HAYNES (HAINES), Hezekiah (1621-93), of Copford, Essex.

The Haynes family had lived originally in Hertfordshire but, by the time he died in 1605, this MP’s grandfather, John Haynes, had moved across into Essex, having bought the manor of Old Holt at Copford several miles to the east of Colchester.29Morant, Essex, ii. 195; A.D. Harrison, ‘The two Birch Holts’, Trans. Essex Arch. Soc. n.s. xxii. 56. John’s son, John junior, was the first member of the family to achieve any wider importance. In 1633, when his second son, the future MP, was aged about 14, John Haynes emigrated to New England, and between 1635 and 1636 he served as that colony’s governor. After stepping down from this position (he was succeeded by Henry Vane II*), he moved to the new colony of Connecticut, becoming its first governor in 1639.30Oxford DNB. There is reason to believe that his son, Hezekiah, had accompanied him to America: Hezekiah himself implied as much in a letter he wrote to John Winthrop junior in 1675.31H.H. Edes, ‘Docs. relating to the colonial history of Connecticut’, New Eng. Historical and Gen. Reg. xxiv. 124. Moreover, his close friend, Ralph Josselin, the vicar of Earls Colne, would note, when he administered communion to him in 1652, that Haynes had been a member of a church in New England.32Josselin, Diary, 268. The intention had probably always been that some of the sons would retain the link with England. At some point, the eldest, Robert, seems to have taken possession of the estates in Essex. It was a matter of resentment for Hezekiah that, according to him, their father removed at least £8,000 with him to America to the disadvantage of Hezekiah and his siblings, the offspring of their father’s first marriage.33Edes, ‘Docs.’, 124-5, 128. It is likely that Hezekiah only returned to England shortly before the civil war broke out.

Service in the parliamentarian armies was to be the means by which Haynes overcame the disadvantages of being a younger son to become briefly the most powerful man in East Anglia. However, that he saw military service primarily in terms of social advancement is unlikely. Haynes came from a godly background and it was as a godly soldier that he would serve Parliament. When war broke out in 1642 he signed up as a captain in the foot regiment initially commanded by Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, and then by James Holborne.34SP28/3a, ff. 43, 44, 471; SP28/4, f. 292; SP28/5, ff. 103, 528; SP28/7, f. 219; SP28/11, f. 302. Later he transferred to the regiment of Edward Rosseter*.35L. Spring, The Regiments of the Eastern Association (Bristol, 1998), 93; BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database. The prospect of a reorganisation of the parliamentarian armies (what became the New Model) may have been what prompted him in late 1644 to seek a militia position. The initial proposal was that he should take over the command of one of the foot regiments in the Essex militia, but by January 1645 it had been decided instead that he should become a major of its horse.36Josselin, Diary, 30, 33. By that autumn he had been promoted to command the force of 800 horse specially raised by the Eastern Association to defend Lincolnshire. So long as the royalists continued to hold Newark-on-Trent, they remained a potential nuisance throughout that area. His skirmishes with them maintained pressure on the royalist forces during the final months of their existence.37A. and O.; Josselin, Diary, 45, 47, 49; CSP Dom. 1645-7, pp. 245, 247, 259, 260, 267. That October the committee of the Eastern Association at Cambridge could take it for granted that the Norfolk county committee would know

what great service Major Haynes hath [done] for the benefit of the whole association in cooping up the enemy in Newark and the garrisons adjacent whereby all the counties adjacent have been kept in great quietness …38Add. 19398, f. 216.

It was via Haynes that Prince Rupert and Prince Maurice applied to Parliament in November 1645 for passes to leave the country.39CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 216; CJ iv. 327b, 329a-b. By the end of the year he had moved his regiment to Cambridgeshire in preparation for its disbandment. 40Add. 19398, f. 172. They then marched into Essex. Their entry into Chelmsford in early January 1646 was probably a triumphal one.41Josselin, Diary, 52.

