HEWLEY, John (1619-97), of York and Bell Hall, Naburn, Yorks.

Hewley’s family was of Cheshire origin and was said to have arrived in Yorkshire in the train of Edwin Sandys on his appointment as archbishop of York in 1577. It was apparently Sandys who granted the Hewleys the small manor of Wistow, adjacent to the archiepiscopal palace of Cawood, about ten miles south of York, which they made their principal residence.38Add. 26739, f. 178v; Dugdale’s Vis. Yorks. ii. 208; C.V. Wedgwood, ‘Sir John Hewley, 1619-1697’, Trans. of the Unitarian Hist. Soc. vi. 4. The Hewleys’ links with Sandys suggest that they may have been a strongly Protestant family, for the bishop was one of the more puritanical members of the Elizabethan episcopate.39Oxford DNB ‘Edwin Sandys’. The fact that the Hewleys were part of the archbishop’s household may also be evidence that they derived from relatively humble social origins. Hewley’s father, certainly, was regularly referred to as a yeoman, and at his death in 1630, he possessed only a messuage and a few closes in Wistow.40Hull Hist. Centre, U DDBH/19/9, 13, 15, 20, 43; Yorks. Stuart Fines ed. W. Brigg (Yorks. Arch. Soc. rec. ser. lviii), 8.

John Hewley would be the first, and only, member of his family to serve as a magistrate or to enter Parliament. But although he was to enjoy a successful and lucrative legal career, most of his wealth and standing derived from his marriage to the only daughter of Robert Wolrych, a prosperous Gray’s Inn barrister.41Wedgwood, ‘Sir John Hewley’, 5. This connection, which was itself a reflection of Hewley’s success and ability as a lawyer, was almost certainly made whilst Hewley was studying at Gray’s Inn. The marriage, which took place at some point during the late 1640s or early 1650s, brought him a landed estate in Yorkshire that was worth perhaps as much as £800 a year.42C6/159/77-8; C6/165/79; C6/164/101; C10/117/74; Dame Sarah Hewley’s Charity, 33-4.

Following the outbreak of civil war, Hewley temporarily abandoned his legal studies and joined Parliament’s northern army under the command of the 2nd Baron Fairfax (Sir Ferdinando Fairfax*). His decision to side with Parliament was almost certainly related to his godly religious convictions. He was serving as a captain in Sir John Savile’s regiment of foot by the spring of 1644 and may well have fought at the battle of Marston Moor in July of that year. When Savile’s regiment was reduced in June 1645, Hewley’s company was transferred to the regiment of the West Riding gentleman John Bright*.43SP28/30, f. 761; SP28/302, f. 760; E 121/5/5/12; Jones, ‘War in north’, 386. By the autumn of 1648, he had begun his close association with his fellow Gray’s Inn lawyer Francis Thorpe* – who would emerge as one of the Rump’s senior legal advisers – that was to play an important part in his career during the 1650s.44Infra, ‘Francis Thorpe’; Baker, Serjeants at Law, 188. Hewley also served on the West Riding bench during the late 1640s and remained active in local government in the wake of the regicide.45W. Yorks. Archives (Wakefield), QS 10/2, pp. 8, 13, 24, 69, 121, 247. He managed to combine his duties in the north with building a legal practice in London, where his clients included another eminent Gray’s Inn barrister Sir Thomas Widdrington* and the godly Yorkshire MP Sir William Allanson.46C10/2/6; C10/9/53; C10/10/137. He had prospered sufficiently by 1653 to purchase the manor of Newby, part of the sequestered estate of the 2nd duke of Buckingham, the son-in-law of the 3rd Baron Fairfax (Sir Thomas Fairfax*).47CCC 2192.

