# The reading of the riot act

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reading-of-the-riot-act/177341>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [May 25, 2003, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reading-of-the-riot-act/177341 "2003-05-25T02:56:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CanadianVampyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@CanadianVampyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanadianVampyr)\
**Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reading-of-the-riot-act/177341/1 "2003-05-25T02:56:13Z")

</div>

Okay, this may just be a case of me being young, but I have always heard the term “read [insert name here] the riot act” and never quite got it. Now, I kind of understand the basic meaning, just from context, but where exactly did this term come from? And what is the full definition? If anyone has an explaination, or a link to a page that can explain, please help me out!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SRVick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@SRVick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SRVick)\
**Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reading-of-the-riot-act/177341/2 "2003-05-25T03:03:08Z")

</div>

OK, this may or may not be important, but the North Carolina legislature passed in 1771 (I think) something called the Johnston Riot Act, which, when read, essentially made any meeting the government didn’t like illegal. I bet there were plenty of other “riot acts” of the sort, probably the origin of the phrase.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\
**Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reading-of-the-riot-act/177341/3 "2003-05-25T03:16:16Z")

</div>

The riot act would be a warning that any further misbehavior would be severely dealt with. Manhattan does it often.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reading-of-the-riot-act/177341/4 "2003-05-25T03:16:57Z")

</div>

[To Read the Riot Act](http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-rea1.htm)

[Read the Riot Act](http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/299150.html)

[Riot Act (2d article, follows “bizarre”)](http://www.southbus.com.au/clss4.html)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![peepthis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9d8465/32.png) [@peepthis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peepthis)\
**Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reading-of-the-riot-act/177341/5 "2003-05-25T12:37:11Z")

</div>

[Cecil knows](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_263a.html), and it was England not North Carolina:

> [@](#):
>
> Believe it or not, there actually was a riot act once, and they really used to read from it.
> 
> The English Riot Act of 1714 prescribed an official “order to disperse” that was to be read to any crowd of 12 or more persons whom the authorities deemed to be an unruly assembly. If the crowd failed to comply with an hour, they were guilty of a felony and liable to life imprisonment.
> 
> But the proclamation had to be read word-for-word or it didn’t count. At one raucous gathering in 1830, an unfortunate British official omitted the words “God save the king” and the whole bunch got off scot free.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CanadianVampyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@CanadianVampyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanadianVampyr)\
**Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reading-of-the-riot-act/177341/6 "2003-05-25T12:53:46Z")

</div>

Thank you all very much for your help!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\
**Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reading-of-the-riot-act/177341/7 "2003-05-26T22:08:46Z")

</div>

In Canada, the [Criminal Code](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/40415.html) continues to provide for the reading of the riot act.

> [@](#):
>
> Reading proclamation  
> 67. A person who is
> 
> (a) a justice, mayor or sheriff, or the lawful deputy of a mayor or sheriff,
> 
> (b) a warden or deputy warden of a prison, or
> 
> © the institutional head of a penitentiary, as those expressions are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or that person’s deputy,
> 
> who receives notice that, at any place within the jurisdiction of the person, twelve or more persons are unlawfully and riotously assembled together shall go to that place and, after approaching as near as is safe, if the person is satisfied that a riot is in progress, shall command silence and thereupon make or cause to be made in a loud voice a proclamation in the following words or to the like effect:
> 
> Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
> 
> Offences related to proclamation  
> 68. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who
> 
> (a) opposes, hinders or assaults, wilfully and with force, a person who begins to make or is about to begin to make or is making the proclamation referred to in section 67 so that it is not made;
> 
> (b) does not peaceably disperse and depart from a place where the proclamation referred to in section 67 is made within thirty minutes after it is made; or
> 
> © does not depart from a place within thirty minutes when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the proclamation referred to in section 67 would have been made in that place if some person had not opposed, hindered or assaulted, wilfully and with force, a person who would have made it.

I seem to recall that in the mid-80s, there was a riot in the summer at Kamloops and the mayor of Kamloops read the proclamation to the rioters.
