Talk:John Hampden/Archive 1

Cause of death

exploding pistol

Reputedly, according to contemporary sources John Hampden actually died not from 'two musket balls to the shoulder' but rather from an exploding pistol, which wounded his hand and gave him blood-poisoning - but that is a bit less romantic than the authorised version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ndaisley (talk • contribs) at 20:26, 17 September 2005.

JHGS

I went to JHGS (John Hampden Grammar School) and we taught in History that J.H. was injured by his own pistol, then died from his injuries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sengcheek (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

wb

The pistol story seems to be much later and blames a servant for loading with a double charge by mistake.

The latest pamphlet by Derek Lester of the 'Hampden Society' has an account of the history of this story.

-- Unsigned contribution by 59.183.47.175 at 08:38, 16 January 2007 ("Debunking of the exploding pistol story")

Death Take Two

I've transferred this section here: it seems to present sound and valuable material but several difficulties make it unsuitable for the article at present.

The main thing to fix concerns citations. Sources are mentioned in running copy but not specified clearly as references. In result the section gives the impression of a lack of reliable sources. (There's also the Hampden Society pamphlet by Derek Lester, mentioned above.) If the sources state the section's conclusions, clear citations will fix this. (If they only state the evidence on which the contributor bases the conclusions, the section is original research and there's no future for it.)

The difficulties I'm seeing are as follows:

• citations: as above
• style: the section is not encyclopaedic in tone (eg double exclamation marks!!)
• intent: the section reads as argument + conclusions . . encyclopædia articles should comprise conclusions which the reader is invited to trust, supported by references the reader is invited to check, and not argument
• rhetoric: point-of-view trouble ("has created fertile ground for opinion and myths to be given another airing" etc) - but this is probably secondary to the preceding problem: that is, fixing the intent will probably fix the rhetoric
• clarity: the section, as I understand it, explores three different linked issues - and doesn't disentangle them. They are the battle site (and scale); the identity of the exhumed body (and interpretation of the associated evidence); and of course the cause of Hampden's death
• focus: the battle / skirmish is only tangentially relevant, so its details are off-topic. (A cross-reference to the Battle of Chalgrove Field article, as main article, might help with this.)
• topic balance: there's too much prominence given to the cause of death. Some people are notable largely for their manner of dying: John Hampden is very far from being one of them
• balance of views: this may be an authoritative new view, if well sourced: but it needs to be presented in balance with the traditional view, the account involving the pistol
•  ? structure: my feeling is tht this should probably not be a separate section! - but should be 'woven in' to the article's text overall?

The sentiment of events contained in ‘Death’ above [= in the article] are mainly a product of Victorian gentlemen conversing by letter and magazines with their opinions. The Victorian view has been vigorously debated to the present day. The argument of whether the encounter at Chalgrove was a skirmish, as favoured by English Heritage’s 1995 Battlefield Register, or a battle has created fertile ground for opinion and myths to be given another airing. The interpretation of documents contemporary, Victorian or modern has been subject to an abdication of the fact or logical thought. Oxoniensia Vol 80 published ‘The Military and Political Importance of the Battle of Chalgrove 1643’ Lester and Lester dispelled the Victorian myths.  Victoria County History has cited this work and hypothesis put forward in the Oxoniensia article have been shown to be correct. Erudite and influential Trusts are clinging to their interpretation of events quoting baseless opinion. Under is a brief history of how these myths and innuendo surrounding them entered the history books.

Prof. John Adair is attributed with writing in his biography, ‘A Life of John Hampden, The Patriot’, of John Hampden's pistol exploding. This statement is without foundation.  On page 236 of 'A Life of John Hampden, The Patriot' Prof. John Adair, writes: "By this time Hampden had suffered his fatal wound. A Cavalier trooper had ridden up and shot him from behind with a double-loaded carbine or pistol. The two balls bit deep into the flesh behind his shoulder blade."

Seventy eight years after John Hampden's death the first instance of the exploding pistol story was published in the appendix of errata to the History of England by Laurence Echard in 1721. The appendix, page 572 has under Oliver Cromwell's interview with the Devil the following. Laurence wrote, ‘As his (Hampden) death was a great surprise, so the manner of it was very uncommon, and generally unknown, as I am assur’d by a great man, (Sir Robert Walpole) who says his death’s Wound proceeded from the Breaking of one his Pistols, which happened to be more than doubly charged.’ The anonymous statement that a servant left multiple charges in the barrel of Hampden's pistol was written by someone without knowledge of blackpowder or gunpowder. Blackpowder is hydroscopic, it absorbs moisture readily and over the two or more days the pistol's steel barrel would be subject to variations of temperature and humidity creating moisture. Moisture turns blackpowder into a sticky mess that would not burn even if thrown on a fire. The purpose of Walpole's story was to slur Hampden's name and reputation whose fame of dying for the cause remained a thorn in the Tory's side.

