HEYMAN, Henry (1608-58), of Somerfield, Sellindge, Kent.

This MP owed his entry to Parliament to the standing and connections of his father, Sir Peter Heyman*, and during the latter’s lifetime he made little impact on the record. Having entered Grays Inn in February 1626, he was not called to the bar.34G. Inn Admiss. 177. The imprisonment of Sir Peter in March 1629 for opposing the adjournment of Parliament, and an associated dissatisfaction with the personal rule of Charles I, may have influenced the decision to obtain for Henry a three-year pass to the continent, granted on 2 June 1631.35APC 1630-1, p. 373. He had probably returned by the beginning of May 1634, when with his father he acquired further property in Kent.36Coventry Docquets, 657. He had certainly returned by some time that year, when he married the niece, and ultimately the co-heiress, of his stepmother’s first husband, Christopher Holford of West Thurrock in Essex. The match may have represented a resolution of a long-running property dispute between the Heymans and the bride’s father, Daniel Holford (d. 1630).37Add. 18477, f. 342; PROB11/119/663 (Christopher Holford); PROB11/157/273; TS11/1132 and TS11/1134; C2/JasI/H10/59.

Having thus far played no discernable part in local affairs, Henry Heyman supported the candidacy of Sir Edward Dering* in his contest against Sir Roger Twysden* in the election for the county seat in the spring of 1640.38J. Peacey, ‘Tactical organisation in a contested election’, in Parliament, Politics and Elections, ed. C. Kyle (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xvii), 267. Moreover, he secured election as one of the burgesses for Hythe in both the Short and Long Parliaments. Although his father had received the support of lord wardens when he won the same seat during the 1620s, there is no evidence that Heyman was so nominated, and it is likely that he secured the seat simply on the family interest. He left no mark on the records of proceedings, however, until 8 February 1641, when he was granted leave of absence from the House to attend his father’s funeral.39CJ ii. 80b.

Heyman had returned to Westminster by 25 February, when he received his first committee appointment, to work on legislation regulating the conversion of tillage to pasture.40CJ ii. 92b. It was another month before he received his second (26 Mar.), but that was to counter the perceived danger from recusants, a subject in which he was to demonstrate a sustained interest (13, 21 Aug.).41CJ ii. 113b, 254a, 268a. After he took the Protestation promptly on 3 May, his profile in the House began to increase.42CJ ii. 133a. As well as sitting on a committee to consider a petition from his younger half-brother, Peter Heyman (4 Aug.), he took on the mantle of his father, becoming active in local or coastal concerns including levying sailors (10 May) and naturalising immigrants (25 June, 5 Aug.); property interests near the Essex port of Tilbury doubtless gave this an extra dimension.43CJ ii. 141b, 187b, 235a, 237a. As Sir Peter had done seven months earlier, on 28 June Henry Heyman moved that the Cinque Ports should be exempted from the subsidy bill, while on 29 July he secured the referral of a petition against customs farmer Sir Thomas Dawes to the customers’ committee.44E. Kent RO, Sa/C4, unfol.; Procs. LP v. 385; vi. 140.

Heyman came to occupy his father’s position in other respects too, including with regard to policing elections (18 Aug.).45Procs. LP vi. 473. On 10 August he was named with Commons leaders like John Pym*, John Hampden* and John Selden* to the small committee charged with the politically sensitive task of devising the remit of the commission which was to deploy the royal assent to bills during the king’s absence in the north treating with the Scots.46CJ ii. 249a; Harl. 479, f. 164. Heyman’s inherited religious and regional perspectives probably underlay his response that summer to further revelations of the ‘army plot’, and cancelled out the effects of the knighthood, baronetcy and membership of the Kentish commission of the peace bestowed on him respectively on 7, 17 and 16 August in what looks like a misconceived attempt by the crown to get him on side.47Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 210; C231/5, pp. 472-3. On 12 August he revealed his keenness that Henry Percy* should be charged in the same manner as fellow plotter Sir John Suckling*, while on 8 September he was a teller with William Wheler* for the minority who wished to deny plotters William Ashbournham* and Hugh Pollard* their army pay, and also secured an order for payment to the queen mother of a pension that would keep her out of the kingdom.48CJ ii. 284a; Procs. LP vi. 387, 686. Although Heyman was upbraided the next day for a speech which appeared to criticise John Pym*, the matter appeared to rest upon a misinterpretation of his words.49CJ ii. 286a; Harl. 164, f. 107.

