by strict economy ordinary revenue proclamations prohibiting its extension, by virtue of which the householders in the great suburban districts were forced to pay three years' rental to the crown in order to save their houses from demolition.1 By the employment of such means as these, and by the practice of strict economy, the king, who, in 162930 had made peace with both France and Spain, was able during the six years' interval without a parliament that ended made equal to ordinary with the death of Lord Treasurer Portland in March, 1635, to budget; greatly reduce the debt, while the ordinary revenue was made nearly to equal the ordinary budget. It thus appeared that if peace was to continue, the crown could maintain itself without the aid of parliamentary subsidies. It was equally certain, however, that with the breaking out of hostilities, foreign or domestic, an appeal to the nation would become inevitable, unless Charles could find in the arsenal of the prerogative some new or dormant source of supply sufficiently fruitful to in 1634 Noy satisfy extraordinary demands. When, in 1634, war with the suggested Dutch became imminent, Noy, the attorney-general, suggested that a fleet could be equipped without a resort to parliament by a revival of the precedent through which the maritime counties and port towns had been compelled to provide ships for the war against Spain in 1626,3 a precedent which dated back to the very beginning of English taxation in pre-Norman times. that war could be carried on by ship writs only. The writs of 1626 limited to and maritime counties; In 1628, as heretofore explained, Charles resolved to widen the precedent of 1626 by levying ship-money as such upon all port towns counties, inland as well as maritime, and the writs for that purpose issued in February of that year were suspended only for the moment in the face of a popular opposition which it was Noy only not expedient to brave at that time. What Noy really proproposed to posed in 1634 was to revive the precedent of 1626, and in precedent; accordance therewith writs were issued October 20 of the year first named only to the authorities of the port towns and of 1 Cf. Fœdera, vol. xviii. pp. 33, 97. "The Treasury gained a hundred thousand pounds by this clever stroke, and Charles gained the bitter enmity of the great city whose strength and resources were fatal to him in the coming war." — Green, Hist. of the Eng. People, vol. iii. p. 146. 2 See the comparative statement of revenue and expenditure in the Appendix to Gardiner, vol. x. p. 222, 223.. Ibid., vol. vii. p. 356. Noy died August 10, 1634, before the writs were issued, and Sir Edward Coke died on the 3d of the next month. 4 See above, p. 265. purpose for places along the coast, commanding them to provide a given. number and kind of ships, which were to be brought to Portsmouth by the 1st of March, and authorizing them at the same time to assess the places in question for a sum sufficient to provide for the fitting out and maintenance of the ships and their crews during a period of six months.1 The real purpose the real for which the fleet was to be used was to reassert England's which the claim of sovereignty over the narrow seas against the growing be used; maritime influence of the Dutch Republic and of France, a monstrous pretension put forward about that time in a book,2 by Sir John Borough, the keeper of the records of the Tower, who maintained that it had sometimes been acquiesced in by foreign nations at an earlier day. As reasons of state made it inexpedient to disclose the real purpose for which the ships were intended, the writs vaguely stated that they were needed the purpose to defend the realm against "certain thieves, pirates, and rob- the writs; bers of the sea, as well as Turks," who had combined to attack it. Some of the cities interested complained that the burden had been unequally adjusted, while London, which was called upon to bear one fifth of the whole demand, insisted that it should not have been imposed at all. But a sharp rebuke all oppofrom the council to the lord mayor at once broke down the rebuked by opposition of the capital, and so, as we are told by the Vene- the council; tian ambassador, "did this most important affair begin and end. If it does not altogether violate the laws of the realm, as some think it does, it is certainly repugnant to usage and to the forms hitherto observed." 4 stated in sition his inten extend While the ship writs of 1634 were thus confined to the port in June, towns and the maritime counties, they clearly asserted the the king 1635, general principle, first put forward in 1628, that "that charge announced of defence which concerneth all men ought to be supported tion to by all, as by the laws and customs of the kingdom of England ship writs hath been accustomed to be done." In accordance with that declaration Coventry, the lord keeper, in June of 1635, in a time of profound peace, announced to the judges of assize previous to their going on circuit, the king's intention to extend 1 For the form of the writ, see Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 257. 2 His book was entitled Sovereignty of the Sea. See Harl. MSS., 4314. 8 £20,688 out of 104,252. State Papers, cclxxvi. 8. 4 Correr's despatch, December 26, 1634. Ven. MSS., cited in Gardiner, vol. vii. p. 376. to inland counties; the new writs money in lieu of counties; to be enforced by process; "an supply of all occasions;" ship-money to the inland counties: "For since that all the kingdom is interested both in the honour, safety, and profit, it is just and reasonable that they should all put to their helping hands." 1 The new writs issued on the 4th of August were demanded therefore directed to the sheriffs of every county in England and Wales, commanding each to provide a warship for the ships of all king's service of a given tonnage and equipment; and along with each writ were sent instructions to the sheriff to levy upon his county instead of a ship, a given sum of money, the collection of which he was to enforce, if necessary, by compulsory compulsory process, in order that it might be promptly paid to the treasurer of the navy. From the terms of these writs it clearly appeared that they were not intended to meet any sudden emergency, but were to stand as a permanent source of taxation for war purposes; they were to be, as Clarendon tells us, "a spring and magazine that should have no bottom, and for an everlasting everlasting supply of all occasions." 