John Hampden was the head and representative of an ancient and opulent family, which had received the lands of Hampden in Buckinghamshire from Edward the Confessor, and boasted to have transmitted its wealth, honours, and influence, unimpaired and increasing, in direct male succession, down to this the most illustrious of the house. The date of his birth is 1594; the place of it is generally believed to have been London. Under four years of age, he came, by the death of his father, into possession of the family estates, which, besides the ancient seat and extensive domain in Buckinghamshire, comprehended large possessions in Essex, Oxfordshire, and Berkshire. Our knowledge of his early life may be summed in a few facts and dates. He was brought up at the free-school of Thame, in Oxfordshire; entered as a commoner at Magdalen College, Oxford, in 1609; and was admitted student of the Inner Temple in 1613, where he made considerable progress in the knowledge of common law. His classical attainments also seem to have been respectable, since he was associated, oddly enough, with Laud, then Master of St. John’s, in writing the Oxford gratulatory poems on the marriage of the Elector Palatine and the Princess Elizabeth; from which sprung Prince Rupert, who led the Royalist troops when Hampden received his death-wound. In 1619, he married his first wife Elizabeth Symeon. Inheriting a noble property, he devoted himself, without suffering his literary habits to fall into desuetude, principally to the business and amusements of a country life, having, says Lord Clarendon, “on a sudden retired from a life of great pleasure and licence, to extraordinary sobriety and strictness, and yet retained his usual cheerfulness and affability.” His first entrance into public life was in January, 1620–1, when he took his seat in the Parliament then convened, for Grampound, at that time a borough of wealth and importance: a prevalent error, that he sat for the first time in the first Parliament summoned by Charles I. in 1625, is corrected by Lord Nugent, who in his Memorials of Hampden has shown that he sat in the Parliaments of 1621 and 1624; that he was active and diligent in his attendance, and intimately connected himself with Selden, Pym, St. John, and other leaders of the popular party; and that, though he seldom spoke, his capacity for business was known and respected, as appears from the employments in committees and conferences, imposed on him by the House.

In the first Parliament of Charles I., Hampden sat for Wendover, an ancient borough of Buckinghamshire, which with two others had lately regained their dormant privilege of returning members, chiefly by his exertions, and at his expense. In this and in the following Parliament, summoned in February, 1627, Hampden still appears to have taken no leading part. After the dissolution of the latter, he was called upon to contribute to a general loan, which he refused, and was in consequence imprisoned for a time in the Gate House, and then sent still under restraint to reside in Hampshire. The order for his release, with many others, is dated March, 1627–8. On this occasion, he made the remarkable reply to the demand, why he would not contribute to the king’s necessities, that “he could be content to lend as well as others, but feared to draw upon himself that curse in Magna Charta, which should be read twice a year against those who infringe it.”

In the new Parliament which met in March, 1628, Hampden again sat for Wendover, and having become more generally known by the part which he had taken in resisting the demands of the crown, from this time forward, says Lord Nugent, “scarcely was a bill prepared, or an inquiry begun, upon any subject, however remotely affecting any one of the three great matters at issue—privilege, religion, or the supplies—but he was thought fit to be associated with St. John, Selden, Coke and Pym, on the committee.”

That Parliament, after framing the Petition of Right, voting supplies, and taking resolute steps towards procuring a redress of grievances, was hastily and angrily dissolved in May, 1629. Previous to this, Hampden, “although retaining his seat for Wendover, had retired to his estate in Buckinghamshire, to live in entire privacy, without display, but not inactive; contemplating from a distance, the madness of the Government, the luxury and insolence of the courtiers, and the portentous apathy of the people, who, amazed by the late measures, and by the prospect of uninterruptedly increasing violence, saw no hope from petition or complaint, and watched, in confusion and silence, the inevitable advance of an open rupture between the King and the Parliament. The literary acquirements of his youth he now carefully improved; increasing that stock of general knowledge which had already gained him the reputation of being one of the most learned and accomplished men of his age: and directing his attention chiefly to writers on history and politics. Davila’s History of the Civil Wars of France became his favourite study, his vade mecum, as Sir Philip Warwick styles it; as if forecasting from afar the course of the storm which hung over his own country, he already saw the sad parallel it was likely to afford to the story of that work. In his retirement, he bent the whole force of his capacious mind to the most effectual means by which the abuses of ecclesiastical authority were to be corrected, and the tide of headlong prerogative checked, whenever the slumbering spirit of the country should be roused to deal with those duties to which he was preparing to devote himself.” (Memorials of Hampden, p. 175.) It may here be added that Hampden’s religious opinions were those of the Independent party, who were honourably distinguished, no less from the Presbyterians than the Episcopalians, by granting to all persons that freedom of conscience and full toleration which they claimed for themselves. While thus awaiting, with study and patient observation, the time when the active service of a real patriot might benefit his country, his domestic happiness received a severe blow by the death of his wife, Aug. 20, 1634.

