Thomas Hobbes on Social Welfare

SUZUKI, YOSHINORI

Numerous studies have been made on the social and political thought of Thomas
Hobbes, but his thought on social welfare was not discussed until J.W. Seaman
in 1990.' Seaman criticises the interpretations of K. Thomas, W. Letwin, C. B.
Macpherson, J. M. Buchanan and G. S. Kavka,2 and tries to offer new interpre-
tations of Hobbes's views on welfare, and thus a different understanding of his
theory of social contract and of inalienable rights. Specifically, he takes note of
the two policies, "public charity" and "prevention of idleness" presented in the
thirtieth chapter of Leviathan, and tries to show that they were considered as the
means for peace based on natural laws.
Seaman's criticisms of preceding studies of Hobbes in this field are persua-
sive, but there are three deficiences in his arguments: first, he does not take into
account the implications of Hobbes's fourth natural law, "gratitude", which is
indispensable for understanding "charity", second, he does not discuss Hobbes's
thoughts on colonalization, which is also important for the present discussion;
and third, he neglects to compare Hobbes's views with those of his predeces-
sors.
This paper aims to clariy the characteristics and vitality of Hobbes's thought
on social welfare in relation to the basic structure of his political and economic
thought and those of his predecessors.

I.
As Seaman notes, it is under the title of "Publique Charity", in the thirtieth
chapter of Leviathan, that Hobbes discusses social welfare:
' J.W. Seaman,"Hobbes on Public
Charity & the Prevention of Idleness:A Liberal Case for
Welfare",Polity, vol. XXIII, no. (Fall 1990),pp. 105-26.
= K.Thomas,"The Social Origins of Hobbes' PoliticalThought", in Hobbes Studies, ed. K.C.
Brown (Oxford, 1965), pp. 186-236; W. Letwin, "The Economic Foundations of Hobbes'
Politics', in Hobbes and Rousseau:A Collectionof Critical Essays, ed. M. Cranstonand R.S.
Peters, ModernStudiesin Philosophy,gen. ed. A.O.Rorty(New York, 1972),pp. 143-64;C.B.
Macpherson,"Hobbes's Political Economy", in The Rise and Fall of EconomicJustice and
Other Papers, ed. Macpherson (Oxford, 1985), pp. 133-46; J.M. Buchanan, "A Hobbesian
Interpretationof the Rawlsian Difference Principle", Kyklos,vol. 29 (1976), pp. 5-25; G.S.
Kavka, Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory: Studies in Moral, Political and Legal
Philosophy,gen. ed. M. Cohen (Princeton, 1986), pp. 210-1.
46
 Whereas many men, by accident unevitable, become unable to maintain themselves
by their labour; they ought not to be left to the Charity of private persons; but to be
provided for, (as farforth as the necessities of Nature require,) by the Laws of the
Common-wealth. For as it is Uncharitablenesse in any man, to neglect the impotent;
so it is in the Soveraign of a Common-wealth, to expose them to the hazard of such
uncertain Charity.'

In this paragraph those who "become unable to maintain themselves by their

labour", "by accident unevitable" become "the impotent".4 In addition, at the
beginning of the next paragraph entitled "Prevention of Idlenesse" it is said that
"but for such as have strong bodies, the case is otherwise".' Considering these,
there is no doubt that it is the physically weak who are unable to work through
no fault of their own that are to be the object of "public charity" by the laws of
the commonwealth. By "Charity" Hobbes means "desire of good to another" in
common with "benevolence" as well as "good will".' It seems that "the neces-
sities of Nature" signifies the various commodities necessary to maintain each
man's "own life", which is "his own nature".'
According to Hobbes, "the People" "are to be taught by their Soveraign"
"this one Commandment of mutuall Charity; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thy .selfe", which means "the summe of the Second Table" of the
Commandments of Moses'; and this charity, which is one of "the Interiour
Beginnings of Voluntary Motions; commonly called the Passions"`' is a Law of
Nature like "Justice, Gratitude, Modesty, Equity, Mercy & the rest" which are
also "moral Vertues". "'
Furthermore, Hobbes thinks that "the honour of great Persons, is to be val-
ued for their beneficence, and the aydes they give to men of inferiour rank, or
not at all"." The reason lies in his view of man's power: "the Power of a Man,
(to take it Universally,) is his present means, to obtain some future apparent
Good". '2 That is to say, to Hobbes, possession which is one of the resources of

' Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed.