An appointment in the regiment of Philip Twisleton in July 1647 took Haynes to the north of England..42Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, i. 94. He saw action again at Preston in August 1648 when his men took part in the defeat of James Hamilton, 1st duke of Hamilton. Several days later he and Robert Lilburne* negotiated the terms of Hamilton’s surrender at Uttoxeter.43G. Burnet, The Mems. of the Lives and Actions of James and William Dukes of Hamilton (Oxford, 1852), 460. Haynes and his men were then among those who advanced into Scotland.44Josselin, Diary, 142. The following year he took advantage of a vacancy to transfer to the regiment of Charles Fleetwood*.45Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, i. 106. This was the beginning of a close association between the two men which would be a crucial factor in Haynes’s political career over the next decade. In April 1650 Josselin penned an affectionate tribute to Haynes in his diary; the major was ‘my special friend, and I do not think any service too much to do for him, the good Lord in mercy bless him’.46Josselin, Diary, 196.

In the late summer of 1650 Haynes and his men accompanied Oliver Cromwell* in the invasion force sent to Scotland. He was almost certainly present at Dunbar (3 Sept.).47Josselin, Diary, 216; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 352. That December Josselin had a dream in which Haynes reported by letter that the rebel Scots had been driven back to the Orkneys. Actual letters sent by Haynes back to Essex enabled Josselin to follow in some detail his activities in Scotland over the next year. John Owen, who was both Cromwell’s former chaplain and vicar of Coggeshall, told Josselin of Haynes’s ‘success in his employment’ when he returned to his parish from Scotland in February 1651.48Josselin, Diary, 216, 220, 223, 233, 234, 239. It was probably in the years following 1648 that Haynes used his position in the army to raise money on behalf of the scheme to propagate the gospel to the native Americans. He would later claim that he had collected £600 from the soldiers in his regiment to aid that endeavour.49Edes, ‘Docs.’, 128.

Haynes came south again to Essex in October 1651.50Josselin, Diary, 258. He nevertheless retained his position in Fleetwood’s regiment, although, for the time being, most of his men remained in Scotland.51Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, ii. 67, 95; G. Davies, ‘The quarters of the English army in Scotland’, SHR xxi. 63. Before long he had been reappointed to his old position within the Essex militia and over the next few years he helped ensure that those forces remained in a state of readiness.52SP28/153: bks. of acquittances, Dec. 1651-June 1653, pt. 1, f. 20v, pt. 3, f. 13v, June 1653-June 1654, ff. 1v, 7v, 13v, 16v, 33v. The decision by the Nominated Parliament to appoint him as one of the commissioners to inspect the commonwealth’s treasuries also gave him a position of national importance, which was confirmed by the new lord protector later that year.53CJ vii. 292a; A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 55, 317-18. He and his fellow commissioners helped consolidate the various financial bodies which had grown up during the previous decade into a more streamlined and more traditional structure. Smithsby found a job as the secretary to the commission.54Nuttall, ‘Haynes’, 197. When in late 1653 Haynes’s father, as governor, and the general court of Connecticut wished to write to the government in England about their concerns regarding the war against the Dutch, they did so via Haynes, George Fenwick* and Edward Hopkins*.55Public Recs. of Connecticut (Hartford, Conn., 1850-90), i. 248-9 Haynes’s links with Fleetwood probably explain why his name was put forward for one of the Norfolk seats in the 1654 parliamentary elections. His candidacy soon proved to be an embarrassing mistake. Very obviously an outsider to this county, he polled just 501 and so came last in the field of 19 candidates.56R. Temple, ‘A 1654 protectorate parliamentary election return’, Cromwelliana, ser. II, iii. 58.

In March 1655 the secretary of state, John Thurloe*, used Haynes to mobilise the whole of East Anglia in response to the threat from Pendruddock’s rising. Haynes acted with great speed, summoning his fellow militia officers in Essex to a meeting at Colchester and sending on the warning to Sudbury, Bury St Edmunds, Ipswich and Norwich.57Josselin, Diary, 342; TSP iii. 228, 236-7; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 92. The Essex militia was mustered by him at Colchester. Various arrests were made. Haynes was then able to report to Thurloe that similar precautions had been taken in Suffolk and Norfolk.58TSP iii. 247-8, 253, 284-5, 292-3, 294. The promptness with which he had reacted to this potential crisis must have impressed the authorities in London and may well have clinched his appointment as deputy major-general later that year.

