POPHAM, Edward (c.1610-51), of Littlecote, Wilts.

Like many younger sons, Edward Popham sought out a military career. More unusually, he initially did so at sea and it was as a naval commander towards the end of that career that he would be best remembered. Perhaps there was an element of youthful rebellion in this. The Pophams had made their vast fortune through the law – his grandfather had been lord chief justice – and, as a young man, Edward had duly been sent to study at the Middle Temple.25M. Temple Admiss. i. 127. Yet within a few years he had gone off to sea. In 1636 he was serving on board in Henrietta Maria as a lieutenant under the 4th earl of Northumberland (Algernon Percy†).26CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 485. In 1637, as captain of Fifth Whelp, he distinguished himself by recovering two Great Yarmouth fishing boats which had been captured by a Dunkirk privateer. That success was offset several weeks later when the Fifth Whelp sank off the Dutch coast as he was transporting some of the servants of Charles Louis, the elector palatine, over to the continent.27CSP Dom. 1637, pp. 136, 141-2, 283-4. In October 1639, when he was serving with Sir John Pennington, he was an eyewitness to the battle between the Dutch and the Spanish in the Downs.28CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 93, 274. By 1640 he was captain of the Antelope.29List of the Colonels [1640]. But the next phase of Popham’s military career would take place on land.

From the outset of the civil war, Popham’s elder brother, Alexander, was one of the crucial pro-parliamentarian military figures in Somerset. That tends to obscure Edward’s role during those years. The likelihood is that at first he simply served as a junior officer under his brother, helping him to raise forces capable of resisting the incursions by the 1st marquess of Hertford (Sir William Seymour†).30BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database. In August 1642 he took part in the rendezvous of the local gentry, in part organised by Alexander, that forced Hertford to withdraw from Wells.31Bellum Civile, 3, 9-10. The following spring the Commons recognised Edward as someone who could be useful in his own right when they made him one of the deputy lieutenants for Somerset and included him on the county committee.32CJ iii. 1b. That potential usefulness was demonstrated the next month when, while at Minehead, he intercepted a boatload of royalists crossing the Bristol Channel from Wales.33CJ iii. 47b; Harl. 164, f. 371.

Popham’s role in the defence of Somerset during 1643 was more conspicuous. Probably recognising this as a hopeless cause, in February 1643 he and John Pyne* took the view that the only practical tactic against a royalist advance into the county would be to concentrate on holding the major towns.34Som. RO, DD/HI/B/466: E. Popham and Pyne to John Preston and others, 7 Feb. 1643. To that end, in late May, he and Pyne joined up with Sir Thomas Wroth* to assemble the Somerset trained bands to defend Taunton.35CCSP i. 240. But on 4 June, with Sir Ralph Hopton* approaching from the south, Popham took the decision to evacuate his men from the town. Delayed by the townspeople, who did not want them to leave, they were still there when Hopton’s forces arrived. Popham therefore had to negotiate the agreement which allowed them to retreat to Glastonbury.36Bellum Civile, 85-6. On 12 June, just to the north of Glastonbury, Popham and William Strode II* tried to stop Hopton’s advance, only to be forced to retreat again.37Trevelyan Pprs. ed. W.C. Trevelyan and C.E. Trevelyan (Cam. Soc. lix), 236. Popham probably then joined Alexander to fight in the two battles, Lansdown (5 July) and Roundway Down (13 July), that saw the parliamentarian forces driven out of the county. A year later he was assisting his brother in the recruitment of men for Sir William Waller’s* army in the south west and so took part in Alexander’s minor encounter with royalist troops near Salisbury on 6 July. In December 1644 he was among those sent from London to relieve Taunton, which was being defended by one of his former subordinates, Robert Blake*.38Ludlow, Mems. i. 91, 93, 107. Both Aleaxander and Edward commanded auxilliary forces mustered in the spring and summer of 1645 for strengthening the New Model army and then for relieving Taunton. But there is no evidence for the commonly repeated assertion that Edward Popham was a colonel in the New Model. Rather, he was assigned to the Western Association army under the command of Edward Massie*.39CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 457, 464, 544, 553, 556, 584-5, 586, 587, 597, 598. By the end of that summer, Somerset had been entirely reconquered for Parliament.

