HEVENINGHAM, William (1604-78), of Heveningham, Suff. and Ketteringham, Norf.

Heveningham belonged to a long-established Suffolk family which in 1575 made Ketteringham in Norfolk its main residence.43‘Sir Arthur Heveningham’, Oxford DNB. His father, Sir John Heveningham†, who did not succeed to the family estate until 1630, was a prominent justice of the peace in both counties and sheriff of Norfolk in 1615, serving as one of its knights of the shire in 1628. He was notable as one of the ‘Five Knights’ who, having been imprisoned for refusing to contribute to the Forced Loan in 1627, sued for a writ of habeas corpus and had their cases were heard in the court of king’s bench.44HP Commons 1604-1629.

William Heveningham was educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge.45Al. Cant. His marriage in November 1629 forged an alliance with one of the most prominent puritan families of Hampshire, then headed by Sir Henry Wallop*. Thereafter, Heveningham became associated with both Hampshire, where he secured a seat in Parliament, and his native East Anglia, where most of his work in local administration took place, and where his friends included prominent puritans like Framlingham Gawdy*.46HMC Gawdy, 140-1, 146, 159, 168, 174; Eg. 2716, ff. 301, 348, 350, 352. His standing in Norfolk is evident from his appointment to the shrievalty in 1633 (the year of his father’s death), at the age of only 29.47Coventry Docquets, 366.

Heveningham, whose paternal great-grandmother Mary Shelton had been an attendant on her first cousin Queen Anne Boleyn, recorded his attitudes towards the crown in a notebook written from the early 1630s.48‘Mary Shelton’, Oxford DNB. Under the heading of ‘general prudential rules, observations and sayings’, he noted that ‘where kings are wilful and favourites flattered then needs [there] no other enchantments to infatuate princes and ruinate the greatest monarchy’, as well as that ‘the choice of counsellors ought to be free, yet … it is madness to hazard a crown and lose the love of a whole nation rather than relinquish a particular dependent’. Towards the end of the decade he observed of the Dutch that that people had moved from a position ‘without hope’ to one ‘now without fear’. The United Provinces

having escaped the hands of the king of Spain because he held them too close fettered, abandoned peace, being constrained to make war, giving thereby a good lesson to all sovereigns how hereafter they use their subjects, are a memorable example to subjects what they can do against their sovereigns. They have justice on their side because they have necessity. They deserve to have God only in place of a king because they would not endure to have a king in the place of God … the going about to use his subjects as beasts … he obliged them to flee to the law of nature.49Holkham Hall MS 684, unfol.

Heveningham’s standpoint may have been influenced not only by the experience of the Forced Loan, but by the king’s demand in January 1637 that he and other Norfolk landowners should cede control of certain lands near Great Yarmouth to the patentees for the manufacture of salt.50CSP Dom. 1636-7, pp. 371-2; Holkham Hall MS 684, unfol. Nonetheless, Heveningham is recorded as having paid his Ship Money assessment in Suffolk in the spring of 1640.51Suff. Ship Money Returns, 85.

Heveningham was returned to both of the Parliaments of 1640 as burgess for Stockbridge in Hampshire, probably through the influence of the Wallop family. However, he made no impression on the records of the Short Parliament, and very little on those of the Long Parliament before the summer of 1642. He was named to a committee on preaching ministers in the opening weeks of the first session (19 Dec. 1640), potentially no small commitment, but thereafter his name is not recorded in the journals and diaries – apart from his having taken the Protestation on 3 May 1641 – until March 1642, when he was recommended by the Commons to be made a deputy lieutenant in both Suffolk and Norfolk.52CJ ii. 54b, 133b, 483b, 485b; PJ ii. 54; LJ iv. 683a.

Having been appointed to two minor committees in May 1642, in the first week of June he was twice named to treat with the City of London in order to raise money for the parliamentarian cause; he was also appointed to treat with military officers (20 June).53CJ ii. 553b, 576b, 598b, 611b, 634a. In addition, he pledged three horses and £100 for the service of Parliament (10 June), and subscribed £600 to the Irish Adventure.54PJ iii. 468; Add. 18777, f. 109v; CSP Ire. Adv. 1642-59, pp. 3, 345. On 1 August he and his friend Gawdy were among MPs given instructions to act as a committee for Norfolk, while on the 17th he was one of a trio of MPs ordered to draft and order for ‘setting strict watches’ on the bridges between Norfolk and Suffolk.55LJ v. 252a; CJ ii. 724a. He was still at Westminster on the 24th, when he successfully moved that Sir John Hobart* be permitted to send arms to his house in Norwich, and presumably on 3 September, when he was named to a committee to consider Essex business.56PJ iii. 314; CJ ii. 751a.

