HEYMAN, Sir Peter (1580-1641), of Somerfield Hall, Sellinge, Kent.

The Heyman family had been settled at Somerfield since the seat had been acquired in the 1520s by Peter Heyman†, a servant of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, who represented New Romney in the 1547 Parliament.31HP Commons 1509-1558. Sir Peter Heyman was the first to follow him to Westminster. Most of his career there lies in the early Stuart period, during which he became a somewhat controversial figure. A student of the puritan William Bedell, he first secured election in 1621, on the recommendation of the lord warden of the Cinque Ports, Edward Zouche, 11th Baron Zouche, as Member for Hythe, where he sat in all but one of the Parliaments of the 1620s.32Goodman, Court of James I, ii. 325; Add. 37818, f. 49v; HP Commons 1604-1629. At Westminster he emerged not merely as an assiduous servant of his constituency, but also as an increasingly outspoken opponent of the government. He opposed the measures taken by the crown against Members for their activity in the House, and supported the Protestation regarding the privileges of the Commons.33CJ i. 616b, 623b, 634a, 635b, 654b, 669a; CD 1621, ii. 209; iii. 201-2, 438; vi. 200, 342; The Letters of John Chamberlain ed. N.E. McLure (Philadelphia, 1939), ii. 426. Summoned before the privy council in February 1622 for refusing to contribute to the defence of the Palatinate, in 1624 he was involved in attempts to legislate against wrongful imprisonment and in preparing the impeachment of the 1st earl of Middlesex (Sir Lionel Cranfield†); meanwhile, he took a strongly Protestant line on church matters, not least in response to Richard Montagu’s anti-Calvinist publications.34Birch, James I, ii. 300; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 426; APC 1621-3, p. 171; CD 1628, ii. 103; CJ i. 685a, 694a, 704a, 764a. In 1626 he emerged as a critic of the Cadiz expedition, and of George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham, and in 1627 he refused to contribute towards the Forced Loan, for which he was again summoned before the privy council. Most famously, Heyman displayed a determination to preserve parliamentary liberties in 1628, and his outspoken objection to the attempt to adjourn the 1629 session resulted in his imprisonment.35APC 1625-6, p. 350; 1628-9, pp. 351, 556; 1629-30, p. 10; CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 90, 129, 506; 1628-9, p. 47; CD 1628, ii. 53, 87, 103, 261, 308, 363; iii. 174, 375, 501; iv. 154, 184, 187, 380; CD 1629, 84, 105, 172, 243; HP Commons 1604-1629.

Heyman’s godly zeal, and his willingness to criticise royal policies, guaranteed that he played only a minor role in local administration during the personal rule of Charles I, and helped to ensure that, despite his age, he was a figure of some significance in 1640. Elected for Dover to the Short Parliament, his treatment in 1629 meant that he received attention both inside and outside the House, as the Commons sought to assert its privileges. In correspondence with friends in Kent, Heyman reported on the tension in the chamber, recounting how ‘they cast bones one at another all the day’.36Oxinden Lttrs. ed. Gardiner, 164; Add. 28000, f. 2. In the House itself he made more than one speech about the tumultuous events of the previous Parliament, was appointed to the committee to examine the record of events in 1629, and was first named to the committee to investigate that notorious breach of privilege.37CJ ii. 4a, 4b, 6a, 6b; Aston’s Diary, 16-17, 21. Thereafter, although he was nominated to committees on a variety of topics, his most conspicuous activity was in relation to religious and political grievances, and the preservation of privileges and liberties. He was involved in preparing a key conference with the Lords regarding the need to make a firm stand on grievances in response to the king’s demand for supply, and he made speeches to the Commons to outline the nature of such complaints, and to the Lords to persuade the peers to insist upon them.38CJ ii. 8a, 10a, 12a, 14a, 18b; Aston’s Diary, 44, 62, 74. Moreover, Heyman was also named to the committee to consider the abuses in ecclesiastical courts (1 May), and made at least five speeches against Ship Money, and in defence of its most notorious victim, John Hampden*.39CJ ii. 17b; Aston’s Diary, 97, 107, 127, 135, 143.

