The Weavers' Case. This is another of those cases in which questions arose whether or not a riot with a general intent was or was not treason. It is stated by Lord Hale', who thus gives the result of a consultation of all the Judges' but Windham and Atkins. "A great number of the weavers in and about London being offended at the engine looms (which are instruments that have been used above these sixty years) because thereby one man can do as much in a day as near twenty men without them, and by consequence can afford his ribbons at a much cheaper rate, after attempts in Parliament and elsewhere to suppress them did agree among themselves to rise and go from house to house to take and destroy the engine looms, in pursuance of which they did on the 9th, 10th, and 11th of the instant August assemble themselves in great numbers, at some places to a hundred, at others to 400, and at others, particularly at Stratford, Bow, to about 1500. "They did in a most violent manner break open the houses of many of the King's subjects in which such engine looms were, or were by them suspected to be; they took away the engines, and making great fires burnt the same, and not only the looms but in many places the ribbons made thereby and several other goods of the persons whose houses they broke open; this they did not in one place only, but in several places and counties, namely Middlesex, London, Essex, Kent and Surrey, in the last of which, namely at Southwark, they stormed the house of one Thomas Bybby, and though they were resisted and one of them killed and another wounded, yet at last they forced their way in, took away his looms and burnt them. The value of the damage they did is computed to several thousand pounds. "This they did after several proclamations made and command given by the justices of Middlesex to depart, but instead of obeying they resisted and affronted the magistrates and officers; it is true they had no warlike arms, but that was supplied by their number, and they had such weapons as such a rabble could get, as staves, clubs, sledge hammers, and other such instruments to force open doors. "There was the further evil attending this insurrection that the soldiers and officers of the militia were so far from doing their duty in suppressing them that some, though in arms and 1 P. C. 143. 2 The Judges were Hale, L. C. J., Wilde, Twisden, Rainsford, J. J., Vaughan, C. J., Ellis J., Turnour, C. B., Lyttelton, Bertie, and Thurland, B. B. 1675. Weavers' case. 1675. Weavers' case. Resolutions of the Judges in favour of treason. drawn up in companies, stood still looking on while their neighbours' houses were broken open and their goods destroyed; others encouraged them, and others to whose custody some of the offenders who were taken were committed, suffered them to escape, so that during all the time of the tumult little or nothing was done to suppress them until the Lords of the council were constrained at a time extraordinary to assemble, by whose direction and orders, as well to the civil magistrates as to the King's guards, they were at last quieted. "Five of the Judges seemed to be of opinion that this was treason within the Act 25 Ed. III. upon the clause of levying war against the King, or at least upon the clause of the Statute 13 Car. II. c. 11. "1. In respect of the manner of their assembling: for though they had no weapons or ensigns of war, yet their multitudes supplied that defect, being able to do that by their multitudes which a lesser number of armed men might scarce be able to effect by their weapons; and besides they had staves and clubs, and some hammers or sledges to break open houses, and accordingly they acted by breaking open doors and burning the engine looms and many of the wares made by them. "2. In respect of the design itself, which was to burn and destroy not the single engine looms of this or that particular person but engine looms in general, and that not in one county Resolutions only, but in several counties, and so agreeable to Burton's case. against. "The other five Judges were not satisfied that there was treason within the clause of 25 Ed. III. against levying war nor within the Statute 13 Car. II. for conspiring to levy war. 66 1. It was agreed that if men assemble together and consult to raise a force immediately or directly against the King's person or to restrain or depose him, whether the number of persons be more or less or whether armed or unarmed, though this were not a treason within the clause of the Statute 25 Edward III. yet it was treason within the past clause of compassing the King's death and an overt-act sufficient to make good such an indictment though no war was actually levied, and with these accord the resolutions afore cited, especially that of the insurrection in the north at Farley Wood; but no such conspiracy or compassing appears in this case, and so that is not now in question, but we are only upon a point of constructive or interpretative levying of war. "2. Here is nothing in this case of any conspiring to do anything but what they really and fully effected; they agreed to rise in multitudes and burn the looms and accordingly they 1 See ante, p. 53. 2 See ante, p. 383. 1675. Weavers' case. did it, but nothing of conspiring against the safety of the King's person or to arm themselves; therefore if what they did were not a levying of war against the King within the Statute of 25 Ed. III. here appears no conspiring to levy Resolution such war within the Statute 13 Car. II. c. 1, for, for what appears all was done that they conspired to do. 3. It seemed very doubtful to them whether in the manner of their assembling it was any levying of war or whether it were more than a riot, for in all the indictments of the kind for levying of war it is laid that they were more guerrino arriati and upon the evidence that they were assembled in a posture of war armis offensivis et defensivis, and sometimes particular circumstances also proved and found, as banners, trumpets, drums, &c., and when they were indicted for conspiring only to levy war yet there was this circumstance accompanied it, namely, a confederacy to get arms and arm themselves as in Grant's case and Burton's case. "4. It seemed very doubtful to them whether their design to burn engine looms were such a design as would make it a levying of war against the King, for it was not like the design of altering religion, laws, pulling down enclosures generally as in Burton's case, nor to destroy any trade, but only a particular quarrel and grievance between men of the same trade against a particular engine that they thought a grievance to them, which though it was an enormous riot yet it would be difficult to make it treason, vide Statutes 8 Hen. VI. c. 77, 9 Hen. VI. c. 5. Many of them therefore concluded that if Mr Attorney should think fit to proceed as for a treason the matter might be specially found and so left to further advice, or rather that according to the clause of the Statute of 25 Ed. III. the declaration and judgment of the King and both Houses of Parliament might be had, because it was a new case and materially differed from other cases of like nature formerly resolved. 66 Upon the conclusion of the debate we all departed, and Mr Attorney' upon consideration of the whole matter it seems thought fit to proceed for a riot and caused many of them to be indicted for riots, for which they were convicted and had great fines set upon them and were committed in execution and adjudged to stand upon the pillory." This case of the weavers is a good illustration of the distinction drawn by the Judge as to when a riot was treason and when not; a private quarrel was not and could not be treason, a public quarrel was always so. This is the view taken by Sir Michael Foster of this case, he thus speaks of it. 1 Sir William Jones. of the Judges against treason. 1675. Weavers' case. "And upon the same principle and within the same equity of the Statute I think it was very rightly held by five of the judges that a rising of the weavers in and about London to destroy all engine looms, a machine which enabled those of the trade who made use of it to undersell those who had it not, did not amount to levying war within the Statute, though great outrages were committed on that occasion not only in London but in the adjacent counties and the magistrates and peace officers were resisted and affronted. "For those judges considered the whole affair merely as a private quarrel between men of the same trade about the use of a particular engine which those concerned in the rising thought detrimental to them. Five of the Judges indeed were of a different opinion. But the Attorney-General thought proper to proceed against the defendants as for a riot only 1. 1 Foster, 210. CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. |