to give up the prerogative of ship-money.  Many years before, he had received five subsidies in consideration of his assent to the Petition of Right.  By assenting to that petition, he had given up the right of levying ship-money, if he ever possessed it.  How he had observed the promises made to his third Parliament, all England knew; and it was not strange that the Commons should be somewhat unwilling to buy from him, over and over again, their own ancient and undoubted inheritance.

His message, however, was not unfavourably received.  The Commons were ready to give a large supply; but they were not disposed to give it in exchange for a prerogative of which they altogether denied the existence.  If they acceded to the proposal of the King, they recognised the legality of the writs of ship-money.

Hampden, who was a greater master of parliamentary tactics than any man of his time, saw that this was the prevailing feeling, and availed himself of it with great dexterity.  He moved that the question should be put, “Whether the House would consent to the proposition made by the King, as contained in the message.”  Hyde interfered, and proposed that the question should be divided; that the sense of the House should be taken merely on the point whether there should be a supply or no supply; and that the manner and the amount should be left for subsequent consideration.

The majority of the House was for granting a supply, but against granting it in the manner proposed by the King.  If the House had divided on Hampden’s question, the court would have sustained a defeat; if on Hyde’s, the court would have gained an apparent victory.  Some members called for Hyde’s motion, others, for Hampden’s.  In the midst of the uproar, the secretary of state, Sir Harry Vane, rose and stated that the supply would not be accepted unless it were voted according to the tenor of the message.  Vane was supported by Herbert, the Solicitor-General.  Hyde’s motion was therefore no further pressed, and the debate on the general question was adjourned till the next day.

On the next day the King came down to the House of Lords, and dissolved the Parliament with an angry speech.  His conduct on this occasion has never been defended by any of his apologists.  Clarendon condemns it severely.  “No man,” says he, “could imagine what offence the Commons had given.”  The offence which they had given is plain.  They had, indeed, behaved most temperately and most respectfully.  But they had shown a disposition to redress wrongs and to vindicate the laws; and this was enough to make them hateful to a king whom no law could bind, and whose whole government was one system of wrong.