CHARLES I. judge, both of the danger, and when and how the same was to be prevented and avoided"." 1625-1649. Illegal taxation resisted by Chambers. Question for judicial determi of Hampden. - This being only an extra-judicial opinion, and a public appeal to the laws being the only visible resource against "lawless despotism," payment of the tax was resisted by a person of the name of Chambers, who instituted an action against the lord mayor for false imprisonment, the mayor having imprisoned Chambers, for refusing to pay the sum for which he had been assessed in the writ: a special justification by virtue of the king's writ was pleaded, but Mr. Justice Berkley decided that there was a rule of law and a rule of government; that many things which could not be done by the first rule, might be done by the other, and would not suffer any argument against the lawfulness of ship money*. Lord Say and Mr. Hampden were not deterred from endeanation in the case vouring to seek legal redress from this taxation, but the decision in the case of the latter proved, that law and justice were subverted. The question for judicial determination was, whether the king had a right, on his own allegation of public danger, to require an inland county to furnish ships, or a prescribed sum of money by way of commutation, for the defence of the kingdom? Reliance placed authority of the The irresistible authorities that were urged against the right of the crown, were the statutes "Confirmatio Chartarum" and "de Tallagio non concedendo" of 25 Edward I., the enactments and transactions respecting pecuniary impositions in the reign of Richard II., and lastly the "Petition of Right," by which taxation had been abrogated without consent of parliament';—but it was ceded that in case of actual invasion, or its immediate prospect, the rights of private men must yield to the safety of the whole; and then, not only the sovereign, but each man in respect of his neighbour, might lawfully do many things, which, under other circumstances, would be utterly illegal. The counsel for the crown relied upon the intrinsic absolute on the intrinsic authority of the king: in fact, that no limitation on the king's authority could exist but by the king's sufferance; and which principle was supported by the majority of the bench, Mr. crown. 32 Rushworth, 352-358. Biblioth. Regia, 246–250. 42 Rushworth, 253, 267. 5 Vide ante, 99, 105, 121, 126, 377. Finch, C. J., Jones, Berkley, Vernon, Crawley, Trevor, and Weston 1625-1649. Judgmentsof Mr. and Chief Jus tice Finch. Justice Vernon stating "that the king, pro bono publico, may CHARLES I. charge his subjects for the safety and defence of the kingdom, notwithstanding any act of parliament, and that a statute derogatory from the prerogative doth not bind the king; and Justice Vernon the king may dispense with any law in cases of necessity." Finch, C. J., a man of little learning, and less respectability, held, that, "no act of parliament, could bar a king of his regality, as that no lands should hold of him, or bar him of the allegiance of his subjects or the relative on his part, as trust and power to defend his people; therefore acts of parliament to take away his 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"." supported as elements of law by the judicial bench. "When ship money was transacted at the council board," Reasons of state says Lord Clarendon, "the people looked upon it as a work of that power they were all obliged to trust, and an effect of that foresight they were naturally to rely upon. Imminent necessity and public safety were convincing persuasions; and it might not seem of apparent ill consequence to them, that upon an emergent occasion the regal power should fill up an hiatus, or supply an impotency in the law. But when they saw in a court of law (that law that gave them title to, and possession of, all they had) reasons of state urged as elements of law— judges as sharp-sighted as secretaries of state, and in the mysteries of state; judgment of law grounded upon matter of fact of which there was neither inquiry nor proof, and no reason given for the payment of the thirty shillings in question but what included the estates of all the standers by, they had no reason to hope that the doctrine, or the promoters of it, would be contained within any bounds; and it is no wonder that they who had so little reason to be pleased with their own condition, were no less solicitous for, or apprehensive of, the inconvenience that might attend any alteration." gave judgment for the crown. Brampston, C. J., Davenport, C.B., pronounced for Hampden on technical grounds, but adhered to the majority on the principal question; Denham decided in favour of Hampden; Croke and Hutton unequivocally denied the alleged prerogative of the crown, and the lawfulness of the writ for ship money. 75 State Trials, 245, 255. 2 Rushworth, 480-600. 1 Clarendon, 69. 6 Lingard, 332. CHARLES I. 1625-1649. National indig nation excited at the conduct of the judges. The invasions on liberty had be as they were National indignation and desire of revenge were justly excited at such wilfully illegal decisions, and of which Archbishop Laud affords an illustration, who, in writing to Lord Wentworth, said, that Croke and Hutton had both gone against the king very sourly; "The accidents which have followed upon it already are these: first, the faction are grown very bold; secondly, the king's moneys come in a great deal more slowly than they did in former years, and that to a very considerable sum; thirdly, it puts thoughts into wise and moderate men's heads, which were better out; for they think if the judges, which are behind, do not their parts both exceeding well and thoroughly, it may much distemper this extraordinary and great service "." In fact, all existing records prove that the invasions of liberty come as avowed had become as avowed as they were profligate; the very semblance of justice, which is at least an homage to law, as hypocrisy is to virtue, had been despised, and despotism unmasked now raged in all its deformity. profligate. Causes which induced the summons of a parliament. Redress of na 10. The First Parliament in 1640. Although the king's expressed opinion, that "parliaments are like cats, they grow crust with age," was unchanged, yet the misfortunes which he had experienced in Scotland, the universal discontent of his subjects in England,—and his pecuniary necessities, compelled him, in 1640, after eleven years' intermission, to call another parliament. The House was composed of independent country gentletional grievances. men, who scorned a slavish dependance upon the court; instead, therefore, of taking notice of the king's complaints against Scotland, or his applications for supply, they entered upon the redress of national grievances; which were arranged under three heads, namely, innovations in religion,-invasions of private property,—and breaches of the privileges of parliament. Innovations in religion. 