diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-06 10:27:55 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-06 10:27:55 -0800 |
| commit | 9f29a66f1fe464d501a29f94ab8b775519021227 (patch) | |
| tree | 1b65c8ed4e24284c454afbfc6111726f8547fab7 /old/53189-h/53189-h.htm | |
| parent | 7b8bcb7c46063aaf5d25fad73203b3025752278b (diff) | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old/53189-h/53189-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53189-h/53189-h.htm | 11620 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 11620 deletions
diff --git a/old/53189-h/53189-h.htm b/old/53189-h/53189-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 90c4225..0000000 --- a/old/53189-h/53189-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,11620 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> -<head> -<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> -<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The History of Parliamentary Taxation in England, by Shepard Ashman Morgan</title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; padding-left: 6em;} -div.limit {max-width: 35em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} - -.f1 {font: 1em "Old English Text MT", serif;} - - h1,h2,h3,h4 {text-align: center; clear: both;} - - -p {margin-top: 0.2em; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0em; text-indent: 1.5em;} -.pn {margin-top: 0.2em; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0em; text-indent: 0em;} -.pc {margin-top: 0.2em; text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0em; text-indent: 0em;} -.pc1 {margin-top: 1em; text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0em; text-indent: 0em;} -.pc2 {margin-top: 2em; text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0em; text-indent: 0em;} -.pc4 {margin-top: 4em; text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0em; text-indent: 0em;} -.pch {margin-top: 1.8em; margin-bottom: 2em; margin-bottom: 1.5em; font-size: 115%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em;} -.pni {margin-top: 0.5em; font-size: 90%; text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; text-indent: -1em;} -.pnii {margin-top: 0em; font-size: 90%; text-align: left; margin-left: 10%; text-indent: -1em;} -.pfn4 {margin-top: 1em; line-height: 0.9em; font-size: 90%; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0; text-indent: 0em; margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 1em;} -.pfc4 {margin-top: 0.2em; line-height: 0.9em; font-size: 90%; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0; text-indent: 1.2em; margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 1em;} -.pr {margin-top: 0.2em; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 0; text-indent: 0em;} -.pr2 {margin-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 2em; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 0; text-indent: 0em;} -.pr6 {margin-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 6em; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 0; text-indent: 0em;} -.ptn {margin-top: 0.3em; text-indent: -1em; margin-left: 2%;} - -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} - -.lmid {font-size: 110%;} -.mid {font-size: 125%;} -.large {font-size: 150%;} -.elarge {font-size: 175%;} -.xlarge {font-size: 200%;} - -hr {width: 33%; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em; margin-left: 33.5%; margin-right: 33.5%; clear: both;} -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} -hr.d1 {width: 95%; margin-left: 2.5%; margin-right: 2.5%; border: 2px solid; color: black;} - -table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} - - .tli {text-align: justify; font-size: 90%; line-height: 0.9em; vertical-align: top; padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em;} - .tlc {text-align: left; vertical-align: top; padding-left: 4em; text-indent: -4em;} - .trl {text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom; padding-left: 0.5em;} - .tch {text-align: center; font-size: 115%; padding-top: 0.7em;} - -#toc {width: 90%; line-height: 1em; margin-top: 1em;} - - -.pagenum { /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; left: 94%; color: gray; font-size: smaller; text-align: right; text-indent: 0em; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;} - -.sidenote {width: 6em; text-align: right; text-indent: 0em; line-height: 0.8em; padding-bottom: .2em; padding-top: .2em; - font-size: 90%; padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em; margin-left: -7em;float: left; clear: left; font-weight: bold; color: black;} - -.ln1 {position: absolute; text-align: right; top: auto; margin-left: -1em;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -.figcenter {margin: auto; text-align: center; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em;} - -.footnotes {border: dashed 1px; padding: 1em;} -.label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} -.fnanchor {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;} - -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; color: black; font-size:smaller; padding:0.5em; margin-bottom:5em; font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - - hr.full { width: 100%; - margin-top: 3em; - margin-bottom: 0em; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - height: 4px; - border-width: 4px 0 0 0; /* remove all borders except the top one */ - border-style: solid; - border-color: #000000; - clear: both; } - </style> -</head> -<body> -<h1>The Project Gutenberg eBook, The History of Parliamentary Taxation in -England, by Shepard Ashman Morgan</h1> -<p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States -and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no -restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it -under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this -eBook or online at <a -href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you are not -located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this ebook.</p> -<p>Title: The History of Parliamentary Taxation in England</p> -<p>Author: Shepard Ashman Morgan</p> -<p>Release Date: October 1, 2016 [eBook #53189]</p> -<p>Language: English</p> -<p>Character set encoding: UTF-8</p> -<p>***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF PARLIAMENTARY TAXATION IN ENGLAND***</p> -<p> </p> -<h4>E-text prepared by Giovanni Fini, deaurider,<br /> - and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team<br /> - (<a href="http://www.pgdp.net">http://www.pgdp.net</a>)<br /> - from page images generously made available by<br /> - Internet Archive<br /> - (<a href="https://archive.org">https://archive.org</a>)</h4> -<p> </p> -<table border="0" style="background-color: #ccccff;margin: 0 auto;" cellpadding="10"> - <tr> - <td valign="top"> - Note: - </td> - <td> - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - <a href="https://archive.org/details/historyofparliam00morgiala"> - https://archive.org/details/historyofparliam00morgiala</a> - </td> - </tr> -</table> -<p> </p> -<hr class="full" /> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> - -<div class="limit"> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/cover.jpg" width="350" height="529" alt="" /> -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i">[i]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p class="pc4 xlarge">THE HISTORY OF<br /> -PARLIAMENTARY TAXATION<br /> -IN ENGLAND</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii">[ii]</a></span></p> -<p> </p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[iii]</a></span></p> - -<p class="pc4 elarge f1"><b>Williams College</b></p> -<p class="pc large">DAVID A. WELLS PRIZE ESSAYS</p> - -<hr class="d1" /> - -<p class="pc2 elarge f1">Number 2</p> - -<h1 class="p2">THE HISTORY OF<br /> -PARLIAMENTARY TAXATION<br /> -IN ENGLAND</h1> - -<p class="pc4">BY</p> -<p class="pc1 mid">SHEPARD ASHMAN MORGAN, M.A.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/logo.jpg" width="200" height="217" - alt="" - title="" /> -</div> - -<p class="pc mid">PRINTED FOR THE<br /> -DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE<br /> -OF WILLIAMS COLLEGE<br /> -<span class="f1 lmid">By Moffat, Yard and Company, New York</span><br /> -1911</p> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iv" id="Page_iv">[iv]</a></span></p> -<p> </p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[v]</a></span></p> - -<p class="pc4 lmid"><span class="large">HENRY LOOMIS NELSON</span><br /> -OLIM<br /> -PRECEPTORI<br /> -D. D. D.<br /> -DISCIPULUS<br /> -HAUD IMMEMOR<br /> -<span class="large">S. A. M.</span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[vi]</a></span></p> -<p> </p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[vii]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<h2 class="p4">PREFACE</h2> - -<p class="p2"><span class="smcap">This</span> is the second volume in the series of -“David A. Wells Prize Essays” established -under the provisions of the bequest of the late -David A. Wells. The subject for competition -is announced in the spring of each year and -essays may be submitted by members of the -senior class in Williams College and by graduates -of not more than three years’ standing. -By the terms of the will of the founder the following -limitation is imposed: “No subject -shall be selected for competitive writing or investigation -and no essay shall be considered -which in any way advocates or defends the -spoliation of property under form or process -of law; or the restriction of Commerce in times -of peace by Legislation, except for moral or -sanitary purposes; or the enactment of usury -laws; or the impairment of contracts by the -debasement of coin; or the issue and use by -Government of irredeemable notes or promises -to pay intended to be used as currency and as -a substitute for money; or which defends the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[viii]</a></span> -endowment of such ‘paper,’ ‘notes’ and -‘promises to pay’ with the legal tender -quality.”</p> - -<p>The first essay, published in 1905, was -“The Contributions of the Landed Man to -Civil Liberty,” by Elwin Lawrence Page. -The subject of the following essay was announced -in 1906 by the late Henry Loomis -Nelson, then David A. Wells Professor of Political -Science. As first framed it read, “The -Origin and Growth of the Power of the English -National Council and Parliament to Levy -Taxes, from the Time of the Norman Conquest -to the Enactment of the Bill of Rights; -Together with a Statement of the Constitutional -Law of the United States Governing -Taxation.” Mr. Nelson subsequently eliminated -the last clause, thus restricting the field -of the essay to English Constitutional History. -The prize was awarded in 1907. Since the -death of Mr. Nelson in 1908, the task of editing -the successful essay has been given to the -undersigned in coöperation with the author.</p> - -<p>In publishing this volume occasion is taken -to state the purpose of the competition. Since -it is confined to students and graduates of a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[ix]</a></span> -college which offers no post-graduate instruction, -it is not intended to require original historical -research but rather to encourage a -thoughtful handling of problems in political -science.</p> - -<div class="mid"> -<p class="pr2"><span class="smcap">Theodore Clarke Smith</span>,</p> -<p class="pr6">J. Leland Miller Professor of</p> -<p class="pr">American History</p> -</div> - -<p class="pn"><span class="smcap">Williams College,</span></p> -<p><span class="smcap">Williamstown, Mass.</span>, December, 1910.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">[x]</a></span></p> -<p> </p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">[xi]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<h2 class="p4">INTRODUCTION</h2> - -<p class="p2"><span class="smcap">In</span> a chapter of Hall’s Chronicle having to do -with the mid-reign history of Henry VIII occurs -an instance of popular protest against -arbitrary taxation. The people are complaining -against the Commissions, says the Chronicler, -bodies appointed by the Crown to levy -taxes without consent of Parliament. “For -thei saied,” so goes the passage, “if men -should geue their goodes by a Commission, -then wer it worse than the taxes of Fraunce, -and so England should be bond and not free.” -Hall’s naïve statement is scarcely less than a -declaration of the axiomatic principle of politics -that self-taxation is an essential of self-government.</p> - -<p>Writers on the evolution of the taxing power -are inclined to go a step farther and believe -that the liberty of a nation can be gauged -most readily by the power of the people over -the public purse. With a view so extended a -narrative of the growth of popular control in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xii" id="Page_xii">[xii]</a></span> -England might easily expand into a history of -the English Constitution. In the present essay, -however, an effort has been made to exclude -all matters which were not of the strictest -pertinency to the subject in hand. Feudal -dues and incidents, the machinery of taxation, -the Exchequer, the forces accounting for the -shifting composition of the national assemblies, -these and other matters have been -treated of in outline rather than in detail, because -they appeared to lie beyond the scope of -this essay.</p> - -<p>Only two matters have been taken to be of -first rate importance,—the tax and the authority -by which it was laid. Taxation has -been construed broadly as being any contribution -levied by the government for its own support. -An endeavor has been made in each -instance to find out who or what the taxing -authority was, and whether the tax was laid -in accordance with it. Under the Normans -the taxing authority was unmistakably the -king, and by the Bill of Rights it lay as unmistakably -in Parliament, with the right of -initiation in the House of Commons. The -story of the shift from one position to the other<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiii" id="Page_xiii">[xiii]</a></span> -forms, of course, the major burden of the -essay.</p> - -<p>At the time when the subject was assigned, -the power of the House of Commons over -money bills had not been brought into question -for more than two centuries, and the first -drafts had been written and the prize awarded -before the Asquith ministry was confronted -with the problem of interference by the House -of Lords. At this writing the question has not -been settled. It has seemed advisable therefore -to leave the essay within the bounds originally -set for it, and what connection it has -with the events of 1909 and 1910 consists -chiefly in its consideration of the basic principles -involved in that struggle.</p> - -<p>To the late Henry Loomis Nelson, David -A. Wells Professor of Political Science in -Williams College, I owe the interest I have -had in the preparation of this book. It is an -outgrowth of his course in English Constitutional -history, and some of the interpretations -placed upon events are his interpretations. -His death intervened before the second draft -of the book was made, and the revisory work -had to be done without his suggestions. To<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiv" id="Page_xiv">[xiv]</a></span> -my friend, Dr. Theodore Clarke Smith, Professor -in Williams College, I am indebted for a -painstaking examination of the manuscript -and for much valuable advice in the work preliminary -to publication. Acknowledgments -in the footnotes to Bishop Stubbs, Mr. Medley, -Mr. Taswell-Langmead and many others -scarcely manifest my obligations. But the essay -throughout is based upon original authorities.</p> - -<p class="pr2"><span class="smcap">Shepard Ashman Morgan.</span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">New York</span>, December, 1910.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xv" id="Page_xv">[xv]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<h2 class="p4">CONTENTS</h2> - -<table id="toc" summary="cont"> - - <tr> - <td colspan="2" class="tch">CHAPTER I</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tlc"><span class="smcap">The Saxons: Customary Revenues and Extraordinary<br /> -Contributions</span></td> - <td class="trl"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tli">Evolutionary character of the English Constitution—Early -ideas of taxation amongst the Germans and Anglo-Saxons—Revenues -of the Anglo-Saxon kings—The Danegeld and -the authority for it—The Witenagemot and its powers.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td colspan="2" class="tch">CHAPTER II</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tlc"><span class="smcap">Feudal and Royal Taxation: The Norman and -the Angevin Kings, 1066-1215</span></td> - <td class="trl"><a href="#Page_12">12</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tli">William the Conqueror—His National Council and its part in -taxation—Domesday Survey—William Rufus—Henry I -and his Charter—Question of assent to taxation in the shire -moots and the National Council—Stephen—Henry II—His -controversy with Becket over the Sheriff’s Aid—Scutage—Theobald’s -complaint—Early step toward a tax on movables—The -Saladin Tithe and its assessment by juries of inquest—Richard -I—His ransom—The king the authority -for taxes—Refusal of Hugh of Lincoln—John—His scutages -a cause leading to Magna Carta—Inquest of Service—John’s -demand for a thirteenth of movables—Council at St. -Alban’s, 1213—Summons to Oxford—Magna Carta—Chapters -12 and 14—Advance toward Parliamentary taxation.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td colspan="2" class="tch">CHAPTER III</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tlc"><span class="smcap">The Custom of Parliamentary Grants, 1215-1272</span></td> - <td class="trl"><a href="#Page_71">71</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tli">Henry III—Reissues of the Charter—Assessment of a carucage -by the Council—Conditional Grants—Rejected offer of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xvi" id="Page_xvi">[xvi]</a></span>a disbursing commission—Supervision of expenditures—Representation -as it was in Henry’s National Council—Knights -of the shire called, 1254—Provisions of Oxford—Knights -of the shire summoned by Henry and Simon de -Montfort to national assemblies—In Parliament, 1264—Simon -de Montfort’s Great Parliament, 1265—First instance -of burgher representation—House of Commons foreshadowed.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td colspan="2" class="tch">CHAPTER IV</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tlc"><span class="smcap">Law of Parliamentary Taxation, 1272-1297</span></td> - <td class="trl"><a href="#Page_107">107</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tli">Edward I—His first Parliament and its grant of a custom on -wool—His second Parliament—Attendance of knights of -the shire declared “expedient”—Provincial assemblies at -Northampton and York grant taxes—Seizure of wool, 1294—Separate -meeting of knights of the shire—The Model -Parliament, 1295—“What affects all by all should be approved”—Parliament -of 1296—Struggle with the barons -over service in Gascony—Contumacy of Bohun and Bigod—Principle -that grants must wait upon redress of grievances—<i>Confirmatio -Cartarum</i>—<i>De tallagio non concedendo</i>.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td colspan="2" class="tch">CHAPTER V</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tlc"><span class="smcap">Taxation by the Commons, 1297-1461</span></td> - <td class="trl"><a href="#Page_154">154</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tli">Character of the period—Parliament of Lincoln—Tunnage -and poundage and other customs—Tallage—Edward II—Tentative -abolition of the New Customs—The Lords Ordainers—Abolition -of the New Customs—Tallage of 1312—Deposition -of Edward II—Edward III—Tallage of 1332 -and its withdrawal—New Customs a regular means of revenue—The -wool customs—Statutory abolition of the Maletolt -and of all unauthorized taxation—Parliament the sole -taxing authority in law—Checkered history of the wool -customs—Appropriation of Supplies—Examination of Accounts—Death -of Edward III—Separate sessions of the -houses—Richard II—Trouble over audit of accounts—Special -treasurers—The Rising of the Villeins—Richard’s -despotism and dethronement—Henry IV—Initiation of -tax levies in the House of Commons, 1407—Henry V—Henry -VI—Declaration for appropriation of supplies—Accession -of the Yorkists.</td> - </tr> - - - <tr> - <td colspan="2" class="tch">CHAPTER VI<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xvii" id="Page_xvii">[xvii]</a></span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tlc"><span class="smcap">Extra-Parliamentary Exaction, 1461-1603</span></td> - <td class="trl"><a href="#Page_213">213</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tli">Edward IV—Benevolences and forced loans—Richard III—Prohibition -of benevolences—The Tudors—Henry VII—The -“New-found Subsidy”—Morton’s Crotch—Early -taxation of Henry VIII—Cardinal Wolsey’s breach of privilege—Henry’s -commissions and benevolences—Forced -loans—Profits of the Reformation—Parliament the confirming -authority in clerical grants—Elizabeth—Liberality -of her Parliaments—Assertion by the commons of their -right to originate money bills.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td colspan="2" class="tch">CHAPTER VII</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tlc"><span class="smcap">The Stuarts, 1603-1689</span></td> - <td class="trl"><a href="#Page_236">236</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tli">Divine right as against Parliamentary supremacy—James I -dictates the composition of the House of Commons—Tunnage -and poundage for life—Royal poverty—The Bate -Case—Opinions of the Barons in the Bate Case—The position -of Parliament—The Book of Rates—Remonstrance -from the Commons—Cowel’s “Interpreter”—The Great -Contract—Petty extortion after the dissolution of Parliament—The -“Addled” Parliament—Case of Oliver St. John—James’s -Third Parliament—Delay of a supply pending -redress of grievances—Revival of impeachment by the -Commons—James’s last Parliament—Charles I—His early -Parliaments—Forced loans—Threats of non-Parliamentary -exaction—The Petition of Right—Omission of the customs—Tunnage -and poundage—Charles’s eleven years without -Parliament—His financial expedients—Ship Money—Extra-judicial -opinions—Hampden’s Case—Judgment for the -Crown—The Short Parliament—The Long Parliament—Royal -exaction of tunnage and poundage declared illegal—The -Ship Money Act—The Grand Remonstrance—The -Puritan Revolution—Charles II—Appropriation of Supplies—James -II—William and Mary—The Bill of Rights.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td> </td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="tlc"><span class="smcap">Index</span></td> - <td class="trl"><a href="#Page_309">309</a></td> - </tr> - -</table> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xviii" id="Page_xviii">[xviii]</a></span></p> -<p> </p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[1]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p class="pc4 xlarge">PARLIAMENTARY TAXATION</p> - -<h2 class="p4">I</h2> - -<p class="pch">THE SAXONS: CUSTOMARY REVENUES AND -EXTRAORDINARY CONTRIBUTIONS</p> - - -<div class="sidenote">Evolutionary -character -of the -English -Constitution</div> - -<p class="pn"><span class="smcap">The</span> English Constitution looks ever backward. -Precedent lies behind precedent, law -behind law, until fact shades off into legend -and that into a common beginning, the Germanic -character. Standing upon the eminence -of 1689, one sees the Petition of Right, -and then in deepening perspective, Confirmatio -Cartarum and Magna Carta. The crisis of -1215 points to the Charter of Henry I, and -behind that are the good laws of Edward the -Confessor. The Anglo-Saxon polity looks -back of the era of Alfred, to the times when -Hengist and Horsa were yet unborn, and the -German tribesmen were still living in their -forests beyond the Rhine without thinking -of migrating westward. And there, behind -the habits of those barbaric ancestors of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[2]</a></span> -Englishmen, lies the national character, the -Anglo-Saxon sense of right and wrong, of -loyalty, justice, and duty. The growth of -the English Constitution has been as subject -to the laws of evolution as the development -of man himself. The germ of national character -evolved habits of thought and action, -and these habits, or as they are better termed, -institutions, were beaten upon by conditions -and fused with the institutions of another -people, until at last they took on the shape of -free government.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Early ideas -of taxation</div> - -<p>An account of the advance toward the laying -of taxes by representatives of the people -must begin with some notice of the idea of -taxation which actuated the German tribesmen. -Tacitus writing of them as they were -at the beginning of the Second Century A. D. -makes this remark:<span class="sidenote">Amongst -the -Germans</span> “It is customary amongst -the states to bestow on the chiefs by voluntary -and individual contribution a present -of cattle or of fruits, which, while accepted as -a compliment, supplies their wants.”<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> Here, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span>then, is the earliest idea of a tax, a voluntary -contribution for the support of the <i>princeps</i>. -It was prompted by the essentially personal -relationship existent between people and chieftain, -the sense of attachment of the people to -the leader. Direct taxation laid by the <i>princeps</i> -upon the tribe, was as unknown in Germany -as it was foreign to the Germanic spirit.</p> - -<p>When the conquering Saxons, therefore, -swept westward across the German Ocean, -they carried with them scarcely more than a -semblance of taxation. Between men and -leader the personal relationship still subsisted, -but as time went on, the Anglo-Saxon king -became less the father of the people, and -more their lord.<span class="sidenote">Amongst -the Anglo-Saxons</span> Lord of the national land he -was as well, but he did not rule by reason of -that fact. The two claims upon popular support -were therefore distinct, the one as personal -leader, the other as lord of the national land; -and during the major part of the Anglo-Saxon -era they afforded a sufficient means -for the maintenance of the king and his government. -Until the moment of a supreme -emergency the king did not have to seek extraordinary -sources of income.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span></p> - -<p>As lord of the national land, the king had a -double source of revenue. The folkland, or -land subject to national regulation<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> and -<span class="sidenote">Revenue of -the Anglo-Saxon -kings</span> alienable only by the consent of the Witenagemot, -presented the king with its proceeds, -much of which went for the maintenance of -the royal armed retainers and servants. Deducible -from this right to the public lands, -was the claim of the king to tolls, duties, and -customs accruing from the harbors, landing-places, -and military roads of the realm, and -to treasure-trove. Aside from this, the king -was one of the largest private landowners in -the kingdom, and from it he derived rents and -profits which were disposable at will.</p> - -<p>The other sources of the royal revenue, -which at least in the beginning may be said -to have accrued to the king by reason of -personal obligation, were the military, the -judicial, and the police powers. By reason of -the military power vested in him, the king -could demand the services of all freemen to -fulfill the <i>trinoda necessitas</i>,—service in the -militia, repair of bridges, and the maintenance -of fortifications. Further, in accordance -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span>with the system of vassalage incident -to his military power, he had the right of -<i>heriot</i>,<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> according to which the armor of a -deceased vassal became the property of the -king. The judicial authority, also, was a -fruitful source of income; from it the king -adduced a right to property forfeited in consequence -of treason, theft, or similar crimes, -and to the fines which were payable upon -every breach of the law. The third great -power vested in the royal person was the -police control; under it the king turned to -account the privilege of market by reserving -to himself certain payments; also the protection -offered to Jews and merchants was -paid for, and the king pocketed the bulk of -the tribute. Beyond these,—and here we -have the analogy of the later royal claim to -purveyance,—the districts through which -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span>the king passed or those traversed by messengers -upon the king’s business, lay under -obligation to supply sustenance throughout -the extent of the royal sojourn.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Danegeld, -991</div> - -<p>It is apparent that an extraordinary occasion -had to arise before this large ordinary -revenue should prove to be inadequate to -meet all reasonable royal necessities. The -whole matter is shrouded in obscurity, yet -it is unlikely that this extraordinary occasion -arrived before the onslaught of the Danes. -There is no record of an earlier instance.</p> - -<p>It was in 991<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> that the Saxon army under -Brihtnoth, Ealdorman of the East Saxons, -suffered decisive defeat at the hands of Danish -pirates. King Ethelred the Unready -found himself at the mercy of foreign enemies, -and his only recourse was bribery. Under -this necessity, a levy<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> of £10,000 was made, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span>and secured momentary peace from the truculent -Danes. But it was only momentary; -they returned in 994 and took away £16,000. -They repeated, under various pretexts, their -profitable incursions in 1002, 1007, and 1011.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> -In 1012, having been bought off for the last -time, the Danes entered English pay, and the -Danegeld instead of being an extraordinary -charge, became a regularly recurrent tax. -It continued until 1051, when Edward the -Confessor succeeded in paying off the last of -the Danish ships.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> The chronicler<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> accounts -for the abolition of the Danegeld after the -manner of his time. Edward the Confessor, -so goes the story, entered his treasure-house -one day to find the Devil sitting amongst the -money bags. It so happened that the wealth -which was being thus guarded was that which -had accrued from a recent levy of the Danegeld. -To the pious Confessor the sight was -sufficient to demonstrate the evil of the tax -and he straightway abolished it.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Authority -for the -Danegeld</div> - -<p>But the history of the origin of the Danegeld -and the mythical tale of its abolition are -of trifling importance as compared with the -authority whereby the impost was laid. In -991 it was apparently the Witenagemot, -acting upon the advice of the Archbishop -Sigeric, which issued the decree levying the -tax.<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> Three years later it was “King Ethelred -by the advice of his chief men” who promised -the Danes tribute.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> Similarly in 1002, -1007, and 1011 it is Ethelred “cum consilio -primatum” who fixes the amount of money -to be raised.<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p> - -<p>The deduction is not hard to make: it was -at least usual if indeed it was not felt to be a -necessity for the king to take counsel with the -Witenagemot before he went about the preliminaries -of taxation. It is not unlikely, however, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>that in practice the assent of the Witan was -less or more of a formality varying according -to the weakness or strength of the king. A -strong king’s will would dominate the Witan, -whereas a weak king would be subservient to -its desires and interest.</p> - -<p>In order to arrive at a clear comprehension -of the taxing power of the Witan as compared -with that subsequently exercised by the English -Parliament, <span class="sidenote">The Witenagemot -and its -powers</span> it is essential that one understands -the make-up of the Anglo-Saxon body. -As its name implies, the Witan was an assembly -of the wise. Its organization was not -based upon the ownership of land, nor was -there any rule held to undeviatingly which prescribed -qualifications for membership. Generally -speaking it was composed of the king and -his family, who were known as the Athelings; -the national officers, both ecclesiastical and -civil, a group which included the bishops and -abbots, the ealdormen or chief men of the -shires, and the ministri or administrative officers; -and finally, the royal nominees, men -who are not comprehensible in the above -classes, but who recommended themselves -to the king by reason of unusual or expert<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span> -knowlege.<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> It is observable, then, that this -assembly was by the nature of its composition -aristocratic. That it was not representative -in the modern sense of the term is as readily -apparent. With certain restrictions the official -members—the bishops, ealdormen, the -ministri—were coöpted by the existing members, -while the remainder were either present -by right of birth or invited to attend by reason -of peculiar attainment. Nevertheless, the -Witenagemot was commonly believed to be -capable of expressing the national will. It -had the power of electing the king and the -complementary power of deposition, and exercised -every power of government, making -laws, administering them, adjudging cases -arising under them, and levying taxes for -the public need.<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p> - -<p>Such in brief was the body which in 991 -assented to the levy of the Danegeld. The -act was of great importance; by it the Witan -both exercised a right which was not to be -vindicated in its completeness for the space of -seven hundred years, but it laid a trap for -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span>those who, in the time of Charles the First, -should be struggling for the attainment of that -right, for in their action lay the precedent -which the Stuart lawyers should warp into a -pretext for the levy of ship-money.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<h2 class="p4">II</h2> - -<p class="pch">FEUDAL AND ROYAL TAXATION<br /> -THE NORMAN AND THE ANGEVIN KINGS<br /> -1066-1215</p> - - -<div class="sidenote">Character -of the -Norman -Rule</div> - -<p class="pn"><span class="smcap">Under</span> the Saxon kings the structure of government -was only half built. The foundation, -laid in the shire and hundred moots, -the townships, and the incidental organisms -of local government, was solid and capable -of upholding a heavy superstructure. But -the Saxons scarcely built further. They left -to the Norman kings, peculiarly fitted to -their work by temperament and habit, the -task of setting up a strong central government. -The price which the nation paid for it was -the loss of what right it had possessed of -assenting to taxation.</p> - -<p>During the whole period from the coming -of the Normans in 1066 to the signing of -Magna Carta in 1215 there can be brought -forward only two or three instances of assent -by the National Council to taxes levied by the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span> -king, and these few instances are at best -equivocal. They are insufficient to justify -the belief that the National Council had any -final power over the levying of taxation. But -the period is not altogether gray; it concludes -with the enunciation in Magna Carta of -rights which cast a halo of color over the whole -subsequent narrative of the struggle for parliamentary -taxation.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">William -the -Conqueror -1066-1087</div> - -<p>William the Conqueror was precisely the -man most likely to exercise supreme control -over taxation. Elected to the kingship according -to the Saxon forms and with his title to -the crown backed up by force of arms, he -created a system of government of which he -himself was the center and in which his -authority, even to the vassals of vassals, was -supreme.<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> With his thirst for power thus satisfied -he was given a free hand to indulge his -besetting sin of avarice. Small wonder was it -therefore that he clung to the revenues of his -predecessors and added new imposts of his -own.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span></p> - -<p>Nevertheless, notwithstanding the absolutist -character of the king, William retained -the theory and for the most part the form of -the Saxon Witan. Never, however, did the -Norman assemblies exercise independent legislative -or executive functions.<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> The holding -of land,<span class="sidenote">His -National -Council</span> - as a prerequisite to membership in -the National Council, was under William an -uncertain factor; the membership continued -to include, generally speaking, the same officers, -ecclesiastics, and nobles as composed -the Witenagemot. The powers of this assembly -were probably not great; at any rate, -the magnates of the period considered attendance -not as a right or a privilege or -even as an advantage, but merely as a necessary -duty toward the royal person. The king -consulted the magnates on almost every piece -of legislation, and stated in the subsequent -promulgation of the laws that he had obtained -their advice. But in the case of a strong king, -such as was the Conqueror, the consultation -must have been scarcely more than a statement -of the royal will and a formal acquiescence. -The holding of these assemblies -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span>took place at the crowning days of the king, -at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, generally -in London, Winchester, and Gloucester.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Its part -in taxation</div> - -<p>In the matter of taxation, it is probable as -in the case of other legislation that the Conqueror -advised with his Council, though the -evidence pointing toward such a conclusion -is entirely of a later date. But in so far as -practical advantage to the payers of the taxes -was concerned, the power might quite as -well have lain solely in the hands of the king; -if indeed the Conqueror did secure the assent -of the Council, it was no more than an instance -of his policy of adhering to the forms -of law while making the practices under it -serve his own purposes. The reimposition in -1084 of the Danegeld which William revived -as an occasional instead of a regular tax, is -not stated by the chronicler as receiving assent -from the Council; the king is said to have -“received six shillings from every hide.”<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> -Roger of Wendover’s Chronicle of the same -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span>year brands this exaction as an “extortion,”<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> -by which we are scarcely to understand a -tax granted in any modern sense by the chief -legislative body of the kingdom.<span class="sidenote">Instance of -the -Danegeld, -1084</span> The Saxon -Chronicler speaking of the same imposition -says, “The king caused a great and heavy -tax to be raised throughout England, even -seventy-two pence on every hide of land.”<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> -The amount of such an impost, if drawn from -two-thirds of the hidage of the kingdom, would -be a sum approximating £20,000.<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> It is unlikely -that an exaction of so great magnitude -could have been levied without the assent of -the Council if the Conqueror was under any -obligation to obtain their consent or even -their advice; and it is still more unlikely that -four chroniclers of the events of that year -should have let pass unnoted a vote of assent -if it had been passed by the National Council. -We are therefore to conclude that either the -Conqueror levied the tax without consulting -his Council at all, or that he did consult them, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span>and that their assent was of so formal and -valueless a nature as not to deserve notice -in the records of the year.<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Domesday -Survey, -1086</div> - -<p>The year 1086 witnessed the Domesday -Survey. By it William obtained a detailed -register of the land and its capacity for taxation. -To the administrative side of taxation -the Survey is of supreme importance, since -the valuation of land thus arrived at was -never entirely superseded as a definite and -fair basis for the laying of taxes; to the actual -granting of the tax, however, its importance -is of much less degree. In such light the interest -centers chiefly on the fact that representatives -were elected from every hundred -upon whose sworn depositions the information -that William wanted was obtained.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">William -Rufus, -1087-1100</div> - -<p>The unlucky thirteen years of the reign of -William Rufus, who succeeded to the throne -upon the death of the Conqueror in 1087, -are almost negligible in considering the progress -toward parliamentary taxation. William -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span> -Rufus, or more particularly his brilliant and -perverted justiciar, Ranulf Flambard, determined -upon the profitable program of getting -together as much money as possible by whatever -means seemed most convenient. In the -nature of things the church and the great -feudatories were the most available sources -for extortion and toward them Flambard -chiefly directed his energies. He did not, -however, overlook the Danegeld and he seems -to have levied it with perfect absolutism. The -chronicler Florence gives an instance of the -petty extortion which the justiciar practiced -upon the people. Flambard was in the habit -of enforcing military service from the shires. -On one occasion, so says Florence, he met the -array, informed the militiamen that there was -no necessity for their appearance, and then -proceeded to mulct them of the ten shillings -which their shires had given to each by way -of providing for their maintenance.<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> Against -plunderings of that sort the people were too -weak and too disunited to make resistance. -In such a reign, with one side unwilling to -progress and the other unable, it is apparent -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span>that no steps could be taken toward the granting -of taxes by a responsible body.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Henry I, -1100-1135</div> - -<p>The reign of Henry I is of greater importance, -not only because of the long forward -strides which the king and his justiciar Roger -of Salisbury took in the direction of judicial -and financial organization, but because we -find in the records of his time certain pieces -of evidence which seem to support the contention -that the Council gave some measure -of consent to taxation. The former is palpably -beyond the scope of this essay, but the -latter is more pertinent.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">His -Charter</div> - -<p>The first of these instances is the eleventh -section of the Charter of Liberties which -Henry I issued at the moment of his accession. -The significant passage is this: “To those -knights who hold their lands by the cuirass, -of my own gift I grant the lands of their -demesne ploughs free from all payments -and all labor.”<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> The king goes on to state -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span>the reason; it was “so they may readily provide -themselves with horses and arms for my -service and for the defense of my kingdom.” -The relief thus granted was by way of protection -against the extortionate demands which -Ranulf Flambard had laid upon the lands of -vassals in the time of William Rufus. But -Henry did not grant the liberty freely out of -hand. He appended the clause that for his -service and the defense of the kingdom, the -vassals should supply themselves with horses -and arms. Thus remotely and in effect -rather than in fact did the Charter touch upon -taxation. It contained no reference to assent -by the vassals, either individually or in the -National Council. In accordance with the -feudal theory of individual contribution for -the support of the lord, and in view of the -provision in the Charter against payments, -the inference can be drawn that individual -assent would be in order. But to find an -answer to the question as to where the collective -assent of the barons was obtained, if -at all, one must look further.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Question of -assent to -taxation</div> - -<p>In a letter addressed to “Samson the Bishop -and Urso d’Abitat,” who were respectively the -bishop of the diocese and the sheriff of the -county of Worcester, Henry says, in speaking -of the county courts, “I will cause those -courts to be summoned when I will for my -own proper necessities at my pleasure.”<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> -That these county courts were utilized by the -Norman kings for purposes of extortion, is -attested by the reluctance of the suitors to -attend their sessions,<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> and in the light of that -fact, the “proper necessities” of the king are -apparently none other than the royal need -for money. But why, if the assent of the -taxed was not required, should the courts be -summoned to meet the “proper necessities” -of the crown? <span class="sidenote">In the -Shire -Moots</span> Would that purpose be subserved -merely by making a demand for money? -Had that been the fact, the courts might well -have been left to carry on their peculiar -functions untroubled, for extortion can be -the more readily practiced king to man than -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span>king to people. The conclusion is reasonable, -notwithstanding the very large part which -conjecture plays in it, that some form of -assent was usual in the county courts in response -to the royal demands.</p> - -<p>But there is another piece of evidence which -points to the National Council itself giving -assent to taxation. In the Chronicle of the -Monastery of Abingdon occurs a quotation of -an order from Henry to his officers exempting -the lands of a certain abbot from the payment -of an “aid which my barons have -given me.”<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> Whether or not this statement -can be taken as substantiating the theory of -assent depends upon a point of time; was the -gift of the barons before or after the laying of -the tax?<span class="sidenote">In the -National -Council</span> If the gift was indeed prior to the -levy, then the evidence is conclusive that the -barons assented to taxation; if, on the other -hand, the barons gave the aid after the levy -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span>had been made, the statement refers solely -to the actual payment of the tax. The tense -of the Latin verb, however, and the circumstances -in which the king writes, seem to -point to the former alternative; Henry directs -that the Exchequer exempt the abbot’s lands -from the collection of an aid, not which the -barons were giving him, but which they have -given him. It is possible to infer, then, that -sometimes, at least, the barons formally -assented to the levying of an extraordinary -aid.</p> - -<p>But this assent must not be taken as proof -that the barons discussed taxation in formal -session or that they had any generally recognized -power of choice. None of the records -of the time, though they speak emphatically -of the oppressiveness of the taxes,<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> suggest -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span>that at any time the barons refused to give the -king what he asked for. The probability is -that Henry I sought baronial assent merely -as a matter of form, and that he did it out -of respect, more or less conscious, for the -theory that contributions of a feudatory toward -the support of the crown should be of -a nature voluntary. The perfunctory character -of the assent, together with the absence -of evidence looking to a refusal, points to -nothing so much as the firmness of the royal -grip upon the purses of the nation.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Stephen, -1135-1154</div> - -<p>During the major part of King Stephen’s -nineteen turbulent years, feudalism and anarchy -ran hand in hand. Such progress as -had been making toward parliamentary taxation -ceased. Stephen showed himself an adept -at misgovernment and succeeded in nothing -so well as in his own discomfiture.</p> - -<p>Things went by contraries. Stephen allowed -the nobles to make themselves impregnable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span> -in the royal castles and then sought to -dislodge them by raising up a new and hostile -baronage. The nobles, needing money to -carry on war amongst themselves and against -the king, extorted it from the people. “Those -whom they suspected to have any goods they -took by night and by day, seizing both men and -women,” says the Saxon Chronicle,<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> “and they -put them in prison for their gold and silver, -and tortured them with pains unspeakable, for -never were martyrs tormented as these were.” -And then, “They were continually levying -an exaction from the towns, which they called -Tenserie (a payment to the superior lord for -protection), and when the miserable inhabitants -had no more to give, then plundered -they and burnt all the towns, so that well -mightest thou walk a whole day’s journey nor -ever shouldest thou find a man seated in a -town, or its lands tilled.”</p> - -<p>Henry of Huntingdon adds a detail which -fills out the picture of wretchedness. Speaking -of Stephen’s promise to abolish the Danegeld in -1135, shortly after his accession, the chronicler -says, “The king promised that the Danegeld, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span>that is two shillings for a hide of land, which -his predecessors had received yearly, should -be given up forever. These ... he promised -in the presence of God; but he kept none of -them.”<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a></p> - -<p>By the treaty of Wallingford in 1153, -Stephen agreed that the crown should descend -at his death to Henry of Anjou,<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> <span class="sidenote">Henry II, -1154-1189</span> the son -of the Empress Matilda, and great-grandson -of the Conqueror. The treaty provided, also, -for comprehensive reforms which Stephen, a -melancholy figure in contrast with the vigorous -Henry, tried to work out. Stephen died -at the end of a year’s attempt to put in operation -the new programme and Henry came to -the throne. Henry’s reign was marked by a -regular and peaceful administration of the -government which had its rise in the genius -of the king for organization. It witnessed -too the struggle with Thomas à Becket, a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span>conflict which has been pointed to as “the -first instance of any opposition to the king’s -will in the matter of taxation which is recorded -in our national history.”<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a></p> - -<p>The story of it is full of dramatic interest. -At the Council of Woodstock in 1163, “the -question was moved,” <span class="sidenote">Controversy -with -Becket -over the -Sheriff’s -Aid</span> -so goes the Latin -narrative, “concerning a certain custom.” -This custom, which amounted to two shillings -from each hide, had previously fallen to the -sheriffs, but this “the king,” so continues the -Latin account, “wished to enroll in the treasury -and add to his own revenues.”<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></p> - -<p>In response to this, Becket is recorded as -saying, “Not as revenue, my lord king, saving -your pleasure, will we give it: but if the sheriffs -and servants and ministers of the shires will -serve us worthily and defend our dependents, -we will not fail in giving them their aid.”<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span></p> - -<p>This was from the chancellor turned archbishop. -In his former estate Becket had not -shrunk from pressing money composition -for military service from prelates holding -land of the crown on the ground that they were -tenants-in-chief and therefore owed service -of arms to the king. But now he had changed -his masters and stood champion of the church.</p> - -<p>To him Henry returned, “By the eyes of -God, it shall be given as revenue, and it shall -be entered in the king’s accounts; and you -have no right to contradict; no man wishes -to oppress your men against your will.”</p> - -<p>“My lord king,” Becket declared, “by the -reverence of the eyes by which you have sworn, -it shall not be given from my land and from -the rights of the church not a penny.”</p> - -<p>Apparently for the moment the archbishop -won his point, but from that time on, Becket -and the king stood apart. The continuation -of the struggle between them at Westminster -the following October; the Constitutions of -Clarendon, sweeping away much of the exclusive -authority which previously had characterized<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span> -ecclesiastical jurisdiction; the flight of -Becket into France; the coronation of the -young Henry by the Archbishop of York to -the prejudice of Becket, and the latter’s declaration -of illegality; these and the martyrdom -of the archbishop, are parts of another -story.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The issue -in the -Woodstock -Controversy, -1163</div> - -<p>Exactly what were the motives of Becket -in making his stand against the king at the -Council of Woodstock, are somewhat difficult -of determination. The interest of the king -was obvious; he wished to increase his revenue -by annexing the “auxilium vicecomitis” or -“Sheriff’s aid,” which had not gone into the -royal treasury at all but had served to swell -the private income of the sheriffs. Whether -Becket, “standing on the sure ground of -existing custom,”<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> objects to change merely -because it was a change; or whether he had in -mind some lofty democratic principle, and -took his stand against the royal power in -favor of the lesser folk through some flush of -democratic fervor, is not only impossible of -being decided, but the decision would not be -of strict relevance to the subject. The two -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span>points to observe, and they are perfectly -evident, are that Becket’s stand against the -king did not concern a new levy of taxes, but -an imposition already customary; and that -the king asserted Becket’s incompetency to -interfere. Becket had presumed to take a -hand in a matter connected with taxation; -the king had denied him that right, though -the archbishop was the chief member of his -National Council. Therein lay a great issue.</p> - -<p>A number of other incidents of the reign -of Henry II, though they lack the color of -a controversy between archbishop and monarch, -are nevertheless worthy of consideration. -<span class="sidenote">Scutage</span> The imposition in 1159 of the Great Scutage, -despite the fact that it came as a feudal -charge rather than as a form of regular taxation, -assumes great importance in view of -the part that scutage played in the evolution -of the taxing power.</p> - -<p>Scutage is generally considered as one of -the forms of “commutation for personal -service,” and commutation was undoubtedly -the underlying idea of the imposition.<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> The -payment was made for every knight owing -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span>military service. Each knight holding of the -king was expected to serve in the field for -forty days. Eight pence a day in the reign -of Henry II was the usual wages of a knight, -and for forty days the wages would amount -to two marks, which was the sum most -commonly paid in lieu of personal service. -It was in its earlier phase distinctly a feudal -charge.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Early instances -of -Scutage</div> - -<p>Payment of scutage, like most of the other -forms of feudal and general taxation, struck -its roots far into the past. Bishop Stubbs -fixes 1156 as the year in which the term scutage -was first employed.<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> Others find counterparts -in various payments to the sovereign -in the time before and shortly after the Conquest. -In the reign of Henry I the practice -of allowing ecclesiastics to compound at a -fixed rate for the knight-service due from -their estates was generally followed. The -privilege was sometimes extended to mesne -tenants.<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> One writer<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> points to Ranulf Flambard’s -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span>device in 1093, when he took from the -men of the fyrd the money which had been -given them for the purchase of supplies while -on the march. Others<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> suggest the Anglo-Saxon -<i>fyrdwite</i>, the payment made by the -king’s men when they were absent from the -royal train in war time as the analogy and -precedent for scutage. It seems more likely -that the king and his vassals adopted a money -payment in lieu of service because it was -convenient for both of them.<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> The king -thereby got the means for the enlistment of -a body of mercenaries, subject to his absolute -will, and the barons were relieved, if so they -pleased, of the burden of military service.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The Great -Scutage, -1159</div> - -<p>The levy commonly spoken of as the Great -Scutage was made in 1159. Henry II was -considering an expedition into France against -the Count of Toulouse. He had a claim to -the latter’s lands through the inheritance of -his wife, the Duchess of Aquitaine. The -English baronage, by the terms of their feudal -tenure, were bound to follow their lord into -the field. Nevertheless a distaste had arisen -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span>of late among them for service abroad, and -it was natural enough, therefore, that they -should fall in with the scheme of Henry and -his adviser, Thomas à Becket, for a commutation -in money. Henry levied a charge of -two marks (£1, 6<i>s.</i> 8<i>d.</i>) on the knight’s fee -of £20, annual value, from such of his vassals -as chose not to follow him into France.<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></p> - -<p>The authority by which this payment was -demanded was apparently solely that of the -king. It is probable that the levy was unquestioned. -In view of the facts that this -was merely a change, and possibly no very -great change, in the method of meeting a -regular feudal obligation, and that many of -the barons were willing to avail themselves -of a means of escaping the burden of foreign -service, the want of a recorded protest is not -to be wondered at. The chronicler puts it -plainly and probably with accuracy when he -says that Henry “received” a scutage.<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> It -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span>was profitable for the king. The chronicler -puts the proceeds at “one hundred and twenty-four -pounds of silver.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Theobald’s -complaint, -1156</div> - -<p>Three years previously, however, an ecclesiastical -complaint was raised against a similar -imposition. In 1156 such prelates as held -their lands by military tenure were directed -to compound for soldierly service which their -character of churchmen precluded them from -rendering.<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> Some thirty-five bishops and -abbots paid the assessment, but Archbishop -Theobald raised vigorous protest.<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> He objected, -apparently, not out of principle, but -because he could not see that the exaction was -necessary.<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> This probability, together with -the further considerations that the demand -was not a demand for a new tax but merely -that the prelates compound for an obligation -long recognized as lawful, and that there were -precedents for precisely this sort of commutation, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span>makes Theobald’s protest not of great -importance. He did not question, strictly -speaking, the right of the king to levy taxes at -all.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Early step -toward a -tax on -movables</div> - -<p>The remainder of the reign of Henry II, -aside from the fact that it witnessed the temporary -passing of the Danegeld,<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> derives its -chief importance by reason of the extension -of taxation to cover personal property. By -the Assize of Arms in 1181, “every free layman -who had in chattels or in revenue to the -value of sixteen marks” was to “have a coat -of mail and a helmet and a shield and a lance;” -and “every free layman who had in chattels -or revenue ten marks should have a hauberk -and a head-piece of iron and a lance.”<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> -Here was a step toward laying movables and -personal property open to taxation. Seven -years later, when Saladin had cut his way into -Jerusalem, personal property was forced to -contribute toward the Crusade. <span class="sidenote">The -Saladin -Tithe, 1188</span> This tax, the -so-called “Saladin tithe,” was laid at the Council -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span>of Geddington on the 11th February, 1188. -Present at it were archbishops and bishops -and the greater and lesser barons,<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> but it is -not stated whether or not they gave a formal -consent to the levy. “This year,” so goes the -Ordinance, “each one shall give in alms a -tenth part of his revenues and movables, -except the arms and horses and clothing of -the knights; likewise excepting the horses -and books and clothing and vestments and -articles required in divine service of whatever -sort of the clerks, and the precious stones both -of clerks and laymen.” This is the earliest -recorded instance of a general tax upon -movables. For the assessment and collection -of the Saladin tithe, Henry adopted a scheme -favorite with him, which had been utilized -in England for national purposes at least -since the time of the Domesday Survey.<span class="sidenote">Assessment -by -Juries of -Inquest</span> It -was ordained that the assessment be done -by juries of inquest; thus the taxpayers themselves -were instruments in the determination -of how much each should pay, even though the -determination of how much the gross payment -should be was as yet far beyond their power.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span></p> -<p>Henry II closed his reign in 1189. His -taxation<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> had never been exceptionally heavy, -though it had been the occasion for protest -and had served as the pretext in 1174 for a -little warring with his barons. In the matter -of royal authority over taxation, the power of -the king to levy taxes was not much diminished. -The instances of opposition that have been -cited do not prove much more than that now -and then complaining voices were raised in -the Great Council; nowhere is it shown that -the objections had more than passing value, -much less that they were conclusive.</p> - -<p>The year after the laying of the Saladin -tithe, Henry died. Of his four sons, two were -dead and two had taken up arms against him. -His first son, who he had hoped would succeed -him as Henry III, was dead, and so too was -Geoffrey, the father of the luckless Arthur; -Richard, his second son, was for the moment -the ally of Philip of France; and John, whom -the king had loved above the others, now as -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span>afterward seeking his own advantage, had recently -taken his place amongst the rebellious -barons who had made common cause with -the king of France. This blow, coming on -top of his unfavorable peace with Philip, -struck the old king to the heart, and cleared -the throne for Richard.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Richard I, -1189-1199</div> - -<p>Richard was not, in the fullest sense of -the word, an English king. His heart was on -the Continent; England he regarded as a -treasure-house, and he left the administration -of it to his justiciars. Along with the exaction -of feudal incidents and other and more -special forms of taxation, Richard worked -the machinery of the laws to its maximum -capacity for what money it would bring him. -He sold bishoprics and ministries, and released -malefactors from prison for a consideration; -sometimes, as in the case of Ranulf -Glanville, his father’s treasurer, he threw -men into prison on shadowy charges and -forced them to buy their release. But all was -under the guise of legality; Richard, unlike -John, and much like Henry VIII, knew how -to gain his end and yet adhere to the letter -of the law.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Richard’s -ransom</div> - -<p>On his way back from the Crusade near the -close of the year 1192, Richard fell into the -hands of his enemy, Leopold, Duke of Austria. -Leopold turned him over to his feudal superior, -the Emperor Henry VI, and he held -Richard for a ransom of £100,000. The -levy of the king’s ransom was one of the three -regular feudal aids<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> for which the subjects -were responsible. The magnitude of Richard’s -ransom, however, brings it out of strictly feudal -history into the domain of taxation. In the -letter which Richard wrote from his German -prison to his mother, the Queen Eleanor, -and to his justiciars, he said, “For becoming -reasons it is that we are prolonging our stay -with the Emperor, until his business and our -own shall be brought to an end, and until we -shall have paid him seventy thousand marks -of silver.” The amount of the ransom was -subsequently raised to one hundred thousand -marks, with an additional fifty thousand -exacted as the price of not assisting the Emperor -in his war to regain Apulia. Thus -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span> -England became liable for the payment of a -sum aggregating £100,000.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">It involves -heavy and -novel -taxation</div> - -<p>The effort to raise so great a sum revived -all the forms of taxation known to England in -earlier years, and laid the basis for certain -methods of acquiring money previously unknown. -The justiciars <i>took</i> “from every -knight’s fee twenty shillings,<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> and the fourth -part of all the incomes of the laity, and all -the chalices of the churches, besides the other -treasures of the church. Some of the bishops, -also, took from the clergy the fourth part of -their revenues, while others took a tenth for -the ransom of the king.”<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> In addition to the -property there stated as having been levied -upon, the lands of tenants in socage yielded -two shillings on the hide or carucate,<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> personal -property to the amount of a fourth of its -value, and the wool of the Cistercians and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span> -Gilbertines. Thus every person in the kingdom, -was laid under contribution. Later -kings found all of these means of raising -revenue exceedingly fruitful, and some of -them served as precedents for taxes which -played great parts in the struggle for the -control of the public purse.<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The king -is the -authority -for the -taxes</div> - -<p>The authority by which the impositions -were laid was apparently solely that of the -king. Speaking of the letter which Richard -addressed to his mother and the justiciars, -urging upon them the necessity for raising -money for the ransom, the Chronicler says, -“Upon the authority of this letter the king’s -mother and the justiciars of England determined -that all the clergy as well as the laity -ought to give ... for the ransom of our lord -the king.” He speaks of the exactions having -been <i>taken</i>. The fact that there is no definite -record of deliberation or even of assent by -the National Council to the enormous demand -which the ransom of the king laid -upon England, and that no serious objection -was raised to the collection, ordered upon the -authority of queen and justices, is a comment -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span>both upon the weariness of the nation and its -respect for the ancient feudal aid.