3 This startling proposi tion to set aside the fundamental principle of the constitution, which declared that things for the common good of all must be provided for in parliament, by the common consent of all, was first resisted in the hundred of Bloxham, in Oxfordshire, where the chief constables replied to the sheriff's warrant that they had "no authority to assess or tax any man," nor did the warrant, in their judgment, give "them any power so to do." After similar difficulties had arisen in Essex and Devonshire, the judges the judges were consulted through Finch, in December, and they soon replied, in substance, that where the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, of which his majesty is the only judge, — there the charge of the defence ought to be borne by all the kingdom in general. Even in the face of such a declaration, Chambers the indomitable Chambers, who had so resolutely resisted the the matter payment of tonnage and poundage, appealed to the king's bench as a court for a formal judgment. But the judges refused even to permit the question of right to be argued, for the reason assigned by Berkeley, "that there was a rule of law and resisted first in Oxfordshire; gave answers favorable to the king; presents in the king's bench; 1 Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 294. 4 State Papers, Dom., cccii. 87, 90; 5 Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 355; Bramston's Autobiography (Camden Soc.), p. 66. See Gardiner, vol. vii. pp. 9294. refused to right to be ship writs sustained 1637; a rule of government, and that many things which might not judges be done by the rule of law might be done by the rule of gov- permit the ernment,"1- the jure divino doctrine announced in Bate's case. question of Thus encouraged and sustained by the servile judges, who had argued; before their eyes the fate of Coke and Crew, Charles, as a final indication that ship-money, which produced an annual income of more than £200,000, was to become a permanent tax, issued on October 9, 1636, another set of ship writs to all the the realm. In reply to this fresh demand it was that Danby, an of 1636; old servant of the crown, boldly advised the king, rather than assert such a claim so opposed to the fundamental laws of the kingdom, to summon a parliament.3 The only response was again a fresh appeal to the judges, who, in February, 1637, again by the answered more formally than before, in favor of the crown.4 judges in The time had now come when the constitution was to find a resolute defender, in the person of John Hampden, a gentle- John Hampden; man of the inland county of Buckingham, the bosom friend of Eliot and Pym, and a cousin of Oliver Cromwell, who was determined, no matter what the result should be, that the great question of ship-money should be argued in open court by famous advocates, who could thus be heard by the nation as a whole. With that end in view, Hampden resisted the pay- resisted ment of the 20 s. assessed on his lands at Great Missenden,5 payment, and when proceedings were instituted against him in the ex- demurred chequer for his refusal to pay, he appeared and demurred to writs in the the writ as insufficient in law. The issue thus fairly raised. was argued in November and December, 1637, for twelve days, case argued before a full bench, by Oliver St. John and Holborne for ber and Hampden, and by the attorney and solicitor-general on behalf December; of the crown. The essence of the argument made for Hamp- essence den was that the sum in question was a tax imposed for the argument purpose of raising extraordinary revenue, which could not be against the levied except by parliament, whose exclusive right so to levy 1 Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 323. 2 Fœdera, vol. xx. p. 56. 3 Correr to the Doge, December 2; Ven. MSS., cited in Gardiner, vol. viii. p. 201. State Papers, Dom., cccxlvi. pp. 11, 14; Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 352. The answer of the judges was then recorded in the star chamber, in chancery, in the king's bench, common pleas, and exchequer, and an intimation was given 6 He was also assessed 31 s. 6 d. on to the exchequer ; in Novem of the writs; their validity sustained in 1638 by seven judges against five; the five held with ... had been confirmed by many statutes, notably by the Great Charter, De tallagio non concedendo, and the recent Petition of Right. The counter argument made for the crown was sustained by seven of the judges, who delivered their judg ments at intervals during the year 1638. Chief Justice Finch, in summing up the opinions of his brethren, said boldly that "Acts of parliament to take away his [the king's] royal power in the defence of his kingdom are void. . . . They are void acts of parliament to bind the king not to command the subjects, their persons and goods, and I say their money too, for no acts of parliament make any difference." 1 Of the five judges who sided with Hampden, three based their judgments only two of on purely technical grounds, leaving only two who held with him on the merits. Crooke, speaking in his behalf, said in Hampden plain words: "This writ is illegal, not being by authority of parliament. It is against the common law, as appears by the fact that it is the first since the Conquest sent to any inland town to prepare a ship."2 The practical effect of this judicial victory, which Charles won by the smallest majority possible, was to exalt Hampden into a national leader, who dared "on his own charge, to support the liberty and prosperity of the kingdom;" his case was no longer looked upon, as Clarendon tells us, "as the case of one man, but the case of the kingdom, nor as an imposition laid upon them by the king, but by the judges, which they thought themselves bound in conscience to the public justice not to submit to."3 The magistrates whom James and Charles had robbed of their sacred independence possessed no longer the power to convince the nation that their judgments were the law. on the merits; Hampden thus became a national leader. Charles' two great ministers; Wentworth as a leader of the popular party; Throughout the eleven years of personal rule during which Charles was driving the conciliar system on to its doom, he was zealously supported by two able ministers, who stood firmly by his side until first one and then the other was stricken down by "that two-handed engine at the door, ready to smite once, and smite no more." In the parliament of 1614 Sir Thomas Wentworth, a young Yorkshire gentleman of fortune, appeared for the first time as the representative of the great 1 R. v. Hampden (case of shipmoney), 13 Car. I. 1637, State Trials, vol. iii. pp. 825-1316. 2 See Denman's Broom's Const. Law, pp. 338–355; Thomas' Leading Cases in Const. Law, pp. 21, 22. 8 Hist. Rebellion, vol. i. p. 69 et seq. 4 Milton's Lycidas. |