confront the whole power of the government, and take on himself
the cost and the risk of disputing the prerogative to which the
King laid claim. The case was argued before the judges in the
Exchequer Chamber. So strong were the arguments against the
pretensions of the crown that, dependent and servile as the
judges were, the majority against Hampden was the smallest
possible. Still there was a majority. The interpreters of the law
had pronounced that one great and productive tax might be imposed
by the royal authority. Wentworth justly observed that it was
impossible to vindicate their judgment except by reasons directly
leading to a conclusion which they had not ventured to draw. If
money might legally be raised without the consent of Parliament
for the support of a fleet, it was not easy to deny that money
might, without consent of Parliament, be legally raised for the
support of an army.

The decision of the judges increased the irritation of the
people. A century earlier, irritation less serious would have
produced a general rising. But discontent did not now so readily
as in an earlier age take the form of rebellion. The nation had
been long steadily advancing in wealth and in civilisation. Since
the great northern Earls took up arms against Elizabeth seventy
years had elapsed; and during those seventy years there had been
no civil war. Never, during the whole existence of the English
nation, had so long a period passed without intestine
hostilities. Men had become accustomed to the pursuits of
peaceful industry, and, exasperated as they were, hesitated long
before they drew the sword.

This was the conjuncture at which the liberties of the nation