HEWSON, John (d.1661), of Luttrellstown, co. Dublin.

In later life John Hewson was variously described as ‘sometimes an honest shoemaker in Westminster’, a ‘mechanic fellow’, an ‘experienced artificer’ and ‘the one-eyed shoemaker’; and when his regiment entered London in December 1659 they were greeted with cries of ‘a cobbler, a cobbler!’34Wood, Fasti, ii. 134; Whitelocke, Diary, 601; Clarke Pprs. v. 302; T. Edwards, Gangraena (1646) iii. 46; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 414. These taunts were not groundless, but they did not do justice to Hewson’s status as a Citizen of London and member of the Cordwainers’ Company. The records of the company show that he was admitted as a freeman in 1625-6, having served an apprenticeship under Thomas Stubbes and instead of fees he presented the company with a silver spoon. This gift (rather than the usual monetary fee) suggests that Hewson was a special case, and his absence from the Cordwainers’ accounts of apprenticeship dues may indicate that his father was already a freeman of that company. Hewson’s family certainly supported his early career: his uncle, Thomas, who was a London citizen and clothworker, lent him money on a bond of £80 dated 1 March 1626, at about the time he was made a freeman.35LC4/200, f. 165. John Hewson was allocated his first apprentice in May 1626, and in February 1629 he supplied shoes to the Massachusetts Bay Company, presumably using the connections of his uncle, who was an original subscriber and member of the company’s governing committee.36GL, MS 7353/1, unfol.; A. Young, Chronicles of the first planters of Massachusetts Bay (Boston, 1846), 46-7, 174n; F. Rose-Troup, The Massachusetts Bay Co. (New York, 1930), 19-20, 144-5. Hewson was thus moving in puritan circles by the late 1620s, and it was probably at this time that he experienced his religious conversion, from ‘a state of disobedience as to God … in a wicked and profane family in London’ to a profound trust in God’s grace – a fervent belief he shared with his wife, Anne.37Rogers, Ohel or Beth-shemeth, 395-6, 412.

There is little evidence for Hewson’s activities during the 1630s, but he seems to have fallen on hard times. Edward Hyde’s* description of Hewson as ‘an ill shoemaker, and afterwards clerk to a brewer of small beer’ was not far off the mark, as by the end of the decade Hewson seems to have abandoned shoemaking, instead joining his uncle, Thomas, as partner in a brewhouse at Bankside, Southwark.38Clarendon, Hist. vi. 158; C2/ChasI/H15/14; C2/ChasI/H7/35; C3/436/57. On his uncle’s death in the late summer of 1641, Hewson tried to take over the lease of the brewhouse, but he was challenged by the executor, who in the early months of 1642 prosecuted him for debt in the London sheriff’s court and for the return of the brewhouse through the court of chancery.39PROB11/187/183; C2/ChasI/B49/9. With the onset of civil war, it was no great hardship for Hewson to abandon his business ventures in favour of military service. His first appointment was as a captain in the earl of Essex’s foot regiment, which he had joined by 23 November 1642.40SP28/253A, f. 70; SP28/5, f. 76. Under Essex, Hewson probably fought at the first battle of Newbury and the siege of Gloucester, but he had left the unit by the end of March 1644, and was therefore not involved in the debacle at Lostwithiel in the following August. From 26 March 1644, Hewson served as lieutenant-colonel under John Pickering in the Eastern Association army, and no doubt saw action with his regiment at Marston Moor.41SP28/253A, f. 70. When Pickering’s regiment was incorporated into the New Model army in April 1645, Hewson was retained, and went on to fight at Naseby, Bridgwater and Bristol. After Pickering’s death during the siege of Exeter, Hewson was given command of the regiment in June 1646.42Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 405; Wanklyn, New Model Army, i. 59.

