uld be no security for
property, if it were laid open to the necessities of the indigent, of
which necessities _no man but the takers themselves could be the judge_.
He talks of a "strange insecurity;" but, upon my word, no insecurity could
be half so strange as this assertion of his own. BLACKSTONE has just the
same argument. "Nobody," says he, "would be a judge of the wants of the
taker, but the taker himself;" and BLACKSTONE, copying the very words of
HALE, talks of the "strange insecurity" arising from this cause. Now,
then, suppose a man to come into my house, and to take away a bit of
bacon. Suppose me to pursue him and seize him. He would tell me that he
was starving for want of food. I hope that the bare statement would induce
me, or any man in the world that I do call or ever have called my friend,
to let him go without further inquiry; but, if I chose to push the matter
further, there would be _the magistrate_. If he chose to commit the man,
would there not be a _jury_ and a _judge_ to receive evidence and to
ascertain _whether the extreme necessity existed or not_?

26. Aye, says Judge HALE; but I have another reason, a devilish deal
better than this, "and that is, the act of the 43d year of the reign of
QUEEN ELIZABETH!" Aye, my old boy, that is a thumping reason! "_Sufficient
provision_ is made for the supply of such necessities by _collections for
the poor_, and by the _power of the civil magistrate_." Aye, aye! that is
the reason; and, Mr. SIR MATTHEW HALE, there is _no other reason_, say
what you will about the matter. There stand the overseer and the civil
magistrate to take care that such necessities be provided for; and if they
did not stand there for that purpose, the law of nature would be revived
in behalf of the suffering creature.

27. 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 flagrant
sophistry on the part of HALE, that he could not find in his heart to send
it forth to the world without a qualifying observation; but even this
qualifying observation left