HALE, there is no other reason, say what you and that the distinction was here made for the will about the matter. There stand the over-express purpose of preventing the man who seer and the civil magistrate to take care that took food to relieve bis hunger from being such necessities be provided for; and if they confounded with the thief. Upon any other did not stand there for that purpose, the law interpretation, it makes the passage contain of nature would be revived in behalf of the nonsense and immorality; and, indeed, GROsuffering creature. TIUS says that the latter text does not apply to the person mentioned in the former. The latter text could not mean a man taking food from necessity. It is impossible that it can mean that; because the man who was starving for want of food could not have sevenfold; could not have any substance in his house. But what are we to think of JUDGE BLACKSTONR, who, in his Book IV., chap. 2, really garbles these texts of Scripture. He clearly saw the effect of the expression, "MEN DO NOT DESPISE;" he saw what an awkward figure these words made, coming before the words 24. HALE, not content however with this act of QUEEN ELIZABETH, and still hankering after this hard doctrine, furbishes up a bit of Scripture, and calls Solomon the wisest of kings on account of these two verses which he has taken. HALE observes, indeed, that the Jews did not put thieves to death; but, to restore seven-fold was the ordinary punishment, inflicted by their law, for theft; and here, says he, we see, that the extreme necessity gave no exemption. This was a piece of such flagraut sophistry on the part of HALE, that he could not fiud in his heart to send it forth" A THIEF;" he saw that, with these words to the world without a qualifying observation; in the text, he could never succeed in making but even this qualifying observation left the his readers believe that a man ought to be sophistry still so shameful, that his editor, Mr. hanged for taking food to save his life. He EMLYN, who published the work under the clearly saw that he could not make men beau hority of the House of Commons, did not lieve that God had said this, unless he could, think it consistent with his reputation to suffer somehow or other, get rid of those words about this passage to go forth unaccompanied with NOT DESPISING the thief that took victuals the following remark: "But their (the Jews') when he was hungry. Being, therefore, very ordinary punishment being entirely pecu- much pestered and anuoyed by these words "niary, could affect him only when he was about NOT DESPISING, what does he do but "found in a condition to answer it ; and there-fairly leave them out? And not only leave them "fore the same reasons which could justify out, but leave out a part of both the verses, "that, cau, by no means, be extended to a keeping in that part of each that suited him, corporal, much less to a capital punish- and no more; nay, further, leaving out one "ment." Certainly : and this is the fair in- word, and putting in another, giving a sense terpretation of these two verses of the Pro-to the whole which he knew well never was verbs. PUFFENDORF, one of the greatest au- intended. He states the passage to be this: thorities that the world knows anything of," If a thief steal to satisfy his soul when he is observes, upon the argument built upon this “ hungry, he shall restore sevenfold, and shall text of Scripture, "It may be objected, that, give all the substance of his house." No "in Proverbs, chap. vi. verses 30, 31, he is broomstick that ever was handled would have "called a thief, and pronounced obnoxious to been too heavy or too rough for the shoulders. "the penalty of theft, who steals to satisfy his of this dirty souled man. HALE, with all his hunger; but whoever closely views and desire to make out a case in favour of severity, "considers that text will find that the thief has given us the words fairly: but this shuff"there censured is neither in such extreme ing fellow; this smooth-spoken and meau "necessity as we are now supposing, nor seems wretch, who is himself thief enough, God "to have fallen into his needy condition knows, if stealing other men's thoughts and "merely by ill fortune, without his own idle-words constitute theft; this intolerably mean ness or default: for the context implies, reptile has, in the first place, left out the words "that he had a house and goods sufficient to" men do not despise;" then he has left out "make seven-fold restitution; which he the words at the beginning of the next text, "might have either sold or pawned; a chap- "but if he be found." Then in place of the "man or creditor being easily to be met with" he," which comes before the words “ shall "in times of plenty and peace; for we have give," he puts the word" and;" and thus he "no grounds to think that the fact there men- makes the whole apply to the poor creature ❝tioned is supposed to be committed, either that takes to satisfy his soul when he is "in time of war, or upon account of the ex-hungry! He leaves out every mitigating "traordinary price of provisions." ་་ word of the Scripture; and, in his reference, 25. Besides this, I think it is clear that he represents the passage to be in one verse! these two verses of the Proverbs do not ap- Perhaps, even in the history of the conduct of ply to one and the same person; for in the first crown-lawyers, there is not to be found menverse it is said, that men do not despise a thief tion of an act so coolly bloody-minded as this. if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hun-It has often been said of this BLACKSTONE, gry. How, then, are we to reconcile this that he not only lied himself, but made others with morality? Are we not to despise a thief? lie; he has made, as far as he was able, It is clear that the word thief does not apply a liar of King Solomon himself; he has wilto the first case; but to the second case only; fully garbled the Holy Scripture; and that, 66 ور can be plainer than this: no distinction can ee wiser, nor more just. HALE saw the force of it; and therefore, as these texts made very strongly against him, he does not give them at full length, but gives us a misrepresenting abbreviation. 