HOBART, Sir John, 3rd bt. (1628-1683), of Blickling Hall, Norf.

This MP’s father, Miles Hobart of Intwood, who died in 1639 when his only son was just 11, was the younger brother of Sir John Hobart, 2nd bt.32Vis. Norf. 1563, 1589 and 1613, (Harl Soc. xxxii), 166; ii. 76; Vis. Norf. 1664, 101. Young John’s marriage to his cousin, Sir John’s eldest daughter Philippa, shortly before the baronet’s death in 1647 transformed his prospects. Since Philippa had no brothers, John inherited the extensive Hobart lands at Blickling as well as the baronetcy, and was already one of the major Norfolk landowners by the time he came of age. It is just possible that he was added to the Norfolk assessment commission as early as June 1647, although he was still very young and it seems more likely that Parliament had failed to update the list to remove his late uncle.33A. and O. Only from 1649, after the creation of the republic, can he certainly be shown to have been held local office.34C231/6, p. 144; Norf. QSOB, 25-61.

In July 1654 Hobart secured second place in the election for the Norfolk MPs for the first Protectoral Parliament.35R. Temple, ‘A 1654 protectorate parliamentary election return’, Cromwelliana, ser. II, iii. 58. This was almost certainly seen at the time by government supporters as a setback. Two years later, Hezekiah Haynes* would complain to the secretary of state, John Thurloe*, that, ‘as he did the last time’, Hobart planned to ‘put in the worst against the honest intent’ in the poll for the Norfolk seats.36TSP v. 220. Moreover, the perception that Hobart was at this point a critic of the protectorate seems to have been well founded. Named to the committee for privileges at the beginning of the session, Hobart probably hesitated to take the oath acknowledging the authority of Oliver Cromwell* as the lord protector, but, if so, he agreed to take it after dining with the other Norfolk Members.37CJ vii. 366b; Burton’s Diary, i. pp. xxxv-xxxvi. Any doubts he had about this oath would explain why he was among the nine MPs ordered to withdraw on 14 September to prepare, ‘upon the present debate and sense of the House’, an explanation to clarifying the oath’s relationship to the Instrument of Government.38CJ vii. 367b. Subsequently, on 25 September, he was a member of the committee on the bill to ensure that all MPs took this oath.39CJ vii. 370a.

He had meanwhile been included on the committee to investigate the judges for poor prisoners (15 Sept.), as well as heading the list of those named to the committee to seek the protector’s approval to the declaration for a day of solemn fasting and humiliation (18 Sept.).40CJ vii. 368a, 368b. When on 26 September a committee was created to review the size of the armed forces, Hobart became its chairman.41CJ vii. 370b; Burton’s Diary, i. p. xliii. He was also a member of the committee for Irish affairs, while he took an interest in the bill to remove scandalous ministers (25 Sept.), the proposed reforms for the court of chancery (5 Oct.), the draining of the Lincolnshire fens (31 Oct.), the petition from Lord Craven (3 Nov.) and the misuse of the writs of habeas corpus and certiorari (3 Nov.).42CJ vii. 370a, 371b, 374a, 380a, 381a, 381b. His name appeared on the list compiled by the civil lawyers of MPs who might support their petition for the encouragement of civil law.43Bodl. Tanner 51, f. 10. On 4 November however he was granted permission to go into the country for three weeks.44CJ vii. 382a.

He had presumably returned to Westminster by 4 December, when he was included on the committee to examine the office of sheriff.45CJ vii. 394b. He was certainly present in the House on 6 December, as he then acted as teller in the majority with leading Presbyterian Sir Richard Onslow* against giving the lord protector the power to pardon treasonable offences.46CJ vii. 396a. Two days later, after debate on the clause enjoining attendance on public worship, Hobart was teller in the majority for the motion that forms of worship outside the established church should be approved by the magistrate.47CJ vii. 398b. Hobart’s involvement with the Presbyterians continued later in the month. He acted as teller on 16 December with John Birch* in the majority in favour of limiting the revenue for the maintenance of the armed forces to 40 days after the meeting of the next Parliament.48CJ vii. 403a. His two committee appointments during these weeks concerned the suppression of blasphemous publications (12 Dec.) and the abolition of purveyance (22 Dec.).49CJ vii. 400a, 407b.

