er is, by the way, the strongest instance put by
Baron PUFFENDORF, and whereon he builds his principal arguments; which,
however they may hold upon the continent, where the parsimonious industry
of the natives orders every one to work or starve, yet must lose all their
weight and efficacy in England, where _charity is reduced to a system, and
interwoven in our very constitution_. Therefore, our laws ought by no
means to be taxed with being _unmerciful_, for denying this privilege to
the necessitous; especially when we consider, that the king, on the
representation of his ministers of justice, hath a power to soften the
law, and to extend mercy in cases of peculiar hardship. An advantage which
is wanting in many states, particularly those which are democratical: and
these have in its stead introduced and adopted, in the body of the law
itself, a multitude of circumstances tending to alleviate its rigour. But
the founders of our constitution thought it better to vest in the crown
the power of pardoning peculiar objects of compassion, than to countenance
and establish theft by one general undistinguishing law."

36. First of all, I beg you to observe, that this passage is merely _a
flagrant act of theft_, committed upon JUDGE HALE; next, you perceive,
that which I noticed in paragraph 28, a most base and impudent garbling of
the Scriptures. Next, you see, that BLACKSTONE, like HALE, comes, at last,
to the _poor-laws_; and tells us that to take other men's goods without
leave, is theft, _because_ "charity is here reduced to a system, and
interwoven in our very constitution." That is to say, to relieve the
necessitous; to prevent their suffering from want; completely to render
starvation impossible, makes a part of our very constitution. "THEREFORE,
our laws ought by no means to be taxed with being _unmerciful_ for denying
this privilege to the necessitous." Pray mark the word _therefore_. You
see, our laws, he says, are not to be taxed with being unmerciful in
deeming the necessitous taker _a thief_. And _why_ are they not to be
deemed unmerciful? BECAUSE the laws provide effectual relief for the
necessitous. It follows, then, of course, even according to BLACKSTONE
himself, that if the Constitution _had not_ provided this effectual relief
for the necessitous, then the laws _would have been unmerciful_ in deeming
the necessitous taker a thief.

37. But now let us hear what that GROTIUS and that PUFFENDORF say; let us
hear w