In the same autumn the scheme of raising a revenue by ship-money was devised. Confined in the first instance to seaport towns, it proved so profitable that the levy was soon extended to inland places. In 1636, the charge was laid, by order of council, upon all counties, cities, and corporate towns, and the sheriffs were required, in case of refusal or delay, to proceed by distress. Here Hampden resolved to make a stand. The sum demanded of him was but thirty-one shillings and sixpence; but the very smallness of the sum served to show that his opposition was directed against the principle of the exaction, and rested on no ground of personal inconvenience, or individual injustice. Proceedings being instituted in the Exchequer for recovery of the money, the case was solemnly argued before the twelve judges, who severally delivered their opinions, and by a majority of eight to four, determined in favour of the crown. “But the judgment,” says Lord Clarendon, “infinitely more advanced him, Mr. Hampden, than the service for which it was given. He was rather of reputation in his own country, than of public discourse, or fame in the kingdom, before the business of ship-money: but then he grew the argument of all tongues, every man inquiring who or what he was, that durst, at his own charge, support the liberty and property of the country, as he thought, from being made a prey to the court. His carriage, throughout this agitation, was with that rare temper and modesty, that they who watched him narrowly to find some advantage against his person, to make him less resolute in his cause, were compelled to give him a just testimony.”

These measures, which placed at the king’s disposal the property, were accompanied by equally stringent attacks on the liberties of the country. Tutored by the lofty spirit of Wentworth, Charles resolved, and seemed likely to succeed, to rule independently of Parliaments: and in the sycophancy of the judges, and the unlimited and illegal severities of the courts of the Star-Chamber and High Commission, he had ample means of suppressing murmur, and punishing the refractory. We need not dwell upon the state to which the country was reduced, during the eleven years which elapsed without the meeting of a Parliament: so unpromising did it appear, that even the most resolute of that party comprehended by the Royalists under the general name of Puritans, meditated a withdrawal from the tyranny which they had almost ceased to hope to restrain. Even this however was denied to them by the infatuated jealousy of popular principles entertained by the king and his advisers, who issued an order, April 6, 1638, by which masters of ships were prohibited to carry passengers to America, without special licence. It has often been dwelt on as a very remarkable circumstance, that Hampden, and his cousin Oliver Cromwell, were at this time actually embarked for New England on board one of eight ships then lying in the river and freighted with emigrants, and that these eight ships were specially ordered to be detained.

A dawn of better times appeared, when in consequence of the king’s rash attempt to impose the English ritual upon Scotland, and restore Episcopacy, that country rose in rebellion. The expenses of the war rendered it imperative to obtain supplies; and Charles, fearing at this juncture to resort to fresh impositions, saw no resource except in summoning that which is commonly called the Short Parliament, which met in April, 1640. Hampden was returned for Buckinghamshire. About this time he had married his second wife, Letitia Vachell, but the quiet happiness of his home was henceforth entirely broken up by the disturbances of the times, and he never returned to any settled residence at his paternal mansion. In the short and energetic session of this spring he displayed his usual diligence and activity; and his influence was much increased in consequence of his resistance to the demand of ship-money, which had attracted such notice, that Clarendon, in speaking of the opening of the Long Parliament in November following, observes, “the eyes of all men were fixed upon him as their Pater PatriÆ, and the pilot that must steer the vessel through the tempests and rocks which threatened it. And I am persuaded his power and interest, at that time, was greater to do good or hurt, than any man in the kingdom, or than any man of his rank hath held in any time: for his reputation of honesty was universal, and his affections seemed so publicly guided, that no corrupt or private ends could bias them.”

