enable them coolly to talk of the "MERIT" of the
degraded creatures, who, amidst an abundance of food, amidst a
"_superabundance of food_," lie quietly down and receive the extreme
unction, and expire with hunger? Who, upon the face of the whole earth,
except these monsters, these ruffians by way of excellence; who, except
these, the most insolent and hard-hearted ruffians that ever lived, will
contend, or will dare to think, that there ought to be any force under
heaven to compel a man to lie down at the door of a baker's and butcher's
shop, and expire with hunger! The very nature of man makes him shudder at
the thought. There want no authorities; no appeal to law books; no
arguments; no questions of right or wrong: that same human nature that
tells me that I am not to cut my neighbour's throat, and drink his blood,
tells me that I am not to make him die at my feet by keeping from him food
or raiment of which I have more than I want for my own preservation.

48. Talk of barbarians, indeed; Talk of "_the dark_ and _barbarous ages_."
Why, even in the days of the DRUIDS, such barbarity as that of putting men
to death, or of punishing them for taking to relieve their hunger, was
never thought of. In the year 1811, the REV. PETER ROBERTS, A. M.
published a book, entitled COLLECTANEA CAMBRICA. In the first volume of
that book, there is an account of the laws of the ANCIENT BRITONS. Hume,
and other Scotchmen, would make us believe, that the ancient inhabitants
of this country were a set of savages, clothed in skins and the like. The
laws of this people were collected and put into writing, in the year 694
_before Christ_. The following extract from these laws shows, that the
moment civil society began to exist, that moment the law _took care that
people should not be starved to death_. That moment it took care, that
provision should be made for the destitute, or that, in cases of extreme
necessity, men were to preserve themselves from death by taking from those
who had to spare. The words of these laws (as applicable to our case)
given by Mr. ROBERTS, are as follows:--"There are three distinct kinds of
personal individual property, which cannot be shared with another, or
surrendered in payment of fine; viz., a wife, a child, and argyfrew. By
the word _argyfrew_ is meant, clothes, arms, or the implements of a lawful
calling. For without these a man has not the means of support, and it
would be _unjust_ in the law to _unman_ a man