During the first civil war Heveningham, who was appointed to both the Norfolk and Suffolk commissions for raising money and arms on the Propositions, was a key player in the prosecution of the parliamentarian war effort in the eastern counties, and periodically showed himself a zealot in the cause at Westminster.57LJ v. 245b, 251b, 346b. From early September 1642 to the late spring of 1644 his appearances in the record of the Commons were rare, but significant. Five days after the battle of Edgehill he was named to the re-constituted Committee for Examinations (28 Oct.).58Supra, ‘Committee for Examinations’; CJ ii. 825b; Add. 18777, f. 45v; Bodl. Tanner 114, f. 98. He next surfaced on 26 January 1643, when he was nominated to committees considering recruiting horse and volunteers for the army.59CJ ii. 943a, 943b. Among four Members sent urgently to Suffolk on 4 February to counter what one diarist recorded as a papist rising at Wisbech, he seems to have been in the House on 30 March, but during the rest of 1643 was visible in the chamber only on 1 August (when he took the Covenant), 12 October (when he was nominated to the committee to supply the army) and 18 November (when he was instructed to alert the excise commissioners to shortcomings in the execution of the excise ordinance).60CJ ii. 956b; iii. 25a, 190a, 274a, 314b; Add. 18777, f. 143. This last was plausibly in response to his own complaint, and from the context related specifically to the commissioners based at Bury St Edmund’s, from where he was a signatory to a letter to Lenthall dated 21 November.61HMC Portland, i. 158. He had been appointed in May with Sir William Spring* to oversee the collection of assessments in Suffolk, and was to remain at the forefront of money-raising in the county.62LJ vi. 29a; Suff. ed. Everitt, 43, 60; A. and O. During the spring of 1643 he was a regular attender at the Committee for Irish Affairs (his attendance thereafter was more sporadic), where the Commons had ordered that ‘Adventurers of the House shall be admitted to have a voice’.63CJ ii. 750b; Add. 4782, ff. 80, 82; SP16/539/127, ff. 15, 18, 18v, 21, 24.

Recorded as absent in service on 5 February 1644, Heveningham was perhaps continuously away from the House until 11 May, when he was named to a committee to prepare additional excise ordinances.64CJ iii. 389b, 489b. In an unprecedented burst of activity in the Commons thereafter he was nominated to a slew of committees addressing both regional and national aspects of the war effort: the state of the garrison at Newport Pagnell (30 May), to the maintenance of which at some point he contributed his own money; the financing and management of the campaign around Oxford (6, 24 June), on which he was for the first time employed as a messenger to the Lords; raising money for Ireland (29 July, 27 Aug.); reviewing ordinances about Leicester (2 Sept.); and once again advancing the war in East Anglia (8 Oct.).65CJ iii. 510b, 520b, 540b, 574a, 609a, 618a, 655b, 662a, 664b; iv. 37b; LJ vi. 605a. Meanwhile, the scope of Heveningham’s activity expanded, encompassing business as diverse as providing fuel for London (29 June) and considering which ordinances were to feature in the peace proposals to be put to the king (24 July).66CJ iii. 546b, 569a. He was also appointed to joint committees with the Lords for the reception of the Dutch and French envoys (19 June, 20 Sept.) and to discuss accusations against the Elector Palatine, Charles Louis, the king’s nephew (4 Dec.).67CJ iii. 535a, 634b, 713a; Add. 31116, p. 325.

