sion is allayed, all may pity, but none can wholly justify him.

Laud acted with respect to the Church in the same manner as Strafford in regard to the State. Both were of an equally vehement temper, but Strafford knew very well what was at stake, and yet invited the decisive conflict in too great confidence in his own powers. Laud, who was of a less comprehensive mind, could not at all conceive how any reasonable objection could be made to his ideas and intentions, and though he was himself most obstinate, looked upon all contradiction as criminal obstinacy. He undoubtedly gave his attention to the restoration of the churches, to the appointment of able clergymen, the promotion of learning, and was in his personal concerns well meaning and blameless. But all these good qualities disappeared when he attempted and was called upon to govern, and yet understood nothing of the times and of the state, and looked at the Church in a wholly partial, and on that account more tyrannical point of view.(22)

A strange concurrence of circumstances, and a peculiar temper of many minds, at least, was required before before so poor and narrow a spirit could acquire such importance. It is true, indeed, as has often happened in our own days, that dexterity in employing certain political and

theological formula, easily learnt by rote, passed for an indisputable proof of extraordinary talents and infallible wisdom.

The relations of England with foreign powers had constantly decreased in importance since the death of Elizabeth. It was neither dangerous as an enemy nor important as a friend. If the King intended to govern without a Parliament, he must above all things put an end to the useless wars, which were prosecuted with little vigour. Accordingly peace was concluded with France in May 1629, and with Spain in November 1630, with less difficulty because Charles gave up the original purposes for which he had begun the wars. This, however, by no means put an end to his pecuniary em barrassments. As he was, however, convinced that he possessed the right of levying the taxes required for necessary expenses, as he had before told the Parliament (23) that if it longer delayed to employ its apparent right of granting money, the farce would be ended, he now proceeded in the course which he had before entered, and found in his counsellors, whose sentiments were as despotic as his own, willing instruments for his new resolutions.

Without any regard, therefore, to the petition of right, which was directly opposed to such measures, tonnage and poundage were levied, a tax on soap, salt, candles, wine, leather, coals, &c. imposed, and the Custom-house officers ordered even to search

houses (24) for goods which had not paid the duty. Each county was called upon, by an order of the Privy Council, to raise a certain sum for the subsistence of the troops, and the intolerant laws against the Roman Catholics were suspended, not from a christian feeling, but for payment in money. Besides this, innumerable monopolies were renewed, the holders of crown lands compelled to pay large sums, under the pretext that their titles were defective; money extorted on the strength of a law which never had been applied, from those who had for several years past settled in London; the Nobility were ordered under heavy penalties to leave the capital, and the ancient forest laws enforced. Whoever, appealing to the laws, refused to allow legal validity to new ordinances, was severely punished, and such extensive jurisdiction given to the Star Chamber, the Court of High Commission, and other extraordinary tribunals, that the usual administration of justice, in many respects, almost entirely ceased. The Star Chamber, in particular, which formerly had often protected the low against the powerful, had drawn upon itself the greatest odium, by the tyrannical spirit of the judges, and the gain which indirectly accrued to them. Thus, for the alleged unjust possession of royal forest lands, some individuals were fined as much as £20,000 sterling. The most general complaints,

of

however, arose, when the King, for the purpose equipping a fleet, as it was said, ordered ship money to be paid through the whole kingdom. In justification of this measure, it was stated, among other grounds, that, according to ancient documents discovered in the Tower, such a tax had been imposed by the Kings as far back as the time of the Danish invasions of England. But a reference to so ancient and obsolete a practice, could the less avail at the moment, because it appeared that since the time of Henry V. a new grant of ship money had been regularly made to every King, and only for his own life. As there was, however, no obligation, no compulsory duty to pay the tax, and James I. and Charles had arbitrarily increased the amount, Charles's first Parliament wished to grant that tax, like most of the others, for one year only, but the Bill did not pass the House of Lords. Charles from that time levied ship money without a grant, by his own authority, and when the House of Commons was ready to remonstrate against this, it was prorogued, as we have already mentioned, on the 26th of June, 1628.

In order, however, to put an end to the objections and complaints on the propriety and legality of ship money, Charles proposed the question to the judges of the Star Chamber, who answered: "When the general good and the security of the kingdom are at stake, and the whole kingdom in

danger, your Majesty may command all your subjects to furnish a certain number of ships, with ammunition and provisions, and compel all who refuse to obey. Your Majesty alone, too, has to decide whether such danger exists, and when and how it is to be averted." This decision of the judges was everywhere published, and adopted by the authorities as the standard of their conduct.

Accordingly a payment of ten shillings was demanded of Mr. John Hampden, a gentleman in Buckinghamshire. The sum was so trifling, and Hampden such a mild, quiet man, that nobody doubted that he would rather pay it than subject himself to inconvenience. But Hampden was justly sensible that there are cases in human life, when even the most peaceably disposed must sacrifice his convenience, boldly meet approaching fate, and devote himself for the general good. After mature deliberation and consultation with the greatest lawyers, he refused to pay the tax, upon which proceedings were instituted against him in the Exchequer, and the trial commenced in the presence of all the twelve judges. After a very detailed statement of the arguments on both sides, two of the judges denied the right of the King to impose taxes by his own authority, three were in favour of Hampden, on account of defects in form, and seven declared him guilty.

The Court party rejoiced at this victory, whereas