attention to his duties in it explain Hampden's increased prominence in the third parliament of Charles I. He was not a frequent speaker, but he was a member of nearly all committees of importance. 'From this time forward 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 supplies but he was thought fit to be associated with St. John, Selden, Coke, and Pym on the committee' (ib. i. 119). In the second session of the same parliament he was specially busy on the different committees appointed to deal with questions of church reform or ecclesiastical abuses (ib. p. 144). In me disorderly scene which closed the parliament of 1629 Hampden took no part himself, but the imprisonment of Eliot for his share in it gave rise to an interesting and characteristic correspondence between the two. From his prison in the Tower Eliot consulted Hampden on all questions of importance, and Hampden was always ready to sympathise with or to assist his imprisoned leader. He watched over the education of his friend's children with affectionate solicitude, and wrote long letters on the advisability of sending Bess to a boarding-school, John to travel, or Richard to serve in the wars (Forster, Eliot, ii. 587, 603). He spoke hopefully of their future (ib. ii. 534), and, perhaps with some premonition of the coming civil wars, urged Eliot that his sons should be husbanded for great affairs and designed betimes for God's own service (ib. ii. 587). Eliot communicated to Hampden the draft of the treatise which he entitled 'The Monarchy of Man.' Hampden in his reply terms it 'a nosegay of exquisite flowers bound with as fine a thread,' but suggests, with the greatest delicacy, that a little more conciseness would improve it (ib. ii. 611, 613, 646). It was to Hampden also that Eliot addressed the last of his letters which has been preserved, telling him of the steady progress of his disease, and the consolation he derived from his spiritual hopes (ib. ii. 719). So few of Hampden's letters exist that the correspondence with Eliot has a special value. His other letters deal mainly with military movements and public business. In these the man himself is revealed. 'We may, perhaps, be fanciful,' remarks Macaulay, 'but it seems to us that every one of them is an admirable illustration of some part of the character of Hampden which Clarendon has drawn.' They exhibit Hampden, moreover, as a man not only 'of good sense and natural good taste, but of literary habits' (Macaulay, Essay on Hampden ; Works).
Among the manuscripts at Port Eliot is a paper in Eliot's writing, headed 'The Grounds of Settling a Plantation in New England,' and endorsed 'For Mr. Hampden.' It was sent to Hampden in December 1629, and was probably connected in some way with the colonial projects of William Fiennes [q. v.], Lord Saye, and the other puritan leaders who had engaged in the recently founded company of Massachusetts Bay (Forster, Eliot, ii. 530, 533). Hampden, though he took a great interest in these colonial schemes, was not himself a member either of the Massachusetts Bay or the Providence Company. Attempts have been made to identify him with a certain 'Mr. John Hampden, a gentleman of London,' mentioned by Winslow as being at Plymouth in 1623, but without confirmatory evidence the similarity of name is insufficient proof (Forster, Life of Hampden, p. 323). on the other hand, Hampden was certainly connected with the foundation of Connecticut. He was one of the twelve persons to whom the Earl of Warwick granted on 19 March 1631-2 a large tract of land in what is now the state of Connecticut, and may be presumed to have borne his share in the cost of the attempt made by the patentees to establish a settlement there (Trumbull, History of Connecticut, i. 495). A popular legend represents him as seeking to emigrate in April 1638, in company with Cromwell and Heselrige, but the story is without foundation (Nugent, i. 254; Neal, Puritans, ii. 287, ed. 1822). It is impossible to suppose that Hampden would have attempted to leave England while the suit about ship-money was still undecided, and the decision of the judges was not given till June 1638 (Rushworth, iii. 599).
The opposition to ship-money, to which Hampden owes his fame in English history, began in 1635. Before that event, says Clarendon, 'he was rather of reputation in his own country than of public discourse or fame in the kingdom, but then he grew the argument of all tongues, every man inquiring who and what he was that durst at his own charge support the liberty and property of the kingdom, and rescue his country from being made a prey to the court' (Rebellion, vii. 82). In that year the second ship-money writ was issued, by which the impost was extended from the maritime to the inland counties, and an opportunity was thus afforded to test the king's right to demand it. A writ addressed to the sheriff of Buckinghamshire, Sir Peter Temple, dated 4 Aug. 1635, directed that officer to raise 4,500l. from that county, being the estimated cost of a ship of 450 tons (the writ is given at length by Rushworth,