28. He had, however, too much regard for his reputation to conclude without acknowledging the right of seizing on the provisions of others at sea. He allows that private chests may be broken open to prevent men from dying with hunger at sea. He does not stop to tell us why men's lives are more precious un sea thau on land. He does not attempt to recon too, for the manifest purpose of justifying" but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel;" cruelty in courts and judges; for the manifest that is to say, that you should not go and make purpose of justifying the most savage oppres- wine in his vineyard and carry it away. Then sion of the poor. in case of the corn, precisely the same law is 26. After all, HALE has not the courage to laid down. You may pluck with your hand; send forth this doctrine of his, without allow-but not use the hook, or a sickle. Nothing ing, that the case of extreme necessity does, in some measure," and "in particular cases,' and, "by the tacit or silent consent of nations," hold good! What a crowd of qualifications is here! With what reluctance he confesses that which all the world knows to be true, that the disciples of JESUS CHRIST pulled off, without leave,the ears of standing corn, and ate them, "being an hungered." And here are two things to observe upon. In the first place this corn was not what we call corn here in England, or else it would have been very droll sort of stuff to crop off and eat. It was what the Americans call Indian corn, what the French call Turkish corn, and what is called corn (as being far-cile these liberties given by the Scripture, surpassing all other in excellence) in the Eastern countries where the Scriptures were written. About four or five ears of this corn, of which you strip all the busk off in a minute, are enough for a mau's breakfast or dinner; and by about the middle of August this corn is just as wholesome and as efficient as bread. So that this was something to take and eat without the owner's leave; it was something of value; and observe, that the Pharisees, though so strongly disposed to find fault with everything that was done by Jesus Christ and his disciples, dil not find fault of their taking the corn to eat; did not call them thieves; did not propose to punish them for theft; but found fault of them only for having plucked the corn on the Sabbath day! To pluck the corn was to do work, and these severe critics found fault of this working on the Sabbath-day. Then, out comes another fact, which HALE might have noticed if he had chosen it; namely, that our Saviour reminds the Pharisees that" DAVID and his companions, being an "hungered entered into the House of God, "and did eat the show bread, to eat which was unlawful in anybody but the priests.' Thus, that which would have been sacrilege under any other circumstances; that which would have been one of the most horrible of crimes against the law of God, became no crime at all when committed by a person pressed by hunge". 27. Nor has Judge HALE fairly interpreted the two verses of DEUTERONOMY. He represents the matter thus: that, if you be passing through a vineyard or an olive-yard you may gather and eat, without being deemed a thief. This interpretation would ake an Englishman believe, that the Scripture allowed of this taking and eating, only where there was a lawful foot-way through the vineyard. This is a very gross misrepresentation of the matter; for if you look at the two texts, you will find, that they say that, "when thou comest into;' that is to say, when thou enterest or goest into, "thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill, at thine own pleasure, and by the maritime laws, with his own hard doctrine. In short, he brings us to this at last: that he will not acknowledge, that it is not theft to take another man's goods, without his consent, under any circumstances; but, while he will not acknowledge this, he plainly leaves us to conclude, that no English judge and no English king will ever punish a poor creature that takes victuals to save himself from perishing; and he plainly leaves us to conclude, that it is the poor-laws of England; that it is their existence and their due execuion, which deprive everybody in England of the right to take food and raimeut in case of extreme necessity. 29. Here I agree with him most cordially; and it is because I agree with him in this, that I deprecate the abominable projects of those who would annihilate the poor-laws, seeing that it is those very poor-laws which give under all circumstances, really legal security to property. Without them, cases must frequently arise, which would, according to the law of nature, according to the law of God, and, as we shall see before we have done, according to the law of England, bring us into a state, or, at least, bring particular persons into a state, which as far as related to them would cause the law of nature to revive, and to make all things to be owned in common. To adhere, then, to these poor-laws; to cause them to be duly executed, to prevent every encroachment upon them, to preserve them as the apple of our eye, is the duty of every Englishman, as far as he has capacity so to do. 30. I have, my friends, cited, as yet, authorities only on one side of this great subject, which it was my wish to discuss in this one Number. 