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Richard’s -release and -subsequent -levies</div> - -<p>When Richard was finally released from -durance in Austria, he returned to England. -Remembering the success which met his first -visit to the island at the time of his coronation, -he proceeded to set his machinery going -despite the financial decrepitude of the nation. -The account of his Great Council at -Nottingham, called near the last of March, -1194, illustrates not only his ingenious methods -of making extra-customary feudal exactions -but also the manner in which he levied his -non-feudal impositions. The Council, which -was not very fully attended, was composed of -the archbishops, bishops, and earls. On the -first day, he removed from office all the -sheriffs of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, and -proceeded to sell their places to Archbishop -Geoffrey of York, who paid 3000 marks<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> on -the spot with a promise of 100 marks by way -of annual increment. Having thus spent his -first day, on the second he contented himself -with issuing orders against his contumacious -brother John. But on the third day he demanded -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span>the third part of the service of the -knights, the wool of the Cistercians for which -he was willing to accept a composition, and a -carucage of two shillings.<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> This last, which -was the lineal descendant of the Danegeld, -a land tax on the carucate, he apparently did -not exact upon any other authority than his -own. The king “determined that there should -be granted to him out of every carucate of -land through out the whole of England, the -sum of two shillings.”<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> His action carries out -the theory that the voice of the king in his -Council was supreme in matters of taxation, -and that the promulgation of a tax levy was -rather accepted in the character of an edict -than as inviting discussion. The deduction, -however, that the individuals composing that -Council were barred from objecting to a tax -or even refusing to pay it, is not well founded; -the time had not yet come when the individual -felt himself bound by the tacit acquiescence -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span>of the Council. If he were strong enough to -withstand the royal displeasure, he could -refuse payment.</p> - -<p>Richard levied a second carucage in 1198, -“from each carucate or hide of land throughout -all England five shillings.” Here, too, -he acted upon his own authority, and the -Chronicler does not refer to the summons of -a Council, or the participation of the magnates -in the laying of the tax. The assessment of -it followed the plan pursued by Henry II, in -that the liability of the taxpayer was determined -by means of a jury of inquest. Against -the payment of the imposition the men of the -religious orders demurred, whereupon an edict -of outlawry came immediately from Richard. -Esteeming the payment of the tax the lighter -burden, the friars yielded.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Hugh of -Lincoln -refuses -assent in -National -Council, -1198</div> - -<p>The same year, 1198, furnishes us with -what is by far the most noteworthy and interesting -incident of the reign of King Richard, -an event which is taken to be “a landmark -of constitutional history.”<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> Through his -efficient justiciar, Archbishop Hubert Walter, -the king laid before his Council at Oxford a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span>plan whereby he “required that the people of -the kingdom of England should find for him -three hundred knights to remain in his service -one year, or else give him so much money as -to enable him therewith to retain in his service -three hundred knights for one year, namely -three shillings per day, English money, as the -livery of each knight.”<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> The way in which -Hubert Walter’s proposition was met throws -light upon the subservience of the National -Council. “While all the rest were ready to -comply with this,” the Chronicler proceeds, -“not daring to oppose the king’s wishes, -Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln, a true worshipper of -God, who withheld himself from every evil -work, made answer that for his part he would -never in this one matter acquiesce in the -king’s desires.” Now, if it could be established -that the bishop raised the question as to -whether the king had a right to lay an imposition -upon the baronage and to require their -assent, then we would be justified in saying -that Hugh’s refusal went far toward anticipating -future history. But the evidence does -not uphold so generous an inference. In -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span>the first place, it seems highly questionable -whether Hubert Walter really offered the -alternative of a money payment,<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> a conclusion -which reduces the debate to one on foreign -service. But Hugh even here did not raise -the general question. “I know,” he is quoted -as saying, “that the see of Lincoln is held -by military service to our lord the king, but -it has to be furnished in this land alone; -beyond the boundaries of England nothing -of the kind is due from it.”<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> Hugh, therefore, -refused to comply with the royal request on -purely feudal grounds. Basing his objection -on ecclesiastical privilege, he registered his -refusal for the see of Lincoln alone; he did -not take his stand in behalf of the barons or -even of the whole body of churchmen. The -issue as to their relative powers to tax was -not raised between king and Council, and the -withdrawal of Hubert Walter’s demand did -not constitute one of the first victories over -arbitrary taxation. The withdrawal itself -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span>seems to have had its disagreeable consequences. -Herbert, Bishop of Salisbury, who -stood shoulder to shoulder with Hugh of -Lincoln in his opposition, had to pay a heavy -fine for his part in the contest, and the Abbot -of St. Edmund’s was obliged to win back -royal favor with a gift of a hundred pounds -which he made in addition to the pay of four -knights for forty days.</p> - -<p>Richard’s reign covered only a decade, six -months of which he spent in England.<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> Notwithstanding -his long absence, during which -the National Council began in some small -degree to feel itself able to get along without -the royal presence, the authority of the king -as the supreme initiator of taxation remained -unquestioned. In the assessing of taxes, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span>however, the taxpayers had more participation. -The justiciars of Richard continued -Henry II’s practice of assessment through a -representative jury.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">John, -1199-1216</div> - -<p>John, the youngest son of Henry II, the -thinnest figure that ever sat upon the English -throne, succeeded to the crown some six -weeks after the tragic passing of Richard. -Richard was the creation of his own times, -the incarnation of the mediæval spirit, and -where it fell short he fell short. To attribute -the meanness of his brother to any conditions -of environment would be to perpetrate -a slander upon the times. Yet, notwithstanding -the vileness of the king, there eventuated -from his reign the first of the three books -in what Lord Chatham denominated “the -Bible of the English Constitution.” The progress -toward the finished writing of Magna -Carta, especially in so far as the events concern -laying of taxes, is the next step in this -history.</p> - -<p>An interregnum of six weeks elapsed between -the death of Richard and the coming -to England of John. Then Archbishop Hubert -Walter set the crown upon his head and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span> -declared him elected to the kingship. John’s -stay in England was necessarily brief, because -Philip II of France was already in a -fair way to win his possessions on the far -side of the Channel. For his expedition into -Normandy John exacted a scutage of two -marks on the knight’s fee; the rate was unusually -high, almost without precedent.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">John’s -heavy -taxation</div> - -<p>Being unable to make head against Philip, -John concluded a truce for which he had to -pay 30,000 marks. The Jews had to pay a -good deal of it and in addition John took a -carucage of three shillings on the carucate, -which, like the charge of scutage, was an -exceedingly high rate. John laid this imposition, -apparently, solely upon his own authority; -Roger Hoveden says that he “took” the carucage -and makes no mention of a Council.<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> -He demanded the aid, and the justices issued -the edicts. In 1201 John contributed, at -the instance of a papal delegate, a fortieth -of his revenues for the Crusade; from his -barons he urged a similar offering, not “as a -matter of right or of custom or of compulsion.” -Freeholders and tenants by knight’s service -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span>paid at a similar rate; just what liberty they had -in refusal is shown in the direction of Geoffrey -Fitz-Peter, the justiciar, at the end of his address -to the sheriffs: “And if any persons shall -refuse to give their consent to the said collection, -their names are to be entered in the -register, and made known to us at London.”<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> -In the same year he exacted a scutage at the -high rate of two marks on the knight’s fee.</p> - -<p>The importance of the part which scutage -played in the tragedy of John can hardly be -overestimated; it was the great moving cause -which brought about the crisis of 1215 and -Magna Carta. <span class="sidenote">Scutage, a -cause -leading to -the -Charter</span> Not only did John raise scutage -to an amount which had not been equalled -since the Scutage of Toulouse in 1159, but he -levied it as though it were a regular and almost -annual obligation. Previously understood as a -commutation arranged at the pleasure of the -king for knight’s service not rendered, as an -extraordinary impost reserved for extraordinary -occasions, John changed its character -and used it as a means of supplying his heavy -financial needs, irrespective of customary right -or of shrewd policy.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span></p> -<p>John began with a demand of two marks on -the knight’s fee.<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> The barons had accustomed -themselves, during the reigns of Henry and -Richard, to expect at the outside a demand of -twenty shillings; sometimes indeed the imposition -had fallen to a single mark or even as -low as ten shillings. His second scutage came -in the third year of his reign, two marks on -the fee. Then for four successive years John -kept his barons on edge with annual scutages -of two marks each. In 1205-06, apparently -fearing a storm, he reduced his imposition to -twenty shillings, and then waited for three -years before laying another. The three years -of relief, however, were not as innocent as -they seem; it was in 1207 that John broke -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span>with the Pope, and the freedom to plunder -ecclesiastics which this quarrel gave him, -made unnecessary for the moment any further -demands upon the baronage. But this source -of revenue shortly proved insufficient, and -John turned again toward scutage. In the -two financial years from 1209 to 1211, he -laid three scutages which aggregated some -seventy-three shillings on the knight’s fee. -Then for the space of two years John -paused.</p> - -<p>But it was only a pause. On June 1, 1212, -he caused to be taken the Inquest of Service, -<span class="sidenote">Inquest of -Service, -1212</span> by which he sought to bind the cord more -tightly upon his demesne tenants by ascertaining -in the now familiar manner of the local -jury, how great was the return which he -might expect from the lands of each crown -vassal. It is easy to see in this Inquest, recalling -in its nature Domesday Survey and the Inquest -of 1166, the intended basis for another -imposition of scutage.<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> It came in 1213-14, -when John made the wholly unprecedented -levy of three marks on the knight’s fee. Apparently -he was doing all he could to hurry -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span>the crisis which should lead him to Runnymede.</p> - -<p>There were two features of John’s use of -scutage aside from the magnitude and frequency -of his levies <span class="sidenote">Attendant -abuses of John’s levies of Scutage</span> which made them particularly -onerous. The first had to do with the -fines which he exacted from such of the -baronage as were delinquent in paying the -imposts of Richard, some of which had been -in arrears since 1190. Miss Norgate notes -an instance which illustrates John’s habit, -and throws light upon his character. Two -men of Devon in 1201 were charged with -fines by reason of their absence from the -train of Richard in 1193, and the cause of -their failure was this, that “they had been with -Count John.” At the moment John was in -rebellion against Richard, but now that he -was become king in Richard’s place, he exacted -fines for service the nonperformance of -which he himself had been the cause of.<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> The -collection of fines owing to Richard bore with -special heaviness upon the northern baronage -and these, it will be remembered, were the -leaders in the assault upon John in 1215.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span></p> -<p>The other great abuse which John introduced -into the levying of scutage was his -subversion of the theory that the payment of -it by the vassal wholly acquitted him of his -obligation to the king for that occasion. John -endeavored in a number of instances to make -him liable for personal service in addition, -and for fines in case he failed to be present -in his train. In 1199 John exacted fines from -those who did not accompany him to Normandy; -in 1201 he accepted money-payment -as a substitute for service; in 1205 he fined the -tenants-in-chivalry after he dismissed them -from service in the host. In these years scutages -were laid as well.<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a></p> - -<p>Thus did John make over scutage; it had -become a heavy impost upon the lands of -demesne tenants, an almost annual charge, -and a tax foreign to its original character as -a commutation for personal service. A rebellion -culminating in the exaction from John -of a written contract between him and the -baronage, detailing their mutual relations was -the natural consequence.</p> - -<p>But the knights were by no means the only -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span>body of Englishmen whom John alienated -by his frequent levy of taxes. <span class="sidenote">Antagonism -of the clergy</span> The clergy, -already irritated by John’s quarrel with the -Pope and his seizures of ecclesiastical property, -were ready to combat the king in any further -attempt to tax them. At a Great Council at -London on the 8th January, 1207, the king -asked “the bishops and abbots to permit the -parsons and the beneficed clergy to give to the -king a fixed sum from their revenues.”<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> The -prelates did not consent, and John brought -the matter up again at a second Great Council -which he convened at Oxford on the 9th -February. There were present an “infinite -multitude of prelates of the church and magnates -of the realm,” and John again addressed -the ecclesiastics. The bishops “unanimously -answered that the English church could in -no wise sustain what was unheard of in all -the ages before.” The king, “taking wise -council,” withdrew his demand, but he did -not abandon his project.<span class="sidenote">General -demand -of a -thirteenth -of -movables</span> - “Afterward he -ordained generally throughout the kingdom -that every man ... give a thirteenth part -to the king” of revenue and movables. The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span>demand applied to all men, no matter from -whom they held their lands.<a name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> Against the imposition, -the earlier analogues of which were -the Saladin Tithe and Richard’s ransom, “all -murmured, but none dared to contradict” -the king, except Geoffrey of York; he did not -consent, but openly refused, and then had -to fly from England to escape John’s anger.<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> -The writ for the assessment of the thirteenth -has it that the tax was provided “by the -common advice and assent of our Council -at Oxford.”<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> How whole-souled was the -assent is revealed by the Chronicler; “none -dared to contradict.”</p> - -<p>The time was at hand when men would not -longer endure the extortionate exercise of an -unchallenged royal right. <span class="sidenote">Normandy -is lost</span> There were a -number of conditions and circumstances aside -from the burdensome taxes which were pointing -toward Runnymede and Magna Carta. -By 1204 John had come to the end of his day -in France. Normandy was lost. The effect -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span>upon England was marked; the Norman -baronage was obliged to choose between England -and the Continent. Hereafter tyranny -and good-rule of the English kings were -alike felt solely at home, and the barons -cast their eyes not across the Channel, but -upon their lands in England. The English -were for England and the nation was born, -the first conscious act of which was to be the -enactment of Magna Carta.</p> - -<p>During the seven years from 1206-1213 -John had his disgraceful quarrel with the pope, -a quarrel which ended in the enfeoffment of -England with Innocent as feudal overlord. -The matter is foreign to the subject in hand, -save as the struggle, especially in the early -development of it, gave John a pretext for -confiscating the ecclesiastical holdings and -thereby relieving the barons of a scutage for -the space of about four years.</p> - -<p>John, conceiving that peace with the Pope -meant full mastery of affairs, was seized with -an ambition to reconquer Normandy. To this -end he tried to induce the barons to follow -him into Poictou. They refused, first on the -ground that John was not yet fully absolved<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span> -from his excommunication; and then, after -this objection was removed by Stephen Langton -on the 20th July, 1213, they raised the old -plea that they were not bound by their tenure -to follow the king abroad. John determined -to enforce their attendance upon him by show -of arms.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Council at -St. Albans, -4th August, -1213</div> - -<p>Before he started to the north, where the -seditious movement had its center, an assembly -was held at St. Albans on the 4th -August by Archbishop Langton, and the justiciar -Geoffrey Fitz-Peter. Its purpose was -to assess the amount due to the ecclesiastics -in consequence of the damage sustained by -church property during the quarrel with the -Pope. But its great importance lay in the -body of men who made it up. It is in so far -as we have record, the first occasion that representatives -of the lesser folk were summoned -to a National Council.<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> Beside the bishops -and barons who attended, there were present -the reeve and four men from each township on -the royal demesne. The Council advanced -somewhat beyond the simple purpose for which -it was summoned; the justiciar issued an edict -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span>against unjust exactions, to be observed as the -sheriffs valued their lives and limbs, and commanded -the observance of the good laws of -Henry I.<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Non-noble -representatives -called -to Oxford, -1213</div> - -<p>Later in the year to Oxford, the non-noble -representatives were again called, and at -the initiation of John himself. John hoped -to win to himself by this act of respect the -support of the smaller landowners against -the threatening barons. The sheriffs were to -send up, beside the knights holding from the -king, four discreet men from each county “to -talk with us,” as the writ had it, “concerning -the business of our realm.”<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> This, provided -subsequent events had kept pace with it, was -an immensely long step forward; indeed the -provisions of Magna Carta themselves do not -advance to the point thus falteringly and unworthily -reached by John. It provided a -precedent for the representation of the third -estate in the councils of the nation; and -though it is not known whether or not any -action was taken relative to the levying of -taxes, or even whether the council was held -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span>at all, nevertheless the fact that representation -for the moment was provided for, marks -the step in the light of the present, as of great, -almost of profound, importance in the consideration -of parliamentary taxation.</p> - -<p>It would be wandering far afield to trace -the final struggles of John with his infuriated -barons. It is sufficient to note that it was -an unauthoritative demand of taxation which -pulled the structure of John’s misgovernment -crashing down upon his head.<span class="sidenote">Events -leading to -Runnymede</span> On the 26th -May, 1214, John issued writs for the collection -of a scutage at the quite unprecedented rate -of three marks on the knight’s fee, for which -there was not a shadow of consent. The -northern barons, the same who had refused -personal service, now refused likewise to pay -scutage. In the face of precedent to the contrary, -they denied their liability to follow -him, not merely to Poictou but to any district -beyond the Channel, or to pay him composition -for not doing so.<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> At his interview -with the contumacious barons in November at -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span> -Bury St. Edmunds, he reiterated his demand, -but they remained steadfast in their refusal.</p> - -<p>From that time until King and Barons met -on the meadow near the Thames called Runnymede, -John’s sky was darkening. He did -his best to avoid the tempest, but with no success. -He attempted to break the union of his -enemies by giving the church and the people of -London special charters; it was the church, -headed by Stephen Langton, which stood -shoulder to shoulder with the barons in unending -hostility to John, and it was the citizens -of London whose adherence to the baronial -cause determined the final contest against -the king. John bought the services of mercenaries -to fight his battles for him, but when he -became penniless, they fell away. With -every expedient he could summon in his -extremity, he tried to avoid the breaking of -the storm. But the whole nation was against -him. The men of the North, who had been -steadfast from the beginning in their opposition -to John, were joined by barons of similar -mettle throughout the rest of England. The -citizens of London when they joined the ranks -of John’s enemies were followed by the earlier<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span> -partisans of the king, save only those few -who were attached by interest or necessity. -He signed the Charter the 15th June, 1215, -in the full hope that with the passing of the -tempest he might forget his promises.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Magna -Carta, -15th June, -1215</div> - -<p>The Great Charter, in form granted by -John as a voluntary gift to the nation, was in -reality a treaty concluded between him and -his barons. That its provisions relative to -taxation are important has already been -hinted at; as a matter of history, the recurrence -of references to these particular sections -of the Charter proves the esteem in which -Englishmen of later generations regarded -this early book of their Bible of Liberties. -Whether this veneration, displayed by the -framers of subsequent and perhaps equally -important instruments, was based upon the -intrinsic value of the Charter or upon nothing -firmer than sentiment, is somewhat of a -mooted question.<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> The fact that it was held -in such esteem is for us the important and -sufficient reason for considering it in detail. -It is essential to understand upon what the -later champions of parliamentary taxation -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span>based their arguments, even though those arguments -presumed interpretations of Magna -Carta which the framers of the Charter would -have been far from admitting.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Chapter 12</div> - -<p>The twelfth chapter,<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> taken with the fourteenth,<a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> -serves as the legal basis for much of -the eloquence against arbitrary taxation from -the time of John to the acceptance of the -United States Constitution. It has been taken -to admit “the right of the nation to ordain -taxation”<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> and even as the surrender of the -“royal claim to arbitrary taxation.”<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> An -analysis of the contents and application of -the twelfth chapter together with additional -comment on the fourteenth may throw some -light on the substance for these assertions.<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span></p> - -<p>The impositions which are specified in the -chapter are “scutage” and “aid.” The arbitrary -levy of scutage upon the lands of his -tenants was the chief moving cause which -brought John to Runnymede, and this chapter -undertook the correction of the abuse of -abuses. The aids mentioned are to be distinguished -from the incidents of feudal tenure, -reliefs, marriages, primer seisins, and similar -payments which are dealt with elsewhere in -the Charter and belong to the peculiar history -of feudalism. The twelfth chapter provides -that the three ordinary aids—for ransoming -the king, for knighting his eldest son, and -for the marriage of his eldest daughter—should -be reasonable in amount. These -might be exacted by the king as a matter of -course, without the common council of the -realm. The extraordinary aids, which the -Charter places in the same category with -scutages, include all other arbitrary feudal -exactions levied to meet some particular -emergency and in an unusual manner. The -Charter places both these extraordinary aids -and the obnoxious scutages beyond the pale -of royal imposition; hereafter they are leviable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span> -only “by common counsel” of the kingdom. -That they were to be laid by the body known -as the Common Council is indicated by the -provisions of Chapter Fourteen.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Provision -regarding -London</div> - -<p>The people of London rightfully expected -to benefit by the granting of the Charter. -According to the last clause of the Twelfth -Chapter, it was to “be done concerning the -aids of the city of London” in the “same way.” -The provision is indefinite; whether the “aids” -were also to include in their category the more -arbitrary and therefore more obnoxious tallage<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> -is unknown. The aids were for the most -part free-will offerings of the city itself, whereas -the tallages were exacted by the king upon -his own arbitrary authority as one having the -power of a demesne lord over London. And -whether or not the phrase “in the same way” -means that aids shall be levied by the common -counsel of the realm, or merely that they shall -be of “reasonable” amount, is difficult of determination. -If indeed the former idea was in -the minds of the framers of the Charter, when -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span>they came to the section providing for the -composition of the Common Council, they -made no provision for the attendance of any -member of the corporation of London, or even -for securing their consent. At all events, the -king continued to tallage London at not infrequent -intervals and almost without question -until 1340, when Parliament took the privilege -away from Edward III.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Chapter 14</div> - -<p>Before we advance to a consideration of the -true importance of the Twelfth Chapter, in -order to have a complete understanding of its -position in the line of progress toward parliamentary -taxation, we are obliged to look at -the method by which the common counsel -of the kingdom was to be taken. Chapter -Fourteen<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> lays down the rule according to -which the assembly was to be called that -should hold this power of assenting to scutages -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span>and aids. The method of summons -was simple; it involved the issuance of writs, -individually to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, -earls, and the greater barons, and -collectively to the lesser barons through the -agency of the royal sheriffs and bailiffs. The -writs gave at least forty days’ notice as to -the place and time of meeting, and specified -the business which furnished the occasion for -the Council. As for its composition, the answer -is very simple; it was a gathering of -tenants-in-chief of the king, of crown vassals. -The line between the greater and the lesser -barons was ill-defined. Roughly, however, -it divided the baronage into classes, one of -which included the baron whose holdings -embraced the major part of a county, and the -other the tenant of the king whose dwelling -was a cottage set in his dozen acres. It is -probable that the lesser barons played no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span> -considerable part in the assembly, and that -their attendance or non-attendance was of -little consequence. The light of the lesser -folk was as yet hid under the bushel.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -advance -toward -Parliamentary -taxation</div> - -<p>It is a conclusion easily drawn from the -text of the two chapters that this was a body -of feudatories called together for the purpose -of making feudal payments. The members of -the Commune Concilium were the vassals of -the crown and, save in rare instances, none -other; the taxation to which they were to give -their consent according to the terms of the -Charter, included no carucage or other general -tax, but only the scutages and aids which -feudal tenants of the king by military service -were expected to pay him as overlord. Furthermore, -the idea of representation in the -strictly technical sense into which present usage -has frozen the word, was quite wanting. It is -true that a consent by the barons gathered in -the Council to an imposition levied in accordance -with the notice stated in the summons, -was binding upon the barons who did not -attend, but this was on the principle that -absence gave consent, not that the consent -of the majority was binding upon a dissentient<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span> -minority. The instance is quoted of -the Bishop of Winchester who in Henry III’s -time was relieved of his assessment because -he had opposed the levy in the Council. -John had introduced definite representation -in his summons to the Oxford Council in -1213, by directing the sheriffs to send up -“four discreet knights” from their counties -to treat with him “concerning the business -of his realm.” In respect of this, looking at -it in the light of later progress, the Great -Charter is positively retrogressive.</p> - -<p>The conclusion is thus forced upon us that -save in the two cases of scutages and extraordinary -aids, with possibly the addition of a -third in the shape of tallaging the city of -London, supreme authority over general taxation -remained in the hands of the king. -The Charter provides solely for the financial -incidents of the feudal relation, and that in -the somewhat narrower aspect of tenure by -chivalry. The only true taxes, carucage and -John’s levy on movables known as the thirteenth, -were not referred to. It is an anticipation -of later history to read into the provisions -of Magna Carta either a definite inauguration<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span> -of national consent to taxation or of the -representative principle.</p> - -<p>But the wedge was driven in. Notwithstanding -the omission of both the Twelfth -and the Fourteenth Chapters in subsequent -renewals of the Charter, the king lived up to -the principles therein set down; and notwithstanding -the absence in Magna Carta of provision -for parliamentary taxation in fact, it -was there in embryo. The nation, headed by -the barons, had set itself to the correction of -abuses, and it succeeded in attaining its immediate -end. Greater purposes were to follow, -born perhaps of the inspiration in the -Charter, and with the purposes were to come -also the means of attaining them. The nation, -having once taken a sip of the cup of control -over taxation, would not be content until at -last it had drunk deep from the well itself.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<h2 class="p4">III</h2> - -<p class="pch">THE CUSTOM OF PARLIAMENTARY GRANTS<br /> -1215-1272</p> - - -<p class="pn"><span class="smcap">Magna Carta</span> brought to an end the period -of absolutism and prepared the way for the -control by Parliament of the taxing power. -The barons, standing for the moment as the -champions of the nation, had wrung from -John the first concession. It really was not -as great a concession, in so far as the power -to tax was concerned, as eager advocates of -popular rights have maintained. But it was -the protest by the most influential body in -the kingdom and in effect by the nation itself -against unrestrained use of power by a royal -tyrant.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The reign -of -Henry III, -1216-1272</div> - -<p>The long reign of Henry III, stormy and -contradictory to itself, accomplished one clear -step forward. From one cause or another -it became customary for the National Council, -which in this reign first attained to the title -of Parliament, to grant money to the king.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span> -Another step, of vast importance in the later -history of parliamentary taxation, but in -Henry’s time probably not of intimate connection -with it, was the summons of the lesser -tenants and subsequently of the townsmen -into the councils of Parliament. There is no -sure record that in Henry III’s reign a Parliament -so constituted voted taxes, yet it is apparent -that this differentiation in the national -legislative body was the preliminary of the -vesting of the taxing power in the House of -Commons.</p> - -<p>John died in the midst of his reverses the -19th October, 1216. The major part of his -vassals were in the field against him, and -worse than all, Louis, the heir to France, with -French soldiers at his back, was in England -at the bidding of the English baronage. Nine -days after John’s death, his son Henry, a -nine-year-old lad, was crowned King of England -with small ceremony. After a lapse of -two weeks, on the 11th November, a body of -barons gathered at Bristol. There were four -or five earls, including Pembroke, Chester, -and Derby; eleven bishops, Hubert de Burgh, -one or two other ministers, and some of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span> -military leaders. Only one of the executors -of the Charter figured at the meeting and this -was William of Aumâle. For the most part -they were of the party least disaffected by -John; the rabid opponents of the old King -were in the body of supporters around Louis -of France. The Council proceeded to appoint -William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke <i>Rector -regis et regni</i>, being unwilling to elect a relative -of the young King to this responsible -position. <span class="sidenote">Reissue of -the Charter -with -omissions</span> The next day they reissued the -Charter by common consent in the King’s -name, with the important omission of Chapters -Twelve and Fourteen.</p> - -<p>The reason for leaving out restrictions upon -the royal power so vital to the feudatories is -readily apparent. The Council was distinctly -royalist; as such, especially in view of the -fact that John, the great offender, was dead, -it did not favor restricting the royal power. -Further, the barons in effect were themselves -the king, and being so, there was no particular -object in limiting their own power -over themselves. That the Fourteenth Chapter -would be observed, whether it were specified -or not, dealing as it did with the summoning<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span> -of the Council, went as a matter of -course.<a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a></p> - -<p>One of the objects in the minds of the Council -in reissuing the Charter was to win adherents -from the standard of Louis. In this they -were partly successful; but it took the decisive -defeat delivered to the French prince at the -Fair of Lincoln in May of the following year, -coupled with the loss of his reinforcing fleet -in August, to bring about peace. A treaty -between Pembroke and Louis followed in -September, and secured to the belligerent -barons the liberties of the realm and the -restoration of their lands. General pacification -between the parties came the 6th November -following, with the second reissuance -of the Charter, <span class="sidenote">Second -reissue -of the -Charter</span> this time in the form which -later generations of kings should be called -upon to confirm.</p> - -<p>There was introduced into this draft of -the Charter a change which materially affects -taxation. Though Chapters Twelve and Fourteen -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span>of John’s issue are ignored, there is -in the Forty-Fourth Chapter a distinct reference -to the levying of scutage.<a name="FNanchor_85_85" id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> “Scutage,” -it says “shall be taken as it was wont to be -taken in the time of King Henry our uncle.” -In other words the consent of the barons was -to be no longer a prerequisite to the levying -of a scutage. The only restriction placed by -written law upon the king was that he should -take scutages according to the custom of -Henry II,—that is, that they should not -exceed in amount <span class="sidenote">Its -omissions</span> twenty shillings on the -knight’s fee. The barons who remade the -Charter thus abandoned the semblance of -taxation by the baronage which was provided -for under the terms of John’s enactment. It -was only a shadow which they left behind, -but nevertheless it was the shadow from which -something substantial could emerge, the germ -from which a creature of immense vigor -might develop. The omission, it is not too -much to say, is an exceedingly apt vindication -of the contention that at the time the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span> -Charter of John was enacted, the framers of -the instrument intended to create no barriers -against the royal power of levying general -taxation; if they had had in mind so fundamental -a change, it is unlikely that in 1217, -even though the radical faction was still feeling -the sting of defeat, these provisions should -have been allowed to lapse.<a name="FNanchor_86_86" id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> It is profoundly -indicative both of the modest ambition of the -barons in 1215 and the obscurity of their political -vision in 1217.</p> - -<p>But the future was fairer than the conditions -presaged. As a matter of fact, the king -observed in the majority of instances the -conditions imposed by the Charter of John. -<span class="sidenote">Text of -1215 is -adhered -to in -practice</span> Scutages of even less amount than those -“taken in the time of King Henry” were -taken with the consent of the National Council, -the sessions of which “continued as from -time immemorial,” though the provisions -for its summons had been laid aside. That -the barons were intending to retain control -as under the Charter is indicated by the fact -that a scutage under the date 24th January, -1218, “was assessed by the common council -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span>of our realm.”<a name="FNanchor_87_87" id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> Bishop Stubbs believes that -this scutage was granted by the identical -Council which reissued the Charter the previous -November.<a name="FNanchor_88_88" id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> Furthermore, there is a note -of a carucage under the date 9th January, -1218, which “was assessed by the council of -our realm,” a remark which suggests that not -only did this Council determine to grant -feudal payments of scutage, but assumed as -well the power of registering its assent to a -general land tax.</p> - -<p>If full credence can be attached to the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span> -record here given that a tax was <span class="sidenote">Carucage -“assessed” -by the -Council, -1218</span> “assessed” -by the Council, and if the act of assessment -can be taken as indicating, so to speak, full-fledged -consent on the part of the barons, -then we have in this record of the Close Rolls -one of the very earliest instances of general -taxation by and through the English National -Council. That no greater attention was given -to the event than the scant sentence in the -Rolls, is perhaps not to be wondered at, -considering the youth of the king and the -coherent Council.</p> - -<p>With such a Council, bent apparently upon -putting in practice greater privileges than it -had given itself in theory, the boy Henry began -his long reign. The good Earl of Pembroke -died in 1219 and Henry was left to the -conflicting counsels of Hubert de Burgh and -Peter des Roches, the Bishop of Winchester. -Growing restive under them at last, in 1223 -he secured a declaration from the Pope that -he was of age, he being then sixteen, and -swore to observe the Charters. But neither -of his reissues of the Charter could be called, -strictly speaking, voluntary; and liberties extorted, -in the sinister words of the sycophant<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span> -William Briwere, “ought not by right to be -observed.”<a name="FNanchor_89_89" id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> The uneasiness arising out of -this uncertain state of the Charters, led to -one of the first instances of a grant of money -on condition that grievances be redressed, a -manner of grant which served the Commons -many a turn in their subsequent struggles with -royal prerogative.</p> - -<p>In 1224 war was on with Philip II for the -possession of Poictou. The taxation which -had not been severe up to this time, was -insufficient for the prosecution of a war with -France.<a name="FNanchor_90_90" id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> The justiciar at the Christmas -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span> -Council 1224 brought forward a demand for -a fifteenth of all movables.<a name="FNanchor_91_91" id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> The barons, -acting beyond the power which even the -Charter of John had given them, refused to -consent, unless Henry should “of his own -natural and good will” renew Magna Carta. -<span class="sidenote">Conditional -grant of a -fifteenth -of movables, -1224</span> He yielded, and reissued both the Charter -of Liberties and the Charter of the Forests -in practically the same form as the issue of -1217. That the reissue partook of the nature -of a contract between the barons and the -king is evinced in the concluding portion of -the Charter itself.<a name="FNanchor_92_92" id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> There it is openly -stated that “the archbishops, bishops, abbots, -priors, earls, barons, knights, freeholders, -and all persons of the realm, give the -fifteenth part of all movables to the king,” -“for this concession and granting of liberties.”</p> - -<p>Here is an unequivocal instance of a tax -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span>on movables, applying to every person in -the kingdom from the archbishops and great -nobles down, granted explicitly by the Council -in return for Henry’s specific promise to -adhere to the Charter. It was the most -natural thing in the world, that the barons -should demand a favor in return for granting -one. They had Henry in a box and his -acquiescence is none the less natural. Yet -the action is of great importance in view of -later developments. Time and time again -the situation was to be repeated, and out of -repetition was to come usage which would be -frozen into law. It is of vast interest, therefore, -to note the appearance so early of the -conditional grant.</p> - -<p>The Council continued to exercise the right -not merely of making grants of money in -consideration of a redress of grievances, <span class="sidenote">Other -conditional -grants and -instances -of refusal</span> but -also of refusing to make a grant at all, whenever -such a stand suited their convenience. -In 1232 the Earl of Chester, being spokesman -for the barons, objected to a request for -money with which to carry on the French -war, on the plea that they had served in person; -the clergy sought postponement, raising<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span> -the significant plea of an incomplete assembly -of prelates.<a name="FNanchor_93_93" id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a></p> - -<p>Again, five years later, Henry being in -dire distress for money because of unwise -expenditure and the lightness of recent taxation,<a name="FNanchor_94_94" id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> -summoned an extraordinary council -of barons and prelates “to arrange the royal -business” and matters concerning the whole -kingdom. William de Ralegh, a clerk of the -king, introduced the royal needs, saying that -“the king humbly demands assistance of -you in money.” Sensing beforehand an attitude -of antagonism, he made this remarkable -concession, that “the money which may be -raised by your good will shall be kept to be -expended for the necessary uses of the kingdom, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span>at the discretion of any of you elected for -the purpose.” But the barons failed to perceive -the greatness of the opportunity which lay -open to them. <span class="sidenote">Offer of a -disbursing -commission, -1237, -rejected</span> Had they but availed themselves -of it, they would have gone far toward -the establishment of the power of the legislature -over the public purse, and might have -accomplished in a moment, had they been -able to maintain their control, what many -succeeding parliaments were to strive for in -vain. But apparently the baronage was not -gifted with political perception; they saw only -a demand for money and “began to murmur.” -They complained that the foreign advisers of -the king had been wasting the royal revenue -and that there was no great enterprise afoot -which required a full treasury. Then the -king proceeded to conciliate them with what -in comparison with the proposed concession of -the disbursing commission, was a mess of -pottage; he ordered the renewal of the sentence -of excommunication of all violators of -the Charter, promised to abide by it himself, -and received three additional Councillors -named by the Council.<a name="FNanchor_95_95" id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> Thereupon a grant -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span>of the thirtieth part of all the movable property -in the kingdom was made by the lords -“for themselves and their villans.”<a name="FNanchor_96_96" id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> In this -phrase of the writ is evidence in favor of the -supposition that the lords of the Council -regarded themselves as authoritative spokesmen -for their vassals. The money was to -be collected in accordance with the prescription -of the Council; four knights and a clerk -(appointed apparently by the king), were to -receive the assessment of each township -from the reeve and four men, elected for the -purpose. Here was evidence of progress; -the step was not very long from the assessment -and collection of a tax to the granting of -it by the people themselves. The king profited -to the amount of some £22,600.</p> - -<p>After a lapse of five years, Henry found -himself, as he supposed, on the brink of a war -with France; he therefore sent out orders for -a session of the Council. Apprehending that -the summons presaged a demand for money, -the baronage, “because they knew that the -king had so often harassed them in this way -on false pretences, ... they made oath together -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span>that at this council no one should on -any account consent to any extortion of money -to be attempted by the king.”<a name="FNanchor_97_97" id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> When the -Council met, therefore, Henry was greeted -with a refusal, on the grounds that he had -engaged in the war without asking their -advice, and that <span class="sidenote">Refusal of -a grant, -1242</span> “he had so often extorted -large sums of money from them, which was -expended with no advantage; they therefore -now opposed him to his face, and refused -once more to be despoiled of their money to -no purpose.” Harking back to the conditions -of the grant of 1237, and laboring, apparently, -under the misconception that the king had -promised that the money be spent under the -direction of a disbursing commission, they -complained because they did “not know and -have not heard that any of the aforesaid -money has been expended at the discretion -or by the advice of any one of the said four -nobles.”</p> - -<p>Thus did they refuse. But Henry was -neither to be robbed of his hoped-for supply -nor yet induced to give further concessions. -He therefore turned to strategy. Summoning -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span>the barons and prelates to him one by one, -he “begged pecuniary aid from them, saying, -‘See what such an abbot has given to aid me, -and what another has given me.’” By such -means he managed to wring from the barons -individually what he had been unable to -induce them to give in the Council. With -the money thus obtained Henry set out on a -campaign doomed to ignominious failure. -Before he came back to England he used this -expedition as the pretext for a scutage of -twenty shillings on the fee.<a name="FNanchor_98_98" id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a></p> - -<p>Similar success did not meet Henry, when, -two years later, he attempted to raise funds -with which to prosecute a Scotch war. In -the fall<a name="FNanchor_99_99" id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> of 1244 Henry summoned his Council -to London; he laid before it the story of -his recent journey to Gascony and used the -debts which he had incurred as the pretext -for a grant.<a name="FNanchor_100_100" id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> He addressed the baronage in -person in the expectation that they would not -refuse a face to face appeal; the nobles, however, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span>withdrew to consult amongst themselves, -with the result that a committee of twelve, representing -the three bodies of <span class="sidenote">Great -Council in -1244 holds -out for -supervised -expenditure</span> prelates, earls, -and barons, was chosen to draw up an answer -to the king. Simon de Montfort, Earl of -Leicester, whose great opportunity was not yet -come, served as one of the four earls; and -Richard de Montfichet, one of the few executors -of Magna Carta who still survived, acted -amongst the delegation from the baronage. -The reply was consistent with the works of both. -The committee complained of the nonobservance -of the Charter, of the rash and fruitless -expenditure of money, and demanded the -appointment of a justiciar and a chancellor “by -whom the kingdom might be consolidated.”</p> - -<p>The king, however, was unwilling to act -under compulsion; he refused the petition and -ordered the barons to reassemble three weeks -after the Purification of the Virgin in 1245. -Thereupon the nobles declared their willingness -to grant him money, provided that in the -meantime the king should choose proper counsellors -and institute reforms. The proviso -which was of greatest importance, however, -was this, “that whatever money was granted<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span> -to him should be expended by the twelve ... -nobles for the king’s benefit.” These conditions -were greatly to Henry’s distaste; he set -himself to wring money from the prelates, but -with no success. Then the Council “broke -up, much to the king’s discontent.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">A scheme -of control</div> - -<p>The historian proceeds to give a scheme of -reform which may possibly be the result of the -deliberations of the magnates, presented by -them to Henry for his consent.<a name="FNanchor_101_101" id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> It provides -for the election by the Council of four of its -“most discreet” members to serve as counsellors -of the king. “By their inspection,” the -account states further, “and on their evidence -the king’s treasury shall be managed, and the -money granted to him by the community in -general shall be expended for the benefit of -the king and kingdom according as they shall -see to be most expedient and advantageous.” -The four counsellors were to have numerous -other powers and duties, many of which are -suggestive of the scheme subsequently put into -practice by Simon de Montfort.</p> - -<p>Of itself this scheme of reform is relatively -unimportant. But taken with the demand of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span>the magnates that twelve of their number supervise -the expenditure of such money as they -should grant to the king, it assumes some significance. -It points toward the growing tendency -on the part of the barons to assume control, -not only of the granting of taxes, but of the expenditure -of the money so raised as well. For -some centuries thereafter the question as to -whether that control should lie with the king or -subjects was to be a prime subject of contention.</p> - -<p>It would be a fruitless and uninteresting -task to illustrate further the control over matters -of taxation exercised by the Council during -this part of the reign of Henry III. The -instances in which the royal requests were -refused, and the occasions when the king -attempted to evade the refusal by private solicitation -were not infrequent.<a name="FNanchor_102_102" id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> A single citation -may be excused, however, because of the -element of sinister humor which pervades it. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span> -Henry asked the Council for money on the -9th February, 1248, and was greeted with a -demand for a justiciar, chancellor, and treasurer -to be appointed by the Council itself. -This appeared distasteful to Henry, who was -learning the trick of independence. After a -delay of some five months he refused compliance; -whereat he discovered that no grant -was forthcoming from the Council.<a name="FNanchor_103_103" id="FNanchor_103_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> Thereupon -Henry announced to his good citizens of -London that he would pass the Christmastide -with them, in order that he might freely accept -of their New Year’s presents.<a name="FNanchor_104_104" id="FNanchor_104_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span></p> - -<p>It would be too much, it seems, to say that -the numerous cases in which the Council -denied to the king the financial assistance -which he urged upon them, prove the full -control, in any modern sense, of this body -over taxation.<span class="sidenote">Representation -as it -existed in -Henry’s -National -Council</span> The relation of Council to -king was still personal; the barons granted -their support or refused it, as vassal to feudal -lord, by no means as representatives of the -nation to the government. The grants seem, -indeed, to have been binding upon the nation -at large, and consequently it might be argued -that the barons were really representatives -of the nation, capable of acting for it. But -the argument is based upon a confusion of -terms; representation in the modern sense -was not at that time in England invented or -thought of. A baron who by virtue of his -prominence or his power makes a promise -which is binding upon those of less prominence -or less power, is not a representative but a -small despot. Such a position the barons -held who composed the National Council -under Henry III; they acted for the nation, -but they were not in the modern sense representatives. -The inference is readily drawn,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span> -then, that a body thus constituted could not -exercise any more than a personal control -over taxation.</p> - -<p>The time was at hand, however, when the -period of transition to the impersonal relation -should begin,—the relation which exists -between representatives of the nation and -the government as personified in the king, the -relation recognizable to-day between the layers -of taxes and the spenders of the proceeds of -taxation.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Knights of -the shires -called to -the Council, -1254</div> - -<p>In 1254, during Henry’s absence in Gascony, -the regents, Queen Eleanor and Earl -Richard Cornwall, took steps to amplify the -Council for the time being with the lesser -feudal tenants for the purpose of laying taxes.<a name="FNanchor_105_105" id="FNanchor_105_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span> -John, at his St. Albans Council in 1213, had -had recourse to a similar expedient, though -the principle involved was quite different. In -the earlier instance a representative reeve -and four men from each township and the -royal demesne were summoned in order to -assess the amount due in restitution to the -clergy. In the latter the royal writs directed -that from each of the counties two “lawful and -discreet knights” be sent up to Westminster, -“who together with the knights from the other -counties whom we have had summoned for -the same day, shall arrange what aid they are -willing to pay us in our need.” The knights -were to be chosen by the counties themselves, -probably in the county court, since there the -machinery of election already was in existence. -The election of knights by the body of -suitors who composed the courts of the counties -was by no means a new thing; for eighty -years there is evidence of the election of such<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span> -representatives for local purposes, and it would -be no startling innovation to extend this function -of the courts to the election of representatives -in a national council. In the present -instance, furthermore, there is in the writ an -implication, though the deduction is hazardous, -that the matter of the aid received previous -consideration in the county courts themselves. -“And you yourself carefully set forth to the -knights and others of the said counties,” so -continues the instructions to the sheriff, “our -need and how urgent is our business, and effectually -persuade them to pay us an aid sufficient -for the time being; so that the aforesaid -... knights at the aforesaid time shall -be able to give definite answer concerning the -said aid to the aforesaid council, for each of -the said counties.” The upshot of this Council -was disappointing to the crown; nothing resulted -except a renewal of complaints against -the royal administration. Simon de Montfort, -whose position as the defender of the rights of -Parliament, was as yet quite misapprehended, -took occasion to warn the Council against the -policy of the king.<a name="FNanchor_106_106" id="FNanchor_106_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span></p> -<p>The events of the next fifteen years, vital -as they are to constitutional history, must be -briefly gone over. It is the period of the -Barons’ War and the Provisions of Oxford, -and finally of Simon de Montfort’s famous -Parliament of 1265. But the years did not -intimately affect taxation, save as they provided -more or less definitely for the body which -should ultimately have control over the granting -of taxes. Taxation was a prime cause of -the baronial irritation which led to the trouble -with the king, but the conflict was not a -moving cause in the final attainment by Parliament -of exclusive power over taxation. The -chain of events, however, in so far as they are -pertinent to the subject, must be traced.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Strife between -king -and Parliament</div> - -<p>At the Hoketide Parliament<a name="FNanchor_107_107" id="FNanchor_107_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> of 1255 the -usual demand was made for an elective ministry -and was refused;<a name="FNanchor_108_108" id="FNanchor_108_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> at the adjourned session of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span>this Parliament the following October, an -aid to the king was denied on the distinct -ground that the members, all magnates, had -not been summoned according to the terms -of Magna Carta.<a name="FNanchor_109_109" id="FNanchor_109_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> The struggle, vain and -threatening of future ill, went on through the -next year, until by 1257 the king found himself -plunged inextricably into debt, much of which -was owing to the Pope. The latter had undertaken -a war with Manfred with whom was -lined up the Hohenstaufen power, to seat on -the throne of Sicily Edmund Crouchback, -Henry’s second son.<a name="FNanchor_110_110" id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> Henry owed him 135,000 -marks, and it is said that the Londoners, -the sheriffs, the clergy, and the Jews therefore -suffered.</p> - -<p>The first Parliament of 1258 was held at -London on the 9th April and sat for about a -month. The purple robes in which Henry -garbed his foreign favorites shone richly -against the gray background of his asserted -poverty, and their brilliance was enough to -blind the eyes of the Parliament to his necessities.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span></p> - -<p>Wars were threatened on the northern -and western borders, and the Pope was brandishing -his sword of excommunication in case -Henry continued his dilatory policy toward -Apulia. Parliament refused his urgent plea -for a tallage of one-third of the movables of -the realm, reprehending the simplicity of the -king in making his bargain with the Pope.<a name="FNanchor_111_111" id="FNanchor_111_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> -An outbreak was avoided by an adjournment -until the 11th June at Oxford.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Provisions -of Oxford, -1258</div> - -<p>On that day the barons and higher clergy -came together, bringing with them a heavy -burden of grievances. A scheme of reform -was drawn up in the famous Provisions of -Oxford. They projected the control of the -government by a number of representative -committees.<a name="FNanchor_112_112" id="FNanchor_112_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> The only point upon which -the Provisions of Oxford touch the question -of taxation is in the section which arranges -for the appointment of a committee of twenty-four -“by the whole of Parliament on behalf -of the community” to treat of the aid demanded -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span>by the king for the prosecution of his war. -The list of grievances, furthermore, for which -the Provisions were to win redress, did not -bring up the matter of the royal power to -levy taxes in any degree whatsoever.<a name="FNanchor_113_113" id="FNanchor_113_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_113_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> The -nearest approach to such an objection came -in the complaint against extortions under the -feudal law and in the reference to the manner -in which prises were exacted. In each instance -the remonstrance was not against the -principle but against the manner in which the -act was accomplished.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Character -of the -Provisions</div> - -<p>The Provisions of Oxford furnished no -advance in the general progress toward parliamentary -taxation. The only step was a step -backward. They provided for one committee -which should have the power of granting an -aid to the king, and delegated to another -most of the business of Parliament. These -were movements, not toward the ideal grasped -in the time of Edward I and realized in the -Bill of Rights, but of a character distinctly -retrogressive. The government was advantageous -to none save to those who participated -in it, and between the participants there was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span>no mediator in case the distribution of advantages -should be questioned. Theoretically the -king’s authority remained, though it was in -restraint; in fact it was given to an irresponsible -and self-interested body of barons subject -to the mutual jealousies which are always the -incidents of oligarchic rule.</p> - -<p>The provisional government lasted for a -year and a half from its erection in June, -1258, without interruption; thereafter it continued -for four years with a number of breaks -until 1263, the year in which civil war began -between Earl Simon and the king.</p> - -<p>In the middle of 1261 Henry produced bulls -which the Pope Alexander IV had granted -to him shortly before he died absolving him -from his oath to observe the Provisions, and -pronouncing excommunication upon all those -who should contravene the absolution.<a name="FNanchor_114_114" id="FNanchor_114_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> The -act of Henry all but brought forward the impending -civil war. Simon de Montfort <span class="sidenote">King and -Earl Simon -call knights -of the shire -to national -assemblies</span> and -his colleagues, probably in the hope of winning -the popular mind to their cause, acting as -chiefs of the provisional government, addressed -summonses to the various sheriffs inviting -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span>three knights from each shire to attend -an assembly at St. Albans. Henry, fearing a -general movement against him, sent out -counter orders to the sheriffs, requiring them -to send knights not to St. Albans but to -Windsor, <i>nobiscum super præmissis colloquium -habituros</i>.<a name="FNanchor_115_115" id="FNanchor_115_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> In all probability neither of the -assemblies met; at least there is no suggestion of -a session of either in the chronicles of the time. -They assume importance, however, as foreshadowing -the later Parliaments of Simon de -Montfort, and as indicative of his policy to utilize -the county organization in national matters.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Civil War, -1263</div> - -<p>Two years later, in June, 1263, Simon de -Montfort began war. The following December -the differences between the parties -were laid before Louis IX of France for his -decision. He, not unsympathetic with the -plight of his royal brother, made an award -in favor of Henry, saving to the barons and -Earl Simon only their rights under the Charter.<a name="FNanchor_116_116" id="FNanchor_116_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> -But Simon de Montfort was in a position -to protest against the verdict. He vindicated -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span>his attitude at the battle of Lewes, -14th May, 1264, and Henry, his relatives, -and his principal adherents found themselves -prisoners in the hands of the barons. A compromise -was effected by the Mise of Lewes, -which, after a reconfirmation of the Provisions, -provided for the release of Henry and named -a new set of arbitrators.<a name="FNanchor_117_117" id="FNanchor_117_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> By the fourth article -of the compromise, Henry was to take the -advice of his counsellors in administering -justice and choosing ministers; he was to -observe the Charters and to live moderately.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Knights of -the shire -in Parliament, -1264</div> - -<p>But Earl Simon was not satisfied. He -garrisoned all the royal castles with soldiers -friendly to his cause, and on the 4th June -sent out writs to the counties in the king’s -name summoning to London the following -October, “four lawful and discreet knights,” -who were to be “elected for the purpose by -the assent of the county to act for the whole of -that county,” and were to “treat with us of -the above-stated business.”