or mobbed in the street, a criminal, or at least a penal, offence is committed.1

The punishment for these offences of intimidation and besetting is somewhat peculiar. There are two remedies provided. One is a summary proceeding before one or more justices of the peace; but such justices cannot impose a higher penalty than twenty pounds, nor impose a longer imprisonment than three months; and yet it is discretionary in them to punish the offender in either of these two ways. At the same time the offender, when accused and brought before the justice, has a right to declare that he objects to be tried by such court, and in that event the offence must be treated as an indictable offence, and he can only be committed for trial before a jury in the ordinary way. If he is tried and convicted before a justice, he may appeal to quarter sessions, but there is no appeal against a conviction if such conviction is upon an indictment.2

Fair argument by trade unions is legal.-The recent statutes, modifying the common law relating to interference with the liberty of others in matters of trade and business, have singled out those acts which most frequently occur to disturb the natural right of each to settle for himself the kind of work and the kind of master, as well as the terms of employment, which he will accept. These statutes punish, in a more summary way than the common law did, the commission of acts savouring of intimidation and moral pressure sufficient to operate on a reasonable mind, and yet care is taken to leave untouched the right of free discussion and expostulation between man and man on all points relating to their common interest. The essence of the whole, in short, is, that any trade union may now use all means of fair argument, discussion, expostulation, and comparing of notes with every person it can reach; and, indeed, without this free interchange of thoughts and views, the liberty of the subject would be seriously endangered; and the natural right of workmen to join their forces and further their common interest would be impracticable.

Now legal for many workmen simultaneously to leave their work. Moreover, the common law doctrine (if it ever 1 38 & 39 Vic. c. 86, § 7. 2 38 & 39 Vic. c. 86, §§ 7, 9, 12, 13; 11 & 12 Vic. c. 43, § 12.

existed in so general a form), that an agreement of two or more to do what each could do individually without being indictable, has been abrogated by the same statute to this extent, that that doctrine no longer applies to acts relating to trade disputes. The statute enacts that an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen shall not be indictable as a conspiracy, if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime.1 It was justly thought an anomaly that an act which one could do with impunity, or, at least, which was at most only actionable when so done by him, should become indictable merely from the accident that two or more joined in doing the same thing at the same time. That anomaly, if it ever in reality existed, has now been removed to the extent already mentioned, namely, in relation to a trade dispute, this last being the subject-matter that most usually gives rise to the offence and the difficulty. But where two or more agree to do an actionable wrong in relation to other matters than trade disputes, the common law, as above stated, remains unaffected on that point. The statute accordingly seems to make lawful, or at least to exempt from any punishment, the act of two or more persons, who, for the purpose of raising wages, simultaneously stop work at one time, and under circumstances, however injurious to the master. One or two exceptions, however exist to this unlimited right to strike. It is provided that when the work is the supply of gas or water to a town or district, and the breach of contract will endanger human life, or cause serious bodily injury, or expose valuable property to destruction or to serious injury, then the right to strike shall not be protected under this act to the extent thus described.2

These exceptions to the general freedom of influencing wages, like other matters, through the medium of a sudden breach of contract, have been introduced for the protection of the public, who, if not so protected, might in the cases

1 38 & 39 Vic. c. 86, § 3. A crime means an offence either indictable or punishable in a summary manner, so as to subject the offender to imprisonment absolutely or as an alternative for some other punishment. 238 & 39 Vic. c. 86, §§ 4, 5.

While

excepted be incommoded to an incalculable extent. the contending interests are striving to produce some change in each other's resolution and stand at bay, and the product of their joint capital and labour no longer flows out for the general advantage, it would only be inflicting wanton mischief on innocent third parties if a limit were not put to the general right in these excepted and urgent cases last mentioned.

Tumultuous assemblies. Having now treated of various forms of apprehended injuries and threats, which proceed from one individual towards another, there are still some apprehended injuries of the same class which equally strike terror into the individual, but yet do not proceed directly and intentionally from one to another. They proceed rather from a multitude of persons, who profess to be engaged in some common purpose pointing to another direction. Such are unlawful and tumultuous assemblies, riots, routs, and affrays, which are not directly aimed at any one of the bystanders, and yet they tend more or less. inevitably to bring the same kind of intimidation or terror to bear upon him as if they were. The injury and interference to one or more individuals is the same, but those engaged in the proceeding, being intent on another object, bring about their evil effects in a somewhat more circuitous way. The peaceably disposed citizen is, however, equally wounded and made uneasy in the enjoyment of his security.