1 find that to be impossible, without leaving undone much more than half my work. I am extremely anxious to cause this matter to be well understood, not only by the working classes, but by the owners of the laud and the magistrates. I deem it to be of the greatest pessible importance; and, while writing on it, I address myself to you, because I most sincerely declare that I have a greater respect for you than for any other body of persons that I "work or starve, yet must lose all their know anything of. "weight and efficacy in England, where 31. So much for Judge HALE's doctrine upon" charity is reduced to a system, and interthe subject, and for the foul conduct of BLACK-❝ woven in our very constitution. Therefore, STONE, the author of the Commentaries on the our laws ought by no means to be taxed Laws of England. I will not treat this un- "with being unmerciful, for denying this principled lawyer, this shocking court syco-"privilege to the necessitous; especially phant; I will not treat him as he has treated" when we consider, that the king, on the King Solomon and the Holy Scriptures; I will" representation of his ministers of justice, rot garble, misquote, and belie him, as he hath a power to soften the law, and to exgarbled, misquoted, and belied them; I will tend mercy in cases of peculiar hardship. give the whole of the passage to which I allude, "An advantage which is wanting in many and which my readers may find in the Fourth states, particularly those which are demoBook of his Commentaries. I request you to "cratical: aud these have in its stead introread it with great attention; and to compare "duced and adopted, in the body of the law it, very carefully, with the passage that I have" itself, a multitude of circumstances tending quoted from Sir MATIHEW HALE, which you "to alleviate its rigour. But the founders of will find in paragraphs from 16 to 18 inclusive."our constitution thought it better to vest in The passage from Blackstone is as follows: "the crown the power of pardoning peculiar "objects of compassion, than to countenance and establish theft by one general undistin"guishing law." 66 66 31.There is yet another case of neces66 sity, which has occasioned great speculation" 66 among the writers upon general law; viz. "whether a man in extreme want of food or 33. First of all, I beg you to observe, that "clothing may justify stealing either, to re- this passage is merely a flagrant act of theft "lieve his present necessities. And this both committed upon Judge HALE: next, you per "GROTIUS aud PUFFENDORF, together with ceive, that which I noticed in paragraph 25, 66 many other of the foreigu jurists, hold in a most base and impudent garbling of the "the affirmative; maintaining by many in- Scriptures. Next, you see, that BLACKSTONE, "genious, humane, and plausible reasons, like HALE, comes, at last, to the poor-laws; "that in such cases the community of goods and tells us that to take other men's goods "by a kind of tacit coucession of society is without leave, is theft, because "charity is "revived. And some even of our own lawyers" here reduced to a system, and interwoven in "have held the same; though it seems to be" our very constitution." That is to say, to an unwarranted doctrine, borrowed from the relieve the necessitous; to prevent their suf"notions of some civilians at least it is now fering from want; complete y to render starv"antiquated, the law of England admitting ation impossible, makes a part of our very "no such excuse at present. And this its constitution. "THEREFORE, our laws "doctrine is agreeable not only to the senti."ought by no means to be taxed with being "ments of many of the wisest ancients, par-" unmerciful for denying this privilege to the "ticularly CICERO, who holds that suum "necessitous." Pray mark the word there. "cuique incommodum ferendum est, potius fore. You see, our laws, he says, are not to "quam de alterius commodis detrahen-be taxed with being uumercitul in deeming "dum;' but also to the Jewish law, as cer"tified by King Solomon bimself: If a thief "steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry, " he shall restore sevenfold, and shall give al "the substance of his bouse;' which was "the ordinary punishment for theft in that "kingdom. And this is founded upon the "highest reason for men's properties would "be under a strange insecurity, if liable to be "invaded according to the wants of others; "of which wants no man can possibly be au "adequate judge, but the party himself who "pleads them. In this country especially, "there would be a peculiar impropriety in "admitting so dubious au excuse for by our "laws such a sufficient provision is made for "the poor by the power of the civil magis"trate, that it is impossible that the most "needy stranger should ever be reduced to "the necessity of thieving to support nature. "This case of a stranger is, by the way, the strongest instance put by Baron PUFFEN"DORF, and whereon he builds his principal 35. "Let us see, further, what common "arguments: which, however they may hold "right there appertains to men in those things upou the continent, where the parsimonious" which have already become the property of "industry of the natives orders every one to" individuals. Some persons, perchance, may 66 66 the necessitous taker a thief. And why are they not to be deemed unmerciful? BECAUSE the laws provide effectual relief for the necessitous. It follows, then, of course, even according to BLACKSTONE himself, that if the constitution had not provided this effectual relief for the necessitous, then the laws would have been unmerciful in deeming the necessitous taker a thief. 