Heyman received only one committee nomination between the end of the autumn recess and mid-January 1642, but it was in connection with money-raising (9 Nov.) and implied loyalty to Parliament.50CJ ii. 308b. As he reappeared in the Journal on 17 January some days after the king’s attempted arrest of the Five Members, and following the latter’s return to Westminster, his allegiance became clear. He was added to the important committee charged with putting the kingdom in a posture of defence, as he was later to the committee of informations – or the Committee for Examinations as it would come to be known (28 Jan., 17 Aug.).51CJ iv. 383b, 401a, 725a. Writing to his borough from Blackfriars on the 17th, Heyman expressed apprehension that they might share the joy which had been expressed in Dover at the impeachment of those ‘fiery spirits’, and his hope that ‘your town is better affected to the common good’. He provided a detailed account of recent events in Westminster, mentioning the position of the bishops, the threat from France, and the need to guard the House, and to retreat into London for safety.52E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol.

Heyman’s closeness to those marshalling MPs to resist royal pressure was revealed in other ways. He was appointed to discuss the king’s answer to the latest proposition from the Scottish commissioners (27 Jan.) and to investigate a quarrel in Westminster Hall involving the suspect future royalist Gervase Holles* (31 Jan.).53CJ iv. 400a, 404b. On 27 January he made a speech critical of the electoral influence of the lord warden of the Cinque Ports, the king’s kinsman James Stuart, 1st duke of Richmond and 4th duke of Lennox, which helped to convince the Commons that the duke was ‘one of the malignant party and an ill counsellor’. Richmond had attempted to effect the election of ‘monopolists and projectors’ like Thomas Webb*, and had sent a

threatening letter to a town or two in the Cinque Ports because they refused to elect such as he nominated for burgesses, and under a penalty to certify the names of those who were against him, and here he shows that he had intention to make as many Parliament men as he could to be of his opinion.54PJ i. 197, 203-4.

As a result, Heyman was twice called to conferences with or examination by the Lords (29, 31 Jan.) at which he provided more details relating to Richmond’s activity during the Hythe election.55CJ ii. 403a, 406b; PJ i. 219, 224-5, 230, 235; LJ iv. 549b, 551a-553b. Nevertheless, Heyman’s correspondence with his constituents in February expressed a commitment to an amicable political settlement: he hoped that the king would comply with Parliament, and that a ‘good correspondence’ between the Lords and Commons would ‘produce such effects as will be for the honour of the kingdom and good of his people’.56E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol.

National and local concerns continued to intertwine in Heyman’s activity over the spring and summer of 1642, with personal ties sometimes apparently tempering his political attitudes, as when he spoke in favour of leniency towards Sir Edward Dering* for his notorious book of speeches (2 Feb. 1642).57PJ i. 265. Added on 17 January to the new committee for naval affairs (which would evolve in August into the Committee of Navy and Customs), he was a teller with fellow Kentish MP Sir Edward Boys over a particular naval appointment (10 Mar.) and named to committees relating to Algiers captives, a matter of particular concern to coastal counties.58Supra, ‘Committee of Navy and Customs’; CJ ii. 384a, 394a, 446a, 474b; PJ ii. 23. As political tension mounted, Heyman remained engaged in issues of national defence and security which had local repercussions, including the securing of papists, the provision of gunpowder, Parliament’s removal of arms from Hull, and the control of the militia; on 7 June he was among those ordered to press the lord lieutenant of Kent, Robert Sidney, 2nd earl of Leicester, to implement the militia ordinance.59CJ ii. 474b, 476a, 523b, 531a, 610a, 663b. Heyman also helped to secure the support of his own constituents for such measures, conceivably by offering the prospect of exemption from the subsidy, for which he continued to press, without success.60PJ i. 493; ii. 28, 118, 205. In addition to representing his region, he served his borough assiduously, not least by arranging for the printing and circulation of their lobby documents, but he was not afraid to upbraid them for ill-considered petitions, and advised them that they were unlikely to find favour in the House, ‘by reason of the great business there depending’.61CJ ii. 491b, 613b; E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol. A participant in a conference with the Lords over Kent on 28 March, he conveyed a message to peers on 14 April seeking consultation over the anti-parliamentarian Kentish petition.62CJ ii. 501b, 526b.