In the later 1640s, Hewson became involved in army politics. When the Presbyterians at Westminster tried to disband the New Model and send the soldiers to Ireland in the spring of 1647, Hewson’s regiment refused to comply, and its colonel was chosen to negotiate with the House of Commons on the army’s behalf.43Clarke Pprs. i. 16; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, 45-6. On 27 April, Hewson and his fellow officers signed the Vindication, assuring Parliament of the army’s ‘harmless and intentions’, but refusing to disband.44Petition and Vindication of the Officers of the Armie (1647), sig. A2 (E.385.19). At the officers’ convention at Saffron Walden on 16 May, Hewson justified his regiment’s refusal to go to Ireland, and protested that ‘truly I found them in no distemper, but very quiet’.45Clarke Pprs. i. 51. In late May, Hewson was chosen to draw up the army’s further representations to Parliament, but in June he was clearly one of the most uncompromising of the officers, advising Colonel Edward Whalley* to make sure the king kept his chosen chaplains, to emphasise the leniency of the army as opposed to the Presbyterian-dominated Parliament: ‘for now you can be as civil as some others that pretend to be more’.46Clarke Pprs. i. 109, 140-1. In July Hewson was among those officers who presented the charges against the Eleven Members to Parliament, and at the beginning of August his regiment was part of the brigade which captured Southwark and took London Bridge, as part of the successful bid to oust the Presbyterians from Westminster and the City.47Clarke Pprs. i. 151; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 406.

Despite his record of involvement in army politics in the spring and summer of 1647, Hewson was not prepared to support the more extreme political aims of the Levellers, which were debated and discussed during the autumn. In the Putney debates of October he supported the senior officers; and in November he was a signatory of his regiment’s remonstrance to Sir Thomas Fairfax*, which complained of the ‘dismal cloud again arising over our heads from divisions and discontents’, and protested their intention ‘to remain firm and constant in our duty and obedience to your excellency’.48Clarke Pprs. i. 294, 343, 390, 413; Humble Remonstrance and Desires of Divers Officers…under command of Colonel Hewson (1647), 2-4 (E.413.6). Hewson’s regiment remained loyal through the winter of 1647-8, and was posted to Kent by early January 1648, where it occupied Canterbury and put down disturbances against the regime.49Sloane 159, f. 166. In May 1648, as the second civil war erupted, Fairfax sent Hewson to the Derby House Committee to coordinate the defence of London from royalist attack.50Clarke Pprs. ii. 11, 19; CSP Dom. 1648-9, 83. Hewson returned to Kent in early June 1648 and led his regiment against the rebel stronghold of Maidstone, which was recaptured after ‘four or five hours hot service’.51Fairfax Corresp. ed. Bell, iv. 32. After the suppression of the rising, Hewson returned to army politics, attending the officers’ councils and committees throughout November and much of December.52Clarke Pprs. ii. 274-5. On 1 December, his regiment joined the rendezvous outside London, and on 6 December Hewson assisted Thomas Pride* and Sir Hardress Waller* in purging the House of Commons.53Clarke Pprs. ii. 65; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 366.

In January 1649, Hewson was appointed to the commission for the high court of justice to try the king. He was among the most active of the commissioners, attending almost every day from 8 January until he signed the death warrant on 29 January, and contemporaries were in no doubt as to his personal commitment to the trial. According to one account, on 22 January, furious at the king’s refusal to plead, Hewson marched up and spat in his face, crying ‘justice, justice upon the traitor!’ His regiment, under the immediate control of Lieutenant-Colonel Daniel Axtell*, provided the guard at the trial, and Hewson was given the job of finding an executioner once the king’s fate had been sealed.54Muddiman, Trial, 73, 94, 148, 194-229. In the wake of the king’s execution, Hewson drew even closer to the army grandees, and became even more unpopular with the Levellers. In March 1649 he was attacked for his comments that courts martial were preferable to civil justice, for ‘we have had trial enough of civil courts, we can hang twenty before they will hang one’, and he was also accused of advocating a harsh line against Levellers, saying that ‘we shall never be quiet till some of them be cut off for examples’.55The Hunting of the Foxes (1649), 10 (E.548.7). In March Hewson made a revealing slip in a speech before Fairfax, ‘and instead of addressing himself to “his excellency”, said “an’t please your majesty”’.56Clarke Pprs. ii. 207. In May 1649 Hewson accompanied Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell* to Oxford, where he was awarded an honorary Master of Arts by the university.57Al. Ox. Shortly afterwards, in a further sign of his favour with the new regime, Hewson was granted lodgings at Derby House by the new council of state.58CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 164.