In November 1655 Hobart was among the 24 men added to the council of state’s trade committee.50CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 1. This official appointment however did not mean that he was viewed with any less suspicion by senior government figures. As noted above, his election as a Norfolk MP the following year would be unwelcomed in official circles as it had been in 1654. Haynes’s comments to Thurloe on the subject were coloured by the fact that, as Haynes explained, Hobart would be the main obstacle to Thurloe’s own election for one of the Norfolk seats. Haynes warned that Henry Cromwell* would be elected only with Hobart’s backing and that, as ‘the darling of this county’, Hobart would ‘chooseth whom he please’.51TSP v. 220. But Haynes was soon arguing that Hobart had already damaged his own popularity. Hobart’s first wife, Philippa, had died the previous year and he had recently married Mary Hammond, widow of Robert Hammond*, who, as governor, had overseen Charles I’s imprisonment at Carisbrooke.52HMC Lothian, 87. As her father had been John Hampden*, she was also a cousin once removed to Oliver Cromwell*. In a second letter, written on 10 August, Haynes told Thurloe that some were opposing Hobart’s re-election ‘because of his late relation to his highness’ and that those critics ‘have reproached him with marrying the king’s gaoler’s widow and that she is not worth a groat.’53TSP v. 297. Hobart’s unpopularity turned out to be wishful thinking on Haynes’s part, however, as Hobart easily topped the poll.54Norf. Arch. i. 67.

In this new Parliament Hobart was again a member of the committee for privileges and he was regularly included on the delegations sent with messages to the lord protector.55CJ vii. 424b, 426a, 432b, 459a; TSP vi. 586. On 22 September 1656 he favoured the motion that the debate on the excluded MPs should be adjourned until the following day, acting as a teller with William Purefoy I* in the division on the subject.56CJ vii. 426b. The committees to which he was appointed included those on the regulation of alehouses (29 Sept.), sequestered ecclesiastical livings (4 Oct.), customary oaths (7 Oct.), manorial stewards (13 Oct.), poor prisoners (29 Oct.) and the abolition of purveyance (3 Nov.).57CJ vii. 430a, 434a, 435b, 438a, 447a, 449a, 449b. On 22 October he headed the list of those appointed as a committee to investigate abuses regarding the concealed estates of recusants.58CJ vii. 443b. Hobart had meanwhile again acted as a teller on 20 October to reject the report of the privileges committee on the King’s Lynn election, perhaps indicating that, of the candidates, he favoured Guybon Goddard* over Thomas Toll II*.59CJ vii. 442a. As a local MP, he was also an obvious choice for the committee on the bill to regulate the making of Norwich stuffs (25 Nov.).60CJ vii. 459b. Four days later he and John Disbrowe* were the tellers in the minority against rejecting the bill declaring the jurisdiction of the admiralty court in foreign contracts.61CJ vii. 461b.

When on 3 December a Norfolk man, Drugo Wright, appeared before the House accused of serving a writ against one of the Norfolk MPs, Robert Wilton*, Hobart spoke in his defence.62Burton’s Diary, i. 9. (This did not indicate hostility towards Wilton; when later that month Wilton was recorded as being absent from the House, Hobart was among MPs who pointed out that this was because Wilton’s daughter was ill.)63Burton’s Diary, i. 285. On 25 December he opposed the decimation tax as a violation of the Act of Oblivion and then acted as teller in the minority against bringing in the bill to introduce it.64Burton’s Diary, i. 240; CJ vii. 475a. When on 31 January 1657 the House agreed that the declaration for a day of thanksgiving should include the order that clergymen pray for the lord protector, Hobart was the first MP added to the committee to make the necessary adjustment to its wording.65CJ vii. 484b. Welcoming with enthusiasm on 14 January the clause to restrict impositions in Scotland to those voted by Parliament in the bill for the union of England and Scotland, he was one of those MPs who wanted the clause extended to include England and Ireland.66Burton’s Diary, i. 347. On the case of the alleged heretic, James Naylor, Hobart seems to have favoured an especially hard line. On 11 December 1656 he was one of the tellers against a temporary adjournment of the debate on the subject.67CJ vii. 467a. More revealingly, he also acted as teller on 28 February 1657 against allowing any improvement in the conditions under which Naylor was being imprisoned.68CJ vii. 497b.

Hobart strongly supported the offer of the crown to Cromwell. One contemporary would say of him that, ‘he meddled very little, if at all, in throwing down kingship, but hath stickled very much in helping to re-establish and built it up again’ and that he was ‘a great stickler among the late kinglings’ who was ‘tight for kingship and tyranny’.69A Second Narrative of the Late Parliament (so called) (1658), 19. That was not so unfair. On 25 March 1657 he was teller in the majority with Sir Charles Wolseley* against putting the question that the debate on offering Oliver Cromwell* the crown should be adjourned for an hour, quite possibly calculating that, as turned out to be the case, the offer of the crown would be approved if it was put to an immediate vote.70CJ vii. 511a. Then, following Cromwell’s initial refusal of the crown, Hobart acted as teller with Edward Montagu II* in the majority on 4 April in favour of adhering to the Humble Petition and Advice.71CJ vii. 520b. He was later included on the committee to receive Cromwell’s doubts and scruples (9 Apr.).72CJ vii. 521b. He meanwhile took an interest in some of the Humble Petition’s other clauses. During the debates on 9 March he was the teller with Philip Jones* in favour of retaining the words ‘of known integrity’ in the clause on the qualification for MPs.73CJ vii. 500b. He was also appointed to the committee to consider the proposal that the Humble Petition should contain a clause protecting the rights of all Protestant clergymen (19 Mar.), as well as the committee about whether to include a clause against royalists (20 Mar.).74CJ vii. 507b, 508b. When Cromwell finally rejected the crown on 8 May, Hobart was said to be ‘very angry’ that his personal ambitions, including perhaps a peerage, had been dashed.75Henry Cromwell Corresp. 273.