The initial plan in the autumn of 1655 to appoint Fleetwood as major-general for most of the counties to the north of London was quickly abandoned. The council of state had come to realise that Fleetwood could not be spared from his duties in the capital. In October Haynes was therefore appointed as his deputy for East Anglia. The counties allocated to him – Cambridgeshire, Essex, the Isle of Ely, Norfolk and Suffolk – were the old Eastern Association counties minus Lincolnshire. This comprised the bulk of Fleetwood’s association, with the remainder being assigned to William Packer* and George Fleetwood*. Even the reduced area to be covered by Haynes was larger than that assigned to most of the associations. In November 1655 he would make it clear to Thurloe that he did not want any further counties added to his remit as he already had enough counties to keep him busy.59TSP iv. 257. That he was trusted by Fleetwood and was a native of Essex no doubt helped recommend him for the job. Although nominally only Fleetwood’s deputy, in practice he had powers as extensive as those of any of the major-generals. He reported to London directly. The militia officers appointed to serve under him included Robert Castell*, John Fothergill*, Sir Thomas Honywood*, Robert Jermy* and Dudley Templer*.

In early November 1655 Haynes made a brief visit to Essex before taking up his duties. While he was there, his only child died.60Josselin, Diary, 356. A week later he was in Norwich hard at work.61TSP iv. 170-1. Over the following weeks he visited Bury St Edmunds and Cambridge before returning to Essex to see that the commissioners for securing the peace of the commonwealth in each county were ready to begin work.62TSP iv. 170-1, 216-17, 225, 257, 302, 317, 320, 434-6; CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 68, 71. He saw this as godly labour, telling Thurloe that

every tongue must confess it was of the Lord, who is a righteous God in the execution of his judgments; and when his hand is lifted up, he shall make not only make them (though most unwilling) to see, but also make them ashamed for their envy to his people.63TSP iv. 216.

The collection of the decimation tax, however, presented Haynes with real problems. Almost as soon as he arrived in Norfolk for the first time, he realised that the county contained too few delinquents from whom he could levy fines with which to pay the new militia.64TSP iv. 171. This problem repeated itself elsewhere. In Cambridgeshire and Suffolk the possible revenues from the decimation tax fell well short of the amounts needed to cover the full cost of the militias. Perhaps only in Essex did the sums ever add up.65‘The Cromwellian decimation tax of 1655’, ed. J.T. Cliffe, 426, 430-2, 434-7, 446-8, in Camden Misc. XXXIII (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. vii). In this, Haynes was unavoidably hampered by the fact that East Anglia had largely supported Parliament and had seen little fighting. In Essex those who were assessed included Haynes’s elder brother, Robert.66Cliffe, ‘Cromwellian decimation tax’, 434. Haynes was also able to pay some attention to military defences within his region.67CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 175, 176, 325, 364.

Another matter which took up much of his time was the factional in-fighting within the Colchester corporation. The loyalty of the town had been considered suspect ever since the siege in 1648 and Haynes was afraid that opponents of the regime might gain control of the corporation. On Cromwell’s orders, he intervened directly in the elections held on 19 December 1655 to ensure that the results were the ones he wanted. The council of state subsequently acted on his recommendation that the whole corporation be remodelled.68TSP iv. 257, 302, 320, 329, 330; Essex RO, D/Y 2/7, p. 189; D/Y 2/8, p. 84. For much of March 1656 Haynes was ill.69Josselin, Diary, 363, 365. How far this prevented him performing his duties is unclear. The following month he worried that some Suffolk clergymen, acting on what he attributed to the influence of the Anabaptists and Fifth Monarchy men, were planning to petition Cromwell.70TSP iv. 687-8, 727.

