BOYLE, Roger, Lord Broghill [I] (1621-79), of Blarney Castle, co. Cork, and Marston Bigot, Som.

Roger Boyle was a younger son from what had become, by the late 1620s, the wealthiest and most influential family in Ireland. His ambitious father, the ‘great’ earl of Cork, was the dominant influence on Boyle’s early life. He was created Baron of Broghill at his father’s instigation in February 1628, two months before his seventh birthday. He was admitted to Trinity College Dublin at the age of nine, receiving an education the Calvinist flavour of which accorded well with the regime of sermons, biblical study and meditation which he had already received as a child. In March 1636 Broghill was sent to London with his elder brother Lewis, Viscount Kinalmeaky, preparatory to an extended tour of the continent, and there he was introduced to the regal splendour of the Stuart court, waiting on the king and queen and a host of courtiers, including Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland, Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke and William Cecil*, 2nd earl of Salisbury.22Chatsworth, CM/18, no. 123*. A few weeks later Broghill and Kinalmeaky set sail from Rye for Dieppe, for a continental tour of France, Switzerland and Italy which would last nearly three years. Again, there were many opportunities for establishing friendships with the English aristocracy: in France Broghill came into contact with the ambassadors, Viscount Scudamore and the 2nd earl of Leicester, and the latter’s sons, Viscount Lisle (Philip Sidney*) and Algernon Sydney*. But this tour would also have a deep religious impact on Broghill, who was able to view continental Calvinism at close quarters during prolonged visits to Geneva and Saumur. Under the tutelage of Isaac Marcombes – a Huguenot who was related by marriage to the Genevan theologian, John Diodati – Broghill enjoyed privileged access to the Calvinist divines and their libraries, including the collections of du Plessy Mornay and Amyrault at Saumur.23Little, ‘Political Career’, 28-30, 200-2. This continental education reinforced the rigid Calvinism of his Irish upbringing, and religious belief remained an important influence on Broghill’s later career.

Broghill returned from France in March 1639, and was immediately thrust into the first bishops’ war, serving as an officer in the troop raised by his elder brother, Viscount Dungarvan, and funded by their father. Riding post from Yorkshire, Broghill brought news of the king’s humiliating peace treaty to his father, now living at Stalbridge in Dorset, on 24 June.24Lismore Pprs. ser. 1, v. 89, 96. From the beginning of October, the Boyle household moved to London, and Broghill was soon associating with the younger set at court, including Charles Rich (son of the 2nd earl of Warwick) and Thomas Howard (son of the 1st earl of Berkshire), with whom he vied for the attentions of Frances Harrison, ‘one of the queen’s maids of honour’.25Little, ‘Political Career’, 33-4. Other friends at court included the earl of Northumberland, who recommended Broghill for a commission in the new expedition against the Scots, planned in the early months of 1640. Although Broghill was indeed commissioned as captain of a troop of horse in April, he did not take up his command (possibly because Cork refused to pay for it) and only went north after the war had ended, in September, to present £1,000 promised by his father to the king in happier times.26Lismore Pprs. ser. 1, v. 133-4, 159. Broghill’s disappointment over his command demonstrates the extent to which he was still dependent on his father, politically as well as financially. In the winter of 1640-1 this became all the more apparent, as Cork’s support for the king cooled, and he began to court opponents of the regime in England. Broghill’s marriage to a sister of the 3rd earl of Suffolk, brokered by the 4th earl of Bedford and solemnised on 27 January 1641, was a further sign of Cork’s changing political attitudes. Although some of Broghill’s courtly friends were implicated in the army plot of May 1641, there is no sign that Broghill himself was drawn into the conspiracy, and he remained his father’s loyal lieutenant through the political upheavals of the summer.27Little, ‘Political Career’, 36-9.