A higher and broader profile went hand-in-hand with Heveningham’s apparent emergence as a political Independent. Although his re-addition to the Committee for Examinations to consider the petition from Sussex militants against the godly but moderate local grandees Sir Thomas Pelham* and Sir Thomas Parker* (16 Oct.) does not by itself (given the committee’s composition) signify hostility to the peace party, his partnering of Sir Peter Wentworth* as a teller for the large minority who sought to probe the alleged disaffection and lukewarmness of midlands commander Basil Feilding, 2nd earl of Denbigh (20 Nov.) looks like an unambiguous manifestation of allegiance.68CJ iii. 666b, 700b. Yet evidence of Heveningham’s religious preferences introduces an element of doubt, or at least complexity. It seems to have been he who invited Thomas Thurgood or Thorowgood, rector of Grimston, Norfolk, and a member of the Westminster Assembly, to preach a fast sermon that December.69CJ iii. 707a; iv. 1a; Al. Cant. The product was far removed from an endorsement of Independent militancy, but then so too was the complementary sermon from John Langley, recruited by Hampshire Independent John Lisle*.70T. Thorowgood, Moderation Justified (1645, E.23.6); J. Langley, Gemitus columbae (1644, E.23.7). In the spiritual and ecclesiological realm Heveningham seems to have inclined towards Presbyterianism. That he was an acknowledged stickler on matters of morality is suggested by his inclusion on the committee to consider an ordinance repressing sins like incest (29 Jan. 1645).71CJ iv. 35b. The lengthy published sermon of John Ward, whom he invited to preach to Parliament (26 Feb. for 26 Mar.), combines a high view of Parliament with agnosticism as to how political settlement might unfold under the providence of God, but is in no doubt of the God-given responsibility to suppress the ‘looseness, profaneness and insolency’ unleashed as ‘the old landmarks’ were removed and ‘all manner of sectaries creep forth’.72CJ iv. 63a; J. Ward, God judging among the gods (1645), 27, 30-31 (E.279.5); Al. Cant.

This provides a context for Heveningham’s involvement in the preparation of instructions for commissioners to the Uxbridge Treaty, although it does not reveal the detail of his contribution beyond his taking of a message to the Lords (28 Jan. 1645).73CJ iv. 35a. He was in sufficiently high standing to obtain an order three days later for the repayment of money he had invested in the Newport Pagnell garrison.74CJ iv. 37b. In the early months of the year he seems to have been based at Westminster, perhaps in order to help promote the creation of the New Model army. He was nominated to committees to consider propositions from Kent (31 Jan.) and the remodelling of the Newcastle corporation following the withdrawal of the Scottish army (22 Mar.), while he was a conduit to the Suffolk committee to expedite the bringing in of assessments to pay off that army (4 Feb.).75CJ iv. 38a, 41b, 87a. For much of the rest of the year, however, he was evidently more useful in his county. He attended meetings of the Committee for the Eastern Association* (6 Jan., 9 Apr., 20 Dec.) and on 17 May was named to the deputation to the common council of London seeking a loan towards the siege of Oxford, but on 10 May he was in Cambridge investigating the royalist plot in the Isle of Ely.76 Add. 19398, ff. 174, 189, 224; CJ iv. 138a, 147a; LJ vii. 24a. In July, either side of a minor committee appointment, he was twice instructed to go to Suffolk to advance the raising of forces for the New Model (1, 8, 9 July), and then vanished from the Journal for the rest of the year.77CJ iv. 192b, 201a, 202a; Suff. RO (Ipswich), HD36/2871/47b, HD36/2672/24, 76, 81, 119; Add. 22620, f. 31; Suff. ed. Everitt, 73-4.

Heveningham reappeared briefly in the Commons Journal on 1 January 1646 as a nominee to the important committee on the ordinance for the execution of martial law.78CJ iv. 394b. Over the rest of the year he had only two more appointments – one to prepare the grant of lands of royalist commander Sir Jacob Astley to John Stephens*, a relatively newly-arrived MP with pronounced Independent sympathies – but this may underrepresent his presence and significance at Westminster.79CJ iv. 550b, 658b. Although apparently not a member of the Army Committee, Heveningham is recorded as having attended at least one of its meetings, in May.80Add. 22620, f. 58. Otherwise, there was plenty to keep him occupied in East Anglia.81A. and O.