In the elections for what became the Long Parliament, Heyman supported the candidacy of Sir Edward Dering* as knight of the shire, and retained his own seat at Dover.40Add. 26785, f. 5. He remained a powerful figure in the chamber, being named to 27 committees between the opening of Parliament on 3 November and his final appearance in the House on 23 January 1641, and making a number of contributions to debates. As the Commons revisited events in 1629 with which Heyman was intimately associated, he became involved both in this and in the wider issues raised relating to parliamentary privileges, including freedom of speech, and the need for the Commons to remain masters of their own House.41CJ ii. 21a, 53b. He moved that MPs who were witnesses against the 1st earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†) should be examined by the Commons rather than the Lords, supported moves for a parliamentary guard, and sought, by redacting the records of proceedings, to prevent news of debates from reaching the king.42Procs. LP i. 189, 251, 406; CJ ii. 39b, 42a. Concern for security may explain the interest which he took in the state of the army and its better regulation, and in his motion regarding the examination of Thomas Lunsford, lieutenant of the Tower of London (11 Dec.).43CJ ii. 34a, 66a; Procs. LP i. 477, 565. Moreover, a determination to defend parliamentary privileges probably underpinned Heyman’s concern with electoral practice, and he was named to a number of committees to investigate complaints of sharp practice and oligarchic influence. In instances of franchise disputes he inclined towards a broader rather than a narrower electorate, and he may have supported moves to enfranchise new boroughs.44CJ ii. 29a, 39b, 49b, 61b; Procs. LP i. 187. Alongside this, notwithstanding his action to prevent ‘leaks’, as a stickler for traditional procedure Heyman is reported to have opposed the tendency towards ‘close’ committees, ‘alleging that was to make the rest of the Members see by other men’s eyes’.45Warwick, Mems. Charles I, 165-6.

As might be expected, Heyman also displayed a marked zeal for reform, and for securing the resolution of outstanding grievances. On 10 November, shortly after the session began, he was named to the committee to frame a declaration regarding the state of the kingdom, and he was subsequently appointed to committees regarding monopolists, Ship Money and the liberty of the subject, management of forests, and coat and conduct money.46CJ ii. 25a, 31a, 34b, 45a, 45b, 47b, 50b. He was also appointed to the committee for petitions.47CJ ii. 47b, 49b. There is little reason to doubt that he prioritised such matters ahead of supply, in consideration of which he was also involved (19 Nov.).48CJ ii. 31b. Indeed, having been among those who offered £1,000 for the loan (21 Nov.), he appears to have been more concerned with raising money in order to pay the Scots than to provide for the king’s needs.49Procs. LP i. 139, 172, 229, 356. That he formed part of the pro-Scottish faction in the Commons is evident from his willingness to support their charges against Archbishop William Laud and Strafford, which he was responsible for delivering to the Lords in January 1641.50CJ ii. 62b.

Heyman’s parliamentary activity also revealed the depth of his concern for godly Protestantism, and for reform of abuses within the church. In addition to supporting the impeachment of Laud, therefore, Heyman was involved in considering cases of the archbishop’s most famous puritan victims, like Alexander Leighton, William Prynne*, Henry Burton and John Bastwick, as well as the behaviour of Laudian clerics and bishops in certain high-profile churches and dioceses, the favourable treatment of Catholics, priests, and Jesuits, and the powers of institutions such as the high commission.51CJ ii. 28b, 44b, 56a, 72a; Procs. LP i. 191. Additionally, he was involved in consideration of the important puritan bastion of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and was nominated to a sub-committee of the grand committee on religion, to consider the scarcity of preaching ministers.52CJ ii. 52a, 54b.

Heyman worked equally assiduously on behalf of his constituency, and the interests of the Cinque Ports in general. On 23 December he spoke in favour of exempting the ports from the subsidy bill, immediately informing the corporation at Dover that he had ‘alleged many reasons’ in support of the motion.53Add. 29623, f. 129. He also reported his activities on the ports’ behalf in the grand committee on the subsidy, and informed them that he had ‘left three or four of the ablest men in the House fully instructed, with briefs that I caused to be drawn’.54E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 64-7; Sa/AC7, f. 383v; Stowe 744, f. 2. Indeed, he was evidently regarded as someone who could be relied upon in order to lobby on behalf of local causes.55Add. 26785, f. 107.

Heyman’s last recorded appearance in the Commons was on 23 January 1641.56CJ ii. 72a He died sometime between then and 7 February, when rumours of his death began to circulate within Kent, alongside speculation about who would replace him in the House.57Oxinden Lttrs. ed. Gardiner, 191; Add. 28000, f. 74 A motion for a new election was passed there on 8 February, when Sir Peter’s son Henry Heyman* was given leave to attend the funeral, the issuing of a writ was ordered two days later.58D’Ewes (N), 334; CJ ii. 82a. Heyman, who died intestate, was succeeded by Henry, who became an equally prominent member of the Commons, and a staunch parliamentarian, and who was eventually awarded £5,000 by way of reparation for the imprisonment of his father in 1629.59CJ ii. 203a; v. 54b, 55b; Harl. 479, ff. 37-40.