In April 1649 Hewson’s regiment had been chosen by lot to accompany Cromwell on his expedition to Ireland. He crossed to Dublin in August, and fought at the siege of Drogheda, where his regiment was one of the first into the breach. When Cromwell turned south towards Wexford, Hewson was appointed governor of Dublin.59Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 408-9. In 1650-3 Hewson was involved in various campaigns in Leinster, taking Ballysonan in co. Kildare and leading the assault on the Confederate capital at Kilkenny, raiding co. Wicklow and ranging as far into the north and west as cos. Westmeath and Cavan; but his main role was running the military and civilian government at Dublin.60Gentles, New Model Army, 372-3; Bodl. Tanner 56, f. 182; Ludlow, Mems. i. 503; Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 5, 17, 71, 129, 194-5. As governor of Dublin, he played an important role in the military administration. From August 1650 he was signatory of army pay warrants for Leinster, working with Daniel Hutchinson* and (from September 1651) Sir Robert King*, and he continued to do so at least until December 1652.61SP28/70, f. 321; SP28/71, ff. 26, 50; SP28/89, ff. 73-9; NLI, MS 758, f. 112. The governorship brought control of Dublin precinct, and therefore of the local civilian administration. Hewson was created a justice of the peace for Leinster in November 1651.62TCD, MS 844, f. 110. Before January 1653 he was acting as high sheriff of Leinster, and named deputies for individual counties, including Daniel Axtell at Kilkenny, Thomas Pretty at Carlow and Thomas Sadleir* at Wexford.63Eg. 1762, f. 60. In February 1653 he became revenue commissioner for co. Dublin.64Eg. 1762, f. 66. Hewson also held national appointments: in March 1652 he was appointed assistant to the parliamentary commissioners, to help them deal with the flood of petitions.65Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 162. Other positions followed, including those concerning the transplantation of the Irish and the settlement of military arrears.66Eg. 1762, ff. 52v, 58v. Hewson’s service in Ireland was certainly valued by the parliamentary commissioners and their allies in the commonwealth regime. In October 1651 Colonel John Jones I* advised the council of state ‘that some lands might be settled’ on Hewson; in March 1652 he received the lease of Luttrellstown in co. Dublin.67‘Inedited Letters’ ed. Mayer, 189; Eg. 1762, f. 206.

Hewson’s political position in the early 1650s was greatly strengthened by his growing importance in military circles both in England and Ireland. This was founded on his reputation as a soldier and his involvement in the religious and political issues which continued to dominate the army. In the civil wars in England and Ireland, Hewson had proved himself to be a man of great personal bravery. At the siege of Bridgwater in July 1645 he had led the ‘forlorn hope’ in the initial assault, and his action in capturing the gates brought victory to the parliamentarian army. Similarly, at Bristol his regiment was in the vanguard of the assault on Lawford’s Gate.68Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 405-6. When his men stormed Maidstone during the second civil war, Hewson was ‘knocked down with a musket; but recovering himself, he pressed the enemy so hard, that they were forced to retreat’.69Ludlow, Mems. i. 193; Fairfax Corresp. ed. Bell, iv. 32. At Drogheda in 1649, his regiment was one of the three chosen to lead the attack, and suffered some of the worst losses on the English side.70Regimental Hist. ii. 409. At the siege of Kilkenny in 1650, Hewson again led his men in person, and (according to one eye-witness) ‘was hurted in the shoulder with a bullet and then beshit himself’.71NLI, MS 839, p. 12. Despite the occasional embarrassment, Hewson’s personal reputation in the army in the early 1650s was second to none. He was brought into commissions to negotiate the surrender of Irish armies under Colonel Fitzpatrick and the earl of Westmeath in the spring of 1652, and in the following July, when the officers met at Clonmel to draw up a petition to Parliament, it was natural that Hewson should be chosen to present it to Westminster.72Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 185, 197; Ludlow, Mems. i. 528; CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 347.