When the House reconsidered the size of the permanent revenue on 24 April, Hobart suggested that the proposed figure might be appropriate for their current wartime situation but that it would be too large for peacetime.76Burton’s Diary, ii. 30-1. That same day he successfully moved that the phrase, ‘And proceedings in the law’, be added to the clause concerning the reformation of manners.77Burton’s Diary, ii. 36; CJ vii. 523b. In the debate on the bill for the ejection of scandalous ministers on 28 April, he expressed his doubts, suggesting that any ejections should be reviewed after six months.

I am as much to have the streams cleansed as any man, but doubt that purging by this means is rather to corrupt them. I know and have good cause to know it that the commissioners [for Norfolk] have acted vigorously, and it was scandal enough to be a minister with those commissioners.78Burton’s Diary, ii. 58.

When the House appointed a committee on 24 April to prepare a response to Cromwell’s concerns about the sixteenth clause, Hobart was a member.79CJ vii. 523b. On 19 May he was the teller with Sir Richard Lucy* against putting the question to give Cromwell the title of lord protector and, after his colleagues had instead agreed to offer that title, he was then a member of the committee asked to make the necessary changes to the Humble Petition.80CJ vii. 535a. Four days later he was included on the delegation that presented Cromwell with the revised Petition.81CJ vii. 538b. Then, on 27 May, he was named to the committee that drafted the Additional Petition.82CJ vii. 540b.

In early May Hobart was named to the committee on the bill to discourage new buildings in and around London.83CJ vii. 531b. He returned to that subject on 5 June when, in the debate on the revenue, he seconded the abatement of the fine imposed on the 5th earl of Bedford (William Russell*) under the former bill on the grounds that Covent Garden was ‘the honour of the nation’.84Burton’s Diary, ii. 181. Five days later, speaking about the assessment bill, he suggested that the relative allocation of the assessment between counties was ‘more grievous than the tax itself’.85Burton’s Diary, ii. 216-17. He raised this point again on 12 June, when he argued that the fairest allocation had been that used for Ship Money.86Burton’s Diary, ii. 231, 235.

Hobart’s support for the ‘kinglings’, together with his marriage to Mary Hampden, was bringing him closer to Cromwell and the court than had previously seemed likely. It seems telling that when, in the spring of 1657, the Paris-based double agent, Joseph Bampfield, wanted to reassure the government in London of his loyalty, he tried to use Hobart as an intermediary.87CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. 346-7, 359-60, 363, 390; TSP vi. 372, 376, 396. Confirmation that those around Cromwell no longer saw Hobart as much of a troublemaker came the following December when he was among those summoned to attend the next session of Parliament as a member of the Other House.88TSP vi. 668; HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 504. Presumably, he was selected for this honour primarily because he was now part of the lord protector’s wider family circle, although his position as a major provincial landowner may have been a further factor. He was present to take the oaths when Parliament re-assembled on 20 January 1658 and was absent from only two of the sittings of the Other House over the next fortnight. During that time he was named to its committees for petitions (21 Jan.) and on the bill against the profanation of the sabbath (21 Jan.).89HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 505-23.

Despite being a member of the Other House and a kinsman by marriage, Hobart did not attend Oliver Cromwell’s funeral on 23 November 1658.90Burton’s Diary, ii. 527. He may then have had his doubts about the new lord protector, Richard Cromwell*, as he boycotted the new Parliament summoned by him.91HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 524-67. But he may not have been completely hostile to the protectorate. During the elections for that Parliament, Henry Howard had managed the Howard interests at Castle Rising in the absence of his elder brother, the 16th and 23rd earl of Arundel. The two men Howard turned to for assistance were Hobart and Sir William Doyly*, who then supported the attempts to elect John Fielder*, the candidate favoured by Thurloe.92TSP vii. 643-4.

Together with Sir Horatio Townshend* and Thomas Richardson†, Hobart presented the Norfolk address for a free Parliament in January 1660.93Address of Gentry of Norf. ed. Rye, 13; CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 332. Defeated at the Norfolk poll in the elections for the Convention, he was granted a royal pardon and proposed for the Order of the Royal Oak with an estate of £1,000 a year.94Burke Commoners, i. 691. Hobart re-entered Parliament in 1673 after an absence of 17 years and later sat as a whig in the Exclusion Parliaments. He died on 22 Aug. 1683 and was buried at Blickling.95Vis. Norf. 1563, ii. 79. His will, drawn up in 1663, made generous bequests to his children and, among others, named his kinsman, John Hobart*, who narrowly predeceased him, as executor.96PROB11/374/143.