HOPTON, Sir Ralph (1596-1652), of Witham Friary, Som.

The Hopton family had a long history of public service. Sir William Hopton had been treasurer of the household under Edward IV, and a privy councillor under Richard III; and it was through the favour of Thomas Cromwell that Sir Arthur Hopton, the first of the family to settle in Somerset, purchased the monastic estate at Witham Friary in the east of the county. Thereafter the Hoptons increased their land-holdings in southern England and Wales through advantageous marriages.32Som. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Soc. xxiv, i. 10; Vis. Som. 1623, 56-7. When he succeeded his father in 1638, Sir Ralph Hopton enjoyed estates stretching across at least six counties in England and Wales, and as heir general to his uncle, Sir Arthur Hopton* he also stood to inherit substantial properties in Norfolk and Suffolk.33CCC 2301-5.

Although Hopton had studied at the Middle Temple, he pursued a military career.34M. Temple Admiss.; MTR ii. 577, 600; APC 1615-16, p. 158. He joined the English volunteers fighting for the Bohemian royal family against the Imperialists outside Prague, and after a brief sojourn in England in the early 1620s – when he sat for Shaftesbury in the 1621 Parliament and married a suitable heiress – returned to military service in 1624, when he was lieutenant-colonel to Sir Charles Rich in Count Mansfeld’s army.35SP81/17/81; Edgar, Hopton, 7; APC 1623-5, p. 386; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 404. The following year he was invited to join the expedition against Cadiz, but on his return from the Low Countries he was dismayed at the shambolic preparations, and refused to go.36CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 27, 49; 1625-49, pp. 15, 21. As he told Sir Dudley Carleton in October 1625, he had realised that sufficient money and victuals had not been provided, and knew from experience that he could not command effectively without such necessities.37CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 123. This was not to be Hopton’s only lesson in the inadequacies of the Caroline government in foreign affairs. Elected for Parliament again in 1625-6, he watched the acrimonious proceedings at Westminster with dismay, and told the earl of Middlesex of his fears that the dissensions at home had frustrated hopes of an English intervention on the continent.38HMC 4th Rep. 290. His confidence in the government cannot have been strengthened by his service as MP for Wells in the turbulent Parliament of 1628.39HP Commons 1660-1690.

From the late 1620s, Hopton quietly resumed his duties as a deputy lieutenant and justice of the peace for Somerset, but his dissatisfaction with the Personal Rule showed through in various ways.40QS Recs. Som. Charles I, 94-203. In 1633, for example, he joined a number of his fellow Somerset justices in petitioning for the suppression of church-ales, claiming that the reintroduction of such entertainments would increase disorder in the localities.41CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 350. In 1639, when Charles I moved against his rebellious Scottish subjects, Hopton was recalled to military service as captain of a company of horse guards, but he lacked enthusiasm for the venture.42CSP Dom. 1625-49, p. 607. In April of the same year he failed to reply to the king’s letter asking for contributions to the war effort; and in early May he wrote to the 2nd earl of Leicester criticising the plan of campaign against the Scots, and especially the duke of Hamilton’s ambitious naval expedition, which he presciently described as ‘a very unlikely enterprise for his numbers without intelligence’.43Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iii. 94; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 162-3. Hopton’s predictions soon came true, and in June the king was forced into a humiliating truce at Berwick, with scarcely a shot being fired. When the king led another army against the Scots in the summer of 1640, Hopton was conspicuous by his absence from the muster lists.44E351/293, unfol.

An important county figure in wealth and office, Hopton had established many social and political connections within Somerset society by the end of the 1630s. As a deputy lieutenant he worked alongside such important county figures as Lord Poulett (Sir John Poulett†), Sir John Stawell* and Thomas Smyth I* of Ashton Court, and he also came into contact with Sir Edward Rodney* and Sir Walter Erle* in the same capacity, and with Sir Robert Phelips†, whom he had opposed over a local election dispute in 1628.45CD 1628, iii. 435. Despite his connections, Hopton seems to have remained aloof from the faction-fighting which dominated Somerset politics during the Personal Rule, and this impartiality may have aided his candidacy as knight of the shire for the Short Parliament elections of March 1640. The election did not run entirely smoothly, however. As early as December 1639, the Popham family had been soliciting Thomas Smyth’s support for Hopton in the forthcoming elections, but by mid-March 1640 Smyth began to suspect that Hopton would join forces with the local grandee, John Coventry* (son of Lord Keeper Coventry), to his detriment.46Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 150, 156, 166. An agreement between Coventry, Hopton and Smyth, in which they agreed to ‘proceed no further in labouring for voices’, was drawn up on 24 March, but this broke down almost immediately. On 30 March Hopton and Smyth were elected as knights of the shire, presumably after a further compromise had been reached.47Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 197.

