essential -element, and from f"Rout, ”~which may be described
as a beginning or endeavour to create a riot. It was considered
as early as the 14th century that the' English 'common law gave
an insufficient remedy against riot. In 1360 the statute of
34'Edwa.rd III. gave jurisdiction to justices to restrain, arrest
and imprison. rioters. In 1393 the statute of fI7 Richard II.
conferred similar powers on the" sheriff and. posse comitatus.
Numerous other acts extending the cornmonlaw were passed,
especially in the Tudor reigns (see Stephen,2H1Istvry~ of the
Criminal Law, vol. i. p. 202). Both these acts above mentioned
are still on the statute book, but the earliest act now in force
of real importance as to this offence is the Riot Act (1716),
which creates certain statutory offences for riot attended by
circumstances of aggravation. That act makes it the duty of
a justice, sheriff, mayor or other authority, wherever twelve
persons or more- are unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously
assembled together, to the disturbance of therpublic peace, to
resort to the place of such assembly and read the following
proclamation: “ Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and
commandeth all persons being assembled immediately to 'disperse
themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations
or to their lawful business, upon the pains' contained in the
act made in the first year of King George for preventing
tumultuous and riotous assemblies.. ' God save the King.”
It is a felony to obstruct the reading of the proclamation or to
remain or continue together unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously
for one hour after the proclamation was made or for one
hour after it would have been made but for being hindered.
The act requires the justices to seize and apprehend' all persons
continuing after the hour, and indemnifies themeand those who
act under their authority from liability for injuries caused
thereby. The punishment for the felony' is penaliservitude
for life or for a term of not less than three years, or imprisonment
with or without hard labour for not more than two years.
Prosecutions for an offence against the act must be commenced
within twelve months after the offence.
By st II of the Malicious Damage Act 1861 (which is a 'reenactment of a similar provision made in 1827 in consequence of the frame-breaking-riots), it is a felony for persons riotously and tumultuously assembled .together to the disturbance of the public peace to unlawfully and with force demolish or begin to demolish or pull down or destroy any building, public building, machinery or mining plant. The .punishment is the same as for a felony under the Riot Act. By s. 12 it is a misdemeanour' to injure or damage such building, &c. ' The punishment is penal servitude from three tor seven years, or imprisonment as in the case of the two felonies above described. Under the Shipping Offences Act (17-93) a riotous assemblage of three or more seamen, ship's carpenters and other persons, unlawfully and with force preventing and hindering or obstructing the loading or unloading or the sailing or navigation of any vessel, or unlawfully and with force boarding any vessel with intent to prevent, &c., is punishable on a first conviction as 8, misdemeanour by imprisonment from six to twelve months, nd on a second conviction as a felony by penal servitude from three to fourteen years. And under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (s. 40) summary penalties are provided for forcible interference with seamen in the exercise of their lawful occupation.-Besides
these enactments there are others aimed at similar offences, such as smuggling, forcible entry and detainer, tumultuous petitioning (1661, 13 Charles II.), holding large political meetings within a certain distance of Westminster Hall during the sitting of parliament (Seditious Meetings Act 1817). For these offences see Stephen, Dig. Cr. Law, 6th ed., arts. 81-87. A .
It is the duty of a magistrate at the time of a riot to assemble subjects of the realm, whether civil or military, for the purpose of quelling the riot. In this duty he is aided by the common law, and a statute of 1414 (Henry V.), under which all subjects of the realm are bound to assist on reasonable warning, and by various enactments enabling the authorities to call out the militia, yeomanry and reserve forces for the suppression of riot, and to close public-houses where afriot is apprehended (Licensing Act 1872), It is his duty to keep the peace; if the peace be broken, honesty of intention will not avail him if he has been guilty of neglect of duty. The question is whether he did all that he knew was in his power and which could be expected from -a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and activity; The'law'as thus stated is gathered from the opinions of the judges on the trials of the lord mayor of London and the mayor of Bristol on indictments for neglect of duty at the time of the Gordon riots of 178O and the Bristol riots in 1831.1 Inladdition to his liability to an indictment at common. law, a defaulting magistrate is subject under the provisions of acts of 1411 (Henry IV.) and 1414 (Henry V.) to a penalty of £105 for every default, the default to be- inquired of by commission under the great seal. A matter of interest is the extent of the protection afforded by the Riot' Act to” soldiers acting under thercommands of itheirofiicers. The question was dealt with by Lord Bowen- and his fellow-commissioners in the report on the Featherstone riots (Parl. Paper, 1893-1894, c. 7234). The substance of their views is as follows:—By
the law of England every one is bound to aid in the suppression of riotous assemblages. The degree of force, however, which may be lawfully employed in their suppression depends 'on the nature of each riot, for the force used 'must always be moderated and proportioned to the circumstances of the case and to theend to be attained. The taking of life can only be justified by the necessity for protecting persons or property against various' forms of violent crime, or by the necessity of dispersing a riotous crowd which is dangerous unless dispersed, or in the case of persons whose conduct 'has become felonious through disobedience to the provisions of the Riot Act, and who resist the attempt to disperse or apprehend them. The necessary prevention of such outrage on person or property justifies the guardians of the peace in the employment against a crowd of even deadly weapons. Otiicers and soldiers are under no special privileges and subject to no special responsibilities as regards the principle of the law. A-soldier' for the purpose of establishing civil order is only a citizen armed in a particular manner. He cannot because he is a soldier be exonerated if without necessity he takes human life. The duty of ' magistrates' and peace officers to summon or abstain from summoning the assistance of the military depends in like manner on the necessities of the case. A soldier can act only by using his arms. The weapons he carries are deadly. They cannot be employed at all without danger to life or limb, and in these days of improved rifles and perfected ammunition without some risk of danger to distant and possibly innocent bystanders. To call for assistance against rioters from those who can interfere only under such grave conditions ought, of course, to be the last expedient of the civi1' authorities. But when the call for help is made and a. necessity for assistance from the military has arisen, to refuse such assistance is in law a misdemeanour. The whole action of the military when once called in ought from first to last to be basedyon the principle of doing, and doing without fear, that which is absolutely necessary to prevent serious crime, and of exercising care and skill with regard to what is done. No set of rules exists which governs every instance or dennes beforehand any contingency that may arise. The-presence of a magistrate is not essential, but is usual, 'and of the highest value to aid the commander of the troops by local knowledge. But his presence or absence has no legal effect on the duties or responsibilities of the military to use their arms when it becomes necessary to do so, and without recklessness or negligence and with reasonable care and caution; and where they have so acted the killing of a rioter is justifiable homicide, and the killing of an -innocent bystander is homicide by misadventure. It isnot usualvto resort to extremities with rioters until after reading the proclamation under the Riot Act (1716), 1 Reportsof these trials will be found in the State 'l'rials, "New Series, vol. iii. pp.. I, II. » Most of the important cases of riot are collected or referred to in that series. .