34. But now let us hear what GROTIUS and that PUFFENDORF say; let us hear what these great writers on the law of nature and of nations say upon this subject. BLACKSTONE has mentioned the names of them both: but he has not thought proper to notice their arguments, much less has he attempted to answer them. They are two of the most celebrated men that ever wrote; and their writings are referred to as high authority, with regard to all the subjects of which they have treated. The following is a passage from GROTIUS, on War and Peace, Book II. chap. 2. 66 "consider it strange to question this, as pro- you will please to bear in mind, that both ❝prietorship seems to have absorbed all that those writers are of the greatest authority "right which arose out of a state of things in upon all subjects connected with the laws of "common. But it is not so. For, it is to be nature and of nations. We read in their works "considered, what was the intention of those the result of an age of study: they have been "who first introduced private property, which two of the great guides of mankind ever since we may suppose to have been such, as to they wrote; and, we are not to throw them "deviate as little as possible from natural aside, in order to listen exclusively to Parson equity. For if even written laws are to be HAY, to HULTON of HULTON, or to NICHOLAS "construed in that sense as far as it is prac- GRIMSHAW. They tell us what they, and what "ticable, much more so are customs, which other wise men, deemed to be right; and, as "are not fettered by the chains of writers.- we shall by-and-by see, the laws of Englaud, "Hence it follows, first, that, in case of ex-so justly boasted of by our ancestors, hold "treme necessity, the pristine right of using precisely the same language with these cele"things revives, as much as if they had re-brated men. After the following passage from "mained in common; because, in all human PUFFENDORF, I shall show you what our own "laws, as well as in the law of private pro-lawyers say upon the subject; but I request perty, this case of extreme necessity appears you to read the following passage with the "to have been excepted.-So, if the means of greatest attention. 66 66 "sustenance, as in case of a sea-voyage, 34. “Let us inquire, in the next place, "should chance to fail, that which any indi-" whether the necessity of preserving our life "vidual may have, should be shared in com- "can give us any right over other men's "mon. And thus, a fire having broken out," goods, so as to make it allowable for us to "I am justified in destroying the house of my "seize on them for our relief, either secretly "neighbour, in order to preserve my own "or by open force, against the owner's consent. "house; and I may cut in two the ropes or "For the more clear and solid determination "cords amongst which any ship is driven, if" of which point, we think it necessary to "it cannot be otherwise disentangled. All" hint in short on the cause upon which dis"which exceptions are not made in the writ-"tinct properties were first introduced in the "ten law, but are presumed.-For the opinion" world; designing to examine them more at "has been acknowledged amongst divines," large in their proper place. Now the main "that, if any one, in such case of necessity, reason on which properties are founded, we "take from another person what is requisite" take to be these two; that the feuds and "for the preservation of his life, he does not" quarrels might be appeased which arose in "commit a theft. The meaning of which de the primitive communion of things, and that "finition is not, as many contend, that the" men might be put under a kind of neces"proprietor of the thing be bound to give to "sity of being industrious, every one being "the needy upon the principle of charity; to get his maintenance by his own application "but, that all things distinctly vested in pro- "and labour. This division, therefore, of "prietors ought to be regarded as such with "goods, was not made that every person a certain benign acknowledgment of the pri- " should sit idly brooding over the share of “mitive right. For if the original distribu- "wealth he had got, without assisting or serv"tors of things were questioned, as to what" ing his fellows; but that any one might they thought about this matter, they would "dispose of his things how he pleased; aud "reply what I have said. Necessity, says "if he thought fit to communicate them to "Father SENECA, the great excuse for human" others, he might, at least, be thus furnished "weakness, breaks every law; that is to say," with an opportunity of laying obligations on "human law, or law made after the manner "the rest of mankind. Hence, when proper"of man. "ties were once established, men obtained a 36. "But cautions ought to be bad, for power, not only of exercising commerce to "fear this license should be abused: of which" their mutual advantage and gain, but like"the principal is, to try, in every way, whe-wise of dispensing more largely in the works "ther the necessity can be avoided by any "of humanity and beneficence; whence their "other means; for instance, by making ap "diligence had procured them a greater share Iplication to the magistrate, or even by try- "of goods than others: whereas before, when ing whether the use of the thing can, by "all things lay in common, men could lend "entreaties, be obtained from the proprietor." one another no assistance but what was "PLATO permits water to be fetched from the" supplied by their corporeal ability, and "well of a neighbour upon this condition" could be charitable of nothing but of their "alone, that the person asking for such per- "strength. Further, such is the force of pro"mission shall dig in his own well in search "perty, that the proprietor hath a right of "of water as far as the chalk: and SOLON," delivering his goods with his own hands; "that he shall dig in his own well as far as "even such as he is obliged to give to others. "forty cubits. Upon which PLUTARCH adds," Whence it follows, that when one man has "that he judged that necessity was to be re- "anything owing from another, he is not pre"lieved, not laziness to be encouraged." "sently to seize on it at a venture, but ought 37. Such is the doctrine of this celebrated" to apply himself to the owner, desiring to civilian. Let us now hear PUFFENDORF; and," receive it from his disposal. Yet in case the "without reason, must the poor creature "starve in this miserable condition?" 