Lord Nugent (1789–1850) in his bid to become an MP (Nugent was an Irish Lord) used John Hampden's name as an exemplar. Hampden had an honourable death being mortally wounded in the heat of battle. ‘Colonel Hampden was shot in the shoulder with a brace of bullets’ wrote Clarendon on the day of the battle. (The original manuscript in Edward Hyde's (Clarendon's) writing is in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, England) The supposed teller of the exploding pistol story is reportedly by Hampden's death bed and said to be listening to Sir Robert Pye, the son-in-law, explaining that the pistols were bought from an eminent maker. The story teller is then said to corroborate the claim that Sir Robert Pye inspected the other pistol and found that it ‘was loaded to the top with several supernumerary charges, owing to the negligence of his servant.’ The absurdity of the exploding pistol account can be seen for what it is, a fabrication.

The 5th Earl of Buckinghamshire (1793–1849) was troubled by the continuing slur on the family's name. On learning that the chancel floor of St Mary's Magdalene Church, Great Hampden was soon to be taken up Lord Nugent wrote to the Earl. Nugent suggested that the question of whether John Hampden was shot in the shoulder or that his pistol exploded could be resolved by exhuming the body of the great man. The Earl agreed.

On 21 July 1828 a large crowd came to Great Hampden to witness the exhumation of John Hampden. The operation to exhume him became a fiasco. It was expected that John Hampden's grave was to be found below the black marble memorial to his first wife Elizabeth. The site was empty. Several other coffins were unearthed but each had the name of the occupant clearly stated, none bore the famous name. Yet another tomb was unearthed and this had a nameplate that was so corroded that it crumbled away on being touched. This tomb was taken to be that of John Hampden. The lead lined coffin was cut open by the local plumber and the near intact body exposed and propped up with a spade. The Times published Nugent's account of the gruesome affair. They reported that the bones of the right hand were found in a bag by the side of the exhumed body. Imagine the battle scene, John Hampden's pistol explodes and bits of body and bone are scattered onto the battlefield. Is it reasonable to believe that the battle was stopped to search and collect up John Hampden's bones?

Dr Grace, the Earl's steward, and Mr Norris, a local physician examined the exhumed body. Dr Grace wrote to the Earl 19 August 1828 stating, ‘…Mr Norris examined the arm and shoulder bones, the hand although separated at the wrist was by a fracture wound, or by amputation, in all probability it was done by the action of moving the body from its position. Mr Norris assures me that all the bones and joints of the arm and shoulders were in a perfect state…’ A letter to ‘The Gentleman’s Magazine’, Sept 1828 written by a witness to the exhumation stated that the report in ‘The Times’ ‘was extremely incorrect’ and that the tomb was found not as stated by the western window near the tablet erected by Hampden, ‘but under the floor within the communion rails.’ Dr Grace's letter to the Earl 22 July 1828 has, ‘I think it not unlikely that it was Mr William Hampden as the coffin was immediately under the stone bearing his inscription upon it.’ Nugent had exhumed John Hampden's father William. The autopsy of the exhumed body and details of the exhumation is found in ‘The Controversy of John Hampden’s Death’. Rector John Yates, St Mary Magdalene Church, Great Hampden 1663 – 1675 wrote Hampden Magna, a detailed description of each of the tombs in the Chancel and by logical deduction their location. Col John Hampden the Earl of Essex's 2iC the nation's Patriae Pater buried in his own church but in an unmarked and unknown grave. The answer to where he is buried is in Hampden Magna the reason why his tomb is unmarked is being investigated by the writer. Lord Nugent, ‘Some Memorials of John Hampden his Party and his Times’ pub 1832, writes, volume two page 431 that Hampden on the eve of the Battle ‘had lain that night in Watlington’. Nugent states, ‘On the first alarm of Rupert’s irruption’… ‘He (Hampden) instantly mounted’, on his own without his officers or foot regiment to fight 2,000 Royalists. That is Nugent's explanation for John Hampden to be at the battle of Chalgrove without his officers and men?