Heveningham’s sole Commons appointment in 1647 was on 8 July, two days after the presentation of the accusations against the Presbyterian Eleven Members, and was to a committee chaired by Hampshire Independent John Bulkeley*.82CJ v. 237b. He probably left Westminster during the subsequent Presbyterian coup, and was recorded as absent at the call of the House on 9 October.83CJ v. 330a. His absence was excused on 3 November, but he seems to have returned (perhaps only briefly) soon afterwards for a committee appointment to investigate an alleged nun.84CJ v. 348b, 365b. His Journal appearances were similarly rare in 1648, although they were not insignificant, and once again there are hints of greater activity behind the scenes. On 15 January Heveningham was placed on the committee for setting rates for assessments.85CJ v. 434a. An order of 23 June directing him to go to Suffolk to suppress royalist insurgency implies that he had been in London for a least some of the intervening period, while his role as a teller (with Sir Peter Wentworth*) for the wafer-thin majority which on 28 July ensured that any peace treaty with the king would take place on the Isle of Wight ‘and not elsewhere’ (i.e. not in Presbyterian-dominated London) reveals his continued standing among Independents.86CJ v. 611b, 650a; Suff. ed. Everitt, 76. A minor committee appointment four days later was his last before Pride’s Purge.87CJ v. 655a. In the meantime, he may have been preoccupied with his wife, who died in August, but he found time to promote the desire of a neighbour to present a book he had authored to the king at Carisbrooke.88GL, MS 6777/1, p. 95; Bodl. Tanner 57, f. 273.

Despite the softer attitude which this seems to reveal, Heveningham was publicly behind the abandonment of negotiations with Charles. On the day after the purge he was a teller for the nearly two-thirds majority in favour of proceeding with proposals from the army (7 Dec.).89CJ vi. 95a. However, although he received a committee nomination on 15 December – regarding the election of the mayor of London – he had no more until the day of Charles I’s execution (30 Jan. 1649) and did not take the dissent until 1 February.90CJ vi. 98a; PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, p. 625; [W. Prynne], A Full Declaration of the True State of the Secluded Members Case (1660, E.1013.22). Named, like his brother-in-law Wallop, as a commissioner for the high court of justice, he attended nine of the preparatory meetings in the Painted Chamber and three days of the trial itself (22, 23, and 27 Jan.), but despite being present when the sentence was passed, like Wallop he did not sign the king’s death warrant.91Muddiman, Trial, 76, 89, 96, 105, 193-230.

Thereafter, for a while Heveningham played a more active role at Westminster and in Whitehall, probably motivated by a desire to ensure power stayed in parliamentary rather than in army hands, the latter being in his mind too open to ‘the lower kind of people’.92Worden, Rump Parl. 45. In the first ten days of the republic he was appointed to committees for repealing acts inappropriate to the new regime (30 Jan.), considering the release of those imprisoned for debt (31 Jan.) and petitions from Presbyterian ministers (3 Feb.), and the remodelling of commissions of the peace (8 Feb.).93CJ vi. 126a, 127a, 131b, 134a. Although not placed on any of the major Commons standing committees, he was chosen a councillor of state, and as a teller secured the inclusion also on the council of Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke, lord lieutenant of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (14 Feb.).94CJ vi. 140b, 141a; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 6. He took the engagement on 17 February.95CJ vi. 146b.

Attending 197 of its 319 sittings, Heveningham was the third most active member of the council after its president, John Bradshawe*, and Thomas Scot I*, with Cornelius Holland* and Sir Henry Vane II* close behind; he was also appointed to a large number of sub-committees.96CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. xlviii-lxxv, 18, 36, 58-9, 63, 86, 103, 119-20, 123, 127, 135, 137, 139, 155, 159, 178, 183, 190, 208, 269, 275, 280, 318, 327, 336, 365, 383, 385, 402, 422, 430, 432, 438, 466, 480-1, 495, 502. Among the issues with which he appears to have associated himself, both on the council and in the Commons, were the militia, the enforcement of the Engagement as an oath to be taken by the entire population, and the affairs of Ireland, a natural interest given his own stake in the Irish adventure; he reported from the council to the Commons on (defensive) castles in Kent (23 May).97CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 36, 58, 269, 365, 385, 438, 480, 495, 502; CJ vi. 215a, 321b, 326b. His activity in the Commons indicates enthusiasm for the sale of crown and church lands; on one occasion was a teller against a motion which would have excluded from sale certain dean and chapter lands which had been settled on ministers and he himself spent over £4,000 in the purchase of episcopal property in Cumbria in June 1651.98CJ vi. 147b, 160b, 197b; Bodl. Tanner 56, f. 249; Bodl. Rawl. B.239, p. 51. On other occasions he was a teller against considering the case of the customs farmers, who were attempting to reach a settlement with the new regime, and was appointed to a committee to consider jury reform, although his own attitudes on this important issue are unclear.99CJ vi. 243b, 244a, 301a.