Irish wars, 1641-9

This willingness to follow his father’s lead characterised Broghill’s actions during the early years of the Irish rebellion, which began in October 1641. The Boyle family had returned to Ireland only a few days before the rising, and their hasty efforts to protect Protestant interests in Munster were hampered by the rivalry between Cork and the lord president, Sir William St Leger, supported by his son-in-law, Murrough O’Brien, Lord Inchiquin. At the onset of rebellion, Broghill was made governor of his father’s castle at Lismore in co. Waterford, which he defended against a siege by Irish forces in February 1642, and he fought at the battle of Liscarrol in September, when Kinalmeaky was killed.28K. Lynch, Roger Boyle, 1st Earl of Orrery (Univ. of Tennessee, 1965), 40-4. On 16 November, Cork sent Broghill and Dungarvan to England, partly to gain further supplies for the Munster forces, but also intending to prevent Inchiquin from succeeding the recently deceased St Leger as lord president. This they tried to effect by lobbying existing friends at Westminster – notably the earls of Warwick, Holland, Salisbury and Bedford, and Lord Howard of Escrick.29Little, ‘Political Career’, 49-51; Eg. 80, ff. 12v, 14v. But the civil war in England had reduced the scope for intervention in Ireland, as all available resources were diverted into the domestic struggle. Hopes of reconciliation between the king and Parliament (which remained the best chance for an effective English response to the Irish crisis) were finally dashed in April 1643, with the breakdown of the Oxford peace negotiations. In the same month a number of Irish Protestants went from London to Oxford to persuade the king to ratify a new adventurers’ act, and in May they were joined in the royalist headquarters by Broghill and Dungarvan, en route for Ireland. The brothers did not return to Munster until July, and their activities in the interim are difficult to trace. A later account by Inchiquin suggests that the delay was occasioned by the cessation of arms which Charles I was busy negotiating with the Confederate Catholics. On their arrival in Munster, Broghill and Dungarvan joined Inchiquin in a conference with the leading Confederate, Viscount Muskerry, to ensure the cessation would be observed in Munster. This was the first instance of Broghill acting against the wishes of his father, who bitterly opposed any treaty with the Catholic forces. It was also the last. Cork died on 15 September 1643 – the same day as the cessation of arms was signed in Dublin.30Little, ‘Political Career’, 52-4; Bodl. Carte 11, ff. 182, 242.

Cork’s death loosened the bonds between the hitherto closely-knit Boyle family. As Dungarvan (now 2nd earl of Cork) returned to Oxford in a further attempt to persuade the king not to grant the presidency of Munster to Inchiquin, Broghill found himself increasingly in sympathy with his rival’s position in Munster, where the Irish Catholics constantly provoked the Protestant forces despite the newly-agreed cessation. Tensions in Munster were compounded by events in Dublin, where old friends of the Boyle family (including Sir William Parsons and Sir Adam Loftus) had been imprisoned by the marquess of Ormond for their opposition to the truce. Broghill was in close contact with his brother-in-law, Sir Arthur Loftus (son of Sir Adam Loftus of Rathfarnham) in the spring of 1644, and shared his disquiet at the apparent leniency of Ormond’s attitude towards the Confederates. When Inchiquin, riled by the refusal of the king to grant him the presidency, defected to Parliament in July 1644, he found a ready supporter in Broghill, who secured the cooperation of the key towns of Youghal and Bandon, and sequestered for the war effort the money remaining in the new earl of Cork’s coffers at Lismore.31Add. 25287, f. 13; NLI, MS 6900, unfol.: 10 July, 9 Aug., 2 Sept., 13 Sept. 1644; Chatsworth, CM/28, no. 3. Cork, still at Oxford, continued to support the king, and a rift opened between the brothers that lasted for the rest of the decade.

