believe we shall not have it disputed that it would be lawful to go
into King Street and help an honest man there against the
press-master. We have many instances in the books which authorize
it.

Now, suppose you should have a jealousy in your minds that the
people who made this attack upon the sentry had nothing in their
intention more than to take him off his post, and that was
threatened by some. Suppose they intended to go a little further,
and tar and feather him, or to ride him (as the phrase is in
Hudibras), he would have had a good right to have stood upon his
defense--the defense of his liberty; and if he could not preserve
that without the hazard of his own life, he would have been
warranted in depriving those of life who were endeavoring to
deprive him of his. That is a point I would not give up for my
right hand--nay, for my life.

Well, I say, if the people did this, or if this was only their
intention, surely the officers and soldiers had a right to go to his
relief; and therefore they set out upon a lawful errand. They were,
therefore, a lawful assembly, if we only consider them as private
subjects and fellow-citizens, without regard to mutiny acts,
articles of war, or soldiers' oaths. A private person, or any number
of private persons, has a right to go to the assistance of a
fellow-subject in distress or danger of his life, when assaulted and
in danger from a few or a multitude.

(Keyl. 136): "If a man perceives another by force to be injuriously
treated, pressed, and restrained of his liberty, though the person
abused doth not complain or call for aid or assistance, and others,