In late June 1656 Haynes began to apply his attention to the forthcoming elections. Already he was pressing the government for money to pay the militia arrears on the grounds that the militias could then be mustered at election time. In early July he set out on a tour through Cambridge, Suffolk, Essex and Norfolk, visiting Cambridge, Sudbury, Colchester, Ipswich, Norwich and Bury St Edmunds along the way.71TSP v. 165, 187, 220; Suff. RO (Ipswich), B105/2/4, f. 8v. He seems not to have allowed a new bout of ill health to interrupt this tour.72Josselin, Diary, 374. What he found was not encouraging. On 16 July he warned Thurloe that the failure to send out a proclamation from the council of state along with the writs had been a great mistake, because

it hath exceedingly heightened the spirits of the ill affected, and put great discouragement upon your friends, the more in regard the news books lately proclaimed a free election, which is made use in discourse to the worst sense, and feared will be practised accordingly. Indeed, sir, I am jealous we shall send you as bad as we do dare choose, and if there be any alteration in the choice, it will be for the worse.73TSP v. 220.

These concerns dominated his attentions throughout August 1656. Most of the early results from East Anglia were reassuring. Cambridge University, Ipswich, Cambridge, Great Yarmouth and Bury St Edmunds all returned candidates sympathetic to the government, although the outcome at King’s Lynn was less clear-cut. Haynes still saw no reason for optimism. On 15 August he told Cromwell

Such is the prevalency of that spirit, which opposeth itself to the work of God upon the wheel, that the spirits of those that are otherwise minded, have been much perplexed and discouraged from almost appearing at the election, seeing no visible way of balancing that interest.74TSP v. 312.

He knew that the real test was still to come. It came on 20 August. His main worries were the Norfolk and Norwich elections, both of which took place that day, and he made a point of being present in person for them.75TSP v. 311. Some pressed him to stand for one of the Norfolk seats but he had the foresight to realise that that would be a mistake.76TSP v. 328. The humiliation of the previous election had not been forgotten. His chances were always going to be better in Essex, which was holding its county elections that same day. The result of Norfolk poll was, in Haynes’s words, ‘as bad as it could well have been made’, and he failed to prevent John Hobart* being returned for Norwich.77TSP v. 328. In Suffolk a significant number of those opposed to his rule were elected and the Suffolk electors humiliated him by refusing to elect him. It was a similar story in Essex, although there his supporters did at least succeed in getting him elected.78Josselin, Diary, 378. Maldon also gave cause for concern. The more favourable results from Cambridgeshire and Dunwich were slight compensation.

This still left two problem cases. The Isle of Ely required special attention because Haynes was expected to act as Thurloe’s agent in cultivating the secretary of state’s personal interest there. Thurloe’s own election for the seat was never in doubt, but Haynes decided that he would stand for the other seat in order to block the election of Thurloe’s leading local opponent, William Fisher*.79TSP v. 165, 297, 311-12, 352-3. This was an unpopular move. Fisher spoke for many when he criticised Haynes because he was ‘a stranger, a soldier, and elected in another place’.80TSP v. 353. Haynes was forced to withdraw and Fisher gained the junior seat.81TSP, v. 353, 365. The controversial Colchester election was delayed by Haynes until 12 September so that the new corporation was in place to ensure that they would act in the way that they were expected to. Haynes knew that these results were bad. Over one in three of those elected within his district were subsequently excluded.82C. Durston, Cromwell’s major-generals (2001), 199-201. These elections had revealed deep discontent with the rule of the major-generals and with Hezekiah Haynes in particular.

