heavily on the other subjects of the empire brought in contact with them. It will now be my business to show how this has worked in practice.
There is no principle which more honourably distinguishes the common law of England, than the humane caution with which it abstains, in almost all cases, from allowing an individual to take the law into his own hands to the extent of depriving another of life; self-defence, including the defence of a man's house and family, being the only plea, which, in the eye of the law, can justify homicide by a private individual; if, for instance, you see a murderer making his escape, a thief riding away with your horse, or driving away your cattle, you may, indeed, arrest him if you can, but if you fire at him and kill him you will be guilty of murder or manslaughter at least. This extreme strictness would no doubt have afforded protection to a great number of malefactors, had not means been taken to counteract this effect. In the simple times of our Saxon ancestors, whilst travelling was unfrequent, and the mode of transit difficult, it was esteemed a sufficient protection to society, that every Englishman should have a fixed habitation where he could be found, and made responsible for his acts, or in his default, that a certain member of the community should be answerable for him, and make reparation for his crime. Hence arose the vagrant laws, which have in modern times been frequently, and with justice, censured as cruel and oppressive, because inapplicable, but which were essential to complete the system of Saxon police, and to act, in a measure, as a counterpoise to the encouragement given to crime, by the protection afforded to the person of the offender though