Through this pattern of activity Heveningham’s political position is elusive: in its first two years he worked hard to serve the Rump, but the extent of his republicanism and his reforming zeal is difficult to determine. It seems that he was perceived as a radical by some contemporaries. When the Leveller pamphleteer John Lilburne faced trial in October 1649, he turned to Heveningham for support, explaining that, ‘having sometimes the opportunity to discourse with you, there appeared in you unto me that gives me encouragement to pick you out above all men that now remain sitting in your House’.100T. Verax [C. Walker], The Triall of Lieut. Collonell John Lilburne (1649), 155-8 (E.584.9). On the other hand, sitting on committees considering a general imposition of an engagement to the regime (9, 27 Nov. 1649) seems not to have settled his doubts about such an oath judging from a letter to him in January 1650 from Independent minister John Goodwin, who sought – but may not have managed – to dismiss scruples.101CJ vi. 321b, 326b; HMC 9th Rep. ii. 370; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 264. The impression of Heveningham’s private papers is that, unlike Lilburne and contrary to his overt position in 1648, he wished to keep power in elite civilian hands.102Worden, Rump Parliament, 45, 132.

In February 1650 Heveningham was appointed to the second council of state and placed on the Commons committee to discuss the best method of selecting four extra councillors.103CJ vi. 362a; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 512. He was an active, although not this time an outstanding member, attending 163 of the 295 meetings, and among his many committee appointments issues relating to the militia were once again prominent.104CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 513; 1650, pp. xv-xli, 8, 15, 17-18, 67, 81, 125, 128, 130, 133, 145, 162, 165, 173, 177, 364, 366, 426, 430, 436, 454-5, 466, 468, 484, 488; 1651, p. 11. Of his two reports from the council to the Commons, the militia was the subject on 24 May – Irish commissioners being the business on 23 October – and he was made joint chairman of the Commons committee on the militia bill; he had already been nominated to consider establishing a court martial in London and Westminster (14 Mar.).105CJ vi. 382b, 417a, 439b, 486a. Otherwise, however, his visible activity in the Commons over the 12 months of the council’s existence was modest: four committee appointments relating to the promotion of preaching of the gospel in Essex (24 May), petitions from John Lilburne (27 June) and Sir James Stonhouse (15 Aug.) and a land settlement to be made on veteran army commander Philip Skippon* (31 Dec.).106CJ vi. 416a, 433a, 455b, 516b.

After the last appointment Heveningham disappeared from the Journal for four and a half months. He was not selected for the third council of state in February 1651, and was recorded as re-entering the House only on 16 May during a count of Members present.107CJ vi. 575a. He received only two committee nominations in 1651 – including to that discussing the act asserting English dominion over Scotland following the battle of Dunbar (9 Sept.) – and three in 1652 – to consider debtors (27 Apr.) and judges’ salaries (12 Nov.), and to look at a private bill concerning a settlement on the wife of his brother-in-law Robert Wallop* (15 Sept.).108CJ vi. 616b; vii. 14a, 127b, 182a, 215a. Such business was not unimportant, but Heveningham was apparently much less engaged than formerly. Whether this was the product of disillusionment or of distraction is impossible to say; the acquisition of land in the north, accompanied by appointment to the commissions of the peace in Northumberland and Cumberland might have played a part.109Bodl. Rawl. B.239, p. 51; C231/6, pp. 193, 243; The Names of the Justices, 42. Nevertheless, he seems to have been present in the Commons on 19 April 1653, when he received his sole committee nomination of that year.110CJ vii. 280a. If, in reappearing, he had hoped to help stave off a dissolution by the army, he was disappointed the next day.111Worden, Rump Parliament, 376.