In the elections to the first protectoral Parliament in the summer of 1654, Hewley acted as electoral manager for Thorpe, who was standing for the West Riding. Although Thorpe had been a willing servant of the Rump, he was considered sufficiently conformable by the Cromwellian regime to retain his offices as a baron of the exchequer and circuit judge.48Infra, ‘Francis Thorpe’. On election day, Lord Fairfax, Major-general John Lambert, Henry Tempest, John Bright and Edward Gill took five of the six places ‘without any dispute’; but when Hewley tried to raise a ‘shout’ for Thorpe among the voters he was ‘overpowered’ by the republican, pro-army interest, which secured the return of Lambert’s brother-in-law Martin Lister. As a relative newcomer to the West Riding and lacking the close relationship that the six successful candidates enjoyed with either Fairfax or Lambert – the heads of the dominant political interests in the region – Thorpe was always going to struggle at the hustings.49Supra, ‘Yorkshire’.

In contrast to Thorpe, Hewley had no difficulty adapting to the rise of the major-generals in 1655. He continued to serve diligently on West Riding bench and earned the approval of Christopher Clapham* for attempting to impose a harsher punishment on anti-excise rioters at Halifax than was favoured by Hewley’s fellow magistrates, the Presbyterian sympathisers Henry Tempest and John Clayton (the father of John Clayton*). Clapham assured his close friend and kinsman Captain Adam Baynes* (Lambert’s right-hand man) that Hewley had ‘spoke very handsome in the behalf of the excise’ – a tax that Baynes helped to manage at both local and national level and the proceeds of which were used to maintain the armed forces.50W. Yorks. Archives (Wakefield), QS 10/3, pp. 19, 347; Add. 21423, f. 186. Hewley was also active on the Yorkshire commission for securing the peace of the commonwealth, joining Major-general Robert Lilburne*, George Lord Eure*, Thomas Dickinson*, Francis Lascelles*, Luke Robinson*, Robert Walter* and other commissioners in a letter to the lord protector early in 1656, requesting the removal of malignant officeholders.51TSP iv. 402. His legal expertise recommended him to several of the county’s more godly borough corporations such that by the late 1650s he was retained legal counsel at York and recorder of Doncaster and Pontefract.52Add. 21425, f. 5; York City Archives, York House Bk. 37, p. 91; Doncaster Archives, AB.2/1/3, p. 233. Baynes and his friends wanted to appoint Hewley recorder of Leeds in place of Clayton as part of their plans in 1656-7 (which came to nothing) to remodel the town’s government and purge their Presbyterian opponents from municipal office.53Supra, ‘Leeds’; Add. 21423, f. 150; Add. 21427, f. 150. But whereas Baynes’s circle evidently thought well of Hewley, Hewley, by 1659, regarded Baynes himself as ‘a most plundering fellow’.54Burton’s Diary, iv. 467.

In the elections to Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament of 1659, Hewley stood as a candidate at Pontefract on the corporation interest, although he also found time to act, once again, as Francis Thorpe’s electoral manager in the county election. On election day, Thorpe reportedly had ‘a general voice for him’, but was defeated nonetheless – largely, it seems, because Hewley had no horse and was therefore unable to manage his interest among the crowd.55Supra, ‘Yorkshire’. The election at Pontefract was held about two weeks later, on 12 January, and saw Hewley take the junior place – presumably on the corporation interest – behind Lambert, another of the defeated candidates for knight of the shire.56Supra, ‘Pontefract’.

Once at Westminster, Hewley revealed a considerable aptitude for committee work as well as a taste for parliamentary debate. He was certainly one of the most active Yorkshire members, receiving 12 committee appointments, reporting twice from the committee of privileges, chairing at least four of its meetings during April as well as committees of the Whole on several occasions and contributing frequently to debate.57CJ vii. 595a, 600a, 600b, 609a, 622b, 623b, 626b, 627a, 627b, 631b, 637a, 639a, 642a; Burton’s Diary, iii. 548; iv. 20, 273, 327, 389, 402, 430, 448, 467. His appointments reflect his interest in several aspects of the House’s business, most notably its concern to provide a learned and adequately maintained clergy. Thus on 5 February 1659, he was named to two committees to consider how Wales and the northern counties respectively could be supplied with a pious and sufficient ministry.58CJ vii. 600b. And on 28 February and 4 March, he chaired meetings of a committee for preparing legislation to eject scandalous ministers (which the parliamentary diarist, Thomas Burton, described as the ‘sub-committee for approving and ejecting ministers’).59Burton’s Diary, iii. 152, 548; iv. 20. He was also named to several committees relating to northern and Scottish affairs.60CJ vii. 609a, 622b, 623b.

