THE FOUNDERS OF CHARLES CHURCH. 
103 
Michael's Terrace — then called Maye's Cross — thence up the North 
Road — then Jowler's or Jolter's Lane — to the Tavistock Road, and 
out that road to the parish of Egg Buckland, just beyond the Hart- 
ley Reservoir ; thence again to the sea or Lipson Bay, and round 
again by the sea-shore, including all Cattedown, to the Old Pump 
again, so that all the Tything of Compton Gilford was added, and 
all Charles Town. 
It is not a little singular that the last clause of the Act providing 
that the new church to be built shall be called Charles Church, is 
a provision for settling the right of the Commonalty to nominate 
and maintain at their own charges any lecturer or lecturers, or 
preaching minister in holy orders, to preach the word of God to 
the inhabitants in the now present Church of St. Andrew. 
I have endeavoured to give a consecutive account of the events 
relating to Charles Church, but it must always be remembered that 
the political period between 1626 and 1640 was one of the wildest 
turmoil. The hated Star Chamber, insulting and defying the time- 
honoured courts of law, under the presidency of servient judges, 
was so pursuing its work that it is said by Clarendon there was 
hardly a man of note in the kingdom who had not personal ex- 
perience of its harshness and greediness. On the 6th February, 
1626, King Charles I. met his second Parliament, which, after 
sitting for four months, achieved the memorable feat of dissolution, 
on June 15th, without having passed a single act. And now the 
king resorted to all sorts of expedients to raise revenue without the 
consent of the representatives of the people. Twelve years elapsed 
without the Commons being called together at all. In 1637 John 
Hampden had boldly resisted payment of the twenty shillings 
levied on him for ship money. He was tried before the Court of 
Exchequer, and, after a long and anxious trial, sentence was given 
against him by seven out of the twelve Barons of that Court. En- 
couraged by this decision the king tried force, and the people 
prepared for resistance. The whole country was in a turmoil, and 
no halfway measures were possible ; the king was right, or the 
king was wrong. At last, on the 13th April, 1640, the king again 
resorted to the constitutional procedure, and Parliament was again 
summoned. But the result was disastrous; the lines of divergence 
were become too sharp ; nothing could be done, and on the 5th of 
May, just three short weeks, Parliament was again dissolved. 
Plymouth electors had, however, taken — singularly enough, con- 
g 2 
