“Wheresoever more than three persons use force or violence, for the accomplishment of any design whatever, all concerned are rioters.”

Were there not more than three persons in Dock Square?  Did they not agree to go to King Street, and attack the main guard?  Where, then, is the reason for hesitation at calling it a riot?  If we cannot speak the law as it is, where is our liberty?  And this is law, that wherever more than three persons are gathered together to accomplish anything with force, it is a riot.

(1 Hawkins, ch. 65, section 2):  “Wherever more than three persons use force and violence, all who are concerned therein are rioters.  But in some cases wherein the law authorizes force, it is lawful and commendable to use it.  As for a sheriff [2 And. 67 Poph. 121], or constable [3 H. 7, 10, 6], or perhaps even for a private person [Poph. 121, Moore 656], to assemble a competent number of people, in order with force to oppose rebels or enemies or rioters, and afterwards, with such force actually to suppress them.”

I do not mean to apply the word rebel on this occasion; I have no reason to suppose that ever there was one in Boston, at least among the natives of the country; but rioters are in the same situation, as far as my argument is concerned, and proper officers may suppress rioters, and so may even private persons.

If we strip ourselves free from all military laws, mutiny acts, articles of war and soldiers’ oaths, and consider these prisoners as neighbors, if any of their neighbors were attacked in King Street, they had a right to collect together to suppress this riot and combination.  If any number of persons meet together at a fair or market, and happen to fall together by the ears, they are not guilty of a riot, but of a sudden affray.  Here is another paragraph, which I must read to you:—­

(1 Hawkins, ch. 65, section 3):  “If a number of persons being met together at a fair or market, or on any other lawful or innocent occasion, happen, on a sudden quarrel, to fall together by the ears, they are not guilty of a riot, but of a sudden affray only, of which none are guilty but those who actually began it,” etc.

It would be endless, as well as superfluous, to examine whether every particular person engaged in a riot were in truth one of the first assembly or actually had a previous knowledge of the design thereof.  I have endeavored to produce the best authorities, and to give you the rules of law in their words, for I desire not to advance anything of my own.  I choose to lay down the rules of law from authorities which cannot be disputed.  Another point is this, whether and how far a private person may aid another in distress?  Suppose a press-gang should come on shore in this town and assault any sailor or householder in King Street, in order to carry him on board one of his Majesty’s ships, and impress him without any warrant as a seaman in his Majesty’s service;