After 1650 Heveningham seems to have spent much time tending to his expanding estates in England and Ireland, taking advantage of his privileged access to favourable rates for buying land.112Holkham Hall MS 685, unfol.; Bodl. Tanner 56, f. 249; CSP Ire. 1647-60, pp. 411, 555; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 249. In that year he married his distant cousin Mary Carey, only surviving child of parliamentarian peer John Carey†, viscount Rochford, and granddaughter of royalist peer Henry Carey†, 1st earl of Dover, a connection which perhaps encouraged him to keep national government at arm’s length.113HP Commons 1604-1629. In 1651 and 1652 he was evidently active as vice-admiral of Suffolk, but his involvement in local commissions decreased somewhat in the mid-1650s (his northern appointments were short-lived) and he was not returned to any of the protectoral parliaments.114CSP Dom. 1651, p. 241; 1651-2, p. 130; C181/6, pp. 16, 54, 86, 116, 158, 165, 213, 233, 304, 379. Following the restoration of the Rump, Heveningham returned to Westminster, but he appeared in the Journal only in September 1659, when he was a teller in a division over the prolonged dispute concerning Irish adventurer lands of Edward Dendy* (7 Sept.) and he was named to a committee relating to the civil government of Newcastle (17 Sept.).115CJ vii. 775a, 780b. His involvement looks to have been fleeting: he was recorded as being absent at the call of the House on 30 September, and was ordered to be fined £20.116CJ vii. 789b. Although he may have withdrawn in the face of pressure from the army, there is no sign that he came back to the Commons when the civilian republicans returned to power in December, or in succeeding weeks before the dissolution in March 1660.

Following the Restoration, Heveningham was compromised by his membership of the high court of justice which tried Charles I and his attendance on the day of sentencing. On 18 May 1660 he was listed among the ‘regicides’ who were to be detained and his arrest was ordered.117LJ xi. 32b, 35a. He issued a petition expressing his horror at the execution and protesting at the designation ‘regicide’, but surrendered himself on 9 June, when he was among those excepted from the proposed act of pardon and oblivion.118CJ vii. 59b, 61a; HMC 7th Rep. 86a; HMC 5th Rep. 150. It was recognised that he had not been a signatory of the death warrant, but his persistent petitioning – with claims that he had sought to provide money for Charles II – encountered rebuffs, a vote to omit him from the list of the king’s judges was revoked, and in late August he was among those prisoners transferred to the Tower.119LJ xi. 101b, 123a, 142b; CJ viii. 137b, 139b; HMC 7th Rep. 125a, 129a; CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 360; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 294. Heveningham’s wife’s grandfather, the earl of Dover, tried to persuade the Lords to seek mercy from the king, at least in order to preserve the Heveningham bloodline from attaint and thus to protect the family estate; this aim seems to have attracted some support, amid a general recognition that Heveningham’s case received unique attention, but on the other hand a powerful counter interest in the Irish land was exerted by Wentworth Fitzgerald†, 17th earl of Kildare.120LJ xi. 142b, 157a; CJ viii. 169b; CSP Dom. 1660-1, pp. 312-3, 340; 1661-2, pp. 60, 97, 158; 1663-4, pp. 163, 167, 185; Eg. 2542, ff. 450-1; HMC 5th Rep. 171; A looking-glass for traytors (1660, 669.f.26.25). Despite further lobbying on his behalf, Heveningham still had to plead for mercy before the Lords in February 1662.121CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 158; LJ xi. 372, 378a, 380b; HMC 7th Rep. 155a, 158a.

Although Heveningham was apparently ordered to be set at liberty on bail of £2,000, he remained in prison, transferred first to Windsor Castle, and then in June 1669 to the more relaxed regime at Tynemouth Castle in Northumberland.122HMC 7th Rep. 158a; CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 667; 1667, p. 465; 1668-9, pp. 92, 97, 166, 389; 1672, p. 469; Add. 44919, ff. 19-20; Norf. RO, MC 107/1. In May 1674 he was granted permission to travel, and it is possible that he never returned to prison. He was certainly at Heveningham in August 1677, and following his death was buried at Ketteringham, on 25 February 1678.123Norf. RO, MC 107/1, no. 34; CSP Dom. 1673-5, p. 252; Add. 44919, f. 21; Ketteringham par. reg. His heir was his only son, Sir William Heveningham, who died without male heirs and was succeeded by his first cousin Henry Heveningham†, son of William’s royalist brother Arthur, who sat three times in Parliament for Suffolk seats towards the end of the century.124HP Commons 1660-1690; HP Commons 1690-1715.