In political terms, he generally took a moderate, pro-Cromwellian line and frequently came into conflict with republican Members, or ‘commonwealthsmen’, who were the government’s most obstinate opponents in the House. During the protracted debate on the bill of recognition (confirming Richard Cromwell as protector), which took up most of February 1659, he supported the swift passage of this legislation, showing impatience with the filibustering tactics employed by the commonwealthsmen to impede its progress.61Burton’s Diary, iii. 139, 194, 278. At the height of this debate, on 18 February, he upheld the constitutional validity of the Humble Petition and Advice (the Cromwellian constitution of 1657) and spoke in favour of giving the protector a negative voice in the legislative process, thus taking issue with the commonwealthsmen, who vehemently opposed any encroachment upon the sovereignty of the Commons.62Burton’s Diary, iii. 337. He was particularly active in the debate on the Cromwellian Other House. Although he repeatedly urged the necessity of a second chamber, declaring that the ‘Other House is part of our sinews; we can do nothing without them’, he was wary of the suggestion that the hereditary peers be re-admitted. On 1 March, he claimed that he was ‘not against calling in so many of the old Lords as are capable, but would not have the sons as yet’.63Burton’s Diary, iii. 558-9. Ideally, as he explained on 4 March, he wanted limitations placed upon the workings of the Other House, while leaving the power to appoint and ‘approve’ its membership entirely to the protector. He apparently had no objection to the composition of the Other House as it then stood, even to its strong military presence

As to persons, no less can be said but they are the best army and best officers in the world ... If they had not been good, arrears of pay and other temptations would have wrought upon them.64Burton’s Diary, iv. 14-15.

Hewley’s desire to secure a better deal for the soldiery, which he was to demonstrate in April, was one of the few objectives he shared with the republicans. On most issues, however, he was at odds with the commonwealthsmen, as he demonstrated on 7 March, during a debate concerning the disputed election at Malton, when he supported the return of the ‘moderates’ George Marwood and Philip Howard over that of the pro-army republicans Colonel Robert Lilburne and Luke Robinson.65Burton’s Diary, iv. 42. Similarly, when the commonwealthsmen questioned the right to sit of the Scottish and Irish Members, whom they regarded as little more than Cromwellian placemen, Hewley repeatedly urged that this matter be laid aside in favour of what he regarded as the more pressing issue of how the Commons should ‘transact’ (i.e. conduct business) with the Other House.66Burton’s Diary, iv. 117, 242. On 12 March, he delivered an impassioned speech in support of ‘this union’ and the necessity of maintaining armed forces in all three nations to sustain it and advised the House to look to its real enemy, Charles Stuart.67Burton’s Diary, iv. 145. When the Commons returned to the debate on transacting with the Other House, Hewley spoke in favour of a ‘co-ordinative power’ between the two Houses (6 Apr.), again implicitly attacking the republican notion of the sovereignty of the Commons.68Burton’s Diary, iv. 356.

As the army grew increasingly agitated during the early weeks of April 1659 over the Commons’ failure to remedy its grievances, particularly regarding pay, Hewley attempted to steer a middle course in the House, working to address the soldiers’ concerns while continuing to serve the interests of the protectorate. On 7 April, he was named to a committee on a petition from the sick and maimed soldiers of the Ely House and Savoy Hospitals, chairing a meeting of this committee on 11 April (he subsequently joined Lord Fairfax in requesting that the committee be granted power to send for witnesses and records).69CJ vii. 627b; Burton’s Diary, iv. 402, 415. The next day (12 Apr.), he opposed calls from both radical and conservative opponents of the protectorate for the cashiering of Major-general William Boteler*, following a report from the committee of grievances that he had abused his authority as an officer.70CJ vii. 636; Burton’s Diary, iv. 404-5, 411. Hewley argued that Boteler should merely be removed from the commission of the peace:

We have punished him in what he offended, in the civil power, but to disable him from all employment, I had rather be out of my life. My motion is that it be left to his highness to do what he pleases in it.71Burton’s Diary, iv. 411.

