BROUGHTON, Andrew (c.1603-87), of Earl Street, Maidstone, Kent.

Broughton belonged to an armigerous family which originated in Lancashire, and in the later sixteenth century established branches in Staffordshire, Huntingdonshire and Rutland. His father Richard, a younger son, gained property at Seaton in Rutland, although he was buried at St Dunstan-in-the-West in London.31PROB11/168/49; Leics. RO, 10D72/29; DE894/2; Vis. Rutland (Harl. Soc. iii), 28-9. In his 1635 will Richard made very modest provision for his two daughters and six surviving younger sons – Andrew received £20 – but he appears to have had some connection to the Hicks family, viscounts Camden.32PROB11/168/49. Andrew’s eldest brother Ambrose (bur. 28 Sept. 1659) attended the godly Christ’s College, Cambridge, before entering an inn of chancery and becoming a government officeholder, while another brother, John (bap. 15 Mar. 1605, bur. 1 Mar. 1653) became a surgeon based in Sheere Lane, St Dunstan-in-the-West.33Al. Cant.; Adm. Reg. Barnard’s Inn (Selden Soc. xii), 29, 148; Seaton, Rutland, and St Dunstan-in-the-West par. regs.; PROB11/239/7.

At a date unknown Andrew himself went to Clifford’s Inn, which was close by.34I. Temple database. He was married in August 1631 at the puritan stronghold of St Antholin, Budge Row, the base from which the group which bought up livings in order to place preaching ministers, the feoffees for impropriations, then operated.35Par. Reg. St Antholin, 65. By this time Broughton had settled in Maidstone, where he had been made a freeman in 1630. Two of Broughton’s children were buried there in the mid-1630s, and in 1639 he acquired property locally from his brother William.36Russell, Hist. Maidstone, 193. By then, Broughton had been elected to the town’s common council, and during the late 1630s and early 1640s he proved an assiduous civic officer, including a spell as town chamberlain.37Cent. Kent. Stud. ACm1/2, ff. 156v-98v; Recs. Maidstone, 102. There are indications that one of the Broughton brothers was a client of Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke, from as early as 1631, when Sir Robert Pye I* mentioned a ‘Mr Broughton’ in a letter to the earl.38Sheffield City Archives, EM1351. In December 1639 Pembroke, in his capacity as lord lieutenant of Kent, appointed Andrew Broughton as the county’s clerk of the peace.39LC5/133, p. 71.

Broughton was also building a career in London. The baptism of his son John was recorded in November 1641 in the registers of both St Mary Whitechapel and St John of Wapping in Tower Hamlets, in the latter of which Andrew and Mary were described as being ‘of Maidstone’.40St Mary Whitechapel and St John of Wapping, par. regs. By June 1642 Broughton was one of the attorneys in the court of common pleas.41Cent. Kent. Stud. ACm1/2, ff. 198v-99v. That September, following the outbreak of civil war, Broughton was confirmed as clerk of the peace in kent by the Commons and in succeeding months he also received nominations to a number of local commissions, although apparently neither to the county committee nor to the commission of the peace.42CJ ii. 787. He resumed active service on the common council at Maidstone (1644-8), being nominated as the town’s attorney ‘to defend them in all suits in all courts’, and eventually becoming a jurat, in October 1647. Although defeated in the election for mayor in the same year, he subsequently secured the post in November 1648.43Cent. Kent. Stud. ACm1/3, ff. 1-22v.

