R v Hampden (1637) 3 State Tr 826 (Ship Money Case)
Royal Prerogative; constitution
(203 words)
Facts
Ship money was a type of tax originating from medieval times. It was historically collected as part of the Royal Prerogative from coastal areas without approval from Parliament. King Charles I wished to extend the collection of the ship money tax to peacetime and to non-coastal areas of England. This plan resulted in fierce resistance from the people of England. Mr Hampden, a wealthy landowner refused to pay, so proceedings were started against him.
Issues
The case concerned whether the monarch could extend the application of ship money to peacetime and non-coastal areas without having the tax approved by Parliament.
Decision/Outcome
In an unusually narrow judgment, the Court found in favour of the Crown. The Court held that the monarch did indeed possess the legal power to impose the ship money tax on the population without Parliament’s approval, even in times of peace and in areas irrelevant for shipping purposes. The Court further state that the monarch had the power to make laws, to decide on peace and war, to be the ultimate appeal authority, to pardon offences and to impose tax without Parliamentary consent – among other rights.
Updated 20 March 2026
This summary accurately describes the historical facts, issues, and outcome of R v Hampden (1637). The case is a foundational constitutional authority and its legal and historical significance has not changed. Readers should note that the decision was subsequently reversed in practical and constitutional terms: Parliament passed the Ship Money Act 1641, which declared the levying of ship money unlawful, and the constitutional settlement following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, consolidated in the Bill of Rights 1689, firmly established that the Crown cannot levy taxes without parliamentary consent. The case is therefore cited today as an example of the pre-constitutional-settlement extent of royal prerogative rather than as a statement of current law. No aspect of the article misstates the decision as it was handed down in 1637.