<a name="FNanchor_118_118" id="FNanchor_118_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> This Parliament -when it met proceeded to compose a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span>new scheme of government, the chief feature -of which was a standing council, indirectly -elected by the barons, which should be the -moving force behind all royal acts,—that is, -the king was to act only in accordance with -the will of the council.<a name="FNanchor_119_119" id="FNanchor_119_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Simon de -Montfort’s -great -Parliament, -1265</div> - -<p>Simon de Montfort on the 24th December -following issued writs in the king’s name bidding -the sheriffs to send up two knights from -the shires, and each of some twenty-one especially -designated cities and boroughs to send -up two citizens and burgesses to London.<a name="FNanchor_120_120" id="FNanchor_120_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> -The Parliament was called for the 20th<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span> -January, 1265. Beside the representatives -of the cities and boroughs, there was a very -full gathering of the clergy. The baronage, -who as a body looked upon Earl Simon’s -cause with small favor, were called upon to -send only twenty-three of their number, five -earls and eighteen barons.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The first -instance of -burgher -representation -in -Parliament</div> - -<p>It is upon this Parliament that the fame of -Simon de Montfort as the Creator of the -House of Commons is established. Unless -we admit as an instance of borough representation -the summons of the reeve and four men -from the demesne townships to the St. Albans -Council in 1213, we have here the first participation -of the burgher class, the Third Estate -of the Realm, in the Parliament of the nation. -It was to compose, along with the -recently admitted representatives of the shires, -the <span class="sidenote">The House -of Commons -is -foreshadowed</span> House of Commons, and in its hands the -destiny of the power to tax was to lie. That -Simon de Montfort summoned the citizens -and burgesses to the Parliament of 1265 is -attributable chiefly to the fact that they were -amongst the most ardent of his supporters.<a name="FNanchor_121_121" id="FNanchor_121_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span> -It is extremely doubtful that he acted in accordance -with any great scheme of constitutional -reform. He called the burghers because he -found their support useful, and therein lay -the greatest hope for the future; the time was -not far distant when a greater than Simon de -Montfort should discover that a Parliament -in which cities and boroughs and counties -were alike represented was the most convenient -means of supplying the royal treasury.</p> - -<p>As for Simon de Montfort’s Parliament, -its importance to taxation lies wholly in its -significance in the elaboration of the representative -principle; there is no record that it did -aught with respect to taxation. Its business -was mostly confined to concluding arrangements -begun in the Mise of Lewes for the -government of the kingdom.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Last years -of -Henry III</div> - -<p>What was left of the reign of Henry III, -already stretched beyond its time, is all but -negligible. The position of Simon de Montfort -was too favorable to keep him clear of -jealous rivals. War speedily started up again -and in an early battle, that of Evesham, the -great earl was slain. Two years thereafter, -the royalist party managed to get the upper<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span> -hand and the war came to an end. Henry -was wise enough, or old enough, not to tempt -Providence; he continued his reign according -to the dictates of law and of good policy. By -the statute of Marlborough in 1267 were -granted most of the measures of reform which -had been demanded nine years previously in -the Mad Parliament of Oxford. With the -affairs of state running thus smoothly, Henry -moved tranquilly down the long slope of his -last years.</p> - -<p>In October, 1269, there occurred an incident -which, if indeed the report be well founded, -sums up the attainments of his reign. Henry -brought together a great assembly in honor of -Saint Edward, an assembly of magnates lay -and clerical, and likewise numbering certain -representatives of the cities and boroughs.<a name="FNanchor_122_122" id="FNanchor_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> -After the conclusion of the ceremony, Henry -convened the barons as a Parliament, and received -from it a grant of a twentieth of lay -movables. Whether or not the burgesses and -citizens participated in the offering to the king -is unknown. But if that be the truth, enveloped -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span>as it is in the mist, then we can see -the newly-made legislators actually participating -in the most important of legislative functions, -and we are assured that the work of -Simon de Montfort had indeed borne early -fruit.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<h2 class="p4">IV</h2> - -<p class="pch">LAW OF PARLIAMENTARY TAXATION<br /> -1272-1297</p> - - -<p class="pn"><span class="smcap">Henry</span> died the 16th November, 1272, with -his son, the great Edward, away on the -crusade. But there was no question as to -the succession; the most powerful of the -barons swore fealty to Edward <span class="sidenote">Edward I, -1272-1307</span> four days -after his father’s death, and when he returned -to England in the middle of 1274, he was -crowned King of England. In the interim, -the government was in the hands of the Archbishop -of York; the barons still resting after -their struggle with Henry III engaged in no -warfare other than their usual petty tumults. -The regular income of the crown sufficed for -the expenses of government.</p> - -<p>The young king whose way to the throne -was thus paved for him, was one of the greatest, -if indeed he was not in truth the greatest, -figure which ever graced the English throne. -He is credited with being a lover of truth and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span> -purity, honorable and contented with frugal -living; he was wary and at the same time determined; -an able councillor, ingenious in -working out the details of a plan, he was yet -most sure in accomplishment. Edward was -by instinct a legislator, and equally instinctive -was his love of arbitrary power. Yet his -wisdom kept him short of tyranny and showed -him that the fittest means of conserving his -own advantage was to allow Parliament reasonable -leeway and scrupulously to regard -the forms of its enactments. Edward was, -however, capable of utilizing the letter of the -law to the prejudice of its spirit. And therein -lay the chief defect in his generally ascribed -character of perfect monarch; he was not -above using the law to contravene the purposes -for which the law itself was designed.</p> - -<p>Representation, which had “ripened in -the hand of Simon de Montfort,” Edward I -made the common fruit of the people. Edward -had the conception that the nation, if it -be strong enough to live in the face of dangers, -must act as the united backing of a strong king. -The relation, as he intended it, between king -and people is reciprocal; the strength of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span> -one is the strength of the other, and neither -must predominate. That was precisely the -relation which such a Parliament as that -called by Edward I in 1295, was capable of -bringing about; in it each of the three estates -had an essential share in the carrying on of -the government.</p> - -<p>The early part of his reign is of importance -secondary to that of the decade ending with -1297. But an understanding of the supremely -important crisis which brought about the -Confirmation of the Charters is only to be -built upon a knowledge of the various events -which preceded it.</p> - -<p>Before Edward returned from Palestine, -his regents summoned to a Parliament held -at Hilarytide 1273, not only prelates and barons, -but also four knights from each shire -and four citizens from each city.<a name="FNanchor_123_123" id="FNanchor_123_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> The -purpose of the convention was the taking of -the oath of allegiance to the new king, and -the call was prompted doubtlessly by the -need of having the whole nation held loyal -to the absent and still uncrowned Edward. -Here was another instance of the growing -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span>appreciation of the usefulness of the commons.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Edward’s -first Parliament, -1275, and -the Statute -of -Westminster</div> - -<p>There was no taxation in the reign of Edward -I, except as the clergy taxed the people -for the prosecution of the crusade, until -Edward called his first Parliament on the -22d April, 1275, at Westminster. The composition -of the assemblage is uncertain; the -implication of the Chronicler is that it was -a Parliament of magnates,<a name="FNanchor_124_124" id="FNanchor_124_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> but the introductory -clause of the Statute of Westminster -has it otherwise.<a name="FNanchor_125_125" id="FNanchor_125_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> “These be the Acts of -King Edward ...” it says, “by his council -and by the assent of archbishops, bishops, -abbots, priors, earls, barons and the community -of the realm being thither assembled.” -The Statute of Westminster, which was composed -of some fifty-one articles, included -a provision for regulating the feudal aids -which were required upon the knighting of -the lord’s son or on the event of the marriage -of his daughter. Twenty shillings on the -knight’s fee and twenty shillings from each -parcel of land held in socage yielding twenty -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span>pounds annually, were to be the maximum -rates thereafter.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">A custom -on wool</div> - -<p>The great advantages gained by the nation -under the Statute of Westminster were not -won without a price. The same Parliament -made a grant of a custom on wool, woolfells, -and leather.<a name="FNanchor_126_126" id="FNanchor_126_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> The parties to the grant were -essentially the same as those who registered -their assent in the preamble of the statute; -there was, however, this singular difference, -that it was done “at the instance and request -of the merchants.” The amount levied was -“a half-mark from each sack of wool, and a -half-mark from each three hundred woolfells, -which make a sack, and one mark from -each last of leather, exported from the realm -of England,” etc.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span></p> -<p>The importance, both in a forward view -and in retrospect of this grant of a wool custom, -is very great. Parliament in granting -this custom assumed the power of assenting -to a tax which previously had been considered -within the peculiar province of the king. It -made a definite statement of what was to -be taken subsequently as the legal rate of -duty chargeable upon exports of wool. The -rate, which since the beginning of the century -had been agreed upon between royal officers -and merchants as their reasonable charge was -this half mark (6<i>s.</i> 8<i>d.</i>) on each sack of wool -weighing 364 pounds, or on the estimated -equivalent of a sack, 300 woolfells, and a mark -upon each last (or load) of leather.<a name="FNanchor_127_127" id="FNanchor_127_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> Exactions -above this rate were known as <i>mala tolta</i>, the -evil tolls, and the phrase had been shortened -to the single word maletolt. The forty-first -chapter of Magna Carta had promised to all -merchants freedom “from all evil tolls,” though -it continued the “ancient and right customs.” -Apparently, however, Henry III with respect -to this clause as in many another similar instance, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span>did not deem himself bound to adhere -scrupulously to his promise. The Parliament -of Edward I at Westminster in 1275 settled the -matter; the “great and ancient custom” on -wool was legally determined, and thereafter -a larger exaction would be regarded as illegal.<a name="FNanchor_128_128" id="FNanchor_128_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Edward’s -Second -Parliament, -13th -October, -1275</div> - -<p>Edward summoned a second Parliament for -the 13th October following in a manner which -gives ground for the presumption that the -presence of the knights of the shire in a parliament -designed primarily for the raising of -money, was already becoming a custom. The -point cannot be better illustrated than by a -translation of the writ itself.<a name="FNanchor_129_129" id="FNanchor_129_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> “Since we -have bidden the prelates and magnates of -our realm,” so it goes, “to be present at our -Parliament which we will hold ... at Westminster, -to treat with us both concerning -the condition of our realm and of certain of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span>our business which we will declare to them at -the same time, and as it is expedient that -two knights from the county above-mentioned -be present at the same Parliament from the -body of discreet and lawful knights of the -same county, by the reasons above-stated we -command you that you cause to be elected -in your full county-court (in pleno comitatu) -by the assent of the same county, the said -two knights and that you cause them to come -to us at Westminster in behalf of the community -of the said county on the said day, to treat -with us and with the above-mentioned prelates -and magnates about the above-stated -business. And omit none of it.”</p> - -<p>[Sidenote Attendance -of Knights -of the Shire -“expedient” -for -uses of -taxation]</p> - -<p>Thus we observe that it was “expedient” -for the lesser landholders to be present in a -Parliament which was called for the purpose -of securing the grant of a tax. The tone of -the writ is most matter-of-fact, as though the -knights of the shire were considered scarcely -less usual attendants at Edward’s parliaments -than the magnates themselves. That the -king “declared unto them certain of his -business” and that they proved amenable -is exhibited by the fact that this Parliament<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span> -granted a fifteenth of temporal movables.<a name="FNanchor_130_130" id="FNanchor_130_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a></p> - -<p>The next event of importance witnessed -the extension of the function of levying taxes -to the citizens and burgesses. By the fall -of 1282 Edward found himself in financial -difficulties. Since the Parliaments of 1275 -taxation had been very light. He had received -in 1279 a scutage of forty shillings on -the fee on account of the Welsh war,<a name="FNanchor_131_131" id="FNanchor_131_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> and he -received assistance from the clergy in 1279 -and the years following. Beside the income -resulting from these grants, he still had his -custom on wool, but it was far from sufficient -for his needs, and he had been obliged to -have recourse to the rigid enforcement of -statutes, rigorous application of writs, notably -that of <i>Quo Warranto</i>,<a name="FNanchor_132_132" id="FNanchor_132_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> and in 1278 he had -adopted the expedient, in after time to be -exercised frequently, of compelling all who -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span>possessed £20 a year in lands to become -knights, and to pay the fee incidental to the -attainment of knighthood.<a name="FNanchor_133_133" id="FNanchor_133_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Provincial -assemblies -at Northampton -and York, -1283</div> - -<p>The Welsh war came on again in 1282 and -added to the king’s embarrassment. He was -unwilling to call a Parliament and took the -less public but also less efficient means of -negotiating with individuals for money with -which to carry on the war. He sent royal -commissioners abroad through the country -who should plead the king’s necessity and -accept grants from sheriffs, bailiffs, and mayors -as representing their respective communities, -and also from individual citizens and countrymen -upon their own behalf.<a name="FNanchor_134_134" id="FNanchor_134_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> These private -offerings tided the king over his immediate -necessities. Late in the fall, however, he -found his position untenable and was forced -either to call a Parliament or to adopt some -effective substitute. Being at Rhuddlan, in -the center of hostile country, and having most -of his barons with him, he was obliged to -formulate a new plan for the attainment of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span>his end or else to adopt existing machinery -to his purposes. He sent out writs on the -24th November bidding the sheriffs send -representatives to two provincial assemblies -at Northampton or York, as the case might -be, for the 20th January following. The -members were to include all those who were -capable of bearing arms, and who held lands -to the annual value of £20, not already with -the army; four knights from each county -having full power for the community of the -county; two men from each city, borough, -and market town, having like power for the -community of the same, “to hear and to do -those things which we on our part will cause -to be shown to them.”<a name="FNanchor_135_135" id="FNanchor_135_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> The clergy also -were summoned; the bishops were to bring -their archdeacons, the heads of religious houses, -and the proctors of the cathedral clergy.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">They make -grants of -taxes</div> - -<p>These irregular assemblies convened as -they were bidden, the clergy and laity meeting -separately. The knights and burgesses at -Northampton made a grant of a thirtieth on -condition that the barons do likewise;<a name="FNanchor_136_136" id="FNanchor_136_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span>clergy refused to make any offering at all -because the parochial clergy were not represented. -At York, the knights and burgesses -made the grant of a thirtieth without condition; -the clergy made promises which they did not -keep. When the collection was made, allowances -were admitted for the sums which had -been contributed upon private negotiation. -Notwithstanding the irregular character of -these Councils in view of later developments,—irregular -in that the parochial clergy and -the baronage were not represented and that -the meeting was not in a single general assembly,—they -marked the “transition from -local to that of central assent to taxation.”<a name="FNanchor_137_137" id="FNanchor_137_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> -The king had discovered that it was easier -to attain his end through a Parliament than -by private solicitation,—that is, if he were -to wait for the assent of the people at all. It -was a step on the road; Edward had decided -in favor of summoning a Parliament as -against asking for money from individuals. -It was more profitable.</p> - -<p>There is no further record of taxation until -1289, save that of a grant in 1288 from Nicholas -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span> -IV, of an ecclesiastical tenth for six years -in reward of Edward’s vow to undertake a -crusade,<a name="FNanchor_138_138" id="FNanchor_138_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> and a scutage in 1285 on account of -the Welsh campaign of three years before.<a name="FNanchor_139_139" id="FNanchor_139_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> -Edward’s expenses, on the other hand, were -heavy. The prosecution of his foreign interests -in Gascony, where he had been in person -for three years, was a heavy drain upon the exchequer. -<span class="sidenote">Parliaments -of -1289 and -1290</span> At the Parliament of 1289 the treasurer, -John Kirkby, laid the royal needs before -the barons, who responded that they would not -pay “until they should see the king’s face in -his own land.”<a name="FNanchor_140_140" id="FNanchor_140_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> Kirkby began to tallage the -cities and boroughs and the other demesne -lands of the king, “imposing upon them an -intolerable sum of money.” It is probable -that this as well as other royal tallages applied -only to such of the cities and boroughs as -were included in the royal demesne. As a -matter of fact, most of the boroughs were -included in the demesnes of the king.<a name="FNanchor_141_141" id="FNanchor_141_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span></p> - -<p>The following spring Edward married his -younger daughter to the Earl of Gloucester -and besought Parliament for an aid “pur -fille marier,” though technically this was to -be paid only in the case of the marriage of -the king’s eldest daughter. Parliament proved -well-disposed, however, and granted forty -shillings on the fee. The manner in which -the barons and bishops who composed this session -of Parliament made their offering is noteworthy, -in view of the fact that the tenants-in-chief -intimated that they could speak only -for themselves. They made their own grant -of an aid and extended it “as far as in -them lies,” to “the community of the whole -kingdom.”<a name="FNanchor_142_142" id="FNanchor_142_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> The barons made special note -of the fact that the offering was an advance -upon the two marks which had been granted -to King Henry, and stipulated that this be not -drawn into precedent. As a matter of fact, -the tax fell only on the tenants-in-chief (just -why can only be conjectured), and the collection -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span>was not made until many years afterward.</p> - -<p>A second Parliament was held in July. -To it Edward summoned two or three elected -knights from each shire.<a name="FNanchor_143_143" id="FNanchor_143_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> The design behind -the calling of the Parliament was probably -the securing of a grant of a fifteenth of -temporal movables, since it develops that -such a tax was laid at that session, by clergy -and laity alike.<a name="FNanchor_144_144" id="FNanchor_144_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> Edward made a further -demand of a tenth of spiritual revenue, which -the clergy granted him on the 2d October -following.<a name="FNanchor_145_145" id="FNanchor_145_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> Apparently these offerings to the -king were in payment for his banishment of -the Jews, who were hated for their usurious -habits and for their religion; the laity sought -their expulsion for the former reason and the -clergy ostensibly for the latter, but the offence -to their pockets doubtless did much to arouse -their religious zeal against the Jews.</p> - -<p>The interval between 1290 and 1294 does -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span>not furnish a wealth of material. The royal -poverty coexisted with a spirit of restlessness -on the borders and in France during the four -years, and little was accomplished toward -relieving either the one or the other. In -1291 the Pope had complicated Edward’s relations -with the English clergy by giving him -a tenth of spiritual revenue for six years,<a name="FNanchor_146_146" id="FNanchor_146_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a> -and the barons holding estates in Wales gave -a fifteenth in 1292. Edward also had recourse -to distraint of knighthood, which as in 1282 -was symptomatic of a straitened treasury.<a name="FNanchor_147_147" id="FNanchor_147_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a></p> - -<p>Edward in June, 1294, held at Westminster -a Parliament which was attended by the -magnates of England and John Baliol, King -of Scotland. The barons determined upon -war with France, and proceeded to provide -for the outlay necessitated by it, not by a -general grant, but with private contributions. -John Baliol gave the income from the estates -which he held in England for three years, and -the other magnates “promised aid according -to their abilities.”<a name="FNanchor_148_148" id="FNanchor_148_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> But the supply was far -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span> -from being sufficient;<span class="sidenote">Seizure of -wool, 1294</span> Edward was obliged -to adopt extraordinary means to meet his -obligations. Shortly before the Westminster -Council Edward had made a move which later -assumed large proportions in the parliamentary -eye. He seized all the wool in the country, -belonging both to clergy and laymen, and -released it the following July at a rate which -meant scarcely less than redemption, three -to five marks on the sack, and which was -greatly in excess of the rate specified in 1275. -Edward had a shadow of legal sanction for -his act, perhaps the consent of the wool merchants,<a name="FNanchor_149_149" id="FNanchor_149_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> -perhaps an ordinance of his Council.<a name="FNanchor_150_150" id="FNanchor_150_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a></p> - -<p>In any event, he had the great defense of the -exigencies of war, a plea which he knew how -to make effective. Early in July he seized -coined money which had been deposited in -the cathedrals and religious houses for safekeeping, -and had it removed to his treasury -in London. “And he got much money which -he never after restored,” says the Chronicler.<a name="FNanchor_151_151" id="FNanchor_151_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a></p> - -<p>Edward summoned for the 21st September -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span>of the same year a general convocation of the -clergy to London. Beside the usual body of -prelates, there were in attendance elected -representatives of the parochial and cathedral -clergy. Edward demanded half the spiritual -revenue, to the great distress of the ecclesiastics. -They demurred, and urged a postponement -which Edward granted them. Upon their -reassembling, the king reiterated his demand -upon pain of outlawry in case of nonfulfillment. -<span class="sidenote">Clergy -grant -money under -pain of -outlawry, -1294</span> The Dean of St. Paul’s was so greatly -terrified that he died of fright, and then the -grant was made.<a name="FNanchor_152_152" id="FNanchor_152_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> This assembly takes its -importance from the fact that here was a -tacit recognition of the need of clerical consent -through representatives to taxation.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Knights of -the Shire -meet -separately</div> - -<p>On the 8th October, Edward addressed -writs to the sheriffs ordering the election of -two knights in each shire who were to come -to Westminster on the 12th of the following -month. They were to be of “full power for -themselves and the entire community of the -county aforesaid, to consult and consent for -themselves and that community, to those things -which the earls, barons, and chief men shall -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span>have agreed upon and ordained.”<a name="FNanchor_153_153" id="FNanchor_153_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> The next -day Edward sent out supplementary writs summoning -two knights from each shire in addition -to those previously called. There was no representation -from the cities and boroughs. The -laity proved more tractable than the clergy -had been at their assembly in September, and -readily accomplished Edward’s purpose. It -is probable that their deliberations were not -delayed, for on the same day with the assembling -of the Parliament, was dated the appointment -of the commissioners of collection. -The laity of the baronage and the shires gave -a tenth of all movables.<a name="FNanchor_154_154" id="FNanchor_154_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> A sixth of movables -was drawn from the towns by separate negotiation, -or perhaps by way of tallage.<a name="FNanchor_155_155" id="FNanchor_155_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a></p> - -<p>The step to the events and attainments of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span>the next year was not long, but it was of surpassing -importance. The year 1295 is painted -in scarlet on the canvas of constitutional -progress in England. It witnessed the Model -Parliament in the composition of which a -principle was applied which must ever stand -as the basic theory of popular legislative institutions; -<span class="sidenote">Events -leading up -to the -Model -Parliament, -1295</span> -indeed, without it, there can be no -lawmaking by the nation at all, and when -the taxing power be included amongst the -lawmaking functions, unless strict adherence -be given to this principle, the taxpayer can -never be assured of a voice in the laying of -taxes. Edward I, furnishing the pattern, -summoned the Model Parliament on the -expressed theory that “what touches all, by -all should be approved.” Here was the first -authentic instance of a perfect and complete -representation of the three estates in a national -legislative body giving its assent to taxation.</p> - -<p>The events immediately prior to the calling -of the Parliament are of interest. Trouble -was on with the Welsh, and a Scotch war -began before the other was over. The French -king had transgressed Edward’s Gascon possessions -and his sailors had landed at Dover,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span> -putting a convent and some houses to the -torch. Edward’s arms seemed doomed to -universal failure; nowhere were his prospects -bright. By no means the least serious feature -of his position was an empty treasury. With -the hope of devising the means of changing -his fortune, he summoned to Westminster for -the 1st August a Parliament composed of the -barons and prelates of the realm. The session -took place on the 15th August. The bulk of -the debate was upon the proposal for papal -mediation between England and France, and -no attempt was made to raise money. But it -was doubtlessly decided to ask for a grant at -the meeting of Parliament intended for the -following autumn.<a name="FNanchor_156_156" id="FNanchor_156_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">“What -affects all, -by all -should be -approved”</div> - -<p>On the four days from the 30th September -to the 3d October, Edward addressed writs to -the clergy, the barons, and the sheriffs, the -last of whom were to send up the representatives -of the counties and the boroughs. In -the writs to the clergy, by way of preamble -Edward said, “As a most just law, established -by the careful providence of sacred princes, -exhorts and decrees that what affects all, by -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span>all should be approved, so also, very evidently -should common danger be met by means -provided in common.”<a name="FNanchor_157_157" id="FNanchor_157_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> This legal maxim, -which had previously held a place only in the -minds of students of the law, was by this act -become a most important element in the -governmental practice of England.<a name="FNanchor_158_158" id="FNanchor_158_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> The -writs provided not only for the attendance of -the prelates, but also for the sending up of -representatives of the lower clergy,—the -archdeacons and deans in person, a suitable -proctor for the chapters, and two others for the -parochial clergy of each diocese. All were -to have “full and sufficient power ... to consider, -ordain, and provide.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span></p> - -<p>The writs to the barons<a name="FNanchor_159_159" id="FNanchor_159_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> were similar in -tenor to the usual issuance upon such occasions. -To the sheriffs it was “strictly commanded” -that they “cause to be elected -without delay” and sent up to Westminster -“two knights from the aforesaid county, two -citizens from each city in the same county, -and two burgesses from each borough, of -those who are especially discreet and capable -of acting.” All were to have “full and sufficient -power for themselves and for the community -of the aforesaid county ... and the -communities of the aforesaid cities and boroughs -separately, then and there for doing -what shall then be ordained according to -the common counsel in the premises; so that -the aforesaid business shall not remain unfinished -in any way for defect of this power.”<a name="FNanchor_160_160" id="FNanchor_160_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The Model -Parliament, -27th -Nov., 1295</div> - -<p>The Parliament, since known as the Model -Parliament, assembled the 27th November, -1295, in accordance with the summons of the -king. Each of the estates met by itself, and -each made its grant to the king independently -of the others.<a name="FNanchor_161_161" id="FNanchor_161_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> The barons and the knights -of the shire gave Edward an eleventh of their -movables, the clergy a tenth, and the burgesses -and citizens a seventh.<a name="FNanchor_162_162" id="FNanchor_162_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> Here was the -perfect form for the laying of taxes. In 1283 -the provincial councils at Northampton and -at York had suggested the composition of -the Model Parliament, but the foreshadowed -form was far from perfect. In 1295 the question -was fully answered as to how the people -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span>should assent to taxation, in case their assent -should be asked. The Model Parliament -furnished the perfect mechanism; the question -was still in the air, however, as to whether -this mechanism should be the sole instrument -by which the laying of taxation should be performed.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Similar -composition -at Parliament -of -1296</div> - -<p>Events, however, were tripping one another -up in their haste to bring forward a suitable -answer. The Parliament of 1296, which met -at Bury St. Edmund’s on the 3d November, -clinched a precedent which should have its -weight in making the reply. Its constitution -was precisely the same as in 1295; the barons -and knights gave a twelfth of their movables, -and the citizens and burghers an eighth.</p> - -<p>The clergy, however, held off. According -to the understanding reached the previous -December when Edward accepted from them -a tenth in lieu of a larger grant, they were to -meet a demand with a further contribution of -like amount,<a name="FNanchor_163_163" id="FNanchor_163_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> unless peace be declared in the interval. -In consequence, Edward was scarcely -ready to accept the apology of Archbishop -Winchelsey; the archbishop declared that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span>should the clergy acquiesce, the papal will expressed -in the recently published bull “Clericis -laicos”<a name="FNanchor_164_164" id="FNanchor_164_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> would be contravened, and that -<span class="sidenote">Edward -puts the -clergy in -outlawry</span> therefore no grant would be forthcoming. -He would give his final answer after meeting -the clergy of his province at St. Paul’s -early in January, 1297. When at last his -reply was presented, it was in tenor different -from that given in November; the Pope’s -will was clear and it must hold. Edward -moved swiftly. Remembering the satisfactory -effect of his threat of outlawry in 1294, -he immediately placed the clergy beyond -the royal protection.<a name="FNanchor_165_165" id="FNanchor_165_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> Some of the clergy -won back the favor of the king by making -individual contributions to the royal treasury, -an evasion of the terms of the papal bull -which was quite acceptable to Edward. On -the 12th February, the king, weary of waiting -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span>for a favorable movement from Archbishop -Winchelsey, ordered the seizure of the lay fees -of the clergy in the see of Canterbury, whereat -the archbishop brought forward his weapon -of excommunication. Thus did Edward find -disposed against himself and the royal cause -the powerful body of English churchmen, at -a moment when their adherence would have -been of vast advantage.</p> - -<p>The Scots had been put down during the -year 1296 and Baliol removed forever from -Scotch territory. The momentary peace on -the borders made Edward feverish to avenge -himself upon Philip of France, who was -making free with Gascony. The trouble -with the church had served to delay preparations -which might speedily have reached -completion upon the granting of money at -the November Parliament, and Edward was -in no temper to brook further interference. -He had formulated a plan of campaign -against the French which provided not only -for an expedition into Gascony in reinforcement -of the army already there, but for the -landing of a powerful force in Flanders. The -latter he intended to lead in person, but the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span> -conduct of the Gascon army he hoped to -delegate to his barons. With the intention -of securing their consent he <span class="sidenote">Struggle -with the -barons over -service in -Gascony</span> called a meeting -of the baronage at Salisbury for the 24th -February. Neither the clergy nor the knights -and burgesses were present. The barons held -freshly in mind the recent opposition of the -clergy and they were in no mood to forego any -tightening of the royal bonds upon themselves.</p> - -<p>Edward urged them to go into Gascony, -and straightway one by one they began to -make excuses. To the king, burning to defend -the English possessions abroad and -already overwrought by the long struggle -with the churchmen, the refusal savored of -disloyalty, and in requital he threatened them -with forfeiture of their lands. The two great -earls Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and -Marshal of England, and Humfrey Bohun of -Hereford, the Constable, were quite as backward -in meeting the king’s wishes and no -more favorably received.</p> - -<p>“With you, O King,” said Earl Roger, “I -will gladly go: as belongs to me by hereditary -right, I will go in the front of the host before -your face.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span></p> - -<p>“But without me,” Edward assured, “you -will go with the rest.”</p> - -<p>“Without you, O King,” Earl Roger declared, -“I am neither bound to go, nor will I.”</p> - -<p>“By God, Earl,” swore the king, “You -shall either go or hang!”</p> - -<p>“By the same oath, O King, I will neither -go nor hang!”<a name="FNanchor_166_166" id="FNanchor_166_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a></p> - -<p>In these words and on these grounds the -Earl Marshal of England refused to undertake -foreign service, and the Council scattered. -Edward, not to be undone, straightway set -about preparing for an expedition independently -of his baronage. <span class="sidenote">Seizure -of wool</span> He laid hands upon -all the wool and woolfells of the country, -that being the commodity most readily convertible -into money, and ordered that it be -carried to the seaports. In default of obedience, -this wool passed to the crown by confiscation. -Every merchant who was the possessor -of more than five sacks received tallies -from the royal commissioners which might -or might not secure payment in the future.<a name="FNanchor_167_167" id="FNanchor_167_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> -Those who had less than five sacks were -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span>allowed to retain it upon paying a toll of -forty shillings on the sack. Simultaneously, -Edward directed at every county a demand -for 2000 quarters of wheat, a like quantity of -oats, and a supply of beef and pork. Whereas -in 1294 Edward had been able to plead the -consent of the merchants to his toll on wool, -in the present instance no plea was possible -save the exigencies of the case, and that was -no defense at law. So Edward, by stress of -circumstance, was obliged to forfeit the support -of a growing and exceedingly important -body of his people.</p> - -<p>The king determined to make a final attempt -to win the barons from their contumacy. -For the 7th July, he summoned the -whole fighting force of the kingdom to London; -the assembly was to include all who held -lands to the annual value of £20, no matter -what the tenure.<a name="FNanchor_168_168" id="FNanchor_168_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> From these a demand for -foreign service was obviously unconstitutional, -since they were not immediately bound to -him. Coupled with the weakness of the king’s -position was the continued opposition of -Bohun and Bigod; they and a large number of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span>the other barons had surrounded themselves -with a force of knights to the number of fifteen -hundred, and, though they were not as yet -openly hostile, they had been able to shield -their lands from the royal exactions of wool -and wheat.<a name="FNanchor_169_169" id="FNanchor_169_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a> When Edward ordered the -Marshal and the Constable to perform their -offices, they refused.</p> - -<p>Thus it was that Edward found himself -pitted not only against the King of France, -but also against the church, the merchant -class, and his own baronage. Of these the -church showed itself most amenable to placation. -Edward restored to Archbishop Winchelsey -the lands of the see of Canterbury -which he had confiscated.<a name="FNanchor_170_170" id="FNanchor_170_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> To strengthen -further a position which at best was exceedingly -weak, Edward made a dramatic attempt -to win over to his cause the support of the -people.</p> - -<p>On the 14th July, a week after his unsuccessful -council with the barons, he appeared -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span>on a wooden stage erected in front of the great -hall at Westminster and addressed the populace. -He asked that they forgive the harshness -of his acts, but reminded them that what -money they had given him had gone to subdue -enemies plotting to drive the English tongue -from the earth.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Edward’s -appeal to -the people</div> - -<p>“Behold,” he cried, his voice choked with -tears, “I am going to expose myself to danger -for your sakes; I pray you, if I return, -receive me as you have me now, and I will -restore to you all that has been taken. But -if I return not,” and at this he brought forward -his son, the young Edward, who was -standing near him on the platform, “crown -my son as your king.”<a name="FNanchor_171_171" id="FNanchor_171_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> The people threw -up their caps and promised fealty to the king. -The archbishop declared his resolve to be -faithful.</p> - -<p>But neither the reconciliation with the -church nor the adherence of the London -populace brought him money, and in so far as -advantage was reckoned in terms of shillings, -Edward was no better off than before his -council of the 7th July. He had recourse to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span>the old expedient of individual negotiation. -He consulted in a private audience the chief -men still remaining of those who had gathered -for the military levy; he assumed their ability -to grant taxes upon the analogy of a Parliament, -an assumption scarcely reasonable in -view of their depleted numbers.<span class="sidenote">His -financial -expedients</span> Notwithstanding -the fact that Earls Roger and Humfrey -remained obdurate, such of the barons -and knights as were there granted an eighth -and the citizens and burghers a fifth, on the -somewhat hazy understanding that the king -should confirm the charters. Edward on the -30th July gave orders for the collection of -the tax and issued writs for the seizure of -8000 sacks of wool, for which the merchants -received tallies as a record of credit at the -exchequer.<a name="FNanchor_172_172" id="FNanchor_172_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a></p> - -<p>Then he went down to the coast and prepared -to embark. Putting great faith in the -continued support of the people, he addressed -to them an eloquent plea for loyalty to the -crown as against the barons. He spoke of -the exactions of money to which they had been -subjected, and declared that, severe as was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span>the pain which had been inflicted upon the -people, equally great was his own distress; -that the money had been spent for “le commun -profit du reaume, pur son pople honyr et -destruyre.”<a name="FNanchor_173_173" id="FNanchor_173_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> -The barons, <span class="sidenote">The -barons’ -grievances</span> on the other hand, -immediately came forward with a list of -grievances which they presented to the king, -complaining, amongst other things, of the -aids, tallages, and prises which the king had -lately levied. So afflicted were they with -“divers tallages, aids, and prises,” such as -those upon corn, oats, malt, wool, hides, oxen, -kine, and salt meat, that it would have been -impossible for them to equip for any foreign -expedition. More than that, they could make -no grant of an aid, because of their great -poverty following the exaction of the aforesaid -tallages and prises; indeed, there were -“many who had no sustenance, and who -could not till their lands.” The tax on wool -was much too heavy, no less than 40<i>s.</i> on the -sack; wool comprised half the wealth of the -nation, and the tax was equivalent to a fifth -part of the value of the whole land. Magna -Carta and the Charter of the Forest were -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span>both disregarded, and many acts were done -in defiance of them.<a name="FNanchor_174_174" id="FNanchor_174_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a></p> - -<p>Edward did not return a definite answer; -the call to war sounded too loudly. Before he -embarked he issued orders for the collection of -<span class="sidenote"> Edward -embarks -for -Flanders</span> -a third of clerical temporalities in a most peremptory -manner; on the 10th August the clergy -had expressed hopes of being able to gain the -Pope’s permission to disregard the provisions -of “Clericis laicos,” but of late they had showed -a disposition to stand with the baronage. Finally, -on the 22d August, Edward succeeded -in getting up sail and made for Flanders.</p> - -<p>But he could not escape the issue. Almost -before England had sunk below his horizon -Bohun and Bigod were at the Exchequer -loudly protesting against the collection of the -aid which had been irregularly granted to -Edward five weeks previously. They went -to the extreme of forbidding the Barons of -the Exchequer to proceed with their work of -taking the tax until Edward should make -formal confirmation of the Charters.<a name="FNanchor_175_175" id="FNanchor_175_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> -The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span> -Londoners forgot their loyalty to the king, -and swore by the earls. The young Prince -Edward, afterward king, whom Edward had -left as his regent, tried to throw a dam across -the swelling river by promising that the -eighth should not be taken into precedent.<a name="FNanchor_176_176" id="FNanchor_176_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> -This was published in proclamation on the -28th August, but it availed nothing. The -fifth which had been asserted as owing from -the cities and boroughs was lost sight of.</p> - -<p>Edward, two days before his departure for -Flanders had sent out summonses to a number -of barons and knights to meet his son on the -8th September at Rochester. But before that -date was reached, the necessity for a full Council -was apparent. Accordingly, on the 8th -September, messages were sent out which -called most of the barons of the royal party; -on the 9th, Archbishop Winchelsey, the Constable -and the Marshal, were summoned,<a name="FNanchor_177_177" id="FNanchor_177_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> -and on the 15th letters were addressed to the -sheriffs ordering an election of knights of -the shire.<a name="FNanchor_178_178" id="FNanchor_178_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> No representatives of the cities -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[144]</a></span>and boroughs or of the inferior clergy were -called.</p> - -<p>The Parliament was summoned for the -octaves of St. Michael (the 6th October), at -London. The great nobles, coming with -their train of armed soldiers, both foot and -horse, had command of the situation.<a name="FNanchor_179_179" id="FNanchor_179_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> They -demanded that the young regent confirm -Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest, -together with certain supplementary articles. -Prince Edward, acting on the advice of his -councillors, agreed, and straightway on the -10th October, sent the Charters and the new -<span class="sidenote">Principle -that grants -must await -redress of -grievances</span> -provisions to his father in Flanders for final -confirmation. Nor was that enough. “The -earls,” says Bishop Stubbs, “took advantage -of their strength to force on the government -the principle, which both before and long -after was a subject of contention among -English statesmen, that grievances must be -redressed before supplies are granted.”<a name="FNanchor_180_180" id="FNanchor_180_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> The -irregular and much disputed grant of an -eighth they declared null, and in place of it -they substituted a ninth from such of the laity -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</a></span>as were in attendance, a grant in which the -towns subsequently were included. Here -was one of the opening battles in the war -which was to decide whether or not Parliament, -sitting guardian of the public purse, -could by reason of that guardianship, establish -its control over the executive as well as the -legislative acts of the nation.</p> - -<p>The articles found the king at Ghent on the -5th November and he set his name both to the -Charters and to the provisions supplementary -to them. The difficulties with the barons thus -concluded, it was not long before the clerical -atmosphere cleared also.<span class="sidenote">Confirmation -of the -Charters</span> On the 20th November, -the clergy, in response to a suggestion from -Archbishop Winchelsey, evading the letter of -“Clericis laicos,” initiated a tax upon themselves, -a fifth from the northern province, and -a tenth from the southern.<a name="FNanchor_181_181" id="FNanchor_181_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> The purpose of -the levy was the defense of the realm against -the Scots who had again invaded the north.<a name="FNanchor_182_182" id="FNanchor_182_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[146]</a></span></p> - -<p>Edward I, when he signed “Confirmatio -Cartarum,” in an inconclusive way handed -over to Parliament the right to consent to all -taxation before it be levied; in other words, -hereafter Parliament had grounds upon which -it could contest arbitrary exactions of the -crown. That the grounds for objection were -not absolute and that Edward left a loophole -by which he could escape will appear upon a -consideration of the articles themselves.</p> - -<p>The first four chapters of Confirmatio -Cartarum have to do with the bare reissuance -of the Charter of Henry III, and penalties -for their infraction. The fifth is more to the -point; it provides that the recent exactions -shall not be taken into precedent for future -taxation.<a name="FNanchor_183_183" id="FNanchor_183_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> The sixth chapter brings the issue -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[147]</a></span>directly before us and exhibits also the loophole -by which <span class="sidenote">The tax -provisions -of Confirmatio -Cartarum</span> the king might find his escape -from it, if he should have the inclination and -the power to do so. It says that “for no business -from henceforth we shall take of our -realm such manner of aids, tasks, nor prises, -but by the common assent of all the realm, -and for the common profit thereof, saving the -ancient aids and prises due and accustomed.”<a name="FNanchor_184_184" id="FNanchor_184_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[148]</a></span> -The chapter going on in reference to the evil -custom of forty shillings on every sack of wool, -commonly known as the “maletolt,” says, -“We ... have granted that we will not take -such thing nor any other without their common -assent and good will; saving to us and our -heirs the custom of wools, skins, and leather, -granted before by the commonalty aforesaid.”</p> - -<p>The chapters are explicit. Of the two, the -sixth is of far greater consequence, both to -those seeking in Confirmatio Cartarum a -complete statement of the right of Parliament -to exercise exclusive control over taxation and -to those looking for a vindication of the royal -prerogative. The fifth can be taken for what -it was, a mere promise on the part of the king -not to bring forward past wrongs in defense -of future ills,—a promise, the like of which -was seldom of much practical avail. The -sixth, however, were it not for two clauses -saving to the king “the ancient aids and prises, -due and accustomed,” and the “custom of -wools, skins, and leather granted before,” -would have established a tolerably broad -basis for the theory that royal control over -taxation underwent its legal death in 1297.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[149]</a></span> -The facts, however, that the king could still -retain his right to levy ancient aids and prises, -provided they were what his ancestors were -wont to exact; that he could claim unquestioned -control over the wool-tax to the extent -of half a mark on the sack; and that nothing -was said at all about his right to tallage his -demesne and the city of London, form a -sound backing for the contention that not -only was the royal power over taxation not -dead, but that it was still vigorous and capable -of much future activity. One might rightfully -deduce, also, at least in so far as an explicit -reading of the text can lead one to conclusions, -that within certain circumscribed limits, the -royal prerogative would be unquestioned.</p> - -<p>By implication, however, it is possible to -read into Confirmatio Cartarum a different -significance than a bald consideration of its -contents allows. The mere fact that the -nation had taken a stand on the matter of -taxation marks the year 1297 as of profound -importance; the fact that the stand was not -conclusive, that it did not represent the fullest -advance possible at the time, is not to be -wondered at. Furthermore, the subsequent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[150]</a></span> -Parliaments saw to it that the king observed -more than the mere letter of the law, notwithstanding -Edward’s evident aptitude for -only that. The case in this respect was not -unlike the observance of the omitted chapters -of Magna Carta; though the written form of -them had been misunderstood and unappreciated, -yet by the natural forces at play between -king and Councils, the spirit of them -survived.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">De tallagio -non concedendo</div> - -<p>The so-called Statute <i>De tallagio non concedendo</i>, -if it could be taken at its face value, -provided exactly those restraints upon the -royal power wherein Confirmatio Cartarum -was wanting. It appears in the Chronicle -of Walter of Hemingburgh immediately after -the French text of Confirmatio Cartarum -under the heading “Articuli incerti in Magna -Carta,”<a name="FNanchor_185_185" id="FNanchor_185_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> “No tallage or aid,” it says, “shall -be laid or levied by us or our heirs in our realm, -without the good will and assent of the archbishops, -bishops, earls, barons, knights, burgesses, -and other freemen of our realm.”<a name="FNanchor_186_186" id="FNanchor_186_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[151]</a></span></p> - -<p>Seizure of corn, wool, and leather was provided -against, and the maletolt was forever -done away with. Humfrey Bohun and Roger -Bigod received pardon for themselves and -their following for failing to serve in the train -of Edward when he went to Flanders.</p> - -<p><i>De tallagio non concedendo</i> was denominated -a statute in the Petition of Right and -declared to be such by decision of the judges, -in the Hampden case in 1637. In all probability, -however, it is nothing but the Latin -abstract of Confirmatio Cartarum, included -by Walter of Hemingburgh in his narrative -for the greater convenience of the reader, -together with a formal statement of the pardon -of the two earls. That Edward did not feel -himself bound by the restrictions of the -“Statute” is shown by the fact that in 1304 -he tallaged the towns and the royal demesne. -Furthermore, the nation seems at the time -not to have regarded the Chronicler’s articles -as law, for they registered no complaint -against Edward’s tallage.<a name="FNanchor_187_187" id="FNanchor_187_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[152]</a></span></p> -<p>The appearance of Confirmatio Cartarum -marked a stage in the history of parliamentary -taxation. During the reigns of Henry III and -Edward, machinery was constructed which -could carry out the chapters of Magna Carta -providing for taxation by assent. The Parliament -of the three estates, assembled for the -purpose of meeting the pecuniary necessities -of the king, proved itself to be the easiest and -most effective means by which the whole nation -could grant taxes. But the evolution from -the Commune Concilium, the rough prototype -of Parliament, had scarcely gone farther -than to supply a convenient instrument of taxation. -In 1297 every tax did not need the -assent of Parliament as the prerequisite to -its levy; Confirmatio Cartarum was not all-inclusive. -More than that, the question was -still undetermined as to whether the granting -of supplies should always wait upon redress of -grievances. If Parliament should maintain -that principle in practice, then its hold would -be secure upon the executive. Power in 1297 -was not far from a balance between king and -nation.</p> - -<p>If the evolution of a government can ever<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[153]</a></span> -be attributed to the directing skill of man -rather than to the slow weaving of events, -the construction for England of an engine -of popular taxation can be ascribed to Edward -Plantagenet, and in less degree to the -drafter of the working plan, Simon de Montfort. -Edward perceived the nation’s problem -and adapted such means as lay near his hand -to its solution. So it was that an assembly, -not only of the magnates of the kingdom, but -of elected knights of the shire, of parish priests -from the inferior clergy, of merchant citizens -and burgesses from the towns, came together -to provide in common for the common need.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[154]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<h2 class="p4">V</h2> - -<p class="pch">TAXATION BY THE COMMONS<br /> -1297-1461</p> - -<p class="pn"><span class="smcap">The</span> years subsequent to 1297 up to the time -of the Tudors comprise a period of differentiation -within Parliament itself. Save for -the event of the year 1340, when the statute -was passed which completed the movement -punctuated by Confirmatio Cartarum, to the -effect that every form of taxation must have -the sanction of Parliament in order to be -legal, the three centuries showed greater -progress inside the walls of Parliament than -beyond them. Struggles there were in plenitude -between king and Parliament <span class="sidenote">Character -of the -period</span> to secure -adherence in practice to the theory enunciated -in 1340, but the great question was that of -the ruling power within Parliament. It is -during this period that the Commons come -forward as the sole initiators of taxes, leaving<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[155]</a></span> -to the Lords merely the coördinate power -of consent. In close interrelation with this -monopoly of power over the public purse, -comes, in consequence of the theory that -supplies must wait upon redress of grievances, -the advance toward control by the House of -Commons of the entire machinery of government, -legislative and executive.</p> - -<p>It is a period of confusion and contradiction. -Time and again constitutional life -seems to be dead. War, disputed succession -to the crown, tyranny, slip-shod government,—these -and more tend to make the years 1297-1461 -a bundle of scenes ill-bound together. -The Wars of the Roses, the struggles with -France for various causes and with varied -consequences, the doting of monarchs upon -foreign favorites, all contribute toward popular -distraction from that interest in government, -that keen hostility to maladministration, -which makes for constitutional progress. -There was no leader to prick the public conscience; -no Simon de Montfort or Edward -Plantagenet to inaugurate reforms in the -great matters of government.</p> - -<p>When Edward I put his name to Confirmatio<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[156]</a></span> -Cartarum at Ghent, on the 5th November, -1297, he had still ten years to live. In 1301, -he re-confirmed the Charters in a bill of some -twelve articles forced from him by the barons -in a manner which he denounced as outrageous, -and thereby concluded the baronial -conflict. The barons presented their claims -at the Parliament of Lincoln <span class="sidenote">The Parliament -of -Lincoln, -1301</span> which was -summoned for the 20th January, 1301, and -included amongst them, beside the plea for a -confirmation of the Charters, a demand for -the enforcement of general reforms, this last -to be the prerequisite for a grant of money. A -fifteenth of all movables was then voted to -the king, to be paid upon the completion of -the reforms, the date proposed being Michaelmas -next coming.<a name="FNanchor_188_188" id="FNanchor_188_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> The clergy, who still professed -adherence to the bull “Clericis laicos,” -with the approval of the baronage averred that -they could not acquiesce in any grant of money -in the face of papal prohibition. Edward, in -his reply to the claims made by the barons, -declared his unwillingness to admit the validity -of the assertion that papal consent was -necessary to the clerical grant. His confirmation -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[157]</a></span>of the Charters was dated 14th February, -1301.<a name="FNanchor_189_189" id="FNanchor_189_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a></p> - -<p>Edward’s last years were years of financial -difficulty. In 1302 at the Parliament held -on the 1st July, at London, he received from -the lay estates and the clergy a fifteenth of temporal -goods.<a name="FNanchor_190_190" id="FNanchor_190_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> The same year saw him turn -back to the aid <i>pur fille marier</i> <span class="sidenote">Edward’s -financial -expedients</span> which the -barons had granted twelve years previously in -June, 1290; and in 1303 he attempted to obtain -the consent of the merchants to an increase -in the custom on wine, wool, and merchandise. -He called a meeting at York, quite irregular -in its constitutional aspect, and presented the -matter for its consideration. The merchants -would not listen to the plea and the matter, -as far as denizens were concerned, was -dropped.<a name="FNanchor_191_191" id="FNanchor_191_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> Five months previously, on the -1st February, Edward had had better fortune -in a similar effort with the foreign merchants. -On the principle that the crown had the right -to close the ports to merchant strangers, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[158]</a></span> -Edward entered into negotiation with the -leading men amongst them, and in return -for a grant of all the privileges and liberties -essential to them, they agreed to a fifty per -cent. increase over the rates paid upon wools -and leather by English-born merchants. Beside -these were new duties <span class="sidenote">Tunnage -and poundage -and -other customs</span> upon other commodities, -whether they be exported or imported: -wine, 2<i>s.</i> on the tun, a custom which was to -achieve notoriety under the name of tunnage; -cloth, from 1<i>s.</i> to 2<i>s.</i> on the piece depending -upon the dye; general merchandise, 3<i>d.</i> in -the pound of 20<i>s.</i>, subsequently called poundage; -and wax, 1<i>s.</i> per quintal.<a name="FNanchor_192_192" id="FNanchor_192_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> This agreement -between king and merchants, known by -the title “Carta Mercatoria,” was not technically -in contravention of Confirmatio Cartarum, -notwithstanding the provisions of the latter -against the levying without national consent -of any but the “ancient prises” and the custom -on wool previously granted. Confirmatio -Cartarum was a grant to Englishmen and to -Edward’s sharply legal mind, its liberties did -not extend to foreigners, however closely knit -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[159]</a></span>their relations might be with the king’s own -people.</p> - -<p>In 1304 Edward took from the demesne -cities and boroughs and the royal demesne -a sixth of movables.<a name="FNanchor_193_193" id="FNanchor_193_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a> The records of the -Parliament of 1305,<span class="sidenote">Tallage, -1304</span> far from noting any -complaint against the king’s tallage, contain -this memorandum: “To the petition of archbishops, -bishops, prelates, earls, barons, and -other good men of the land, praying that the -king wills to grant them the power to tallage -their ancient demesne ... even as the king -has tallaged his demesne, it was answered, -‘Let it be as petitioned.’”<a name="FNanchor_194_194" id="FNanchor_194_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> This is all but -final evidence against the validity of <i>De tallagio -non concedendo</i>.<a name="FNanchor_195_195" id="FNanchor_195_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a></p> - -<p>The great Edward died at Burgh-upon-Sands -on Friday, the 7th July, 1307, and the -sceptre fell into the nerveless hand of Edward II. -<span class="sidenote">Edward II, -1307-1327</span> The new king did not inherit his father’s -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[160]</a></span>great attributes nor his good fortune; he was -improvident and unperceptive, the faithful -dupe of advantage-seeking associates, the lavish -spender of money he did not have, the -chief enemy of himself. At last, when he -had reigned some twenty years, he was put -down and his son succeeded in his stead. Edward -II’s accession was undisputed; at Carlisle, -on the 20th July, he received the homage -and fealty of the English baronage, and six -months later on the 25th February, 1308, he -was crowned. The coronation oath he was -obliged to take in French, not being familiar -with the Latin tongue. The oath was more -than usually stringent; the last of the four -promises required of the king was this: -“Sire, do you grant to hold and to keep the -laws and righteous customs which the community -of your realm shall have chosen, -and will you defend and strengthen them to -the honor of God, to the utmost of your -power?” Edward answered, “I grant and -promise.”<a name="FNanchor_196_196" id="FNanchor_196_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a></p> - -<p>Edward did not call a Parliament between -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[161]</a></span> -October 1307, and April 1309.<a name="FNanchor_197_197" id="FNanchor_197_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a> He was in -fear, apparently, of an attack upon his foreign -favorite, Piers Gaveston, and was desirous -of shielding him, as Charles I attempted to -shield Buckingham three centuries later, by -doing without a Parliament. The only merit -of the favorite seems to have been the deep, -and in its consequences the pathetic love with -which he inspired the young monarch. He -was self-seeking, avaricious, willful, and capable -of exercising a domination over the king -as complete as it was profitable to himself. At -last, however, the loans, which his Italian -bankers, the Friscobaldi had supplied Edward, -withered away and he was obliged to issue -a summons to a Parliament.</p> - -<p>Parliament met on the 27th April, 1309, -with a full attendance of clergy, lords, knights -and burgesses. In response to Edward’s -urgent request for funds, the lords, burgesses -and knights granted him a meagre twenty-fifth, -but only on condition of a redress of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[162]</a></span>grievances, these being detailed in a schedule -of eleven articles.