In the interval between his nominations to consider messages from the king during the ‘paper war’ (30 Apr.) and information of royalist troop movements around Charles’s temporary headquarters at York (6 June), Heyman was absent from the Journal and may well have been in Kent.63CJ ii. 550b, 609b. Until the end of August he then looks to have been regularly on the move between Westminster and his home area, mixing local and national business as before. He surfaced in the chamber to address developments in the north and in Dorset (17, 20 June; 16 July), the preparation of the covenant to be taken to uphold the parliamentary cause (15 Aug.), absent Members (17 Aug.), and sundry other matters.64CJ ii. 613b, 630a, 631a, 634a, 722a, 725a, 743a. Meanwhile, in concert with Sir Edward Boys and others, he was despatched to thwart the king’s commission of array and expedite the militia ordinance (7, 27 June) and to report back on proceedings at the Kent assizes (22 July, 2 Aug.); he was instructed to compose letters of thanks from the House to well-affected local figures (6 July, 23 Aug.); and dealt with other parliamentary business concerning Kent.65CJ ii. 610a, 641a, 655a, 685b, 686a, 700b, 733b, 737b, 745a; PJ iii. 276. His loyalty and service led to his nomination on 17 August as a deputy lieutenant.66CJ ii. 724a. On 31 August Heyman also secured the services of the rector of Otham and lecturer at Maidstone, Thomas Wilson, to preach before Parliament.67CJ ii. 747a; PJ iii. 328.

After a six-week absence from the Journal in September and early October amid the early skirmishes of civil war, on 13 October Heyman was nominated to a committee collecting money and plate for the cause.68CJ ii. 806b. But having been sent to Kent on 24 October to apprehend royalist colonel Richard Molyneux, 2nd Viscount Molyneux, Heyman’s concern to secure the region for Parliament kept him away from Westminster until the end of the year.69CJ ii. 820b. Although one motive for his return looks to have been to transact Kentish business and secure compensation for seizures of property, in five weeks’ attendance to late January 1643 Heyman also became engaged in wider political, military and strategic issues including negotiating with the Scots and the king, the disposal of prisoners, the raising of volunteers, and the problem of ships that were prevented from going to Newcastle for coal.70CJ ii. 900a, 907b, 911a, 912b, 916a, 943b. That he was disposed to take a hard line in talks with Charles is indicated by his role as a teller with Sir Philip Stapilton* in favour of pursuing additional royalist delinquents (29 Dec. 1642).71CJ ii. 901b, 906a. That he also had a reform agenda is revealed by his appointment to the Committee for Plundered Ministers (31 Dec.).72CJ ii. 909a.

After another, longer spell of apparent absence from the House in February and March 1643, Heyman re-appeared in April for a short stint of high profile service which included moves against delinquents (3, 12 Apr.) and addition to the Committee for Irish Affairs (17 Apr.).73CJ iii. 28a, 41a, 44a, 47b. During this time he secured an order for payment to himself and Sir Edward Boys for their expenditure for the cause in Kent, to which he seems to have devoted himself from the second half of April to the end of June.74CJ iii. 40a. He reappeared in the Journal as having taken the Covenant on 7 June, but local unrest was evidently his major preoccupation even when he resumed a more regular attendance from 1 July.75CJ iii. 119a. Although he was named over the summer in connection with important business of national significance – for example, as manager of a conference about Hull (3 July) and as a member of committees addressing the creation of a new great seal and aspects of the war effort – this activity was probably overshadowed by his part in countering the ‘insurrection’ in Kent.76CJ iii. 151b, 153a, 155b, 156a, 176a, 195a, 204b, 212a, 213b; Bodl. Tanner 62, ff. 186, 222; E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol.; Add. 33512, ff. 78, 82; SP28/210B, unfol. In its aftermath, Heyman was involved in punishing the ringleaders, including Sir Edward Hales* and Sir Roger Twysden*, although longstanding connections with royalists like Sir Thomas Peyton* were productive of requests for assistance, and no doubt complicated his perspectives.77CJ iii. 156b, 187b, 203b, 279a, 301a; Add. 44846, ff. 16, 21, 26v. In the months that followed, he was to the fore in ensuring that the county was provided with troops and supplies, as well as in enforcing the Solemn League and Covenant.78CJ iii. 209b, 239a; Add. 33512, f. 89; E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol.