Hopton’s activities in the Short Parliament of 1640 suggest that he was thoroughly disillusioned with the Caroline regime. As a veteran of the 1620s Parliaments, Hopton was named to the committee of privileges which was appointed on 16 April.48CJ ii. 4a. On 18 April, when the Commons discussed which grievances should be put before the king, Hopton voiced his concern that ‘religion should be remembered’, and two weeks later he was named to the committee to consider the abuses perpetrated by the ecclesiastical courts (which had been particularly severe in Somerset).49Procs. Short Parl. 159; CJ ii. 17b. Hopton’s political position was revealed most strikingly in two debates. In the first, on 23 April, he called for grievances to be redressed before supply was voted, adding that a ‘countryman [that] had a thorn in his foot’, could not be criticized if he paused to remove it, for, ‘plucking out that, he would be ready to run to do his majesty service’.50Procs. Short Parl. 170. Ship Money and other ‘unparliamentary’ subsidies headed Hopton’s list of ‘thorns’, and he urged that the Commons would be ‘able to pull out some of these thorns, if we set in joint way’.51Aston’s Diary, 36-7. These were the ‘minimum terms’ on which Hopton and like-minded Englishmen would deal with the king. Although Hopton wanted abuses corrected, he was also keen not to miss the opportunity to conciliate Charles, and as the dissolution of the Short Parliament became imminent, he became more anxious for a compromise settlement. On 4 May, Hopton urged the Commons that the proper way to break the deadlock was to ‘pass together the act of supply and grievances’, or to ‘offer an answer by way of excuse. Then we vote Ship Money not lawful and get more time’.52Aston’s Diary, 135-6. In his insistence on the redress of grievances before supply, and his ultimate desire for peace between king and Parliament, Hopton was in close agreement with moderate opponents of the regime, such as Sir Francis Seymour*, Edward Kyrton* and Sir John Strangways*.

In the Long Parliament elections of October 1640, Hopton did not regain the county seat, but was returned instead for the borough of Wells, which he had represented in the Parliament of 1628. In the first few weeks of the new Parliament Hopton returned to his attack on government abuses. In November and December 1640 he was named to committees which examined monopolies, the court of the earl marshal, Ship Money and punishments suitable for individual malefactors.53CJ ii. 30a, 34b, 47b, 53a. On 12 December he was named to a committee to consider the petitions from Somerset against the Laudian bishop of Bath and Wells.54CJ ii. 50a. Hopton also became involved in the trial of the 1st earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†). On 24 November he moved that ‘other misdemeanours’ might be added to the case against Strafford in order to make the charge water-tight, and six days later he was chosen to examine witnesses from the Commons who had been summoned to give evidence at the earl’s trial.55D’Ewes (N), 61; CJ ii. 39b. Hopton’s involvement in the proceedings against Strafford continued: on 6 March 1641 he was chosen to represent the Commons in a conference about the proceedings against Strafford; and in April he refused to join the ‘Straffordians’ in voting against the attainder bill.56CJ ii. 98a.