<a name="FNanchor_198_198" id="FNanchor_198_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> Two of the eleven -have to do with taxation; the first was directed -at the abuses of purveyance; the second hit -more nearly, having to do with the New -Customs which Edward I had provided for -in the Carta Mercatoria of 1303.<a name="FNanchor_199_199" id="FNanchor_199_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> “And as -to the customs which the king taketh by his -officers—,” so goes the memorandum in the -Rolls,<span class="sidenote">Tentative -abolition of -the New -Customs</span> “that is to say, of every tun of wine, -two shillings; of every cloth which alien merchants -bring into his land, two shillings; and -of every pound value of avoir de pois, three -pence—the king willeth at the request of the -said good people that the said customs of wines, -clothes, and avoir de pois, do cease at his will, -in order to know and be advised what profit -and advantage will accrue to him and his -people by ceasing the taking of those customs; -and the king will have counsel according to -the advantage which he shall see therein: saving -always to the king the ancient prises and -customs anciently due and approved.” The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[163]</a></span>king gave orders that the conditional grant of -the twenty-fifth be collected.</p> - -<p>The trouble over Gaveston, however, was -not settled, and he became increasingly worrisome -to the barons. Furthermore the customs -were collected not by Englishmen but by -Edward’s Italian bankers. <span class="sidenote">The -Lords Ordainers, -1309-1311</span> In March 1310, -meeting in council, the barons drew up a petition -praying against the impoverishment of -the exchequer despite grants of money; the -king, so they said, was still exacting prises -and living by purveyance contrary to the engagement -of 1309. Edward, still hoping to -shield Gaveston, assented to the election of -a commission of twenty-one, known as the -Lords Ordainers, who exercised his authority -for the space of a year and a half.</p> - -<p>The Lords Ordainers, recalling in their composition -and purposes those who put forward -the scheme of reform in the Provisions of Oxford -of 1255, proceeded to promulgate ordinances -for the correction of abuses. On the -2d August, 1310, six ordinances were made -public and received the confirmation of the -king.<a name="FNanchor_200_200" id="FNanchor_200_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> By the fourth, it was ordained “that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[164]</a></span>the customs of the realm be kept and received -by people of the realm, and not by aliens; and -that the issues and profits of the same customs, -together with all other issues and profits of -the realm arising from any matters whatsoever, -shall come entirely to the King’s exchequer, -... to maintain the household of -the king, and otherwise to his profit, so that -the king may live of his own, without taking -prises other than those anciently due and -accustomed; and all others shall cease.”<a name="FNanchor_201_201" id="FNanchor_201_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> -Despite the apparent inclusion of the “New -Customs” within the meaning of this ordinance, -their resumption was ordered the same -day, on the ground that during the period of -their prohibition, prices had not been reduced.<a name="FNanchor_202_202" id="FNanchor_202_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a></p> - -<p>Parliament met on the 8th August, 1311, -to receive the final report of the Ordainers, -and sat for two months. Thirty-five additional -articles were drawn up in Parliament.<a name="FNanchor_203_203" id="FNanchor_203_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a> -<span class="sidenote">New -Customs -abolished</span> By the tenth article new prises are to be abolished, -and by the eleventh the New Customs -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[165]</a></span>are done away with in their entirety. “New -customs have been levied,” says the ordinance, -“and the old enhanced, as upon wools, cloths, -wines, avoir de pois, and other things, whereby -the merchants come more seldom, and bring -fewer good into the land, and the foreign merchants -abide longer than they were wont to do, -by which abiding things become more dear -than they were wont to be, to the damage of -the king and his people; we do ordain that -all manner of customs and imposts levied -since the coronation of King Edward, son of -King Henry, be entirely put out, and altogether -extinguished for ever, notwithstanding -the charter which the said King Edward made -to the merchant aliens, because the same was -made contrary to the Great Charter ..., -saving nevertheless to the king the customs -of wools, woolfells, and leather; that is to say, -for each sack of wool, half a mark, and for -three hundred woolfells, half a mark, and for -a last of leather, one mark ..., and henceforth -merchant strangers shall come, abide, and -go according to the ancient customs....”<a name="FNanchor_204_204" id="FNanchor_204_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> -On the 9th October, the day upon which Parliament -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[166]</a></span>rose, the order went out which made -the ordinance effective.<a name="FNanchor_205_205" id="FNanchor_205_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Banishment -of -Gaveston</div> - -<p>Gaveston, the hated favorite, whose corruption -and acts of oppression had furnished the -immediate cause for the reform movement, -was amply provided for. He was put under -sentence of perpetual banishment and in -order to safeguard themselves against the -return to power of him and his kind, the -barons reiterated the demand made in 1244, -that the appointment of ministers be subject -in the future to their council and consent.<a name="FNanchor_206_206" id="FNanchor_206_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_206_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> -The king gave his assent to the ordinances on -the 30th September and two weeks later they -went out to the sheriffs for publication.</p> - -<p>The Parliament which met in 1312 granted -Edward no money. His position was desperate -and he turned everywhere in the hope that he -could raise funds wherewith to meet his necessities; -the merchants and the clergy, even the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[167]</a></span> -Pope, were induced to lend him money. But -they could not satisfy his needs; therefore in -December, 1312,<span class="sidenote">Tallage of -1312: -Riots in -London -and Bristol</span> the Council determined to -levy a tallage on the demesne towns and the -royal demesne of a fifteenth of movables and -a tenth of rents.<a name="FNanchor_207_207" id="FNanchor_207_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_207_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> The imposition met with -opposition, resistance being most riotous in -London and Bristol. The objections which -the people of Bristol raised were not based -upon legal grounds; it so happened that at -the moment certain of their burgesses were -confined in the Tower of London, and that -grievance, so they maintained, warranted their -refusal. The basis for resistance raised by -the citizens of London was not so casual; they -claimed immunity from a royal tallage on -the ground of the “ancient privileges” guaranteed -to them under Magna Carta. Neither -cited <i>De tallagio non concedendo</i> as the defense -of their actions, and the presumption against -the validity of the so-called statute is therefore -enhanced. The king secured his payment by -way of compromise; the Londoners granted a -“loan” of £400 and another of £1000, from -which sums they were to be relieved at the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[168]</a></span>time of collection of the next general aid. -Many other towns escaped upon the ground -that they were not situated within the royal -demesne. The principle that the king could -levy tallages upon his own demesne thus -remained unquestioned; but no tallage was -levied during the rest of this reign.<a name="FNanchor_208_208" id="FNanchor_208_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_208_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a></p> - -<p>It is unnecessary to follow Edward II to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[169]</a></span> -<span class="sidenote">Deposition -of Edward -II</span> his melancholy end. His deposition came -more as the result of stress in his own household -than because of any strain which he put -upon the constitution. Favorites, an unfaithful -wife, and factions which he bred among -his barons, did more to bring about his dethronement -and his subsequent murder than -any condition of taxation. In the list of -grievances which Bishop Stratford drew up as -furnishing cause sufficient for the overthrow -of Edward, nothing appears which has any -connection with the question of taxation, -much less any assertion of parliamentary right -to control it. The king consented to the -election of his son in his stead on January 20, -1327. Eight months thereafter he died; few -doubt that he was murdered.</p> - -<p>The reign of Edward III dates from the -24th January, 1327. <span class="sidenote">Edward III, -1327-1377</span> He was crowned five -days later at the age of fourteen and took the -same stringent oath as that which had failed -to bind his father. Parliament appointed a -council of government which was to be in -constant attendance upon the king; but the -queen and her familiar, Mortimer, assumed -so dominant a control over the young king<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[170]</a></span> -that the influence of the Council was nil. -Edward went through the formality of confirming -the charters and forbidding illegal -assessment of aids. His rule really did not -begin until November, 1330, when Mortimer -was killed.</p> - -<p>Edward III, being no statesman, but a -warrior, energetic, without scruple, lavish, -and ambitious, was not a figure designed to -loom large in constitutional history. He did -not mould events as did his grandfather; he -watched them move. As a matter of fact there -was advance. Tallage was prohibited and -there came, too, the abolition in law of other -forms of arbitrary taxation.</p> - -<p>Edward had in mind in 1332 the reduction -of Scotland.<a name="FNanchor_209_209" id="FNanchor_209_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a> To that end he revived a financial -expedient which had not been exercised -since his father’s embarrassment in 1312, and -tallaged the demesne cities and boroughs, and -the rural demesne.<span class="sidenote">Tallage of -1332 and -its withdrawal</span> On the 25th June, he -sent out orders for the collection of a fourteenth -of movables and a ninth of rents.<a name="FNanchor_210_210" id="FNanchor_210_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_210_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[171]</a></span></p> - -<p>Parliament met three months later, on the -9th September, and a request formulated by -the prelates, earls, barons, and the knights -of the shires, was addressed to the king praying -the recall of the commission for the -tallage; Parliament offered as a substitute a -fifteenth from the shires and a tenth from -the towns. Just why a Parliament in which -the Rolls do not note the inclusion of the -burgesses should accomplish such a substitution, -which obviously benefited the townsmen, -is not clear, unless a considerable portion of the -knights dwelt within the royal demesne or in -small towns formerly subjected to the exaction -of tallage. In his acceptance of the grant -Edward promised for the future that he would -not lay such a tallage, “Except as was customary -in the time of our ancestors, and as -he might rightly do.”<a name="FNanchor_211_211" id="FNanchor_211_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_211_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> It was not, however, -until the sweeping legislation of 1340 that tallage -became illegal.</p> - -<p>In parallel to the struggle against tallaging -the royal demesne was the contest with -the king in the matter of the custom on -wool. Edward in 1328 confirmed the reëstablished -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[172]</a></span> -scale of 1322 <span class="sidenote">New -Customs become a regular means of -revenue</span> which his father in his -hour of supremacy had laid upon the alien -merchants, in amount equal to the “nova -custuma” of Edward I. From this time the -New Customs became a part of the regular -revenue of the crown, though Parliament did -not yield its sanction until a time some fifty -years after the first levy, when, in 1353, it -gave its assent to the Statute of Staples.</p> - -<p>But the regulation of the relations between -king and merchant denizens, and incidentally -through them, his relations (aside from the -New Customs) with the aliens, is not so -briefly told. Throughout the reign of Edward -III the question was being quietly fought -out as to whether or not the king might tamper -with the wool customs irrespective of parliamentary -sanction. In 1332 Edward issued -an ordinance which provided for the collection -of a subsidy on the wool of denizens; the -rate was to be half a mark on the sack and 300 -woolfells, and twenty shillings on the last of -leather. A year later on the 30th June, 1333, -Edward recalled his ordinance, but he did not -relinquish his grasp upon the customs; by -negotiation with the merchants, he received<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[173]</a></span> -ten shillings on the sack and 300 woolfells -and a pound on the last. In order to bolster -up the legality of the proceeding, he issued -a royal ordinance to the same effect.<a name="FNanchor_212_212" id="FNanchor_212_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_212_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The wool -customs</div> - -<p>In August of the year 1336, when the king’s -arms were meeting with great success on the -northern border, Edward, confident in his -popularity, sent out royal letters forbidding -the export of wool.<a name="FNanchor_213_213" id="FNanchor_213_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_213_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> Parliament met at Nottingham -the following month full of pride -in the military prowess of the king, and -granted him liberal aids. Not only did the -barons and knights contribute a twentieth, -the towns a tenth, the clergy a sixth, but the -merchants, who were at this moment, so it -appeared, on the verge of attaining to the -dignity of a fourth estate in Parliament, -granted him forty shillings on the sack of -wool; and the foreign merchants were to pay -an additional twenty shillings.<a name="FNanchor_214_214" id="FNanchor_214_214"></a><a href="#Footnote_214_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a> In the hope -that its action would encourage the domestic -manufacture of cloth, Parliament in March, -1337, passed a statute forbidding the exportation -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[174]</a></span>of wool, and offering foreign operatives -special inducements to settle in England.<a name="FNanchor_215_215" id="FNanchor_215_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_215_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a> The -embargo was to continue until the king and his -Council should decide otherwise. Thus empowered, -Edward and his Council issued an -ordinance imposing upon denizens a custom -of £2 on the sack and on 300 woolfells, and £3 -on the last of leather; the unfortunate aliens -were to pay double.<a name="FNanchor_216_216" id="FNanchor_216_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_216_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a></p> - -<p>The effect upon the people was immediate; -unable to sympathize with the project of -importing skilled labor and seeing only the -curtailment in profits normally accruing from -their chief article of export, they were led -almost to the point of revolt. The Parliament -which met in September 1339, in answer to -the general cry for reform, brought forward -measures aimed to allay the popular irritation. -The barons made the curious grant of -“the tenth sheaf, the tenth lamb, and the -tenth fleece, payable in two years,” and they -“willed that the maletolt of wool lately -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[175]</a></span>levied afresh, be entirely removed and held -to the old rate.”<a name="FNanchor_217_217" id="FNanchor_217_217"></a><a href="#Footnote_217_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a> The knights and burgesses, -questioning their ability to grant money to -the king without first consulting their constituents, -desired the matter deferred to a subsequent -Parliament. They mentioned six grievances -upon which they demanded redress. -They asked release from the customary aids -and prises, and “that the maletolt of wool and -lead be taken as of old, for that the same -is now increased without the assent of Parliament.”<a name="FNanchor_218_218" id="FNanchor_218_218"></a><a href="#Footnote_218_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a> -The new Parliament, in accordance -with the will of the knights and burgesses, -was summoned for the 20th January, 1340.</p> - -<p>At this session no new legislation was undertaken. -Edward was abroad and his absence -discouraged the members from enunciating -new principles. They showed themselves, -however, sympathetic with the royal necessities. -The lords again offered the tenth sheaf, -the tenth fleece, and the tenth lamb; the commons -granted 30,000 sacks of wool, on the -condition of the royal acceptance of certain -articles drawn by them, and in case their -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[176]</a></span>reforms were not favored by the king, they -made a free gift of 2500 sacks of wool.<a name="FNanchor_219_219" id="FNanchor_219_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_219_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a> -Edward called a new Parliament which met -the 29th March, there being in attendance a -large body of merchants. The prelates, barons, -and knights made a gift of the ninth sheaf, -fleece, and lamb in complement to the baronial -tenth of the previous January, and the towns -gave a ninth of movables; a fifteenth from the -rest of the nation, such as had no wool and yet -were not townsfolk, completed the grant, save -for a custom on each sack of wool, on every -300 woolfells, and on every last of leather, -of forty shillings.<a name="FNanchor_220_220" id="FNanchor_220_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_220_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> -But the gifts were conditional; -the king was to accept the articles -prepared by the commons. Being amenable -to their will, he referred the petitions to a -committee, part of which was selected by the -commons themselves, with the understanding -that it should draw up statutes embracing -such of the matters prayed for as were of a -permanent character.</p> - -<p>The first statute met the demands of 1339. -“And for this grant,” it says, speaking of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[177]</a></span> -liberal wool subsidy mentioned above,<span class="sidenote">Statutory -abolition -of the -maletolt -and of all -unauthorized -taxation</span> “the -king by the assent of the prelates, earls, -barons, and all others assembled in Parliament, -hath granted, that from the feast of -Pentecost that cometh in a year, he nor his -heirs shall not demand, assess, nor take, nor -suffer to be taken more custom of a sack of -wool of any Englishman but half a mark of -custom only; and upon woolfells and leather -the old custom.... And this establishment -lawfully to be holden and kept, the king hath -promised in the presence of the prelates, earls, -barons, and others in his Parliament, no more -to charge, set, or assess, upon the custom, -but in the manner as afore is said.”<a name="FNanchor_221_221" id="FNanchor_221_221"></a><a href="#Footnote_221_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a></p> - -<p>The second statute was still more sweeping: -“We ... will and grant for us and our heirs, -to the same prelates, earls, barons, and commons, -citizens, burgesses, and merchants ... -that they be” not “from henceforth charged -nor grieved to make common aid, or to sustain -charge, if it be not by the common assent -of the prelates, earls, barons, and other great -men, and commons of our said realm of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[178]</a></span> -England, and that in the Parliament; and -that all the profits rising from the said aid, -and of the wards and marriages, customs, -and escheats, and other profits rising of the -said realm of England, shall be put and -spent upon the maintenance of the safeguard -of our said realm of England and of -our wars....”<a name="FNanchor_222_222" id="FNanchor_222_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_222_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a></p> - -<p>The importance of these two acts is readily -apparent. The promise of Edward to abide -by the recommendation of Parliament in the -matter of the subsidy on wool, was an admission -by the king that not he but they had -final control over the laying of customs duties. -Thus was established the principle to be -defended and likewise to be questioned in -the future, that Parliament alone had power -to lay a tax on wool. In the second place, by -the statute which provided that no charge or -aid should be levied but by consent of Parliament, -tallage died a legislative death.<a name="FNanchor_223_223" id="FNanchor_223_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_223_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> And -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[179]</a></span>not only was this statute aimed at tallages -but as well at every species of unauthorized -taxation. <span class="sidenote">Parliament -the -sole taxing -authority -in law</span> Thus was enunciated the profoundly -important principle that Parliament was the -sole authority for levying taxes not merely -on the nation at large, as had long been the -practice, but in every department of the government, -on the royal demesne as readily as on -the shires themselves. If the practice of future -years had lived up to the ideal expressed in -this statute, it would be possible to draw a -line at the year 1340 and say that thereafter -Englishmen exercised the right of taxing -themselves.</p> - -<p>The commons perceived, apparently, that -the incidence of indirect taxation fell upon -the nation quite to the same degree as direct -taxation. The customs, in the beginning -undisputedly within the royal prerogative, -and according to royalistic advocates unceasingly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[180]</a></span> -so up to relatively modern times, were -contended for almost as heartily as power -over direct taxation itself. “The history of -the customs,” says Bishop Stubbs, “illustrates -the pertinacity of the commons as well as the -evasive policy of the supporters of prerogative.”<a name="FNanchor_224_224" id="FNanchor_224_224"></a><a href="#Footnote_224_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a> -Prior to the accession of Edward III, -the struggle for control, centering upon exactions -in excess of the <i>antiquæ custumæ</i>, was -quietly waged between king and Parliament. -During his reign and afterward the watchfulness -of Parliament kept up.</p> - -<p>After the legislation of 1340, Parliament -showed itself willing to bargain with the king -for control of the customs duties, thus staying -within its legal rights. It could only petition, -it could not yet enforce; and when the king -promised his assent to a petition he frequently -forgot his word. An account of what became -of the custom on wool is illuminating as <span class="sidenote">Checkered -history of -the wool -customs</span> indicative -of the variation between petition and enforcement. -In 1340, the king had received -by grant of Parliament forty shillings on the -sack, for a year and a half, on the understanding -that he would abolish the maletolt. After -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[181]</a></span>a lapse of two years,<a name="FNanchor_225_225" id="FNanchor_225_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> Edward procured from -the merchants without the consent of the -commons, a custom of forty shillings on the -sack and issued orders for its collection. The -commons, exhibiting more than an elementary -knowledge of economic principles, perceived -that the tax fell not upon the foreign merchants, -but upon the growers of wool. In -response to the remonstrance of the commons -made in the Parliament of May, 1343, -Edward declared to them that the price to -be paid for wool, being fixed by the authority -of Parliament, would be constant, and that -consequently the foreign merchants would -feel the incidence of the tax.<a name="FNanchor_226_226" id="FNanchor_226_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_226_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a> The commons, -duly impressed by so subtle an argument, -consented to a reimposition of the exaction -for three years under the sanction of Parliament. -After the passing of the three years, -and the ordinance fixing the price of wool -having in the meantime been revoked,<a name="FNanchor_227_227" id="FNanchor_227_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_227_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> the -commons, finding that Edward showed no -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[182]</a></span>disposition to release wool from the custom, -petitioned against its continuance.<a name="FNanchor_228_228" id="FNanchor_228_228"></a><a href="#Footnote_228_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> The king -replied that he had secured the assent of the -baronage and of the merchants, and that he -had already pledged the proceeds of it to his -creditors. The commons, finding that they -could not win their point, contented themselves -with a belief that having established -the principle, they could at any time demand -a practice of it, and granted the perpetuation -of the old rate for two years. In 1348, at the -conclusion of that term, the commons again -presented a remonstrance, asserting that the -wool subsidy was really a land tax. They -granted a fifteenth for three years on the condition -that the subsidy of wool should cease in -three years, and that for the future “no such -grant should be made by the merchants.” -The wording was particularly conclusive,—no -“imposition, tallage, or charge by way of -loan or in any other manner,” was to be laid -“without the grant and assent of the commons -in Parliament.” And the enactment was to -remain “as a matter of record, whereby they -may have remedy if anything should be -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[183]</a></span>attempted to the contrary in time to come.”<a name="FNanchor_229_229" id="FNanchor_229_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a> -Edward accepted the grant and assented to -most of the petitions, but no new statute was -based upon them, a fact which is taken to -indicate that the oppressions complained of -were recognized as illegal.<a name="FNanchor_230_230" id="FNanchor_230_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a></p> - -<p>Again in 1362 arbitrary exactions on wool -received the attention of the commons and -the statute passed in that year enacted that -thereafter no subsidy should be set on wool -without the assent of Parliament.<a name="FNanchor_231_231" id="FNanchor_231_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> Notwithstanding -the explicit and repeated assertions -by the Commons that Parliament had the -sole right to levy the subsidy, Edward at -intervals exacted the maletolt. The matter -reappeared in 1371 and was greeted with a -similar statute.<a name="FNanchor_232_232" id="FNanchor_232_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_232_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a></p> - -<p>The details of the fifteenths and tenths,<a name="FNanchor_233_233" id="FNanchor_233_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_233_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[184]</a></span>the tunnage and poundage, of clerical grants, -and of the individual subsidies on wool belong -rather to the domain of fiscal history -than to a consideration of the growing power -of the English Parliament to levy taxes.<a name="FNanchor_234_234" id="FNanchor_234_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a> -The constitutional points receive illustration -most clearly in the narration of the controversy -over wool, since in respect of that and of tallage -new questions were involved. As regards the -rest, Parliament did not more than confirm -itself in habits which it had already formed.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Appropriation -of -supplies</div> - -<p>Side by side with the power to grant taxes -was growing up the faculty for supervising -the expenditure of money so raised. As far -back as the second decade of the reign of -Henry III, in 1237, William of Ralegh had -suggested to the Commune Concilium that -it appoint a committee with whom the proceeds -of a grant be deposited and by whom -the money be expended; that the suggestion -was not taken was owing, perhaps, to the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[185]</a></span>ignorance of the baronage. Edward I was -too strong to permit of being so controlled, -and under Edward II the whole power of the -crown was for a time delegated to others; in -neither reign was the principle of appropriation -of supplies definitely put forward. But -in the time of Edward III, owing doubtless -to the vast sums thrown into his bottomless -war chest, Parliament began to demand a -voice in the disposition of the public funds. -In 1340, as we have seen, it was denominated -in the statute that the “profits of the said -realm of England shall be put and spent upon -the maintenance of the safeguard of our said -realm of England, and of our wars.”<a name="FNanchor_235_235" id="FNanchor_235_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_235_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a> The -grants of 1346 and 1348, in so far as they -accrued from the northern counties, were to -be applied to defend the border against the -Scots,<a name="FNanchor_236_236" id="FNanchor_236_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> and in 1353 a subsidy on wool was -granted to be applied solely for the purposes -of the war.<a name="FNanchor_237_237" id="FNanchor_237_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a></p> - -<p>Whether or not the money was actually -applied according to the direction of Parliament -was another matter. Efforts to ensure -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[186]</a></span>the carrying out of the parliamentary will -were begun as early as 1340. In that year a -committee of lords and commons was appointed -to examine the accounts of <span class="sidenote">Examination -of accounts</span> William -de la Pole and the other collectors of the last -subsidy.<a name="FNanchor_238_238" id="FNanchor_238_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a> In 1341 the Rolls of Parliament -have it that “the great men and commons of -the land pray, for the common profit of the -king and of themselves, that certain persons -be deputed by commission to audit the accounts -of all those who have received the wool -of our said lord, or other aid granted to him; -and also of those who have received and paid -out his money, as well beyond the seas as -in the realm from the commencement of his -war until now; and that the rolls and other -remembrances, obligations, and other things -made abroad be delivered into the chancery, -to be enrolled and recorded, just as was wont -to be done heretofore.”<a name="FNanchor_239_239" id="FNanchor_239_239"></a><a href="#Footnote_239_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a> To the petition the -royal response ran: “It is the king’s pleasure -that this be done by good men deputed for the -purpose, with the addition that the treasurer -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[187]</a></span>and the chief baron be of the number; and -that it be done concerning this as it was -heretofore ordained; and that the lords be -chosen in this Parliament. And also that all -rolls, remembrances, and obligations made beyond -the sea, be delivered into the chancery.”<a name="FNanchor_240_240" id="FNanchor_240_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_240_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a></p> - -<p>There is not much reason to suppose that -Edward adhered to this promise better than -he held to others of a similar character, save -that there appears no complaint from Parliament -until the last year of his reign. In 1377, -in voicing the demand of Peter de la Mare, -the commons in the Good Parliament petitioned -“that it may please our lord the king -to name two earls and two barons, of those -who shall seem to him best, who shall be -guardians and treasurers as well of this subsidy -now granted and of the subsidy which -the clergy of England is yet to grant to the -king our lord, as of the subsidy of wool, -leather, and woolfells granted in the last Parliament.”<a name="FNanchor_241_241" id="FNanchor_241_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a> -The lords so chosen were to be -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[188]</a></span>sworn before the commons, and were to -expend the subsidies “for the said wars and -for no other work.” The high treasurer of -England was to have nothing to do with it -in anywise whatsoever. Decisive action, however, -waited upon the next reign.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Death of -Edward -III, 21st -June, 1377</div> - -<p>The long life of Edward III came to an end -on the 21st June, 1377. His was a reign which -had seen much war, much poverty, much -famine, and worse than these, the Great -Plague. The time was not well designed, so -it would seem, for constitutional advance, yet -in the direction of parliamentary taxation, the -progress was marked. To be sure, Parliament -had not dared to come into open combat -with the king, and had, in order to preserve -its theoretical power, been many times -obliged to sanction a tax after it had been levied. -Thus did Edward play with Parliament -throughout the argument over the wool tax, -yet the nation did secure the enunciation of -complete parliamentary control over the levying -of taxes of every description in the sweeping -legislation of 1340.</p> - -<p>But Parliament had shown a disposition -to reach out after powers which its predecessors<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[189]</a></span> -in some instances had exercised and -in others foreshadowed. The history of the -wool customs shows this if it shows nothing -else, that Parliament was inclined to make -supply wait upon redress of grievances; that -the inclination was not a determination was -owing to the fact of Edward’s wars; withholding -supply would wreck English military prestige -far more quickly than the arms of France. -Yet the time was not far distant when the -grant would be reserved until the end of the -session, and thus secure the redress of grievances -before the granting of a supply. By -other means, also, Parliament was reaching -out to control the executive. By appropriating -money for particular purposes, to which -expenditure should be limited, and by demanding -an audit of accounts to insure adherence -to those limitations, the representatives -of the nation were securing for it the control -of the public purse, not only in the department -of income but of outlay.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Separate -sessions of -the houses</div> - -<p>Throughout the reigns of Edward II and -Edward III a process of differentiation had -been going on within the walls of Parliament -itself, resulting in separate sessions of lords<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[190]</a></span> -and commons. The process had its beginnings, -indeed, in the time of Edward I, yet no instance -can be pointed to with certainty showing -the separate sessions until 1332. In that -year the Rolls of Parliament speak of distinct -assemblies. In 1339 the division appears -to have become permanent. The House -of Commons in 1352 occupied the Chapter -House of Westminster Abbey.<a name="FNanchor_242_242" id="FNanchor_242_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_242_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a> The separate -sessions of lords on the one hand and the -knights of the shires and the burgesses was -the preliminary of the assumption by the two -latter bodies, in name the House of Commons, -of the power of initiating tax legislation.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Richard II, -1377-1399</div> - -<p>Edward III left the throne to the keeping of -a boy, his grandson, the youthful Richard II. -He was only eleven years old at the beginning -of his reign, and only thirty-three when his -brief attempt at absolutism brought him deposition, -and then death. “The fair rose withered,” -as Shakespeare described his dethronement, -but the withering was due to the attempt -of the king, ill-advised and perhaps insane, to -climb too high.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[191]</a></span></p> -<p>In the matter of taxation, however, the -chief interest lies in the early part of his reign, -when the years of Richard’s minority gave -the commons opportunity to enforce the exercise -of the principle that taxes should not be -levied without their consent, and to foster the -theories advanced in the previous reign that -they had a right to examine the public accounts -and to appropriate supplies.</p> - -<p>In the time of Richard II the examination -of public accounts and the granting of money -for specific purposes, became national issues. -At his first Parliament, that of October, 1377, -grants of two fifteenths and tenths were made -for the prosecution of the French war on the -express condition that two treasurers be appointed -who should see to the due application -of the proceeds.<a name="FNanchor_243_243" id="FNanchor_243_243"></a><a href="#Footnote_243_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a> -<span class="sidenote">Trouble -over audit -of accounts</span> The king chose William -Walworth and John Philipot, merchants of -London, the latter of whom is distinguished -as one of the earliest English financiers, and -these swore to perform their duties faithfully. -It was not without difficulty, however, that -the next Parliament, which met in October, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[192]</a></span> -1378, was able to secure an accounting. The -commons demanded the accounts and for a -time the chancellor attempted evasion, hoping, -so it appears, to shield John of Gaunt who -was suspected of obtaining money from the -treasurers for his private purposes. He was -forced to yield and the accounts were laid open -to criticism, though with the incidental assertion -by the king “that it had never been known -that, of a subsidy or other grant made to the -king in Parliament or out of Parliament by -the commons, an account had afterwards been -rendered to the commons or to any one -else except to the king and his officers.” -More than that, there was to be understanding -“that this shall not in future be considered -a precedent or an inference that this -should have been done otherwise than by -the personal volition and command alone of -our said lord the king....”<a name="FNanchor_244_244" id="FNanchor_244_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_244_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a></p> - -<p>Nevertheless, this same Parliament upon -the occasion of its grant to the king, petitioned -that it be expended for the advantage of the -kingdom, and that competent treasurers be -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[193]</a></span>appointed to keep the accounts.<a name="FNanchor_245_245" id="FNanchor_245_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_245_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> The thirteen-year-old -king readily fell in with the idea. To -the Parliament of 1379 he sent letters in which -he said, “That you may be fully informed of -the real nature of the said necessary expenditures -made and to be made, the treasurers for -the said war shall be present and shall appear, -at such hour as pleases you, to show you -clearly in writing their receipts and expenditures -made since the last Parliament.”<a name="FNanchor_246_246" id="FNanchor_246_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_246_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a> The -House of Commons, later during the same Parliament -petitioned for the discharge of the -special treasurers, and prayed that the Treasurer -of England with the Chamberlains of the -Exchequer receive money as “was usual of -old.”<a name="FNanchor_247_247" id="FNanchor_247_247"></a><a href="#Footnote_247_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a> Here is an early instance of the individual -action of the House of Commons. But -in 1380, the tide turned back. The commons -who were assuming leadership in the situation, -hearing from the chancellor of the very serious -embarrassment in which the crown found itself, -were stung to the belief that there was extravagance -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[194]</a></span>in the royal household, or else that -the ministers were incapable. They therefore -prayed the king to allow the election in Parliament -of the chief officers of state.<span class="sidenote">Special -treasurers</span> Richard -responded favorably and the commission was -appointed, with the old treasurers of subsidies, -William Walworth and John Philipot, as -members.<a name="FNanchor_248_248" id="FNanchor_248_248"></a><a href="#Footnote_248_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a> By 1382 the reversion to the -system of special treasurers was complete,<a name="FNanchor_249_249" id="FNanchor_249_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_249_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a> -and from that time, save at moments of great -national confusion, these officers were regularly -appointed and had as their duties the -keeping of accounts, both of income and -outlay, which were to be presented before -Parliament at its session immediately following.</p> - -<p>Over the levy of taxes Parliament, so it -appears, had unquestioned control throughout -the reign;<a name="FNanchor_250_250" id="FNanchor_250_250"></a><a href="#Footnote_250_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a> the king’s household was vastly -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[195]</a></span>extravagant and the royal prerogative of -purveyance was exercised to excess, but even<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[196]</a></span> -in the articles of deposition no word of complaint, -save in the most general terms, is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[197]</a></span> -levelled at the king for laying taxes unlawfully,<span class="sidenote">Taxation -by Parliament</span> -and this remonstrance is unsupported -by specific instances. Indeed, the most violent -outbreak on the score of taxation was against -Parliament itself.</p> - -<p>In 1380, Parliament found itself in this -difficult position, that it was under necessity -of supplying an immensely large sum, no less -than £160,000, as speedily as possible. The -French war, an expedition about to be undertaken -against Scotland, and the usual expenses -of the kingdom had so depleted the -royal treasury that the king was sorely embarrassed; -he was greatly in debt and his -jewels were already pawned. The commons -were at a loss to devise the means whereby -so great a sum could be raised, and showed a -disposition to shirk the burden. The lords -undertook it and suggested three methods: a -graduated poll-tax, a custom on merchandise, -or a number of fifteenths and tenths. The -commons, seeing in the first the virtue of -rapid assessment and collection, chose it in -spite of the disappointing proceeds of the -poll-tax of two years previously. A subsidy -on wool, the normal income from which would<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[198]</a></span> -amount to £60,000, was to serve as an auxiliary -tax. The clergy undertook to raise a -third of the remaining £100,000, leaving some -£66,667 to accrue from the poll-tax. The -rate varied according to individuals from -sixty groats to three, with an understanding -that the rich should help the poor, but that -in no case should a man pay less than a groat -for himself and his wife.<a name="FNanchor_251_251" id="FNanchor_251_251"></a><a href="#Footnote_251_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The Rising -of the -Villeins</div> - -<p>Here was the exciting cause for the Rising -of the Villeins which Bishop Stubbs describes -as “one of the most portentous phenomena to -be found in the whole of our history.”<a name="FNanchor_252_252" id="FNanchor_252_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_252_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a> -Following closely as did the poll-tax of 1380 -upon those of 1378 and 1379, both of which -bore heavily upon the lesser people, the impost -set fire to tinder which had been long -preparing for a conflagration. To enter into -an inquiry as to the underlying causes and -the ultimate consequences of this rising, would -be to travel far afield. It is sufficient to observe -that the payment of even so small a sum -as a groat, served to bring freshly to the minds -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[199]</a></span>of the most ignorant the maladministration in -London, and to arouse in them the impulse, -however ill-advised or ill-directed, to correct -abuses in the executive. The Rising of the -Villeins is illustrative of the not unusual conception -that bad government is chiefly reprehensible -because it is expensive.</p> - -<p>The taxation during the years 1389-1397 was -regular and moderate. Richard’s rule for the -time was that of a constitutional monarch and -his Parliaments exercised the power of initiating -taxation without opposition. Parliament -was practicing what it had accomplished in -theory in the long years of struggle since Magna -Carta; it was accustoming itself to the exercise -of the powers which in principle it had acquired. -Fulfillment in fact was following upon -enunciation of principle. Consequently it was -with the greater shock to the nation that Richard -II suddenly changed from his constitutional -habit and took upon himself the powers -of a despot.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Richard’s -despotism -and his dethronement</div> - -<p>The temptation came to him as a result -of the action of Parliament itself. In 1398, -following upon its grant the previous year, -of a custom on wool for five years and tunnage<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[200]</a></span> -and poundage for three years, it granted the -subsidy on wool, woolfells, and leather to -Richard for the space of his life. Beside this -unprecedented liberality, it gave him as well -a tenth and a half and a fifteenth and a half -for the curious term of a year and a half.<a name="FNanchor_253_253" id="FNanchor_253_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_253_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a> -Nor was this all. It cut off its own head by -delegating its authority to a standing committee -of Parliament. The opening was barely offered -before Richard took advantage of it. With a -revenue for life and a Council subservient to -his will, scarcely ever was there better chance -for despotism; but the acceptance of the opportunity -was the close forerunner of disaster.</p> - -<p>With the idea in his head that all was safe -in England, Richard went off to Ireland. This -gave Henry, the heir to the dukedom of Lancaster, -a dream of an unguarded throne to -which he could climb. Estranged by reason -of his disinheritance, he was ready to act as -soon as he saw such a vision. He landed in -Yorkshire, moved southward, receiving allegiance -of the people as he went, and won -away from Richard the powerful supporters -of the throne. Richard, returning, fought a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[201]</a></span>battle already lost. He resigned his kingship, -and the nation as represented in Parliament, -accepted his resignation.</p> - -<p>The charges against the king, upon which -sentence of deposition was pronounced, were -summed up in thirty-three articles. Only four -of them in any degree concern taxation. These -are: (14) he had not repaid loans made in dependence -upon his solemn promise; (15) he -had alienated the crown estates, and exacted -unlawful taxes and purveyances; (19) he had -tampered with the elections by nominating -the knights whom the sheriffs were to return, -in order to ensure to himself a revenue for -life; (21) he had extorted money from seventeen -whole shires for pretended pardons.<a name="FNanchor_254_254" id="FNanchor_254_254"></a><a href="#Footnote_254_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a></p> - -<p>The charges were doubtless colored by enthusiasm -for his deposition. The most serious, -that of unlawful taxation, seems difficult -to substantiate unless it be taken in connection -with the article which asserts that the Parliament -of 1398 was packed for the very purpose -of securing a revenue for life. The complaint -against purveyance seems equally ill-founded; -during the reign of Edward III it had assumed -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[202]</a></span>the proportions of a great abuse of prerogative, -but it was not in the time of his grandson an object -of great concern to the nation. Thomas -of Walsingham, whose tone is somewhat querulous, -gives substance to the charges about -the nonpayment of loans and the exaction -of money for pretended pardons. “Promising -in good faith to repay,” he says, “he -never after gave the money back to his creditors.” -Further, “The clergy and the common -people and the temporal lords were constrained -to give the king sums of money beyond -the strength of man to bear, in order to buy -back his good will.”<a name="FNanchor_255_255" id="FNanchor_255_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_255_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a> The step was very short -to the forced loans of the Tudors.</p> - -<p>The trouble with Richard was that he did -not go to school to history. Parliament was -putting into practice what it could learn from -the experience of its predecessors. Richard, -swept with a desire, intense and perhaps insane, -to wield the sceptre of absolutism, was -blinded to what he might have read, and underwent -the consequences.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Henry IV, -1399-1413</div> - -<p>Henry IV was better advised; at any rate, -he was politic enough to live closely by what -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[203]</a></span>he had learned. He was suspicious, cautious, -slow and faltering in action save in the one -supreme instance of seizing the throne; an -exceedingly good politician. The power of -Parliament and especially of the commons -during his reign was more complete than -ever before,—fuller, indeed, than it should be -again until after the final hand-to-hand struggle -with the Stuarts. In the matter of taxation, -instances of illegality are rare; Parliament -continued to exercise the supreme control in -voting taxes; and in the more recently acquired -rights of appropriating supplies and -examining public accounts, the supremacy of -Parliament was established. Not only does -this observation hold good during the reign -of Henry IV, but it is equally applicable to -the two Lancastrians who succeeded him.</p> - -<p>In 1400 there appears to have been an -exception to this rule. Henry apparently secured -an aid not from Parliament but from -the Great Council. There was the understanding, -however, that the grant was binding -not upon the nation at large but upon the -members of the Council.</p> - -<p>In 1401 the commons attempted to make<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[204]</a></span> -dependence of supply upon redress of grievances -a part of the regular parliamentary -procedure. They prayed the king that they -know his responses to petitions before setting -themselves to the business of granting a supply. -Henry met the issue squarely. “On the -last day of the Parliament,” say the Rolls, -“response was made that this manner of deed -had not been seen nor used in the time of any -of his ancestors or predecessors, that they -should have any response to their petitions -or knowledge of the same before they had -taken up and completed all the other business -of Parliament, be it to make any grant or -otherwise. And therefore the king did not -wish in any way to change the good customs -and usages made and used in former times.”<a name="FNanchor_256_256" id="FNanchor_256_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_256_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a> -Nevertheless, the commons proceeded to put -into practice the substance of their demand -by delaying their grants<span class="sidenote"> Practice of -delaying -grants</span> of supply until the -last day of the session, when the most important -of the petitions would have received answers. -Thus the next Parliament, that which -met on the 30th September, 1402, withheld its -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[205]</a></span>grant until the 24th November; the session -closed on the 25th and no business was transacted -in the meantime.</p> - -<p>The chief advance in the reign of the new -king lay not in a fuller control by Parliament -in the matter of laying taxation; that would -scarcely have been possible. But it lay rather -in a differentiation of powers within Parliament -itself, leading to a more complete supervision -of taxation by the House of Commons. -<span class="sidenote">Initiation -of tax -levies in -the House -of Commons, -1407</span> Since the end of Edward III’s reign the theory -had been practiced that the commons should -exercise a decisive power over the levy of taxes, -as illustrated in the levy of the poll-tax of 1380.</p> - -<p>The form of making a grant, “made by the -commons with the assent of the lords spiritual -and temporal” first occurred in the grants to -Richard II in 1395.<a name="FNanchor_257_257" id="FNanchor_257_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_257_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a> Votes of money previous -to that year were made in conjunction with -the House of Lords. The phrase was repeated -in the grants of 1401 and 1402.</p> - -<p>In 1407 came the assertion that to the commons -not only belonged decisive power, but -that they alone had the faculty of originating -taxation. It came not as a direct demand for -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[206]</a></span>the yielding of a principle, but as an implication -that the practice already existed, and as -such it gains in strength.</p> - -<p>The trend of events leading up to the significant -reference is interesting. In 1407 the -lords had held a debate in the king’s presence -respecting the condition of the kingdom, -and had determined upon the number of subsidies -needful for national defense. Henry, -for the moment forgetting his politics, in a -peremptory tone requested the commons to -send a delegation to the House of Lords “to -hear and to report to their companions that -which they should have in command of our -lord the king.” The commons sent a committee -of twelve in response to the request; -they heard that “it was the will of our said -lord the King they should report to the rest -of their companions” the determination of -the lords, and that, “they should see to it -that they conformed most nearly to the purpose -of the Lords aforesaid.” When the -delegates returned, their report was received -by the commons as being an infringement -upon their liberties. The king, hearing of -the temper of the commons, reassuming immediately<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[207]</a></span> -his habit of the politician, “declares, -by the advice and consent of the lords in -manner following,” that it is lawful for both -houses to commune apart by themselves “of -the state of the realm and of the remedy -necessary for the same.” So far the king has -merely recognized the need for separate deliberations -by the two houses; the phrase which -implies the existence in the House of Commons -of the power to initiate taxation is this: “Any -grant by the commons granted, and by the -lords assented to.”<a name="FNanchor_258_258" id="FNanchor_258_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_258_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a> Thus is admitted by implication -the order in which a grant should be -made by the two houses. In the same communication -the king renounces any right -which he might previously have held to know -the amount or conditions of a prospective -grant until both houses should be of one -mind. The grant which eased so sweeping an -admission from the king was generous.<a name="FNanchor_259_259" id="FNanchor_259_259"></a><a href="#Footnote_259_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a> It -consisted of a fifteenth and a half and a tenth -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[208]</a></span>and a half, a subsidy on wool, and tunnage -and poundage for two years.<a name="FNanchor_260_260" id="FNanchor_260_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_260_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a></p> - -<p>In 1410 Henry asked Parliament for permission -to collect a tenth and a fifteenth annually, -whenever Parliament should not be -sitting. Had the request been granted, the -result for a frugal monarch would have been -hardly less than independence of parliamentary -control. He was refused. Without the frequent -necessity of calling a Parliament, Henry’s -last years, instead of their smooth constitutional -trend, might readily have had as tragic -a story as those of Richard II. He died in 1413.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Henry V, -1413-1422</div> - -<p>His son Henry V came to the throne without -dispute, and for a brief nine years fired -the souls of the English people with zest of -conquest and pride of race. A warrior, the -mediæval ideal of a king, he was yet noble -of mind and soul. Had his brilliant career -not so suddenly flickered and gone out, he -might have won a place beside Edward I; as -it was, the constitutional history of his reign -reveals no struggle between people and monarch -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[209]</a></span>over the sordid wherewithal to fight his -battles; both sides apparently honored the -other. The taxation during his reign was -heavy, but it was voted gladly to the king -who could use it as a means to victory at -Agincourt. Henry V, whom his people loved -enough to make legendary participant in their -revellings, died in France, 31st August, 1422.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Henry VI, -1422-1461</div> - -<p>Henry VI was almost as unfortunate in -his birth as in his death, and his life seemed -to bring him nothing but disaster. He was -barely a year old when his father died, his -troubled reign saw the Wars of the Roses, -and tradition has it that he died by the hand -of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, afterward -king. Weak in health, the possessor of a -mind which in boyhood showed the feverish -precocity that foreshadows an unbalanced -maturity, he was nevertheless generous, temperate, -mild, and devoted.</p> - -<p>The early part of his reign gives one of the -few instances chronicled under the Lancastrian -kings of an attack upon constitutional -usages in taxation. In 1425 while the Duke -of Bedford and Humfrey, Duke of Gloucester -were acting virtually as regents to their nephew<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[210]</a></span> -the young king, Bedford together with various -other lords announced in Parliament that a -certain subsidy, which had been appropriated -for a particular purpose, should be levied for -the king’s use notwithstanding the conditions -attaching to it; they advanced an opinion of -the justices favoring their action. The commons -vindicated their right, however, in the -same Parliament; they made a fresh grant, -restating the former conditions, with this explicit -addition,<span class="sidenote">Declaration -for appropriation -of supplies</span> “No part thereof be beset ne -dispendid to no othir use, but oonly in and -for the defense of the seid roialme.”<a name="FNanchor_261_261" id="FNanchor_261_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_261_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a></p> - -<p>It would be both wearisome and profitless -to enter into a detailed account of the various -subsidies on wool, of income taxes, of fifteenths -and tenths which trod one on the heels of the -other during the reign of Henry VI. One -incident of a constitutional character, however, -rises from the general regularity. In 1449, -Parliament attempted to levy a tax upon the -stipendiary priests, though usage had it that -the clergy were to have the power of taxing -themselves in convocation; a subsidy of a -noble was levied upon each stipendiary priest, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[211]</a></span>for which they were to receive a general pardon -at the hands of Parliament. Henry, perceiving -that trouble was brewing, addressed -the clergy, saying that it was for them to -make the grant in convocation, and that it -was for him to pardon. Thus Parliament, for -the moment overreaching itself, was forced -back upon the justice of precedent.<a name="FNanchor_262_262" id="FNanchor_262_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_262_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a></p> - -<p>The wars with France and with Burgundy, -the heavy taxation incident to them, the rebellion -of Jack Cade arising out of it, and the -Wars of the Roses in 1453 following closely -thereafter; the woeful struggle of Henry, -bleached-out in mind, a dependent upon the -efforts of a woman <span class="sidenote">Accession -of the -Yorkists</span> against the rising power of -York; the wanton shedding of the noblest -blood in England—these neither developed -nor confirmed parliamentary power. Edward -of York, it is sufficient to understand, became -king on the 4th March, 1461, upon King -Henry’s overthrow. A momentary turning of -the tide set him once more upon it, but his -tenure was very brief and ended in tragedy.</p> - -<p>The passing of Henry VI brings us to the -dawn of the Yorkist and Tudor era. During -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[212]</a></span>the reigns of the son and grandson of Edward I -and the reigns of Richard II and the Lancastrians, -Parliament had developed swiftly, -not so much in the assumption of new powers -as in the distribution of powers within itself. -The commons became a separate body. Burgesses -learned to act in the House of Commons -in concert with knights of the shires who in -the time of Edward I had made common -cause with the greater barons. Together they -assumed the right of initiating taxes, with the -understanding that the hereditary chamber -should have solely the power of assent.</p> - -<p>The right of Parliament as against that of -the king to control taxation was enunciated -again and again, not only in the instance of -direct taxation, including the levies of tallage, -but in the case of the customs, as indicated -in the legislation prohibiting the maletolt.</p> - -<p>But the enunciation of powers of Parliament -was not followed by complete and undisputed -exercise of the rights so enunciated. -The kings clung to what they deemed their -ancient prerogatives and more than once overstepped -the law. The Yorkists and Tudors -showed a disposition somewhat less amenable.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[213]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<h2 class="p4">VI</h2> - -<p class="pch">EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY EXACTION<br /> -1461-1603</p> - -<p class="pn"><span class="smcap">With</span> the coming of the Yorkist kings in -1461 there began a period lasting until the -end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, in which the -taxing powers of Parliament were subtly -assailed by monarchs who knew how to use -the law to their own advantage, regardless of -its intent. Yet the powers, attenuated though -they were, remained to form the substance -of vigorous opposition to the attacks of the -Stuarts, when they should try to practice their -theories of absolutism.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Edward IV, -1461-1483</div> - -<p>Under Edward IV, whose reign dates from -1461, the forms of taxation by authority of -Parliament were indeed gone through with. -In that respect his reign was typical of the -period. His early taxation, levied while the -struggle with the Lancastrians was still in -progress, was not particularly heavy; but being<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[214]</a></span> -laid by Parliaments sympathetic with the -Yorkist cause, Edward had little difficulty -in exerting supreme influence over it. Four -years after his accession, he was given the -subsidy on wool and tunnage and poundage -for life.<a name="FNanchor_263_263" id="FNanchor_263_263"></a><a href="#Footnote_263_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a> Beside these, Parliament granted him -frequent fifteenths and tenths. Not content, -however, with the grants made by Parliament, -he had recourse to a new form of extortion -known by the euphemistic title of benevolence. -The benevolence was a gift made to -the king by individuals or groups of them, -ostensibly in charity, but in reality under enforcement. -It differed from the forced loan, -the exaction of which is mentioned in the list -of charges leading to the deposition of Richard -II, in that by it the king incurred no obligation -for repayment. Henry VIII in later -years proved himself a genius <span class="sidenote">Benevolences -and -forced -loans</span> at obtaining -both of these means of income. Edward -found also that the revival of obsolete statutes -and the laying of fines for breaches of them -could be turned to profit; the collection of ancient -debts due to the crown, and the utilization -of the royal power to advance his own -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[215]</a></span>mercantile interests, Edward pushed to the -extreme in order to supplement the not infrequent -regular grants of Parliament.</p> - -<p>Dowell retells the story given in Hall’s -<i>Chronicle</i> of Edward and a certain rich widow -to whom he applied in person for a benevolence. -In his younger days Edward was one -of the handsomest men in the land, and the -widow received his advances with favor. He -asked her for a gift and she promptly gave -him £20.</p> - -<p>“By my troth,” says she, “for thy lovely -countenance thou shalt have even twenty -pounds.”</p> - -<p>Edward, who had “looked for scarce half -that sum, thanked her and lovinglie kissed -her.” Thereupon the lady doubled the benevolence, -paying him a second £20, either, -as the Chronicler remarks, “because she esteemed -the kiss of a king so precious a jewele” -or “because the flavour of his breath did so -comfort her stomach.” Such was a fifteenth-century -conception of royal courtesy.<a name="FNanchor_264_264" id="FNanchor_264_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_264_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a></p> - -<p>Upon Edward’s death in 1483, the crown -for a moment rested on the head of his young -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[216]</a></span>son, Edward V, only to be snatched away -<span class="sidenote">Richard III, -1483-1485</span> in favor of the lad’s uncle Richard III. Richard -received from Parliament in 1484 a grant -of tunnage and poundage and the subsidy on -wool for life.<a name="FNanchor_265_265" id="FNanchor_265_265"></a><a href="#Footnote_265_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a> His death on Bosworth Field -the next year gave the world no opportunity -to see what use he would make of the freedom -which Parliament thus gave him.</p> - -<p>During the brief three years of Richard’s -ascendancy, however, there occurred an assertion -of right and its complementary statute -which assume great importance in the light of -later events.<span class="sidenote">Prohibition -of benevolences, -1484</span> When Richard was invited to -become king, he was presented with a remarkable -address, which, among other things, -cited the benevolences of the late reign as -“extorcions, ... agenst the Lawes of God -and Man,” and as more intolerable than -“jopardye of deth.”<a name="FNanchor_266_266" id="FNanchor_266_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_266_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a> At his only Parliament, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[217]</a></span>held in 1484, benevolences were declared unlawful, -and were to be “dampned and annulled -forever.”