The Commons’ indictment of Boteler constituted as much an attack upon the legitimacy of the protectorate as upon the army, which may well explain why Hewley spoke so strongly in the major-general’s defence. Despite his support for Boteler, Hewley was named to the committee set up after the debate for drawing up an impeachment against him and to consider how to proceed against other such ‘delinquents’.72CJ vii. 637a. Presumably, Hewley sought nomination to this committee in the hope of mitigating Boteler’s punishment. He re-affirmed his support for the army on 18 April, seconding a motion that the House find money for the soldiers’ arrears and endorsing their call for the removal of royalists from London.73Burton’s Diary, iv. 462-3. After this debate, he was named to a committee to consider how the protector and Parliament could be secured against the machinations of the cavaliers.74CJ vii. 642a. However, when the commonwealthsmen’s allies in the army began to agitate against the government in mid-April, he came down on the side of the protectorate, backing measures proposed in the House on 21 April for settling the armed forces as a militia under the protector and Parliament – which the army interpreted, rightly, as a challenge to its power. He insisted that the protector should enjoy the authority to issue the necessary militia commissions only as a temporary expedient, ‘we do not settle it upon him absolutely’.75Burton’s Diary, iv. 476. But the army was not satisfied with such assurances and, that same day (21 Apr.), compelled the protector to dissolve Parliament.

As a supporter of a publicly-maintained ministry it is likely that Hewley was hostile to the Quakers and other sects, and he may therefore have welcomed the Restoration. In the elections to the 1660 Convention, he and Lionel Copley* stood as candidates for Pontefract against two local royalists, Sir George Savile† and William Lowther†, who were extremely popular with the townsmen. Hewley, by contrast, was generally regarded, or so it was said, as a ‘swordsman’ (an officer or radical army supporter) and a ‘state purchaser’ (a buyer of former crown lands). On election day, the majority of the voters backed Savile and Lowther, as a poll confirmed, with the mayor and probably most of the aldermen supporting Hewley and Copley. Hewley insisted upon, and secured, a double return; but, a few days later, he jettisoned Copley and submitted a third indenture to the sheriff naming himself and Savile. His aim was to have Lowther’s return disqualified under the terms of the recent ordinance on qualifications, which barred the election of known cavaliers.76Notts. RO, DD/SR/221/96/8, 12, 14, 16-17, 23; HP Commons 1660-1690, ‘Pontefract’. The committee of privileges, however, after examining the case, found that Savile and Lowther had received the greatest number of voices, and on 16 May the Commons declared them duly elected.77CJ viii. 33. The picture of Hewley that emerges from this whole episode is one of a wily and experienced political player. He had evidently learned a great deal from his involvement in the 1654 and 1659 elections.