By that spring Broughton had become one of the clerks of the rolls.44CCAM 549. Through channels that do not appear, on 1 January 1649 he was selected as clerk of the high court of justice for the trial of Charles I in January 1649, only after the first choice, one Greaves, was excused.45Muddiman, Trial, 198. He was thus responsible for reading both the charge and the sentence against the king, and he signed the official journal of the court’s proceedings. It was for this service, rather than signing the death warrant, that in 1660 he was numbered among the regicides, for the purpose of prosecution.46Muddiman, Trial, 230. In June 1649 Broughton was nominated by the Commons to replace Richard Aske as clerk of the crown in upper bench, and in the months which followed he was involved in other planned trials, regarding which he was ordered to liaise with the attorney-general, Edmund Prideaux I*.47CJ vi. 222b, 229b; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 315. Following in the footsteps of his brother Ambrose (admitted in June 1645), in May 1650 Broughton was admitted to the Inner Temple as an associate of the bar; in June 1651 he was elevated to the rank of associate bencher.48CITR ii. 292, 299, 306.

Broughton was presumably attending to his metropolitan duties in June 1650, when his daughter Lydia was buried beside other family members in the parish of Dunstan-in-the-West, but he remained an active civic official in Maidstone.49St Dunstan-in-the-West par. reg. In his capacity as mayor, Broughton marked his enthusiasm for the republic by using his discretionary powers over expenses to purchase a new town mace, spending £48 to replace an old one which was worth less than £4.50Cent. Kent. Stud. ACm1/3, ff. 24, 28v. He was also prominent in orchestrating the removal of Thomas Twisden* as recorder, town clerk, and steward, in April 1650, and in his replacement by Lambarde Godfrey*.51Cent. Kent. Stud. ACm1/3, ff. 29, 29v, 32v; Recs. Maidstone, 121. Indeed, Broughton may have led a wider purge of ‘delinquents’ in the borough, perhaps including the master of the grammar school, Thomas Wilson, from whose sermon against the regicide Broughton had walked out in February 1649. In 1651 Broughton was certainly involved with a group of local ministers in the selection of Wilson’s replacement, and in examining candidates ‘in the grounds of religion and in grammar, rhetoric and poetry in the Latin and Greek tongues’.52Cent. Kent. Stud. ACm1/3, ff. 44v, 49r-v, 50v, 51, 53, 54, 60v; W. Newton, Hist. and Antiq. Maidstone (1741), 135-6.

Broughton’s radicalism secured his place at Westminster in the Nominated Assembly of 1653, and he was also added to the council of state (14 July), and granted lodgings, first in St Stephen’s Court, and subsequently in the prebend’s house in Westminster.53CJ vii. 284b; CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 4, 14, 25, 44, 52. However, while he would be listed as one of those who opposed a publicly maintained ministry, Broughton is not recorded as having been recommended by the county’s congregational churches.54Originall Letters ed. Nickolls, 95-6. He proved to be an active member of both council and Commons until the end of November (aside from a brief period of absence in early October which was sanctioned by the House), but his behaviour indicates that he was one of those whose radicalism centred almost entirely on civil, rather than religious, foundations.55CJ vii. 327a.

In the council, Broughton was named to 28 committees, and although these mostly involved minor matters, he nevertheless liaised with, and presented matters to, the Commons on a number of occasions.56CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 45, 47-8, 53, 56, 73, 75, 83, 85, 92, 94, 106, 113, 115, 122, 127, 139-40, 147, 151, 163, 170, 173-4, 200, 201, 205, 208, 215, 225. He also displayed his support for the new government by playing an active part in countering the threat from republican enemies, particularly authors of scandalous pamphlets like John Streater and John Lilburne.57CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 106, 151, 199. Broughton was equally busy in the Commons, and although he was named to just nine committees, these involved issues which were both important and controversial, and he also chaired the grand committee regarding union with Scotland, an issue which was evidently of personal interest.58CJ vii. 286b, 335a, 339b, 340b; CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 94, 147. He acted as a teller on eight occasions, and his legal and clerical expertise also ensured that he was appointed to consider matters relating to secretarial business and administrative arrangements.59CJ vii. 282a-b, 325b, 340b, 344b, 347a-b, 351b, 355a, 358b; CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 45, 147. Broughton also played a conspicuous part in drafting legislation and in preparing official declarations, such as the important statement by which the Members proclaimed the assembly to be a Parliament.60CJ vii. 282b, 288a, 289a, 301b, 322a, 325b, 335a, 340a, 341b, 342a, 355b, 359b.

