the free people of England’ (ib. iv. 79). He urged the release of Overton and other persons imprisoned by the late protector, and inveighed against his war with Spain. On one occasion he spoke for three hours, giving an exhaustive review of public affairs from the beginning of the Long parliament (ib. iii. 27, 117, 457, iv. 86, 152, 271). Even before Richard was forced to dissolve parliament, Hesilrige seems to have begun to intrigue with the officers of the army (Thurloe, vii. 660, 666; Ludlow, p. 242). Immediately afterwards a meeting took place between Hesilrige and three other republican leaders and some representative officers, in consequence of which the army declared for the restoration of the assembly expelled by them in 1653 (ib. p. 246).
Hesilrige now became one of the most powerful men in England. He was a member of the committee of safety (7 May), one of the council of state (17 May), one of the committee of seven for the appointment of officers, and the recognised leader of parliament (ib. pp. 257, 259; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1658–9, pp. 341, 349). He was also given the command of the regiment lately Colonel Howard's. But, exaggerating the theoretical claims of the parliament, and forgetting that its power rested solely on the support of the army, he offended the officers by restricting their commissions and injudiciously limiting the Act of Indemnity (Ludlow, pp. 252, 258). From the beginning he suspected Lambert's designs, and when his officers petitioned that he might be appointed major-general, Hesilrige openly accused them of intending to set up again the rule of ‘a single person.’ At his instigation, when the officers persisted in their demands, the parliament passed a stringent act against raising money without parliamentary sanction, and cashiered Lambert and seven other officers (Baker, Chronicle, ed. 1670, pp. 676–682). Ludlow, while admitting the rectitude and sincerity of Hesilrige's intentions and his anxiety ‘to keep the sword subservient to the civil magistrate,’ nevertheless lays on him the blame of the breach, describing him as a man of disobliging carriage, sour and morose in temper, liable to be transported with passion, to whom liberality seemed to be a vice (Memoirs, p. 273). After Lambert had turned out the parliament, Hesilrige and others of the old council of state wrote a joint letter to Monck, promising to stand by him in the attempt to restore the parliament (Baker, p. 695). Then, in company with Colonels Morley and Walton, he repaired to Portsmouth, gained over the governor (3 Dec. 1659), and proceeded to collect troops against Lambert (A Letter from Sir Arthur Haselrigge in Portsmouth to an Honourable Member of the late Parliament, 1659; Several Letters from Portsmouth by Sir Arthur Haslerig, &c., to the Lord Fleetwood, 1659; Ludlow, pp. 284, 291, 297).
Monck's march into England and the restoration of the Rump were both facilitated by this demonstration. Hesilrige marched into London at the head of a body of cavalry, received the thanks of parliament, and was appointed one of the new council of state (2 Jan. 1660). On 11 Feb. 1659–60 he was named one of the five commissioners for the government of the army (Commons' Journals, vii. 841). Blind to the precariousness of his position, he was ‘so elevated that he could scarce discern friend from foe, and eager for the punishment of the officers who had acted against parliament’ (Ludlow, pp. 284, 308). Monck's ambiguous conduct roused his suspicions for a moment, but they were stilled by the general's protestations of devotion to ‘the good old cause,’ which he swallowed with the greatest credulity (ib. pp. 311, 317, 320, 323). He not only consented to the removal of his own regiment from London, but agreed to a conference with the secluded members, and even to their readmission to parliament. Then, when it was too late to resist, he found himself accused of intriguing with Lambert and other officers against Monck, and sank into the deepest dejection (ib. pp. 325, 330; Baker, p. 709). According to some accounts, he sought to prevent a restoration by urging Monck to assume the crown (ib. p. 715; Clarendon State Papers, iii. 706). Failing in that, he promised to stop all further opposition on receiving an engagement from Monck that his own life should be safe in the event of the return of the Stuarts (ib. iii. 740; Egerton MS. 2618, f. 71). Though his son took part in Lambert's rising, he remained passive himself (Kennett, Register, p. 120).
When the Restoration did take place, he presented a petition urging his innocence so far as the king's trial was concerned; but so bitter was the feeling of royalists and presbyterians against him, that Monck's intervention alone saved his life (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1660–1, p. 8; Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 348, 402, 434, 444, 451). By section 40 of the Act of Indemnity Hesilrige was excepted for pains and penalties not extending to life, to be imposed by a future act for that purpose. The rest of his life was passed in the Tower, where he died on 7 Jan. 1660–1 (Nichols, pp. 749, 753). His epitaph is given by Nichols, who mentions a portrait.