Though the widest toleration is now allowed by the law to the meeting of citizens to discuss and deliberate on affairs in which they take an interest, yet there may be large meetings held with a view to intimidate particular persons or classes, and to coerce the latter into doing something which otherwise is not likely to be done. Under the latter class of assemblies may be ranked all attempts by multitudes to coerce the crown, or the parliament, or the government, and which are more properly treated either as offences against the legislature, or the executive government, or offences which consist in an unlawful exercise of the liberty of thought and speech. Thus, a meeting has been deemed unlawful which affected to be a convention to discuss and entertain propositions relating to the public government of the country, for this was said to tend

directly to supersede the form of government already constituted. The subject of unlawful meetings, so far as these are seditious and tend to interfere with government, more properly belongs, partly to the division of "government," and partly to that division of the law entitled "security of thought and speech," which will be treated of hereafter. There may, however, be designs entertained by large meetings of persons besides coercing the executive government, and these may have the effect of terrifying individuals who are bystanders and disturbing seriously their occupations. Such meetings are equally condemned by the law, and are commonly called unlawful assemblies, routs, and riots.

Unlawful assembly distinguished from riot, rout, affray. -What distinguishes an unlawful assembly from a riot and a rout is the extent to which the common object has been carried out. If the common purpose has not gone further than the mere tumultuous assembling together, and rests only in intention, it is an unlawful assembly. If some further intermediate step, though not yet amounting to an overt act, has been taken, as, for example, the movement of the crowd towards the intended scene of operations has begun, but still no further overt act has been actually done, it is in that stage called a rout. And, finally, if some overt act has begun towards the carrying out of the purpose, and the design is in course of execution, it is then called a riot. There are thus three degrees of this unlawful meeting-an unlawful assembly-a rout-and a riot—each of which must be noticed. Again, the mutual confederation and agreement in one design is that which distinguishes a riot from an affray, for when a large crowd is collected and one or two suddenly quarrel and fight, this amounts only to an affray between those immediately engaged, and does not necessarily implicate the rest of the bystanders. An affray thus differs from a riot in the want of a premeditated and common design.2 And while several persons must concur in order to constitute a riot, yet the mere incitement to a riot is of itself an indictable misdemeanour.3

Rout. Before proceeding more particularly to state the 1 R. v Fursey, 6 C. & P. 81. 2 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 65, § 3. 3 1 Russ. Cr. 382 (4th ed.).

VOL. I.

Q

law affecting riots it may be well to dispose of that lower degree of the same thing called a rout, which is seldom met with as a specific offence. It is only an inchoate riot, being not crowned with any overt act developing the common purpose. It is deemed, however, in this incipient stage a specific offence, and punished as a misdemeanour with fine and imprisonment; and security of the peace may also be imposed on the conviction of those who take part in it.1

How riot distinguished from high treason. The purpose or bond of union in cases of unlawful assembly and riot is sometimes difficult of definition. It has often been said that in order to distinguish riot from high treason, or what once was deemed high treason, it is necessary to see if this purpose is or is not some general and universal redress of rights. For example, it is said to be no longer a riot, if the object be to demolish all the bawdy-houses or all the popish chapels, or all the inclosures in the kingdom, since this strikes at the foundation of law and government; but it must be of more private and local nature, such, for example, as to demolish the fences of some particular inclosure, to gain possession of some parish tenement, the interest in which is claimed only by some individuals or local community. And hence the purpose of a riot is said to be one of a private or local nature only.2 Kelyng, C. J., indeed ruled that a mob of apprentices, who went and pulled down some brothels, were guilty of high treason, because they had a captain, and an ensign, and weapons. He said further that to go about any public reformation is high treason, for "if every man may reform what he will, who is safe?" And he added, "that rebellion first began under the pretence of religion and the law, and the devil hath always this vizard upon it." But though all the judges agreed this was good law, it is noted that Hale, C. B., dissented and thought it only a misdemeanour.3 It would be difficult in modern times to see the connection between treason and the limited and partial purposes which have sometimes been identified on such principles, as those stated by Kelyng, with that imperial offence.

1 Vin. Abr. Riots; 1 Hawk. c. 65, § 12; 1 Hawk. c. 65, § 8. 2 1 Hawk. c. 65, § 6.

3 6 St. Tr. 879.