Hewson’s courage was fuelled by his strong religious beliefs. It was said that his decision to join the army in 1642 was ‘upon the account of the blessed cause’, while ‘his zeal brought him to be a colonel’.73Wood, Fasti, ii. 134; Mystery of the Good Old Cause, 14. In 1646 he was criticized for throwing the ministers of Aston and Wallington out of their churches, and preaching in their places.74Edwards, Gangraena, iii. 252-3. In December 1647 he was one of the leaders of the officers’ fast day, and ‘prayed fervently and pathetically … from nine in the morning till seven at night’.75Clarke Pprs. i. pp. lvii-lviii. After Drogheda, Hewson condemned the Irish royalists as God’s enemies: ‘Let them behold the face of God set against them, and the hand of God lifted up’, he warned, ‘for if they will not see, they shall see… when the Lord by his power shall break them in pieces like a potter’s vessel’.76Perfect Occurences, no. 144 (28 Sept.-4 Oct. 1649), 1275-6 (E.533.15). As governor of Dublin, Hewson took an active role in the religious affairs in the city. He joined the congregation of John Rogers and supported the founding of other Independent churches, rejoicing in October 1651 that ‘the Gospel takes blessed effect in this city’.77St J.D. Seymour, Puritans in Ire. (Dublin, 1921), 20, 22; Mercurius Politicus, no. 72 (16-23 Oct. 1651), 1147-8. Although Hewson never became a Baptist himself (describing himself in 1653 as ‘clearly convinced’ of the truth of Independency), he was sympathetic to the more radical sectaries.78Rogers, Ohel, or Beth-shemesh, 396; Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, 99-100, 103n. During the mid-1650s he acquired four sons-in-law drawn from the ranks of the senior officers in Ireland, including John Vernon, Philip Carteret and Richard Lawrence, who were described as his ‘three Anabaptist sons’.79TSP iv. 327. Other Baptist officers with close relationships with Hewson included Daniel Axtell and Alexander Brayfield*, both of whom had held commissions in his regiment before 1650, and his deputy as sheriff of Wexford, Thomas Sadleir*.80Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 408-9. The strength of this military and religious network is central to understanding Hewson’s political position from 1653 onwards.

The dissolution of the Rump and the establishment of the Nominated Assembly brought Hewson into the centre of British politics. In June 1653 he was nominated as one of six MPs for Ireland, and he took his seat when the new Parliament opened on 4 July. On 14 July he was appointed a councillor of state, and his duties in Parliament and council must be considered together.81CJ vii. 284b. Hewson had been appointed to the parliamentary committees for Irish and Scottish affairs on 9 July, and he became a regular reporter between the council and Parliament on Irish matters.82CJ vii. 283b. Perhaps in recognition of the need for stability under the new ‘rule of the Saints’, Hewson’s stance was surprisingly moderate. On 27 July he reported to Parliament the council of state’s recommendation that free trade be established between the two countries, which would ‘conduce much to the advantage both of England and Ireland’.83CJ vii. 290a; CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 40. In individual cases, he acted as reporter on behalf of former royalists such as the earl of Clanricarde and Colonel John Gifford, as well as ‘Old Protestant’ parliamentarians, notably the earl of Kildare, Sir Arthur and Sir Adam Loftus and Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*).84CJ vii. 194a, 296a, 321a; CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 37, 66, 75, 77, 171. In religious questions, Hewson supported the Independent agenda: on 10 October he was named to a committee to prepare legislation to allow liberty of conscience, but with safeguards against heresy and blasphemy, and on 17 November he was teller against a motion taking away the power of patrons over church livings – a system which had often favoured Independent divines in the past.85CJ vii. 332b, 352a. Hewson also gained personally from his membership of the Nominated Assembly, as a proviso was added in the adventurers’ act, allowing him further lands in co. Dublin to cover his arrears.86CJ vii. 324a.