C.B.Macpherson (Harmondworth, Middlesex; Penguin
Classics, 1985),p. 387.
' Ibid.
° Ibid.
'Leviathan, p.123.
' lbid., p.189.
Ibid., pp.382-3.
Ibid., pp. 118 and 123.
'° Ibid.,pp.216 and 399.
" Ibid., pp. 385-6.
'2 Ibid.,p. 150.

47
beneficence and aid means "an argument and sign of Power"" as well as
"Instrumentall" power", i.e. possession is "Honourable".''
Here "the fourth Law of Nature", Gratitude, which depends on the
"Antecedent Grace, that is to say, Antecedent Free-gift" is conceived by Hobbes
as " a man which receiveth Benefit from another of meer Grace, Endeavour that
he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will"."
"For no man giveth, but with the intention of Good to himselfe; because Gift is
Voluntary; and of all Voluntary Acts, the Object is to every man his own
Good"."
Accordingly, what is expressed here by gratitude is not confined to mean
that merely those who have accepted some grace, express gratitude to its givers.
This is based on the following three reasons. First, egoistic elements in human
nature: Hobbes for instance, treats "covetousness" and "cruelty" as such in the
sixth chapter of Leviathan. There covetousness means "Desire of Riches" and
"men contending for them, are displeased with one anothers attaining them",'x
and cruelty is "Contempt, or little sense of the calamity of others (...) proceed-
ing from the Security of their own fortune". 19
Second, the character of the laws of nature according to Hobbes, which
"oblige in foro interno; that is to say, they bind to a desire they should take
place: but in foro externo; that is, to the putting them in act, not alwayes ( ... )."20
This is under the title of "The lawes of Nature oblige in Conscience alwayes, but
in Effect then onely when there is Security ".z' However, according to Hobbes
since "Ingratitude" as opposed to "Gratitude", lets men "remain still in the con-
dition of War; which is contrary to the first and Fundamental Law of Nature",
in order to preserve themselves they must observe its commandment: "to Seek
Peace".2z
Last, Hobbes's understanding of Christianity. According to Hobbes, the only
article of faith which Scripture makes necessary for salvation is that "JESUS IS
THE CHRIST"21; and the "Felicity God hath ordained" to those who "devoutly
honour him, a man shall no sooner know than enjoy; being joys, that now are as

" Ibid., 155.

p.
" Ibid., 150.
p.
" Ibid., 155.
p.
16Ibid.,
p.209.
" Ibid.
Leviathan,p. 123.
'9Ibid.,
p.126.
20Ibid.,
p.215.
21Ibid.
22Leviathan, 209.
p.
21Ibid.,
p.615.

48
incomprehensible".2-1 If these are held to be correct, gratitude means to Hobbes
that those who have accepted grace continue to express their gratitude, and if
possible, return, or at least do not give evil for good, to the people who offer it.
These views of Hobbes did not allow him to leave the impotent who were
unable to maintain themselves by their labour to private charity, "wittily termed
"uncertain Charity",2' because it meant that each man's own nature, that is to
say, life is put under the command of fortune. Therefore, Hobbes thought that
only Government support, i.e. social welfare, could ensure their existence. This,
according to him, is included in the office of the sovereign. Hobbes says at the
outset of the same thirtieth chapter of Leviathan: "The office of the
Sovereign(...) consisteth in (...) the procuration of the safety of the people; to
which he is obliged by the Law of Nature".26 Here safety is broadly understood
by him as "bare Preservation, but also all other Contentments of life, which
every man by lawfull Industry, without danger, or hurt to the commonwealth,
shall acquire to himselfe".1'
While Hobbes guarantees the product of lawful industry in Leviathan, he
admits the rentiers who have patrimony in his Cive.Z"Nevertheless, it seems to
me that he did not think their numbers were many in the light of the following
two points: that there is no such description in Leviathan itself, and his view that
makes great account of labour and industry.29
The law of nature which obliges the sovereign to procure the safety of the
people is understood by Hobbes as "a Precept, or generall Rule, found out by
Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life,
or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he
thinketh it may be best preserved"."' According to Hobbes, the laws of nature
"are those which have been Lawes from all Eternity; and are called not onely
Naturall, but also Morall Lawes"" and eternal." In short, "the Lawes of Nature
are Immutable and Eternall".ij
From where then do the expenses of social welfare for the physically weak

