Surprisingly, the Riot Act remained on the UK statute books into modern times and wasn't formally repealed until 1973.
It was eventually superseded by the 1986 Public Order Act.
In English law the control of unruly citizens has usually been the responsibility of local magistrates.
Any group of twelve or more that the authorities didn't like the look of could be deemed a 'riotous and tumultuous assembly' and arrested if they didn't disperse within an hour of the Riot Act being read to them by a magistrate.
This seems a little harsh, but in 18th century England the government was fearful of Jacobite mobs who threatened to rise up and overthrow the Hanoverian George I.
The fear was well-founded, as supporters of the deposed Stuarts did actually invade in 1715 and again in 1745.
The 'Riot Act' was passed by the British government in 1714 and came into force in 1715.
The Riot Act, which was more formally called 'An act for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies, and for the more speedy and effectual punishing the rioters' actually contained this warning:
"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 tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King."
The punishments for ignoring the Act were severe - penal servitude for not less than three years, or imprisonment with hard labour for up to two years.
After the Hanoverians were established in power the Riot Act began to fade into disuse.
It was read to a group of demonstrating mill workers at Manchester Town Hall in 1842, but was used with decreasing frequency and had become a rarity by the 20th century.
The first record of the figurative use of the phrase is in William Bradford's Letters, December 1819:
"She has just run out to read the riot act in the Nursery."
2007-03-22 01:58:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by Hamish 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
These days, it’s just a figurative expression meaning to give an individual or a group a severe scolding or caution, or to announce that some unruly behavior must cease. But originally it was a deadly serious injunction to a rioting crowd to disperse.
The Riot Act was passed by the British government in 1714 and came into force in 1715. This was the period of the Catholic Jacobite riots, when mobs opposed to the new Hanoverian king, George I, were attacking the meeting houses of dissenting groups. There was a very real threat of invasion by supporters of the deposed Stuart kings — as actually happened later that year and also in 1745. The government feared uprisings, and passed a draconian law making it a felony if a group of more than twelve persons refused to disperse more than an hour after magistrates had told them to do so.
2007-03-22 09:51:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Krish 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
It comes from a long-defunct act in Great Britain during a period of civil unrest.
Because the authorities were required to read the proclamation that referred to the Riot Act before they could enforce it, the expression to read the riot act entered into common language as a phrase meaning "to reprimand severely". The phrase remains in everyday use in English despite the fact that the act itself has long since passed into history.
2007-03-22 08:35:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by catfish 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
King George I of England issued a proclamation in 1716 (early Georgian period) stating that any time 12 or more people engaged in a demonstration, officers of the law were required to read a specific portion of the act, and send the rioters home. Anyone who ignored this verbal warning could be sent to a penal colony for the remainder of his/her natural life, so it was fairly effective.
2007-03-22 08:33:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by Me 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I comes from a differcult passage in a Sheakspear play, in which actor had prblems "reading the riot act"
2007-03-22 08:23:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