After the closure of the Nominated Assembly and the foundation of the protectorate in December 1653, Hewson remained in London. In March 1654 he petitioned Cromwell for £2,000 of his English arrears, or a grant of land in Saley Forest, Northamptonshire, instead.87CSP Dom. 1654, p. 13. This was referred to the council, where John Lambert* recommended Hewson be granted £2,134 in arrears (later reduced to £1,832), which was to be paid by the prize office.88CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 33, 58, 445; Clarke Pprs. v. 173-4. With such assurances in his pocket, Hewson returned to Ireland in June 1654.89CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 499, 504, 512. On his return to Dublin, Hewson soon became a firm ally of the new lord deputy of Ireland, Charles Fleetwood*. In June 1654 Fleetwood used his influence in London to secure further land grants for Hewson, commenting ‘considering how faithful and good servant he hath been, I think to difference him from others, it will do well, and he deserves it’.90TSP ii. 357, 390. By mid-July 1654 Hewson’s lease of Luttrellstown had become a permanent grant.9114th Rep. of Dep. Keeper Public Recs. in Ire. (Dublin, 1882), 43. He was also given the former Plunkett estate at Dunsoghly in co. Dublin.92HMC Egmont, i. 548, 550. Later in the month, as the appointment of new Irish councillors was discussed, Fleetwood argued that Hewson and another radical officer, Jerome Sankey*, might be added, as ‘they are both good men and faithful to my lord protector; and those, I trust, will act uprightly and righteously’.93TSP ii. 493; Add. 4156, f. 71v. Fleetwood’s recommendations were not taken up, but in the second half of 1654 and first half of 1655 Hewson was appointed to a series of commissions and committees, mostly concerned with the transplantation of Irish landowners to Connaught and the army’s position in the new land settlement.94Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 451-2, 454, 473, 475, 499; An Assessment for Ire. Hewson’s standing in Dublin, and his closeness to Fleetwood, no doubt ensured his election as MP for co. Dublin, ‘nemine contradicente’, on 2 August 1654.95HMC Egmont, i. 553; C219/44, unfol. Despite this, his absence from the parliamentary record suggests that his military duties in Ireland prevented his attendance at Westminster in 1654-5.

The departure of Fleetwood from Ireland in the summer of 1655, and the arrival of the protector’s son, Henry Cromwell*, as acting governor and lieutenant-general of the army, brought a rapid deterioration in Hewson’s relationship with the Dublin government. Hewson was absent when the new governor arrived, having crossed to England on 26 May 1655, on the ship sent to meet Henry Cromwell at Beaumaris.96CSP Dom. 1655, p. 486. Whatever the purpose of Hewson’s journey, he was back in Dublin by early October.97Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 544. By then his relations with Henry Cromwell were already turning sour. On 2 December Hewson, with Pretty and Lawrence, sent a highly inflammatory petition to Oliver Cromwell, bewailing Fleetwood’s recall, which had encouraged ‘several persons in the civil and military lists’ to circulate seditious petitions, and accusing Henry Cromwell of conspiring ‘to abuse his lordship’s good nature on the one hand, and weaken the godly interest on the other’.98TSP iv. 276. Henry Cromwell was shocked by these allegations, and wrote to London in protest at the army faction which now opposed him: ‘but who would expect better from [Hewson], he having owned with his hand what was the product of other men; he having in this matter consulted with none others than the chief of our peevish friends here, viz. Vernon, Lawrence, Carteret, etc … if Colonel Hewson must be believed (with his three Anabaptist sons) I must be made a liar, if not worse’.99TSP iv. 327, 348. Henry Cromwell’s alarm was increased by the protector’s reply, which had apparently reassured, rather than reprimanded, the petitioner. Secretary John Thurloe* tried to quieten Henry Cromwell’s fears: ‘I know his highness wrote it in much plainness and sincerity of heart unto him, and out of love’, but the Irish officers ‘do wrestle his words to a meaning which hath no place in his own heart’.100TSP iv. 349, 373. Fleetwood defended Hewson, telling Henry that he should beware those who ‘make you believe evil of those who I hope intend no evil to you’.101Henry Cromwell Corresp. 98. The row only abated in January 1656, when Hewson was persuaded to join other officers in a further petition to the protector, which publicly endorsed Henry Cromwell’s rule as well as that of Fleetwood.102TSP iv. 421, 422, 433.

