Many specious arguments have been urged against the retrospective law by which Strafford was condemned to death.  But all these arguments proceed on the supposition that the crisis was an ordinary crisis.  The attainder was, in truth, a revolutionary measure.  It was part of a system of resistance which oppression had rendered necessary.  It is as unjust to judge of the conduct pursued by the Long Parliament towards Strafford on ordinary principles, as it would have been to indict Fairfax for murder because he cut down a cornet at Naseby.  From the day on which the Houses met, there was a war waged by them against the King, a war for all that they held dear, a war carried on at first by means of parliamentary forms, at last by physical force; and, as in the second stage of that war, so in the first, they were entitled to do many things which, in quiet times, would have been culpable.

We must not omit to mention that those who were afterwards the most distinguished ornaments of the King’s party supported the bill of attainder.  It is almost certain that Hyde voted for it.  It is quite certain that Falkland both voted and spoke for it.  The opinion of Hampden, as far as it can be collected from a very obscure note of one of his speeches, seems to have been that the proceeding by Bill was unnecessary, and that it would be a better course to obtain judgment on the impeachment.

During this year the Court opened a negotiation with the leaders of the Opposition.  The Earl of Bedford was invited to form an administration on popular principles.  St. John was made solicitor-general.  Hollis was to have been secretary of state, and Pym chancellor of the exchequer.  The post of tutor to the Prince of Wales was designed for Hampden.  The death of the Earl of Bedford prevented this arrangement from being carried into effect; and it may be doubted whether, even if that nobleman’s life had been prolonged, Charles would ever have consented to surround himself with counsellors whom he could not but hate and fear.

Lord Clarendon admits that the conduct of Hampden during this year was mild and temperate, that he seemed disposed rather to soothe than to excite the public mind, and that, when violent and unreasonable motions were made by his followers, he generally left the House before the division, lest he should seem to give countenance to their extravagance.  His temper was moderate.  He sincerely loved peace.  He felt also great fear lest too precipitate a movement should produce a reaction.  The events which took place early in the next session clearly showed that this fear was not unfounded.

During the autumn the Parliament adjourned for a few weeks.  Before the recess, Hampden was despatched to Scotland by the House of Commons, nominally as a commissioner, to obtain security for a debt which the Scots had contracted during the last invasion; but in truth that he might keep watch over the King, who had now repaired to Edinburgh, for the purpose of finally adjusting the points of difference which remained between him and his northern subjects.  It was the business of Hampden to dissuade the Covenanters from making their peace with the Court, at the expense of the popular party in England.