Broghill and Inchiquin had collaborated over the defection of July 1644, but there were fundamental differences between them, which soon erupted into a further round of damaging factional in-fighting. Their principal disagreement was over religion. Broghill, with his ingrained Calvinist beliefs, was prepared to subscribe to the Solemn League and Covenant, and imposed godly reforms on his garrison at Youghal. Inchiquin was a closet episcopalian, who evaded the Covenant and was unwilling to impose it on his troops. Nor did Inchiquin seem to share Broghill’s almost pathological hatred of Catholicism. The two men also disagreed in their attitude to Ormond. Broghill, increasingly influenced by former privy councillors such as Temple, Parsons and Loftus, considered Ormond to be secretly in league with the Confederates, and in December 1645 vilified him as having ‘declared himself so publicly for the rogues, that I wonder he sticks at anything henceforward that may advantage them’.32Add. 46929, f. 53v. Inchiquin, however, still respected Ormond as a man, as well as owing him allegiance as the king’s lord lieutenant, and his refusal to impose the Covenant in Munster was in part a way of proving his ultimate fidelity to the king and the Church of Ireland. The appointment of Broghill’s old friend, the Independent grandee Viscount Lisle, as a rival parliamentarian lord lieutenant from April 1646, threatened the authority not only of Ormond but also of Inchiquin, and the latter’s position was further compromised by the fact that many of his friends at Westminster (including William Jephson* and Sir Philip Percivalle*) sided with the Presbyterian party. Lisle’s short-lived expedition to Munster early in 1647, and the bitter attacks on Inchiquin launched by Broghill and Sir Arthur Loftus thereafter, were important factors in alienating the lord president from his parliamentarian masters, and in hastening his defection back to the royalist side in April 1648.33Little, ‘Political Career’, 59, 61-74, 76-109.

The spring of 1649 has been seen as marking a watershed in Broghill’s career. According to his earliest biographer, Thomas Morrice, Broghill was disillusioned with the ‘revolution’ in England, and sought to join the royalists in exile on the continent. He was, however, intercepted and presented with an ultimatum by Oliver Cromwell* to join the invasion of Ireland or face imprisonment; he naturally chose the former, hoping ‘by accepting this offer, he might afterwards be serviceable to the royal party’.34T. Morrice, Memoirs of the… life and death of the right honourable Roger, Earl of Orrery (in Orrery State Papers (1742)), 10-11; Lynch, Orrery, 71. Yet Morrice is usually a highly unreliable source, and his account of this incident is no exception. There is no evidence to suggest that Broghill was seriously contemplating a defection to the royalists at this time. Although he was targeted by Ormond and by members of the Boyle family, including his brothers, the earl of Cork and Francis Boyle, news that his arch-rival, Inchiquin, had been appointed president of Munster by Charles Stuart did not encourage him to receive such approaches favourably, and by April 1649 it was clear that Broghill had refused to defect.35Little, ‘Political Career’, 110-2; Bodl. Carte 22, ff. 53, 65 ; 24, ff. 390-1, 483 ; 27, f. 315. Far from being a crypto-royalist, Broghill had every reason to support the commonwealth. The second Ormond Peace, signed in January, shortly before the execution of Charles I, had confirmed Irish Protestant fears that the royalists were in league with the Catholic rebels. By April preparations were well under way for a massive English invasion of Ireland – which had been eagerly awaited by Broghill and his allies since 1642. In political and religious terms, Broghill could hardly have been expected to make a different choice. Nor was he alone: a large number of Irish Protestants had already sided with Cromwell, including Sir William Parsons, Sir Robert King*, Sir Hardress Waller* and Sir Charles Coote*. By early August Broghill had come out of retirement and was actively collaborating with Cromwell; and by November he was back in Munster, encouraging the garrison towns to reject Inchiquin’s authority, and throw in their lot with the advancing Cromwellians.36Little, ‘Political Career’, 113-9. With Broghill’s intervention, by mid-November the garrisons at Kinsale, Youghal, Bandon and Cork had all declared for Parliament.