<a name="FNanchor_267_267" id="FNanchor_267_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_267_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Tudors</div> - -<p>Henry VII, the first of the Tudors, ascended -the throne upon the successful issue of the -battle of Bosworth. The wonder of the era -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[218]</a></span>which he introduced lies not in any increase -in the powers of Parliament, but rather that -they existed at all when the period closed. -The one hundred and twenty years of the -Tudor epoch exhibits no progress toward the -realization of parliamentary supremacy; on -the other hand, the trend was in the opposite -direction. The Tudors were not tyrannical -enough to rouse opposition to the fever heat -as did John; they knew rather how to bridle -their despotism in time to check revolt, and -especially how to make unlawful acts assume -the aspect of legality. Furthermore, the immense -activity of commerce, the progress of -literature, the religious reconstitution during -the sixteenth century, were in themselves reasons -for slow advance in matters of government; -the stress of trade consequent upon the -discovery of a new world, the absorbing interest -in new subjects for thought, the intensity -and magnitude of new religious conceptions, -engaged the minds of men on subjects -other than those of Parliament and king. As -long as these worked in apparent harmony -and the results did not greatly offend, men -were content to let well enough alone. So it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[219]</a></span> -was that the Tudors, surrounding themselves -with a new nobility attached to the throne by -reasons of their very origin and continuance, -were able to follow their own devices and raise -money almost as seemed to them good.</p> - -<p>In all the twenty-four years of Henry -VII’s reign he called Parliament only seven -times, and six of the seven Parliaments sat -within the first eleven years of his kingship. -Each was the occasion of a demand for money. -At his first Parliament, that of 1485, he received -a grant of tunnage and poundage and a subsidy -on wool for life.<a name="FNanchor_268_268" id="FNanchor_268_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> -<span class="sidenote">Parliaments -of -Henry VII -The “new-found” -subsidy</span> Three years later, however, -the consequences of heavy taxation were disastrous. -Need arising for the enlistment of an -army with which to aid the Duke of Brittany -against the King of France, a tax was devised -which not only exacted a tenth of incomes -from freeholders, but applied as well to movables, -laying imposition upon articles used -in trade and even merchants’ stocks. This -“new-found subsidy” proved so intolerable -to the lower classes that a great insurrection -broke out in the north against it.<a name="FNanchor_269_269" id="FNanchor_269_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_269_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a> The king -with Tudor wisdom, remitted some £48,000 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[220]</a></span>of the £75,000 which the tax was designed to -raise, and Parliament gave him in return a -fifteenth and tenth. In 1497, a similar rebellion -occurred in Cornwall against a tax -levied for the Scotch War.</p> - -<p>With these examples of parliamentary taxation -before him, Henry turned away to -fields at once more profitable and less dangerous, -at least in their immediate consequences.</p> - -<p>He turned to the old expedient of the benevolence, -despite the statute of Richard III -prohibiting its imposition. The methods used -in laying a benevolence are illustrated in the -famous account by Lord Francis Bacon of the -dilemma devised by Bishop Morton, Henry’s -Chancellor, “to raise up the benevolence to -a higher rate; and some called it his fork -and some his crotch.<span class="sidenote">Morton’s -crotch</span> For he had couched an -article in the instructions to the commissioners -who were to levy the benevolence, that if they -met with any that were sparing, they should -tell them that they must needs have, because -they laid up; and if they were spenders, they -must needs have, because it was seen in their -port and manner of living; so neither kind<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[221]</a></span> -came amiss.”<a name="FNanchor_270_270" id="FNanchor_270_270"></a><a href="#Footnote_270_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a> Parliament, subservient to -the king, actually registered for the moment -its approval of the practice of levying benevolences, -when in 1492 it passed the “Shoring or -Under-propping Act” making debts still owing -on gifts promised to the king legally collectable.</p> - -<p>The benevolence was not the only means -by which the ingenious monarch increased -his income. Like Edward IV, he revived -obsolete statutes and rigorously exacted fines -in consequence of every infraction of them; -but worse than that was his perversion of -every function of the courts of law into a -means of extortion. His odious instruments -in that work were Richard Empson and -Edmund Dudly who later were made to suffer -for the evil practices of the father in the reign -of the son. Beside these forms of imposition, -the king pushed to the extreme the exaction of -feudal dues accruing to the crown.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Henry -VIII’s -early -taxation</div> - -<p>Henry VIII succeeded to the crown in -1509. With his hand always on the pulse of -the nation, he knew when he could carry his -designs into execution and when he must -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[222]</a></span>wait for a fever to subside. His attitude toward -taxation was not characterized by the -same uniform regard for constitutional formalities -that distinguished his other acts, nor was -Parliament on the other hand quite as subservient -to his will as in matters farther from their -purses. His first Parliament showed its trust -in him by granting tunnage and poundage -for life, but with the distinct provision that -it be not taken into precedent. Beside this, -the Parliaments of 1513 and 1514 made generous -grants of a poll-tax, of a fifteenth and -tenth and of two subsidies of six pence in the -pound.<a name="FNanchor_271_271" id="FNanchor_271_271"></a><a href="#Footnote_271_271" class="fnanchor">[271]</a> Despite the magnitude of the grant, -no opposition seems to have been provoked, -an unfailing sign of increasing wealth.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Cardinal -Wolsey’s -breach of -privilege, -1523</div> - -<p>At the Parliament of 1523, the first since -1515, Cardinal Wolsey committed a distinct -breach of Parliamentary privilege. Under -Henry IV it had been admitted by the king -that both houses of Parliament were to commune -apart, and that the king should have no -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[223]</a></span>knowledge of the progress of a grant until the -two houses be of one accord.<a name="FNanchor_272_272" id="FNanchor_272_272"></a><a href="#Footnote_272_272" class="fnanchor">[272]</a> Wolsey, as -representative of the royal power, reversed -the usual process. Going into the House of -Commons with all his following, “with his -maces, his pillars, his pole-axes, his cross, -his hatte, and the great seale too,”—in the -words of the speaker, Sir Thomas More,—he -asked for no less than £800,000 and required -that it be paid in four years; he suggested -that it “be raised out of the fifth part -of every man’s goods and lands.”</p> - -<p>To the demand of the cardinal the commons -maintained perfect silence. The speaker -“with many probable arguments endeavoured -to shew the cardinal that his manner of coming -thither was neither expedient nor agreeable -to the ancient liberties of that House.”<a name="FNanchor_273_273" id="FNanchor_273_273"></a><a href="#Footnote_273_273" class="fnanchor">[273]</a> -Wolsey thereupon departed in a rage. The -next day the matter was argued by the commons -and the contention was made that -“though some men were well-monied, yet -in general it was known that the fifth of men’s -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[224]</a></span>goods was not in plate or money, but in -stock and cattle. And that to pay away all -their coin would alter the whole frame and -intercourse of things.”<a name="FNanchor_274_274" id="FNanchor_274_274"></a><a href="#Footnote_274_274" class="fnanchor">[274]</a> For fifteen days -the commons debated the question and at the -end of that time granted to the king a graduated -property tax, much smaller in amount -and covering four years in the payment. Wolsey’s -displeasure was very great and he made -a second journey to the commons in the hope -that he might induce them to be more generous. -He told them that he “desired to reason -with those who opposed his demands.” -He was answered that “it was the order of that -House to hear, and not to reason but amongst -themselves.”<a name="FNanchor_275_275" id="FNanchor_275_275"></a><a href="#Footnote_275_275" class="fnanchor">[275]</a> Thus rebuffed, the cardinal -went away.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Henry’s -commissions -and -benevolences</div> - -<p>Henry did without Parliament for the next -seven years, but he was not deprived thereby -of money with which to carry on the business -of government. In 1526, commissions were -issued for the collection of a sixth from the -goods of the laity and a fourth from the -clergy.<a name="FNanchor_276_276" id="FNanchor_276_276"></a><a href="#Footnote_276_276" class="fnanchor">[276]</a> The people immediately evinced -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[225]</a></span>their knowledge of the law and complained -that the proceedings were illegal; the clergy -led the movement asserting that “the King -could take no man’s goods without the authority -of Parliament.”<a name="FNanchor_277_277" id="FNanchor_277_277"></a><a href="#Footnote_277_277" class="fnanchor">[277]</a> The people began to -murmur and insurrection seemed imminent. -“If men should geue their goodes by a Commission,” -they said, “then wer it worse than -the taxes of Fraunce, and so England should -be bond and not free.”<a name="FNanchor_278_278" id="FNanchor_278_278"></a><a href="#Footnote_278_278" class="fnanchor">[278]</a> In Suffolk rebellion -actually broke out; in London and in Kent -the people were in a ferment. Henry, being -what he was and knowing the nature of his -subjects, eased the tension by shoving the responsibility -of the measure on to the shoulders -of Wolsey,<a name="FNanchor_279_279" id="FNanchor_279_279"></a><a href="#Footnote_279_279" class="fnanchor">[279]</a> and declared that he would receive -no money save as an “amiable graunte,” -which was collected in 1528, and was nothing -more agreeable than a benevolence. To this -the citizens of London raised objection on -the ground of the statute of Richard III. The -judges thereupon handed down an opinion -that that statute, being the work of an usurper, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[226]</a></span>was void. Thus did the courts evince their -subservience to the crown, and showed themselves -as open to royal influence as the tribunals -of the Stuarts a hundred years later.<a name="FNanchor_280_280" id="FNanchor_280_280"></a><a href="#Footnote_280_280" class="fnanchor">[280]</a> -So in theory Henry’s attempt at arbitrary -taxation was frustrated; in practice, however, -the imposition, though its burden was transferred -from the turbulent lower classes to the -more amenable people of substance, merely -underwent a change of name. The exaction -was unparliamentary whether it was levied -as a king’s tax or under the thin guise of a -benevolence.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Forced -loans, 1522 -and 1544</div> - -<p>But Henry had other strings to his bow, and -of these the forced loan was one which served -him well. In 1522 commissioners were appointed -throughout the kingdom to ascertain -the value of every man’s possessions and to -require a certain part for the king, on the -understanding that they be repaid out of the -grants from the next Parliament. The promise -of repayment was under the king’s privy -seal.<a name="FNanchor_281_281" id="FNanchor_281_281"></a><a href="#Footnote_281_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a> In 1544, forced loans were again exacted, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[227]</a></span>this time from all persons rated at £50 -and more per annum. Parliament, subservient -to the king, far from protesting because -of these arbitrary demands upon the pockets -of the people, in two instances released the -king from liability to payment. In 1529, -Parliament “for themselves and all the whole -body of the realm which they represent, -freely, liberally, and absolutely, give and -grant unto the King’s highness ... all and -every sum and sums of money which to them -and every of them, is, ought, or might be due -by reason of any money ... advanced or -paid by way of trust or loan.”<a name="FNanchor_282_282" id="FNanchor_282_282"></a><a href="#Footnote_282_282" class="fnanchor">[282]</a> This caused -much murmuring, but, as Hall’s Chronicle -rightly puts it, “Ther was no remedy.” In -1544 a similar act of a servile Parliament not -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[228]</a></span>only gives the king the funds borrowed under -the forced loan of 1542, but commands the -refunding of sums already paid by him to his -creditors in discharge of debts so incurred.<a name="FNanchor_283_283" id="FNanchor_283_283"></a><a href="#Footnote_283_283" class="fnanchor">[283]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Profits of -the English -Reformation</div> - -<p>The Reformation in England redounded -to the financial benefit of the Crown. In -1532 the clergy were relieved by act of -Parliament from the payment of annates -or first fruits, the sums which the ordaining -authorities exacted from those accorded -any preferment in the church, and which -amounted sometimes to as much as a year’s -income from the benefice. The exactions -were denounced as having risen by “an uncharitable -custom, grounded upon no just -or good title,” and through them “great and -inestimable sums of money have been daily -conveyed out of this realm, to the impoverishment -of the same, and to the advantage of -the court of Rome.”<a name="FNanchor_284_284" id="FNanchor_284_284"></a><a href="#Footnote_284_284" class="fnanchor">[284]</a> The same Parliament, -meeting for its fifth session on the 15th January, -1533-4, reënacted the statute without -the contingencies which had conditioned the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[229]</a></span>other.<a name="FNanchor_285_285" id="FNanchor_285_285"></a><a href="#Footnote_285_285" class="fnanchor">[285]</a> Closely following came a statute -that deprived the Pope of his petty exactions -which for generations he had drawn -from the English Church. Thus were discontinued -peter-pence, procurations, fruits, -fees for dispensations, licenses, faculties and -grants.<a name="FNanchor_286_286" id="FNanchor_286_286"></a><a href="#Footnote_286_286" class="fnanchor">[286]</a> The sixth session of this Parliament, -meeting at the end of the year 1534, turned -the procedure into comedy by attaching to -“the King’s imperial crown forever” the first-fruits -and tenths of the annual income of all -ecclesiastical benefices, the very payments -which it had declared to be in conformity -with an “uncharitable custom.”<a name="FNanchor_287_287" id="FNanchor_287_287"></a><a href="#Footnote_287_287" class="fnanchor">[287]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Parliament -the -confirming -authority -in clerical -grants</div> - -<p>Furthermore, at the session of 1533-4, -Parliament had laid very definite restrictions -upon the clergy in the matter of regular taxation.<a name="FNanchor_288_288" id="FNanchor_288_288"></a><a href="#Footnote_288_288" class="fnanchor">[288]</a> -Since the early part of the fourteenth -century, indeed, almost since the beginning -of Parliament itself, the lesser clergy had -attended the sessions with great irregularity, -and had voted their taxes for the most part in -provincial assemblies. Now, however, came -the general prohibition that the clergy should -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[230]</a></span>not enact or execute ordinances binding upon -themselves without the king’s license and without -his approval when once they were made. -Included within the meaning of this prohibition -was the granting of taxes. From thenceforward -until the time of Charles II, when, -without any special enactment but by simple -process of evolution, the clergy began to be -taxed in the same manner and according to -the same rate as the laity, clerical grants -were submitted to Parliament for confirmation.</p> - -<p>Henry VIII died in 1547. Notwithstanding -the heavy taxation, parliamentary and unparliamentary, -which had been exacted during -his reign, he remained popular with the great -majority of his subjects to his death. His -many vices were counterbalanced by his successful -wars, the heavy taxation by the growing -trade of England, and his semi-independence -of Parliament by most efficient administration.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Elizabeth’s -accession, -1558</div> - -<p>After the lapse of eleven years, which in so -far as they concern the evolution of the taxing -power of Parliament, composed in effect -an interregnum, Elizabeth succeeded to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[231]</a></span> -throne of England. Elizabeth’s government -was a despotism and was illegal; but it was -so by sufferance, not because the nation was -ignorant of its true character or because the -people were unable to control it. When in -later years the attempt was made to create a -despotism against the voice of the people, -the result was a Cromwell and his Charles I. -Queen Elizabeth was loved by her subjects -and they put their trust in her. The sympathy -existing between queen and people could not -be illustrated better than by the following -anecdote, which suggests that under her rule -benevolences were really made with the good -will of the givers.</p> - -<p>The queen, being at Coventry, is presented -by the mayor with a purse heavily filled with -gold.</p> - -<p>“I have few such gifts, Mr. Mayor,” says -the queen; “it is a hundred pounds in gold!”</p> - -<p>“Please, your grace,” the mayor answers, -“it is a great deal more we give you.”</p> - -<p>“What is it?” asks the queen.</p> - -<p>“It is,” the mayor replies, “the hearts of -your loving subjects.”</p> - -<p>And the queen makes answer, “We thank<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[232]</a></span> -you, Mr. Mayor; it is a great deal more -indeed.”<a name="FNanchor_289_289" id="FNanchor_289_289"></a><a href="#Footnote_289_289" class="fnanchor">[289]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Liberality -of Elizabeth’s -Parliaments. -Her extra-Parliamentary -exactions</div> - -<p>Subsidies were granted in Parliament with -liberality and readiness. Forced loans were -indeed exacted from the wealthy, but Elizabeth -took care to repay honorably and as -promptly as she could. A means of revenue -which relieved her from the frequent necessity -of applying to Parliament was the granting -of monopolies, based upon the right of the -crown to assure to an inventor or orginator -the exclusive benefits of his invention or -innovation. By 1601, however, the royal -power had encroached so far upon the rights -of the individual that the grants of monopoly -comprised exclusive control over many of the -necessaries of life. The list which was read in -the House of Commons in 1601, included:—currants, -iron, powder, cards, transportation -of leather, vinegar, sea-coal, lead, oil, starch, -glass, and even salt. The matter had been -first discussed in the Parliament of 1571, was -brought up again in 1597, and in 1601 Elizabeth -with the tact which she could summon -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[233]</a></span>on occasion, sent a message to the House to -allay if possible the agitation which was going -on there over the subject of monopolies. It -gave satisfaction. “Understanding that divers -patents” so ran the message, “which she had -granted had been grievous to her subjects, -some should be presently repealed, some -superseded, and none put in execution but -such as should first have a trial according to -the law for the good of the people.”<a name="FNanchor_290_290" id="FNanchor_290_290"></a><a href="#Footnote_290_290" class="fnanchor">[290]</a> Thus -was this means of indirect taxation by the -crown done away with, until the time when -James I, putting his clumsy shoulder to the -wheel, should seek to introduce it again.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Commons -assert their -right to -originate -money -bills, 1593</div> - -<p>Toward the close of the reign of Elizabeth -there was another evidence of the growing -realization on the part of the commons that -their powers were not to be tampered with. -In this instance, the vindication was not -against the prerogative of the sovereign, but -against an arrogation of power on the part of -the House of Lords. The incident was based -upon the decreasing liberality of the commons -in the years after the Armada. They had risen -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[234]</a></span>nobly to the defense of the nation against the -peril, but, with the passing of it, their generosity -had faded. In 1593, it was represented that, -though the queen had spent upon the war -some £1,030,000 of her own, the grants of the -commons persisted in being inadequate. A -message was sent down from the lords which -remarked upon the need for a supply and -requested the appointment of a committee of -conference. Sir Robert Cecil, reporting from -the committee, stated that the lords would -assent to no smaller grant than three entire -subsidies.<a name="FNanchor_291_291" id="FNanchor_291_291"></a><a href="#Footnote_291_291" class="fnanchor">[291]</a> The commons, on the other hand, -had shown a disposition to grant no more than -two. Francis Bacon stated the issue. He -yielded to the subsidy, “but disliked,” he said, -“that this house should join with the upper -house in granting it. For the custom and -privilege of this house hath always been, -first to make offer of the subsidies from hence, -then to the upper house; except it were that -they present a bill unto this house, with desire -of our assent thereto, and then to send it up -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[235]</a></span>again.”<a name="FNanchor_292_292" id="FNanchor_292_292"></a><a href="#Footnote_292_292" class="fnanchor">[292]</a> The commons refused to have -further conference with the lords, so determined -were they to vindicate their right to -originate money bills, by the vote 217 to 128. -Notwithstanding this scrupulous adherence -to principle, they accepted the suggestion and -came forward with a grant of three subsidies, -six tenths and six fifteenths.</p> - -<p>The death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603, -brought to an end the Tudor period and -cleared the throne for James Stuart. The -Tudor era was one which can be passed lightly -over in a strict account of progress toward -parliamentary supremacy in taxation. In such -a study the period of the Tudors is a bywater. -Yet the fact that the principles enunciated in -the years prior to their accession stayed alive -despite the attacks of Tudor subtlety, points -to a vitality sufficient to down the Stuarts, and -to establish permanent parliamentary control -over the laying of taxes.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[236]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<h2 class="p4">VII</h2> - -<p class="pch">THE STUARTS: 1603-1689</p> - - -<div class="sidenote">Divine -right as -against -Parliamentary -supremacy</div> - -<p class="pn"><span class="smcap">The</span> theory of divine right, by which the -Stuarts laid claim to a sovereignty as irresponsible -as it was far-reaching, in practice came -into direct conflict with another theory which -had been taking shape for some four centuries, -the supremacy of Parliament. In the field of -taxation the issue is scarcely less apparent. -Parliament asserted the supremacy of its -will over all kinds of taxes, indirect as well -as direct. The crown, on the other hand, -hesitating to close with the representatives of -the people over a question of their authority -in direct taxation, maintained that unchecked -royal power extended to indirect taxes, including -duties at the ports. Furthermore, the -crown, whenever occasion arose, sought to -elude the hold of Parliament upon direct -taxation, by resorting to the familiar resources -of benevolences and the sale of monopolies, -and at last to the levy of ship money.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[237]</a></span></p> - -<p>With the issue so direct, the great question -was that of strength. Should the crown with -its array of adherents, upholding as their ideal -the perfect exercise of the royal prerogative, -prove itself stronger than the House of Commons? -Or were the commons to prevail, standing -for the principle that the representatives of -the people sitting in Parliament should have -complete control over the public purse?</p> - -<div class="sidenote">James I, -1603-1625</div> - -<p>James Stuart, swollen with intellectual pride, -was, according to the Duc de Sully, “the wisest -fool in Europe.” Worse than his vanity were -his unsteadiness and his insincerity, traceable, -perhaps, to the Italian-Gallic stock whence -he was bred.<a name="FNanchor_293_293" id="FNanchor_293_293"></a><a href="#Footnote_293_293" class="fnanchor">[293]</a> Divine right, a doctrine by its -nature offensive to Englishmen, was in him -doubly hateful because he was not born king, -but was proclaimed by the Council, an act -ratified, however, by popular voice, and subsequently -acquiesced in by Parliament.<a name="FNanchor_294_294" id="FNanchor_294_294"></a><a href="#Footnote_294_294" class="fnanchor">[294]</a> In the -matter of religion, he was not more agreeable; -suspected at times of plots to further Roman -Catholicism, he assumed toward the Puritans -especial animosity, they standing in his mind -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[238]</a></span>not so much as preachers of religion as propagandists -of republicanism.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">James I -dictates -the composition -of -the Commons, -1604</div> - -<p>He wasted no time in getting things started. -In the proclamation by which he summoned -his first Parliament, he assumed the power of -dictating what manner of men should compose -it, and directed that his Court of Chancery -should decide whether or not the certificates of -election fulfilled the royal conditions, “and -if any shall be found to be made contrarie to -this proclamation, the same is to be rejected -as unlawful and insufficient.”<a name="FNanchor_295_295" id="FNanchor_295_295"></a><a href="#Footnote_295_295" class="fnanchor">[295]</a> The commons, -however, shortly after their convening, -vindicated their privilege in the case of Goodwin -and Fortescue, and succeeded in maintaining -thereafter their right to decide upon -the legality of returns.<a name="FNanchor_296_296" id="FNanchor_296_296"></a><a href="#Footnote_296_296" class="fnanchor">[296]</a> In their “Apology -of the House of Commons, made to the king, -touching their Privileges,” nearly at the close -of this session, the commons complained -against the monopolies possessed by the great -trading companies in the face of many statutes -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[239]</a></span>to the contrary, and the oppressive exercise -of the ancient prerogative of purveyance.<a name="FNanchor_297_297" id="FNanchor_297_297"></a><a href="#Footnote_297_297" class="fnanchor">[297]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">James -receives -tunnage -and -poundage -for life</div> - -<p>In the department of regular taxation, however, -James at first adopted a conciliatory -attitude. On the 26th June, 1604, James -sent to the commons a letter “written with -his own hand but corrected as to the spelling,” -in which he expressed his pleasure as to a -subsidy.<a name="FNanchor_298_298" id="FNanchor_298_298"></a><a href="#Footnote_298_298" class="fnanchor">[298]</a> He stated his confidence in their -good-will, assuring them “in the word of a -King” that he would “be so far from taking -it unkindly, their not offering” to him a -subsidy, and that he would “only interpret -it to proceed from the care they have, that -our people should not have any occasion of -distaste.” James’s letter accomplished for -him what may well have been his purpose; -the commons immediately granted to him tunnage -and poundage for the space of his life.<a name="FNanchor_299_299" id="FNanchor_299_299"></a><a href="#Footnote_299_299" class="fnanchor">[299]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[240]</a></span></p><div class="sidenote">Royal -poverty</div> - -<p>At the two subsequent sessions of 1605-6 -and 1606-7 there was constant friction between -king and commons, yet there were no very -remarkable assertions of royal prerogative or -of parliamentary privilege. At the session of -1605, Parliament granted the king three entire -subsidies and six fifteenths, designed principally -to meet the royal indebtedness, some of -which held over since the time of Elizabeth.<a name="FNanchor_300_300" id="FNanchor_300_300"></a><a href="#Footnote_300_300" class="fnanchor">[300]</a> -After the prorogation, James called no session -of Parliament until the 9th February, 1609-10.</p> - -<p>But James could not meet his obligations -with the ordinary revenues of the crown. He -was spending between £500,000 and £600,000 -a year, and his income was in the neighborhood -of £400,000; his annual deficit, therefore, was -not far from £150,000.<a name="FNanchor_301_301" id="FNanchor_301_301"></a><a href="#Footnote_301_301" class="fnanchor">[301]</a> James was obliged -to turn elsewhere, and the consequence of his -action was the famous Bate Case, the decision -in which was a step toward freeing the king -from parliamentary control over his revenues.</p> - -<p>In 1603, in answer to the agitation against -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[241]</a></span> -the great monopolies, an Eastern trading <span class="sidenote">The Bate -Case</span> company, -known as the Levant Company, surrendered -its charter. This company, amongst -other privileges, had enjoyed the right of collecting -a duty on currants from other merchants -trading in them, and paid to the crown -in return for the franchise £4,000 a year. -When, therefore, the company yielded up its -charter, the crown was the loser by £4,000 -annually. In order to make up for the loss, -the crown itself proceeded to lay a duty on currants.<a name="FNanchor_302_302" id="FNanchor_302_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_302_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> -In 1605, the Levant Company again -received a charter, but James levied upon it, -nevertheless, his duty on currants, the rate being -five shillings on the hundred-weight over -and above that granted to him by Parliament -in its tunnage and poundage bill. It was a -merchant of the Levant Company, John Bate, -who raised the question of the legality of the -imposition. The case was taken to the Court -of Exchequer for decision. Had the barons -confined themselves to the strict laws of the -matter, there would not have been great ground -for objection to their decision. Precedent -drawn from the time of the Tudors and statutes -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[242]</a></span>of the same period, were capable of being -brought forward in a fair adjudication of the -case, and would have substantiated the contention -of the crown, thus returning customs exactions, -nearly to the situation of 1300.<a name="FNanchor_303_303" id="FNanchor_303_303"></a><a href="#Footnote_303_303" class="fnanchor">[303]</a> The fact -that the four barons decided the case unanimously -against John Bate could not, therefore, -be reasonably reprehended. But they permitted -themselves to slip off into philosophical -generalizations which struck the people as -absolutist in tenor.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Opinions -of the -Barons -in the -Bate Case</div> - -<p>“It seemeth to me strange,” says Baron -Clarke in his opinion, “that any subjects -would contend with the King in this high -point of prerogative.... As it is not a kingdom -without subjects and government, so he -is not a king without revenues.... The -revenue of the Crown is the very essential part -of the Crown, and he who rendeth that from -the king pulleth also his crown from his head, -for it cannot be separated from the crown.” -He proceeded to advance the opinion that the -Statute of Edward III<a name="FNanchor_304_304" id="FNanchor_304_304"></a><a href="#Footnote_304_304" class="fnanchor">[304]</a> which prohibited to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[243]</a></span>the crown the right of levying new impositions -on wool, woolfells, and leather, and which -provided that there be only imposed “the -custom and subsidy granted to the king,” -had no effect in the present instance, because -it extended to Edward III alone, “and shall -not bind his successors, for it is a principal -part of the Crown of England which the King -cannot diminish.”</p> - -<p>The opinion of Chief Baron Fleming was -scarcely less sweeping. “The King’s power -is double,” he said, “ordinary and absolute.... -That of the ordinary is for the profit of -particular subjects, for the execution of civil -justice ... in the ordinary courts, and nominated -... with us the common law; and these -laws cannot be changed without Parliament.... -The absolute power of the king -is not that which is converted or executed to -private use, ... but is only that which is applied -to the general benefit of the people.... -This power is not guided by the rules which -direct only at the common law, and is most -properly named policy and government.... -The matter in question is material matter of -state, and ought to be ruled by the rules of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[244]</a></span> -policy, and if it be so, the king hath done well -to execute his extraordinary power. All customs, -be they old or new, are no other but the -effects and issues of trades and commerce -with foreign nations; but all commerce and -affairs with foreigners ... are made by the -absolute power of the king; and he who hath -power of causes hath power also of effects.”<a name="FNanchor_305_305" id="FNanchor_305_305"></a><a href="#Footnote_305_305" class="fnanchor">[305]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The position -of -Parliament</div> - -<p>Parliament took its stand on the subject of -the impositions even before the decision was -published. In the Petition of Grievances -sent up by the commons at the end of the -session of 1606, a list which contained so -many complaints that James remarked that -“they had sent an oyes through the nation to -find them,” the plea was made that no such -duty could be demanded legally without the -consent of Parliament. The decision was -announced to them when they reassembled -in November 1606, but they took no action -and for a time the matter rested.</p> - -<p>But it was James himself who, in his characteristic -tactless obstinacy, forced the issue. -On the 29th July, 1608, taking advantage of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[245]</a></span> -<span class="sidenote">The Book -of Rates -published -under -decision -in the -Bate Case, -1608</span> the Bate decision, he published under the -authority of the Great Seal his Book of Rates, -which laid heavy duties upon almost all articles -of merchandise, “to be forever hereafter -paid to the king and his successors on -pain of his displeasure.”<a name="FNanchor_306_306" id="FNanchor_306_306"></a><a href="#Footnote_306_306" class="fnanchor">[306]</a> The statement of -James’s own views on the subject could not -be more clearly put than he himself expressed -them in the commission for the levy of the impositions -addressed to the Earl of Salisbury, -Treasurer of England. “This special power -and prerogative,” he asserted, “(amongst many -others) hath both by men of understanding in -all ages and by the laws of all nations been -yielded and acknowledged to be proper and inherent -in the persons of princes, that they may -according to their several occasions raise to -themselves such fit and competent means by -levying of customs and impositions upon merchandise -transported out of their kingdom or -brought into their dominions ... as to their -wisdoms and discretions may seem convenient.”<a name="FNanchor_307_307" id="FNanchor_307_307"></a><a href="#Footnote_307_307" class="fnanchor">[307]</a></p> - -<p>Even with the money thus obtained, James -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[246]</a></span>was obliged at last after a lapse of nearly -two years and a half to turn to Parliament. -He summoned it for the 9th February 1609-10. -The commons, almost unanimously opposed to -the exercise of the royal prerogative in the -matter of the imposition, came prepared to -dispute the decision in the Bate Case. The -discussion, carried on in the face of a royal -prohibition, was managed by Hakewill, Yelverton, -and Whitelocke.<a name="FNanchor_308_308" id="FNanchor_308_308"></a><a href="#Footnote_308_308" class="fnanchor">[308]</a> The upshot was -<span class="sidenote">Remonstrance -from the -Commons, -1609-10</span> a remonstrance in which the commons reminded -the king that “the policy and constitution -of this your kingdom appropriates unto -the kings of this realm, with the assent of the -Parliament, as well the sovereign power of -making laws as that of taxing or imposing -upon the subjects’ goods or merchandises -wherein they have justly such a property as -may not without their consent, be altered or -changed.” Further, they pointed to the -former occasions when the commons had complained -in Parliament of similar impositions, -and upon which redress was forthcoming. Reference -was made to the action of “famous -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[247]</a></span> -kings,” who “agreed that this old fundamental -right should be further declared and established -by act of Parliament, wherein it is -provided that no such charges should ever -be laid upon the people without their common -consent, as may appear by sundry records of -former times.” They went on to say, “We, -therefore, your Majesty’s most humble Commons -assembled in Parliament, following the -examples of this worthy case of our ancestors, -and out of a duty to those for whom we serve, -finding that your Majesty, without advice or -consent of Parliament, hath lately, in time of -peace, set both greater impositions, and far -more in number than any of your noble ancestors -did in time of war, have with all humility -presumed to present this most just and necessary -petition unto your Majesty: That all -impositions set without the assent of Parliament -may be quite abolished and taken away; -and that your Majesty, in imitation likewise -of your noble progenitors, will be pleased that -a law may be made during this session of -Parliament to declare that all impositions set -or to be set, upon your people, their goods and -merchandises, save only by common assent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[248]</a></span> -in the Parliament, are and shall be void.”<a name="FNanchor_309_309" id="FNanchor_309_309"></a><a href="#Footnote_309_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a> -The outcome was unsatisfactory. A bill -framed to prohibit further impositions than -those already in existence, was passed by the -House of Commons, but was cast out in the -upper chamber. The king was still able to -cover himself with the decision in the Bate -Case.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Cowel’s -“Interpreter”</div> - -<p>The attitude of James toward a book -“lately published by one Doctor Cowel” and -esteemed to “contain certain matters of scandal -and offence toward the high court of -Parliament,”<a name="FNanchor_310_310" id="FNanchor_310_310"></a><a href="#Footnote_310_310" class="fnanchor">[310]</a> all but brought him into active -conflict with the commons. This publication -called “The Interpreter” contained a defense -of the royal prerogative in such terms as greatly -to offend the power of Parliament. Doctor -Cowel had this to say under the head of -“Subsidy:”</p> - -<p>“... A tax or tribute assessed by Parliament, -and granted by the Commons to be -levied of every subject according to the value -of his lands or goods, after the rate of 4<i>s.</i> in -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[249]</a></span>the pound for land and 2<i>s.</i> 8<i>d.</i> for goods, as -it is not commonly used at this day. Some -hold opinion that this subsidy is granted by -the subject to the Prince, in recompense or -consideration, that whereas the Prince of his -absolute power might make laws of himself, -he doth of favor admit the consent of his subjects -therein, that all things in their own -confession may be done with the greater -indifferency.”<a name="FNanchor_311_311" id="FNanchor_311_311"></a><a href="#Footnote_311_311" class="fnanchor">[311]</a></p> - -<p>King James had been thoughtless enough -to let fall words of commendation for the book, -and his approval was followed by a request -from the commons for a conference with the -lords. James, however, wisely withdrew from -his position and issued a proclamation prohibiting -the further circulation of the work and -recalling the copies already issued. Thus did -the storm blow over.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -“Great -Contract,” -1610</div> - -<p>At this same session of Parliament, James, -through the Lord Treasurer, offered to accept -a composition for the incidents of feudal -tenure, including the right of purveyance. -By this so-called Great Contract, Parliament -was to provide for an annual payment to the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[250]</a></span>king of £200,000. But the idea, which at -first was distasteful to the commons, shortly -became equally out of favor with the king. -The amount of money required seemed excessive, -and the commons feared that it might -make the king independent of them. The -king, on the other hand, arrived ultimately -at the conclusion that by careful manipulation -he could readily increase his income to a sum -larger than that stated in the Great Contract. -Final consideration was put over to the session -of Parliament called for the 16th October following. -At the last moment, however, when -an agreement seemed by no means hopeless, -a religious misunderstanding intervened, and -the negotiations fell through.</p> - -<p>The matter of a subsidy was treated with -somewhat greater favor, though with small -generosity. Parliament granted the king one -entire subsidy and one fifteenth and tenth.<a name="FNanchor_312_312" id="FNanchor_312_312"></a><a href="#Footnote_312_312" class="fnanchor">[312]</a> -Parliament was dissolved 9th February, 1611, -and for three years James tried to carry on -his government without it.</p> - -<p>James’s attempt at absolutism was not a -financial success; a court which was as extravagant -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[251]</a></span>as it was dissolute helped him increase -his deficit; he ran behind about £200,000 a -year, notwithstanding the fact that he set in -motion all the machinery of <span class="sidenote">Petty -extortion -after the -dissolution -of Parliament</span> petty extortion -that he dared. He tried to force loans on the -security of his privy seal but frequently met -with refusal from which there was no appeal. -The jurisdiction of the Star Chamber was -used as a means to lay fines which were -usually unjust and always excessive. He sold -peerages and raised money on the crown -lands, and induced the French king and the -Dutch to pay up old debts owing to England.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">James’s -second -Parliament, -1614, -known -as the -“Addled -Parliament”</div> - -<p>His enormous annual deficit forced him in -1614 to summon his second Parliament. It -came with a great and active majority lined -up against the king. It speedily passed by -a unanimous vote a resolution against the -king’s right of imposing taxes without the -consent of Parliament, and demanded a conference -on that subject with the House of -Lords;<a name="FNanchor_313_313" id="FNanchor_313_313"></a><a href="#Footnote_313_313" class="fnanchor">[313]</a> the lords, however, turned to the -judges hoping to obtain from them enlightenment -on the legal points involved, but the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[252]</a></span>judges, by the words of Chief Justice Coke, -refused to render an extra-judicial opinion. -The conference was then refused. The king, -becoming impatient at the delay of the commons -in accomplishing the purpose for which -he had summoned them to Parliament, with -his usual failure to adapt himself to circumstances, -sent a message to the House threatening -a dissolution of Parliament unless procedure -were immediately taken in the direction -of granting supplies.<a name="FNanchor_314_314" id="FNanchor_314_314"></a><a href="#Footnote_314_314" class="fnanchor">[314]</a> The commons met the -issue squarely; they said that they were determined -to conclude the matter of the impositions -before granting a supply. On the 7th -of June, two months and two days after the -date upon which it had been convened, James -redeemed his word and dissolved Parliament. -It had not passed a single bill and thus earned -the title by which it is known to history,—the -“Addled” Parliament. But it had succeeded -in maintaining its principle of making supply -wait upon redress of grievances, and some of -its members had shot barbed shafts at the -king, wherefore James locked up those who -had aimed most surely.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[253]</a></span></p> - -<p>With the hope gone of securing a grant, -James had to return to his old courses of -obtaining income. Forced loans, monopolies, -heavy fines, feudal payments rigorously exacted, -and the systematic extortion of <span class="sidenote">Resort to -extortion</span> benevolences, -figured in his programme. The -Council sent out orders to all the sheriffs and -magistrates to send in contributions from all -men of ability to pay; to those who refused, -suggestions were made of impending evil. The -judges of assize were especially urged to recommend -payments. The benevolences netted -less than £43,000 for the three years during -which they were made.<a name="FNanchor_315_315" id="FNanchor_315_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_315_315" class="fnanchor">[315]</a></p> - -<p>But the nation did not submit tamely. -Several counties sent up protests against the -demand, recalling in defense of their position -the Statute of Richard III which forbade the -levying of “exactions, called benevolences.” -<span class="sidenote">Case of -Oliver -St. John</span> The refusal of Oliver St. John to the request -for a benevolence by the mayor of Marlborough, -brought him into immediate conflict -with the king. His written reply to the mayor -maintained the illegality of the demand on -the ground that it was contrary to Magna -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[254]</a></span> -Carta and to the Statute of Richard III. He -further charged the king with breaking his -coronation oath, and declared that all who -paid the benevolence were incriminated with -him. He was haled before the Star Chamber -and sentenced by it to pay a fine of £5,000 -and to imprisonment during the king’s pleasure. -Thus it was that James tried to rule -without a Parliament.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">James’s -third Parliament, -1620-21</div> - -<p>But the rule could not long continue. James -summoned his third Parliament for the 30th -January, 1620-21. He addressed both Houses -in a conciliatory manner, hopefully and with -many promises. “For you to hunt after grievances,” -he said, “to the prejudice of your -king and yourselves, is not the errand: deal -with me as I deserve at your hands; I will -leave nothing undone that becomes a just -king, if you deal with me accordingly.”<a name="FNanchor_316_316" id="FNanchor_316_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_316_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a> The -commons were in a good temper and a reconciliation -seemed far more likely to eventuate -than a struggle.</p> - -<p>As for the royal advice about grievances, -the commons were slow to take it. When, -shortly after the beginning of the session, it -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[255]</a></span>was moved that the House proceed to the -consideration of a supply, it was stated that -supply and redress of grievances <span class="sidenote">Supply -waits upon -redress of -grievances</span> should go -“hand in hand together,” that they were “as -twins; to go together and have no precedency.”<a name="FNanchor_317_317" id="FNanchor_317_317"></a><a href="#Footnote_317_317" class="fnanchor">[317]</a> -It was resolved that the business -of the supply be not decided independently -of a consideration of grievances and of a petition -to the king for freedom of speech, thus -recalling the imprisonment of members in 1614 -at the time of the dissolution of the Addled -Parliament.</p> - -<p>High in the list of grievances was the granting -of monopolies. Patents of monopoly -subserved a number of diverse purposes, -some of which were entirely legitimate. Objection -could not be made to restrictions in -the sale of certain commodities such as liquors -and explosives, nor to the assurance given to -an inventor that he had an exclusive right to -profits accruing from his invention. But -James was free with his grants of monopoly -for the enrichment of his courtiers and himself. -Parliament laid by the heels the monopolists -who had most abused their privileges, and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[256]</a></span> -<span class="sidenote">Revival of -impeachment -by -the -Commons</span> impeached and condemned Sir Giles Mompesson -and Sir Francis Mitchell.<a name="FNanchor_318_318" id="FNanchor_318_318"></a><a href="#Footnote_318_318" class="fnanchor">[318]</a></p> - -<p>Before the judgment was given, however, -but not before it was clearly discernible what -was to be the trend of events, the commons -set themselves to the consideration of a supply -bill and on the 18th March passed it unanimously. -It provided for two entire subsidies. -“In the midst of their inquiries into public -grievances,<span class="sidenote">Granting -of a supply</span> the commons had thought fit to -consider the necessities of the State and grant -the king a supply.”<a name="FNanchor_319_319" id="FNanchor_319_319"></a><a href="#Footnote_319_319" class="fnanchor">[319]</a></p> - -<p>The major part of the session was spent in -reforming abuses, both by impeaching the -officials responsible for them, and by framing -legislation for their correction. Chief amongst -those who fell under condemnation at the bar -of the House of Lords was Lord Francis -Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England, convicted -of bribery. King James in the early part of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[257]</a></span>the session seemed not out of sympathy with -these efforts to reform the administration, -but as time wore on and the commons still -busied themselves with investigations of official -misconduct, he wearied, and on the 28th -May, the Lord Treasurer declared to the -lords the king’s determination to adjourn Parliament. -Two of the five reasons assigned for -the adjournment were these: “For that the -profits of his Majesty’s revenues are, as it -were, at a stand;” and “The omission of the -State.”<a name="FNanchor_320_320" id="FNanchor_320_320"></a><a href="#Footnote_320_320" class="fnanchor">[320]</a> A week later, after great complaint by -the commons, the session was adjourned to reassemble -on the 14th November. Throughout -the four months during which it had sat, no -complaint had been registered against the impositions -at the outports. Apparently the commons -were willing for the moment <span class="sidenote">James in -a temper -adjourns -Parliament</span> to let them -rest, or else, as is more likely, were quite unmindful -of them.</p> - -<p>Parliament met on the 20th November for -its final session. Lord Treasurer Cranfield -reported that the exchequer was depleted, that -the two subsidies which had been granted the -previous March had been spent in furthering -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[258]</a></span>the interests of James’s son-in-law, Frederic, -Elector Palatine, and “that the business now -in hand required a great and speedy supply.”<a name="FNanchor_321_321" id="FNanchor_321_321"></a><a href="#Footnote_321_321" class="fnanchor">[321]</a> -It was understood that the cost of maintaining -an army in the Palatinate would be not far -from £900,000 a year.<span class="sidenote">Dilatory -action on -a subsidy</span> The Lord Treasurer -wished “that the Commons would so handle -this business as to make his Majesty in love -with the Parliaments.”</p> - -<p>But they took some time to consider it. At -the end of the first week, the commons resolved -in committee of the whole house upon -a single subsidy, which, since it was to be -levied doubly upon papists, would provide -some £100,000 for the prosecution of war in -the Palatine.<a name="FNanchor_322_322" id="FNanchor_322_322"></a><a href="#Footnote_322_322" class="fnanchor">[322]</a> That was as near an actual -grant as the commons came during the session. -On the 1st December, they fell into a conflict -with the king over matters of privilege, which -had its rise in the imprisonment of Sir Edwin -Sandys during the last recess of Parliament, -presumably for utterances made in the House. -There were petitions to James and replies -from him, culminating in a remarkable Protestation -asserting the right of free speech in -the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[259]</a></span> -House.<a name="FNanchor_323_323" id="FNanchor_323_323"></a><a href="#Footnote_323_323" class="fnanchor">[323]</a> On the day of the presentation of -this Protestation, the 18th December, James -adjourned Parliament to the 8th February; -he then sent for the Journal of the House of -Commons and tore from it the objectionable -entry with his own hand. In the stress of -these events, the proposed subsidy was allowed -to slip out of mind; only did the lords propose -a meeting with the commons to consider a -supply, and this came to naught. On the -6th January, 1621-22, James saw fit not to -await the reassembling of Parliament, but -issued a proclamation of dissolution in which -he denounced those who had questioned his -prerogatives in the House of Commons as -“ill-tempered spirits.” Then he committed -to prison such of them as he regarded as being -most hostile, amongst whom were Sir Edward -Coke, Pym, Selden, and Mallory.<a name="FNanchor_324_324" id="FNanchor_324_324"></a><a href="#Footnote_324_324" class="fnanchor">[324]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">James’s -last Parliament, -1623-24</div> - -<p>James convened his last Parliament on the -19th February, 1623-24. In the interval which -had elapsed since the dissolution, James recovered -his conciliatory attitude toward the -commons. The plan of marrying the Prince -of Wales, the young Prince Charles, to the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[260]</a></span> -Infanta of Spain, had been given up, and thus -Englishmen were relieved of what to them had -been a pro-popish plot, and had been deprecated -again and again as the odious Spanish -Match. The programme with respect to the -Palatinate favored by the king was that favored -by the commons, and the reign of James -seemed to be approaching a happy conclusion. -<span class="sidenote">Supply -granted -for the -Palatine -war</span> The commons came forward with a grant of -three subsidies and three fifteenths and tenths, -providing a somewhat greater sum than -£300,000.<a name="FNanchor_325_325" id="FNanchor_325_325"></a><a href="#Footnote_325_325" class="fnanchor">[325]</a> The money was voted on the -condition that, in order to insure its application -to the naval and military establishments, -it be paid into the hands of commissioners -appointed by the commons, and be expended -by them upon direction of the council of war. -The sympathy existing between king and -Parliament was further exhibited in the successful -passage of an act forbidding monopolies -in the sale of any merchandise or in practicing -any trade, the only legislative act of -constructive importance in his reign.<a name="FNanchor_326_326" id="FNanchor_326_326"></a><a href="#Footnote_326_326" class="fnanchor">[326]</a> Parliament -was dissolved on the 29th May, 1624.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[261]</a></span></p><div class="sidenote">Death of -James I, -27th -March, -1625</div> - -<p>Less than a year later King James died. -Apparently at the end of his reign he was -learning wisdom for he was beginning to understand -Parliament. He left his crown to the -keeping of a son who had in no wise profited -by the father’s experience. Charles I, brought -up in an atmosphere of divine right, was predisposed -to pursue that theory to the end. But -worse than that, in arguing his melancholy -destiny, was his faithlessness. An odious policy -executed without respect for truth brought him -at last to death outside his palace of Whitehall.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">First Parliament -of -Charles</div> - -<p>The first Parliament of Charles I recalls -vividly the mid-reign experiences of James. -It convened on the 18th June, 1625, and was -met with a request for a large and unconditional -grant with which to prosecute the war -which Charles had inherited from his father. -The commons, however, were careful; they -looked rather for a solid establishment of -government at home than for a war abroad. -Breaking the habit of two centuries, they -offered Charles tunnage and poundage for a -year instead of the term of his life, a measure -which, because of lack of precedent, was -rejected in the House of Lords; and granted<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[262]</a></span> -only two subsidies.<a name="FNanchor_327_327" id="FNanchor_327_327"></a><a href="#Footnote_327_327" class="fnanchor">[327]</a> On the 10th August, -the chancellor delivered a message to the commons -from the king. He desired “a present -answer about his supply: If not, he will -take care of their healths <span class="sidenote">Worry -about the -supply</span> more than they -themselves, and make as good a shift for his -present occasions as he could.”<a name="FNanchor_328_328" id="FNanchor_328_328"></a><a href="#Footnote_328_328" class="fnanchor">[328]</a> The House -spent the rest of the day debating the matter, -and on the next proceeded in the consideration -of grievances, postponing the supply. -Delay the king would not brook; perceiving -that the commons were bent upon a redress -of grievances before the granting of further -aid, and because in the debates they had presumed -“to reflect upon some great persons -near himself,” on the 12th August he dissolved -Parliament,<a name="FNanchor_329_329" id="FNanchor_329_329"></a><a href="#Footnote_329_329" class="fnanchor">[329]</a> and looked to his privy seal as -a means of revenue.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">His second -Parliament. -Buckingham</div> - -<p>Six months later, on the 6th February, -1625-26, Charles opened his second Parliament -and met with no better success. The -commons did not consider immediately the -question of a supply, but to the immense irritation -of the king, proceeded to inquire into -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[263]</a></span>the conduct of the Duke of Buckingham, the -favorite of Charles. He sent a message to the -commons saying that he would “not allow -any of his servants to be questioned amongst -them, much less such as are of eminent place -and near unto him.” But the chief significance -of his message was in its conclusion. -“I wish you would hasten my supply,” so it -ran, “or else it will be worse for yourselves; -for if any ill happen, I think I shall be the last -that shall feel it.”<a name="FNanchor_330_330" id="FNanchor_330_330"></a><a href="#Footnote_330_330" class="fnanchor">[330]</a> -The commons replied -with a grant of three subsidies and three -fifteenths, but the conditions were such as to -make it <span class="sidenote">A grant -with hard -conditions</span> almost worse for Charles than no -grant at all. The bill was not to be brought -in until the king should have given answer to -their list of grievances, and among the grievances -the Duke of Buckingham was chief.<a name="FNanchor_331_331" id="FNanchor_331_331"></a><a href="#Footnote_331_331" class="fnanchor">[331]</a> -Later a fourth subsidy was added and a movement -was put on foot to give Charles tunnage -and poundage for life; but in the bill it was -specified that a remonstrance should be drawn -up against his taking those duties without the -previous consent of Parliament.<a name="FNanchor_332_332" id="FNanchor_332_332"></a><a href="#Footnote_332_332" class="fnanchor">[332]</a> Then the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[264]</a></span>commons went on with their formal impeachment -of Buckingham. But before the matter -was settled, and consequently before the -Commons had made final grants of the -promised subsidies, Charles, in the hope of -relieving the desperate plight of his favorite, -dissolved Parliament, on the 15th June.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Forced -loans at -the rating -of a -subsidy</div> - -<p>The dissolution left Charles without the -means with which to carry on the proposed -war with Spain. He turned again to old -expedients; he forced loans, exacted benevolences, -and suspended penal laws for a consideration. -The loans took the form of a -general levy according to the well-known rate -of the subsidy and were thus in effect assessments -of a general tax by the arbitrary power -of the crown. Of great importance in the -light of subsequent history, was the requisition -made upon the seaport towns for ships -armed and equipped, the precursor of the -demand for ship money. Imprisonment, impressment -into the royal navy, the quartering -of soldiers upon the inhabitants, the dismissal -from offices held of the crown, were the several -rewards of those sufficiently courageous to -stand by the principle that taxes be laid only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[265]</a></span> -by the assent of Parliament.<a name="FNanchor_333_333" id="FNanchor_333_333"></a><a href="#Footnote_333_333" class="fnanchor">[333]</a> By an order in -Council it was declared, “that all customs, -duties, and imposts on all goods and merchandizes -exported and imported, which, for many -ages had been continued, and esteemed a -principal and necessary part of the revenue of -the crown, should be levied and paid.” The -hope was expressed that these levies “might -receive an absolute settlement by Parliament,” -when that body should again assemble.<a name="FNanchor_334_334" id="FNanchor_334_334"></a><a href="#Footnote_334_334" class="fnanchor">[334]</a></p> - -<p>Not being content with the financial difficulties -incident to the war with Spain, Charles, -at the suggestion of Buckingham, slipped into -a war with France. Buckingham led an -expedition to the Isle of Rhé, met with disaster -and ignominy, and succeeded in using -up the ready money of the king. Charles -<span class="sidenote">Charles’s -third Parliament, 1627-28</span> had -to call his third Parliament in order to obtain -supplies. It met 17th March, 1627-28. The -king attempted to propitiate the commons by -releasing the prisoners whom he still held for -refusing to meet the demand for the general -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[266]</a></span>loan. In his opening speech, Charles took -the wrong tack. “There is none here,” he -said, “but knows that common danger is the -cause of this Parliament, and that supply at -this time is the chief end of it.... If you, -(which God forbid) should not do your duties -in contributing what the State at this time -needs, I must in discharge of my conscience, -use those other means which God hath put -into my hands, to save that which the follies -of some particular men may otherwise hazard -to lose.”<a name="FNanchor_335_335" id="FNanchor_335_335"></a><a href="#Footnote_335_335" class="fnanchor">[335]</a> Nor was this bold assertion of -the divine right of a king to put his hand in -the pockets of his subjects enough. The -lord keeper said in addition, <span class="sidenote">Threats of -non- Parliamentary -exaction</span>“This way (of -obtaining a supply), as his Majesty hath told -you, he hath chosen, not as the only way, but -as the fittest; not as destitute of others, but -as most agreeable to the goodness of his own -most gracious disposition, and to the desire -and weal of his people. If this be deferred, -necessity and the sword of the enemy will -make way to others. Remember his Majesty’s -admonition: I say, remember it.”<a name="FNanchor_336_336" id="FNanchor_336_336"></a><a href="#Footnote_336_336" class="fnanchor">[336]</a></p> - -<p>The House immediately set itself to the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[267]</a></span> -consideration of grievances,<span class="sidenote">Grievances -have precedence</span> chief amongst -which were “raising money by loans, by -benevolences, and privy seals: and what was -too fresh in memory, the imprisonment of -certain gentlemen who refused to lend.”<a name="FNanchor_337_337" id="FNanchor_337_337"></a><a href="#Footnote_337_337" class="fnanchor">[337]</a> -The matter of a supply was debated, but -passed by in favor of the grievances. On the -3rd April, the commons agreed unanimously -to certain highly significant resolutions against -the powers assumed by the king. “No freeman -ought to be committed, or detained in -prison, or otherwise restrained,” they said, “by -command of the king, or the Privy Council, or -any other,” except for lawful cause expressed -in a lawful warrant; and “that the ancient and -undoubted right of every freeman is, that he -hath a full and absolute property in his goods -and estate;<span class="sidenote">Denunciation -of -extortions</span> and that no tax, tallage, loan, -benevolence, or other like charge, ought to -be commanded or levied by the king or his -ministers, without common assent of Parliament.”<a name="FNanchor_338_338" id="FNanchor_338_338"></a><a href="#Footnote_338_338" class="fnanchor">[338]</a></p> - -<p>For the space of two months the commons -and the House of Lords engaged themselves -in conference and separately in the consideration -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[268]</a></span>of a petition defining, the rights asserted -in the resolutions. On the part of the -commons the chief advocates were Selden, -Littleton, and Digges; Sir Edward Coke, whose -unwillingness to bend the judicial knee to King -James had procured his dismissal long since -from the chief-justiceship; and Noy, the genius -who was shortly to turn against the Commons -and in his invention of ship money furnish a -means whereby to lay taxes without parliamentary -assent. The interest of the crown was defended -by attorney-general Heath and Sergent -Ashley. The king was in a dilemma; he could -not permit the petition to be brought in, in -parliamentary form, and he could not dissolve -Parliament without losing five subsidies which -the commons had signified their willingness to -grant him.<a name="FNanchor_339_339" id="FNanchor_339_339"></a><a href="#Footnote_339_339" class="fnanchor">[339]</a> He therefore tried to steer a -middle course; he offered to Parliament his -royal word not to imprison unjustly and expressed -his willingness to confirm the charters. -Coke, however, insisted upon a specific statement -of issues; any such hazy settlement of difficulties -as the king proposed was unlikely to -be permanent; definiteness was essential. To -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[269]</a></span>that end he proposed the drawing up of a -Petition of Right.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Petition -of Right</div> - -<p>When the instrument was at last drawn up, -it was sent to the House of Lords. The lords -attempted to introduce an amendment designed -“to leave entire that sovereign power,” -as the proposed change itself ran, “wherewith -your Majesty is trusted for the protection, -safety and happiness of your people;”<a name="FNanchor_340_340" id="FNanchor_340_340"></a><a href="#Footnote_340_340" class="fnanchor">[340]</a> but the -commons would have none of it, and at last the -lords yielded their assent. The king at first -gave a cumbersome, evasive answer to the petition -which was in reality no answer at all,<a name="FNanchor_341_341" id="FNanchor_341_341"></a><a href="#Footnote_341_341" class="fnanchor">[341]</a> -and roused thereby a storm of indignation, -which exhibited itself in a movement to censure -Buckingham. This the king averted by signing -the Petition of Right in the usual manner, -and received in consequence his five subsidies.