Few of Haynes’s committee appointments during the opening months of the 1656 Parliament related directly to his position as deputy major-general. Only his appointment to the committee on the bill to confirm the liberties of the Isle of Ely (the bishopric of Ely having been abolished) can be said to be a clear example of this.83CJ vii. 460b. Matters such as alehouse abuses or revenues from recusants’ estates were ones which were also of general interest to the major-generals.84CJ vii. 430a, 444a. His involvement in the passage of the bill to regulate the manufacture of Norwich stuffs probably reflected his interest in the economic well-being of the largest city within his district; he was sufficiently interested in the bill that he tried to put pressure on Thomas Burton* to attend a committee meeting on the subject.85CJ vii. 459a; Burton’s Diary, i. 307. Earlier that year he had headed the commission appointed by the council of state to investigate the condition of the Norfolk weaving industry.86CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 201. In at least one case, Haynes was responsible for introducing a private bill. The bill in question was that intended to confirm the agreement about the common lands at Nazing in Essex made between one of the leading local royalist peers, James Hay, 2nd earl of Carlisle, and his tenants.87Burton’s Diary, i. 20; CJ vii. 468a, 473a. In introducing the bill, Haynes was probably acting in a private capacity. The bill to raise portions for the children of William Masham* was another private measure which would have concerned Haynes primarily as an Essex resident.88CJ vii. 445a. Haynes may well have known Samuel Fairclough, which would explain why he was asked to inform him that Parliament wished him to preach on 5 November 1656 to mark the day of thanksgiving for the naval victory by Robert Blake* and Edward Montagu II*.89CJ vii. 433a, 444a, 450b. He spoke on at least one occasion during the debates on the Naylor case, arguing on 5 January that Naylor should have his tongue slit, adding, as a further refinement, the suggestion that he be branded with the letter B.90Burton’s Diary, i. 153; CJ vii. 470a. That suggestion was adopted. While in London, Haynes petitioned the council of state concerning the disposal of the office of housekeeper at Hampton Court. According to Haynes, he had been assigned the interest in this position by his father-in-law. The council accepted Haynes’s claim that Cromwell had previously promised that his rights to it should be bought out for £500.91CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. 181, 188; DKR v. app. ii. 259; Aylmer, State’s Servants, 79.

The defeat of John Disbrowe’s* militia bill in January 1657 effectively marked the end for the major-generals. Parliament turned instead to the question of whether Cromwell should be offered the crown. When Haynes wrote to Josselin towards the end of the month, Josselin noted that he ‘hints as if things wrought towards an extremity between the protector and Parliament’.92Josselin, Diary, 390. At this point, the royalist agent Allen Brodrick† thought that Haynes was the only one of the major-generals who was ‘firmly Cromwell’s’.93CCSP iii. 239. The end of any real administrative role for the major-generals did not diminish Haynes’s activity in Parliament. As before, the committees on which he sat handled a wide mixture of business ranging from major public matters to minor private concerns. The attainder of the rebels in Ireland, the reform of the court of chancery and restrictions on new buildings around London were all questions which seem to have attracted his attention.94CJ vii. 485b, 488a-b, 515a-b, 528a, 532a. His membership of the committee which considered how to protect those uncomfortable with the religious clauses of the Humble Petition and Advice might suggest that he shared their reservations, although his treatment of Quakers while deputy major-general points to rather less sympathy on his part.95CJ vii. 507b; TSP v. 188, 230; CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 122.

Haynes clearly took a close interest in the various Irish issues which came before the Commons in June 1657. He supported the moves to have the bill granting the Muskerry estates to Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*) committed, but made it clear that Broghill deserved some sort of reward and he hoped that further grants would be made to him in the future. That he should have sided with Thomas Bampfylde* in the debate on 8 June on the question of whether a grant of Irish lands should also be made to Fleetwood was more surprising. His main concern seems to have been Bampfylde’s argument that such rewards to their own numbers would look like corruption, but it cannot be entirely ruled out that Haynes now had some personal grudge against his former superior officer.96Burton’s Diary, ii. 178-9, 197. He was equally suspicious when Irish petitioners submitted a request on 12 June for a reduction in the Irish assessments. Haynes maintained that they had distorted the figures to strengthen their case and that the assessment quotas were all reasonable. He thought that the Ship Money allocations, which provided the basis for the English quotas, had been ‘very equally laid’.97Burton’s Diary, ii. 227, 246. In the case of the Scottish and Irish exemptions from the Additional Petition and Advice, Haynes saw the practical problems in a general exclusion of all Scots who had opposed Parliament, favouring instead the more limited definition proposed by Disbrowe. He was therefore added to the committee considering the equivalent clause concerning the Protestants of Munster after the Scottish exclusions were referred to it.98Burton’s Diary, ii. 250; CJ vii. 557a. His known involvement in the drafting of the Additional Petition seems to have been confined to his membership of the Commons’ committee which drafted the oath to be taken by Cromwell.99CJ vii. 570b.