Cromwellian Ireland, 1649-54

For Broghill, the early 1650s was a time of growing influence and increasing frustration. On the one hand, his activities in Munster in the winter of 1649-50 had recommended him to Cromwell, and he was appointed to local administrative offices, given a double-regiment of horse, and in 1651 promoted to be lieutenant-general of the ordnance in Ireland. On the other hand there were those in Ireland who were eager to keep Broghill (and other ‘Old Protestants’) out of positions of influence in the army or the government. Henry Ireton* (who assumed command of the army in Ireland after Cromwell’s departure in 1650) and the parliamentary commissioners (who arrived in 1651) were hostile to Broghill, and the favours he had secured were opposed, or even reversed – the various humiliations culminating in the disbandment of his regiment in 1653. Broghill did score one important victory, however: in January 1652, shortly after Ireton’s death, he succeeded in forcing the parliamentary commissioners to reverse the sequestration of the newly-returned earl of Cork’s estates in Ireland. This was a crucial step not only in Broghill’s bid to control Munster, but also in the revival of Old Protestant fortunes in general. In the following months, the decision in Cork’s favour became a test case for other former royalists seeking to salvage their estates, and the recovery of Viscount Conway, the earl of Meath, Viscount Montgomery of the Ards and other prominent Protestant landowners stemmed from Broghill’s successful coup of January 1652. A by-product of this chain reaction was Broghill’s increasing identification of his interests not just with the Boyle clan but with Protestant Ireland as a whole. This in turn became inextricably linked with his personal inclination to treat Cromwell as the only hope for permanent ‘settlement’ for Ireland, and, by extension, for the two other ‘British’ nations. It is arguable that in the early 1650s that the seeds of Broghill’s enthusiasm for a Cromwellian monarchy were sown.37P. Little, Lord Broghill and the Cromwellian Union with Ireland and Scotland (Woodbridge, 2004), 62-72.

The foundation of the protectorate in December 1653 was welcomed by Broghill and his allies in Ireland, although hopes that the unpopular lord deputy, Charles Fleetwood*, would be recalled were dashed when the visit of Henry Cromwell* to Ireland in March 1654 proved to be only temporary. Broghill, who had waited on Henry in Dublin, followed him back to England, where the future of Ireland was being decided. In London, Broghill joined other Old Protestants, including his former enemies from the old Presbyterian interest, Arthur Annesley* and Sir John Clotworthy*, in their attempts to promote a land settlement which would include as many of the pre-1649 landowners as possible. He assisted his neighbour, Vincent Gookin*, in his successful attempt to steer through the Munster indemnity ordinance, which was passed in June 1654, and acted as a point of contact between Irish lobbyists and influential protectoral councillors, including Henry Cromwell himself. By the end of the summer Broghill had also proved himself a man of influence in the Cromwellian court, where his friends now included Edward Montagu*, Viscount Lisle (Philip Sidney*) and Bulstrode Whitelocke*.38Little, Broghill, 74-6; HMC Egmont, i. 540-3. Increasing influence at Whitehall perhaps helped Broghill to influence the elections for the Munster seats in the first protectorate parliament in July 1654, but in his absence it was left to the earl of Cork to do the leg-work. The earl had little difficulty in securing the co. Cork seat for his brother; there is direct evidence of his intervention in Gookin’s return for Bandon and Kinsale; and it is almost certain that he supported the candidacy of another local landowner, William Jephson*, for Cork and Youghal.39Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol.: 24-5 July 1654. The election of Jephson – a former Presbyterian and ally of Inchiquin – on the Boyle ticket is yet another indication that Broghill was now at the head of a broad-based Old Protestant party, which had left the factional squabbles of the 1640s far behind.