1. Under the first they enumerated all the charges made by the puritans against the archbishop, and complained of the 8 Croke, whose conduct on the bench on other political questions, was not without blemish, had resolved to give judgment for the king, but was withheld by his wife, who implored him not to sacrifice his conscience for fear of any danger or prejudice to his family, being content to suffer any misery with him, rather than be an occasion for him to violate his integrity. Whitelocke, 25. 2 Strafford Letters, 170. authority recently given to the convocation to make new, and CHARLES I. amend the old constitutions, an authority necessarily affecting the rights and liberties of the laity. 1625-1649. 2. The second comprised the monopolies granted by the Invasions of crown, the levy of ship money during so many years, the private property. enlargement of the royal forests, the charges laid on the counties during the late campaign,—and the vexatious prosecutions on account of the refusal to pay unwarrantable taxes, and of resistance to unlawful monopolies. liament. 3. They reckoned as breaches of privilege the command Breaches of the given by the king to the late speaker to adjourn the House privilege of parwithout its consent, and the attempts of the courts of law to punish the members for their behaviour in parliament :-on all these subjects it was resolved to solicit the opinion and co-operation of the lords'. The king having ineffectually applied to the House to consider the question of supply, solicited the intercession of the House of Lords, who advised the commons to render immediate pecuniary assistance,-which "advice" was by the commons voted a breach of privilege'. to abolish ship money. The crown offered to abolish "ship money," if twelve sub- The crown offers sidies, about 600,000l., were voted, payable in three years; to which it was answered, that by bargaining for the remission of that duty, the commons would, in a manner, ratify the authority by which it had been levied; at least, give encouragement for advancing new pretensions of a like nature, under the expectancy of resigning them on like advantageous conditions; particularly as the right of taxation had been recognised in a court of law as an inherent prerogative of the crown. commons committed. The king, despairing of receiving an adequate supply, and Members of the understanding that a vote would pass to destroy the revenue of "ship money," by which all opposition would be renewed to its levy, dissolved the parliament'; and the unconstitutional practice of committing to prison some of the leading members of the opposition, and searching their houses for papers, was adopted'. A declaration was issued by the crown, stating that the commons imitated the bad example of all their predecessors 1 Com. Journ. April 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 1640. 3 Rushworth, 1147. 6 Lingard, 368. 21 Clarendon, 134. +6 Hume, 355. 3 6 Hume, 352. 1 Clarendon, 138. 5 2 Hallam's Const. Hist. 125. Charles issues an explanatory de claration of his conduct. 1625-1649. CHARLES I. of late years,-in making continual encroachments on his authority,-in censuring his whole administration and conduct,-in discussing every circumstance of public government, —and in their indirect bargaining and contracting with their king for supply; as if nothing ought to be given him but what he should purchase, either by quitting somewhat of his royal prerogative, or by diminishing and lessening his standing revenue; and that these practices were contrary to the maxims of their ancestors, and were totally incompatible with monarchy. ACTS OF THE Enactment of canons. No person who had conscientiously entered could object to the et cetera oath. The convocation, notwithstanding the dissolution of parliament, continued to sit, and granted a supply to the king, from the spirituality; new canons were framed, in which it was enacted that every officiating minister should, on some one Sunday in every quarter, insist on the divine right of kings, and on their prerogatives, in which the power of taxing was indirectly implied; and that the day of the king's inauguration should be carefully observed. Severe enactments were also made against papists, Socinians, and all sectaries; an oath was imposed on the clergy, and the graduates in the universities, "to maintain the established government of the church by archbishops, bishops, deans, chapters, et cætera." No one who had conscientiously entered the ministry could object to the purport of this oath, and it was so worded that into the ministry by every untainted mind it might have been taken as honestly as it was meant. Nevertheless, an outcry was easily raised against it in those evil times, it being urged that the word "et cetera," which saved a needless enumeration of offices, covered some insidious meaning, and therefore it was branded with the name of the "et cetera oath:"-but any clamour of this kind, which bids defiance to reason, is always favourable to the views of faction". Members of the convocation insulted. These ecclesiastical proceedings were considered so illegal, that the members of the convocation were insulted and abused, and obliged to be protected by guards: riots also occurred at St. Paul's, the populace exclaiming "No bishop, no high commission"." 6 Sparrow's Collection of Canons. Southey's Book of the Church, 448. 2 Short's Church Hist. 109. Dugdale, 65. Stat. 13 Charles II. c. 12. ? Southey's Book of the Church, 449. 8 1 Nalson, 542. Whitlocke, 33. Neal, 632. 9 Ibid. Dugdale, 65. 6 Hume, 356. |