religion, which with so little necessity was introduced into
politics, falling under more fortunate management, was played with the
most terrible success against him.

While the king, instigated by anger and necessity, thus employed the
whole extent of his prerogative, the spirit of the people was far from
being subdued. Throughout England, many refused these loans; some were
even active in encouraging their neighbors to insist upon their common
rights and privileges. By warrant of the council, these were thrown into
prison.[****]

* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419. Franklyn, p. 207.

** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 422. Franklyn, p. 208.

*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 431.

**** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 429. Franklyn, p. 210.

Most of them with patience submitted to confinement, or applied by
petition to the king, who commonly released them. Five gentlemen
alone, Sir Thomas Darnel, Sir John Corbet, Sir Walter Earl, Sir John
Heveningham, and Sir Edmond Hambden, had spirit enough, at their own
hazard and expense, to defend the public liberties, and to demand
releasement, not as a favor from the court, but as their due, by the
laws of their country.[*] No particular cause was assigned of their
commitment. The special command alone of the king and council was
pleaded. And it was asserted, that, by law, this was not sufficient
reason for refusing bail or releasement to the prisoners.

[Illustration: 1-623-hampden.jpg Sir Edmond Hambden]

This question was brought to a solemn trial, before the king's bench;
and the whole kingdom was attentive to the issue of a cause which was of
much greater consequence than the event of many battles.

By the debates on this subject, it appeared, beyond controversy, to the
nation, that their ancestors had been so jealous of personal liberty,
as to secure it against arbitrary power in the crown, by six[**] several
statutes, and by an article[***] of the Great Charter itself, the
most sacred foundation of the laws and constitution. But the kings of
England, who had not been able to prevent the enacting of these laws,
had sufficient authority, when the tide of liberty was spent, to
obstruct their regular execution; and they deemed it superfluous
to attempt the formal repeal of statutes which they found so many
expedients and pretences to elude.

* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 458. Franklyn, p. 224. Whitlocke, p.
8.

** 25 Edw. III. cap. 4. 28 Edw. III. cap, 3. 37 Edw. III.