The Royalty In Morass-the Ship Money Case And Its Controversial Issues (1637-1641)

In Charles I Eleven Years’ Tyranny(1629-1640), The political structure of "king +parliament" has been broken, Charles I issued several writs collecting ship money and ultimately lead to ship money case regardless of subjects’ protests,. While the development of common law courts’ "specialization" and "professionalization", the king never give up the control of the judiciary; in every critical moment of national construction and transformation, the royal family of England have tried hard to break the "barriers" of the judiciary as an important breakthrough in political governance.The judges make Ship money case’s judgments turned out to be generally disappointed because the majority of judge support the king, the king can collect ship money on the basis of kingship without parliament’s agreement. But on the August 7,1641, A act was passed by parliament declaring the writ collecting ship money illegal,the act condemned the unconventional judicial practice getting advice from judges.The related lawsuits will be revoked, and the act received the king’s assent. before the outbreak of civil war, the parliament win the parliamentary victory on tax issues. Ship money case reflects debating of "Common-law Mind" in the 17 th century, so that we have a more profound understanding about the theoretical weapon "King Under Law" when the Parliament struggling with Charles I always bears in mind. And after the17 th century theoretical thought are no longer limited to discussion about the existence of "the ancient right of Common-law" before the Norman Conquest andcommitted to abstract philosophical study on the legitimacy of the ruling. Hobbes’ s theory of sovereignty has changed the history of England political thought while "Common-law Mind" declined steadily in the effectiveness of the theory of modern politics. For their own dynastic interests, the king collect all kinds of taxes, sometimes violated the subjects of property rights, but regard it as maintaining public interest.The king has a privilege above the law, whether promoting the freedom of subjects or putting subjects in a non-free state, and this privilege is representing public interest instead of personal interest.