The abolition of Haynes’s position as deputy major-general did not leave him without a public role. As well as his seat in Parliament and his commission in the army, he remained a justice of the peace and an assessment commissioner. He now had more time to spare for those duties. The quarter sessions at Chelmsford in October 1657 seems to have been the first occasion on which he had the chance to take his place on the Essex bench.100Essex QSOB ed. Allen, 107. That was probably also his first public appearance after an extended period of illness. Haynes’s elder brother, Robert, had died in August 1657. The disease which had claimed his brother was contagious and had killed a number of the mourners at the funeral on 21 August. Two days later Haynes was also unwell. He spent the next eight weeks staying with the Honywoods at Marks Hall, no doubt being cared for by Lady Honywood.101Josselin, Diary, 405-8; Nuttall, ‘Haynes’, 206.

Haynes managed to make a number of contributions to the curtailed proceedings of the second protectoral Parliament when it reassembled in early 1658. The private bill to split the parish of Havering was one of obvious interest to the Essex MPs and it was probably Haynes who chaired the committee which considered it when it came before the Commons.102CJ vii. 581a; Burton’s Diary, ii. 337. He also spoke in favour of the bill to unite the parishes of Stamford and sat on the committee on the similar bill for Huntingdon.103Burton’s Diary, ii. 372; CJ vii. 591a. Such bills were intended to increase the value of these benefices. Haynes’s support for such policies was also reflected in his appointment to the committee for maintenance of ministers (23 Jan.).104CJ vii. 581b. His intervention in the debate on bill for the registration of births, marriages and deaths was a technical one, with him pointing out that the bill contained no provision for the appointment of the registrars who were to implement it. On 27 January he and Thomas Scot I* opposed the motion for the printing of the sermons preached that day on the grounds that they had been delivered in private.105Burton’s Diary, ii. 338, 373.

Haynes’s attitude towards the Other House was practical rather than dogmatic. When two judges appeared at the door of the Commons on 22 January 1658 with a message from ‘the Lords’, some MPs felt that admitting them would be tacit recognition that the Other House was the equivalent of the House of Lords. Haynes, in contrast, suggested that they should at least admit the two messengers to establish whether they did indeed claim to be from ‘the Lords’ before making a fuss about it.106Burton’s Diary, ii. 340-1. Speaking in the debate he made it plain that he would oppose the recall of the old House of Lords, while expressing doubts that recognition of the Other House would be the first step in that direction. In his view, the Other House had been intended as a replacement for the Lords, so that any other interpretation would be a breach of the Humble Petition and Advice. He denied that he was ‘against the nobility’, but suggested that some of ‘old peerage’ were ‘drunkards’. He did not mind what they called the second chamber, just so long as its form remained true to the spirit of the Humble Petition.107Burton’s Diary, ii. 413-14.

Less than a fortnight after this Parliament had been dissolved, Haynes faced a personal crisis when his country house, Grove Hall, burnt down.108Josselin, Diary, 419. This added to his financial insecurities. His personal expenses as deputy major-general are likely to have been considerable and his salary would have been seriously in arrears. Some years earlier he had bought the former royal manor of Wymondham in Norfolk. In early 1658 he sold it to Ralph Woollmer* in order to raise £1,400.109C5/39/119. Another purchase, dating from 1657, had been some lands at Histon in Cambridgeshire, but those too were sold in 1659.110VCH Cambs. ix. 95. It was not until the death of his nephew in May 1659 that it became certain that the bulk of his elder brother’s estates would pass to him on the death of Robert Haynes’s widow.111Josselin, Diary, 445.

