Seth Barrett Tillman: The Case of the Ship Money, R v Hampden 3 State Trials 381 (1640), and its relevance today

In The Ship Money Case [R v Hampden 3 State Trials 825 (1637), superseded by Act Declaring the Illegality of Ship-Money, Aug. 7, 1641, 17 Charles I, chapter 14], a bare majority of the judges of the Court of Exchequer Chamber voted for the Crown and against Hampden, the tax payer, who objected to being forced to pay purported taxes absent parliamentary consent.

Seth asks:

100 years from now which will be recognized as the more odious decision? Hampden or Miller? Hampden merely opposed Parliament; Miller opposed a national popular referendum.

Read the whole, brief, thing.

(I’m guessing Hampden wasn’t one of the foreign laws our own Justice Ginsburg had in mind.)

1 thought on “Seth Barrett Tillman: <i>The Case of the Ship Money, R v Hampden 3 State Trials 381 (1640), and its relevance today</i>”

  1. The left couldn’t care less about process, only victory. Look at how they treat the proposition process in CA. If they win, The People have spoken. If they lose, they get their tools in the various branches of government to ignore/toss the result, so they win anyway.

Comments are closed.