7. But as _greediness_ is never at a loss for excuses for the hard-heartedness that it is always ready to practise, it is said, that _the whole of the rents_ of the land and the houses would not suffice for the purpose; that is to say, that if the poor rates were to be made so high as to leave the tenant no means of paying rent, even then some of the poor must go without a sufficiency of food. I have no doubt that, in particular instances, this would be the case. But for cases like this the LAW has amply provided; for, in every case of this sort, _adjoining parishes_ may be made to _assist_ the hard pressed parish; and if the pressure becomes severe on these adjoining parishes, those _next adjoining them_ may be made to assist; and thus the call upon adjoining parishes maybe extended till it reach _all over the county_. So good, so benignant, so wise, so foreseeing, and so effectual, is this, the very best of all our good old laws! This law or rather code of laws, distinguishes England from all the other countries in the world, _except the United States of America_, where, while hundreds of other English statutes have been abolished, this law has always remained in full force, this great law of mercy and humanity, which says, that _no human being that treads English ground shall perish for want of food and raiment_. For such poor persons as are _unable to work_, the law provides food and clothing; and it commands that _work_ shall be provided for such as are able to work, and _cannot otherwise get employment_. This law was passed more than _two hundred years_ ago. Many attempts have been made to _chip it away_, and some have been made to destroy it altogether; but it still exists, and every man who does not wish to see general desolation take place, will do his best to cause it to be duly and conscientiously executed.
8. Having now, my friends of Preston, stated what the law is, and also the reasons for its honest enforcement in the particular case immediately before us, I will next endeavour to show you that it is founded in the law of nature, and that, were it not for the provisions of this law, people would, according to the opinions of the greatest lawyers, have _a right_ to _take_ food and raiment sufficient to preserve them from perishing; and that _such taking_ would be neither _felony_ nor _larceny_. This is a matter of the greatest importance; it is a most momentous question; for if it be settled in the affirmative--if it be settled that it is _not felony, nor larceny,_ to take other men's goods without their assent, and even against their will, when such taking is absolutely necessary to the preservation of life, how great, how imperative, is the duty of affording, if possible, _that relief which will prevent such necessity_! In other words, how imperative it is on all overseers and justices to obey the law with alacrity; and how weak are those persons who look to "_grants_" and "_subscriptions_," to supply the place of the execution of this, the most important of all the laws that constitute the basis of English society! And if this question be settled in the affirmative; if we find the most learned of lawyers and most wise of men, maintaining the affirmative of this proposition; if we find them maintaining, that it is neither _felony_ nor _larceny_ to take food, in case of _extreme necessity_, though without the assent, and even against the will of the owner, what are we to think of those (and they are not few in number nor weak in power) who, animated with the savage soul of the Scotch _feelosophers_, would wholly abolish the poor-laws, or, at least, render them of little effect, and thereby constantly keep thousands exposed to this dire necessity!