Round two was not long in coming. Hewson again travelled to London in the spring of 1656. On 28 April Thurloe told Henry Cromwell that Hewson was waiting for a private audience with the protector, but was confident that Henry’s own envoy, Dr Thomas Harrison, would speak to him first.103TSP iv. 743. On 20 May Thurloe again alluded to ‘the discourses which have been with Colonel Hewson’, but left the details to Henry’s agents, Sir John Reynolds* and Harrison.104TSP v. 45. Reynolds, writing a week later, filled in the gaps: ‘no means have been left unattempted to make all good men, yea his highness, believe that you discountenance the godly interest and that the old carnal Old Protestants is the only party which adheres to your lordship or to whom you do adhere’.105Henry Cromwell Corresp. 131. Hewson soon turned his fire on Henry’s agents, trying to discredit Harrison and prevent his return to Ireland.106Henry Cromwell Corresp. 174. During the summer, Hewson’s campaign against Henry Cromwell became slightly hysterical. His enemies thought that he had ‘scarce sufficiently recovered himself to be in a fit temper to sit in Parliament’, and his son-in-law, John Vernon, reputedly said that he ‘was so prevailed upon by his passion with his late transactions in England, that he was next door to a mad man’.107TSP v. 327. In the elections for the second protectorate Parliament, Hewson at first stood for his old seat of co. Dublin, using Henry Cromwell’s name to gain support, but was defeated by the Dublin recorder, John Bysse*.108TSP v. 327. Hewson was also defeated at Sandwich in Kent, losing to a local candidate, James Thurbarne*, on 26 August.109East Kent RO, Sa/AC8, ff. 131-2. His Kentish patron was probably the governor of Dover Castle, Major-general Thomas Kelsey*, and it is significant that in the following October, when he finally found a vacancy, Hewson was returned for Guildford in Surrey in place of Kelsey, who had opted for another seat.110Mercurius Politicus, no. 337 (20-7 Nov. 1656), 7405.

In the second protectorate Parliament, Hewson found ready allies in the army interest, led by Lambert and Fleetwood and supported by the English major-generals. Hewson was added to the committee of Irish affairs on 25 October, but his involvement in Irish affairs was much less than in the Nominated Assembly.111CJ vii. 445b. Only three of his committee appointments were of direct relevance to Ireland, and all of these were involved in the land settlement, from which Hewson himself stood to benefit.112CJ vii. 494a, 515a, 526a. When his own ordinance for arrears was turned into an act in June 1657, Hewson ‘gave a yea in his own ordinance, which caused a laughter’.113Burton’s Diary, ii. 60. Otherwise, Hewson’s concern for Ireland was no greater than his occasional efforts to champion his constituents in the borough of Guildford (on 1 December 1656 he acted as teller in favour of placing the Surrey probate registry there).114CJ vii. 462a. Religion was, however, as important to Hewson in 1656-7 as it had been in 1653. On 31 October he was named to the committee to consider information against the notorious Quaker, James Naylor.115CJ vii. 448a. In the debates on Naylor during December, Hewson was ardent in his opposition to the death penalty - ‘If you take away this man’s life, by the same rule you might have taken away the life of a Paul, for he confessed himself to be a blasphemer’ – and argued for a lesser punishment.116Burton’s Diary, i. 108. He went on to defend Naylor against a sentence of whipping, on the grounds that the accused had been a soldier, and he went on to be appointed to the committee for improving Naylor’s conditions.117Burton’s Diary, i. 150; CJ vii. 470a. Hewson’s religious views were intertwined with his political concerns. On 25 December he seconded the proposal to abolish holy days and festivals, which was an attack on those MPs who had absented themselves to celebrate Christmas as much as a statement of religious belief.118Burton’s Diary, i. 231. This measure was immediately followed by the controversial militia bill, introduced by John Disbrowe, which started with the proposal for extending the decimation tax on former royalists, and ended as a struggle over the continuation of the scheme of the major- generals itself. Hewson spoke in favour of the militia bill on its first day, arguing that ‘you are not laying a tax upon the people but upon your enemies’, and dismissed the act of oblivion, saying ‘If they have digged pits or laid snares since against the honest party, that you will not be asleep, but look about you’.119Burton’s Diary, i. 236.

