porary arrest of Hampden and other popular leaders (6 May). With the view of finding some evidence against them, not only their chambers, but even their pockets were searched. A list exists of the papers in Hampden's possession which were thus seized; but, with the exception of the letter of the Bishop of Lincoln, nothing more compromising was found than 'certain confused notes of the parliament business written in several paper books with black lead' (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1640, p. 152; Tanner MSS. lxxxviii. 116).
Hampden's public action during the next few months is obscure. He had now removed to London, and taken lodgings in Gray's Inn Lane, near the house occupied by Pym (Nugent, i. 296). He is mentioned as present at meetings of the opposition leaders, and doubtless took part in the preparation of the petition of the twelve peers (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1640, p. 652). Royalist writers in general charge him with instigating the Scots to invade England.
Did I for this bring in the Scot,
For 'tis no secret new, the plot
Was Saye's and mine together,
are lines Denham puts into Hampden's mouth (Mr. Hampden 's Speech against Peace, The Rump, i. 9). This was one of the charges on which his subsequent impeachment was based, and one of those on which Strafford intended to accuse him and other popular leaders in November 1640 (Gardiner, History of England, ix. 231, x. 130). Evidence is lacking to determine the precise nature of those communications between the English and Scottish leaders which no doubt existed, but there is nothing to prove that they were of a treasonable nature.
In the Long parliament Hampden again represented Buckinghamshire. No man's voice had a greater weight in the councils of the popular party, and yet it is extremely difficult accurately to trace his influence on their policy. Pym was the recognised leader of the party, so far as they recognised a leader at all, and Pym, according to Clarendon, 'in private designings was much governed by Mr. Hampden' (Rebellion, vii. 411). Hampden often intervened with decisive effect in the debates of the House of Commons. Yet while we have elaborate reports of the speeches of other parliamentary leaders, his only survive in a few disjointed sentences jotted down by Verney and D'Ewes. Hampden's speeches were not published, because he never made set speeches. As Clarendon points out, he was not an orator, but a great debater. 'He was not a man of many words, and rarely began the discourse, or made the first entrance upon any business that was assumed; but a very weighty speaker, and, after he had heard a full debate and observed how the house was like to be inclined, took up the argument and shortly and clearly and craftily so stated it that he commonly conducted it to the conclusion he desired; and if he found he could not do that, he never was without the dexterity to divert the debate to another time, and to prevent the determining anything in the negative which might prove inconvenient in the future' (ib. iii. 31). D'Ewes describes him as 'like a subtle fox' striving to divert the house from an inconvenient vote, and speaks of the 'serpentine subtlety' with which he 'put others to move those businesses that he contrived' (Sanford, Studies, pp. 365, 547; Gardiner, x. 77). Equally remarkable was his personal influence. He was distinguished for 'a flowing courtesy to all men.' He had also a way of insinuating his own opinions in conversation while he seemed to be adopting the views of those he was addressing, and 'a wonderful art of governing and leading others into his own principles and inclinations.' But above all Hampden's reputation for integrity and uprightness attracted Falkland and many more to his party. 'When this parliament began,' writes Clarendon, 'the eyes of all men were fixed on him as their Patriæ pater, and the pilot that must steer their vessel through the tempests and rocks that threatened it. And am persuaded his power and interest at that time was greater to do good or hurt than any man of his rank hath had in any time: for his reputation for honesty was universal, and his affections seemed so publicly guided that no corrupt or private ends could bias them.'
In the Long parliament as in the Short parliament ship-money was one of the first subjects to be considered. On 7 Dec. 1640 the commons declared the judgment in Hampden's case 'against the laws of the realm, the right of property, the liberty of subject, and contrary to former resolutions in parliament and to the Petition of Right.' The lords passed a similar vote, and followed it up by ordering on 27 Feb. 1641 that 'the record of the Exchequer of the judgment in Hampden's case be brought into the upper house and cancelled' (Rushworth, iii. 212).
In Strafford's trial Hampden played an active though not a prominent part. He was a member of the preliminary committee of seven appointed on 11 Nov. 1640 to draw up the indictment, and one of the eight managers of the impeachment on behalf of the commons (Rushworth, Trial of Strafford, pp. 3, 14,