<a name="FNanchor_342_342" id="FNanchor_342_342"></a><a href="#Footnote_342_342" class="fnanchor">[342]</a></p> - -<p>The Petition which thus became a regularly -passed Act of Parliament, is of transcendent -importance in the development of the control -of the people over the public purse. In -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[270]</a></span> -terms absolutely unequivocal,<span class="sidenote">The statutes -cited -in the Petition</span> it asserts that -“your subjects have inherited this freedom, -that they should not be compelled to contribute -to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[271]</a></span> -charge, not set by common consent in Parliament.” -The statutory sources whence that -freedom was inherited are cited in detail. The -citations, are, however, ill-taken. <i>Statutum -de tallagio non concedendo</i> was in all likelihood<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[272]</a></span> -no statute at all, but a chronicler’s -abstract of Edward I’s Confirmatio Cartarum, -or perhaps an unauthoritative copy of the pardon -which was granted to Humfrey Bohun -and Roger Bigod at approximately the same -time with the Confirmation of the Charters. -It is not unlikely that the citation of the statute -of the 25th of Edward III was an error; -at any rate, the text of the statute has not been -discovered,<a name="FNanchor_343_343" id="FNanchor_343_343"></a><a href="#Footnote_343_343" class="fnanchor">[343]</a> and the date at which it was said -to be enacted was at the height of the great -plague, a time scarcely adapted to the assertion -of a great constitutional principle. But -the precise historical foundation upon which -Sir Edward Coke and his associates based -their charges against the king, is of quite secondary -importance. The true value of the -Petition of Right lies in this, that Charles I -had been obliged to subscribe to a statutory -provision by which no man thereafter was to -“be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, -benevolence, tax, or such like charge, without -common consent by Act of Parliament.” -That was indeed supremely important.</p> - -<p>But the language of the Petition of Right -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[273]</a></span>might reasonably be taken to refer only to -internal taxes and that the matter of customs -duties, the charges upon merchandise at the -outports, was left still in the air. Protests -had indeed been made against the exaction -of these duties by the crown, especially during -the reign of James <span class="sidenote">The -Petition of -Right and -customs -duties</span> in the great agitation over -the Book of Rates, but no statute had been -passed providing definitely for parliamentary -control. To that end, the commons delayed -the passage of a bill which gave the king tunnage -and poundage for life, pending the acceptance -by him of a remonstrance against impositions. -The remonstrance as framed by the -commons declared that “there ought not any -imposition to be laid upon the goods of merchants, -exported or imported, <i>without the -common consent by Act of Parliament</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_344_344" id="FNanchor_344_344"></a><a href="#Footnote_344_344" class="fnanchor">[344]</a> It -further made assertion that the laying of -impositions at the outports was contrary to -the Petition of Right. The king’s attitude -was decisive; before the remonstrance was -handed to him, he evaded the issue by proroguing -Parliament. Never, so he said, would -he give away tunnage and poundage; he must -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[274]</a></span>needs retain them for himself. The session -ended 26th June, 1628.<a name="FNanchor_345_345" id="FNanchor_345_345"></a><a href="#Footnote_345_345" class="fnanchor">[345]</a></p> - -<p>During the six months which elapsed before -the reassembling of Parliament, Charles continued -to <span class="sidenote">Tunnage -and -poundage</span> levy tunnage and poundage upon his -own authority, relying still upon the decision -in the Bate Case for his justification. Several -merchants who refused to pay were promptly -clapped into prison; among those whose -goods were seized for the same reason was -Henry Rolles, a member of the House of -Commons. The second session of Parliament -was called for the 20th January, 1628-29; the -commons came together with no pretense of -smothering their indignation against the conduct -of the king. A number of plans were -brought forward as means of rectifying the -abuses. The evident determination of the -commons to conclude the matter, daunted the -king. Summoning both Houses to Whitehall, -he renounced the right of levying tunnage -and poundage. “It ever was, and still is my -meaning,” so were his words, “by the gift -of my people to enjoy it, and my intention -in my speech at the end of the last session was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[275]</a></span>not to challenge tunnage and poundage as of -right, but <i>de bene esse</i>, showing you the necessity, -not the right, by which I was to take it -until you had granted it to me, assuring myself -according to your general professions -that you wanted time and not good-will to -give it me.”<a name="FNanchor_346_346" id="FNanchor_346_346"></a><a href="#Footnote_346_346" class="fnanchor">[346]</a> For a moment it appeared as -though this abandonment of position by the -king would end the conflict. Three days after -his reception of the Houses at Whitehall, Mr. -Secretary Cooke moved the reading of a bill -granting him tunnage and poundage for life. -But it never passed. The commons were -distracted by a question of religious innovation, -talked at great length over their religious -grievances, and allowed their momentary -flush of cordial feeling toward the king to cool. -Mr. Secretary Cooke on the two days following -that upon which he made his motion regarding -tunnage and poundage, delivered messages -from Charles urging haste in the consideration -of the measure.<a name="FNanchor_347_347" id="FNanchor_347_347"></a><a href="#Footnote_347_347" class="fnanchor">[347]</a> On the 2nd February, -the commons acknowledged the receipt of -the messages, but rather than pass a bill -satisfactory to the king in this particular, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[276]</a></span>they stated their intent to “proceed with religion.”<a name="FNanchor_348_348" id="FNanchor_348_348"></a><a href="#Footnote_348_348" class="fnanchor">[348]</a></p> - -<p>On the 19th February they began a lengthy -consideration of the breach of privilege committed -against the House of Commons in the -seizure of the goods of Henry Rolles, the merchant -member of the House, who had refused -payment of tunnage and poundage during -the recent recess. The officers who had participated -in the seizure of his goods were summoned -before the commons that they might -answer for contempt. The stand was taken -against the king on this ground of privilege, -instead, as Pym advised, of objecting on the -broad constitutional ground that Parliament -had not granted the tax. This hostility was -too much for the conciliatory spirit which -Charles had evinced at the opening of the session. -Through Mr. Secretary Cooke, he announced -his unwillingness to have his officers -questioned, since “what they did was by his -own direct command, or by order of the council-board, -his Majesty himself being present, and -therefore, would not have it divided from his -act.”<a name="FNanchor_349_349" id="FNanchor_349_349"></a><a href="#Footnote_349_349" class="fnanchor">[349]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[277]</a></span></p> - -<p>The question was fought out on the 2nd -March, when the commons reassembled after -a brief recess. The king, hoping to arrange -the difficulty privately with the leaders of the -House, ordered the recess to be continued -until the 10th March. To this the commons -entered vigorous protest; at the putting of the -question, the vote was overwhelmingly against -adjournment.<span class="sidenote">Tumult -in the -Commons</span> The speaker, Sir John Finch, -in obedience to the royal will, attempted to -leave his chair, and thus break up the session; -but Holles and Valentine, two members most -eager for the consideration of the matters pressing -for attention, pushed him back into his seat. -Sir John Eliot, who had drawn up three resolutions -expressing the mind of the commons -on the questions of religion and taxation, read -them above the uproar. The speaker and the -clerk refused to put the vote and the king’s -guard was already on its way to make a forcible -end to the proceedings. At the moment -when the guardsmen were at the door, Holles -read the resolutions and they were carried by -acclamation. The House then adjourned in -a tumult until the 10th March.<a name="FNanchor_350_350" id="FNanchor_350_350"></a><a href="#Footnote_350_350" class="fnanchor">[350]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[278]</a></span></p> -<p>The resolutions were most explicit. The -two which concerned the impositions said: -“Whosoever shall counsel or advise the taking -and levying of the subsidies of tunnage and -poundage, not being granted by Parliament, -or shall be an actor and instrument therein, -shall be likewise reputed an innovator in the -government and a capital enemy to this kingdom -and commonwealth.” And: “If any merchant -or other person whatsoever shall voluntarily -yield or pay the said subsidies of -tunnage and poundage not being granted by -Parliament, he shall likewise be reputed a betrayer -of the liberty of England, and an enemy -to the same.”<a name="FNanchor_351_351" id="FNanchor_351_351"></a><a href="#Footnote_351_351" class="fnanchor">[351]</a></p> - -<p>When the House reconvened on the 10th -March, the king dissolved Parliament without -further ado. With respect to such of the -commons as merited his displeasure he remarked -that the vipers amongst them would -meet with their rewards.</p> - -<p>With the dissolution of his third Parliament, -Charles entered upon a new epoch in his -reign; and at the conclusion of it, he found -that his game had been for too heavy stakes, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[279]</a></span> -and that he had lost.<span class="sidenote">Charles’s -eleven -years -without -Parliament, -1629-40</span> For eleven years he did -without a Parliament. He began by issuing -a Declaration addressed to his “loving subjects” -in which he told the history of the late -session from his own point of view,—that -he was in extreme need of money with which -to meet the necessities of England and relieve -the “miserable afflicted state” of Protestants -abroad, that Parliament had proved itself -intractable, and had greatly delayed, contrary -to all precedent, in the matter of tunnage and -poundage; not only that, but upon his graciously -yielding to Parliament the power of -granting him tunnage and poundage, it had -raised up still another cause for delay in the -case of Henry Holles.<a name="FNanchor_352_352" id="FNanchor_352_352"></a><a href="#Footnote_352_352" class="fnanchor">[352]</a> In a proclamation -issued two weeks later he plainly exhibited -his intention to rule without a Parliament; -“the calling, continuing, and dissolving of -them,” he said, “being always in the King’s -own power. And his Majesty shall be more -inclinable to meet in Parliament again when -his people shall see more clearly into his -intents and actions, when such as have bred -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[280]</a></span>this interruption shall receive their condign -punishment.”<a name="FNanchor_353_353" id="FNanchor_353_353"></a><a href="#Footnote_353_353" class="fnanchor">[353]</a></p> - -<p>He imprisoned accordingly Holles, Strode, -Sir John Eliot and others whom he included -amongst the vipers of the commons, and removed -such of them to the Tower as were -able to sue out their writs of habeas corpus, -in order that he might thus elude the service -of the writs. But imprisonment was scarcely -a means of relief to the king’s financial exigencies. -<span class="sidenote">His -financial -expedients</span> He turned to expedients which were -exceedingly oppressive, and most of them -clearly illegal. He rigorously extorted tunnage -and poundage by the arbitrary authority of -the crown; he reëstablished the monopolies -abolished under James I, and applied them -to nearly every article in common use; he -revived laws long since dead and applied them -stringently for the sake of their fines; he -revived forest legislation and increased the -limits of the royal woodlands, mulcting the -owners of adjoining property for encroachment; -he searched titles of estates for defects -which would make them liable to reversion -to the crown; he went back to the old practice -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[281]</a></span>of compulsory knighthood for those who had -£40 or more in lands or rents.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Ship -money, -first writ, -20th October, -1634</div> - -<p>But the supreme grievance was the extortion -of ship money. Sir William Noy, lately -leader in the commons in defense of popular -power against royal prerogative, now become -by the grace of the king attorney-general and a -chief supporter of that same royal prerogative, -shut himself up in the Tower for some days -that he might better consult the ancient authorities. -“Shaking off the dust of ages from -parchments in the Tower,” says Hallam, -“this man of venal diligence and prostituted -learning discovered that the seaports and even -maritime counties had in early times been -sometimes called upon to furnish ships for -the public service; nay there were instances -for a similar demand upon some inland -places.”<a name="FNanchor_354_354" id="FNanchor_354_354"></a><a href="#Footnote_354_354" class="fnanchor">[354]</a> The first writ of ship money was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[282]</a></span>directed to the magistrates of London and -other seaport towns, and was issued on the -20th October, 1634. It recited the depredations -of pirates, “Turks, enemies of the -Christian name,” and the prevalence of war -upon the continent. It enjoined upon the -magistrates the furnishing of ships of specific -tonnage and equipage by the 1st of the following -March. They were empowered to assess -all the inhabitants according to their substance, -both for the fitting out of the ships and the -maintenance of their crews for the space of -six months. Refusals to pay were punishable -by imprisonment. The writ was issued by -the king with the advice of the Privy Council.<a name="FNanchor_355_355" id="FNanchor_355_355"></a><a href="#Footnote_355_355" class="fnanchor">[355]</a></p> - -<p>The show of precedent was barely an -extenuation, not a justification of the demand. -As a matter of fact, it was virtually an extortion -of a tax, and as such was a distinct violation -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[283]</a></span>of the Petition of Right. London, being -the only port in the kingdom capable of constructing -and equipping ships of the character -designated in the writs, was the only town able -to make literal compliance with the demand. -The rest were obliged to make money payments. -But the matter was to come up later -in the courts, and the legality or <span class="sidenote">The true -occasion -for the levy</span> illegality of -the writs was there to be decided. As for the -occasion of the requisition denominated in the -ordinance, that was false. The design was -not against “Turks, enemies of the Christian -name,” but against the Dutch Republic. -Charles had proposed a secret treaty with -Spain whereby the government of the Lowlanders -should be overthrown and its territory -be divided between England and Spain.<a name="FNanchor_356_356" id="FNanchor_356_356"></a><a href="#Footnote_356_356" class="fnanchor">[356]</a> -Not only was this act of Charles a breach of -his recent great compact with the nation, but -it had for its purpose an act of aggression -against the people who stood for the highest -political ideals then known in Europe, and -was based on a lie.</p> - -<p>Sir John Finch, the chief justice of common -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[284]</a></span>pleas, the same who, as speaker of the -commons, had been forcibly held in his chair -in order to keep the House in session at the -close of the last Parliament, undertook the -levying of ship money upon the death of Noy; -he advanced the fortunes of the writs by making -them applicable to the entire kingdom.<span class="sidenote">Second -writ, 4th -August, -1635. -Its general -application</span> On -the 4th August, 1635, the demand made its -second appearance; it was to cover not only -the needs of a navy, but to furnish “a spring -and magazine that should have no bottom, -and for an everlasting supply for all occasions.”<a name="FNanchor_357_357" id="FNanchor_357_357"></a><a href="#Footnote_357_357" class="fnanchor">[357]</a> -Instructions were included in the -writs to the sheriffs, by which the ships could -be compounded for by the counties, and the -amount transmitted to the treasurer of the -navy for his Majesty’s uses. Payment was to -be enforced.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Third writ, -9th October, -1636</div> - -<p>A year later, the 9th October, 1636, the -third assessment was laid. Murmuring against -the writs, which was common enough amongst -the lower classes in 1635, now spread to men -of great position. The earls of Danby and -Warwick and other peers protested to the -king, not so much against the amount of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[285]</a></span>tax, as against the unconstitutional manner of -its levy. But Charles found it too profitable -a means of income to let go; he was the richer -each year by some £200,000.</p> - -<p>The courts, however, seemed of contrary -mind to the rest of the nation. In November, -1635, at the instance of Sir John Finch, the -following extra-judicial opinion was delivered -<span class="sidenote">Extra-judicial -opinions</span> -by the judges:—“I am of the opinion that, -as when the benefit doth more particularly -redound to the ports or maritime parts, as in -case of piracy or depredations upon the seas, -that the charge hath been, and may be lawfully -imposed upon them according to precedents -of former times; so when 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), then the charge -of the defence ought to be borne by all the -realm in general. This I hold agreeably both -to law and reason.”<a name="FNanchor_358_358" id="FNanchor_358_358"></a><a href="#Footnote_358_358" class="fnanchor">[358]</a></p> - -<p>On the 7th February, 1637, Charles laid -the case before the judges of the Exchequer -extra-judicially in much the same terms as -the opinion of 1635. He requested an answer -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[286]</a></span>to the following question:—“When the good -and safety of the Kingdom in general is concerned, -and the whole Kingdom in danger, -whether may not the King, by writ under the -Great Seal of England, command all the -subjects of our Kingdom at their charge to -provide and furnish such a number of ships, -with men, victuals, and munition, and for -such time as we shall think fit for the defence -and safeguard of the kingdom from such -danger and peril, and by law compel the -doing thereof, in case of refusal or refractoriness: -and whether in such a case is not the -King the sole judge both of the danger, and -when and how the same is to be prevented -and avoided?”<a name="FNanchor_359_359" id="FNanchor_359_359"></a><a href="#Footnote_359_359" class="fnanchor">[359]</a> The opinion of the judges -was ostensibly unanimous in favor of the -crown; Coke and Hutton as a matter of fact -dissented, but subscribed on the principle -that the opinion of the majority should be -that of the whole body.</p> - -<p>In the face of this sweeping and conclusive -opinion delivered privately to the king, there -was apparently no hope for any one who -should have to answer in that court for refusal. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[287]</a></span> -<span class="sidenote">Hampden’s -Case, 1637</span> Shortly thereafter, however, such a case came -up. John Hampden, a gentleman of Buckinghamshire, -had refused to pay the assessment -of 20<i>s.</i> which was laid upon some of his lands, -and by reason of his refusal was summoned -to the Exchequer. He appeared and answered -to the charge in November, 1637. He was defended -by the brilliant Oliver St. John and -Mr. Holborne. Solicitor General Littleton -and Attorney General Bankes conducted the -case for the crown.</p> - -<p>The question upon which the case was -argued may be phrased as follows: “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 defense of -the kingdom?”<a name="FNanchor_360_360" id="FNanchor_360_360"></a><a href="#Footnote_360_360" class="fnanchor">[360]</a> The argument for Hampden -can be summed up under five heads:</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The case -for the -defendant</div> - -<p>I. The law and constitution of England -provide certain ordinary revenues for the -defense of the realm. These comprehend the -military forces provided by those holding -lands by military tenure; the liability of the -Cinque Ports and others holding similarly -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[288]</a></span>to provide a quota of ships, by reason of their -tenure; the feudal and other revenues inherent -in the crown; the customs on wool and leather, -and tunnage and poundage, and other special -dues which were wont to be granted to the -king in time of danger.<a name="FNanchor_361_361" id="FNanchor_361_361"></a><a href="#Footnote_361_361" class="fnanchor">[361]</a></p> - -<p>II. The law and constitution of England -provide certain extraordinary revenues when -the ordinary revenues should prove insufficient, -and for the defense of the realm. Chief -among these were the subsidies and aids -which were granted in Parliament. That -Parliament was the only body capable of -levying these charges was exhibited by the -fact that the kings of England were wont to -denominate their arbitrary exactions as -“loans” and “benevolences.”</p> - -<p>III. The statutes of the realm provided in -most emphatic language that no tax should -be levied on the subject without the consent -of Parliament. The charter of the Conqueror, -Magna Carta, especially Confirmatio Cartarum -and De Tallagio non Concedendo, the statutes -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[289]</a></span>passed subsequently under Edward III, and -more than all the others, the Petition of Right, -showed the utter illegality of the ship money.</p> - -<p>IV. The citations by the crown of exactions -similar to the ship money did not demonstrate -the lawfulness of the demand; they merely -showed precedents of such a general levy. -The case must be decided by law, not by -precedents,—“<i>judicandum est legibus non exemplis</i>.”</p> - -<p>V. In the present instance, the perils which -the king cited were insufficient to justify an -unusual demand for money. The precedent -of the arbitrary actions of Queen Elizabeth -at the time of the Armada could in no wise be -taken as a justification for so great an exercise -of the prerogative when the nation was at -peace with the world; the piratical acts of -Turkish corsairs or even the insolence of rival -neighbors could not be reckoned amongst -those imminent perils for which a Parliament -could provide too tardily.<a name="FNanchor_362_362" id="FNanchor_362_362"></a><a href="#Footnote_362_362" class="fnanchor">[362]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[290]</a></span></p> -<div class="sidenote">A judgment -for -the crown</div> - -<p>The judgment was in favor of the crown -seven to five. Three of the minority based -their decision upon the particular rather than -on general grounds; Croke and Hutton, however, -denied the general contention of the -crown absolutely. Croke maintained that taxation -save by authority of Parliament is contrary -to the common law and to the statutes; -that the exaction could not be defended upon -the plea of imminent danger; and that the extension -to inland counties was not legal or -warranted by any legal precedent. The seven -judges whose opinions were favorable to the -king, upheld the prerogative of the crown as -against the legislative power of Parliament. -Sir John Finch, chief justice of the common -pleas, stated their attitude clearly. “No act -of Parliament,” he said, “can 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 defense -of his kingdom are void; they are void -acts of Parliament to bind the king not to command -the subjects, their persons, and goods,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[291]</a></span> -and I say their money too; for no acts of Parliament -make any difference.”<a name="FNanchor_363_363" id="FNanchor_363_363"></a><a href="#Footnote_363_363" class="fnanchor">[363]</a></p> - -<p>The effect of this decision upon the minds -of the people was immediate; it changed the -payment of the ship money from a semi-voluntary -gift to the king into an extortion -enforced by him. Previously they had supposed -that the ship money was paid out of -sufferance, that if it became too heavy, an -appeal to the courts would be sufficient to -remove it; now they felt that the king had -them by the throat and could force them to -do as he willed. Never was there a clearer -issue; the king and his prerogative against -the commons and their long-developing rights; -the power of the king to levy taxes upon his -own arbitrary authority against taxation by -the will of the taxed as expressed in Parliament.</p> - -<p>The Scottish rebellion of 1638 which was -waged for the defense of religious freedom, and -the interval of peace, beginning the 18th June, -1639, which was used by Scots and English -alike as a period of armament, proved too -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[292]</a></span>much for Charles’s irregular financial supply. -Reluctantly he called his Fourth Parliament, -commonly known as the Short Parliament,<span class="sidenote">The Short -Parliament, -1640</span> for -the 13th April, 1640. The assembly was, -strange to say, most moderate and loyal to -the king. Charles through the ex-Speaker -Sir John Finch, now Lord Keeper, asked for a -large supply immediately, saying that he would -listen to grievances afterwards.<a name="FNanchor_364_364" id="FNanchor_364_364"></a><a href="#Footnote_364_364" class="fnanchor">[364]</a></p> - -<p>The commons recalled instances wherein the -royal word had been broken, and preferred to -withhold supply until the end of the session, -according to their familiar habit. They proceeded -to inquire into the Hampden case, -and considered in detail the various occasions -upon which the law had been broken during -their eleven years’ recess. They appointed -a committee to confer with the lords over a -long list of grievances, divided into the three -departments of innovations in religion, invasions -of private property, and breaches of -parliamentary privilege.<a name="FNanchor_365_365" id="FNanchor_365_365"></a><a href="#Footnote_365_365" class="fnanchor">[365]</a> At this Charles -came forward with a gigantic piece of tactlessness; -thinking he saw a hole through -which he could escape, he tried to win the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[293]</a></span>lords to his standard. Applying to them, -they voted and communicated to the House -of Commons that “his Majesty’s supply should -have the precedency, and be resolved on before -any other matter whatsoever.”<a name="FNanchor_366_366" id="FNanchor_366_366"></a><a href="#Footnote_366_366" class="fnanchor">[366]</a> To the -commons this appeared an arrant breach of -privilege,<span class="sidenote">Clash between -the -Houses</span> it being their right that money bills -should originate in their House. The lords -immediately adopted a conciliatory tone; they -renounced any intention of offending the commons. -“The bill of subsidies,” they admitted, -“ought to have its inception and beginning in -your House; and that when it comes up to -their lordships, and is by them agreed unto, -it must be returned back to you and be by -your House presented.”<a name="FNanchor_367_367" id="FNanchor_367_367"></a><a href="#Footnote_367_367" class="fnanchor">[367]</a></p> - -<p>The king had reason to regret his intrusion -since the dispute which he had caused delayed -a supply from the commons so much the -more. He now had recourse to a compromise. -He offered the withdrawal of his claim to -ship money in consideration of a grant of -twelve subsidies,<a name="FNanchor_368_368" id="FNanchor_368_368"></a><a href="#Footnote_368_368" class="fnanchor">[368]</a> payable in three years. -The commons, perceiving that the proposition, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[294]</a></span>if acceded to, involved the tacit admission -that the ship money had been justly -laid, insomuch as its removal was obtainable -only by purchase, refused to enter into the -agreement. But the effect of the message -was not quite lost; on the contrary it seemed -as though the king would shortly receive his -grant. At the moment when the commons -were on the point of deciding upon a supply, -the amount to be determined subsequently, -Sir Henry Vane, secretary of state, precipitated -a crisis. He asserted that the supply -would not be accepted unless it were to the -amount and in the manner designated in the -king’s message.<a name="FNanchor_369_369" id="FNanchor_369_369"></a><a href="#Footnote_369_369" class="fnanchor">[369]</a> The next day, the 5th May, -the king dissolved his three-weeks-old Parliament, -to his own great distress and the trepidation -of the nation.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Dissolution -of -Parliament</div> - -<p>Charles employed the six months which -intervened between the dissolution of Parliament -and the summons of the Long Parliament -in his usual occupations. He locked up -several members of the House. He exacted -forced loans, created new monopolies, and -levied ship money. Prosecutions followed -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[295]</a></span>swiftly upon refusals to pay. “Coat and -conduct money,” a new exaction from the -counties, was demanded to cover the traveling -expenses of recruits on their way to fight -against the Scots. He obtained six subsidies -from the clergy whom he illegally kept in -convocation after the dissolution of Parliament.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Sitting of -the Long -Parliament, -3rd -November, -1640</div> - -<p>The wind of opposition was rising to a gale. -With the sitting of the Long Parliament, which -convened on the 3rd November, 1640, the -tempest broke. The immediate occasion of -the summons was the universal demand of -the people and the peers for a session of Parliament, -coupled with emptiness of the treasury -which came with the commencement of the -disastrous Scottish war. The composition of -the commons was overwhelmingly anti-regal;<a name="FNanchor_370_370" id="FNanchor_370_370"></a><a href="#Footnote_370_370" class="fnanchor">[370]</a> -the popular leaders had been at work in the -counties ever since the dissolution of the Short -Parliament looking to the return of a strong -majority in opposition to the king. The assembly -convened full of the idea that “they -had now had an opportunity to make their -country happy by removing all grievances and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[296]</a></span>pulling up the causes of them by the roots, if -all men would do their duties.”<a name="FNanchor_371_371" id="FNanchor_371_371"></a><a href="#Footnote_371_371" class="fnanchor">[371]</a></p> - -<p>Parliament lost no time in setting about its -work. Proceedings were immediately instituted -looking to the impeachment of the Earl -of Strafford, Archbishop Laud, Finch, and -six of the judges who had figured in the ship -money case. Various victims of the tyrannical -jurisdiction of the Star Chamber were set at -liberty. The commons exhibited their uncompromising -hostility to the king by voting -assistance to their “brethren” the Scots, whose -army was in possession of much territory on -the English side of the border. They granted -them £25,000 a month as long as their stay in -England should be needful, and in addition -£300,000 as an indemnity.</p> - -<p>With such acts of open opposition to the -king in process, it was natural that Parliament -should set itself to clean up all the abuses -which of recent times had crept into the -government. Its actions were not subversive -of the constitution; on the contrary it left -unassailed many prerogatives of the king. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[297]</a></span> -On the 22nd June, 1641, Parliament granted -to the king tunnage and poundage for a length -of time somewhat less than two months<a name="FNanchor_372_372" id="FNanchor_372_372"></a><a href="#Footnote_372_372" class="fnanchor">[372]</a> and -in the same bill declared, “that it is and hath -been the ancient right of the subjects of this -realm, that no subsidy, custom, impost, or -other charge whatsoever ought or may be laid -or imposed upon any merchandise exported or -imported by subjects, denizens,<span class="sidenote">Royal -exaction of -tunnage -and -poundage -declared -illegal</span> or aliens without -common consent in Parliament.”<a name="FNanchor_373_373" id="FNanchor_373_373"></a><a href="#Footnote_373_373" class="fnanchor">[373]</a> The -Act prescribed also the punishment which -should be inflicted upon officers who in time to -come should exact payments not sanctioned by -Parliament. They were to “incur and sustain -the pains, penalties, and forfeitures ordained -and provided by the Statute of Provision and -Premunire made in the sixteenth year of -King Richard II, and shall also from thenceforth -be disabled during his life to see or implead -any person in any action real, mixed, -or personal, or in any court whatsoever.” -Thus was it enacted that tunnage and poundage -exacted by authority of the crown was illegal, -and protected merchants from being sued -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[298]</a></span>by the customs officers in case of refusal to pay -the unlawful imposition. The king received -tunnage and poundage by six subsequent acts -for short terms down to the 2nd July, 1642.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The Ship -Money -Act, 7th -August, -1641</div> - -<p>Six weeks later, on the 7th August, 1641, -Parliament turned its attention toward the -matter of ship money. On that date it passed -an “Act for the declaring unlawful and void -the late proceedings touching Ship-Money, -and for the vacating of all records and process -concerning the same.”<a name="FNanchor_374_374" id="FNanchor_374_374"></a><a href="#Footnote_374_374" class="fnanchor">[374]</a> The act cites -the Hampden Case and others of a similar -nature and outlines the plea of the royal prerogative -as given in the extra-judicial opinion -of the judges. It condemns “all which writs -and proceedings” as being “utterly against -the law of the land.” In greater detail it -enacts “that the said charge imposed upon the -subject for the providing and furnishing of -ships commonly called ship money, and the -said extra-judicial opinion of the said justices -... and the said judgment against -John Hampden, were and are contrary to -and against the laws and statutes of this realm, -the right of property, the liberty of the subjects, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[299]</a></span>former resolutions in Parliament and the -Petition of Right.” The act also provided -that all particulars desired in the Petition of -Right should be “strictly holden and observed -as in the same Petition they are prayed and -expressed.” The ship writs and the Hampden -judgment are specifically annulled.<a name="FNanchor_375_375" id="FNanchor_375_375"></a><a href="#Footnote_375_375" class="fnanchor">[375]</a></p> - -<p>Thus came to an end the long chain of -statutes which Parliament from its inception -had been forging to fetter the arms of the king -straining toward the prize of arbitrary taxation. -The virtue of the Long Parliament is -thus commented upon by Hallam: “In the -first place,” he says, “it will appear ... that -they made scarce any material change in our -constitution, such as it had been established -and recognized under the house of Plantagenet.... -Thus in by far the greater part -of the enactments of 1641, the monarchy lost -nothing that it anciently possessed; and the -balance of our constitution might seem rather -to have been restored to its former equipoise, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[300]</a></span>than to have undergone any change.... -It is to be observed in the second place, that -by these salutary restrictions, and some new -retrenchments of pernicious or abused prerogative -the Long Parliament formed our constitution -such nearly as it now exists.”<a name="FNanchor_376_376" id="FNanchor_376_376"></a><a href="#Footnote_376_376" class="fnanchor">[376]</a> The -legislation of 1641 in effect restored to Parliament -what power it nominally held two centuries -before.</p> - -<p>A current of reaction now set in favorable to -the king. The leaders in the commons discovered -that the popular support to their -measures was becoming weak, that the royalist -party was recruiting adherents from the former -supporters of the opposition, that their own -backing was by a party, not by the nation. -With the hope of winning back full national -adherence to Parliament,<span class="sidenote">The -Grand -Remonstrance, -1st December, -1641</span> the Grand Remonstrance -was framed by the House of Commons -and presented to the king, on the 1st December -1641.<a name="FNanchor_377_377" id="FNanchor_377_377"></a><a href="#Footnote_377_377" class="fnanchor">[377]</a> It purported to show the present state -of the kingdom, the evil conditions which -Parliament had succeeded in bettering, and -the darkness of the future, if support were -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[301]</a></span>withdrawn from Parliament. With respect to -taxation, the Remonstrance recites the various -illegalities and abuses which the crown had -practiced and the steps which the commons -had taken to provide for their correction. For -future safeguard against their return it suggests -“that for the better preservation of the -liberties and laws, all illegal grievances and -exactions should be presented and punished at -the sessions and assizes; and that judges and -justices should be sworn to the due execution -of the Petition of Right and other laws.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Puritan -Revolution</div> - -<p>With the delivery of the Grand Remonstrance, -the contest for Parliamentary taxation -became of relatively small moment in -the great conflicts of the Puritan Revolution. -The struggle over the impeachment of Pym -and the popular leaders in the House, the -attempt of the king to secure absolute command -of the militia, the battles on the field -and in the House of Commons during the -Civil War, the events which led up to the -execution of Charles—these were neither -immediately caused by the conflict over taxation -nor did they have immediate effect upon -it. Taxation up to 1641 was a prime cause of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">[302]</a></span> -opposition to the crown; thereafter it ceased -to be of so great importance.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Accession -of Charles -II, 1660</div> - -<p>Charles II came to the throne in 1660 after -the English people had made an eleven years’ -trial of a military despotism under a good -and moderate despot. His first Parliament, -that of 1660, granted him the proceeds of -the customs for life. During the period of the -Commonwealth, the freedom from the feudal -charges had been most agreeable to those -holding of the crown. Consequently, this -Parliament set itself to regulate the confused -system of military tenure by the simple expedient -of abolition. The Great Contract which -had been proposed under James I for the -same purpose, had been advocated in vain. -Now, however, the effort was successful. The -feudal incidents, such as wardships, marriages, -knight’s service, as well as the three feudal -aids, knighting the king’s son, ransoming the -king, and furnishing dowry for his eldest -daughter, were done away with. By this -great deprivation, the royal revenue was -naturally much prejudiced. Parliament made -up the loss by granting to the crown an hereditary -excise on beer and some other liquors,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[303]</a></span> -increasing the royal revenue to the annual -value of £1,200,000.<a name="FNanchor_378_378" id="FNanchor_378_378"></a><a href="#Footnote_378_378" class="fnanchor">[378]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Appropriation -of -supplies, -1665</div> - -<p>In 1665 the expenses incident to the Dutch -War made it possible to establish a principle -which had been touched upon from time -to time since the days of Henry III. Sir -George Downing, in the subsidy bill of that -year, introduced the provision that the money -raised in accordance with the bill, £1,250,000, -be applicable solely to the prosecution of the -war, and that the money could not be paid -out by the Exchequer save by special warrant -stating that as the purpose of the payment. -Clarendon opposed the measure as an encroachment -upon the honor of the crown, but -Charles himself was not averse to it, mainly by -reason of his belief that the promised revenue -would be thus more acceptable to bankers as -the security for loans. The appointment in the -following year of a commission to examine the -public accounts in order to determine the faithfulness -with which the provision was carried -out, clinched the principle underlying its original -passage. The bill was the natural consequence -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">[304]</a></span>of the liberty of appropriation enjoyed -under the Commonwealth. The exercise of -the principle of appropriating supplies in detail -was not carried to its full extent until after -1689. Its importance is difficult to overestimate. -It placed the executive power in a position -of perfect dependence upon the will of -Parliament, for the money requisite for any -administrative act was to be forthcoming only -in accordance with the previously expressed -intent of Parliament.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Reign of -James II, -1685-88</div> - -<p>The reign of James II, who came to the -throne in 1685 at the death of Charles, was -retrogressive. He assumed the crown with -the full intention of exercising arbitrary authority, -and if he had not tried to substitute -Catholicism for the Established Church, -there is little to show that he would not at -least for a time have succeeded. Before -the summons of his Parliament, which he -called reluctantly notwithstanding a lapse of -five years under Charles without one, he continued -to himself the payment of the customs -duties by proclamation. This illegal act met -with no serious objection from Parliament -when it met. Nor was this all; Parliament<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[305]</a></span> -raised the permanent revenue of the king to -the annual amount of £2,000,000, and on -the suppression of Monmouth’s rebellion, -gave him £700,000 more wherewith to support -a standing army. Thus did Parliament -make James financially independent, provided -he was content to live within reason, -and gave him an army in addition. This was -a combination of powers which on the Continent -had sufficed to create despotisms.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">William -and Mary</div> - -<p>That it did not create a despotism in England -is not greatly to be wondered at. James -set himself to fighting the battle of the Roman -Catholic church in England. The result -was almost immediate disaster. On the 5th -November, 1688, William, Prince of Orange, -and Stadtholder of the United Provinces, -landed at Torbay in Devonshire. He was -requested by seventy of the lords spiritual -and temporal (all who were then in London), -by the members of the House of Commons -which met in the last Parliament of Charles II, -and the corporation of the City of London, -to assume the provisional government of the -kingdom pending a session of Parliament. -This was called for the 22nd January, 1688-89.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[306]</a></span> -On the 13th February following, a tender -of the crown was made to William, on the conditions -denominated in the recently framed -Declaration of Right. In it the illegal acts of -King James were recited and the announcement -was made that the throne had been abdicated; -it was asserted also that certain specified -acts of King James were illegal, and a -resolution was appended settling the crown on -William and Mary. William, speaking for -himself and for the Princess Mary, “thankfully -accepted what had been offered them.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The Bill -of Rights, -1689</div> - -<p>The Declaration of Right, with some slight -but essential changes, was incorporated at -the second session of this Parliament, the -25th October, 1689, in statutory form known -subsequently as the Bill of Rights.<a name="FNanchor_379_379" id="FNanchor_379_379"></a><a href="#Footnote_379_379" class="fnanchor">[379]</a> In the -matter of taxation, it sums up in a few clauses -the whole principle which had been in course -of evolution since the German chieftains -received gifts of cattle and fruits from their -people.</p> - -<p>It states that King James “did endeavor -to subvert and extirpate ... the laws and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">[307]</a></span>liberties of this kingdom ... by levying -money for and to the use of the crown, by -pretense of prerogative, for other time and in -other manner than the same was granted by -Parliament.” Then follows the definite assertion, -“that levying money for or to the use -of the crown by pretense of prerogative, -without grant of Parliament for longer time -or in other manner than the same is or shall -be granted, is illegal.” The clause which -gave to these statements the force of law, -emphasizes the power of Parliament. “All -which their Majesties are contented and -pleased,” so it goes, “shall be declared, enacted, -and established by authority of this present -Parliament, and shall stand, remain, and -be the law of this realm forever; and the same -are by their said Majesties, by and with the -advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and -temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, -and by the authority of the same, -declared, enacted and established accordingly.”</p> - -<p>With the passing of the Bill of Rights the -principle was vindicated in its fullness that -Parliament rather than the crown has the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">[308]</a></span> -power to tax. Within Parliament itself the -power of laying taxes had undergone further -differentiation in that the House of Commons -claimed the sole right of initiating tax levies. -The theory deduced therefrom, that the -House of Commons has sole control over -money bills and that interference by the House -of Lords is an assumption of power beyond -the constitutional rights of that House, came -up for fuller definition 220 years later. The -corollary principle that Parliament has the -power to appropriate supplies for specific purposes -and that it can demand an accounting -for the money so appropriated were accorded -general acquiescence then and thereafter.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">[309]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<h2 class="p4">INDEX</h2> - -<p class="pni"><a name="Accounts" id="Accounts">Accounts</a>, examination of, <a href="#Page_186">186-188</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">appointment of treasurers under Richard II, <a href="#Page_191">191-194</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under Charles II, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">after Bill of Rights, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Aid <i>pur fille marier</i>, Edward I, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><a name="Ancient_Customs" id="Ancient_Customs">Ancient Customs</a>, rate stated, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Anglo-Saxons, their early ideas of taxation, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><a name="Appropriation" id="Appropriation">Appropriation</a> of Supplies, <a href="#Page_184">184-186</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">declaration under Henry VI, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under Charles II, <a href="#Page_303">303-304</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">after Bill of Rights, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Assize of Arms, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><i>Auxilium vicecomitis</i>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Bate Case, <a href="#Page_241">241-242</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">opinions of the Barons, <a href="#Page_242">242-244</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">position of Parliament, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Book of Rates, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">remonstrance by Parliament, <a href="#Page_246">246-248</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Becket, Thomas, his controversy with Henry II, <a href="#Page_27">27-30</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Benevolence, a form of extortion, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">prohibiting statute of Richard III, <a href="#Page_216">216-217</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Morton’s Crotch, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Shoring or Under-propping Act, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Henry VIII’s “amiable graunte,” <a href="#Page_225">225</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under James I, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">St. John’s Case, <a href="#Page_253">253-254</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under Charles I, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Bigod, Roger, dispute with Edward I, <a href="#Page_135">135-138</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Bill of Rights, <a href="#Page_306">306-308</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Bohun, Humfrey, dispute with Edward I, <a href="#Page_135">135-138</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Book of Rates, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Buckingham, <a href="#Page_262">262-264</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Burghers, at Parliament of 1265, <a href="#Page_102">102-103</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">acquire function of taxing, <a href="#Page_116">116-119</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni"><i>Carta Mercatoria</i>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">complaint against, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Carucage, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, note 1;</p> -<p class="pnii">imposition by Richard I, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">a revival of the Danegeld, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, note 1;</p> -<p class="pnii">levy of 1198, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>;</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">[310]</a></span></p><p class="pnii">“assessed” by the Common Council, <a href="#Page_77">77-78</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Charles I, his accession, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">signs Petition of Right, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">renounces tunnage and poundage, <a href="#Page_274">274-275</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">rules without Parliament, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Charles II, his accession, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">death, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Clergy, John’s antagonism of, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">need of their assent to taxation recognized, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">meet separately, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, note 1;</p> -<p class="pnii">attempted taxation of by Parliament, 1449, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">taxation after English Reformation, <a href="#Page_228">228-230</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><i>Clericis laicos</i>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, note 1;</p> -<p class="pnii">tendency to disregard, 1297, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">adduced in 1301, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><a name="Common_Council" id="Common_Council">Common Council</a>, no provision for London representatives made in Magna Carta, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">its composition, <a href="#Page_66">66-68</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">representation, <a href="#Page_68">68-69</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">part in taxation in early years of Henry III, <a href="#Page_77">77-78</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">grants a tax on movables, 1224, <a href="#Page_79">79-81</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">instances of refusal, 1232 and 1237, <a href="#Page_81">81-82</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">refuses a grant, 1242, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">its control over taxation in 1250, <a href="#Page_91">91-92</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">knights of the shires called, 1254, <a href="#Page_92">92-94</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">its control of disbursements, see <a href="#Disbursements">Disbursements</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Commons, House of, foreshadowed in Parliament of 1265, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">meets separately, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">initiation of tax levies, <a href="#Page_205">205-208</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">composition dictated by James I, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">revival of impeachment, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">breach of privilege in Short Parliament, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><i>Commune Concilium</i>, see <a href="#Common_Council">Common Council</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Conditional grant, early instance of, 1224, <a href="#Page_79">79-80</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">repetitions, <a href="#Page_81">81-82</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><i><a name="Confirmatio_Cartarum" id="Confirmatio_Cartarum">Confirmatio Cartarum</a></i>, action prior to, <a href="#Page_142">142-144</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">signed by Edward I, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">analysis of tax clauses, <a href="#Page_146">146-150</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">marks a stage in Parliamentary taxation, <a href="#Page_152">152-153</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Contributions, voluntary, among the early Germans, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Cowel’s “Interpreter,” <a href="#Page_248">248</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><a name="Customs" id="Customs">Customs</a>, in early England, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, note 1;</p> -<p class="pnii"><i>Carta Mercatoria</i>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">statutory provision for control by Parliament, Edward III, <a href="#Page_177">177-178</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">persistence of the struggle over customs, <a href="#Page_179">179-180</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Bate Case, <a href="#Page_242">242-244</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Book of Rates, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">collection ordered by Charles I, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">omission in Petition of Right, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">[311]</a></span></p><p class="pnii">See also under <a href="#New_Customs">New Customs</a>, <a href="#Ancient_Customs">Ancient Customs</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Danegeld, origin 991 and early instances, <a href="#Page_6">6-7</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">authority for its exaction, <a href="#Page_8">8-9</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">reimposition under the Conqueror, <a href="#Page_15">15-16</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under William Rufus, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Stephen’s promise of abolition, <a href="#Page_25">25-26</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">supposed cause of Woodstock Controversy, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, note 3;</p> -<p class="pnii">its disappearance from the Rolls, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, and note 1;</p> -<p class="pnii">revival as “carucage,” <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><i>De tallagio non concedendo</i>, <a href="#Page_150">150-151</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">cited in Petition of Right, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><a name="Disbursements" id="Disbursements">Disbursements</a>, rejection of commission for, <a href="#Page_82">82-83</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">demand for supervision of, <a href="#Page_87">87-88</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Matthew Paris’s scheme, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Distraint of Knighthood, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">resorted to by Charles I, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">made illegal, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, note 1.</p> - -<p class="pni">Divine right, etc., in taxation, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">assertion by Charles I, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Domesday Survey, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Duties, Bate Case, <a href="#Page_242">242-244</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Book of Rates, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>.</p> -<p class="pnii">See under <a href="#Customs">Customs</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Edward I, accession, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his character, <a href="#Page_107">107-108</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">dispute over foreign service, <a href="#Page_134">134-137</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his financial preparations for the Gascon expedition, 1297, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his part in attainment of Parliamentary taxation, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">last years of his reign, <a href="#Page_157">157-159</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his death, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Edward II, his accession, <a href="#Page_159">159-160</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">deposition, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Edward III, accession and coronation, <a href="#Page_169">169-170</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">death of, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Edward IV, accession, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">taxation and extra-Parliamentary exactions, <a href="#Page_214">214-216</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Elizabeth, accession, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">character of her government, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Examination of accounts, see <a href="#Accounts">Accounts</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Excise, granted in lieu of feudal incidents, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Feudal incidents, done away with under Charles II, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</p> -<p class="pnii">See also under <a href="#Great_Contract">Great Contract</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Fifteenth and tenth, becomes a fixed sum, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, note 5.</p> - -<p class="pni">Fitz-Peter, Geoffrey, justiciar of John, his address to the sheriffs, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his edict at the Council of St. Albans, <a href="#Page_58">58-59</a>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">[312]</a></span></p><p class="pni">Flambard, Ranulf, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Folkland, a royal means of revenue, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Forced loans, a charge against Richard II, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under Edward IV, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under Henry VIII, <a href="#Page_226">226-228</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under James I, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under Charles I, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Foreign service, dispute over, 1297, <a href="#Page_134">134-137</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140-142</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><i>Fyrdwite</i>, a counterpart of scutage, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Gaveston, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his death, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, note 1.</p> - -<p class="pni">Germans, early idea of taxation among, <a href="#Page_2">2-3</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Grants, delay of to end of session, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><a name="Great_Contract" id="Great_Contract">Great Contract</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Grievances, redress of; principle of, in 1297, <a href="#Page_144">144-145</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">delay of grants to end of session, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">principle adhered to, James I, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254-255</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under Charles I, <a href="#Page_262">262-263</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Hampden’s Case, <a href="#Page_287">287-291</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Long Parliament annuls the judgment, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Henry I, character of his reign, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his Charter, <a href="#Page_19">19-20</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">attitude toward National Council, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Henry II, accession of, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his ancestry, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his controversy with Becket, <a href="#Page_27">27-30</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his death, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Henry III, character of his reign, <a href="#Page_71">71-72</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his accession and the regency, <a href="#Page_72">72-73</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">declared of age, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">restraint under Provisions of Oxford, <a href="#Page_97">97-99</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">war with Montfort, <a href="#Page_100">100-101</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his last years, <a href="#Page_104">104-106</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Henry IV, his accession, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Henry V, his short reign, <a href="#Page_208">208-209</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Henry VI, his accession, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">character of his reign, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his overthrow, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Henry VII, accession, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">few Parliaments in his reign, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">the “new found” subsidy, <a href="#Page_219">219-220</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">extortions, <a href="#Page_220">220-221</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Henry VIII, accession and early taxation, <a href="#Page_221">221-222</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his commissions and benevolences, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">death, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Heriot, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Inquest, juries of, utilized in collection of Saladin Tithe, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>;</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">[313]</a></span></p><p class="pnii">in carucage, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Inquest of Service, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Initiation of tax levies by Commons, <a href="#Page_205">205-208</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">admission by the Lords, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">after Bill of Rights, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">James I, accession, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">dictates composition of House of Commons, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Cowel’s “Interpreter,” <a href="#Page_248">248</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">the Great Contract, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his death, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">James II, accession, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his absolutism and death, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">John, accession of, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">early taxation, <a href="#Page_49">49-50</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his scutages, <a href="#Page_50">50-52</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">break with the pope, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">antagonism of the clergy, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his death, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">King, Anglo-Saxon, personal leader and lord of national land, <a href="#Page_3">3-4</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his sources of income, <a href="#Page_3">3-5</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Knights of the shire, summoned to Parliament by Simon de Montfort and Henry III, <a href="#Page_99">99-100</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">attend Parliament of 1264, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Parliament of 1205, <a href="#Page_102">102-103</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">their attendance declared “expedient,” <a href="#Page_114">114-115</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">meet separately, 1294, <a href="#Page_125">125-126</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Lewes, battle and Mise of, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Lincoln, Hugh of, his refusal of assent to Richard I’s demands, <a href="#Page_44">44-46</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Lincoln, Parliament of, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">London, provided for in Magna Carta, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Lords, House of, meets separately, <a href="#Page_189">189-190</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Lords Ordainers, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Magna Carta, scutage a moving cause, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">events leading to, <a href="#Page_60">60-62</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">granting of the charter, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Cap. 12, <a href="#Page_63">63</a> and note 1, <a href="#Page_64">64-66</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">provision for London, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Cap. 14, <a href="#Page_66">66-67</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">king remains supreme authority over taxation, <a href="#Page_69">69-70</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">omissions in renewals, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">renewed 1216, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">second reissue, <a href="#Page_74">74-75</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">reissue, 1224, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">reissue, 1297, see <i><a href="#Confirmatio_Cartarum">Confirmatio Cartarum</a></i>;</p> -<p class="pnii">reconfirmation, 1301, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Maletolt, definition of, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">in <i>Confirmatio Cartarum</i>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under Edward III, <a href="#Page_172">172-177</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">statutory abolition, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>;</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">[314]</a></span></p><p class="pnii">subsequent violations and reaffirmations, Edward III, <a href="#Page_180">180-183</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Money Bills, initiation by Commons, <a href="#Page_205">205-208</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233-235</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">admission by Lords, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">after Bill of Rights, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Monopolies, under Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_232">232-233</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">complaint in 1604, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under James I, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">prohibition under James I, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">reëstablished by Charles I, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Montfort, Simon de, at Great Council of 1244, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">at Council of 1254, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">summons knights of the shire to national assemblies, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">begins civil war, 1263, <a href="#Page_100">100-101</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his Parliament of 1265, <a href="#Page_102">102-103</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his reputation as Creator of the House of Commons, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his death, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><a name="Movables" id="Movables">Movables</a>, taxation of, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Assize of Arms, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Saladin Tithe, <a href="#Page_35">35-36</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">John’s demand of a thirteenth, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">tax on granted by Common Council, <a href="#Page_79">79-81</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">grant of 1275, <a href="#Page_115">115-116</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">granted at Northampton and York, <a href="#Page_118">118-119</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">grants in 1290, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">in 1294, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">National Council, its powers and composition under Norman Kings, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">its part in taxation, <a href="#Page_15">15-16</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under Henry I, <a href="#Page_22">22-24</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">its place under Richard I, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">townsmen present at Council of St. Albans, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">representation of shires at Oxford, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><a name="New_Customs" id="New_Customs">New Customs</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">tentative abolition of, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">abolished in 1311, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">restored for a year, 1322, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, note 1;</p> -<p class="pnii">a regular means of revenue, 1328, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Normandy, loss of, 1204, <a href="#Page_56">56-57</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Normans, character of their rule, <a href="#Page_12">12-13</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Northampton and York, provincial assemblies at, 1283, <a href="#Page_117">117-119</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Nottingham, Council of, 1194, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Offices, sale of, under Richard I, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Oxford, John’s council at, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Oxford, Provisions of, <a href="#Page_97">97-99</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Parliament, first use of the name, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, note 1;</p> -<p class="pnii">refusal of aid, 1255, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">knights of the shire summoned to, <a href="#Page_99">99-100</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">they attend Parliament, 1264, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Simon de Montfort’s Parliament of 1265, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Parliament of 1269, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">first Parliament of Edward I, <a href="#Page_109">109-110</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">events leading to the Model Parliament, <a href="#Page_127">127-128</a>;</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">[315]</a></span></p><p class="pnii">“What affects all, by all should be approved,” <a href="#Page_128">128-129</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">session of the Model Parliament, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Parliament of 1296, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">status in 1297, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">process of differentiation in, <a href="#Page_154">154-156</a> ff.;</p> -<p class="pnii">statute providing for taxation solely by Parliament, Edward III, <a href="#Page_177">177-179</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">increase in power under Edward III, <a href="#Page_188">188-189</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">separate sessions of the houses, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">control over taxes, Richard II, <a href="#Page_194">194-197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">delay of grants to end of session, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">initiation of tax levies, <a href="#Page_205">205-208</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">of Henry VIII, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Wolsey’s breach of privilege, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">attitude toward the Bate Case, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246-248</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">the Addled Parliament, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">enactment of the Petition of Right, <a href="#Page_269">269</a> ff.;</p> -<p class="pnii">the Short Parliament, <a href="#Page_292">292-294</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">the Long Parliament, <a href="#Page_295">295-301</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">declares against illegal taxation, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">the Grand Remonstrance, <a href="#Page_300">300-301</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Personal property, see <a href="#Movables">Movables</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Petition of Right, <a href="#Page_267">267-273</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Poll-tax, under Richard II, graduated, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">excites the Rising of the Villeins, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Prisage, early rate, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, note 1.