Untitled

59
so unlawfully, tumultuously, and riotously assembled,
or any of them, should happen to be killed, maimed,
or hurt in the dispersing, seizing, or apprehending,
by reason of their resisting the person so dispersing,
seizing, or apprehending, the said officers shall be
held harmless from all private action or criminal
prosecution on account of the killing or maiming as
aforesaid."
This statute only embodied the common law, for
Blackstone in his Commentaries (IV. 180) declares
that the powers of magistrates were the same before
the Riot Act ; it would seem, therefore, that magis
trates would be safe in obeying their own convictions.
The decisions, however, do not bear out this idea.
In 1768 (after the Riot Act), Mr. Gillam, an ex
cellent magistrate of the County of Surrey, was tried
for his life at the Old Bailey, for ordering the militia
to fire, in a riot in St. George s Fields, after long and
patiently enduring the provocations of the rioters,
and twice reading the Riot Act ; of this case we have,
unfortunately, no full report, as the Nisi Prius Re
ports did not begin until 1810, or thereabouts. As
the result of this, during the Lord Gordon riots,
the civil officers were unwilling to take any respon
sibility ; and they were therefore severely blamed.
This case shows the tenor of the judicial decisions
in the matter ; for every English court has been very
careful in its construction of the act, never justify
ing firing on a mob unless it is proved
to be a last
resort.
The act itself justifies killing or maiming only
when the rioters resist the seizing, &c., &c.