The re-establishment of parliamentarian control throughout Somerset made it possible for recruiter by-elections to be held there. One vacancy was at Minehead, which had been represented by Popham’s father until Sir Francis’s death the previous year. A writ for a new election there was issued in October 1645, but no return had been made by 1 January 1646, when Popham presented one of the petitions from Somerset voters complaining about the recent by-election for the county seats.40CJ iv. 394a; C231/6, p. 29. The Minehead by-election had still not been held by 27 January, when the Commons criticised the sheriff, Sir John Horner*, for his lack of urgency in making the Somerset returns.41CJ iv. 420a. Popham had been among those Somerset gentlemen who had previously written to the Speaker, William Lenthall*, complaining about Horner’s conduct.42HMC Portland, i. 318-19. The Minehead election had certainly taken place by 25 February, when Popham took the Covenant in the House. He was named to his first committee on 4 March, when he was included on the committee for petitions after it was asked to consider which Scottish army officers were to be paid off. Having obtained permission to do so on 21 March, he then probably returned to Somerset.43CJ iv. 454a, 462a, 482a. On 23 June, during what may have been the same period of leave, he took the oaths as a Somerset justice of the peace. Six days later he and Alexander set out back to London.44Harington’s Diary, 27, 28. However, he was absent when the House was called on 9 October.45CJ v. 330a. How active he had been at Westminster in the interim is impossible to say, not least because it is usually impossible to distinguish between the two Popham brothers when they are mentioned in the Commons’ Journals. Indeed, the only committee appointment from this period which can be reasonably assigned to Edward rather than Alexander is that as one of the MPs appointed to prosecute Sir John Stawell* at the next Somerset assizes (18 Aug. 1646) and that is only because Edward signed the letter on the subject that those MPs then sent to the Somerset standing committee.46CJ iv. 648a; Som. RO, DD/HI/B/466: Som. MPs to [Som. standing cttee.], 18 Aug. 1646. One might suppose that Alexander, as the more experienced MP, would be the more active, but even that cannot be confidently assumed.

Few MPs in the Long Parliament had naval experience, so it is not too surprising that Popham’s colleagues at Westminster began to make use of his knowledge in that field. In the spring of 1648 he and Leonard Lidcott were offered commands at sea. In Popham’s case, it was envisaged that he would become the captain of Swallow. But Popham declined the offer.47CJ v. 537a. Similarly, on 13 July 1648, the Commons decided that he and Alexander Bence* should serve as the commissioners to go to sea with the lord admiral, the 2nd earl of Warwick (Sir Robert Rich†). Popham again declined and Walter Strickland* (the other Minehead MP) took his place.48CJ v. 635a; CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 195, 201. There is no strong sense that he was considered indispensable at Westminster. In so far as he was being used at all, the Commons tended to want to deploy him elsewhere. In August 1648 he was added to the Wiltshire county committee, while the following November he was among Somerset MPs sent to ensure that the assessment collection there took place as quickly and as thoroughly as possible.49CJ v. 669b; vi. 88a. He was not ejected in the purge of 6 December 1648. Two months later, on 14 February 1649, he and his brother formally dissented from the vote of 5 December.50PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, p. 684.

Under the new republic Popham’s career flourished as never before. Whether this was because he had a particular sympathy with its principles was never clear. All that can be said is that he was willing to sit in the Rump and that he now overcame his former reluctance to go back to sea. On 12 February 1649 the Committee of Navy and Customs advised Parliament to appoint Richard Deane, Blake and Popham to serve as the three generals-at-sea. Parliament agreed and the legislation appointing them to those commands was ready by the 24th.51CJ vi. 138a; A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 17; Ludlow, Mems. i. 224. This time Popham accepted. They received their commissions three days later.52CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 23; HMC Leyborne-Popham, 9. By then it had been decided that Popham should take precedence in rank over the other two.53CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 20. Popham and Blake were also added to the Committee of Navy and Customs.54CJ vi. 138b.

The immediate concern was that Prince Rupert had based himself with a fleet of eight ships at Kinsale on the southern coast of Ireland. In late March 1649 the council of state received news claiming that Rupert’s fleet was lying off the royalist-controlled Scilly Isles. Popham was therefore sent to confront him. The reports about Rupert proved to be false, so Popham spent the next couple of months patrolling the Channel.55HMC Leyborne-Popham, 11, 12-13. Blake and Deane in the meantime blockaded Kinsale.