</p> - -<p class="pni">Purveyance, early analogy of, <a href="#Page_5">5-6</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni"><i>Quo Warranto</i>, a writ, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Ralegh, William de, his offer of a disbursing commission, <a href="#Page_82">82-83</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Redress of grievances, principle of, in 1297, <a href="#Page_144">144-145</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">principle adhered to, James I, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254-255</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under Charles I, <a href="#Page_262">262-263</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Reformation, profits of, <a href="#Page_228">228-230</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Representation, under the charter, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">as it was in Henry III’s National Council, <a href="#Page_91">91-92</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">development of the principle in Simon de Montfort’s Parliament, <a href="#Page_101">101-104</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">under Edward I, <a href="#Page_108">108-109</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Richard I, accession of, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">his ransom, <a href="#Page_39">39-40</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">general taxation under royal authority, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">release and subsequent levies, <a href="#Page_42">42-44</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Richard II, accession, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">summary of taxes in his reign, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, note 3;</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">[316]</a></span></p><p class="pnii">resignation and deposition, <a href="#Page_200">200-202</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Richard III, accession, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">benevolences prohibited, <a href="#Page_216">216-217</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">St. Albans, Council of, <a href="#Page_58">58-59</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Salisbury, Gemôt of, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, note.</p> - -<p class="pni">Scutage, definition of, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">early instances, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">the Great Scutage, <a href="#Page_32">32-33</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">complaint of Archbishop Theobald, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">a cause leading to Magna Carta, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">list of John’s scutages, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, and note 1;</p> -<p class="pnii">fines and other attendant abuses under John, <a href="#Page_53">53-54</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">scutage of 1214 precipitates the movement for the Charter, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">specified in Magna Carta, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">referred to in Henry III’s second reissue, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">practice of scutage by consent, Henry III, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">scutage of 1242, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Sheriff’s aid, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Ship-money, a precedent in the Danegeld, <a href="#Page_10">10-11</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">requisition of ships under Charles I, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">first writ, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">its object, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">second and third writs, <a href="#Page_284">284-285</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">extra-judicial opinions, <a href="#Page_285">285-286</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Hampden’s Case, <a href="#Page_287">287-291</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">new levy, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">declaration of illegality by Long Parliament, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Shire moots, their utilization in taxing, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Star Chamber, its utility in forced loans, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><i>Statutum de tallagio non concedendo</i>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">cited in Petition of Right, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Stephen, <a href="#Page_24">24-26</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Subsidy, the “new-found,” <a href="#Page_219">219-220</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">value of under Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, note 1.</p> - -<p class="pni">Supplies, appropriation of, see under <a href="#Appropriation">Appropriation</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Tallage, under Henry II and Richard I, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, note 1;</p> -<p class="pnii">definition of, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, note 1;</p> -<p class="pnii">possibly provided against in Magna Carta, <a href="#Page_65">65-66</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Kirkby’s tallages, 1290, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">tallage not referred to in <i>Confirmatio Cartarum</i>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">the “statute” <i>De Tallagio non Concedendo</i>, <a href="#Page_150">150-151</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">tallage of 1304, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">tallage of 1312 resisted, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">revival under Edward III, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">its withdrawal, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">a function of Parliament, <a href="#Page_177">177-178</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Theobald, Archbishop, his complaint against scutage, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni"><i>Trinoda necessitas</i>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">[317]</a></span></p><p class="pni">Tudors, character of their reigns, <a href="#Page_217">217-219</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Tunnage and poundage, in <i>Carta Mercatoria</i>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">given James I for life, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">delay in grant to Charles I, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">arbitrary levies, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">Charles renounces tunnage and poundage, <a href="#Page_274">274-275</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">failure to pass a life allowance, <a href="#Page_275">275-276</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">tumult over the Rolles case, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">resolution against the levies, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">reëstablishment, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">declaration of illegality, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Villeins, Rising of, <a href="#Page_198">198-199</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">Wallingford, treaty of, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Walter, Hubert, justiciar, at Richard I’s Council of Oxford, <a href="#Page_44">44-45</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Westminster, Statute of, <a href="#Page_110">110-111</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">William the Conqueror, character of his rule, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">attitude toward his National Council, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">William and Mary, <a href="#Page_306">306-308</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">William Rufus, character of his reign, <a href="#Page_17">17-18</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Winchester, Bishop of, his refusal of assent, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Witenagemot, folkland alienable only by its consent, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">assents to levies of Danegeld, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">powers and composition, <a href="#Page_9">9-11</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Wolsey, Cardinal, his breach of Parliamentary privilege, <a href="#Page_222">222-224</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Woodstock, Controversy of, <a href="#Page_27">27-30</a>.</p> - -<p class="pni">Wool, a custom on, 1275, <a href="#Page_111">111-113</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">seizure of, 1294, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">seizure of, 1297, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">tax on, under <i>Confirmatio Cartarum</i>, <a href="#Page_147">147-148</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">increased duties to foreign merchants, 1302, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">rate reëstablished, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">assaults of Edward III upon the wool customs, <a href="#Page_172">172-177</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">statute for Parliamentary control, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">practice at variance with it, <a href="#Page_180">180-183</a>;</p> -<p class="pnii">proceeds of a subsidy in time of Richard II, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>.</p> -<p class="pnii">See also <a href="#New_Customs">New Customs</a>, <a href="#Ancient_Customs">Ancient Customs</a>.</p> - - -<p class="pni">York, Geoffrey of, refuses assent to John’s thirteenth, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<h2 class="p4">FOOTNOTES:</h2> - -<div class="footnotes"> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a></span> -Tacitus, <i>Germania</i>, cap. xv. “Mos est civitatibus ultro -ac viritim conferre principibus vel armentorum vel frugum, -quod pro honore acceptum etiam necessitatibus subvenit.”</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a></span> -Vinogradoff, <i>Growth of the Manor</i>, 142, 143.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a></span> -The <i>heriot</i>, unlike the feudal incident known to the -Normans as a <i>relief</i>, was a repayment to the king upon the -death of a vassal, of the various accoutrements with which -he had been endowed. The statute of Cnut II, § 72, fixes -the heriot of an earl at eight horses, four suits of armor, and -two hundred mancuses of gold. The heriot varied in amount -according to the rank of the deceased vassal. The statute -is given in Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 74.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a></span> -Florentii Wigorniensis, <i>Chronicon ex Chronicis</i>, a. 991, -p. 149.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a></span> -“This tax was levied by reference to the hides into which -in the various hundreds of the shire, land was divided for -the purposes of taxation.” The hide was the equivalent of -100 or 120 acres. The rate was one to four shillings, as -occasion required. 1 Dowell, <i>History of Taxation and Taxes -in England</i>, 8.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a></span> -Amount in 1002, £24,000.—Flor. Wig. a. 1002, p. 155. -Amount in 1007, £36,000.—Flor. Wig. a. 1007, p. 159. -Amount in 1011 not stated.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a></span> -1 Dowell, <i>History of Taxation and Taxes in England</i>, 10.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a></span> -1 Roger of Hoveden, 110.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a></span> -Decretum est primum iam ut solveretur tributum Danicis -viris, propter magnos horrores quos incusserunt incolis maritimis; -in primis nempe, X milia librarum. Illud consilium -constituit Siricus Archiepiscopus. <i>Chron. Sax.</i> a. 991.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a></span> -Tunc rex Aegelredus, procerum suorum consilio, ad eos -legatos misit, promittens tributum et stipendium ea conventione -illis se daturum, ut a sua crudelitate omnino desisterunt. -Flor. Wig. 151, 152; a. 994.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a></span> -Flor. Wig. 155, 159, 163; a. 1002, 1007, 1011.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a></span> -Medley, <i>English Constitutional History</i>, 117, 118.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a></span> -2 Kemble, <i>Saxons in England</i>, 204-240.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a></span> -At the great Gemôt of Salisbury, 1086, William put an -end to the disrupting effects of subinfeudation by causing -all holders of land, whether their tenure was mediate or -immediate of him to swear primary allegiance to the king.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a></span> -1 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 385, note.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a></span> -2 Flor. Wig. 17, a. 1084; and 1 Rogeri de Hoveden, 139. -“Rex Anglorum Willelmus de unaquaque hida per Angliam -sex solidos accepit.” This rate of six shillings the hide was -three times as great as the amount under the Saxons.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a></span> -2 Roger of Wendover, 23, a. 1084. “Having extorted -large sums of money from all ranks where he could find any -cause just or unjust, he crossed the sea into Normandy.”</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a></span> -<i>Chron. Sax.</i> a. 1083.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a></span> -1 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 303.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a></span> -Aside from the reimposed Danegeld, William derived an -annual income of £20,000 from the royal lands, and an -amount difficult of estimation from the feudal dues and -incidents.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a></span> -2 Flor. Wig. 35, a. 1094.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a></span> -§ 11. Militibus qui per loricas terras suas defendunt, -terras dominicarum carrucarum suarum quietas ab omnibus -gildis, et omni opere, proprio dono meo concedo, ut sicut tam -magno allevamine alleviati sint, ita se equis et armis bene -instruant ad servitium meum et ad defensionem regni mei. -Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 101. The translation of the Charter -is in Adams and Stephens, <i>Select Documents of English Constitutional -History</i>, 4-6.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a></span> -Ego enim, quando voluero, faciam ea satis summonere -propter mea dominica necessaria ad voluntatem meam. -Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 104.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a></span> -Cf. 1 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 429.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon</i>, 113, quoted by -1 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 429, note 3, as follows: “H. rex -Anglorum R. episcopo, et Herberto camerario et Hugoni de -Boehelanda, salutem. Sciatis quod clamo quietas V hidas -abbatis Faricii de Abendona de eleemosyna de Wrtha, de -omnibus rebus, et nominatim de isto auxilio quod barones -mihi dederunt.”</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a></span> -<i>The Saxon Chronicle</i> upon Henry’s taxes:</p> -<p class="pfc4">A. 1103. This was a year of much distress from the manifold -taxes.</p> -<p class="pfc4">A. 1104. It is not easy to describe the misery of this land, -which it suffered at this time through the various and manifold -oppressions and taxes that never ceased or slackened.</p> -<p class="pfc4">A. 1105. This was a year of great distress from the failure -of the fruits, and from the manifold taxes which never ceased.</p> -<p class="pfc4">A. 1110. This was a year of much distress from the taxes -which the king raised for his daughter’s dowry.</p> -<p class="pfc4">A. 1118. England paid dearly for all this (i. e., the Norman -war) by the manifold taxes which ceased not all this year.</p> -<p class="pfc4">A. 1124. Full heavy a year was this; he who had any -property was bereaved of it by heavy taxes and assessments, -and he who had none, starved with hunger.</p> -<p class="pfc4">From the edition of J. A. Giles.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a></span> -<i>Chron. Sax.</i> a. 1137.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a></span> -Henry of Huntingdon’s <i>Chronicle</i>, a. 1135. Trans. by -Thomas Forester, 264.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a></span> -Henry II was the first king since Edward the Confessor -in whose veins ran the blood of the Saxon monarchs, being -the grandson of Matilda, wife of Henry I. Matilda was -great-granddaughter of Edmund Ironside, the son of Ethelred -the Unready.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a></span> -1 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 500.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a></span> -Grim, <i>V. S. Thomæ</i>, 21, 22, in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 129.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a></span> -Bishop Stubbs (1 <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 500) believes this -struggle between Henry II and Becket to have been the deathblow -to the levy of the Danegeld, which is not noted in the -Pipe Rolls after 1163. J. H. Round [<i>Feudal England</i>, 497-502, -in the paper “The Alleged Dispute on Danegeld (1163)”], -effectually establishes his contention that the tax in question -was not the Danegeld, but the “auxilium vicecomitis” or -“Sheriff’s aid,” which was a customary, variable charge paid -over locally to the sheriffs in payment for their services.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a></span> -Round, <i>Feudal England</i>, 501.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a></span> -Baldwin, <i>Scutage and Knight Service in England</i>, 12.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a></span> -1 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 491.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a></span> -H. W. C. Davis, <i>England under the Normans and Angevins</i>, -205.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a></span> -Miss Kate Norgate, <i>Angevin Kings</i>, 432.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a></span> -1 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 494.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a></span> -Baldwin, <i>Scutage and Knight Service in England</i>, 5.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, ed. <i>Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis</i>, -preface xcv-xcvii, cites other instances of scutage in this -reign: 1161, for debts incurred in the Welsh war; 1172, for -the expedition into Ireland; 1186, for the expedition into -Galloway against the Irish prince, Ronald.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a></span> -Gervas, c. 1381, in Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 129: Hoc -anno (1159) rex Henricus scutagium sive scutagium de Anglia -accepit, cujus summa fuit centum millia et quater viginti -millia librarum argenti.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a></span> -<i>Liber Rubeus de Scaccario</i>, Hubert Hall, editor, 6, 16-18.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a></span> -John of Salisbury, ep. 128, noted by 1 Stubbs, <i>Const. -Hist. Eng.</i> 492, note 1.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a></span> -Round, <i>Feudal England</i>, 274.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a></span> -The Danegeld disappears from the Rolls in 1163. It -persists, probably, however, as a “donum” or an “auxilium.” -The “carucage” of Richard I is the Danegeld under another -name.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a></span> -2 Benedict, 278. Also in Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 153.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a></span> -2 Benedict, 33.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a></span> -Beside the instances of taxation noted above, the following -are noteworthy: 1168, a regular feudal aid, <i>pur fille -marier</i> of one mark on the knight’s fee; 1173, exchequer -officers held courts and exacted at the same time a tallage -throughout the country.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a></span> -The three auxilia are: For the ransom of the king, for -the marriage of the king’s eldest daughter, and for the knighting -of his eldest son.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a></span> -Other scutages in this reign were: 1189, 10<i>s.</i> on the -knight’s fee for a pretended expedition into Wales; 1195, 20<i>s.</i> -on the knight’s fee from those who did not follow the king -to Normandy; 1196, 20<i>s.</i> for the same reason. 1 Dowell, -<i>Taxation and Taxes</i>, 41.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a></span> -3 Rogeri de Hoveden, <i>Chronica</i>, W. Stubbs, ed, 209-225.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a></span> -This carucage appears in the Rolls under the year 1194. -It was demanded at the Council of Nottingham.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a></span> -Rogeri de Hoveden, preface to vol. IV, lxxxii-lxxxvii.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a></span> -The mark was the equivalent of two-thirds of a pound.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a></span> -Carucage, a land-tax based upon the <i>carucate</i>, “the -quantity of land that could be ploughed by one plough, -<i>caruca</i>, full team of eight oxen in a season.” 1 Dowell, -<i>Taxation and Taxes</i>, p. 35. Roger of Hoveden sets down -the equivalent of the carucate as being 100 acres,—iv. 47.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a></span> -3 Rogeri de Hovoden, 242.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a></span> -1 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 548.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a></span> -4 Rogeri de Hoveden, 40.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a></span> -The implication in <i>Vita Magna S. Hugonis</i> is to this -effect. Vid. Round. <i>Feudal England</i>, 528 et seq.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a></span> -<i>Vita Magna S. Hugonis</i>, 248, in Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, -255.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a></span> -Beside the instances of taxation cited above, Richard exacted -from the tenants of the royal demesne a tax upon movables -known as <i>tallage</i>. It was semi-feudal in nature, being -taken from the dwellers on land held immediately of the king, -and consequently the authority of the tax for the time was -far beyond question, save as the turbulent elements in the -urban populations might assume it as a pretext for a riot. -Henry II levied this tax in 1168, 1173; Richard in 1189 and -1194, and probably upon other occasions. These are the only -references to tallages in the Rolls of these two reigns. The -term appears frequently in later records.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a></span> -4 Rogeri de Hoveden, 107.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a></span> -4 Rogeri de Hoveden, 188, 189.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a></span> -Miss Kate Norgate, <i>John Lackland</i>, 123, note 1, gives a -corrected version of the list of scutages given in 1 <i>Liber Rubeus -de Scaccario</i>, 10-12:</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/tab.jpg" width="400" height="179" - alt="" - title="" /> -</div> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a></span> -See McKechnie, <i>Magna Carta</i>, 91-93.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a></span> -Miss Norgate, <i>John Lackland</i>, 122.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a></span> -Miss Norgate, <i>John Lackland</i>, 123-124.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a></span> -Ann. Waverl, a. 1207, 258. In Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 273.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a></span> -In 1204 John “took” a seventh of movables. 3 Rogeri -de Wendover, 173.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a></span> -3 Rogeri de Wendover, 210.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a></span> -In Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 283.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a></span> -1 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 566.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a></span> -3 Rogeri de Wendover, 262.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a></span> -The writ is in Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 287.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Memoriale</i> Walteri de Coventria, 217. “Dicentes se -propter terras quas in Anglia tenent non debere regem extra -regnum sequi nec ipsum euntem scutagio juvare.”</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a></span> -See McKechnie, <i>Magna Carta</i>, 144-150.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a></span> -Chapter 12. No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our -kingdom, except by the common council of our kingdom, -except for the ransoming of our body, for the making of our -oldest son a knight, and for once marrying our oldest daughter, -and for these purposes it shall be only a reasonable aid; in -the same way it shall be done concerning the aids of the city -of London. Adams and Stephens, <i>Select Documents of Eng. -Const. Hist.</i> 44. Latin text, Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 298.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a></span> -Below, 66.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a></span> -1 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 573.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a></span> -Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 101.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a></span> -See McKechnie, <i>Magna Carta</i>, 274, 284, 291-301.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a></span> -“Tallage was a tax levied at a feudal lord’s arbitrary -will upon more or less servile dependants, who had neither -power nor right to refuse.” McKechnie, <i>Magna Carta</i>, 228.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a></span> -Chapter 14, “And for holding a common council of the -kingdom concerning the assessment of an aid otherwise -than in the three cases mentioned above, or concerning -the assessment of a scutage, we shall cause to be summoned -the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons -by our letters individually; and besides we shall cause to be -summoned generally, by our sheriffs and bailiffs all those -who hold from us in chief, for a certain day, that is at the end -of forty days at least, and for a certain place; and in all the -letters of that summons, we will express the cause of the -summons, and when the summons has thus been given the -business shall proceed on the appointed day, on the advice -of those who shall be present, even if not all of those who -were summoned have come.” Adams and Stephens, <i>Select -Documents</i>, 44. The Latin text is in Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, -299.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a></span> -Cap. 42 of this reissue of the Charter states the promise -of the king to return to the matter of the levying of scutages -and aids, when the occasion should be more propitious. -McKechnie, <i>Magna Carta</i>, 168-169.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_85_85" id="Footnote_85_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a></span> -Cap. 44. Scutagium decetero capiatur sicut capi consuevit -tempore, regis Henrici avi nostri. McKechnie, <i>Magna -Carta</i>, 585, where also is the text of the entire reissue.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_86_86" id="Footnote_86_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a></span> -McKechnie, <i>Magna Carta</i>, 173-174.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_87_87" id="Footnote_87_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum</i>, 349.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_88_88" id="Footnote_88_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 30, note 1. He bases his -belief on the fact that “the orders for the collecting this scutage -were issued Feb. 22, the same day on which the writs for -proclaiming the charters are dated,” and cites 1 <i>Rot. Claus.</i> -377. In the same note he records the following instances of -taxation:</p> -<p class="pfc4">“June 7, 1217, the king mentions a carucage, hidage and -aid, ‘quod de præcepto nostro assisum est.’ 1 <i>Rot. Claus.</i> -310.”</p> -<p class="pfc4">“Jan. 9, 1218, Henry mentions a carucage and hidage, -‘quod assisum fuit per consilium regni nostri.’ 1 <i>Rot. Claus.</i> -348.</p> -<p class="pfc4">“Jan. 17, Henry mentions a scutage of two marks on the -fee, ‘quod exegimus,’ and</p> -<p class="pfc4">“Jan. 24, ‘scutagium de omnibus feodis militum quæ de -nobis tenent in capite, quod ultima assisum fuit per commune -consilium regni nostri.’ 1 <i>Rot. Claus.</i> 349.”</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_89_89" id="Footnote_89_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a></span> -McKechnie, <i>Magna Carta</i>, 181, quotes Matthew Paris, -3 <i>Chron. Maj.</i> 76, “Libertates quas petitis quia violenter -extortæ fuerunt, non debent de jure observari.”</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_90_90" id="Footnote_90_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 37-38, notes the following -taxes:</p> -<p class="pfc4">1. Carucage of 2 shillings, taken at the coronation of 1220. -<i>Ann. Wavereley</i>, quoted in Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 321, gives -no hint of the authority for the levy save that the king “accepit” -it. The writ (<i>Sel. Chart.</i> 351) states that it was -granted by the Council.</p> -<p class="pfc4">2. Scutage of 10 shillings after the capture of Biham, -granted by the Council, 1221. 1 <i>Rot. Claus.</i> 458.</p> -<p class="pfc4">3. Scutage of 2 marks for Welsh War, 1223.</p> -<p class="pfc4">4. Scutage of 2 marks for siege of Bedford.</p> -<p class="pfc4">5. Contribution to crusade 1223, assented to by Council. -1 <i>Rot. Claus.</i> 516.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_91_91" id="Footnote_91_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a></span> -2 Matt. Par., <i>Hist. Angl.</i> 268-269.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_92_92" id="Footnote_92_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a></span> -Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 354. “Pro hac autem concessione -et donatione libertatum istarum et aliarum libertatum contentarum -in carta nostra de libertatibus forestæ, archiepiscopi, -episcopi, abbates, priores, comites, barones, milites, libere -tenentes et omnes de regno nostro, dederunt nobis quintam -decimam partem omnium mobilium suorum.”</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_93_93" id="Footnote_93_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a></span> -1 Matt. Par. 339.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_94_94" id="Footnote_94_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a></span> -Instances of recent taxation are:</p> -<p class="pfc4">1. Scutages 1229, 1230, 1231, each for military expeditions. -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 42, note 3.</p> -<p class="pfc4">2. A tenth of all property 1229. Refused by the barons and -paid by the clergy. 2 Matt. Par. <i>Hist. Angl.</i> 316.</p> -<p class="pfc4">3. Tallages 1227, 1230, 1234. 1 Dowell, <i>Taxation and -Taxes</i>, 52.</p> -<p class="pfc4">4. A fortieth of movables, 14 Sept., 1232, 24,712 marks -granted by the Council. 2 Matt. Par. <i>Hist. Angl.</i> 345.</p> -<p class="pfc4">5. Two marks on the knight’s fee on occasion of the marriage -of the king’s sister, 1235, granted by the Commune -Concilium. 1 Madox, <i>Hist. Ex.</i> 593.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_95_95" id="Footnote_95_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a></span> -2 Matt. Par. <i>Hist. Angl.</i> 393-394.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_96_96" id="Footnote_96_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a></span> -The writ is in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 366.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_97_97" id="Footnote_97_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a></span> -1 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. by J. A. Giles, 397-404.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_98_98" id="Footnote_98_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a></span> -2 Matt. Par. <i>Hist. Angl.</i> 466.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_99_99" id="Footnote_99_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a></span> -Matthew Paris is not clear as to the time of year. 2 Stubbs, -<i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 62, note 3, fixes the date as between 9th -Sept. and 18th Nov.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_100_100" id="Footnote_100_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a></span> -2 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. Giles, 7-9.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_101_101" id="Footnote_101_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a></span> -2 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. Giles, 11-12.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_102_102" id="Footnote_102_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a></span> -The following taxes and refusals are variously cited:</p> -<p class="pfc4">1245. Grant of an aid of 20 shillings “ad filiam maritandam.” -1 Madox, <i>Hist. Ex.</i> 594.</p> -<p class="pfc4">1246. Scutage of three marks on the fee. 2 Stubbs, <i>Const. -Hist. Eng.</i> 65, note 5, citing Pipe Roll of 1246.</p> -<p class="pfc4">1248. Noted above.</p> -<p class="pfc4">1249. Appointment of justiciar, chancellor, and treasurer -demanded. Failure. 2 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. Giles, -308-309.</p> -<p class="pfc4">1252. The Pope held Henry to his promise of a Crusade -made in 1250, and authorized him to exact a tenth of the -revenues of the clergy for three years. The clergy delayed. -Henry turned to the barons and asked for a scutage; the barons -answered that their reply would depend upon the prelates. -2 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. Giles, 518-527.</p> -<p class="pfc4">1253. Debate on the above. At last Henry obtained his -tenth from the clergy and an aid of 3 marks from the tenants-in-chief -for the knighting of his son. The condition was the -confirmation of the Charters, and a great oath for his faithful -observance of them. 3 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. Giles, -22-24.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_103_103" id="Footnote_103_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a></span> -2 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. Giles, 254-257, 266-267.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_104_104" id="Footnote_104_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a></span> -2 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. Giles, 287.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_105_105" id="Footnote_105_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a></span> -One of the royal writs ran thus:</p> -<p class="pfc4">“Rex Vicecomiti Bedeford, et Bukingeham., salutem.... -Tibi districte præcipimus, quod præter omnes prædictos -venire facias coram consilio nostro apud Westmonasterium -in quindena Paschæ proximo futuri, quatuor legales et -discretos milites de comitatibus prædictis quos iidem comitatus -ad hoc elgerint, vice omnium et singulorum eorundem -comitatuum, videlicet duos de uno comitatu et duos de alio, ad -providendum, una cum militibus aliorum comitatuum quos -ad eundem diem vocari fecimus, quale auxilium nobis in -tanta necessitate impendere voluerint. Et tu ipse militibus -et aliis de comitatibus prædictis necessitatem nostram et -tam urgens negotium nostrum diligenter exponas, et eos ad -competens auxilium nobis ad præsens impendendum efficaciter -inducas; ita quod prædicti quatuor milites præfato consilio -nostro ad prædictum terminum præcise respondere possint -super prædicto auxilio pro singulis comitatuum prædictorum.” -Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 376. Translation in -Adams and Stephens, <i>Select Documents</i>, 55.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_106_106" id="Footnote_106_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a></span> -3 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. Giles, 75.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_107_107" id="Footnote_107_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a></span> -“To a general assembly of the barons at London in 1246, -the name of Parliament, which had previously been indiscriminately -ascribed to assemblies of various kinds, is for -the first time given by a contemporary chronicler, Matthew -Paris. Henceforth it became specially though not exclusively, -the appellation of the National Council.” Taswell-Langmead, -<i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 187.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_108_108" id="Footnote_108_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a></span> -3 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. Giles, 119.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_109_109" id="Footnote_109_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a></span> -3 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. Giles, 141-142.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_110_110" id="Footnote_110_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110_110"><span class="label">[110]</span></a></span> -Cf. 2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 70-73, and references there -cited.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_111_111" id="Footnote_111_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111_111"><span class="label">[111]</span></a></span> -3 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. Giles, 267-268, 271-272.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_112_112" id="Footnote_112_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112_112"><span class="label">[112]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 76-80; Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> -378 ff.; Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 188-189; -3 Matt. Par. <i>Chron. Maj.</i> trans. Giles, 285-288.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_113_113" id="Footnote_113_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113_113"><span class="label">[113]</span></a></span> -Stubbs, <i>Select Charters</i>, 382-387, especially caps. 22, 23.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_114_114" id="Footnote_114_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114_114"><span class="label">[114]</span></a></span> -1 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, part 2, 62.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_115_115" id="Footnote_115_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115_115"><span class="label">[115]</span></a></span> -Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 405.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_116_116" id="Footnote_116_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116_116"><span class="label">[116]</span></a></span> -Louis’s award was the so-called “Mise of Amiens.” Given -in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 406. 1 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, part 2 83.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_117_117" id="Footnote_117_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117_117"><span class="label">[117]</span></a></span> -Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 334; <i>Chron. Rishanger</i>, Camden Society, -37.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_118_118" id="Footnote_118_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118_118"><span class="label">[118]</span></a></span> -1 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, part 2, 88-89.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_119_119" id="Footnote_119_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119_119"><span class="label">[119]</span></a></span> -This Parliament and the scheme of government which -was drawn up at the session is the subject of considerable -dispute. See 2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 93-95; and Medley, -<i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 133-134. The scheme itself is given in -Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 412 ff, and in 1 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, part 2, 89.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_120_120" id="Footnote_120_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120_120"><span class="label">[120]</span></a></span> -The writ is in part as follows: “Item mandatum est -singulis vicecomitibus per Angliam quod venire faciant -duos milites de legalibus, probioribus, et discretioribus militibus -singulorum comitatuum ad regem Londoniis in octavis -prædictis in forma supradicta.</p> -<p class="pfc4">“Item in forma prædicta scribitur civibus Eboraci, civibus -Lincolniæ, et ceteris burgis Angliæ, quod mittant in forma -prædicta duos de discretioribus, legalioribus et probioribus -tam civibus quam burgensibus.</p> -<p class="pfc4">“Item in forma prædicta mandatum est baronibus et -probis hominibus Quinque Portuum....” Stubbs, <i>Sel. -Charters</i>, 415; 1 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, part 2, 93.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_121_121" id="Footnote_121_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121_121"><span class="label">[121]</span></a></span> -For a fuller discussion of this rather iconoclastic view of -Simon de Montfort, see Medley, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 134.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_122_122" id="Footnote_122_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122_122"><span class="label">[122]</span></a></span> -T. Wykes, <i>Chron.</i> a. 1269, 226-227, in Stubbs, <i>Sel. -Chart.</i> 337.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_123_123" id="Footnote_123_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123_123"><span class="label">[123]</span></a></span> -<i>Ann. Winton.</i> a. 1273, 113; Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 429.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_124_124" id="Footnote_124_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124_124"><span class="label">[124]</span></a></span> -<i>Ann. Winton.</i> a. 1275, 119; Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 430.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_125_125" id="Footnote_125_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125_125"><span class="label">[125]</span></a></span> -Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 450.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_126_126" id="Footnote_126_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126_126"><span class="label">[126]</span></a></span> -“... archiepiscopi, episcopi, et alii prælati regni -Angliæ ac comites, barones, et nos (William, Earl of Pembroke) -et communitate ejusdem regni ad instantiam et rogatum -mercatorum pluribus de causis unanimiter concesserimus -magnifico principi et domino nostro carissimo domino -Edwardo Dei gratia regi Angliæ illustri, pro nobis et hæredibus -nostris, dimidiam marcam de quolibet sacco lanæ et -dimidiam marcam pro singulis trescentis pellibus lanutis -quæ faciunt unum saccum, et unam marcam de quolibet -lesta coriorum, exeuntibus regnum Angliæ....” Stubbs, <i>Sel. -Chart.</i> 451; Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 69, translation.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_127_127" id="Footnote_127_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127_127"><span class="label">[127]</span></a></span> -See 1 Hubert Hall, <i>Customs Revenue of England</i>, 65-68; -2, 117-118; Medley, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 517-518.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_128_128" id="Footnote_128_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128_128"><span class="label">[128]</span></a></span> -Wool, hides and leather formed the bulk of the early -exports from England. Wine was the principal import. It -was on these articles of merchandise, and such others as the -merchants brought in and took out, that duties had been -charged since early times. The taxes had become customary -and were spoken of as “consuetudines,” or customs. The -basis for the exaction was the understanding that the merchants, -most of them foreigners, should be given protection -by the king. The early prisage on wine amounted to one -cask from every cargo of from ten to twenty casks, arriving -at a port of England. From ships carrying more than twenty -casks, two casks were exacted. Sometimes the duty instead -of being made in wine was compounded for in money. The -amount of the export tax on wool in the beginning is not -known. In merchandise of other sorts, the payment amounted -to a tenth or a fifteenth of the value of the goods.</p> -<p class="pfc4">Magna Carta abolished illegal exactions on goods retaining -only the “ancient and lawful customs” above mentioned. -Taxable commodities were wine, wool, and general merchandise. -In many instances, in spite of the prohibitions in the -Charter, the customs amounted to confiscation. Until the -time of Edward I there was unending irregularity in the -management of the customs. Merchant strangers, by Cap. -41 of the Great Charter were to have “safe and secure exit -from England, and entry to England ... buying and selling -by the ancient and right customs, quit from all evil Tolls.”</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_129_129" id="Footnote_129_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129_129"><span class="label">[129]</span></a></span> -“Edwardus Dei Gratia Rex Angliæ dominus Hiberniæ -et dux Aquitanniæ vicecomiti Kanciæ salutem. Cum prælatis -et magnatibus regni nostri mandaverimus ut ipsi parliamento -nostro, quod apud Westmonasterium in quindena -Sancti Michælis proxime futura tenebimus. Domino -concedenti intersint ad tractandum nobiscum tam super -statum regni nostri quam super quibusdam negotiis nostris -quæ eis exponemus ibidem, et expediens sit quod duo milites de -comitatu prædicto de discretioribus et legalioribus militibus -ejusdem comitatus intersint eidem parliamento, ex causis -prædictis tibi præcipimus quod in pleno comitatu tuo de -assensu ejusdem comitatus eligi facias dictos duos militis -et eos ad nos usque Westmonasterium pro communitate -dicti comitatus venire facias ad dictum diem ad tractandum -nobiscum et cum prædictis prælatis et magnatibus super -negotiis prædictis. Et hoc non omittas....” 2 Stubbs, -<i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 234, note 5.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_130_130" id="Footnote_130_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130_130"><span class="label">[130]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Rotuli Parliamentorum</i>, 224.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_131_131" id="Footnote_131_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131_131"><span class="label">[131]</span></a></span> -<i>Ann.</i> T. Wykes, 274; Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 431.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_132_132" id="Footnote_132_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132_132"><span class="label">[132]</span></a></span> -The statute of Gloucester, passed in 1278, provided for -the regulation of territorial franchises. In accordance with -it, the itinerant justices were to inquire by what warrant -certain franchises were held, and the writ “quo warranto” -was issued in each case. Stubbs, 2 <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 114-115.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_133_133" id="Footnote_133_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133_133"><span class="label">[133]</span></a></span> -Writ for distraint of knighthood. 1 Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 457.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_134_134" id="Footnote_134_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134_134"><span class="label">[134]</span></a></span> -Letter of credence for a royal commissioner to raise an -aid. Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 464.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_135_135" id="Footnote_135_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135_135"><span class="label">[135]</span></a></span> -Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 465-468.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_136_136" id="Footnote_136_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136_136"><span class="label">[136]</span></a></span> -<i>Ann. Dunst.</i> 294, in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 433.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_137_137" id="Footnote_137_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137_137"><span class="label">[137]</span></a></span> -Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 460.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_138_138" id="Footnote_138_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138_138"><span class="label">[138]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 124, and authorities there -cited.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_139_139" id="Footnote_139_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139_139"><span class="label">[139]</span></a></span> -<i>Cont.</i> Flor. Wig. 235. The scutage was for forty shillings -on the knights fee.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_140_140" id="Footnote_140_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140_140"><span class="label">[140]</span></a></span> -<i>Ann. Osney</i>, 316, in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i>. 434-435.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_141_141" id="Footnote_141_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141_141"><span class="label">[141]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 545.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_142_142" id="Footnote_142_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142_142"><span class="label">[142]</span></a></span> -“.... magnates et proceres tunc in parliamento existentes, -pro se et communitate totius regni quantum in ipsis -est, concesserunt domino regi....” etc. Stubbs, <i>Sel. -Chart.</i> 477; 1 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 25.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_143_143" id="Footnote_143_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143_143"><span class="label">[143]</span></a></span> -The boroughs and city of London paid this tax, though -they were without special representation. The writ of summons -is in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 477.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_144_144" id="Footnote_144_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144_144"><span class="label">[144]</span></a></span> -<i>Ann. Osney</i>, 326, and <i>Ann. Dunst.</i> 362, in Stubbs, <i>Sel. -Chart.</i> 435.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_145_145" id="Footnote_145_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145_145"><span class="label">[145]</span></a></span> -<i>Cont.</i> Flor. Wig. 243.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_146_146" id="Footnote_146_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146_146"><span class="label">[146]</span></a></span> -1 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, part 3, 80-81; <i>Cont.</i> Flor. Wig. 264.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_147_147" id="Footnote_147_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147_147"><span class="label">[147]</span></a></span> -<i>Cont.</i> Flor. Wig. 266.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_148_148" id="Footnote_148_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148_148"><span class="label">[148]</span></a></span> -Matth. Westmon. <i>Flores</i>, 421.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_149_149" id="Footnote_149_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149_149"><span class="label">[149]</span></a></span> -So Bishop Stubbs conjectures, 2 <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 131.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_150_150" id="Footnote_150_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150_150"><span class="label">[150]</span></a></span> -Barth. Cotton, <i>De Rege Edwardo I</i>, 246.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_151_151" id="Footnote_151_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151_151"><span class="label">[151]</span></a></span> -2 Walt. de Hemingb. 53-54.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_152_152" id="Footnote_152_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152_152"><span class="label">[152]</span></a></span> -2 Walt. de Hemingb. 55-57.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_153_153" id="Footnote_153_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153_153"><span class="label">[153]</span></a></span> -Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 479-482.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_154_154" id="Footnote_154_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154_154"><span class="label">[154]</span></a></span> -Barth. Cotton, 254 et. seq.; 2 Walt. de Hemingb. 57.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_155_155" id="Footnote_155_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155_155"><span class="label">[155]</span></a></span> -The character of this tax, indeed its very existence, is -questioned. Matthew of Westminster (422), mentions a tax -on the towns of “the sixth penny.” It may have been either -a tallage or a tax by special negotiation, or it may have been -granted by the shire representatives on the theory that the -towns were included within their shires, though this is most -unlikely. See Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 199; -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 132; Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 480, -483-484.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_156_156" id="Footnote_156_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156_156"><span class="label">[156]</span></a></span> -Stubbs. <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 482.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_157_157" id="Footnote_157_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157_157"><span class="label">[157]</span></a></span> -“Sicut lex justissima, provida circumspectione sacrorum -principum stabilita, hortatur et statuit ut quod omnes tangit -ab omnibus approbetur, sic et nimis evidenter ut communibus -periculis per remedia provisa communiter obvietur.... -Præmunientes priorem et capitulum ecclesiæ vestræ, archidiacones, -totumque clerum vestræ diocesis, facientes quod -iidem prior et archidiaconi in propriis personis suis, et dictum -capitulum per unum, idemque clerus per duos procuratores -idoneos, plenam et sufficientem potestatem ab ipsis capitulo -et clero habentes ... ad tractandum, ordinandum et -faciendum....” Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 484. Translation in -Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 82.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_158_158" id="Footnote_158_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158_158"><span class="label">[158]</span></a></span> -The phrase occurs in the codes of Justinian. Cod. V, -lix, 5; Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 200, note 1.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_159_159" id="Footnote_159_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159_159"><span class="label">[159]</span></a></span> -Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 485. Translation Adams and -Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 83.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_160_160" id="Footnote_160_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160_160"><span class="label">[160]</span></a></span> -“... Tibi præcipimus firmiter injungentes quod de -comitatu prædicto duos milites et de qualibet civitate -ejusdem comitatus duos cives, et de quolibet burgo duos -burgenses, de discretioribus et ad laboradum potentioribus, -sine dilatione eligi, et eos ad nos ad prædictos diem et locum -venire facias: ita quod dicti milites plenam et sufficientem -potestatem pro se et communitate comitatus prædicti, et -dicti cives et burgenses pro se et communitate civitatum et -burgorum prædictorum divisim ab ipsis tunc ibidem habeant, -ad faciendum quod tunc de communi consilio ordinabitur -in præmissis; ita quod pro defectu hujusmodi potestatis -negotium prædictum infectum non remaneant quoquo modo.” -Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 486. Translation Adams and Stephens, -<i>Sel. Doc.</i> 83.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_161_161" id="Footnote_161_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161_161"><span class="label">[161]</span></a></span> -In the fourteenth century the clergy ceased to act in Parliament. -They preferred to make their grants in separate convocations, -and continued to do so until 1664 when they were -merged with the other two estates. From the reign of -Henry VIII, the grants of the clergy were subject to parliamentary -confirmation. Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> -201-202.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_162_162" id="Footnote_162_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162_162"><span class="label">[162]</span></a></span> -Barth. Cotton, 299.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_163_163" id="Footnote_163_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163_163"><span class="label">[163]</span></a></span> -Barth. Cotton, 299.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_164_164" id="Footnote_164_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164_164"><span class="label">[164]</span></a></span> -The bull “Clericis laicos,” published 24th February, -1296, by Boniface VIII, was levelled at the taxation of the -clergy by temporal powers; it prohibited the clergy from paying -and the secular powers from receiving contributions by -way of taxes, under pain of excommunication. The bull is -given in 1 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, part 3, p. 156, and in Adams -and Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 84, in translation.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_165_165" id="Footnote_165_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165_165"><span class="label">[165]</span></a></span> -Barth. Cotton. 315, 317-319.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_166_166" id="Footnote_166_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166_166"><span class="label">[166]</span></a></span> -Walt. de Hemingb., 121.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_167_167" id="Footnote_167_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167_167"><span class="label">[167]</span></a></span> -Matt. Westm., 430, in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 441.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_168_168" id="Footnote_168_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168_168"><span class="label">[168]</span></a></span> -1 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, part 3, 179.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_169_169" id="Footnote_169_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169_169"><span class="label">[169]</span></a></span> -2 Walt, de Hemingb., 121, 122.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_170_170" id="Footnote_170_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170_170"><span class="label">[170]</span></a></span> -Matt. Westm., 430, in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 441. The -restitution of Winchelsey’s baronies occurred after this -scene 19th July, according to <i>Chron. Cant. Ang. Sac.</i> noted -in 2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 141.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_171_171" id="Footnote_171_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171_171"><span class="label">[171]</span></a></span> -Matt. Westm., 430, in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 441, 442.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_172_172" id="Footnote_172_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172_172"><span class="label">[172]</span></a></span> -Barth. Cotton, 338; 1 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 239.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_173_173" id="Footnote_173_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173_173"><span class="label">[173]</span></a></span> -Barth. Cotton, 334.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_174_174" id="Footnote_174_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174_174"><span class="label">[174]</span></a></span> -W. Rishanger, <i>Chron.</i> 175, in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 442, 443.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_175_175" id="Footnote_175_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175_175"><span class="label">[175]</span></a></span> -Matt. Westm., 430; W. Rishanger, 178. Both in Stubbs, -<i>Sel. Chart.</i> 444.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_176_176" id="Footnote_176_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176_176"><span class="label">[176]</span></a></span> -1 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, part 3, 189.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_177_177" id="Footnote_177_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177_177"><span class="label">[177]</span></a></span> -Barth. Cotton, 336.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_178_178" id="Footnote_178_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178_178"><span class="label">[178]</span></a></span> -1 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, part 3, 190.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_179_179" id="Footnote_179_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179_179"><span class="label">[179]</span></a></span> -2 Walt. de Hemingb. 147, 148.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_180_180" id="Footnote_180_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180_180"><span class="label">[180]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 147.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_181_181" id="Footnote_181_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181_181"><span class="label">[181]</span></a></span> -“Clericis laicos,” it will be remembered, prohibited -compliance by the clergy with demands by the crown for -taxation. It is evident that a gift by the clergy for the defense -of the realm, provided it be not a compliant, but an initial -act, was not a contravention of the bull.