The first protectorate Parliament, 1654-5

Broghill’s activity in the 1654 Parliament again marked him out as a supporter of the protectorate as well as a leading Irish politician. There was no contradiction between the two, as the Old Protestants, fearing the influence of the army and the religious radicals, began to see a strong, centralised protectorate as the best hope for their long-term prosperity. The initial task of this Parliament was the ratification of the protectoral constitution, the Instrument of Government. In September, Broghill was named to committees to bring in the bill to settle the government and a subsidiary measure to draw up a ‘recognition’ of the protectorate to be used as a test for all MPs.40CJ vii. 369a, 370a. After the refusal of some MPs to wave these measure through, the House was purged, and thereafter the government came under attack from its Presbyterian critics, intent on rewriting the constitution through a new Government Bill. Broghill soon emerged as one of the leaders of the ‘court party’ upholding the status quo. On 10 November, for example, he joined the councillor Sir Charles Wolseley as teller against a motion allowing Parliament to pass legislation even without the protector’s consent.41CJ vii. 384a. The loss of this division caused uproar among the court party, and Broghill was probably the ‘person of honour and nobility’ so horrified by ‘this wound to the government’ that he ‘did wish he could have redeemed that wound with a pound of the best blood in his body’.42Burton’s Diary i. p. lxvii. On 14 November Broghill and Wolseley again asserted the protector’s supremacy over Parliament, acting as tellers in favour of Cromwell having an absolute veto over any attempt by the House to extend its term. This vote was also lost, much to the dismay of the government’s supporters.43CJ vii. 385; Burton’s Diary i. p. lxxiv. On 2 December Broghill and Wolseley again worked as tellers in favour of giving the protector the power to nominated his own councillors, with Parliament’s role reduced to that of approving the list: this time, the motion was carried, by 100 votes to 68.44CJ vii. 394b. On 16 December Broghill was teller, with Montagu, in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the continuation of the military establishment being made dependent on its approval by the next Parliament.45CJ vii. 403a.

Broghill’s involvement with the court party became all the more apparent in January 1655, as the opponents of the regime again tried to force change. On 8 January Broghill and Wolseley were tellers in a successful attempt to prevent the word ‘Parliament’ being mentioned in the title of the constitution.46CJ vii. 413b. On 16 January Broghill and John Claypoole were tellers in favour of extending the £700,000 revenue allowed to the protector to 1659 instead of 1656, and two days later, he joined Henry Cromwell in opposing a motion to allow Parliament to decide how bills should be presented to the protector.47CJ vii. 418a, 420a. The crunch came on 20 January, when a proviso was proposed, which would assert that the militia ‘ought not to be raised, formed or made use of, but by common consent of the people assembled in Parliament’. Broghill and the protector’s brother-in-law, John Disbrowe*, naturally opposed this blatant attempt to reduce Cromwell’s powers to control the army and make war and peace, but they were defeated by 27 votes.48CJ vii. 421a. The opponents of the government thus made clear their dominance in Parliament, and in doing so, provoked Cromwell to intervene and dissolve it on 22 January.

Throughout this Parliament, Broghill’s support of the protectorate had been influenced by his Irish interests. The enthusiasm of the Old Protestants for the protectoral regime had in the autumn of 1654 become focused on a single objective – the need to secure a formal union between England and Ireland, along the lines of that allowed to Scotland by ordinance earlier in the year. Such legislation, ratified through an act of Parliament, would give the Irish Protestants free trade, taxes in proportion with the other nations and long awaited reforms in the legal system; it would also ensure that they continued to send representatives to the Westminster Parliament. The individual heads soon appeared in the various matters of Irish concerns considered by Parliament earlier in its session, and there is no doubt as to Broghill’s unionist sympathies. He was directly involved in moves to gain trade advantages for Ireland. On 12 October he was added to the committee to consider customs levies of corn and other goods, and on 31 October was teller in favour of promoting the trade in butter, which was an important Irish export.49CJ vii. 375b, 380a. Broghill was also active in safeguarding the Irish franchise. On 27 November he was named, with other Irish MPs, to the committee to consider extending voting rights to former Irish royalists who had been faithful to Parliament since 1649, and it was probably through their influence that the measure was passed in the House.50CJ vii. 390b-1a; Burton’s Diary, i. p. xcix. Taxation was of prime importance to Broghill and his allies. On 21 November the Irish MPs argued that their assessment burden should be made proportional with that of England.51Burton’s Diary i. pp. lxxxviii-lxxxix. When the bill was brought to a division on 29 November, Broghill was teller against changing (and almost certainly increasing) the Irish proportion of the levy, and although he was successful in this, on 2 December it was decided to consider the Irish and Scottish assessments separately from the English.52CJ vii. 392b, 394a. This resulted in an acrimonious debate, in which ‘much was said by the Members of both nations’, and the monthly Irish tax was eventually cut from £10,000 to £8,000 – which was a valuable concession even if the principle of proportionate taxation had been grudgingly conceded.53Burton’s Diary i. p. cvii; CJ vii. 395a-b. The formal union legislation of January 1655 was the amalgamation of these several interests, and Broghill was almost certainly the driving force behind it, through his influence in the committee of Irish affairs.