Despite his sympathies with John Pym* and the ‘junto’, from the beginning of 1641 Hopton seems to have become increasingly wary of Scottish influence on the English Parliament. On 16 January he counselled caution in allowing the Scots concessions piecemeal, for ‘every particular article is agreed on pro tempore, supposing there will be an agreement of all; when, only, they receive their perfect and full conclusion’.57D’Ewes (N), 260n. By the end of February, Hopton’s suspicions had grown, and he supported a complaint lodged by Edward Hyde, Sir John Culpeper, Sir John Strangways and Lady Hopton’s relative, Arthur Capel, that the Scots had demanded money, and sought to influence Strafford’s trial.58D’Ewes (N), 418. Hopton was also concerned at calls for radical reform of the church. Although in December 1640 he had joined Pym’s call for measures to ‘suppress the growth of popery’, and had spoken against the Laudian Canons ‘much to the same purpose that the others had done’, Hopton was no puritan, and the attack on episcopacy worried him.59D’Ewes (N), 91, 161. When the Commons debated the fate of the bishops on 8 February, he opposed the anti-episcopal lobby led by Nathaniel Fiennes I and Denzil Holles, and supported George Lord Digby and Lucius Cary*, Viscount Falkland, who sought to quash any ‘root and branch’ legislation.60D’Ewes (N), 337-8. On 10 March, Hopton opposed the removal of bishops from the Lords, and was joined in this by Hyde and Falkland.61D’Ewes (N), 467n. When the Commons debated the form of the Protestation on 3 May, Hopton objected strongly that the religious clauses did not endorse the established church, only the ‘true reformed Protestant religion’.62Harl. 164, f. 195. Although he duly signed the Protestation, in the days that followed Hopton became much less active at Westminster, and he disappeared from the Commons Journal completely in mid-June, perhaps returning to his estates in the west country.63CJ ii. 162a, 165a, 172b.

Hopton did not re-appear at Westminster until the beginning of November 1641. The immediate problem facing the Houses, and the probable cause for Hopton’s rapid return, was news of the outbreak of the Catholic rebellion in Ireland. On 6 November an account of the rebellion was read in the Commons, and Hopton ‘spake to the dangers of Ireland and that some places might be fortified’.64D’Ewes (C), 97. Three days later he was named to a committee to allow the transport of foreign money to aid the Protestant forces in Ireland.65CJ ii. 309a. But Hopton’s desire to relieve the Irish Protestants did not lessen his hostility towards the Scots, who now offered to send forces to Ulster. On 12 November, Hopton joined Giles Strangways as teller against allowing more than 1,000 Scottish soldiers into Ireland.66CJ ii. 314a. Hopton’s hostility to the Scots accorded with his increasing efforts to curb the excesses of ‘Pym’s junto’. Thus, on 13 November he was involved in investigating the abuses of those ordered to search for Catholic priests in private households, and on 25 November he defended Geoffrey Palmer’s outspoken attack on the Grand Remonstrance.67CJ ii. 314a; D’Ewes (C), 198, 219-20, 223n. Despite his clear differences with the leaders of the Commons, Hopton’s reputation as an ‘ancient Parliament man’ brought him further employment on 30 November, as one of the members chosen to present the Grand Remonstrance, outlining Parliament’s grievances, to the king.68CJ ii. 327a. During December, fears for the safety of Parliament and for the security of the nation reached new heights, and Hopton was appointed to a number of committees examining breaches of privilege and the need to disarm papists.69CJ ii. 340a, 346b, 350a. On 23 December he acted as messenger to the Lords for a conference to discuss popular disturbances in London and to condemn the promotion of the king’s henchman, Colonel Thomas Lunsford, as constable of the Tower.70CJ ii. 354b, 355a; LJ iv. 487a.

The crisis that followed the attempted arrest of the Five Members forced Hopton to reveal his true colours. Although he had been named to the committee to vindicate Parliament’s privileges against the royal intervention on 5 January, on the same day he ‘excused’ the king’s actions, justified the use of soldiers, and claimed that ‘the speech his Majesty made was full of grace and goodness’.71CJ ii. 369a; PJ i. 14-15. John Rushworth* later accused Hopton and others ‘who were the king’s servants’ of conspiring with the king to effect the arrest of the Five Members, but this cannot be corroborated.72Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 483. There was no move to reprimand Hopton in the Commons, and on 17 January he was even named to the committee to consult with the Lords on a petition to the king protesting against the recent breach of privilege.73CJ ii. 384a. Indeed, he became more active in parliamentary proceedings in January 1642, and sat on a range of committees to consider how to defend Parliament’s privileges and the country’s safety.74CJ ii. 385a, 388a, 394a-b, 400a.