Hewley was initially regarded with suspicion by the Restoration regime, probably on account of his puritan leanings, and was omitted from the West Riding bench in the autumn of 1660.78C220/9/4. By early September 1662, he had also resigned his recorderships at Pontefract and Doncaster, thus avoiding the indignity of being purged by the corporation commissioners.79Pontefract Corporation ed. Holmes, 78; Cal. Bor. Doncaster, iv. 145. Possibly as a result of his reduced public commitments, Hewley found time to enlarge his estate considerably during 1662 and 1663.80E134/27CHAS2/EAST17; E134/28CHAS2/MICH23; E134/31&32CHAS2/HIL24; Hull Hist. Centre, U DDBH/12/124-5, 131, 137, 140, 153; VCH E. Riding, ii. 279; iii. 77. In 1663, as part of the crown’s efforts to conciliate the more wealthy and respectable puritans, he was knighted, restored to the West Riding bench and added to that for the North Riding.81C193/12/3; Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 238. Despite these preferments, Hewley emerged during the 1660s as one of York’s most prominent nonconformist patrons. Like many other leading puritans, he was an occasional conformist, regularly attending Anglican services whilst keeping a nonconformist minister as his private chaplain. By inclination, he was a Presbyterian, maintaining a lifelong commitment to the puritan ideal of a reformed national church. At the same time, however, he and his wife supported Congregationalist as well as Presbyterian ministers and appear to have countenanced and encouraged the formation of separated nonconformist congregations.82B. Dale, Hist. Sketch of Early Nonconformity in York, 17, 22, 27-8; J. Hunter, The Att.-Gen. versus Shore, 18-22; Wedgwood, ‘Sir John Hewley’, 12-13; Scott, ‘Politics, Dissent, and Quakerism’, 188, 190.

The crown’s support for toleration in the early 1670s prompted Hewley’s first major involvement in civic politics, as an electoral agent for Lord Treasurer Danby’s son Edward Osborne† in the 1673 York by-election. After the corporation rejected Osborne’s candidacy, Hewley entered the running himself, only to be defeated on a poll by the ‘country’ candidate and fellow puritan, Alderman Henry Thompson of York. Hewley, against the advice of his friends John Rushworth* and Andrew Marvell*, petitioned the Commons repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, against Thompson’s return, accusing the corporation of bribing and menacing the voters.83The Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell ed. H.M. Margoliouth, ii. 181, 183, 314-18; HP Commons 1660-1690, ‘Sir John Hewley’; ‘York’; Scott, ‘Politics, Dissent, and Quakerism’, 310-12. When the crown abandoned its commitment to toleration in 1674, making common cause with the Anglican and cavalier interest, Hewley swung into opposition. In the elections to the first Exclusion Parliament early in 1679, he supported the return of the whig candidates for knight of the shire. And after standing first at Knaresborough, where he owned considerable property, Hewley and his former adversary, Alderman Thompson, were elected on the Exclusionist ticket at York – Hewley fending off a challenge from the tory candidate, Sir Metcalfe Robinson†. Hewley and Thompson were also returned for York, without a poll, to the second and third Exclusion Parliaments.84HMC Var. ii. 393; HMC Astley, 41-2; HP Commons 1660-1690, ‘Sir John Hewley’; ‘York’. Although Hewley does not appear to have stood for Parliament again, he remained a firm supporter of the whig cause. He was almost certainly opposed James II’s religious policy of conciliating the dissenters and contributed £500 to Danby’s war-chest at the Glorious Revolution.85Browning, Danby, i. 404. On the passing of the Toleration Act in 1689, Hewley advanced money for the erection of York’s first nonconformist chapel at St. Saviourgate, adjacent to his own large town house.86Wedgwood, ‘Sir John Hewley’, 13; Scott, ‘Politics, Dissent, and Quakerism’, 207.

A martyr to the stone in later life, Hewley died, without surviving children, on 24 August 1697 and was buried the same day at St. Saviour, York.87W. Sympson, The Hist. of Scarbrough Spaw (1679), 67-9; Dugdale’s Vis. Yorks. ii. 208; The Nonconformist Reg. ed. Turner, 90. In his will, he bequeathed his entire estate to his wife and left £500 in legacies. The witnesses to his will included the Congregationalist ministers Ralph Ward and Timothy Hodgson, both of whom had served as private chaplains to the Hewleys.88Borthwick, Prerogative Wills, Oct. 1697 (Sir John Hewley) https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2020/10/15/cakes-cheese-and-zeal-puritan-banbury-the-fiennes-family-and-civil-war-radicalism/; Scott, ‘Politics, Dissent, and Quakerism’, 157, 206.