More importantly, Broughton’s record also reveals his radical credentials. He supported attempts to discover delinquents’ estates, and his tellerships generally saw him partner other radicals.61CJ vii. 319a, 322a; CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 140, 163, 170, 200. He joined such men in opposing the new assessment act, and after the election of a predominantly moderate council of state in November – of which Broughton was not a member – he was a teller against a motion to continue the new body for six months.62CJ vii. 344b, 351b; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 313. He also supported legal reform, which probably explains why he was rejected for the predominantly moderate committee for the law in July 1653, although he was eventually added in October, and subsequently secured nomination to the more radical committee for the ‘new body of law’ which was appointed in early November.63CJ vii. 286b, 335a, 336b, 340a, 341b, 347a, 348b; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 265, 270. Like other radicals, Broughton favoured more rigorous legislation for the relief of creditors and poor prisoners, as well as plans for the abolition of the court of chancery.64CJ vii. 322a, 340b; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 292-3, 296-7. He was also responsible for drafting, and reporting to the Commons, controversial legislation for the erection of a new high court of justice, and acted as a teller in support of its passage.65CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 145, 161, 199; CJ vii. 325b, 334a; Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 300-1.

The most important gap in Broughton’s record centres on religious issues. Although he was named to a council committee to consider a riot which attended a Congregational meeting at St Paul’s Cathedral in October 1653, and was subsequently ordered to report to Parliament on the petitions of two ministers, the latter appointment probably reflected his knowledge of Kentish affairs.66CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 205, 225. More significant is the fact that Broughton played no recorded part in deliberations on the future of the ministry, and the methods by which it was to be maintained, and there is little indication of his presence at Westminster in the final weeks of the Parliament, during which such issues came to the fore.

Broughton probably had little sympathy for the protectorate, and maintained a low public profile during the mid-1650s, although he retained his position as chief clerk in the upper bench, and received occasional instructions from the protector’s council.67CSP Dom. 1655, p. 186. He also played little part in civic affairs at Maidstone, although in July 1654 he may have been instrumental in the decision to allow the local Presbyterian minister, John Crump, to use the schoolhouse on Sunday evenings for repeating his morning sermons ‘unto those as shall from time to time desire to partake thereof’, and for ‘other duties of piety’.68Cent. Kent. Stud. ACm1/3, ff. 72, 73v; Calamy Revised, 153. It was only from late 1657 that Broughton began to resume more active service, and although he was defeated in the election for mayor of Maidstone in November 1658, he was successful in securing one of the borough’s seats in the Parliament of Richard Cromwell*.69Cent. Kent. Stud. ACm1/3, ff. 90v, 97.

Broughton was named to just one committee during the session, to consider the manner of transacting with the ‘Other House’ (6 April), but once again revealed his radicalism, and his alignment with the republicans in the Commons.70CJ vii. 627a. Broughton supported moves to release Robert Overton, for although he professed no personal acquaintance with the suspected plotter, he claimed to have ‘heard much of his goodness’, and saw ‘no cause of his imprisonment’.71Burton’s Diary, iv. 151. Broughton also supported reconsideration of the case of another radical, William Packer*, whose election had been declared void, and who was opposed by Presbyterians like Sir Arthur Annesley*.72Burton’s Diary, iv. 251. In the debate over the enfranchisement of Durham, Broughton seconded Sir Arthur Hesilrige* in stressing the need to consider broader issues relating to the distribution of parliamentary representation, adding that if the town could ‘so long be content with a bishop, and never complain, let them stay awhile’. More important, in Broughton’s view, was the fact that ‘divers Members are sent upon the account of thatchers and threshers’.73Burton’s Diary, iv. 310.