Yet Hopton’s contributions to debates at this time suggest that he had made a conscious decision to stay and fight, in an attempt to face down the king’s critics within the Commons. On 22 January he attacked plans for an assembly of divines, urging that representatives ‘that should come to the synod might be chosen by the clergy of each county [rather than by MPs], saying that it had been so used in all ages heretofore’.75PJ i. 134. At the end of January, Hopton refuted the suggestion that the county militias should be brought into a state of defence by ordinance of Parliament, ‘showing that we could not do this by an act of Parliament’.76PJ i. 229. In his concern for legality and the ancient form of governing church and state, Hopton remained faithful to the views of Seymour, Culpeper and Kyrton, and his other allies from the Short Parliament. Hopton’s commanding presence disconcerted some of those MPs who pushed for further reform: Sir Simonds D’Ewes admitted that he was ‘much troubled’ when Hopton rose to speak in favour of the disgraced Member, Sir Edward Dering, in early February.77PJ i. 253. Hopton went on the defend the attorney-general, Sir Edward Herbert*, and George Lord Digby from the wrath of the House.78PJ i. 358, 465. On 4 March Hopton found himself under investigation. His offence was to suggest that the Commons, in a declaration, had accused the king of being ‘an apostate in his religion’, by suggesting that the king’s adherence to Rome was proved by his dealing with the Spanish and French kings.79CJ ii. 467a; PJ i. 502-3. Whatever the truth of Hopton’s allegations, Parliament was dismayed by this display of defiance. Despite the efforts of D’Ewes and other parliamentarians to seek pardon for his outburst, the Commons resolved to send Hopton to the Tower of London.80CJ ii. 478b; PJ i. 503.

Hopton’s brief imprisonment marked the end of his efforts to oppose the junto from within the Commons. Released on 15 March, he seems to have left for Somerset immediately, and was certainly there by mid-April, when he was signing leases with his tenants.81PJ ii. 39-40; Som. RO, DD/HYD 25. By May, Hopton’s royalist sympathies and local influence were causing some concern at Westminster. On 5 May Pym warned the Commons that Hopton and Thomas Smyth were ‘framing a petition like that of Sir Edward Dering’, and had ‘acquired a commission from the king to oppose the militia [ordinance] if it were put into execution’.82PJ ii. 280. The two miscreants were ordered to return to the Commons to explain themselves, but Hopton was still absent without leave at the call of the House on 16 June.83CJ ii. 558b, 626n. By then the Commons had received further reports from the west that Hopton and Sir Charles Berkeley* were preparing a petition from Somerset against Parliament.84PJ iii. 22. Parliament’s fears were justified in late July, when Hopton was appointed one of the king’s commissioners of array for Somerset, and took a leading part in the increasingly open conflict between royalist and parliamentarian factions among the local gentry.85Northants RO, FH133, unfol. The king’s commissioners, under the leadership of the marquess of Hertford, mustered at Wells while Hopton and Thomas Smyth went to Shepton Mallet on 1 August to proclaim the commission of array, arresting William Strode II* when he tried to prevent them.86The Lord Marquesse of Hertford, His Letter sent to the Queen (1642), 5-8 (E.109.24). The commissioners were soon opposed by a large body of men led by the local parliamentarian gentry, including Sir John Horner, Alexander Popham* and John Pyne*; and, according to John Ashe*, ‘the whole country [took] Sir Ralph Hopton for no better than a rebel’.87John Ashe, A Second Letter (1642), 7 (E.112.13). By 19 August, Hertford, Hopton and the other royalists, out-numbered and out-manoeuvred, were forced to retreat south to the 1st earl of Bristol’s castle at Sherborne in Dorset.88A True and Exact Relation of all the Proceedings of the Marquesse Hertford (1642, E.112.33); CJ ii. 743a. Parliament’s reaction was swift. Once the proceedings at Wells became known, Hopton was disabled as an MP and summoned as a delinquent.89CJ ii. 703b-4a; LJ v. 264a. By the end of August he had been formally accused of high treason.90CJ ii. 745a.