Local experiences probably informed Heyman’s zeal for the wider war effort, for military reorganisation and mobilisation, and for the encouragement of Sir William Waller*.79CJ iii. 210a, 237a. He remained active in negotiating with the City for money and military supplies (Sept., Oct.).80CJ iii. 243b, 253b, 257b, 261a, 274a. Furthermore, his alignment with the ‘war party’ was evident from the hard-line position he took against suspected crypto-royalists like Sir John Evelyn of Surrey*, exhibited in a tellership on 3 November.81CJ iii. 221a, 301a, 409a; Harl. 165, f. 159v. Heyman was involved in the prosecution of Sir Edward Bayntun*, who was questioned for his criticism of William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye (9 Sept.), and in pursuing others who had impugned Saye and Pym (18 Sept.).82CJ iii. 236a, 246a. He was also named to the committees to consider the accusations levelled against Anthony Nicoll* by Henry Grey*, 1st earl of Stamford (30 Oct.), and to prepare questions to put to Henry Rich†, 1st earl of Holland, on his return from Oxford.83CJ iii. 294b, 304a.

From early 1644 Heyman’s activity in the Commons and on behalf of the Committee of Both Kingdoms reveals a concern not just with the defence of Kent, or even with raising money for campaigning nationally, but also – in common with others of the emerging Independent faction – with strengthening the arm of Sir William Waller (for instance through provision for his army in the midlands) at the expense of Parliament’s commander-in-chief, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex.84CJ iii. 366b, 408b, 410a, 431b, 473b, 502b, 504b, 510b, 520a-b, 562a-b, 563b, 606a, 607a, 618a; CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 113, 181, 213, 433, 458; SP28/210B, unfol.; SP28/235, unfol. By the summer Heyman was apparently close to the leading Independent peer and member of the CBK, Viscount Saye, and he participated in attempts to undermine factional rivals, whose loyalty to the cause was suspected.85CJ iii. 604b, 635b. By acting as a teller against a motion which cleared Basil Feilding, 2nd earl of Denbigh, of any ‘disaffection to the public service or breach of trust’ (20 Nov.), Heyman revealed himself to be aligned with some of the most ‘fiery spirits’ in the Commons.86CJ iii. 602a, 607b, 637b, 700b.

From time to time Heyman was involved in diplomacy or in exchanges with the king, probably as a member of the Independent faction. In September 1643 he had been sent with Henry Vane II* to meet the French ambassador, while in August 1644 he was a participant in discussions regarding Charles’s nephew, Charles Louis, elector palatine, in September he was on the delegation to meet Dutch envoys, and in January 1645 met the Swedish agent.87CJ iii. 241a, 612b, 618b; iv. 8a. But although he was on joint committees considering a letter from the king (16 Sept. 1644) and receiving overtures from the duke of Richmond and Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton (16 Dec.), he was not noticeably associated with the Uxbridge negotiations.88CJ iii. 629a, 725b, 733a. On the other hand, in a period when there was rather less Kentish business coming his way and rare nominations related to Ireland, Heyman was visibly interested in army reform.89CJ iii. 599b, 609a, 708b, 733a; iv. 4b, 38a. Having been involved in considering disputes which had arisen between regional commanders and county committees (3 Sept. 1644), early in 1645 he demonstrated his commitment to the ‘new modelling’ of the army, not least in a series of factional divisions in which he was twice partnered by Sir Arthur Hesilrige*.90CJ iii. 617a; iv. 28b, 42b, 64b, 78b, 82b, 91b, 96b. Once the army was formed, Heyman displayed a concern for its supply and finance during the preparation for the decisive phase of the military struggle.91CJ iv. 164a, 168b, 299a.

In the months which followed the parliamentarian victory at Naseby in June 1645, Heyman was on more than one occasion granted leave of absence from the House, but he was still a useful adherent of the Independents.92CJ iv. 274b, 324b; SP28/210B, unfol. In addition to his support for the New Model, he evidently advanced measures to strengthen the Eastern Association (11 Sept.), and was involved that month in preparing instructions for county committees.93CJ iv. 262a, 265b, 271b. Among other not inconsequential appointments – to the standing committee on prisoners (13 Sept.), the committee for privileges (7 Oct.), the committee to investigate bribery of MPs (1 Dec.) – Heyman was nominated to consider the case against lending money for the Presbyterian project of diverting troops to Ireland (8 Dec.).94CJ iv. 273b, 300a, 362a, 368b. His Independency was apparent from his prominent role in overseeing the publication of selections from the intercepted correspondence of Lord George Digby* (10 Dec.); his tellership with Sir Michael Livesay*, and against Denzil Holles* and Sir William Lewis*, in a division over the imposition of martial law (1 Jan. 1646); and in his participation in attempts to purge the House of ‘disaffected’ MP Sir John Fenwick* (17 Jan.).95CJ iv. 372a, 394a, 409b. It was almost certainly in play in his dealings with the Scots, from the summer of 1645 and his involvement in examination of the affair of Richard Barwis*, into early 1646, when he was named to committees charged with responding to their demands, investigating their propaganda, and arresting those of their agents who were negotiating with royalists.96CJ iv. 239a, 240b, 399b, 422a, 430a, 431b, 462b.

