therefore, by common sense and the laws of England, as well as those of nature, to love himself better than his fellow-subject.  If two persons are cast away at sea, and get on a plank (a case put by Sir Francis Bacon), and the plank is insufficient to hold them both, the one has a right to push the other off to save himself.  The rules of the common law, therefore which authorize a man to preserve his own life at the expense of another’s, are not contradicted by any divine or moral law.  We talk of liberty and property, but if we cut up the law of self-defense, we cut up the foundations of both; and if we give up this, the rest is of very little value, and therefore this principle must be strictly attended to; for whatsoever the law pronounces in the case of these eight soldiers will be the law to other persons and after ages.  All the persons that have slain mankind in this country from the beginning to this day had better have been acquitted than that a wrong rule and precedent should be established.

I shall now read to you a few authorities on this subject of self-defense.  Foster, 273 (in the case of justifiable self-defense): 

“The injured party may repel force with force in defense of person, habitation, or property, against one who manifestly intendeth and endeavoreth with violence or surprise to commit a known felony upon either.  In these cases he is not obliged to retreat, but pursue his adversary till he finds himself out of danger; and a conflict between them he happeneth to kill, such killing is fiable.”

I must entreat you to consider the words of this authority.  The injured person may repel force by force against any who endeavoreth to commit any kind of felony on him or his.  Here the rule is, I have a right to stand on my own defense, if you intend to commit felony.  If any of the persons made an attack on these soldiers, with an intention to rob them, if it was but to take their hats feloniously, they had a right to kill them on the spot, and had no business to retreat.  If a robber meet me in the street and command me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking any questions.  If a person commit a bare assault on me, this will not justify killing; but if he assault me in such a manner as to discover an intention to kill me, I have a right to destroy him, that I may put it out of his power to kill me.  In the case you will have to consider, I do not know there was any attempt to steal from these persons; however, there were some persons concerned who would, probably enough, have stolen, if there had been anything to steal, and many were there who had no such disposition.  But this is not the point we aim at.  The question is, Are you satisfied the people made the attack in order to kill the soldiers?  If you are satisfied that the people, whoever they were, made that assault with a design to kill or maim the soldiers, this was such an assault as will justify