The causes of the dissolution of the Short Parliament, and the history of the second Scottish war which compelled Charles I. to summon the Long Parliament, hardly form a part of our subject: it is to be observed however that during the summer and autumn, Hampden, with other leading persons of the popular party, was engaged in active correspondence with the leaders of the Scottish insurrection, in whose success, as tending to the further embarrassment of the king, they placed their best hope of obtaining security for the maintenance of the liberties and privileges of the English people. Of the first great act of that Parliament, the impeachment of Strafford, he was a zealous supporter, and a member of the committee of twelve appointed to arrange the evidence, and to conduct that memorable trial. After the Commons, for reasons which have never been satisfactorily explained, thought fit to change the method of proceeding by introducing a bill of attainder, the name of Hampden appears in none of the records: and it is probable that he abstained from taking any part in the business. It is important to keep this in mind, because the censure, which has justly been cast upon the proceedings of the House of Commons against Lord Strafford, applies solely to the attainder, not to the impeachment. To the question, why, if Hampden disapproved of the attainder, he did not as resolutely oppose it as he had supported the impeachment, the following hypothetical answer is supplied by Lord Nugent. “In a case doubtful to him only as matter of precedent; but clear to him in respect of the guilt of the accused person; in a case in which the accused person, in his estimation, deserved death, and in which all law, except that of the sceptre and the sword, was at an end if he had escaped it; when all the ordinary protection of law to the subject throughout the country was suspended, and suspended mainly by the counsels of Strafford himself, Hampden was not prepared to heroically immolate the liberties of England in order to save the life of him who would have destroyed them. Hampden probably considered the bill which took away Strafford’s life (and indeed it must in fairness be so considered) as a revolutionary act undertaken for the defence of the Commonwealth.”

He was an active supporter of two important measures which occupied the Parliament simultaneously with Strafford’s impeachment, the Triennial Bill, for securing the convocation of Parliaments, and the bill for excluding bishops from the House of Lords. After the rejection of the latter, he adopted the views of that more violent party who urged the necessity of abolishing episcopacy altogether. But, notwithstanding his recognised position as a leader of his party, and his known weight in determining the line of conduct to be pursued by it, he was not a frequent speaker, and his name therefore occurs less frequently than would be expected in the records of this eventful period. “His practice was usually to reserve himself until near the close of a debate; and then, having watched its progress, to endeavour to moderate the redundancies of his friends, to weaken the impression produced by its opponents, to confirm the timid, and to reconcile the reluctant. And this he did, according to the testimony of his opponents themselves, with a modesty, gentleness, and apparent diffidence in his own judgment, which generally brought men round to his conclusions.”—(Memorials of Hampden, ii. 47.) He was one of the five members accused of treason, and demanded personally by Charles in the House of Commons, January 6, 1642; “and from this time,” says Clarendon, “his nature and carriage seemed much fiercer than it did before.” Unquestionably that ill-advised step was not likely to conciliate those whose life was aimed at, but it is also clear that before that event, the party, with whom he acted, were preparing for a struggle more serious than that in which they were as yet engaged. A Committee of Public Safety was formed, of which Hampden was a member, the power of the sword was claimed by the Ordinance of Militia, the king on his part issued his Commission of Array, and at last raised his standard at Nottingham, August 22.

In the military events of the first year of the war, Hampden took an active, but subordinate share, as colonel of a regiment of infantry, which he himself raised in Buckinghamshire. Nor did he intermit, as the exigencies of war allowed him, to continue his attendance in Parliament, and to urge there that decisive course of action, which he knew to be necessary to the success of the cause, and laboured in vain to recommend to the Parliamentary general. At the battle of Brentford, his troops, and those of Lord Brook, in support of the London regiment under Hollis, bore the brunt of the day against superior numbers, until the army arrived from London in the evening: and on this occasion (as before at Edge Hill, where he arrived too late to take part in the fight,) he in vain urged Essex to convert, by a decisive forward movement, the doubtful issue of the day into victory. During the winter months, while the king held his court at Oxford, and a Parliamentary army lay between London and that city, Hampden’s regiment was quartered in Buckinghamshire, and his own time was divided between the seat of war and the House of Commons.