2-1Ibid., p.130.
C. Cantalupo, ALiterary Leviathan: ThomasHobbes'sMasterpiece of Language(Cranbury,
N .J . , 1 99 1 ) , p. 1 34 .
26Leviathan, 376.
p.
27Ibid.
28Hobbes, De Cive.-The Latin Version, ed. H. Warrender (Oxford, 1983; The Clarendon
Edition of the PhilosophicalWorks of Thomas Hobbes, vol. II), p.191 and De Cive-The
English Version(Oxford, 1983;PhilosophicalWorks,vol. III), p. 152.
2' Leviathan, 294-5.
pp.
10Ibid.,
p.189.
;' Ibid.,
p.330.
'2 Ibid.,p.337.
" Ibid.,
p.215.

49
come? They come according to Hobbes, from the taxes levied from the people.
Under the heading of "Equall Taxes" immediately before "Publique Charity" in
the same chapter of Leviathan we can see two noteworthy views of tax: firstly,
the taxes on the people are necessary expenses which enable the sovereign to
safeguard their labour indispensable to maintain their lives, in other words, the
wages for the works of his and his officers; secondly, there is no difference
between the costs of the defence of lives of the rich and the poor, but it is pos-
sible for the rich, who receive the service of the poor, to bear the taxes of the
latter's part." This view of Hobbes is grounded on his basic idea of equal tax:
"to Equall justice, appertaineth also the Equall imposition of Taxes; the Equality
whereof dependeth not on the Equality of riches, but on the Equality of the debt,
that every man oweth the Common wealth for his defence" .15This view is a sort
of progressive taxation. As Richard Tuck claims, Hobbes "argued against the
legitimacy of egalitarian taxation",'6 but this does not mean that he argued
against "income tax, preferring instead taxation on articles of consumption
Indeed goes on to Hobbes insistes that "which considered, the Equality of
Imposition, consisteth rather in the Equality of that which is consumed, than of
the riches of the persons that consume the same (...) when the Impositions, are
layd upon those things which men consume, every man payeth Equally for what
he useth: Nor is the Common-wealth defrauded, by the luxurious waste of pri-
vate men"."
But it seems to me these sentences should not be understood as showing that
Hobbes preferred "taxation on articles of consumption" to "income tax" as Tuck
has it, because Hobbes simply emphasizes that life is equally dear both to the
poor and the rich, and they equally owe to the commonwealth for their defence;
therefore, since they equally owe for their protection, they should pay equally
for what they consume or use. Consequently, this does not necessarily mean that
only consumption duty is legitimate. When Hobbes says that "the rich, who
have the service of the poor, may be debtors not onely for their own persons, but
for many more", he means that the rich may pay to the commonwealth instead
of the poor who serve them.
The sovereign's right to tax his people is connected with the character of the
"
property of the people. Hobbes writes: The Propriety which a subject hath in
his lands, consisteth in a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of them;
and not to exclude their Soveraign, be it an Assembly, or a Monarch";.19 "the

" Ibid.,
p.386.
" Ibid.
.16
R.Tuck, Hobbes (Oxford New York; Past Masters, 1989), p.72.
" Ibid.
18Leviathan,
pp.386-7.
.19
Ibid., p.297.

