Chapter The Personal Rule, 1629-40 of Age of Donne by History

[17. Hampden Case, 1635: John Hampden was a leading opponent of Charles I's government of England, particularly under the Personal Rule. He organised with other politically-minded men such as John Pym, the Earl of Warwick and Lord Saye and Sele, the Providence Island Company - which settled colonists in North America, the board meetings served as a forum to discuss the opposition to the King. It was from this group that Hampden and others agreed to challenge Charles's manipulation of Ship Money by refusing to pay when it was arbitrarily levied on inland counties in England from 1635. The government happened to select Hampden as the 'test case' to assert its power and authority. Though the judges' verdict found in favour of the Crown, the slim margin of victory (of twelve judges the decision was cast by 7:5) raised further doubts about the legality of Ship Money when it was levied in the manner Charles was using it - i.e. as a financial expedient to make up for the absence of Parliament and the pretence of a national emergency.]

The principal question was whether the king had ultimate power to declare a state of emergency and collect ship money, or if the common law protected against arbitrary demands by the king in the absence of parliamentary sanction. Five of the judges decided against the king, even though they knew Charles was likely to remove those who disagreed with him. In 1627, Sir Ranulph Crewe had been dismissed because he judged against the Forced Loan.

The prerogative courts of High Commission and Star Chamber were politically much more reliable for the Crown. The provision of justice was one of the monarch's most important duties. From the expectation of this, lack of confidence in Charles grew much from his willingness to allow, and indeed promotion of, the courts to become debased. Star Chamber gained further unpopularity because of the way in which Archbishop Laud exploited it to enforce resented religious reforms of the Caroline Church. In particular was the case of Prynne, Burton and Bastwick. The issue was not that they had been found guilty, but that such severe and degrading punishment had been inflicted upon gentlemen. The feeling in England was that arbitrary government under Charles' rule was growing. Another notorious case was the trial of the City of London for its failure to repopulate Londonderry. Here we see further example of Charles' ineptitude; the City was the first place the monarchy would look to for a substantial loan. This backfired on Charles in 1639 when he needed money to finance the Bishops' Wars - the City granted a mere £5,000 and refused to give any more.