The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 06 (of 11)
Thomas Hobbes · en
And first they called in question such as had either preached or written
in defence of any of those rights, which, belonging to the Crown, they
meant to usurp, and take from the King to themselves: whereupon some few
preachers and writers were imprisoned, or forced to fly. The King not
protecting these, they proceeded to call in question some of the King’s
own actions in his ministers, whereof they imprisoned some, and some
went beyond sea. And whereas certain persons, having endeavoured by
books and sermons to raise sedition, and committed other crimes of high
nature, had therefore been censured by the King’s council in the
Star-chamber, and imprisoned; the Parliament by their own authority, to
try, it seems, how the King and the people would take it, (for their
persons were inconsiderable), ordered their setting at liberty; which
was accordingly done, with great applause of the people, that flocked
about them in London, in manner of a triumph. This being done without
resistance, the King’s right to ship-money—
_B._ Ship-money! what’s that?
_A._ The Kings of England, for the defence of the sea, had power to tax
all the counties of England, whether they were maritime or not, for the
building and furnishing of ships; which tax the King had then lately
found cause to impose, and the Parliament exclaimed against it as an
oppression. And by one of their members that had been taxed but 20_s._
(mark the oppression; a Parliament-man of 500_l._ a year, land-taxed at
20_s._!) they were forced to bring it to a trial at law, he refusing
payment; and he was cast. Again, when all the judges of Westminster were
demanded their opinions concerning the legality of it, of twelve that
there are, it was judged legal by ten; for which though they were not
punished, yet they were affrighted by the Parliament.
_B._ What did the Parliament mean, when they did exclaim against it as
illegal? Did they mean it was against statute-law, or against the
judgments of lawyers given heretofore, which are commonly called
reports; or did they mean it was against equity, which I take to be the
same with the law of nature?