The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 06 (of 11) — Thomas Hobbes — John Shaqi
The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 06 (of 11)
Thomas Hobbes · en
_P._ This is not so distinguished by any statute, but is the
_common-law_ only of Sir Edward Coke. I believe not a word of it. If a
boy be robbing an appletree, and falleth thence upon a man that stands
under it and breaks his neck, but by the same chance saveth his own
life, Sir Edward Coke, it seems, will have him hanged for it, as if he
had fallen of prepensed malice. All that can be called crime in this
business is but a simple trespass, to the damage perhaps of sixpence or
a shilling. I confess the trespass was an offence against the law, but
the falling was none, nor was it by the trespass but by the falling that
the man was slain; and as he ought to be quit of the killing, so he
ought to make restitution for the trespass. But I believe the cause of
Sir Edward Coke’s mistake was his not well understanding of Bracton,
whom he cites in the margin. For, fol. 120 b. lib. iii. cap. 4, he saith
thus: _Sed hic erit distinguendum, utrum quis dederit operam rei licitæ,
vel illicitæ; si illicitæ, ut si lapidem projiciebat quis versus locum
per quem consueverunt homines transitum facere, vel dum insequitur quis
equum vel bovem, et aliquis a bove vel equo percussus fuerit, et
hujusmodi, hoc imputatur ei_. That is: But here we are to distinguish
whether a man be upon a lawful or unlawful business; if an unlawful, as
he that throws a stone into a place where men use to pass; or if he
chase a horse or an ox, and thereby the man be stricken by the horse or
the ox; this shall be imputed to him. And it is most reasonable; for the
doing of such an unlawful act as is here meant, is a sufficient argument
of a felonious purpose, or at least a hope to kill somebody or other,
and he cared not whom, which is worse than to design the death of a
certain adversary, which nevertheless is murder. Also, on the contrary,
though the business a man is doing be lawful, and it chanceth sometimes
that a man be slain thereby, yet may such killing be felony. For if a
carman drive his cart through Cheapside in a throng of people, and
thereby he kill a man, though he bare him no malice, yet because he saw
there was very great danger, it may reasonably be inferred, that he
meant to adventure the killing of somebody or other, though not of him
that was killed.
_L._ He is a felon also that killeth himself voluntarily, and is called,
not only by common lawyers, but also in divers statute laws, _felo de
se_.
_P._ And it is well so; for names imposed by statutes are equivalent to
definitions. But I conceive not how any man can bear _animum felleum_,
or so much malice towards himself, as to hurt himself voluntarily, much
less to kill himself. For naturally and necessarily the intention of
every man aimeth at somewhat which is good to himself, and tendeth to
his preservation. And therefore, methinks, if he kill himself, it is to
be presumed that he is not _compos mentis_, but by some inward torment
or apprehension of somewhat worse than death, distracted.