Meanwhile, notwithstanding Heyman’s 1642 appointment to the Committee for Plundered Ministers, evidence of his religious stance is relatively sparse. Thomas Swinnerton, the ‘godly preaching minister’ he had presented to West Thurrock in 1643 continued his ministry undisturbed through the 1640s and 1650s.97Lansd. 459, f. 120; VCH Essex, viii. 60, 62. Heyman’s nomination in November 1644 to consider the chapter in the draft ‘Directory for Worship’ concerning admission to holy communion might have been as a critic of its provisions, but in June 1646 he was made a commissioner for exclusion from the sacrament 98CJ iii. 705b; iv. 562b. That he was named first on 20 August 1645 to view the royal picture collection at York House and identify items deemed ‘superstitious’ implies a strictness in such matters, as does his appointment in January 1646 to discuss the better observation of the sabbath.99CJ iv. 248b, 411b. Yet in some respects he exhibited lenient attitudes. When in February 1646 the corporation of Hythe attempted to punish unlicensed baptist preachers, Heyman and his fellow burgess Thomas Westrowe* refused to support their imprisonment, claiming that there was neither legal sanction nor parliamentary precedent for the incarceration of anyone ‘for preaching or expounding, unless it were for disturbing the peace, or publishing seditious or known heretical doctrine’.100E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol. Given that Heyman seems to have been supportive of further sequestration of ecclesiastical lands (16 Sept. 1645), and taking account of his attitude to the Scots, the position he brought to committees to consider the Westminster Assembly’s complaint about ‘the dissenting brethren’ (11 Dec.) and the oaths to be taken in relation to the Solemn League and Covenant (12 Dec.) seems most likely to have been that of a moderate but sometimes austere Erastian Independent.101CJ iv. 276a, 373a, 374a.

In the spring and summer of 1646 there are signs that Heyman continued to be engaged in a range of business, including sensitive or controversial matters such as reviewing the powers of the Committee for Advance of Money (17 Feb.), investigating intelligence (18 Feb., 2 Mar., 26 May, 9/18 June), and expediting the sale of delinquents’ estates (21 Aug.).102CJ iv. 445b, 447b, 452a, 458b, 491a, 550a, 555a, 580b, 650b, 658b, 722a; v. 6b. But leave obtained on 30 March may have extended into the second half of May, his attendance overall was evidently less regular, and he made very little impact in the Journal in the second half of the year.103CJ iv. 495a. Returning to prominence from December, Heyman once again became involved in weighty political matters including army arrears, Presbyterian propaganda, and the ‘disposal’ of the king.104CJ v. 9b, 11a, 30a, 47a, 60a, 77b, 84a, 89a, 100b. On the last issue he once more proved a loyal Independent, acting as a teller for the minority against Presbyterian leaders Hollis and Stapilton (29 Dec.).105CJ v. 33a. It may thus have been the Independents who in January 1647 sanctioned the award of £5,000 to Heyman, in compensation for his father’s treatment in 1629.106HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 560; Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 20 (8-15 Aug. 1648), sig. Z (E.458.24).

In the spring of 1647, Heyman still found time for local business, his report to the Admiralty committee on the state of the harbour at Margate surfacing in the Lords on 27 February.107HMC 6th Rep. 166; LJ ix. 106b. As political tension mounted, however, he was involved in considering radicalism in print and in the army, and he appears to have been prominent in attempts to counter Presbyterian ascendancy in Parliament and the City, not least as regards militia reform.108CJ v. 82a, 117b, 119b, 132b. Missing from the Journal after 2 April, possibly for partisan reasons, he re-emerged with nominations to confer with the Lords over a declaration explaining Parliament’s position in the context of the army’s march on London (14 June) and to prepare a declaration on the assembly of soldiers after the army had presented its charges of impeachment against the Eleven Presbyterian Members (19 June).109CJ v. 210a, 217b. It is possible that he sympathised with the impeachment, but it is also possible to read his handful of committee nominations up to and including the one on 22 July, to respond to threats posed to Parliament by Presbyterian-inspired apprentices, as indicating a middle position between the army and its opponents.110CJ v. 229a, 253a, 254a.