The failure of the militia bill in January 1657 paved the way for the introduction of a new, civilian constitution, designed to replace the Instrument of Government. Hewson was opposed to the ‘Remonstrance’ from the very beginning. On 24 February, the day after the Remonstrance was introduced in the Commons, it was said that ‘the Irish are all for it, but Cooper [Thomas Cooper II], Hewson and Sankey’.120Henry Cromwell Corresp. 205-6. On 4 April Hewson joined Disbrowe as teller against the declaration that the House of Commons adhered to the Humble Petition in its original, monarchical form – a vote narrowly lost by the army interest and its supporters.121CJ vii. 520b. Hewson’s opposition to the new constitution was no doubt influenced by his political views, especially his opposition to Henry Cromwell, whose allies among the Old Protestant MPs, led by Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*), were strongly in favour of the changes. Yet the kingship issue also had religious implications, and Hewson’s awareness of this is revealed by one account of his speech against the new arrangements: ‘Mr Speaker, this Parliament in which we are members is worse than the Devil, for he offered the kingdoms of the world to Christ but once, and we must offer it … twice; and for it give reasons to destroy not only ourselves but all three nations with it’.122Clarendon SP iii. 338-9.

Not content to oppose political innovation in England, Hewson spent much of his time during this Parliament stoking up dissent against Henry Cromwell in Ireland. In early March 1657 Henry was concerned at ‘Hewson’s alarming his sons Lawrence and Jones (who have at present their residence in Dublin Castle, and have always had an influence upon the company that guards it) with strange and black clouds, which he says hang over the heads of the godly’.123TSP vi. 94. In June, Henry was convinced that Hewson and his friends planned to stir up an insurrection in Ireland.124Add. 4157, ff. 182-3. Fleetwood was quick to argue in favour of ‘the faithfulness and integrity of that person’, and to wave away the latest dispute as ‘misunderstanding’; but when Thurloe implemented an investigation of Hewson’s activities, he agreed that his letters were ‘of a very strange nature, as savouring of an unquiet and dividing spirit’.125Henry Cromwell Corresp. 285, 295; TSP vi. 352. There were also rumours from around this time that Hewson and others were preparing to rebel against the protector himself, ‘in case he would take monarchical government upon him’.126TSP i. 749. In September 1657 Henry Cromwell, taking no chances, cashiered those most closely associated with Hewson within the Irish army, including Alexander Brayfield.127TSP vi. 505.

Despite growing concern in Ireland that Hewson was opposed to Oliver as well as Henry Cromwell, he was still treated with great respect in England. Crucially, Hewson had the trust of the protector. Through the winter of 1656-7 and during the following year, he received rewards and appointments which reflected this: in late November 1656 the protectoral council ratified earlier orders giving him an English foot regiment alongside his Irish commands, and in the same month he was appointed to the commission for the protector’s security in Ireland.128TSP v. 657; A. and O. In the autumn of 1657 Hewson was knighted by the protector, and in December he was created a lord, and given a seat in Cromwell’s Other House.129Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 224; TSP vi. 668. This last honour brought scornful comments, especially from royalist agents, who said that this former shoemaker should bear bones and an awl (the tools of his trade) as ‘the worthy ensigns of his new nobility’.130CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 232. It was also said that the pro-Cromwellian peers, including the 2nd earl of Warwick, ‘would not be persuaded to sit’ with men of such inferior status.131Ludlow, Mems. ii. 32. Not that the Other House was able to achieve much in its brief life. Hewson attended the second sitting of the 1656-8 Parliament every day from 20 January until 4 February 1658, sitting ‘on the bench in the second row on the left hand’.132HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 505-24, 508. He was named to two committees: those for petitions and against the profanation of the Lord’s Day.133HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 509, 516.