50
Distributor of the Materials of this Nourishment, is the constitution of Mine, and
Thine, and His; that is to say, in one word Propriety" belongs to him*. To sum
up, as mentioned in the eighteenth chapter "Of the Rights of Soveraignes by
Institution" of Leviathan as their seventh right, it is "the whole power of pre-
scribing the Rules, whereby every man know, what Goods he may enjoy and
what Actions he may do without being molested by any of his fellow
Subjects"," for the "Peace and Defence" or "Security" of them all, which is "the
End of this Institution"."
Therefore, in order to guarantee the safety of the physically weak, the sov-
ereign at his discretion can redistribute his subjects lands and levy taxes on
those who have more than they need, to maintain themselves and their families.
The sovereign, as Tuck understands, must always ensure all his subjects have at
least "the minimum necessary for survival".4'
Thus it is not correct when Macpherson says of Hobbes's thought in the first
and second paragraphs of the thirtieth chapter of Leviathan that "there is no
thought here of a Welfare State. It is thoroughly individualist"." Hobbes wrote
about "the safety of the people", meaning the preservation of their lives and all
other "Contentments", which they shall acquire by lawful industry :15

this is intended should be done (...) by a generall Providence, contained in publique

Instruction, both of Doctrine, and Example; and in the making, and executing of
good lawes (...)"-16.

As the heading for this paragraph ("By Instruction & Lawes") says, what we find
here are the procedures which ensure the people their "safety"; and furthermore,
Hobbes thinks its main enjoyers are workers, who form the major part of the peo-
ple, because he finds the cause of "the safety" of the people in lawful industry.
De Cive strengthens this interpretation. In the ninth section of the twelfth
chapter entitled "Of the internal causes, tending to the dissolution of any
Government" Hobbes says that "they who have no patrimony, must not onely
labour that they may live, but fight too, that they may labour

- 10 Ibid.,pp.295-6.
- itIbid.,
pp.228, 234.
- 12
Ibid., pp.232-3.
43Tuck, Hobbes, p . 7 1 .
.¡.¡
Macpherson,"Introduction" ,in Leviathan,p.48.
'" Leviathan,
p.376.

" De Cive-The English Version,p. 152; The Latin Version,p.91. But we must note that the
English version seems not to be written by Hobbes himself. Concerning this point see P
Milton, "Did Hobbes Translate De Cive?", History of Political Thought, vol. XI, Issue 4:
Hobbes Issue (Winter 1990),pp. 627-38.

51
 II
Hobbes insists at Prevention of Idlenessse, subsequent to Publique Charity
that the physically strong, when there is work for them, should be forcibly
engaged; and when they are lacking in work, employment should be created
officially
Such ideas as the protection of the socially weak and public compulsory
labour are also seen in Behemoth ( 1 668) where Hobbes says that most of the
poor would be able to lead a better life by working in Bridewell than by work-
ing for the merchants, whose job is their private interests." This standpoint of
the protection of the weak is unique to Hobbes, whereas the mercantile views of
compulsory labour in Bridewell advocated by his contemporaries generally
aimed at capitalistic creation of labour. 50
Why did Hobbes insist the physically strong should be compelled to work?
According to him, "the Passions that encline men to Peace, are Feare of death;
Desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a Hope by
their Industry to obtain them. And Reason suggesteth convenient Articles of
Peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement"." Here "commodious liv-
ing" includes the cultivation of the earth, navigation, the use of the commodi-
ties that may be imported by the sea, commodious buildings, instruments of
movement, the knowledge of the face of the earth, the account of time, arts, let-
ters and society, which are obtained by human industry. 52
Since passions like fear of death, desire of things necessary to commodious
life and hope by men's industry to obtain them incline people to peace, (and
"Reason suggesteth convenient Articles of Peace"';) industry and peace are
indispensable to human beings who do not desire the state of wild animals.
Therefore, the fact that those who have the ability to work do not work, in spite
of there being employment for them, means that they destroy peace and remain
in the state of wild animals.
In this same sense Seaman rightly says that these measures were conceived
by Hobbes for preventing internal strife.'4 However, it seems facile for him to
connect Hobbes's measures for preventing idleness with maintaining internal

'Leviathan, p.387.
- IY
Hobbes, Behemouth, or The Long Parliament, ed. F. Tönnies, 2nd ed. (Plymouth and
London, 1969), p.126.
5'Cf. C.B. Macpherson, The Political Theorvof PossessiveIndividualism:Hobbes to Locke
(Oxford New York, 1962, 1985 impression),p. 66.
01Leviathan,
p.188.
S2Ibid.,
p.186.
Ibid., p.188.
0-1Seaman,"Hobbes on Public Charity", p.l l l.