By then Haynes was re-emerging as a political figure. He had remained close to Fleetwood and was one of those around him who wanted a more political role for the army.112Clarke Pprs. iv. 4. On 6 May 1659 he joined Fleetwood in signing the declaration which recalled the Rump.113Whitelocke, Diary, 513-14. He then embraced the opportunities which its recall opened to him. On 30 June 1659 the committee of safety added him to its committee which sat to make recommendations for appointments to the army.114CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 395. He benefited immediately from his seat on this committee, as it then put his name forward to be confirmed as the major in Fleetwood’s regiment.115CJ vii. 710a, 719b. On 15 July, the same day that he received his new commission from the Speaker, a court martial held at Whitehall ordered him and others to use their influence with Edmund Ludlowe II* as the new commander-in-chief to secure the release of several soldiers imprisoned in Newgate.116CJ vii. 721a. That August he was issuing orders to the Suffolk militia.117CCSP iv. 308. The Rump’s decision to remodel the army in early January 1660 cost Haynes his army commission. By 13 January the council of state had decided that he and a number of other ex-officers were a threat and they were therefore ordered to leave the capital.118CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 308-9, 328. He was nevertheless still re-appointed as an assessment commissioner less than a fortnight later.119A. and O. Haynes later claimed that he had spent the whole period between December 1659 and October 1660 away from London.120Nuttall, ‘Haynes’, 209. He was certainly back home by the end of January 1660, when he told Josselin that Henry Markham* had been behind his dismissal.121Josselin, Diary, 458.

Over the next ten months, Haynes watched the events of the Restoration unfold from the side-lines at Copford. The restored monarchy saw him as a potential source of trouble, however, and on 26 November 1660 he was arrested.122HMC 11th Rep. VI, 3. The king did grant him a pardon for any past offences, although, as an indication that he was still viewed with suspicion, he was barred from holding any public office.123PSO5/8, unfol. Haynes then spent much of the following 18 months in custody. In November 1661, when he was being held in the Gatehouse at Westminster, he was offered bail in return for a payment of £1,000 for his good behaviour.124PC2/55, f. 227v. If he was then released, he was soon rearrested, as he was in prison in the Tower by the following spring. A petition presented on his behalf to the king in April 1662 explained that he had previously taken the oath of allegiance before the Essex deputy lieutenants and asserted that he had avoided involvement in any treasonable conspiracies. This, together with a bond of surety worth £5,000, secured his release on 24 April 1662.125CSP Dom. 1661-2, pp. 149, 193, 270, 277, 349; PC2/55, f. 308v; Nuttall, ‘Haynes’, 208-9; CCSP v. 260-1.

Little is known about Haynes’s life thereafter. In 1672 he took the opportunity offered by the king’s declaration of indulgence to obtain a licence for a Presbyterian meeting to be held at his house at Copford.126Original Recs. of Early Nonconformity, ed. G.L. Turner (1911-14), ii. 928. Throughout this time he acted, along with his steward, John Elred, and Henry Mildmay*, as a trustee for the estates of his relative and neighbour, Richard Harlackenden.127Essex RO, D/DU 256/5; D/DPr/170; D/DU 256/8-9. His letter in 1675 to John Winthrop, the local governor, was an attempt to claim that, as his father’s son, he was entitled to lands at Mattabeseck (now Middletown) in Connecticut.128Edes, ‘Docs.’, 124-5, 128-9. In 1684 Haynes transferred control of his estates at Foxearth and it may have been at about this time that the lands at Copford were handed over to his eldest son, John.129Essex RO, D/DQ 84/33; D/DQ 84/21. He died on 26 August 1693.130Nuttall, ‘Haynes’, 209. Members of the family were still living at Copford during the eighteenth century.