Broghill was also involved in religious controversy during the first protectorate Parliament. His own broad Calvinist beliefs could encompass moderate episcopalianism (of the kind associated with pre-Laudian Church of Ireland), Presbyterianism and even Independency, but he could not stomach toleration towards Baptists and Quakers. This desire to limit orthodoxy and regulate the churches is reflected in his committee appointments, which backed state intervention to curb religious excess. On 25 September he was named to the committee to eject scandalous ministers, which also took on responsibility for the approbation of preachers.54CJ vii. 370a, 371a. In November he was teller with Disbrowe against the suspension of the existing ordinance for ejections, pending a new bill.55CJ vii. 382b. On 12 December he was named to the committee to draw up lists of ‘damnable heresies’, as a way of controlling the wilder sects, and on 3 January was teller in favour of a motion giving the conservatively-minded Parliament the right to define heresy.56CJ vii. 399b, 412a. When it came to the proposed ‘confession of faith’, and the consultations with various divines, Broghill was again in favour of caution. On 6 December he was chosen as one of four MPs to attend the divines who were to advise Parliament in its deliberations, and he later presented them with the thanks of the House.57CJ vii. 396a, 399b. Broghill’s influence over the consultations extended to him being asked to nominate a member of the group. His choice is instructive. First, he nominated the old archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher. When Ussher declined, he chose instead the puritan divine, Richard Baxter. Both men had strong Irish ties; both were Calvinists; and, importantly, both were champions of irenical schemes to create a broad-based church united by their Calvinist theology, but agreeing to differ over church discipline: a cocktail which was very much to Broghill’s taste.58Little, Broghill, 80-1. There was, however, no time to develop such ideas before the dissolution of Parliament; and Broghill and his allies had to reconcile themselves to the fact that religious affairs, like those of Ireland and the protectorate itself, would remain uncertain.

President of the Scottish Council, 1655-6

The first protectorate Parliament had seen Broghill’s ideas gradually forming into a coherent political programme; the next two years allowed him to put them into practice, through his position as president of the Scottish council. Although he had never visited the country, Broghill had many contacts with Scotland, partly through his wife’s extended family, and also through pre-existing connections with Scottish ministers, encouraged by such men as John Dury and Sir John Clotworthy, and his favourable attitude towards the Scottish landowners contrasted with the suspicions of the commander of the Cromwellian army in the north, General George Monck*. Broghill found problems in Scotland analogous to those in Ireland, with the Protestant inhabitants generally distrusted by the English military rulers at Edinburgh. Broghill attempted to promote local stability by encouraging civilian involvement in the local administration, and by reducing the penalties imposed on former royalist landowners. In this he was mostly developing the reforms begun, however tentatively, by General George Monck* in 1654-5. When it came to religious concessions, Broghill was prepared to go much further than Monck. An early success was persuading the majority Resolutioner party in the Kirk to end their public prayers for Charles Stuart, and this was followed by an agreement, struck in August 1656, that the state would in future administer clerical stipends, thus taking control out of the hands of the dominant (but minority) Protester faction in the Kirk.59Little, Broghill, ch. 4. Indeed, Broghill’s preference for the Resolutioners (whom he would later describe as ‘the honester of the two’ parties) was one cause of ‘jealousies’ between him and General Monck.60TSP v. 656; Brodie Diary, 154; Baillie Lttrs. and Jnls. iii. 296. Another was the status of the marquess of Argyll (Archibald Campbell*), whose hegemony in the western highlands was encouraged by Monck but opposed by Broghill, and the latter was careful to ‘put a spoke in his wheel’ to prevent Argyll’s election to Parliament in August 1656.61Little, Broghill, 114-21; TSP v. 295.

