In the Short Parliament of 1640 Hampden stood forth amongst the leaders. During the eventful months which followed, when Stratford was striving in vain to force England, in spite of its visible reluctance, to support the king in his Scottish war, rumour has much to tell of Hampden’s activity in rousing opposition. It is likely enough that the rumour is in the main true, but we are not possessed of any satisfactory evidence on the subject.
In the Long Parliament, though Hampden was by no means a frequent speaker, it is possible to trace his course with sufficient distinctness. Unwearied in attendance upon committees, he was in all things ready to second Pym, whom he plainly regarded as his leader. In the earlier proceedings of the Commons there was practically unanimity in the House, though a difference afterwards arose as to the form in which the attack upon Strafford should be conducted. All were agreed in desiring that the constitu- tion shoul: rest upon a combination between the king and the two Housgs, and that legal questions in which the king was concerned should be decided only by the judges of the ordinary courts.
There was another point on which there was no agrec- ment. A large minority wished to retain Episcopacy, and to keep the Common Prayer Book unaltered, whiist the majority were at least willing to consider the question of abolishing the one and modifying the other. On this sub- ject the parties which ultimately divided the House and the country itself were fully formed as early as February 8, 1641. The details of the contest between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism will be more fitly told in connexion with the life of Pym. It is enough to say that Hampden fully shared in the counsels of the opponents of Episcopacy. It is not that he was a theoretical Presbyterian, but the bishops had been in his days so fully engaged in the imposition of obnoxious ceremonies that it was difficult if not impossible to dissociate them from the cause in which they were embarked. Closely connected with Hampden’s distrust of the bishops was his distrust of monarchy as it then existe]. The dispute about the church therefore soon attained the form of an attack upon monarchy, and, when the majority of the House of Lords arrayed itself on the side of Episcopacy and the Prayer Book, of an attack upon the House of Lords as well.
No serious importance therefore can be attached to the offers of advancement made from time to time to Hampden and his friends, Charles would gladly have given them office if they had been ready to desert their principles, Every day Hampden’s conviction grew stronger that Charles would never abandon the position which he had taken up. He was therefore a warm supporter of the Grand Remon- strance, and was chosen out to be one of the five impeached members whose attempted arrest brought at last the op- posing parties into open collision. In the angry scene which arose on the proposal to print the Grand Remon- strance it was Hampden’s personal intervention which prevented an actual conflict, and it was after the impeach- ment had been attempted that Hampden laid down the two conditions under which resistance to the king became the duty of a good subject. Those conditions were an attack upon religion, and an attack upon the fundamental laws, There can be no doubt that Hampden fully believed that both those conditions were fulfilled at the opening of 1642.
When the civil war began Hampden levied a regiment of Buckinghamshire men for the parliamentary cause. In the earlier operations of the war, and in the undecided fight of Edgehill, he bore himself gallantly and well. But it is not on his skill asa regimental officer that Hampden’s fame rests. In war as in peace his distinction lay in his power of disentangling the essential part from the non-essential. In the previous constitutional struggle he had seen that the one thing necessary was to establish the supremacy of the House of Commons. Jn the military struggle which followed he saw, as Cromwell saw afterwards, that the one thing necessary was to beat the enemy. He protested at once against Essex’s hesitations and compromises. In the formation of the confederacy of the six associated counties, which was to supply a basis for Cromwell’s operations, he tvok an active part. His influence was felt alike in parlia- ment and in the field. But he was not iu supreme com- mand, and he had none of that impatience which often leads able men to fail in the execution of orders of which they disapprove. His precious life was a sacrifice to his unselfish devotion to the call of discipline and duty. On June 18, 1643, when he was holding out on Chalgrove Field against the superior numbers of Rupert till reinforce- ments arrived, he received two carbine balls in the shoulder. Leaving the field he reached Thame, and after nearly six days he died on the 24th praying for his country and his king.
(s. r. g.)