52
 even if Hobbes says that "the last remedy of all is Warre" at the end of
the paragraph entitled "Prevention of ldlenesse" .'6
If the number of unemployed who are physically strong has increased so
much that the Government cannot produce sufficient work for them domesti-
cally, colonial enterprize will be necessary. According to Hobbes "Plantations"
or "Colonies", which mean "the Procreation, or Children of a Common-wealth,
are numbers of men sent out from the Common-wealth, under a Conductor, or
Governour, to inhabit a Forraign Country, either formerly voyd of Inhabitants,
or made voyd then, by "When a colony is settled, they are either a
Common-wealth of themselves, discharged of their subjection to their
Soveraign that sent them (...) or else they remain united to their Metropolis";
and "the Right of Colonies (saving Honour, and League with their Metropolis,)
dependeth wholly on their Licence, or Letters, by which their Soveraign autho-
rised them to Plant"." Since "Leagues", which "are commonly made for mutu-
all defence", are connections of men by covenants"?, colonies automatically
enter into alliances with their mother country for mutual defence.
Two conditions are made to the choice of the area for colonization and the
administration of colony by Hobbes. He insists that colonization should be con-
ducted into non-populous countries, when the country is overpopulated; and
their inhabitants should be preserved, but they should be compelled to abandon
their hunting and collecting, and live together in order to work with art and
labour" This is liberal for his time; Hobbes's intention was to enable more peo-
ple to be preserved by efficient use of the limited land. However, did he think
that the colonizers had the right to compel the aborigines to change their
lifestyle? The basis for this lies in his view of the state of nature. Hobbes writes
under the heading "Out of Civil States, there is alwayes Warre of every one
against every one" in the thirteenth chapter of Leviathan as follows:

During the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe,
they are in that condition which is called Warre (...)".61

Hobbes thought that "in such a condition there is no place for Industry; because
the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the

55Ibid.,
p. I 1 0.
50Leviathan,
p.387.
-5'Ibid.,
p.30 1 .
Ibid., pp.301-2.
59Ibid.,
p.286.
Ibid., p.387.
Ibid., pp.185-6.
Ibid., p. 1 86.

53
Furthermore, he insists that "in such a Warre, nothing is Unjust" and "that there
be no Propriety, no Dominion (...)".'
Is there any area which is in such a state of war? If there is, where is it? To
Hobbes America at his time was in the condition of wae, which in modern
times seems onesided: some of the political arrangements were very sophisti-
cated. Another case is where the people are in a civil war." An example of this
state must have been England, Hobbes's mother country, during the time of the
Civil War, which he had shortly before experienced. Finding the highest value
in human life is not only seen here, but is also found in Hobbes's views of crime
and warfare. First, concerning the crime which is committed in order to main-
tain life he claims: "when a man is destitute of food, or other things necessary
for his life, and cannot preserve himselfe any other way, but by some fact
against the Law, (...) he is totally Excused"." Because, according to Hobbes no
law can obligate a man to abandon his own preservation; even if such law is
postulated to be obligatory, if he observes it, he will die soon; if he does not, he
will die later, therefore by not observing it, time of life is gained; "nature there-
fore compells him to the fact".6' The one is the acquittal of the violators of oth-
ers' property within a country, the other is the use of land in other countries; and
the former is a crime, the latter is the demand of nature. The difference between
the two derives from whether there is mutual power or not, but they are com-
mon in that both are indispensable deeds for self-preservation.
Second, Hobbes's avoidance of hopeless battles can be explained in the
same way. He thought it just that "a very small company of souldiers, surprised
by an army, may cast down their armes, and demand quarter, or run away, rather
than be put to the sword".68 Hobbes even allows people to serve their enemies,
when they have "no other way to preserve" themselves.6"
This change of the objects of subjection in wartime means a sort of contract
between a sovereign and a subject, who was previously under another one,
based on the present condition of guaranteeing the latter's life and bodily liber-
ty. The basis for legitimacy is shown under the heading "In what Cases Subjects
are absolved of their obedience to their Soveraign" in the same twenty-first
chapter of Leviathan: "the Obligation of Subjects to the Soveraign, is under-
stood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth, by which he is able
to protect them (...)".'°
11Ibid.,
p.188.
Ibid., p. 1 87.
Ibid.
óóLeviathan,
p.346.
6' Ibid.,
pp.345-6.
Ibid., p.257.
' Ibid.,
pp.272-3.
'° Ibid.,
p.272.