It is stated in ‘Death’ that ‘Hampden rode as a volunteer with 1,100 cavalry and dragoons commanded by Sir Philip Stapleton in pursuit of Rupert.’ Sir Philip Stapleton had the nightwatch that fateful morning whose task was to direct cavalry and dragoons from the Thame headquarter. On the return of Dundasse's dragoon detachment, estimated to be after 9.30am, they gave their report to Stapleton. They relayed that an hour before Prince Rupert with three regiments of horse and 1,000 troops had overwhelmed Chinnor. That at South Weston 300 Parliamentarians had suffered heavily in a skirmish. Stapleton rode out from Thame with a body of men towards Chalgrove in the hope he may be able to save the day. Around Clare Crossroads, near Golder Hill Stapleton met the troops routing from the battle of Chalgrove; the time being long past 10.00am. The troops’ movements and times are found in Oxoniensia.

‘An obelisk was erected in 1843 on the site of the skirmish by Lord Nugent’ it states in ‘Death’. This statement is without foundation. Rupert stated that the Chalgrove encounter was a ‘fight’, an impromptu battle. The term ‘skirmish’ for the event at Chalgrove evolved in late Victorian times. The Monument is over a mile from where Nugent believed the encounter occurred. John Hampden's Monument was erected at the crossroads of Warpsgrove Lane and the Old Watlington to Oxford Road because Renn Dickson Hampden DD donated the land on which the Monument stands. Nugent had promised his illustrious subscribers that the Monument would be erected on the battlefield close to where Hampden was wounded. Volume two page 432 ‘Some Memorials…’ Nugent wrote, ‘who advancing from Easington and Thame, over Golder Hill,’ … ‘along a hedge-row which still forms the boundary on that side of Chalgrove Field.’ The previous statement is taken from ‘Late Beating Up’ page 5 which continues with ‘who (together with those that had before skirmished with our rear) [This is the skirmish that Essex in his Letter confused with the Battle.] drew down to the bottom of a great Close, or pasture: ordering themselves there among trees beyond a great hedge'. (A great hedge is a boundary hedge between parishes. In this instance between Pyrton and Chalgrove and with the other features described places the troops precisely in the landscape.)

Essex’s Letter states that Major Gunter, Captain Sheffield and Captain Cross were joined by Captains Sanders and Buller’s dragoon companies. These 300 men skirmished with an overwhelming force of Royalists around South Weston. Hampden was riding from Thame with Sir Samuel Luke and Colonel John Dalbier to Watlington when they stumbled into Gunter’s men shortly after the skirmish. Hampden joined Captain Crosse’s troop as a volunteer. It is noted by the reference, ‘those that had before skirmished with our rear’ that these named troops’ commanders were engaged in a skirmish prior to the battle of Chalgrove. Clarendon's original manuscript (Clarendon state Papers – Bodl. MS. Clar. 112, f366) written on the day of the battle in Oxford has testament about events from high ranking prisoners. The MS states that Essex's most senior officers were collecting their Regiment's pay when the alarm came to Thame. It was these 800 officers who joined the 300 skirmishers prior to the battle of Chalgrove, not a contingent of 1,100 troopers led by Sir Philip Stapleton with John Hampden as a volunteer.

Renn Dickson Hampden DD fresh back from Barbados, his ancestors having emigrated 200 years previously, had claimed through the heralds that he was the heir to the Hampden estates. To further his cause Renn donated 7.5 perches of Magdalen Collage's land to Nugent on which to build the Monument. That this land was over a mile away from where Nugent wrote that the ‘encounter’ occurred was politically disguised from the subscribers. On the Monument is the legend, ‘within a few paces of this spot he received the wounds of which he died.’ The subscribers were none the wiser and soon the history of the Monument's siting was taken to the grave.

Surveyors from Ordnance Survey (OS) came to Chalgrove 1880 to map the area for the first time (Note: The National Library of Scotland does not have a digital copy of the first edition, however paper copies are available). The surveyors were aware of the Monument's history and believed the battle to have taken place in a Chalgrove cornfield. OS were wrong in their belief, this error continued onto the second edition of the six-inch maps published in 1900. The Royalists marched 1,000 yards westwards exiting the Chalgrove cornfield into adjacent pastures that are sited 550 yards north of the Monument. Across Warpsgrove Lane is Houndswell, one of the fields that comprised the ancient three field system which is a few paces away from the Monument. In large bold capital letters stretching from beyond the airfield's boundary hedge through and over the Old Watlington to Oxford Road over Warpsgrove Lane and into the field beyond are the words CHALGROVE FIELD.(See Map) Neither the 1822 Magdalen College map nor the Enclosure Award map of 1845 has reference to Chalgrove Field. Directly under the words Chalgrove Field is the first reference to a battle at Chalgrove. OS wrote, Battle of Chalgrove, 18 June 1643 on the map as having occurred in Houndswell. The Victorians’ and historians of today have debated vociferously about the Chalgrove battlefield's location. When listing the battle of Chalgrove for the 1995 Battlefield Register English Heritage realised the impossibility of OS's location for the Battle. Two hedges and a road immediately between the armies induced them to move the site of the battlefield 300 yards northwards. There is no supporting documentation except a statement made by English Heritage's director of the Chalgrove listing. He answered by letter after being questioned about the absurdity of the evidence that ‘My relatively poorly informed appreciation of military tactics…’ but preferred his own account.

