12. Riots by seamen.] A special statute was passed, 33 G. 3, c. 67, to suppress riotous proceedings by seamen and others connected with shipping, and was made perpetual by 41 G. 3, c. 19. It arose out of temporary disturbances connected with the Newcastle trade, but there seems no good reason for retaining it, as the offence described would almost certainly amount to a riot. The first section enacts,

"That if any seamen, keelmen, casters, ship-carpenters, or other persons, riotously assembled together to the number of three or more, shall unlawfully and with force prevent, hinder, or obstruct the loading or unloading, or the saling or the navigating of any ship, keel, or other vessel, or shall unlawfully and with force board any ship, keel, or other vessel, with intent to prevent, hinder, or obstruct the loading or unloading, or the sailing or navigating of such ship, keel, or other vessel, every seaman, keelman, caster, ship-carpenter, and other person,"

being lawfully convicted of any of the offences aforesaid, upon any indictment found in any court of oyer and terminer, or general or quarter sessions of the peace for the county, division, district, &c., wherein the offence was committed,) shall be committed either to the common gaol or to the house of correction for the same county, &c., there to continue and to be kept to hard labour for any term not exceeding twelve calendar months, nor less than six calendar months.

The fourth section provides that the Act shall not extend to any act, deed, &c., done in the service or by the authority of his Majesty. The seventh section enacts, that offences committed on the high seas shall be triable in any session of oyer and terminer, &c., for the trial of offences committed on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. And by the eighth section it is provided, that no person shall be prosecuted

by virtue of the Act for any of the offences therein mentioned, unless such prosecution be commenced within twelve calendar months after the offence committed.

The only observation to be made upon this statute is that, according to the rule of construing statutes, the words "other persons" must mean persons ejusdem generis, so that they must be belonging to some handicraft especially connected with ships, caulkers for instance. Thus, under the Sunday trading statute, 29 Car. 2, c. 7, which enacts that no tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer, or other person or persons should do their worldly labour, business, or work of their ordinary callings upon the Lord's day, it was held that the owner and driver of a stage-coach was not included. (Sandiman v. Breach, 7 B. & C. 86).

13. Prevention of smuggling.] The 8 & 9 Vict. c. 87, s. 63, makes it felony punishable by transportation for fifteen years, life, or, imprisonment,

"for any persons to the number of three or more, armed with fire-arms or other aggressive weapons, within the United Kingdom, or within the streets of any port, harbour or creek thereof, to be assembled in order to be aiding and assisting in the illegal landing, running or carrying away of any prohibited goods, or any goods liable to any duties which have not been paid or secured, or in rescuing or taking away any such goods as aforesaid after seizure from the officer of the customs, or other officer authorized to seize the same, or from any person or persons employed by them or assisting them, or from the place where the same shall have been lodged by them, or in rescuing any person who shall have been apprehended for any of the offences made felony by this or any Act relating to the customs, or in the preventing the apprehension of any person who shall have been guilty of such offence,"

or, to be aiding and abetting such offences.

CHAPTER IV.

THE RIOT ACT, 1 GEO. 1, st. 2, c. 5.

1. Origin.] Both in the reigns of Edward VI. and Queen Mary temporary statutes were passed, aimed at riots of an aggravated nature, such as those set on foot to "offer violence to the council," or "change the laws of the kingdom." But when the House of Hanover was still trembling upon its recently-acquired throne, the frequent popular tumults led to the severe enactments familiarly known as "The Riot Act;" and, with the exception of the repeal of the sections relating to actions against the hundred, and the substitution of a milder punishment for that of death, it has remained unaltered to the present day. Severe as it is, it has been many times productive of most beneficial consequences. The timely warning given by it brings many to a sense of their danger, and as far as possible ensures the speedy vindication of the law, or at least the separation of the innocent from the guilty. And by the 7th section of the Act it is directed to be read at every quarter sessions, and at every leet or law day, so that knowledge of its provisions may be universally spread.

2. When the Riot Act is to be read.] The first section is as follows:

"Whereas of late many rebellious riots and tumults have been in divers parts of this kingdom, to the disturbance of the public peace, and the endangering of his

D

Majesty's person and government, and the same are yet continued and fomented by persons disaffected to his Majesty presuming so to do, for that the punishments provided by the laws now in being are not adequate to such heinous offences; and by such rioters his Majesty and his administration have been most maliciously and falsely traduced, with an intent to raise divisions, and to alienate the affections of the people from his Majesty: therefore, for the preventing and suppressing of such riots and tumults, and for the more speedy and effectual punishing the offenders therein, be it enacted," "that if any persons to the number of twelve or more, being unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together, to the disturbance of the public peace, at any time after the last day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and fifteen, and being required or commanded by any one or more justice or justices of the peace, or by the sheriff of the county, or his under sheriff, or by the mayor, bailiff or bailiffs, or other head officer, or justice of the peace of any city or town corporate, where such assembly shall be, by proclamation to be made in the king's name, in the form hereinafter directed, to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, shall, to the number of twelve or more (notwithstanding such proclamation made), unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously remain or continue together by the space of one hour after such command or request made by proclamation, that then such continuing together to the number of twelve or more, after such command or request made by proclamation, shall be adjudged felony without benefit of clergy, and the offenders therein shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in case of felony without benefit of clergy." (See now 1 Vict. c. 91, infra, p. 50.)

There must therefore be twelve or more persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together, to the disturbance of the public peace. Under these conditions, the discretion is given to the magistrates, or other civil authorities. What has been already said in the chapter upon riots will apply here, provided twelve instead of three be present.

There is, indeed, a decision of Mr. Justice Patteson's, cited in the text-books, as an authority for the fol

lowing position.-"That if there be such an assembly that there would have been a riot if the parties had carried their purpose into effect, it is within the Act.” (1 Russell on Crimes, 276, citing Rex v. Woolcock, 5 C. & P. 516.) If this is to be taken in the natural sense of the words, it implies that the Riot Act might be read before a riot existed. Had that very learned and careful judge really decided this, it would even then be a matter of grave doubt and inquiry whether such a power could have been given to the justices, and whether the Act did not necessarily imply a riot in fact, and not merely an intended riot. But it is submitted that the case, when examined, does not bear this construction, and that his lordship's own words, as reported, show that it was not his meaning. The indictment was for remaining together one hour after proclamation made. The facts stated are, that on the 1st of October, 1832, when Mr. Phillips was sworn in mayor of Carmarthen, there was a large assemblage of persons in front of the Six Bells inn in that town, at which Mr. Phillips was dining, and that some stones were thrown. The reading of the Riot Act was proved, and that the prisoners remained the requisite time. Mr. Thomas, for one of the prisoners, objected there was no riot, and that it was at most an unlawful assembly, and cited the case of Rex v. Birt (5 C. & P. 154).

The report goes on thus:

"Mr. Justice Patteson-I am of opinion that, if there was such an assembly that there would have been a riot if the parties had carried their purpose into effect, it would be within the Act; and whether there was a cessation or not is a question for the jury."

Applying this to the facts, it is surely clear that the question for the jury was whether the riot which had