54
 In short, Hobbes thought that man's right to protect himself transcended all
obligations to his sovereign.
More broadly, Hobbes generally permits deserters from battles. He argues at
the part of the heading "Nor to warfare, unlesse they voluntarily undertake it"
in the twenty-first chapter of Leviathan: "When armies fight, there is on one
side, or both, a running away; yet when they do it not out of trechery, but fear,
they are not esteemed to do it unjustly, but dishonourably"." Therefore, there is
allowance to be made for natural, timorousnesse, not onely to women, (of whom
such dangerous duty is expected,) but also to men of feminine courage".72
However, "he that inrowleth himselfe a Soldier, or taketh imprest mony,
taketh away the excuse of a timorous nature; and is obliged, not onely to go to
the battle, but also not to run from it, without his Captaines leave"." Hobbes
gives no reason, but it is not difficult to guess that both deeds are expressions of
his will to fight in the field, thus a sort of contract with his Government. Hobbes
writes about covenant; "where no Covenant hath preceded, there hath no Right
been transferred, and every man has right to every thing; and consequently, no
action can be Unjust. But when a Covenant is made, then to break it is Unjust
(...)"7-1.Furthermore, for instance when a man is commanded to fight against the
enemy as a soldier, if he substitutes a well-qualified soldier in his place, "though
his Soveraign have right enough to punish his refusall with death, may never-
thelesse in many cases refuse, without Injustice", "in this case he deserteth not
the service of the Common-wealth".7' To Hobbes "to avoyd battell, is not
Injustice, but Cowardise".7ó We can see here that he approved the difference of
services for persons who are able to send substitute soldiers. This is legitimated
by him as follows: "our refusal to obey, frustrates the End for which the
Soveraign was ordained; then there is no Liberty to refuse: otherwise the is"."
Therefore, "when the Defence of the Common-wealth, requireth at once the
help of all that are able to bear Arms, every one is obliged; because otherwise
the Institution of the Common-wealth, which they have not the purpose, or
courage to preserve, was in vain."."
But the weaker would have more possibility to lose their lives. Considering
Hobbes's fundamental thought of equality of life embodied in his second law of
nature in the fourteenth chapter of Leviathan,'9 this seems to be contradiction.
" Ibid.,
p.270.
72Ibid.
" Ibid.
7-1
Leviathan,p.202.
" Ibid.,
p.269.
76Ibid.,
p.270.
"Ibid. p.269.
78Ibid.,
p.270.
79 Ibid.,p.190.

55
 III
In order to clarify Hobbes's thought on social welfare, we must make fuller
research into his ideas concerning the commonwealth. According to Hobbes,
"NATURE hath made men so equall in the faculties of body, and mind";%"and
from "this equality of ability" arises diffidence, and from "this difference of one
another" In the state of war, which is the natural state of men, "there is no
place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain (...) and which is the
worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man,
solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and
He thinks that every man has the right of nature; which is "the Liberty (...)
to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the preservation of his own
Nature; that is to say, of his own Judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to
be the aptest means thereunto"."` More specifically, "in such a condition, every
man has a right to every thing; even to one anothers body (...)"". Indeed Hobbes
states: "as private Appetite is the measure of Good, and Evill: and consequent-
ly all men agree on this, that Peace is Good, and therefore also the way, or
means of Peace, which are Justice, Gratitude, Modesty, Equity, Mercy, & the
rest of the Laws of Nature, are good; that is to say, Morall Vertues; and their
contrarie Uices, But, according to Hobbes, in order that these moral
virtues might have virtual effect conditions have to be filled: "the Laws of
Nature (...) of themselves, without the terror of some Power, to cause them to be
observed, are contrary to our naturall Passions (...)".xó Therefore, Hobbes
thought that the power of commonwealth is necessary and inevitable for secur-
ing safety for everyone."' According to Hobbes:

A Commonwealth is said to be Instituted, when a Multitude of men do Agree, and

Covenant, every one, with every one, that to whatsoever Man, or Assembly of Men,
shall be given by the major part, the Right to Present the Person of them all, (that is
to say, to be their Representative;) every one, as well he that Voted for it, as he that
Voted against it, shall Authorise all the Actions and judgements, of that Man, or
Assembly of men, in the same manner, as if they were his own, to the end, to live
peaceably amongst themselves, and be protected against other men."