Valentine Wauton* reported on Popham’s activities to Parliament on 8 May.56CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 126; CJ vi. 204b. The following month Popham appeared in person. On 5 June he briefed Parliament on the state of the navy and submitted requests for money, supplies and new ships. Speaker William Lenthall took the opportunity to thank him ‘for his faithful and great service at sea for the Commonwealth’.57CJ vi. 224a-b. Parliament returned the following week to the matters Popham had raised with them.58CJ vi. 228b, 229b-230b. Some of the Sussex MPs took this opportunity to raise with him their concerns about piracy off the Sussex coast. He immediately despatched a ship to Rye to deal with this. During this visit to London the council of state also consulted with him about which further ships should be sent to Ireland. He was still in London on 15 June, but, having completed his business there, he returned to the fleet.59CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 175, 177-9, 185, 187-8; HMC Leyborne-Popham, 19.

Short trips to Dublin and Milford Haven followed.60CJ vi. 224a; HMC Leyborne-Popham, 20; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 236-7. In late August Popham patrolled up the east coast and there were plans to send him across the Channel to deal with the pirates operating out of Ostend and Dunkirk.61HMC Leyborne-Popham, 27-9; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 290-1. In mid-September he was sent to Jersey to try to stop Charles Stuart landing there, but arrived one day too late.62HMC Leyborne-Popham, 29, 36-40; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 313. There was little he could do and several weeks later he returned to Portsmouth and then to the Downs.63CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 319, 348; HMC Leyborne-Popham, 31, 42, 44, 47, 49. In late December 1649 or early January 1650 he shipped Alban Coxe* and part of his regiment to Guernsey.64Add. 11315, ff. 11, 13v-14, 17, 23v.

Parliament confirmed the reappointment of Popham, Blake and Deane as generals-at-sea on 3 January 1650.65CJ vi. 342b; HMC Leyborne-Popham, 56. The strategic problems they faced were changing. In October 1649 Rupert had escaped the blockade at Kinsale and headed for Portugal. Charles Stuart now left Jersey and sailed to Scotland. The council of state therefore sent Blake after Rupert and ordered Popham to turn his attention once again to the Dunkirk pirates.66CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 491; TSP i. 137. The following spring the council judged that Blake needed reinforcement, however, and so sent Popham to join him off Portugal.67CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 97, 99, 102-4, 113, 118, 121-3, 125, 127, 129, 132, 136; TSP i. 144-6; HMC Leyborne-Popham, 64, 72; Ludlow, Mems. i. 225. He and Blake met up in Cascaes Bay close to the mouth of the Tagus on 26 May.68HMC Leyborne-Popham, 65, 74; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 439. Blake had already intercepted the Brazil fleet, which Popham’s additional powers now conveniently allowed them to confiscate.69CSP Dom. 1650, p. 438-9; 1651, p. 106; Ludlow, Mems. i. 236. Those powers also allowed them to commence a full-scale blockade of Lisbon in the hope of persuading the king of Portugal, John IV, to hand over Rupert and his renegade fleet.70CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 200; TSP i. 155-8; CJ vi. 437a; HMC Leyborne-Popham, 66-9. When, on 7 September, Rupert tried to break through the blockade, Blake and Popham stopped him. A letter from Popham to Parliament and the council conveyed this news to London.71CSP Dom. 1650, p. 365; CJ vi. 478a. At some point, either before or after Blake’s encounter with the Brazil fleet on 14 September, Popham set sail back to England. Blake meanwhile sailed to Cadiz. Popham had reached London by mid-November and probably reported to the council on 17 November.72CSP Dom. 1650, p. 429.

Popham seems to have remained ashore until the spring of 1651. As a result, he was able to resume his seat in Parliament. On 7 February 1651, on the Speaker’s nomination, he was one of the four tellers in the elections for the council of state.73CJ vi. 531b-532a. Either he or his brother was added to the committee on magazines and stores on 13 February after it was asked to consider the powers of the admiralty and the navy.74CJ vi. 534a. On 14 May, with William Purefoy I*, he was a teller in the division relating to the appointment of John Owen* as the dean of Christ Church, Oxford. As this was a procedural division on whether the main question should be put, with ‘General Popham’ counting the noes, it is unclear whether or not he approved of Owen’s appointment.75CJ vi. 549a-b. This is Popham’s last confirmed appearance in Parliament. In the meantime, the bill to continue the three generals-at-sea in office for another year had been passed.76CJ vi. 537b-538a, 543b; A. and O.