66 "other party refuse thus to make good his obligation, the power and privilege of pro perty doth not reach so far as that the 39. Many other great foreign authorities "things may not be taken away without the might be referred to, and I cannot help men"owner's consent, either by the authority of the tioning COVARRUVIUS, who is spoken of by "magistrate in civil communities, or in a state JUDGE HALE, and who expresses himself of nature, by violence and hostile force. And upon the subject in these words: The "though in regard to bare natural right, for "reason why a man in extreme necessity, "a man to relieve another in extremity when may, without incurring the guilt of theft or "his goods, for which he himself hath not so" rapine, forcibly take the goods of others for "much occasion, he a duty obliging only" his present relief, is, because his condition "imperfectly, and not in the manner of a debt," renders all things common. For it is the "since it arises wholly from the virtue of ordinance and institution of nature itself, "humanity; yet there seems to be no reason "that inferior things should be designed and "why, by the additional force of a civil ordi- " directed to serve the necessities of men. "nance, it may not be turned into a strict Wherefore the division of goods after" and perfect obligation. And this Selden ob- "wards introduced into the world doth ❝ serves to have been done among the Jews; "not derogate from that precept of na"who, upon a man's refusing to give such tural reason, which suggests, that the alms as were proper for him, could force him" extreme wants of mankind may be in any "to it by an action at law. It is no wonder," manner removed by the use of tempotherefore, that they should forbid their poor," ral possessions." PUFFENDORF tells us, "on any account, to seize on the goods of "others, enjoining them to take only what "private persons, or the public officers, or "stewards of alms, should give them on their "petition. Whence the stealing of what was "another's, though upon extreme necessity, "passed in that state for theft or rapine. But 66 now supposing under another government the "like good provision is not made for persons in "want, supposing likewise that the covetous "temper of men of substance cannot be pre"vailed on to give relief, and that the needy "creature is not able, either by his work that PERESIUS maintains, that in case of extreme necessity, a man is compelled to the action, by a force which he cannot resist; and then, that the owner's consent may be presumed on, because humanity obliges him to succour those who are in distress. The same writer cites a passage from St. AMBROSE, one of the FATHERS of the church, which alleges that (in case of refusing to give to persons in extreme necessity) it is the person who retains the goods that is guilty of the act of wrong doing, for St.AMBROSE says, it is the bread of the hungry which you detain; it is the raiment of the naked which you lock up.' " or service, or by making sale of any "thing that he possesses, to assist his 66 present necessity, must he, therefore, pe“rish with famine? Or can any human inrities on the same side, let me again notice 40. Before I come to the English autho“stitution bind me with such a force that, in the foul dealing of Blackstone; let me point case another man neglects his duty towards me, I must rather die, than recede a little out another instance or two of the insincerity from the ordinary and regular way af act of this English court sycophant, who was, let "ing? We conceive, therefore, that such a the "good old king." You have seen, in it be noted, solicitor-general to the queen of person doth not contract the guilt of theft, “who happening, not through his own fauit, his perversion of Scriptures. He garbles the paragraph 25, a most flagrant instance of "to be in extreme want, either of necessary "food, or of clothes to preserve him from the of word God, and prefaces the garbling by "violence of the weather, and cannot obtain calling it a thing "certified by King Solomon "them from the voluntary gift of the rich, himself;" and this word certified he makes "either by urgent entreaties, or by offering use of just when he is about to begin the "somewhat equivalent in price, or by en- scandalous falsification of the text which he gaging to work it out, shall either forcibly is referring to. Never was anything more or privily relieve himself out of their ubun-base. But, the whole extent of the baseness "dance; especially if he do it with full in"tention to pay the value of them whenever "his better fortune gives him ability. Some "men deny that such a case of necessity as we speak of can possibly happen. But what "if a man should wander in a foreign land, "unknown, friendless, and in want, spoiled "of all he had by shipwreck, or by robbers, "or having lost by some casualty whatever "he was worth in his own country; should "none be found willing either to relieve his "distress, or to hire his service, or should "they rather (as it commonly happens), see"ing him in a good garb, suspect him to beg we have not yet seen; for BLACKSTONE had |