"' Ibid.,
pp.184-5.
Ibid., pp. 186.
RJIbid.,
pp.189.
R-I
Ibid., pp.189-90.
Ibid., p.216.
pp.223-4.
" Ibid.,
p.223.
" Ibid.,
pp.228-9.

56
As one of all the rights and faculties of the sovereign of a commonwealth here
instituted, i.e. "the Multitude (...) united in one Person",89 he thinks there is " the
whole power of prescribing the Rules, whereby every man may know, what
Goods he may enjoy and what Actions he may doe, without being molested by
any of his fellow Subjects: And this is it men call Propriety (...)".9°
The contents of this property are not egoistic, because Hobbes considered it
was forbidden by the fifth law of nature, "Mutuall accommodation, or
Compleasence", that a person should want to have things not necessary to him,
but necessary to others."
He describes this in The Elements of Law in 1640: "it is also a law of nature,
That every man do help and endeavour to accommodate each other, as far as
may be without danger of their persons, and loss of their means, to maintain and
defend themselves";92 and this passion is "good will or CHARITY" which desire
to assist and advance others".91
According to Seaman, this fifth law of nature "can underwrite a redistribu-
tive welfare role for the sovereign broad enough to include the provision of
charity to the incapacitated poor and employment opportunities for the able-
bodied unemployed"," although Hobbes does not state so positively. However,
as it contributes to "the public peace", we can say that a sovereign has the right
to do so.
The same applies to "a Common-wealth by Aquisitior2" in which "the
Soveraign Power is acquired by plurality of voyces, for fear of death, or bonds,
do authorise all the actions of that Man, or Assembly, that hath their lives and
liberty in his As we saw before where taxes were discussed, if it is just
that on the rich who are being served by the poor heavier taxes should be levied
by the sovereign, it is natural for Hobbes to take some measures from the view-
point of "public charity" against those who have become unable to maintain
themselves by inevitable accidents.
When we compare his ideas with the poor law enacted in 1601 and the later
thoughts in the English revolutionary era, Hobbes's uniqueness becomes clear-
er. That is to say, this law placed the responsibility for the relief of the poor on
their parish, and had those who were unable to work housed in its workhouses
and those who could work set to work. In the background are Protestant ethics,
H9Ibid., p.227.
Ibid., pp.229, 234.
YIIbid.,
pp.209-10.
Hobbes, The Elements of Law,Natural and Politic, ed. FTönnies 2nd ed. (London, 1984),
p.85.
91Ibid.,
pp.44-5, 85.
Seaman,"Hobbes on Public Charity", p.112.
Leviathan,pp.251-2.

57
which understood poverty negatively. Poverty was thought to be the result of
laziness and proof of the poor not being redeemed, and charity was blamed as
aggravating laziness. The mood in the Caroline period was no different." But,
Hobbes's thought is different from this. Indeed he thinks that "Riches, are
Honourable; for they are Power. Poverty, Dishonourable"." However, he not
only advised public charity, but proposed to create opportunities to work and to
colonize as national enterprizes. In this sense, Hobbes correctly understood the
situation in which the weak were put.
Interesting is a comparison of his thought and John Locke's, who was about
a generation after him. Locke writes in the sixth chapter entitled "Of Paternal
Power" of Two Treatises of Government: a child is to be governed "by his
Father's understanding" "till he hath it of his own", and "Lunaticks and Ideots
are never set free from the Government of their Parents".98 According to Locke,
this is nothing but "that Duty, which God and Nature has laid on Man as well as
other creatures, to preserve their Off-spring, till they can be able to shift for
themselves."`'9. We can guess that this protection of children by their parents
applies to the handicapped who lack physical power of labour.
In addition, Locke states later in the same chapter: "A Man may owe honour
and respect to an ancient, or wise Man; defence to his Child or Friend; relief and
support to the Distressed; and gratitude to a Benefactor, to such a degree, that
all he has, all he can do, cannot sufficiently pay it!".'"" If private support to "the
distressed" has its own limit, it would be reasonable to think public support. But
Locke himself does not directly refer to public support. Nevertheless, since the
chief purpose of estabilishing a political society for Locke is the preservation of
men's property, i.e. "the mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties and
Estates","" we can guess public support is included in his thought. The fact that
he also attaches great importance to the gratitude to benefactors 102at the same
time, which Hobbes thought to depend on preceding grace, strengthens this
interpretation.
However, according to Locke there exists an order of priority about who are
to be preserved. He maintains that "by the Fundamental Law of Nature, Man
being to be preserved, as much as possible, when all cannot be preserv'd the