Like other republicans, Broughton opposed the presence of Scottish and Irish Members in the Commons, and insisted that legal right ought to take precedence over arguments from prudence: ‘Let us do righteous acts, that the sum of righteousness may shine upon us. Prudence comes in upon reason; but judgement comes in on clearer grounds’.74Burton’s Diary, iv. 173, 194, 225, 231. He also expressed opposition to the protectoral constitution, by saying that the Petition and Advice was something which he ‘never thought it worth my while to study’, and by expressing his opposition to the ‘Other House’, or at least his opinion that they should ‘lay themselves low down before the Commons’.75Burton’s Diary, iv. 292. In opposing the excise bill, moreover, Broughton revealed the depth of his hostility to Richard Cromwell’s government. He considered that the council had given the protector bad advice on the issue, and that there were some there ‘that were too free of the people’s purse’; he stressed the need to be ‘impartial to the people as well as to his highness’, and to ‘care for all rights alike’. In expressing his hostility to the ‘gallantry’ of Cromwell’s court, and his opinion that ‘it looks like the interest of Charles Stuart’, Broughton provoked uproar in the chamber, and was controversially interrupted by the Speaker.76Burton’s Diary, iv. 325-6.

Although Broughton once again displayed political radicalism more than religious enthusiasm, his speeches nevertheless provide evidence of a tolerationist outlook. In the debate over a planned fast he joined Sir Henry Vane II* in expressing concern lest the authorities should impose on tender consciences and ‘gracious spirits’ (2 Apr.), although in so doing he again provoked an outcry, and was forced to explain himself.77Burton’s Diary, iv. 330; CJ vii. 624b.

Broughton was probably an enthusiastic supporter of the recalled Rump in 1659, although his activity was largely limited to the locality.78Cent. Kent. Stud. ACm1/3, ff. 99, 101. Chosen mayor of Maidstone for a second time in November 1659, he evidently fled the country sometime before the restored Charles II issued the proclamation for the arrest of those involved in his father’s trial (4 June 1660), which included the clerks of the high court as well as those who signed the death warrant.79Cent. Kent. Stud. ACm1/3, f. 104; LJ xi. 52b; HMC Portland, iii. 223. Broughton’s absence from Maidstone had already been noted by the civic authorities, and after summoning him to appear by 9 June, the common council appointed a legal team – which included John Maynard* and Matthew Hale* – to consider his removal as mayor. They concluded that Broughton ‘doth obscure himself from being brought to trial according to law for treason’, and he was duly dismissed on 18 June.80Cent. Kent. Stud. ACm1/3, ff. 105v-11; Recs. Maidstone, 141.

Along with another of the clerks of the high court of justice, Broughton sought refuge in Hamburg, and the two men were ‘concealed’ and ‘feasted’ by sympathetic merchants and ministers, including the Baptist Samuel Richardson. However, they may have fled to Copenhagen in the aftermath of the arrest of John Okey*, Miles Corbet* and John Barkstead*, and the attention of government agent George Downing*, eventually forced them to flee once again in May 1662 and to make their way to Switzerland to join other regicides.81SP82/10, ff. 92, 126; CCSP v. 224. Initially Broughton chose to linger in Lausanne when the others found it too dangerous, but in 1663 he accompanied Edmund Ludlowe II* and Nicholas Love on their visit to their hosts in Bern, and he later joined them in Vevey, where he died in 1687.82Bodl. Eng. hist. c.487, pp. 964-5, 979, 989; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 513; MI, St Martin, Vevey. He had sent his two sons, Andrew and John, to Pembroke College, Cambridge, and to the Inner Temple, where Andrew junior was called to the bar in May 1661.83Al. Cant.; I. Temple database. Before his death in 1659 Ambrose Broughton had settled land at Seaton on Andrew senior and his heirs, which Andrew junior managed to retain, together – eventually – with some property at Maidstone, but no other representative of this branch of the family sat in Parliament.84C5/584/7; C6/168/145; C6/275/46; Lincs. RO, 3-ANC1/33/6.