To this period also, is to be referred the association of six midland counties for the purposes of the war, Bedford, Buckingham, Hertford, Cambridge, Huntingdon, and Northampton; a step which proved of material service in giving strength and union to the Parliamentary cause, and which probably would not have been carried into operation but for Hampden’s peculiar talent of allaying jealousies, reconciling conflicting interests, and smoothing away the obstacles to any business which he undertook.

From March 1, to April 15, a cessation of arms was agreed on in Oxfordshire and Bucks, while an attempt was made to arrange terms of pacification. The treaty having been broken off, war recommenced with an incessant and generally successful series of predatory incursions, conducted by Prince Rupert, on the Parliamentary outposts, which lay widely dispersed in the intricate country on the borders of Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. In this district, with which his early habits of the chase had made him familiar, Hampden’s regiment was quartered. He had laboured incessantly, but in vain, to promote some great enterprise, which might give lustre to the seemingly declining cause, and confidence to the adherents, of the Parliament. Failing in this, he manifested no less alacrity in performing his duty than if his views and his suggestions had been adopted: indeed it would be consonant to his character to suppose, that a strict sense of what is due to military discipline, and a desire to avoid even the appearance of slighting his commanding officer, led him to still more zealous exertions. It was in a matter beyond the strict line of his duty that he received his death-wound. On the evening of the 17th of June, Rupert set out from Oxford with about 2000 men, and surprised and burnt two villages, Postcombe and Chinnor, which were occupied by the Parliamentary troops. When the alarm reached Hampden, he instantly set out at the head of a small body of cavalry, which volunteered to follow him, in hopes of being able to delay the Royalists sufficiently to enable Essex to occupy the passes of the Cherwell, and cut them off from Oxford. Strengthened by the accession of four troops of horse, he overtook Prince Rupert, who drew up to receive the attack on Chalgrove-field. Early in the action Hampden received two bullets in the shoulder, which shattered the bone, and in an agony of pain he rode off the field; “a thing,” says Clarendon, “he never used to do, and from which it was concluded he was hurt.” Two others of the chief Parliamentary officers present were killed or taken, and the Royalists made good their retreat. Hampden expired at Thame, after six days severe suffering. His last words are thus given from a contemporary publication. “O Lord God of Hosts, great is thy mercy, just and holy are thy dealings unto us sinful men. Save me, O Lord, if it be thy good will, from the jaws of death. Pardon my manifold transgressions, O Lord, save my bleeding country. Have these realms in thy especial keeping. Confound and level in the dust those who would rob the people of their liberty and lawful prerogative. Let the king see his error, and turn the hearts of his wicked counsellors from the malice and wickedness of their designs. Lord Jesu, receive my soul!” He then mournfully uttered, “O Lord, save my country—O Lord, be merciful to” ... and here his speech failed him. He fell back in the bed, and expired.

His death, according to Sir Philip Warwick, was regretted even by the king, “who looked on his interest, if he could gain his affections, as a powerful means of begetting a right understanding between him and the two Houses.” To his own party it was irreparable. It removed the fittest person for the chief command of their troops, which it is not unreasonable to suppose would, upon the removal of Essex, have been vested in him; deprived them of a leader and adviser, who, of all, was the most likely to have confined his wishes to the establishment of a secure peace, on the basis of a strictly limited monarchy; and opened way to the ambition of Cromwell, which probably would never have been developed if Hampden had lived to direct the counsels of the Parliament.

We have already given a portion of Clarendon’s character of Hampden; for the rest of that celebrated passage, we must refer to the History of the Rebellion, book vii. It describes a man of rare virtues, though the political bias of the noble author has thrown a dark colouring over the whole. The latest, and we believe the most elaborate account of this eminent patriot, is that of Lord Nugent, from which the greater part of our memoir is derived. But the memoirs and pamphlets of the time must be intimately studied by those who wish for full information concerning Hampden’s parliamentary life.