ntaries on the Laws of England." I will not treat this unprincipled
lawyer, this shocking court sycophant; I will not treat him as he has
treated King Solomon and the Holy Scriptures; I will not garble, misquote,
and belie him, as he garbled, misquoted, and belied them; I will give the
whole of the passage to which I allude, and which my readers may find in
the Fourth Book of his Commentaries. I request you to read it with great
attention; and to compare it, very carefully, with the passage that I have
quoted from SIR MATTHEW HALE, which you will find in paragraphs from 19 to
21 inclusive. The passage from BLACKSTONE is as follows:

35. "There is yet another case of necessity, which has occasioned great
speculation among the writers upon general law; viz., whether a man in
extreme want of food or clothing may justify stealing either, to relieve
his present necessities. And this both GROTIUS and PUFFENDORF, together
with _many other_ of the foreign jurists, hold in the affirmative;
maintaining by many ingenious, humane, and plausible reasons, that in such
cases the community of goods by a kind of tacit concession of society is
revived. And some even of our own lawyers have held the same; though it
seems to be an unwarranted doctrine, borrowed from the notions of some
civilians: at least it is now antiquated, the law of England admitting no
such excuse at present. And this its doctrine is agreeable not only to the
sentiments of many of the wisest ancients, particularly CICERO, who holds
that 'suum cuique incommodum ferendum est, potius quam de alterius
commodis detrahendum;' but also to the Jewish law, as certified by King
Solomon himself: 'If a thief steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry,
he shall restore seven-fold, and shall give all the substance of his
house:' 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 an adequate judge,
but the party himself who pleads them. In this country especially, there
would be a peculiar impropriety in admitting so dubious an excuse; for by
our laws such a sufficient provision is made for the poor by the power of
the civil magistrate, 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 strang