NUTT, John (1605-68), of Nackington and Canterbury, Kent.

The son of a Canterbury lawyer who died when he was an infant, Nutt was educated at Oxford and the Middle Temple and settled into the life of a provincial gentleman upon his marriage to the daughter of Sir Edward Masters. His only known contribution to public life before 1640 was as a captain of the trained bands in Canterbury, a role he fulfilled by February 1635.26Nackington par. reg.; Canterbury Cathedral Archives, A/C4, f. 121v. Paradoxically, it was probably Nutt’s low public profile, together with his connection to Masters, which enabled him to secure election to both the Short and Long Parliaments, as one of the Members for Canterbury. The borough displayed a determination to return local men at the expense of aristocratic and clerical nominees, and this was particularly evident in the spring election of 1640, which was conducted in a tumultuous atmosphere, and was accompanied by scandalous political libels. Having received recommendations from Archbishop William Laud and the lord chamberlain (Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke), for William Dell* and Sir Roger Palmer* respectively, Canterbury opted instead for the county’s then sheriff, Masters, and his son-in-law, Nutt.27Canterbury Cathedral Archives, A/C4, f. 151v; Add. 11045, f. 99v; CSP Dom. 1639-40, p. 562; CCC 1394. They were both re-elected in the autumn, despite the fact that neither had made any recorded impression on the Short Parliament. Nutt’s involvement in the opening months of the Long Parliament was also slight. He was added to the committee for preaching ministers in January 1641, and was granted permission to return to Kent following the death of his wife in the following May (upon the motion of Sir John Culpeper*), apparently without having taken the Protestation.28CJ ii. 65a, 159b; Harl. 477, f. 110; Harl. 163, f. 239v.

Like Masters, Nutt displayed no evidence of reforming zeal in the months before the civil war, and appears to have been a natural choice as adviser to those Kentish figures, like Sir Thomas Peyton*, who struggled to reconcile themselves to new oaths imposed by Parliament.29Add. 44846, f. 11. Indeed, Nutt appears to have been disinclined to participate in the process whereby political divisions hardened in the spring of 1642. He played no recorded part in the rival county petitions, and he was once again granted leave by the Commons to return to Kent in early April.30CJ ii. 507b; PJ ii. 118.

As it became increasingly difficult to avoid taking sides during the summer of 1642, Nutt opted for Parliament. He was named to the delegation sent to the Kent assizes in order to undermine local royalists (22 July), and joined Augustine Skynner* in overseeing plans to secure the strategically vital dockyards at Chatham (15 Nov.).31CJ ii. 686b, 851b. The opening months of the war also saw Nutt and Masters endeavouring to undermine royalist ‘malignants’ in Canterbury.32CJ ii. 702b, 893b. Nutt helped draw attention to the scandalous sermon delivered by Humphrey Peake, canon of the cathedral, which charged Parliament with treason, and which resulted in plans for an impeachment.33Add. 18777, f. 52v; CJ ii. 852a; Walker Revised, 223. Nutt also relayed news from Canterbury regarding the queen’s attempts to raise troops on the continent.34Add. 18777, f. 54v. Unlike Masters, Nutt proved willing to work as a member of the county committee, at least during 1643, in order to pursue delinquents like Sir Henry Compton*; to organise military appointments; and to assist in the defence of the county against the royalist uprising.35HMC Portland, i. 702; Bodl. Nalson XI, ff. 154, 156; Add. 33512, f. 78. Such activity probably kept Nutt away from Westminster, where his activity appears to have been limited to subscribing the covenants introduced in 1643, and to securing nomination to the committee appointed in the aftermath of the Kent rising (4 Aug.).36CJ iii. 118b, 195a, 281b. However, the experience of war in Kent also led Nutt to support the imposition of severe penalties on neutrals and delinquents, including those parliamentary colleagues from the county who had offered only lukewarm support for Parliament (Sir Norton Knatchbull*, Sir Francis Barnham*, Sir Thomas Peyton).37Bodl. Nalson XI, ff. 197, 198; HMC Portland, i. 131; Bodl. Nalson III, f. 64.