Soon after their arrival at Sherborne, the Somerset royalists were forced to move again; this time in the face of a besieging army under the 5th earl of Bedford, William Russell*. Hertford went north, and crossed into Wales; Hopton escaped westwards, arriving in Cornwall in late September.91CJ ii. 790b; Add. 18777, f. 18. For the next year, Hopton was engaged in building support for the king in Devon and Cornwall, and in harassing the parliamentarian garrisons at Plymouth and Exeter. His victory against the 1st earl of Stamford (Henry Grey*) at Stratton in May 1643 allowed the royalist army to advance deep into enemy territory, re-taking much of Devon and Somerset in the early summer, and forcing Sir William Waller* to retreat at the battle of Lansdown — the precursor to the comprehensive defeat of the parliamentarian army by Lord Wilmot (Henry Wilmot*) at Roundway Down, near Devizes, in July.92Rushworth, Hist. Collns. v. 271-2, 284-5; Edgar, Hopton, 44-118. Bristol fell to the king soon afterwards, followed by the whole of Dorset except for the port towns of Lyme and Poole. Yet the military success of Hopton and his allies in the west was offset by growing political divisions within the royalist camp. The capture of Bristol was the catalyst, as Hertford’s appointment of Hopton as governor of the city was countermanded by the king, who had promised the same post to Prince Rupert. This put Hopton in an awkward position, for although he had an ‘ancient, fast and unshaken’ devotion to Hertford, he had also fostered ‘an avowed and declared reverence to the queen of Bohemia and her children’, including Prince Rupert, since the early 1620s.93Clarendon, Hist. iii. 121-5. The suggested solution – that Hopton should act as Rupert’s lieutenant-governor – caused much ill-feeling among the moderates at court. In consolation, Hopton was created Baron Hopton of Stratton on 4 September 1643.94Add. 15856, ff. 43-5.

Hopton served under Rupert at Bristol from August 1643, and he soon encountered difficulties of his own with the impetuous prince. Rupert’s continual call for reinforcements drained the garrison, and he was deaf to Hopton’s pleas for arms and equipment.95Add. 18980, ff. 109, 112-16, 119, 122, 131. When Hopton again took to the field in December, he objected to Rupert’s further demands that a cavalry regiment be reassigned; and in January 1644 he complained that his army had been weakened by Rupert’s constant withdrawal of seasoned troops, at a time when Hopton had ‘a powerful prosperous enemy’ advancing upon him.96Add. 18980, f. 160; Add. 18981, f. 7. In March, Hopton’s fears were realised, when he was defeated by Waller at Cheriton, and the royalist advance from the west was thrown back.97Rushworth, Hist. Collns. v. 654; CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 83-5. Hopton retreated to Oxford, and attended the king in order to discuss the conduct of the war.98Add. 18981, f. 167; CSP Dom. 1644, p. 166. But the royalist defeat at Marston Moor (July 1644) and the losing draw at Newbury (October 1644) reduced the king’s ability to wage war, and his western general was largely inactive for much of 1644 and the early months of 1645.99Edgar, Hopton, 168-73.

The factional divisions at Oxford had worsened in the winter of 1644-5, and Hopton was now openly at odds with the ‘war party’ led by Prince Rupert. The appointment of the prince of Wales as captain-general of the royalist western association in January 1645, under the guidance of Hopton as his lieutenant-general, made matters worse, as this was seen as a triumph for Rupert’s opponents at Oxford. In March Hopton was appointed a privy councillor, and attended the prince with his kinsman Lord Capel, and Culpeper and Hyde.100Clarendon, Hist. iii. 450; Edgar, Hopton, 173-4. These men had been Hopton’s political allies before the civil war, and Hyde and Capel had joined Sir Francis Dodington, Lord Lumley and others as Hopton’s feoffees in the settlement of his estates drawn up in October 1644.101Som. RO, DD/DP33, unfol. The presence of such men around the prince of Wales soon antagonised Rupert and his friends, including the pugnacious Lord Goring (George Goring*), who had his own military ambitions in the west. In May 1645 the command of the western forces was transferred to Goring, while Hopton resumed his role as governor of Bristol.102HMC Portland, i. 222. As Hopton himself admitted, his commission under the prince of Wales had ‘cost me great displeasure from Prince Rupert’.103CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 511.