For example,W.K.Jordan, Philanthrophyin England, 1480-1660:A Studyof the Changing

Pattern of EnglishSocial Aspirations (Westport,Conn., 1978; repr. of the 1959 ed.), p.205.
" Leviathan,
p.155.
9RJohn Locke, Two Treatises Government,ed. P. Laslett, 2nd ed.
of (Cambridge, 1960, repr.
1990) ,p.326.
11Ibid.
TwoTreatisesof Government,p.332.
'°' Ibid.,
pp.368-9.
'°? Seealso ibid., p.331.

58
safety of the Innocent is to be preferred.""'. A similar thought is also seen in
Thomas More's Utopia.'°? Unlike Hobbes, Locke thinks that morality is very
important for the preservation of human being (even in the state of war).
Furthermore, to Hobbes "when all the world is overcharged with Inhabitants,
then the last remedy of all is Warre; which provideth for every man, by Victory,
or Death". 10';This state of affairs transcends Locke's forecast.'°6

IV
The above argument enables us to conclude that Hobbes's thought on social
welfare is innovative compared with his predecessors in that he transcends both
private charities which were being practiced at that time and the social policy
administered under the poor law, and advocates that public Government should
ensure the right of preservation of all men by its enterprises as far as possible
from the viewpoint of the fundamental equality of man before nature. The wine-
skin in which the new wine is contained is old. But it is important that he does
not entrust the handicapped who have no power of labour to private charity, but
to the hand of the sovereign, or "public charity".
Of course there were ideas concerning social welfare before Hobbes, e.g.
those for relieving the socially weak were shown in the form of utopian thought
by More about 130 years before, and by Tommaso Campanella around half a
century before him. "" However, both of these gave priority to the old and male,
and therefore did not understand the essential equality of man. In comparison
with them Hobbes maintains that for the physically strong who have the power
of labour Government should provide the opportunity to work by undertaking
public enterprises and send them to other countries whose populations are small,
though the heading for this paragraph is traditional, i.e. "Prevention of
Idlenesse". It is important that these policies are also conceived not from moral
and religious standpoints like the English poor law at that time, but from the
viewpoint of each man's preservation and social peace.
There is no doubt that many of his thoughts are controversial many of this
throughts are controvensial. For instance, like Locke, Hobbes had insufficient
anthropological understanding of other nations and cultures, and was common-

10.' bid.,pp.296-7.
ed. E.Surtz, S.J.: and J.H. Hexter (The Yale Edition of the CompleteWorks of St.
Thomas More, vol. 4; New haven and London, 1965),pp.204-9.
"" Leviathan,
p.387.
" See TwoTreatiseson Gnvernrrcent,
pp.316-7.
""See e.g., Utopia,pp.238-9,60-3; TommasoCampanella,La Citt a del Sole Dialogo
: Poetico
The City of the Sun: A Political Dialogue, tr. Daniel J. Donno (BerkelyLos Angeles London,
1981), pp.66-7.

59
wealth- centric. In addition, in contrast to Locke, Hobbes did not have a strong
interest in and sufficient understanding of economy (which, indeed, sets limits
to the freedoms of the individual) despite attaching importance to internal
peace. However, the problem of how to attain freedom and peace has beeen, and
still is one of the most crucial problems three and a half centuries after Hobbes,
and his views on these matters are still stimulating.

Suzuki, Yoshinori
University of Kagoshima

60