For the remainder of the first civil war, and after the royalist threat in the county had subsided, Nutt played a far less prominent role in local affairs, although he was named to parliamentary committees relating to Kent administration in 1644, and helped to examine the notorious royalist preacher and agent, Michael Hudson, who had helped the king to escape from Oxford, and who was captured in Kent in June 1646.38CJ iii. 415b, 688a; iv. 580b. Nutt’s appearances in the Commons after the end of the war may also have been rare, however, and his factional allegiance is difficult to discern.39CJ iv. 28b, 499b, 678a, 704a. His nomination to the committee to determine scandalous offences (3 June 1646), as well as to the commissions regarding exclusion from sacrament (5 June 1646) and church government (29 Aug. 1648), and the committee concerning observance of the sabbath (23 Feb. 1648), indicate an interest in the shape of the religious settlement, but little of his personal views.40CJ iv. 563a; A. and O.; CJ v. 471a. Yet Nutt’s apparent absence from Westminster during the tumultuous summer of 1647, and his nomination to the committee to revoke votes passed in the wake of the Presbyterians’ ‘forcing of the Houses’, suggest sympathy with the political Independents, although his attendance in the House scarcely improved in the last months of 1647.41CJ v. 278a, 281a, 330a.

Apparently motivated by concern at the emergence of radicalism within the army, and resurgent royalism in Kent following the Christmas unrest in Canterbury, Nutt assumed a more active role in late 1647 and 1648.42CJ v. 360a, 422a. He was named to a committee to punish defaulters upon musters in Kent (20 Apr.), and later in the year was appointed to oversee the collection of assessment arrears.43CJ v. 538a; vi. 30b. Moreover, he had adopted an uncompromising attitude towards the Scots by late July 1648, when he acted as teller alongside Henry Marten* in opposition to a conciliatory declaration regarding Anglo-Scottish relations. That he was perceived to be a supporter of the army, and an opponent of prolonged negotiations with the king, is evident from his survival at Pride’s Purge in December.44CJ vi. 260a.

Nutt was named as a commissioner for the trial of Charles I in January 1649, although he did not participate in its proceedings, and he took the dissent on 5 February, but his lack of revolutionary zeal is evident from the fact that he displayed little inclination to serve the republic until May 1650, when he offered advice on reform of the Kent militia commission, and was named to a committee regarding the preaching ministry in war-torn Colchester.45CSP Dom. 1650, p. 145; PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, p. 645; CJ vi. 132a, 416a. While his participation in political affairs remained erratic, Nutt clearly supported the republic, and probably lobbied for a writ to hold an election at Canterbury to replace his now deceased father-in-law.46Canterbury Cathedral Archives, A/C4, f. 320. Nutt was named to only six further Rump committees, on such matters as soldiers accounts and the sale of delinquents’ estates, as well as legal reform, and the army petition of August 1652.47CJ vi. 416a, 528a; vii. 23a, 107b, 164b. Nevertheless, he remained in the Commons until the dissolution in April 1653, after which his lodgings in Whitehall were assigned to his much more radical countryman, Thomas Blount*.48CJ vii. 278b; CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 402.

Nutt’s commitment to the republic is also suggested by his disappearance from public life during the protectorate. He had been removed from the Kent bench by the autumn of 1653, and although re-instated at some point during the mid-1650s he was removed again in March 1656. He even seems to have suffered brief arrest by the protectoral council in late 1658 for unspecified activity which Peter Pett* feared would ‘prove very foul’.49C 231/6, p. 328; CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 260, 499. Nutt’s political views are yet more obvious after his return to Westminster upon the recall of the Rump in May 1659, with the approval of his borough, and his nomination to nine committees before the end of September.50HMC 9th Rep. i. 165; CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 6. Nutt’s interest in a petition from Deale, and in the appointment of his Canterbury colleague, Thomas St Nicholas*, as clerk of Parliament, obviously reflected local interests, but he was also involved in considering matters of wider concern, such as the militia, shipping, sequestrations and assessments.51CJ vii. 668a, 670b, 673b, 694b, 763b, 767a, 769a, 772a. Nutt rapidly became disillusioned, however, probably in reaction to the growing influence of the army, and he withdrew from Parliament before 30 September, when he was fined for his absence.52CJ vii. 789b. He is not known to have reappeared at Westminster in December 1659, and returned to political anonymity shortly after the Restoration, when he ceased to receive nominations to local commissions. He died in October 1668.53Nackington par. reg. No further member of his immediate family is known to have sat in Parliament.