Royalist divisions may have encouraged Hopton to become involved in abortive peace negotiations with Parliament during September 1645. On 15 September, the prince of Wales asked Sir Thomas Fairfax* to allow Hopton and Culpeper safe conduct to attend the king, to encourage him to re-open talks.104CJ iv. 290a. The proposal to allow envoys ‘to desire him [the king] to enter into a treaty for a happy conclusion of this miserable war in a firm peace’ was discussed at Westminster on 26 September, but a decision was postponed, and the matter was soon dropped.105CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 137; Add. 31116, p. 467. Hopton’s commitment to peace seems to have overridden concerns for his own safety, for he had been excepted from pardon by Parliament, and this order was reiterated in September and November 1645.106CJ iii. 636a; LJ vii. 55a; CJ iv. 356b. In October 1645 the Committee for Advance of Money ordered that Hopton’s estates were to be sequestered.107CCAM 615. With peace efforts spurned, the only recourse was to renew the war; but the military situation was already past redemption. After the defeat of the king’s main field army at Naseby in June 1645, it was only a matter of time before the New Model army marched west against the royalist associated counties. Hopton was defeated at Torrington in Devon in February 1646, retreating with the remnant of his army to Truro in Cornwall, where he capitulated to Fairfax on 14 March.108Stowe 143, ff. 118-20; HMC Portland, i. 322; CJ iv. 449a, 483a; Add. 31116, pp. 517-8, 708. With his estates sequestered and pardon refused, Hopton had little incentive to stay in England, and he fled to the Channel Islands with the prince of Wales in June 1646.109Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 201-2.

Hopton’s exile may have removed him from the clutches of a vengeful Parliament, but it did not save him from continuing faction-fighting within royalist circles. In June 1646, shortly after their arrival in Jersey, Hopton, Hyde and Capel made clear their opposition to the prince’s planned journey to France, and refused to attend him on such a venture.110CCSP i. 323. Although they claimed this did not show a lack of respect to the queen, it was soon clear that Hopton and his friends were suspicious of the intentions of the pro-Catholic elements in Henrietta Maria’s court.111Clarendon, Hist. iv. 201-2. They were especially mistrustful of Lord Jermyn (Henry Jermyn*), who was eager that the prince should join his mother in France, and in October 1646, Hopton, Hyde, Capel and Sir George Carteret signed articles of association pledging to defend Jersey if Jermyn tried to give it up to the French.112CCSP i. 324, 338. In the spring of 1647 Hopton finally agreed to travel to the French mainland, and took up residence with his uncle, Sir Arthur Hopton at Rouen.113CCSP i. 373; Eg. 2533, f. 427. He remained in close contact with Hyde during the summer and autumn of 1647, and shared with him a growing hatred of the Scots, who promised military aid to the king in return for the establishment of Presbyterian religious forms.114CCSP i. 379-80, 388-93, 404. Hopton joined Hyde in upholding the rights of the Church of England, but the chancellor warned the general against associating too closely with the ‘mis-reformed’ churches of the continent, and especially the French Huguenots.115CCSP i. 420-1.

During 1648 and 1649 Hopton was heavily involved in attempts to make war against Parliament. By July 1648 he had travelled to Calais with the prince of Wales, and he then proceeded to Helvoetsluys in Holland, where he met the duke of York.116Clarendon, Hist. iv. 338. Hopton even began to cooperate in naval activities with Prince Rupert, who took charge of the royal fleet in 1649.117Add. 18982, ff. 153, 196. But the veneer of cooperation masked growing rifts within the royal court, which re-emerged shortly after Charles I’s execution. In March 1649, Charles Stuart was approached by the Scots, who urged him to take the Covenant and lead a Scottish army south against Parliament. Hopton, who was described as ‘one of the four to whom the managing of affairs is trusted’, took a dim view of such deals.118HMC Leyborne-Popham, 10. By March 1650 he had come into open conflict with the queen mother and her advisers, who had turned against Hopton and Secretary Nicholas.119CCSP ii. 49-50. The queen, Jermyn, Percy and Wilmot were now ‘declared Presbyterians’ (or supporters of a peace deal with the Scots); Hopton and his friends were ‘with the church men’ (upholding the established church against the Presbyterians), and the two groups were irreconcilable.120HMC de L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 476. In June 1650 Hopton, furious that the agreement with the Scots had gone ahead against his advice, left the court and retired to Utrecht.121CCSP ii. 62. Attempts to reconcile Hopton with Charles Stuart were made by the duke of York in September 1650, and in March 1651 there were rumours that Hopton, Nicholas and Lord Gerard had plans to raise a German army to replace the Scots as the king’s mercenaries.122CSP Dom. 1650, p. 351; HMC Portland, i. 534, 582, 595. But the king’s refusal to countenance such schemes, and his continuing negotiations with the Scots, prevented reconciliation with Hopton.