The Presbyterian coup on 26 July evidently prompted Heyman to withdraw from the Commons, for he joined the fugitive Members on 4 August in their declaration in support of the army.111LJ ix. 385b. He reappeared at Westminster briefly after the army’s march on London, among those named to investigate the ‘forcing of the Houses’ (6 Aug.), but on the day of his next appearance in the Journal (21 Aug.), when he reported a petition from a naval commander, he was given leave to go into the country.112CJ v. 269a, 281a, 282a; SP28/234, unfol. The next mention of his name was when his absence was recorded at the call of the House on 9 October.113CJ v. 330b. He resurfaced only on 30 December, when he was added to the committee for complaints in connection with a riot at Ealing, Middlesex.114CJ v. 410b,

Heyman was added on 11 January 1648 to the committee for grievances, set up a week earlier in the wake of the Vote of No Addresses to the king, in respect of the petition of the Presbyterian provincial assembly of London, and on the 14th to the committee for complaints, in relation to the marshal of king’s bench prison, but his service in the first four months of the year was relatively routine, comprehending such matters as assessments, customs, petitions and the Admiralty.115CJ v. 427a, 432a, 434a, 480a, 484b, 486a, 505b, 538a; SP28/234, unfol. Four days after an isolated committee nomination on 20 April his absence from the House was excused.116CJ v. 543b. The justification for this was probably organisation of the defence of Kent during the second civil war, but Heyman was still absent on 26 September, by which time the crisis had passed.117CJ vi. 34b. However, activity on the Kent committee may provide sufficient explanation.118Bodl. Nalson VII, f. 50; SP28/234, unfol. Unlike many MPs, Heyman returned to the House in early November to be named to organise a parliamentary guard (4 Nov.) and to be nominated to the Army Committee (10 Nov.), although it is not clear that this was assented to by the Lords.119CJ vi. 69b, 73a. Nevertheless, he withdrew from the chamber at Pride’s Purge on 6 December 1648.

Although Heyman appears to have remained active on the county committee into the spring of 1649, he played no part in the affairs of the Rump until he was readmitted to the Commons by an order of 28 June 1649.120CJ vi. 245b; C. Walker, Anarchia Anglicana (1649), 210 (E.570.4); SP28/235, unfol. On 20 July he was added to the Army Committee and the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs, but thereafter his appearances in the House were probably rare, because of his commitments in Kent, where he was active in the second half of 1649 and the first half of 1650, in response to instructions from the council of state.121E. Kent RO, H1211, pp. 10, 13, 32, 47; CJ vi. 265a, 266b; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 261, 265, 334, 413; 1650, p. 145; SP28/234, unfol. He was named to two committees regarding Edward, Lord Howard of Escrick* in on 30 July and 18 September 1650, and was nominated infrequently to minor committees thereafter, although his enthusiasm may have been spurred somewhat by Cromwell’s victory over the Scots at Worcester in September 1651.122CJ vi. 448b, 469a, 524a, 616b; vii. 13b; Add. 63788B, ff. 92-93v. He was a teller with Thomas Chaloner*, and against Thomas Harrison* and Nathaniel Rich* in November 1651 in a division over elections for the council of state, and he was named to committees regarding the army and law reform that December.123CJ vii. 42b, 58a, 58b. Thereafter, he appears to have withdrawn from the House once again.

Although he continued for a while as an occasional commissioner or standing committee member, Heyman appears to have retired from public life entirely under the protectorate.124A. and O.; Act for an Assessment (1653), 282 (E.1062.28). He died at Grays in Essex in 1658, and was buried at Sellindge some time before 7 December, when administration of his estate was granted to his father’s half-brother, Peter Heyman.125PROB6/34, f. 312v. His son Sir Peter Heyman, who succeeded to the baronetcy, dissipated the family’s fortunes, and none of his immediate descendents sat in Parliament.126CB.