

Riots are in our law divided into those of a private and into those of a public kind. The former of these are when a number of people (three at the least) assemble themselves in a tumultuous manner, and commit some act of violence amounting to a breach of the peace, where the occasion of the meeting is to redress some grievance, or to revenge some quarrel of a private nature; such as to remove the enclosures of lands in a particular parish, or unlawfully aud forcibly to gain the possession of some tenement, or to revenge some injury done to one or a few persons, or on some other such private dispute, in which the interest of the public is no ways concerned.

H

Such riot is a very high misdemeanor, and to be punished very severely by fine and imprisonment.

to

Mr. Pulton, speaking of this kind of riot, writes thus: 'Riots, routs, unlawful and rebellious assemblies, have 'been so many times pernicious and fatal enemies to 'this kingdom, the peace and tranquility thereof, and 'have so often shaken the foundation, and put in hazard 'the very form and state of government of the same, that our law-makers have been enforced to devise from age age, one law upon another, and one statute after another 'for the repressing and punishing of them, and have ' endeavoured by all their wits to snip the sprouts, and 'quench the very first sparks of them. As every man may easily perceive there was cause thereof, who will 'look back and call to his remembrance what that small 'riot, begun at Dartmouth, in Kent, in the reign of King 'Richard the Second, between the collector of a subsidy and a Tyler and his wife, about the payment of one poor groat, did come unto, which being not repressed in 'time, did grow to so great a rebellion, that after it put in hazard the life of the King, the burning of the City of 'London, the overthrow of the whole nobility, gentlemen, and all the learned of the land, and the subversion of 'this goodly monarchy and form of government. Or, if 'they will call to mind the small riot or quarrel begun in the reign of King Henry the Sixth, between a yeoman of 'the guard and a serving-man of Richard Nevil's, Earl of 'Warwick, which so far increased for want of restraint, 'that it was the root of many woeful tragedies, and a mean to bring to untimely death first Richard Plantagenet, 'Duke of York, proclaimed successor to the Crown, and 'the chief pillar of the House of York, and after him King Henry the Sixth, and Prince Edward his son, the heirs 'of the House of Lancaster, and to ruinate with the one

' or the other of them, most of the peers, great men, and gentlemen of the realm, besides many thousands of the 'common people. And therefore King Edward the First 'did well ordain, that no sheriffs shall suffer barritors or 'maintainers of quarrels in their counties. And that to all parliaments, treaties, and other assemblies, each man 'shall come peaceably, without any armour; and that every man shall have armour in his house, according to his ability, to keep the peace. And King Edward the Third provided, that no man shall come before the 'justices, nor go or ride armed, And that suspected, 'lewd, and riotous persons shall be arrested, and safely 'kept until they be delivered by the justices of goal ' delivery. And that justices of peace shall restrain 'offenders, rioters, and all other barritors, and pursue, 'take, and chasten them according to their trespass and 'offence. King Richard the Second did prohibit riots, 'routs, and forcible entries into lands, that were made in 'divers counties and parts of the realm. And that none 'from thenceforth should make any riot, or rumour. And that no man shall ride armed, nor use launcegaies. 'And that no labourer, servant in husbandry, or artificer, ́or victualler, shall wear any buckler, sword, or dagger. And that all the King's officers shall suppress and 'imprison such as make any riots, routs, or unlawful 'assemblies against the peace. King Henry the Fourth ' enacted. That the justices of peace and the sheriff 'shall arrest those which commit any riot, rout, or ' unlawful assembly, shall enquire of them, and record their offences. King Henry the Fifth assigned com'missioners to enquire of the same justices and sheriffs 'defaults in that behalf, and also limited what punish'ment offenders attainted of riot should sustain. King 'Henry the Seventh ordained, that such persons as were 'returned to enquire of riots should have sufficient

'freehold or copyhold land within the same shire.

And 'that no maintenance should hinder their inquisition. 'And in the reign of Queen Mary there was a necessary 'statute established to restrain and punish unlawful and ' rebellious assemblies raised by a multitude of unruly 'persons, to commit certain violent, forcible, and riotous 'acts.'

The second kind of riot is of a public kind; as where an indefinite* number of persons assembled themselves in a tumultuous manner, in manner of war, arrayed, and commit any open violence with an avowed design of redressing any public grievance; as to remove certain persons from the King, or to lay violent hands on a privy-counsellor, or to revenge themselves of a magistrate for executing his office, or to bring down the price of victuals, or to reform the law or religion, or to pull down all bawdy houses, or to remove all enclosures in general, &c. This riot is high-treason within the words levying war against the king, in the statute of Edward III. • For here,' says Lord Coke, the pretence is public and general, and not private in particular. And this, says he, tho' there be no great number of conspirators, is levying war within the purview of the ' above statute.'

In the reign of King Henry VIII. it was resolved by all the judges of England, that an insurrection against the statute of labourers for the enhancing of salaries and wages, was a levying of war against the King, because it was generally against the King's

Coke, 3 Inst. 176. that the for such number is, he says,

*It may be gathered, perhaps, from Lord number ought to be above 7 or at most 34, called an army. And a lesser number cannot, I think, be well said to be modo guerrino arraiati.

+ Hawk. lib. 1. cap. 17, sect. 25.

3 Inst. 9.

law, and the offenders took upon them the reformation thereof, which subjects, by gathering power, ought not to do.*

In the 20th of Charles II. a special verdict was found at the Old Bailey, that A, B, C, &c., with divers others, to the number of an hundred, assembled themselves in manner of war arrayed to pull down bawdy houses, and that they marched with a flag on a staff, and weapons, and pulled down houses in prosecution of their conspiracies; which by all the judges assembled, except one, was ruled to be high treason.t

6

6

My Lord Chief-Justice Kelyng, who tried the cause, tells us, in his reports, that he directed the jury, 'that he was well satisfied in his own judgement, that such assembling together as was proved, and the pulling down of houses upon pretence they were bawdy houses; was high treason, because they took upon them regal power to reform that which belonged to the King by his law and justices to correct ⚫ and reform; and it would be a strange way and mischievous to all people to have such a rude rabble, 'without an indictment to proceed in that manner against all persons houses which they would call bawdy houses, for then no man were safe; therefore as that way tore the government out of the King's hands, so it destroyed the great privilege of the 'people, which is not to be proceeded against, but upon an indictment first found by a grand jury, and 'after, upon a legal trial by another jury, where the party accused was heard to make his defence; yet, says he, because the Kings of this nation had often

6

+ Hale's History of the Pleas of the Crown, vol. 1, p. 134.

Kel. 71.