In early April 1651 the council had agreed that Popham and Blake should return to sea. A month later Popham was ordered to sail to Dunkirk.77CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 129, 181. As before, this was an attempt to combat the pirates operating out of the Channel ports.78HMC Leyborne-Popham, 100. But there was also the recurring fear that, with Charles Stuart causing problems in Scotland, the royalists might launch a second invasion across the Channel. Popham therefore spent the next month lying off the Dunkirk coast.79HMC Leyborne-Popham, 87-91. He soon decided that his presence there was of only limited value. In early June he seems to have written to Sir Henry Vane II* arguing that, although the pirates remained a problem, there was little danger of a royalist invasion. Vane passed these views on to the council, which bowed to Popham’s professional judgment.80CSP Dom. 1651, p. 254. In late June Popham was sent to meet up with the Swedish fleet in the Sound, only for this plan to be aborted when he had got no further than Tynemouth.81CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 268, 273, 281; HMC Leyborne-Popham, 92-5.

Popham was at Dover in August 1651 when he caught the fever from which he died on the 19th.82Sydney Pprs. 115. His friends at Westminster were shocked. On hearing the news, the council of state sent Bulstrode Whitelocke* and Vane to console his wife.83CSP Dom. 1651, p. 354. Arrangements were then made to give him an official funeral.84CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 363, 585; CJ vii. 5b, 19a. On the evening of 24 September the body was moved from Exeter House in the Strand to Westminster Abbey ‘with very great solemnity’. MPs, led by Speaker Lenthall and the council of state, including Oliver Cromwell*, walked in the procession.85Mercurius Politicus (18-15 Sept. 1651), 1092, E.641.23; Whitelocke, Diary, 271. The occasion prompted Whitelocke to lament that Popham had been ‘a kind friend’.86Whitelocke, Diary, 271. Popham was then buried in the Abbey in the chapel of St John the Baptist. A large wall monument, possibly commissioned from the sculptor William Wright, was subsequently erected there to mark his tomb.87RCHME London, i. 38; M. Whinney, Sculpture in Britain 1530-1830 (1988), 437n; S. Bradley and N. Pevsner, London 6: Westminster (2003), 153.

Popham left a widow and two children, Alexander and Letitia. On 9 October 1651 the Commons ordered that Popham’s salary should be paid to his widow for one year.88CJ vii. 26b-27a; CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 471, 512. The following year Popham’s nephew, Edward Conway, thought that George Monck*, who had succeeded him as general-at-sea, had his eye on Mrs Popham as a possible wife.89HMC Hastings, ii. 362. But it was too early for Ann Popham to contemplate re-marriage. Later that year Viscount Conway reported that she was ‘very sorrowful, and having lost her husband, cares not for the world nor anything that is in it.’90CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 440. Popham had left estates in Somerset in and around Queen Charlton and, for the time being, his widow managed them on behalf of their young son.91Som. RO, DD/POT/151. In 1657 she took a lease on a house in Bristol and so may have settled there.92Som. RO, DD/POT/3. Only in 1661 did she remarry; her second husband was Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton. Popham’s only son, Alexander, had been born deaf. Later, in a celebrated experiment, he was taught to speak by William Holder.93Aubrey, Brief Lives, i. 404; W. Holder, Elements of Speech (1669), 159-67. He married Edward Harley’s* daughter, Brilliana.94Burke Commoners, ii. 198.

All three of the generals-at-sea appointed in 1649 died on active service, although only Deane did so in battle. Of the three, Popham had perhaps the least distinguished record, although, as one of the others was Blake, such faint praise can hardly be considered damning. It was not his fault that he tended to be given the less glamorous assignments. But, if it was usually Blake who got the chance to chase Prince Rupert, it was probably Popham whose views carried more weight at Westminster. The republic rightly remembered him as one of its heroes. Just as tellingly, the restored monarchy would also remember him as one of the republic’s heroes. In September 1661 he was among those interregnum notables whose bodies were removed from Westminster Abbey on the orders of Charles II. In his case the body might have been handed over to the family.95Westminster Abbey Regs. 144n, 523. The monument in the Abbey was allowed to remain in place, however, although its epitaph was defaced; the claim that the slab bearing that inscription was merely reversed is unfounded.96E.W. Brayley, The Hist. and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster (1818-23), ii. 182; RCHME London, i. 38.