iii., Appendix, p. 213). For his estates in the parish of Great Kimble, Buckinghamshire, Hampden was assessed at 31s. 6d., for those in the parish of Stoke Mandeville at 20s., and without doubt similar sums for his lands in other parishes. As he possessed property in some dozen parishes, the total amount of the sum demanded from Hampden must have been nearer 20l. than 20s. Hobbes sneers at the smallness of the sum. It was not, however, the amount, but the principle of the tax which Hampden contested. Burke, in his speech on American taxation, admirably expresses this distinction. 'Would twenty shillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No, but the payment of half twenty shillings, on the principle it was demanded, would have made him a slave' (Burke, Works, ed. 1852, iii. 185). The trial of Hampden's cause began towards the close of 1637 before the court of exchequer. The legality of the tax was tested on the 20s. at which Hampden was assessed for his Stoke Mandeville estate. The arguments of the opposing lawyers lasted from 6 Nov. to 18 Dec., Hampden being represented by Holborn and St. John. The barons of the exchequer, the matter being of great consequence and weight, 'adjourned the arguing of it into the exchequer chamber, and desired the assistance and judgment of all the judges in England touching the same' (Rushworth, iii. 599). One after another during the first two terms of 1638-the twelve judges delivered their opinions. Seven decided in favour of the crown, three gave judgment in Hampden's favour on the main question, and two others for technical reasons also ranged themselves on his side. Judgment was finally given by the exchequer court in favour of the crown on 12 June 1638. The decision, as Clarendon points out, 'proved of more advantage and credit to the gentleman condemned than to the king's service.' Ship-money had been adjudged lawful 'upon such grounds and reasons as every stander-by was able to swear was not law;' the reasoning of the judges 'left no man anything that he could call his own,' and every man 'felt his own interest by the unnecessary logic of that argument no less concluded than Mr. Hampden's' (Rebellion, i. 148-53). Henceforth the tax was paid with increasing reluctance. Hampden, on the other hand, had gained not merely the admiration of his party, but the respect of his opponents. 'His carriage throughout was with that rare temper and modesty that they who watched him most narrowly to find some advantage against his person, to make him less resolute in his cause, were compelled to give him a just testimony' (ib. vii. 82). Strafford attributed Hampden's opposition partly to a peevish puritanism, and partly to 'the vain flatteries of an imaginary liberty.' 'Mr. Hampden,' he wrote to Land, 'is a great Brother, and the very genius of that nation of people leads them always to oppose as well civilly as ecclesiastically all that ever authority ordains for them; but, in good faith, were they right served they should be whipped home into their right wits, and much beholden they should be to any one that would thoroughly take pains with them in that kind' (Stafford, Letters, ii. 138, 158, 378).
Hampden sat in the Short parliament (April 1640) as member for Buckinghamshire, and played a leading part in its deliberations. Hyde, who was himself a member, styles him 'the most popular man in the house' (Rebellion, ii. 72). The application made to Hampden by Williams, bishop of Lincoln, shows what outsiders thought of his influence. Williams, in prison and in disgrace, solicited the intervention of Hampden to procure his summons to his seat in the House of Lords. Hampden thought best to decline, urging in excuse the press of public business in the commons, and the danger of meddling with the privileges of the upper house. (The correspondence is printed in full in Lipscomb’s Buckinghamshire, ii. 237; see also Nugent, i. 297, and Fairfax Correspondence, i. 341.)
One of the first subjects considered by the House of Commons was ship-money, and on 18 April it was moved that the records of the judgment in Hampden's case and of all proceedings relating to ship-money should be brought into the house. Hampden was naturally appointed one of the committee to peruse these records, and also a member of that committee which was deputed to consult with the lords 'to prevent innovation in matters of religion, and concerning the property of our goods, and liberties, and privileges of parliament' (Commons' Journals, ii. 6, 10, 16). In the great debate of 4 May on the question of supply Hampden led the opposition. The king demanded twelve subsidies as the price of the abandonment of ship-money. Hampden, whom Macaulay terms 'a greater master of parliamentary tactics than any man of his time,' proposed 'that the question might be put "whether the house would consent to the proposition made by the king as it was contained in the message," which would have been sure to have found a negative from all who thought the sum too great, or were not pleased that it should be given in recompense of ship-money' (Clarendon, Rebellion, ii. 72). On the morning of the next day parliament was dissolved, and the dissolution was immediately followed by the tem-
