by way of tax, for relieving the necessities
of the poor_. They had passed many acts before the FORTY-THIRD year of the
reign of this Queen Elizabeth; but these acts were all found to be
ineffectual, till, at last, in the forty-third year of the reign: of this
tyrannical Queen, and in the year of our Lord 1601, that famous act was
passed, which has been in force until this day; and which, as I said
before, is still in force, notwithstanding all the various attempts of
folly and cruelty to get rid of it.

16. Thus, then, the present poor-laws are _no new thing_. They are no
_gift_ to the working people. You hear the greedy landowners everlastingly
complaining against this law of QUEEN ELIZABETH. They pretend that it was
_an unfortunate_ law. They affect to regard it as a great INNOVATION,
seeing that no such law existed before; but, as I have shown, a better law
existed before, having the same object in view. I have shown, that the
"Reformation," as it is called, had sweeped away that which had been
secured to the poor by the Common Law, by the Canons of the Church, and by
ancient Acts of Parliament. There was _nothing new_, then, in the way of
benevolence towards the people, in this celebrated Act of Parliament of
the reign of QUEEN ELIZABETH; and the landowners would act wisely by
holding their tongues upon the subject; or, if they be too noisy, one may
look into their GRANTS, and see if we cannot find something THERE to keep
out the present parochial assessments.

17. Having now seen _the origin_ of the present poor-laws, and the justice
of their due execution, let us return to those authorities of which I was
speaking but now, and an examination into which will show the extreme
danger of listening to those projectors who would abolish the poor-laws;
that is to say, who would sweep away that provision which was established
in the reign of QUEEN ELIZABETH, from a conviction that it was absolutely
necessary to preserve the peace of the country and the lives of the
people. I observed before that there has been some difference of opinion
amongst lawyers as to the question, whether it be, or be not, _theft_, to
take without his consent and against his will, the victuals of another, in
order to prevent the taker from starving. SIR MATTHEW HALE and SIR WILLIAM
BLACKSTONE say that it _is theft_. I am now going to quote the several
authorities on both sides, and it will be necessary for me to indicate the
works which I quote