In 1994 English Heritage were minded to refer to the Battle of Chalgrove as a skirmish and not to include it in their forthcoming Battlefield Register. They based their decision to refer to Chalgrove as a skirmish on data as stated in the ‘Death’ sub heading. English Heritage were instructed by an Independent Review Panel to use the data as presented by the Chalgrove Battle Group. English Heritage Battlefield Report: Chalgrove 1643 (1995) listed Chalgrove as a Battle but refused to use the data supplied by the Chalgrove Battle Group. The myths, legends and unsubstantiated history of events concerning the battle of Chalgrove has been perpetuated by the Battlefields Trust. Many years ago Battlefields Trust inherited from English Heritage the responsibility for battlefields, including that of Chalgrove from the ‘relatively poorly informed’ gentlemen. Battlefield Trust took on English Heritage's account of the Battle as their own. Chalgrove Battle Group's fierce arguments of fact with the Battlefields Trust resulted in their website's Resource Centre being regularly updated. Battlefields Trust refer to English Heritage's 1995 Battlefield Register when academic institutions ask for information about the battle of Chalgrove. Oxoniensia vol 80 published ‘The Military and Political Importance of the Battle of Chalgrove: 1643’. This peer reviewed article has effectively been suppressed by Battlefield Trust from its website. Historic England has recently reviewed the Battle of Chalgrove and used information from the Oxoniensia article. Throughout Historic England's review Battlefields Trust has sought to impose their opinion of the battle of Chalgrove upon the reviewers. Oxoniensia published the writer's article 2015. In 2017 the writer found Clarendon's original MS referring to Chalgrove. The MS concurred in detail with writer's article. Battlefields Trust's response was and to quote, ‘that Clarendon realised his mistake in the original manuscript…. This he corrected in the published work’. Clarendon died December 1674, ‘The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England', was first published in 1702 reportedly by the Right Honourable Edward, Earl of Clarendon – corrected from the grave!!

sections

Moved from the article page:

--PBS 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  : Article has been sectioned off
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Clifton Hampden

I heard that the reasonably local to Chalgrove village of Clifton Hampden was named after him. I also heard there was a connection to Hampden Park Football Ground.

Sorry no sources zzapper (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)zzapper

I'd have thought it more likely to be named after his family rather than him personally. Where is Hampden Park Football Ground? -- role^player 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Peacock

This whole article is full of peacock phrases, and needs to be more objective. Wizzy…☎ 12:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hampden's Prospective Emigration to America

Suggest adding a footnote referencing Richard C. Dunn's, "Puritans and Yankees" Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962) pp 34-35, Dunn asserts that, Hampden and others (i.e., John Pym, Lords Saye and Brooks) were anxious to leave England however they soon found, " . . found the countrie (England) full of reports of their going and were worried they would not be allowed to sell their estates and take ship . . " (Skepticallauren (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

According to Philip Lindsay in "For King or Parliament" (London: Evans Brothers Ltd. 1949) pp 141-142, It was Charles himself that forbade the passage of any Ship to New England and that eight ships were prevented from leaving the Thames on this account, Lindsay states that "it is said" that Hampden and indeed Cromwell were on one of these ships and comments on the irony that "[...]now, by royal command, they stood again on English Earth to pursue their destiny to destroy this king who kept them at home." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScroogeMcDuck (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 September 2011‎

Regarding Citation #4 - I do not think we should include heresay from colonists removed from the events by vast distances and over a century's time as reliable. The fact that people in the 1770's were still gossiping about men such as John Hampdon and Oliver Cromwell is illustrative only of thier prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.226.194 (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Aylesbury Grammar School

This school commemorates John Hampden having named one of their school 'houses' after him (my own in fact). I think this should be added, given his connection to Aylesbury. 2.126.22.115 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)