While Oliver Cromwell lived, Hewson remained loyal to the regime; but the protector’s death, and the appointment of Richard Cromwell* as his successor, released him from such obligations. On 21 September 1658 there were already reports of a ‘cabal’ within the army, whose ‘close contrivers’ included Hewson.134TSP vii. 406. By early November, there was further intelligence that the army planned a coup, and that ‘Colonel Hewson is very discontented, and blows the coals’.135TSP vii. 501. As yet, he kept up the pretence of serving the protectoral regime. On 23 November 1658 he joined his fellow peers in Cromwell’s funeral procession.136Burton’s Diary, ii. 527. He continued to sit in the Other House during Richard Cromwell’s Parliament, attending regularly from 27 January to 22 April 1659, and was named to a variety of other committees including those on the bill for rejecting the claims of Charles II and for restraining the use of the Prayer Book, and for further measures against the ‘common enemy’.137HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 525, 527, 529, 530, 534, 552, 559, 567. After the dissolution of the Parliament in April and the fall of the protectorate in May, Hewson openly supported the army interest, attending meetings at Wallingford House.138Clarke Pprs. v. 288; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 509. On 21 June 1659 Hewson’s own company was entrusted with garrisoning duties in Dublin Castle.139Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 659. In the purge of the Irish army a month later, his regiment was reallocated to Colonel Henry Markham*, but his new English regiment was continued in service.140CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 12. The officer list was agreed by Parliament on 14 June, with John Duckinfield* as lieutenant-colonel.141CJ vii. 681a, 682b, 684a. Hewson probably remained in London over the summer, leaving Duckinfield to command the regiment when it supported John Lambert’s * successful expedition against Sir George Boothe’s* rising in the north west.142Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 412-4; CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 75, 178. Hewson supported the army’s coup in October, and later in the month he was appointed to the commonwealth’s new supreme executive the committee of safety, which tried to impose order on what was in danger of becoming a chaotic situation.143Ludlow, Mems. ii. 131. On 5 December Hewson’s regiment was ordered into London, but in the face of taunts and man-handling by the apprentices, the soldiers opened fire, ‘and killed three or four, and cut and slashed 20 or 30, which had caused a great heat burning in the City’.144Clarke Pprs. iv. 166; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 177. Whether Hewson was responsible for this violence is uncertain - the restored Rump Parliament, by granting him a pardon around 6 January 1660, evidently thought that he was not.145CJ vii. 804a-b. Yet his former colleagues in the City still held him to blame, and in mid-January 1660 there was ‘a gibbet set up, and the picture of Hewson hung upon it in the middle of the street’ at Cheapside.146Pepys’s Diary, i. 28. A coroner’s jury found him guilty, and there were plans through the spring of 1660 to bring him to trial at the Old Bailey.147Mystery of the Good Old Cause, 15; CCSP iv. 490.

In the early months of 1660, Hewson waited on events. He lost his command, and on 13 January the council of state ordered him to leave London.148CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 308. He tried to persuade George Monck* and his friends not to penalize him further, arguing that he was ‘very lame of gout’ and that ‘I have lived privately, without knowledge of my friends and holding converse with none’, and was thus ‘innocent as to any disturbance which the council by their proclamation doth suspect’.149HMC Leyborne-Popham, 181. Such assurances were not credible, however, and as the Restoration approached, Hewson decided not to risk remaining in England. Despite reports in May that he had been captured, he had by then ‘narrowly escaped’ to the Netherlands.150HMC 5th Rep. 199; Ludlow, Voyce, 154. Efforts to secure his return, and his trial as a regicide, were cut short by his death shortly afterwards. On 12 September 1661 Sir William Davidson wrote from Amsterdam that Hewson had recently died, and had been buried in the city; he went on to ask whether he should arrange for the body to be dug up and sent to England for symbolic punishment.151CCSP v. 138. There is no record of an answer, and Hewson’s grave presumably survived undisturbed. Nothing more is known of the Hewson family. Their connection with Ireland was certainly over: in November 1660 Hewson had been attainted, and the estates he had amassed during the 1650s were restored to their original owners in the years following the Restoration.152HMC 5th Rep. 200; CSP Ire. 1660-2, pp. 226, 282, 356; 1663-6, pp. 482-3.