[554] Wilson, in Kennet, ii. 696.
[555] This act (34 H. 8, c. 26) was repealed a few years afterwards. 21 J. 1, c. 10.
[556] Commons' Journals, 466, 472, 481, 486. Sir Henry Wotton at length muttered something in favour of the prerogative of laying impositions, as belonging to hereditary though not to elective princes. Id. 493. This silly argument is only worth notice, as a proof what erroneous notions of government were sometimes imbibed from an intercourse with foreign nations. Dudley Digges and Sandys answered him very properly.
[557] The judges having been called upon by the House of Lords to deliver their opinions on the subject of impositions, previous to the intended conference, requested, by the mouth of Chief Justice Coke, to be excused. This was probably a disappointment to Lord Chancellor Egerton, who had moved to consult them, and proceeded from Coke's dislike to him and to the court. It induced the house to decline the conference. Lords' Journals, 23rd May.
[558] Lords' Journals, May 31; Commons' Journals, 496, 498.
[559] Carte, iv. 23. Neville's memorial above mentioned was read in the house, May 14.
[560] Carte, iv. 19, 20; Bacon, i. 695; C. J. 462.
[561] C. J. 506; Carte, 23. This writer absurdly defends the prerogative of laying impositions on merchandise as part of the law of nations.
[562] It is said that, previously to taking this step, the king sent for the Commons, and tore all their bills before their faces in the banqueting-house at Whitehall. D'Israeli's Character of James, p. 158, on the authority of an unpublished letter.
[563] Carte; Wilson; Camden's Annals of James I. (in Kennet, ii. 643).