_pressed by hunger_.

30. 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 make 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, but thou shalt not put
any in thy vessel;" that is to say, that you should not go and make wine
in his vineyard and carry it away. Then in case of the corn, precisely the
same law is laid down. You may pluck with your _hand_; but not use the
_hook_ or a _sickle_. Nothing can be plainer than this: no distinction can
be 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.

31. 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_ on sea than on land. He does not attempt to reconcile
these liberties given by the Scripture, 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 execution_, which deprive everybody in England of the right to take
food and raiment in case of extreme necessity.

32. 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, seein