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_182_182" id="Footnote_182_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182_182"><span class="label">[182]</span></a></span> -Barth. Cotton, 339.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_183_183" id="Footnote_183_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183_183"><span class="label">[183]</span></a></span> -“5. And for so much as divers people of our realm are in -fear that the aids and tasks which they have given to us -beforetime towards our wars and other business, of their -own grant and good will, howsoever they were made, might -turn to be a bondage to them and their heirs, because they -might be at another time found in the rolls, and so likewise -the prises taken throughout the realm by our ministers in -our name; we have granted for us and our heirs, that we shall -not draw such aids, tasks, nor prises into a custom, for anything -that hath been done heretofore, or that may be found -by roll or in any other manner.” Adams and Stephens, -<i>Sel. Doc.</i> 87. Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 495 (French text) and 496 -(translation). Original in 2 Walt. de Hemingb. 149.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_184_184" id="Footnote_184_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184_184"><span class="label">[184]</span></a></span> -“6. Moreover we have granted for us and our heirs as -well to archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and other folk -of holy Church, as also to earls, barons, and to all the commonalty -of the land, that for no business from henceforth we -shall take of our realm such manner of aids, tasks, nor prises, -but by the common assent of all the realm, and for the common -profit thereof, saving the ancient aids and prises due and -accustomed.</p> -<p class="pfc4">“And for so much as the mere part of the commonalty of -the realm find themselves sore grieved with the maletolt of -wools, that is to wit, a toll of forty shillings for every sack of -wool, and have made petition to us to release the same; we at -their requests have clearly released it, and have granted -that we will not take such thing nor any other without their -common assent and good will; saving to us and our heirs the -custom of wools, skins, and leather, granted before by the -commonalty aforesaid. In witness of which things we have -caused these our letters to be made patents.” Adams and -Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 87; Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 495 (French text), -and 496 (translation).</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_185_185" id="Footnote_185_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185_185"><span class="label">[185]</span></a></span> -2 Walt. de Hemingb. 152, 153.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_186_186" id="Footnote_186_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186_186"><span class="label">[186]</span></a></span> -The statute is in Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 88, -translated. The Latin text is in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 497, 498.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_187_187" id="Footnote_187_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187_187"><span class="label">[187]</span></a></span> -In this connection see McKechnie, <i>Magna Carta</i>, 281; -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 148-150, and <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 497; -Medley, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 507, 508.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_188_188" id="Footnote_188_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188_188"><span class="label">[188]</span></a></span> -<i>Patent Rolls</i>, 24th Oct., 1301, in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 446.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_189_189" id="Footnote_189_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189_189"><span class="label">[189]</span></a></span> -See 2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 156-158, citing 1 <i>Parliamentary -Writs</i>, 104.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_190_190" id="Footnote_190_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190_190"><span class="label">[190]</span></a></span> -2 Walt. de Hemingb. 223.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_191_191" id="Footnote_191_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191_191"><span class="label">[191]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Writs</i>, 134-135, in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 500-501.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_192_192" id="Footnote_192_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192_192"><span class="label">[192]</span></a></span> -Carta Mercatoria, in Hall, 1 <i>History of the Customs</i>, Appendix, -202-208; 1 ibid. 69-70.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_193_193" id="Footnote_193_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193_193"><span class="label">[193]</span></a></span> -2 Walt. de Hemingb. 233; <i>Patent Rolls</i>, a. 1304, 6th Feb., -in Stubbs, <i>Sel. Chart.</i> 447.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_194_194" id="Footnote_194_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194_194"><span class="label">[194]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 161-162.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_195_195" id="Footnote_195_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195_195"><span class="label">[195]</span></a></span> -The only other instance of taxation to be noted was the -aid granted in 1306 by knights and barons (a thirtieth), and -by citizens and burgesses (a twentieth), on the occasion of -knighting the king’s son. 1 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, part 4, 48.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_196_196" id="Footnote_196_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196_196"><span class="label">[196]</span></a></span> -1 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, part 4, 112. Also, Stubbs, 2 <i>Const. -Hist. Eng.</i> 331.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_197_197" id="Footnote_197_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197_197"><span class="label">[197]</span></a></span> -A Parliament of the three Estates at Northampton, -13th Oct., 1307, granted him an aid on the event of his marriage -and coronation, and for the burial of Edward I. The -clergy granted a fifteenth, the towns a fifteenth, and the -barons and knights a twentieth of movables. 1 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 442.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_198_198" id="Footnote_198_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198_198"><span class="label">[198]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 443-445.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_199_199" id="Footnote_199_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199_199"><span class="label">[199]</span></a></span> -The second article is given in translation in Hall, 1 <i>History -of the Customs</i>, Appendix, 208.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_200_200" id="Footnote_200_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200_200"><span class="label">[200]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 446-447.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_201_201" id="Footnote_201_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201_201"><span class="label">[201]</span></a></span> -Translation given in Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 93.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_202_202" id="Footnote_202_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202_202"><span class="label">[202]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 340, note 1, and citations.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_203_203" id="Footnote_203_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203_203"><span class="label">[203]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 281-286.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_204_204" id="Footnote_204_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204_204"><span class="label">[204]</span></a></span> -Translation given in Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 93-94.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_205_205" id="Footnote_205_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205_205"><span class="label">[205]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 345 and note 2, with citations.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_206_206" id="Footnote_206_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206_206"><span class="label">[206]</span></a></span> -Edward, despite the ordinance banishing Gaveston, in -January, 1312, recalled him. But the restoration was fatal to -the favorite. Thomas of Lancaster intercepted him on his -way back to London and murdered him. Gaveston was -avenged, however, in 1322, when Edward for the moment -securing the upper hand, took Lancaster and beheaded him.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_207_207" id="Footnote_207_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207_207"><span class="label">[207]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 449.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_208_208" id="Footnote_208_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208_208"><span class="label">[208]</span></a></span> -Other instances of taxation during the reign were: 1313, -October. Parliament grants a tax on movables,—the barons -and knights a twentieth and the towns a fifteenth. Grant -made in consequence of a general pardon issued by Edward. -1 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 448. Cf. Thom. Walsingham, <i>Hist. Anglicana</i>, -ed. 1 Riley, 136. 1315, Jan.-March. King put on an allowance -of £10 a day. The clergy grant a tenth on certain conditions, -the towns a fifteenth and the barons and knights a -twentieth. 2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 355, and citations. -1316. Towns grant a fifteenth, the knights and barons offer -a soldier to be supported by each township, and the clergy -express their willingness to contribute a tenth in their own -convocations. 1 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 450-451. 2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. -Eng.</i> 356. The grant of a soldier was afterward compounded -for by a grant of a sixteenth. 1319. The towns grant a twelfth, -the barons and knights an eighteenth. 1 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 454-455. -1320. No taxes, save a clerical tenth, granted by the Pope. -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 363, note 2. 1322. Clergy grant a -tenth for 2 years. Knights and barons grant a man-at-arms -from each township for 40 days. Commuted by money payment. -Edward, being for the moment supreme, restores the -New Customs for a year. 2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 370, -and note 2 and authorities there cited.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_209_209" id="Footnote_209_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209_209"><span class="label">[209]</span></a></span> -Sept. 1327. Parliament at Lincoln granted a twentieth -for the Scotch war. 2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 425.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_210_210" id="Footnote_210_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210_210"><span class="label">[210]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 446.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_211_211" id="Footnote_211_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211_211"><span class="label">[211]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 66.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_212_212" id="Footnote_212_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212_212"><span class="label">[212]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 554.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_213_213" id="Footnote_213_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213_213"><span class="label">[213]</span></a></span> -2 Rymer, <i>Foedera</i>, Aug. 12, 1336.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_214_214" id="Footnote_214_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214_214"><span class="label">[214]</span></a></span> -1 Hen. Knighton, <i>Chronicon</i>, ed. Lumby, 477.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_215_215" id="Footnote_215_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215_215"><span class="label">[215]</span></a></span> -Adam Murimuth, <i>Chronica</i> ed. Hog, 81.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_216_216" id="Footnote_216_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216_216"><span class="label">[216]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 398, 555, with authorities -there cited. The statute is given in 1 Hall, <i>Hist. of Customs</i>, -210-211.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_217_217" id="Footnote_217_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217_217"><span class="label">[217]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 104.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_218_218" id="Footnote_218_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218_218"><span class="label">[218]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 105.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_219_219" id="Footnote_219_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219_219"><span class="label">[219]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 107-108.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_220_220" id="Footnote_220_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220_220"><span class="label">[220]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 112-113. 2 Walt. de Hemingb. 354.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_221_221" id="Footnote_221_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221_221"><span class="label">[221]</span></a></span> -14 Edw. III, 1, in 1 <i>Statutes of the Realm</i>, 281, and in -Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 103-104.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_222_222" id="Footnote_222_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222_222"><span class="label">[222]</span></a></span> -14 Edw. III, 2, in 1 <i>Statutes of the Realm</i>, 281, and in -Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 104-105.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_223_223" id="Footnote_223_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223_223"><span class="label">[223]</span></a></span> -The definite inclusion of tallage within the scope of these -charges and aids prohibited to the royal control had to be -asserted further: 1348. Condition of the grant made by Parliament -that no tallage or similar exaction should be imposed -by the Privy Council. 2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 200; Adams and Stephens, -<i>Sel. Doc.</i> 113. 1352. The king openly declares that he is -not intending again to impose a tallage. 2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> -238. 1377. Parliament petitions, nearly in the words of -the statute of 1340. King replies that only a great exigency -would induce him to disregard the petition. 2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> -365.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_224_224" id="Footnote_224_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224_224"><span class="label">[224]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 557.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_225_225" id="Footnote_225_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225_225"><span class="label">[225]</span></a></span> -Bishop Stubbs conjectures 8th July, 1342, as the date of -the grant. 2 <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 412, note 2.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_226_226" id="Footnote_226_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226_226"><span class="label">[226]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 140, given in Adams and Stephens, 110.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_227_227" id="Footnote_227_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227_227"><span class="label">[227]</span></a></span> -1 Dowell, <i>Taxation and Taxes</i>, 166, citing 18 Edw. III, 2 -c. 3.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_228_228" id="Footnote_228_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228_228"><span class="label">[228]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 161.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_229_229" id="Footnote_229_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229_229"><span class="label">[229]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 200. A translation is given in Adams and -Stephens, 113-114.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_230_230" id="Footnote_230_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230_230"><span class="label">[230]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 418.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_231_231" id="Footnote_231_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231_231"><span class="label">[231]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Statutes of the Realm</i>, 371. Translation in Adams and -Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 128; 2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 271.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_232_232" id="Footnote_232_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232_232"><span class="label">[232]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 308.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_233_233" id="Footnote_233_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233_233"><span class="label">[233]</span></a></span> -In 1334 the fifteenth and tenth was compounded for by -a fixed sum, rather than in accordance with a strict assessment. -Hereafter each town and each county knew for how much it -would have to answer. The expression was the fiscal equivalent -of £39,000, less about £6,000 for decayed towns. 1 Dowell, -<i>Taxation and Taxes</i>, 89.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_234_234" id="Footnote_234_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234_234"><span class="label">[234]</span></a></span> -The fifteenths and tenths after 1334 noted in Dowell, 1 -<i>Taxation and Taxes</i>, 89, note. Taxation, 1351-1359, see -Stubbs, 2 <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 424, note 1. Taxation, 1360-1368, -see Stubbs, 2 <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 433, note 1 and p. 432.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_235_235" id="Footnote_235_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235_235"><span class="label">[235]</span></a></span> -14 Edw. III, 2.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_236_236" id="Footnote_236_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236_236"><span class="label">[236]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 161, 202.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_237_237" id="Footnote_237_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237_237"><span class="label">[237]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 252.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_238_238" id="Footnote_238_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238_238"><span class="label">[238]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 114.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_239_239" id="Footnote_239_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239_239"><span class="label">[239]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 128. Translation given in Adams and Stephens, -<i>Sel. Doc.</i> 105-106.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_240_240" id="Footnote_240_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240_240"><span class="label">[240]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 130, given in Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> -106.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_241_241" id="Footnote_241_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241_241"><span class="label">[241]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 364, given in Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> -135.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_242_242" id="Footnote_242_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242_242"><span class="label">[242]</span></a></span> -Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 211, note 1.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_243_243" id="Footnote_243_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243_243"><span class="label">[243]</span></a></span> -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 7; translation in Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. -Doc.</i> 136.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_244_244" id="Footnote_244_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244_244"><span class="label">[244]</span></a></span> -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 35-36. Translation in Adams and Stephens, -<i>Sel. Doc.</i> 137-138.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_245_245" id="Footnote_245_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245_245"><span class="label">[245]</span></a></span> -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 36.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_246_246" id="Footnote_246_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246_246"><span class="label">[246]</span></a></span> -3 Ibid. 56. Translation given in Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. -Doc.</i> 138.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_247_247" id="Footnote_247_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247_247"><span class="label">[247]</span></a></span> -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 66.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_248_248" id="Footnote_248_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248_248"><span class="label">[248]</span></a></span> -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 73.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_249_249" id="Footnote_249_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249_249"><span class="label">[249]</span></a></span> -3 Ibid. 124.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_250_250" id="Footnote_250_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250_250"><span class="label">[250]</span></a></span> -The taxes during the reign in summary:—Parliament of -October, 1377. Two tenths and two fifteenths. 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> -7. Parliament of October, 1378. An increase of custom on -wool and merchandise over the grant to Edward III in 1376. -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 37. Parliament of April, 1379 (another session -of the last Parliament). Superseded the above tax on wool, -which had proven to be insufficient, with a graduated poll-tax -which varied according to the position of the taxpayer. A -tax of a groat a head had been levied in 1377, but this was the -first instance of a poll-tax of varied incidence. The payments: -The Dukes of Lancaster and Bretagne, ten marks each; earls -or their widows, four pounds; barons and baronets, two -pounds; and so on down to persons of the lowest rank, who -were to pay a groat apiece. (Further details, 1 Dowell, <i>Taxation -and Taxes</i>, 94.) Proceeds were to be strictly for national -defense. Produced about half as much as was expected, only -£22,000. 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 57-58, 72-73. Parliament of 1380. A -tenth and a half and a fifteenth and a half with a year’s subsidy -on wool. A second Parliament, finding this amount -insufficient, in the same year undertook to raise the “outrageous -and intolerable” amount, £160,000. The means was -another graduated poll-tax, varying from sixty groats to three, -together with a continuance of the subsidy on wool, a custom -which netted about £60,000 annually. The clergy undertook -to raise their share of the money. The poll-tax was expected to -bring about £66,000. 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 75, 90. Parliament of -1382. A fifteenth and a tenth, to be devoted wholly to the -defense of the realm. Tunnage and poundage for two years. -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 124, 134. Parliaments of 1383. Grant of fifteenth -and tenth made in 1382, given to Bishop of Norwich -who was warring against the anti-pope in Flanders. He was -held to account at the October session. Two half tenths and -two half fifteenths were granted by the commons, one-half -without condition, and the other half for the prosecution of -the war if it be prolonged. Clergy made similar grants. 3 <i>Rot. -Parl.</i> 151-152. Parliament of 1384. At spring session half a -tenth and fifteenth. At fall session, two tenths and fifteenths, -one of which was remitted the following spring. The object -was the prosecution of a war in Scotland. 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 167, -185, 398. Parliament of 1385. Granted a fifteenth and a half -and a tenth and a half. Wool subsidy renewed for another -year. 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 204. Parliament of 1386. Half a tenth and -fifteenth, with duplication if exigencies of war demanded. -Continuance of subsidy on wool and merchandise, the object -being for naval defense. Before Richard could obtain this -grant, he had to consent to the appointment of a commission -of reform to correct the irregularities in the realm and in his -household. 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 220-221. Parliaments of 1388. -First session. Half a tenth and fifteenth with tunnage and -poundage and the custom on wool. From the subsidy on wool -£20,000 is awarded to the “Lords Appellant,” who had -brought charges against the royal favorites upon which they -were convicted and punished. 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 244-245. The -increase of custom on wool is forbidden. Fall session. A tenth -and a fifteenth. 2 Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 505, note 3, and -citations. Parliament of 1390. Subsidy on wool and merchandise. -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 278. Parliament of 1391. A fifteenth -and a half and a tenth and a half. Above subsidy on wool and -merchandise renewed for three years at an increased rate. -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 285-286. Parliament of 1393. Grant on wool and -merchandise for three years. 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 301. Parliament of -1394. Tunnage and poundage. 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 314. Parliament -of 1395. Fifteenth and tenth. 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 330. Parliament -of 1397. Custom on wool for five years. Tunnage and poundage -for three years. Protest registered against the extravagance -of the court. 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 340. Parliament of 1398. A -tenth and a half and a fifteenth and a half. A subsidy on wool, -woolfells, and leather for the term of Richard’s life. 3 <i>Rot. -Parl.</i> 368.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_251_251" id="Footnote_251_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251_251"><span class="label">[251]</span></a></span> -The scheme is given in translation in Adams and Stephens, -<i>Sel. Doc.</i> 142-144, from the original in 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 90.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_252_252" id="Footnote_252_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252_252"><span class="label">[252]</span></a></span> -2 Stubbs. <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 471.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_253_253" id="Footnote_253_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_253_253"><span class="label">[253]</span></a></span> -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 368.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_254_254" id="Footnote_254_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_254_254"><span class="label">[254]</span></a></span> -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 417 ff.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_255_255" id="Footnote_255_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255_255"><span class="label">[255]</span></a></span> -2 Thom. de Wals. 230-231. Cf. 3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 62.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_256_256" id="Footnote_256_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256_256"><span class="label">[256]</span></a></span> -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 458. Translation given in Adams and Stephens, -<i>Sel. Doc.</i> 173.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_257_257" id="Footnote_257_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257_257"><span class="label">[257]</span></a></span> -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 493.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_258_258" id="Footnote_258_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258_258"><span class="label">[258]</span></a></span> -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 611. Translation given in Adams and Stephens, -<i>Sel. Doc.</i> 125-127.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_259_259" id="Footnote_259_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259_259"><span class="label">[259]</span></a></span> -In 1472 was a marked departure from the rule. A grant -regularly enacted, appropriating revenue and income of the -commons, was changed by the lords to include a tax on their -own property. 6 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 4-8. The good intent of the act, -justified in the eyes of contemporaries, apparently, its irregularity.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_260_260" id="Footnote_260_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260_260"><span class="label">[260]</span></a></span> -3 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 612.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_261_261" id="Footnote_261_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261_261"><span class="label">[261]</span></a></span> -4 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 301-302.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_262_262" id="Footnote_262_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262_262"><span class="label">[262]</span></a></span> -5 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 152-153.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_263_263" id="Footnote_263_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_263_263"><span class="label">[263]</span></a></span> -5 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 508.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_264_264" id="Footnote_264_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_264_264"><span class="label">[264]</span></a></span> -1 Dowell, <i>Taxation and Taxes</i>, 197.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_265_265" id="Footnote_265_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_265_265"><span class="label">[265]</span></a></span> -6 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 238-240.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_266_266" id="Footnote_266_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266_266"><span class="label">[266]</span></a></span> -“For certainly wee be determined rather to aventure and -committe us to the perill of oure lyfs and jopardye of deth, than -to lyve in suche thraldome and bondage as we have lyved long -tyme heretofore, oppressed and injured by Extorcions and -newe Imposicons, agenst the Lawes of God and Man, and the -Libertee, old Police, and Lawes of this Reame, wheryn every -Englishman is enherited.” 6 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 241.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_267_267" id="Footnote_267_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267_267"><span class="label">[267]</span></a></span> -1 Rich. III, c. 2.—“The king remembering how the Commons -of this his realm by new and unlawful inventions and -inordinate covetousness, against the law of this realm, have -been put to great thraldom and importable charges and exactions, -and in especial by a new imposition named a benevolence, -whereby divers years the subjects and Commons of this -land against their wills and freedom have paid great sums of -money to their almost utter destruction; for divers and many -worshipful men of this realm by occasion thereof were compelled -by necessity to break up their households and to live -in great penury and wretchedness. Their debts unpaid and -their children unpreferred, and such memorials as they had -ordained to be done for the wealth of their souls were made -void and annulled, to the great displeasure of God and to the -destruction of this realm; therefore the king will it be ordained, -by the advice and assent of his Lords spiritual and temporal -and the Commons of this present Parliament assembled, and -by the authority of the same, that his subjects and the commonalty -of this his realm from henceforth in no wise be -charged by none such charge or imposition called benevolence, -nor by such like charge; and that such exactions called benevolences, -afore this time taken be taken for no example to -make such or any like charge of any his said subjects of this -realm hereafter, but it be dampned and annulled forever.” -2 <i>Statutes of the Realm</i>, 478. Translation given in Adams and -Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 212.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_268_268" id="Footnote_268_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268_268"><span class="label">[268]</span></a></span> -6 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 335.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_269_269" id="Footnote_269_269"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269_269"><span class="label">[269]</span></a></span> -6 <i>Rot. Parl.</i> 421.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_270_270" id="Footnote_270_270"></a><a href="#FNanchor_270_270"><span class="label">[270]</span></a></span> -Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 298, quoting from -Lord Bacon’s <i>Henry VII</i>, 121.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_271_271" id="Footnote_271_271"></a><a href="#FNanchor_271_271"><span class="label">[271]</span></a></span> -For further details see Dowell, 1 <i>Taxation and Taxes</i>, 129, -130. A summary of the taxes of Henry VIII is given in Cobbett, -1 <i>Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest -Period to the Year 1803</i>, London 1806; 565-6.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_272_272" id="Footnote_272_272"></a><a href="#FNanchor_272_272"><span class="label">[272]</span></a></span> -Above, 206, 207.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_273_273" id="Footnote_273_273"></a><a href="#FNanchor_273_273"><span class="label">[273]</span></a></span> -More, <i>Life of Sir T. More</i>, 51, quoted in 1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> -485-6.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_274_274" id="Footnote_274_274"></a><a href="#FNanchor_274_274"><span class="label">[274]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 486.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_275_275" id="Footnote_275_275"></a><a href="#FNanchor_275_275"><span class="label">[275]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 588.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_276_276" id="Footnote_276_276"></a><a href="#FNanchor_276_276"><span class="label">[276]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 490.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_277_277" id="Footnote_277_277"></a><a href="#FNanchor_277_277"><span class="label">[277]</span></a></span> -Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 300.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_278_278" id="Footnote_278_278"></a><a href="#FNanchor_278_278"><span class="label">[278]</span></a></span> -Ibid., 300, quoting Hall, <i>Chronicle</i>, 696, 700.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_279_279" id="Footnote_279_279"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279_279"><span class="label">[279]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 490.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_280_280" id="Footnote_280_280"></a><a href="#FNanchor_280_280"><span class="label">[280]</span></a></span> -Henry levied another benevolence in 1545.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_281_281" id="Footnote_281_281"></a><a href="#FNanchor_281_281"><span class="label">[281]</span></a></span> -The form of these royal promissory notes is as follows:—“We, -Henry VIII, by the grace of God, King of England and -of France, Defender of Faith, and Lord of Ireland, promise -by these presents truly to content and repay unto our trusty -and well-beloved subject, A. B., the sum of ——, which he -hath lovingly advanced unto us by way of loan, for defence of -our realm, and maintenance of our wars against France and -Scotland: In witness whereof we have caused our privy -seal hereunto to be set and annexed the —— day of ——, the -fourteenth year of our reign.” Cited by Hallam, 1 <i>Const. Hist. -Eng.</i> 26, note 1, from MS. Instructions to Commissioners.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_282_282" id="Footnote_282_282"></a><a href="#FNanchor_282_282"><span class="label">[282]</span></a></span> -Stat. 21 Henry VIII, c. 24, cited in Taswell-Langmead, -<i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 301. 1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 507.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_283_283" id="Footnote_283_283"></a><a href="#FNanchor_283_283"><span class="label">[283]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 560, 578.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_284_284" id="Footnote_284_284"></a><a href="#FNanchor_284_284"><span class="label">[284]</span></a></span> -23 Henry VIII, c. 20, in Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> -144.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_285_285" id="Footnote_285_285"></a><a href="#FNanchor_285_285"><span class="label">[285]</span></a></span> -25 Henry VIII, c. 20.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_286_286" id="Footnote_286_286"></a><a href="#FNanchor_286_286"><span class="label">[286]</span></a></span> -25 Henry VIII, c. 21.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_287_287" id="Footnote_287_287"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287_287"><span class="label">[287]</span></a></span> -26 Henry VIII, c. 3.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_288_288" id="Footnote_288_288"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288_288"><span class="label">[288]</span></a></span> -25 Henry VIII, c. 19.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_289_289" id="Footnote_289_289"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289_289"><span class="label">[289]</span></a></span> -Dowell, 1 <i>Taxation and Taxes</i>, 202, quoting 2 <i>Mackintosh</i>, -433, appendix.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_290_290" id="Footnote_290_290"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290_290"><span class="label">[290]</span></a></span> -Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 377, quoting 4 <i>Parl. -Hist.</i> 480.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_291_291" id="Footnote_291_291"></a><a href="#FNanchor_291_291"><span class="label">[291]</span></a></span> -The subsidy at this time, by a conservative estimate, -amounted probably to £80,000, making the demand equal to -£240,000.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_292_292" id="Footnote_292_292"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292_292"><span class="label">[292]</span></a></span> -1 Hallam, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 375, quoting D’Ewes, 486.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_293_293" id="Footnote_293_293"></a><a href="#FNanchor_293_293"><span class="label">[293]</span></a></span> -Gneist. <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 546.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_294_294" id="Footnote_294_294"></a><a href="#FNanchor_294_294"><span class="label">[294]</span></a></span> -Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 177.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_295_295" id="Footnote_295_295"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295_295"><span class="label">[295]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parliamentary History of England</i>, London, 1806, 967, -970.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_296_296" id="Footnote_296_296"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296_296"><span class="label">[296]</span></a></span> -The case is in 1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 998-1017. See also Taswell-Langmead, -<i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 267-268.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_297_297" id="Footnote_297_297"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297_297"><span class="label">[297]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1030-1042.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_298_298" id="Footnote_298_298"></a><a href="#FNanchor_298_298"><span class="label">[298]</span></a></span> -1 Ibid. 1044-1045.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_299_299" id="Footnote_299_299"></a><a href="#FNanchor_299_299"><span class="label">[299]</span></a></span> -The rate of this grant of tunnage and poundage: Tunnage, -3 s. on every tun of wine imported, save that on the tun -of sweet wines the charge was 6 s., and on the awm of Rhenish, -1 s. Poundage, 1 s. on every 20 s. of goods or merchandise -imported or exported, except woolen manufactures; on -tin and pewter the charge was 2 s. Wool of denizens, 33 s. -4 d. on the sack or 240 woolfells and £3, 6 s., 8 d. on the last -of hides.—1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1046.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_300_300" id="Footnote_300_300"></a><a href="#FNanchor_300_300"><span class="label">[300]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1069-1070.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_301_301" id="Footnote_301_301"></a><a href="#FNanchor_301_301"><span class="label">[301]</span></a></span> -Trevelyan, <i>England Under the Stuarts</i>, 107.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_302_302" id="Footnote_302_302"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302_302"><span class="label">[302]</span></a></span> -Medley, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 235.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_303_303" id="Footnote_303_303"></a><a href="#FNanchor_303_303"><span class="label">[303]</span></a></span> -Prothero, <i>Statutes and Constitutional Documents, 1559-1625</i>, -lxxv.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_304_304" id="Footnote_304_304"></a><a href="#FNanchor_304_304"><span class="label">[304]</span></a></span> -Stat. 45 Edw. III, cap. 4.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_305_305" id="Footnote_305_305"></a><a href="#FNanchor_305_305"><span class="label">[305]</span></a></span> -The case is reported in Prothero, <i>Stat. and Const. Doc.</i> -340-342.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_306_306" id="Footnote_306_306"></a><a href="#FNanchor_306_306"><span class="label">[306]</span></a></span> -2 <i>State Trials</i>, 481.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_307_307" id="Footnote_307_307"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307_307"><span class="label">[307]</span></a></span> -Prothero, <i>Stat. and Const. Doc.</i> 354.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_308_308" id="Footnote_308_308"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308_308"><span class="label">[308]</span></a></span> -The arguments of Hakewill and Whitelocke are given in -detail in Prothero, <i>Stat. and Const. Doc.</i> 342-353.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_309_309" id="Footnote_309_309"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309_309"><span class="label">[309]</span></a></span> -Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 395, quoting from -Petyt, <i>Jus Parliamentum</i>, 322, 323.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_310_310" id="Footnote_310_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_310_310"><span class="label">[310]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1122.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_311_311" id="Footnote_311_311"></a><a href="#FNanchor_311_311"><span class="label">[311]</span></a></span> -Prothero, <i>Stat. and Const. Doc.</i> 411.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_312_312" id="Footnote_312_312"></a><a href="#FNanchor_312_312"><span class="label">[312]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1133.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_313_313" id="Footnote_313_313"></a><a href="#FNanchor_313_313"><span class="label">[313]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1159.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_314_314" id="Footnote_314_314"></a><a href="#FNanchor_314_314"><span class="label">[314]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1166.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_315_315" id="Footnote_315_315"></a><a href="#FNanchor_315_315"><span class="label">[315]</span></a></span> -2 Gardiner, <i>Hist. Eng.</i> <i>[</i>1603-1616<i>]</i> 172.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_316_316" id="Footnote_316_316"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316_316"><span class="label">[316]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1179-1180.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_317_317" id="Footnote_317_317"></a><a href="#FNanchor_317_317"><span class="label">[317]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1187.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_318_318" id="Footnote_318_318"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318_318"><span class="label">[318]</span></a></span> -This was “the revival of the ancient right of Parliamentary -impeachment—the solemn accusation of an individual -by the Commons at the bar of the Lords—which had lain -dormant since the impeachment of the Duke of Suffolk in -1449.” For further details see Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. -Const. Hist.</i> 409 et seq.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_319_319" id="Footnote_319_319"></a><a href="#FNanchor_319_319"><span class="label">[319]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1208.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_320_320" id="Footnote_320_320"></a><a href="#FNanchor_320_320"><span class="label">[320]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1262.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_321_321" id="Footnote_321_321"></a><a href="#FNanchor_321_321"><span class="label">[321]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1300-1301.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_322_322" id="Footnote_322_322"></a><a href="#FNanchor_322_322"><span class="label">[322]</span></a></span> -1 Ibid. 1316-1317.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_323_323" id="Footnote_323_323"></a><a href="#FNanchor_323_323"><span class="label">[323]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1361-1363.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_324_324" id="Footnote_324_324"></a><a href="#FNanchor_324_324"><span class="label">[324]</span></a></span> -1 Ibid. 1366-1371.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_325_325" id="Footnote_325_325"></a><a href="#FNanchor_325_325"><span class="label">[325]</span></a></span> -1 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1487-1488.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_326_326" id="Footnote_326_326"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326_326"><span class="label">[326]</span></a></span> -1 Hallam, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 508, 509.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_327_327" id="Footnote_327_327"></a><a href="#FNanchor_327_327"><span class="label">[327]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 6.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_328_328" id="Footnote_328_328"></a><a href="#FNanchor_328_328"><span class="label">[328]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 33.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_329_329" id="Footnote_329_329"></a><a href="#FNanchor_329_329"><span class="label">[329]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 35-37.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_330_330" id="Footnote_330_330"></a><a href="#FNanchor_330_330"><span class="label">[330]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 49, 50.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_331_331" id="Footnote_331_331"></a><a href="#FNanchor_331_331"><span class="label">[331]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 56.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_332_332" id="Footnote_332_332"></a><a href="#FNanchor_332_332"><span class="label">[332]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 100, 101.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_333_333" id="Footnote_333_333"></a><a href="#FNanchor_333_333"><span class="label">[333]</span></a></span> -Arbitrary imprisonment led to the suspension of the right -to secure a writ of <i>habeas corpus</i>, by direct command and peculiar -power of the king. <i>Vid.</i> Darnel’s Case in Taswell-Langmead, -<i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 425, 426.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_334_334" id="Footnote_334_334"></a><a href="#FNanchor_334_334"><span class="label">[334]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 207, 208.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_335_335" id="Footnote_335_335"></a><a href="#FNanchor_335_335"><span class="label">[335]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 213.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_336_336" id="Footnote_336_336"></a><a href="#FNanchor_336_336"><span class="label">[336]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 221.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_337_337" id="Footnote_337_337"></a><a href="#FNanchor_337_337"><span class="label">[337]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 230.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_338_338" id="Footnote_338_338"></a><a href="#FNanchor_338_338"><span class="label">[338]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 259-260.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_339_339" id="Footnote_339_339"></a><a href="#FNanchor_339_339"><span class="label">[339]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 274, 277, 278.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_340_340" id="Footnote_340_340"></a><a href="#FNanchor_340_340"><span class="label">[340]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 355.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_341_341" id="Footnote_341_341"></a><a href="#FNanchor_341_341"><span class="label">[341]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 377.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_342_342" id="Footnote_342_342"></a><a href="#FNanchor_342_342"><span class="label">[342]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 409, 410. -The sections which concern taxation:—</p> -<p class="pfc4">Humbly show unto our Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords -Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled, -that whereas it is declared and enacted by a statute -made in the reign of King Edward the First, commonly -called, <i>Statutum de tallagio non concedendo</i>, that no tallage -or aid shall be laid or levied by the king or his heirs in this -realm, without the good-will and assent of the Archbishops, -Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights, Burgesses, and other freemen -of the commonalty of this realm; and by authority of -Parliament holden in the five and twentieth year of the reign -of King Edward the Third, it is declared and enacted, that -from thenceforth no person shall be compelled to make any -loans to the king against his will, because such loans were -against reason and the franchise of the land; and by other -laws of this realm it is provided, that none should be charged -by any charge or imposition, called a Benevolence, nor by -such like charge, by which the statutes before mentioned, -and the other the good laws and statutes of this realm, your -subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not -be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other -like charge, not set by common consent in Parliament:</p> -<p class="pfc4">Yet nevertheless, of late divers commissions directed to -sundry commissioners in several counties with instructions -have issued, by pretext whereof your people have been in divers -places assembled, and required to lend certain sums of money -unto your Majesty, and many of them upon their refusal so -to do, have had an unlawful oath administered unto them, -not warrantable by the laws and statutes of this realm, and -have been constrained to become bound to make appearance -and give attendance before your Privy Council, and in other -places; and others of them have been therefore imprisoned, -confined, and sundry other ways molested and disquieted: -and divers other charges have been laid and levied upon -your people in several counties, by Lords Lieutenants, Deputy -Lieutenants, Commissioners for Musters, Justices of the Peace -and others, by command or direction from your Majesty or -your privy Council, against the laws and free customs of -this realm....</p> -<p class="pfc4">And whereas of late great companies of soldiers and marines -have been dispersed into divers counties of the realm, and -the inhabitants against their wills have been compelled to -receive them into their houses, and there to suffer them to -sojourn, against the laws and customs of the realm, and to -the great grievance and vexation of the people....</p> -<p class="pfc4">They do therefore humbly pray your most Excellent Majesty, -that no man hereafter be compelled to make or yield -any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge, without -common consent by Act of Parliament; and that none be -called to make answer, or take such oath, or to give attendance, -or be confined, or otherwise molested or disquieted -concerning the same, or for refusal thereof; ... and that -your Majesty will be pleased to remove the said soldiers and -marines, and that your people may not be burdened in time -to come. 2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 374-6. The Petition of Right may -also be found in S. R. Gardiner, <i>Constitutional Documents -of the Puritan Revolution, 1625-1660</i>, 66-70; Adams and -Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 339-342. Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. -Hist.</i> 430-433.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_343_343" id="Footnote_343_343"></a><a href="#FNanchor_343_343"><span class="label">[343]</span></a></span> -Gardiner, <i>Const. Doc.</i> 66, note 2.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_344_344" id="Footnote_344_344"></a><a href="#FNanchor_344_344"><span class="label">[344]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 432.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_345_345" id="Footnote_345_345"></a><a href="#FNanchor_345_345"><span class="label">[345]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 433-434.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_346_346" id="Footnote_346_346"></a><a href="#FNanchor_346_346"><span class="label">[346]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 442, 443.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_347_347" id="Footnote_347_347"></a><a href="#FNanchor_347_347"><span class="label">[347]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 449, 453.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_348_348" id="Footnote_348_348"></a><a href="#FNanchor_348_348"><span class="label">[348]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 454.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_349_349" id="Footnote_349_349"></a><a href="#FNanchor_349_349"><span class="label">[349]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 482.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_350_350" id="Footnote_350_350"></a><a href="#FNanchor_350_350"><span class="label">[350]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 457, 491.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_351_351" id="Footnote_351_351"></a><a href="#FNanchor_351_351"><span class="label">[351]</span></a></span> -Gardiner, <i>Const. Doc.</i> 82, 83; 2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 491.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_352_352" id="Footnote_352_352"></a><a href="#FNanchor_352_352"><span class="label">[352]</span></a></span> -“The king’s declaration of the causes of the late dissolution.” -Gardiner, <i>Const. Doc.</i> 83-99; 2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 492-504.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_353_353" id="Footnote_353_353"></a><a href="#FNanchor_353_353"><span class="label">[353]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 525.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_354_354" id="Footnote_354_354"></a><a href="#FNanchor_354_354"><span class="label">[354]</span></a></span> -2 Hallam, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 15.</p> -<p class="pfc4">The “parchments in the Tower” might readily have included -the following, which exhibits an historical precedent -for the ship money:</p> -<p class="pfc4">“1008. Rex Anglorum Aegelredus de ccc. x. cassatis -unam trierem, de novem vero loricam et cassidem fieri, et -per totam Angliam naves intente praecipit fabricari.” 1 Florentii -Wigorniensis Monachi, <i>Chronicon ex Chronicis</i>, 160.</p> -<p class="pfc4">1 Freeman, <i>Norman Conquest</i>, 647, note LL., cites 3 <i>Codex -Diplomaticus</i>, 351, to show that before 1008 a levy of -ships was not unknown. Archbishops Aelfric upon his death -gave to the people of Wiltshire and Kent a ship. Wiltshire -is an inland county. It is justifiable, then, to believe that “per -totam Angliam” may be taken literally, and that Ethelred -really exacted a ship from every 310 hides throughout England.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_355_355" id="Footnote_355_355"></a><a href="#FNanchor_355_355"><span class="label">[355]</span></a></span> -Gardiner, <i>Const. Doc.</i> 105-108.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_356_356" id="Footnote_356_356"></a><a href="#FNanchor_356_356"><span class="label">[356]</span></a></span> -Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 443; Trevelyan, -<i>England Under the Stuarts</i>, 163.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_357_357" id="Footnote_357_357"></a><a href="#FNanchor_357_357"><span class="label">[357]</span></a></span> -Clarendon, <i>History of the Rebellion</i>, i, 136.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_358_358" id="Footnote_358_358"></a><a href="#FNanchor_358_358"><span class="label">[358]</span></a></span> -Gardiner, <i>Const. Doc.</i> 108, note 2.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_359_359" id="Footnote_359_359"></a><a href="#FNanchor_359_359"><span class="label">[359]</span></a></span> -Gardiner, <i>Const. Doc.</i> 108, 109.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_360_360" id="Footnote_360_360"></a><a href="#FNanchor_360_360"><span class="label">[360]</span></a></span> -2 Hallam, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 23.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_361_361" id="Footnote_361_361"></a><a href="#FNanchor_361_361"><span class="label">[361]</span></a></span> -Mr. St. John did not enter into a consideration of the -legality of the modern impositions of the outports, levied by -authority of the Crown.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_362_362" id="Footnote_362_362"></a><a href="#FNanchor_362_362"><span class="label">[362]</span></a></span> -The digest of the argument here given is based upon -that of Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 446, 447, who -follows closely 2 Hallam, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 23-27. Extracts -from St. John’s speech are given in Gardiner, <i>Const. Doc.</i> -109-115.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_363_363" id="Footnote_363_363"></a><a href="#FNanchor_363_363"><span class="label">[363]</span></a></span> -Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 448. 2 Hallam, -<i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 30.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_364_364" id="Footnote_364_364"></a><a href="#FNanchor_364_364"><span class="label">[364]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 532, 533.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_365_365" id="Footnote_365_365"></a><a href="#FNanchor_365_365"><span class="label">[365]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 561, 562.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_366_366" id="Footnote_366_366"></a><a href="#FNanchor_366_366"><span class="label">[366]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 362, 363.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_367_367" id="Footnote_367_367"></a><a href="#FNanchor_367_367"><span class="label">[367]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 568.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_368_368" id="Footnote_368_368"></a><a href="#FNanchor_368_368"><span class="label">[368]</span></a></span> -2 Ibid. 570, 571.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_369_369" id="Footnote_369_369"></a><a href="#FNanchor_369_369"><span class="label">[369]</span></a></span> -2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 582, 584.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_370_370" id="Footnote_370_370"></a><a href="#FNanchor_370_370"><span class="label">[370]</span></a></span> -See the list of members in 2 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 597-629.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_371_371" id="Footnote_371_371"></a><a href="#FNanchor_371_371"><span class="label">[371]</span></a></span> -Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 455, quoting 1 Clarendon, -<i>Hist.</i> 171.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_372_372" id="Footnote_372_372"></a><a href="#FNanchor_372_372"><span class="label">[372]</span></a></span> -The time was from 25th May, to 15th July, 1641.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_373_373" id="Footnote_373_373"></a><a href="#FNanchor_373_373"><span class="label">[373]</span></a></span> -The Act is given in Gardiner, <i>Const. Doc.</i> 88-91.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_374_374" id="Footnote_374_374"></a><a href="#FNanchor_374_374"><span class="label">[374]</span></a></span> -The Act is given in Gardiner, <i>Const. Doc.</i> 115.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_375_375" id="Footnote_375_375"></a><a href="#FNanchor_375_375"><span class="label">[375]</span></a></span> -By subsequent statutes, an end was put to purveyance, -distraint of knighthood, and forest extension. Parliament -then came forward with a grant of six subsidies and a poll tax -equivalent to six subsidies more.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_376_376" id="Footnote_376_376"></a><a href="#FNanchor_376_376"><span class="label">[376]</span></a></span> -2 Hallam, <i>Const. Hist. Eng.</i> 138, 139.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_377_377" id="Footnote_377_377"></a><a href="#FNanchor_377_377"><span class="label">[377]</span></a></span> -Gardiner, <i>Const. Doc.</i> 127-155.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_378_378" id="Footnote_378_378"></a><a href="#FNanchor_378_378"><span class="label">[378]</span></a></span> -For further details see Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. -Hist.</i> 483, 484; and 2 Dowell, <i>Taxation and Taxes</i>, 8 et seq.</p> - -<p class="pfn4"><span class="ln1"><a name="Footnote_379_379" id="Footnote_379_379"></a><a href="#FNanchor_379_379"><span class="label">[379]</span></a></span> -The text is in Taswell-Langmead, <i>Eng. Const. Hist.</i> 512-518 -and in Adams and Stephens, <i>Sel. Doc.</i> 462-469.</p> -</div> -</div> - -<p> </p> -<hr class="chap" /> -<p> </p> - -<div class="chapter"> -<div class="transnote p4"> -<p class="pc large">TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE:</p> -<p class="ptn">—Obvious errors were corrected without note.</p> -</div> -</div> - -</div> - -<p> </p> -<hr class="full" /> -<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF PARLIAMENTARY TAXATION IN ENGLAND***</p> -<p>******* This file should be named 53189-h.htm or 53189-h.zip *******</p> -<p>This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:<br /> -<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/3/1/8/53189">http://www.gutenberg.org/5/3/1/8/53189</a></p> -<p> -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed.</p> - -<p>Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. -</p> - -<h2>START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<br /> -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</h2> - -<p>To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license.</p> - -<h3>Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works</h3> - -<p>1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8.</p> - -<p>1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.</p> - -<p>1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others.</p> - -<p>1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States.</p> - -<p>1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:</p> - -<p>1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed:</p> - -<blockquote><p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United - States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost - no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use - it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with - this eBook or online - at <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this - ebook.</p></blockquote> - -<p>1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p> - -<p>1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work.</p> - -<p>1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.</p> - -<p>1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License.</p> - -<p>1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.</p> - -<p>1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p> - -<p>1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that</p> - -<ul> -<li>You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation."</li> - -<li>You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works.</li> - -<li>You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work.</li> - -<li>You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.</li> -</ul> - -<p>1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.</p> - -<p>1.F.</p> - -<p>1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment.</p> - -<p>1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE.</p> - -<p>1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem.</p> - -<p>1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.</p> - -<p>1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions.</p> - -<p>1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. </p> - -<h3>Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm</h3> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life.</p> - -<p>Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org.</p> - -<h3>Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation</h3> - -<p>The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.</p> - -<p>The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact</p> - -<p>For additional contact information:</p> - -<p> Dr. Gregory B. Newby<br /> - Chief Executive and Director<br /> - gbnewby@pglaf.org</p> - -<h3>Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation</h3> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS.</p> - -<p>The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/donate">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>.</p> - -<p>While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate.</p> - -<p>International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.</p> - -<p>Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate</p> - -<h3>Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.</h3> - -<p>Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support.</p> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition.</p> - -<p>Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org</p> - -<p>This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.</p> - -</body> -</html> - |