Notes and Queries, Number 197, August 6, 1853 | Page 8

has been overlooked by MR.
COLLIER:
"Methinks, King Richard and myself should meet With no less terror
than the elements Of fire and water, when their thundering shock At
meeting tears the cloudy cheeks of heaven."
Commentary here is almost useless. Every one who has any capacity
for Shakspearian criticism must feel assured that Shakspeare wrote
cheek, and not heat.
The passage I have cited from Richard II. strongly reminds me of an

old lady whom I met last autumn on a tour through the Lakes of
Cumberland, &c.; and who, during a severe thunderstorm, expressed to
me her surprise at the pertinacity of the lightning, adding, "I should
think, Sir, that so much water in the heavens would have put all the fire
out."
C. MANSFIELD INGLEBY.
Birmingham.
The Case referred to by Shakspeare in Hamlet (Vol. vii., p. 550.).--
"If the water come to the man."--Shakspeare.
The argument Shakspeare referred to was that contained in Plowden's
Report of the case of Hales v. Petit, heard in the Court of Common
Pleas in the fifth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It was held that
though the wife of Sir James Hale, whose husband was felo-de-se,
became by survivorship the holder of a joint term for years, yet, on
office found, it should be forfeited on account of the act of the deceased
husband. The learned serjeants who were counsel for the defendant,
alleged that the forfeiture should have relation to the act done in the
party's lifetime, which was the cause of his death. "And upon this," they
said, "the parts of the act are to be considered." And Serjeant Walsh
said:
"The act consists of three parts. The first is the imagination, which is a
reflection or meditation of the mind, whether or no it is convenient for
him to destroy himself, and what way it can be done. The second is the
resolution, which is the determination of the mind to destroy himself,
and to do it in this or that particular way. The third is the perfection,
which is the execution of what the mind has resolved to do. And this
perfection consists of two parts, viz. the beginning and the end. The
beginning is the doing of the act which causes the death; and the end is
the death, which is only the sequel to the act. And of all the parts, the
doing of the act is the greatest in the judgment of our law, and it is, in
effect, the whole and the only part the law looks upon to be material.
For the imagination of the mind to do wrong, without an act done, is

not punishable in our law; neither is the resolution to do that wrong
which he does not, punishable; but the doing of the act is the only point
the law regards, for until the act is done it cannot be an offence to the
world, and when the act is done it is punishable. Then, here, the act
done by Sir James Hale, which is evil and the cause of his death, is the
throwing of himself into the water, and death is but a sequel thereof,
and this evil act ought some way to be punished. And if the forfeiture
shall not have relation to the doing of the act, then the act shall not be
punished at all, for inasmuch as the person who did the act is dead, his
person cannot be punished, and therefore there is no way else to punish
him but by the forfeiture of those things which were his own at the time
of the act done; and the act was done in his lifetime, and therefore the
forfeiture shall have relation to his lifetime, namely, to that time of his
life in which he did the act which took away his life."
And the judges, viz. Weston, Anthony Brown, and Lord Dyer, said:
"That the forfeiture shall have relation to the time of the original
offence committed, which was the cause of the death, and that was, the
throwing himself into the water, which was done in his lifetime, and
this act was felony."----"So that the felony is attributed to the act,
which act is always done by a living man and in his lifetime," as Brown
said; for he said, "Sir James Hale was dead, and how came he to his
death? It may be answered, By drowning. And who drowned him? Sir
James Hale. And when did he drown him? In his lifetime. So that Sir
James Hale being alive, caused Sir James Hale to die; and the act of the
living man was the death of the dead man. And then for this offence it
is reasonable to punish the living man who committed the offence,