Hopton’s decision to retire from the court in the summer of 1650 coincided with his belated attempt to secure his family’s inheritance. His first wife had died in 1646, without having provided an heir for the estate or the barony.123CCSP i. 306. In June 1650, at the intercession of Hyde, negotiations began for a match between Hopton and the daughter of Lady Morton, and although Hyde feared that his friend had become attached to another young lady in Paris, the Morton marriage was still on foot in the spring of 1651.124CCSP ii. 92, 96, 152. It was no coincidence that Hopton chose the early summer of 1651 to make representations to Parliament, hoping to make peace with his former enemies, and to be allowed to compound for his estates. On 6 May, Hopton told Nicholas that Culpeper had ‘persuaded me to think of compounding and to procure his majesty’s leave for it’.125Eg. 2534, f. 75. Shortly afterwards, Hopton sent a petition to Westminster, desiring to have possession of his remaining estates, and to ‘live a retired life, which, for the remainder of his days, may be inoffensive to all the world’.126Add. 4165, f. 3. Yet at his death, in late September 1652, Hopton remained unmarried, his estates were still out of his control, and the barony became extinct for the lack of an heir.

The fate of Hopton’s estates was not decided for nearly 20 years after his death. The sequestration order of October 1645 had brought a dismemberment of Hopton’s lands, first by lease, and then (after the general act for sale of delinquent estates), by purchase.127CCAM 615; CCC 205-6, 208, 302, 2302-5; A. and O.; CJ vii. 332a. The lands of Sir Arthur Hopton, which had passed to Sir Ralph in 1650, were immediately sequestered.128CCC 2301. The death of the latter brought a rash of claims against the estate by his creditors from before the civil war.129Som. RO, DD/DP33, unfol. By 1660 the entire estate had been sold off, and an estimated £30,000 of damage had been caused by the felling of timber and the spoliation of land, in addition to the lost rental profits.130HMC 7th Rep. 93. A petition from Hopton’s heirs shortly after the restoration brought an order from the House of Lords to halt the exploitation of the estate, and a settlement was achieved in 1661.131LJ xi. 52b. The family was still pursuing claims to individual properties until at least 1669, and the Witham Friary lands were eventually recovered by Hopton’s nephew, Thomas Wyndham†.132Som. RO, DD/HYD 4; Som. and Dorset N. and Q. xxx. 162-3.

Sir Edward Hyde thought Hopton was ‘as faultless a person as ever knew man’.133CCSP ii. 152. This epitaph merely reinforces the impression, gained from other evidence, that the two men saw eye to eye on political and religious matters, as well as being close personal friends. Hopton, as much as Culpeper, Kyrton, Seymour, Strangways or Hyde, had pressed for the reform of the Caroline regime in the early 1640s, but could not stomach the radical changes demanded by ‘Pym’s junto’, and so had joined the king in 1642. A desire for a return to constitutional government and a non-Laudian established church underlay Hopton’s support for peace initiatives during the first civil war, and was again manifest in his opposition to the queen’s Catholic courtiers and the Presbyterian Scots in the later 1640s and early 1650s. Hopton may have shared Sir John Strangways’ dilemma, that neither a royalist nor a parliamentarian total victory would safeguard the traditional forms of government which many country gentlemen desired.134Infra, ‘Sir John Strangways’. The supreme irony for Hopton, as Charles I’s general in the west, was that his desire for a ‘constitutional’ settlement would have been ill-served by the victory of the king or his son, either in 1645 or 1650.