and "shining mark" against which the whole power and influence of the King and his ministers were now directed. Process was ordered to bring him before the King's Court of Exchequer to answer for his refusal. The vast importance of the issue to the country caused the case to be adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber for the solemn deliberation and decision of all the twelve Judges. It was argued with the highest ability and by the most distinguished counsel on both sides, from time to time, for the space of six weeks, and the Judges were employed through three successive terms, embracing a period of six months, in preparing and delivering one after another their several opinions.

During this long protracted trial, the feelings of the whole kingdom were held in anxious and painful suspense. All eyes were turned upon Hampden, who stood forth, with modest and serene firmness, the Representative, in his own person, of a nation's liberties and rights. And never did a man better act his part under circumstances so trying and difficult. From the moment he entered upon this unequal and momentous contest, Lord Clarendon tells us, and it must be recollected, that I am citing the words of one who was a decided enemy, "he grew the argument of all tongues, every man enquiring who and what he was that durst, at his own charge, support the liberty and property of the kingdom, and rescue his country, as he thought, from being made a prey to the court." I cannot refrain from adding the testimony which the same celebrated writer, against the well known bias of his feelings, is compelled to render to the conduct

of Hampden, in this great scene of his eventful life. "His carriage throughout this agitation," says Clarendon, "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. And the judgment that was given against him, infinitely more advanced him than the service for which it was given."

The judgment of the court, as there was too much reason to apprehend, was rendered against Hampden, but not without division. Four of the Judges dissented from their brethren, and had the fortitude to pronounce opinions in defence of the great principles of British freedom. For this cheering exhibition of judicial independence, so rare in that age, the obligation was due in part, we are informed by a contemporary historian,* to the pure and virtuous influence of that sex, which God, in his gracious providence, has given to be the guardian angels of men— their pride and joy in prosperity, their solace in trouble, their best counsellors in perplexity and trial. Sir George Croke, one of the dissenting Judges, fearing the displeasure of the King and its probable consequences in the ruin of himself and his family, wavered in following the convictions of his judgment. Lady Croke, perceiving his hesitation and the cause of it, inspired him with fortitude and courage by assuring him that "she would be content to suffer want or any misery with him, rather than be the occasion for him to do or say any thing against his judgment and con

*Whitelocke.

science." Strengthened by the noble magnanimity of his wife, he remained true to himself and his country. In the expressive language, so happily used by another,* "she threw the shield of her feminine virtue over his failing courage, and defended by it, he stood firm."

Though the judgment of the court was against Hampden, the effect of the trial, of the division of the court, of the powerful and able arguments, both by Hampden's counsel and the dissenting Judges, in support of the fundamental franchises and liberties of the people, and still more, the arbitrary and extravagant grounds on which the legality of ship-money was attempted to be defended by the King's counsel and some of the Judges—“a logic," says Clarendon, "which left no man any thing that he might call his own"-the effect of all these attendant circumstances was to rouse and re-animate, with new vigour, the spirit of liberty in the nation. Men of high character in every part of the kingdom, and some of them men distinguished by the moderation of their principles, but alarmed at the slavish doctrines inculcated by a majority of the Judges, now followed the example of Hampden, and refused the payment of ship-money, in defiance of the judgment of the court. The sheriffs charged with the collection of the tax, in several instances, admitted the excuses put forward by their counties for declining a compliance with the King's requisition; and in one remarkable and most honourable instance, the grand-jury of the county of North

* Lord Nugent, at the dedication of Hampden's monument in Chalgrove Field.

ampton made a formal presentment of ship-money as a grievance and offence against the fundamental laws of the land. Such were the high moral effects, upon the public spirit, of the noble stand made by Hampden, though the judgment of the court was rendered against him.

An extraordinary error has prevailed, and been handed down from one historian to another till it had passed into almost universal belief, that Hampden about this time had made up his mind to abandon in despair his native country and the great struggle for liberty in which he was engaged. The statement which has been thus accredited by Hume and a host of historical writers of the highest name, is, that there were eight ships lying in the Thames, ready to sail with a large number of passengers to America, when they were suddenly arrested by an order in council prohibiting their departure, and that in these vessels were actually embarked John Hampden, Sir Arthur Hazelrig, Pym, and Oliver Cromwell. Each historian, in relating the circumstance, has made upon it some ingenious and pregnant reflections, according to the particular bent of his humour and opinions. It was reserved for the industry and sagacity of a distinguished female writer of our own day, who has given to the world several volumes of most interesting and instructive memoirs of those times,* to shew, by a careful investigation of original documents, that the circumstance itself is imaginary, and that the order in council, which momentarily detained these vessels, was revoked almost as soon as it was made; so that

* Miss Aikin.

Hampden, and those mentioned as his companions, if they had really embarked on board to leave their country and come to America, had nothing to prevent them from the execution of their purpose. That Hampden had, at a previous period, together with some of the bravest and noblest patriots of England looked to America as an ultimate asylum for themselves and the cause of liberty, if their native land should be enslaved, and had at one time even acquired a proprietary interest in American soil, there is abundant and indisputable testimony. But he had now engaged in a direct and personal contest with arbitrary power for the liberties of the country, in which the eyes and the hopes of the nation were centred upon him as their Pater patriæ (so expressly called by Clarendon); and in the spirit of his chosen motto, vestigia nulla retrorsum, he never could have thought of retreat from such a position, till the contest had closed in final and irremediable overthrow.* *

* Precise dates become important in their relation to the story of Hampden's embarkation and intended departure for America, which strange to say, is acquiesced in and repeated by Lord Nugent, the biographer of Hampden, as well as by the great historical critics, Hallam and Macauley. It is first necessary to fix the date of the proceedings in the ship-money case, and of the judgment against Hampden; and on this point, the most unsatisfactory confusion has prevailed. By most of the historical writers of England, the judgment against Hampden is referred to the year 1637. To reduce the matter to absolute certainty, and disentangle it from the contradictory and delusive statements, due in part to the old mode of computing the year, (which was not changed in England till 24 George II. that is in 1751,) I have had recourse to the Record itself, as given in the State Trials. From that it appears that the original writ directed to the sheriff of Buckingham for levying shipmoney, bore date the 4th of August 1635. Sir Richard Hutton, one of the judges, in delivering his opinion in the Exchequer Chamber, says it was a year and a half after the assessment under this writ and Hamp