In both secular and church policy, Broghill was consciously following a ‘British’ agenda: when introducing justices of the peace into Scotland, he admitted that he was influenced by their success in Ireland; and his encouragement of the majority in the Kirk was with half an eye on the situation in England and Ireland, ‘that hereby the Presbyterians of England and Ireland, who are not inconsiderable, might probably be won unto your highness’62TSP iv. 557.. In this he may have consciously been coordinating his policies with those of Henry Cromwell, who had become the acting-governor of Ireland in the summer of 1655, and opposing developments in England, where the major-generals were trying to impose military rule and radical religion on their localities. The army interest, including John Lambert* and Charles Fleetwood*, certainly saw Broghill as a threat, and through their influence in the Scottish committee of the protectoral council did their best to undermine his reforms, just as they made life difficult for Henry Cromwell in the Irish committee.63Little, Broghill, 106-8, 119-21.

Second protectorate Parliament, 1656-7

Despite attempts by some historians to play down his importance in the second protectorate Parliament – instead ascribing the leadership of the House to English councillors or to ‘moderates’ from the shires - there are good reasons for seeing Broghill as the crucial figure in the session.64P. Gaunt, ‘Oliver Cromwell and his Protectorate Parliaments’, Into Another Mould: aspects of the Interregnum ed. I. Roots (Exeter, 1998), 91-2; C. Egloff, ‘Settlement and Kingship: the Army, the Gentry and the Offer of the Crown to Oliver Cromwell’ (PhD, Yale Univ. 1990), 10-12. He certainly had a clear political strategy, derived from his own experience of government in Ireland and Scotland, his disappointment at the failures of the 1654-5 Parliament, and his ever growing trust in Oliver Cromwell as the only hope for the three nations. He also had the necessary power-base in the Commons. His friends at court included Montagu, Whitelocke, Claypoole, Wolseley and Philip Jones*, and during his time in Scotland he had grown close to the secretary of state, John Thurloe*. All were returned as MPs, and could command local or professional interests of their own. Broghill’s decision to waive his election for co. Cork, and instead to sit as MP for the city of Edinburgh, underlined his commitment to Scotland. As president of the Scottish council, Broghill had direct influence over the elections there, and he could call on strong support from his colleagues north of the border, including Charles Howard, Samuel Disbrowe and George Downing: in all, Broghill may have influenced the election of, or enjoyed personal links with, as many as 15 of the Scottish MPs. In Ireland, the earl of Cork again managed the co. Cork elections for Broghill, and in conjunction with Sir Charles Coote*, Sir Hardress Waller*, Sir Theophilus Jones* and above all Henry Cromwell, was able to secure the return of perhaps 26 MPs allied to the Old Protestant and Cromwellian interests. The courtiers and the Irish and Scottish MPs formed the core of Broghill’s following in the House, but in order to dominate proceedings he needed to call on the moderate Presbyterian or ‘country’ interest in England – a fact made plain in the 1654 Parliament. Broghill seems to have secured the support of the ‘country’ MPs through his contacts with the Presbyterian networks which covered the three nations, working through such influential friends as the earls of Warwick and Suffolk in East Anglia, Richard Baxter and his associates (including Edward Harley*, John Bridges* and Robert Beake*) in the midlands, and Thomas Grove* and John Fitzjames* in the west country.65Little, Broghill, 127-30; CJ vii. 431b. All these different groups coalesced into a loose alliance, united in its opposition to military rule, but deeply divided on other questions, including religion. Broghill’s job was less that of a manager than of a political ring-master, trying to keep order while preventing the diverse elements of this group from savaging each other.

Broghill’s position at the head of this unwieldy alliance necessarily affected his own activity in the second protectorate Parliament. Much of his time was spent working behind the scenes, either in the lobbies of the protectoral council or in the protector’s private chambers, which provided alternative foci for political manoeuvrings throughout the first sitting of this Parliament. Irish and Scottish affairs, in particular, were vulnerable to the influence which men like Fleetwood and Lambert enjoyed at Whitehall. This left the immediate direction of parliamentary business in the hands of trusted lieutenants, and as a result Broghill’s impact on the Journal is less than might be expected. Further distortions are created by Broghill’s periodic absence from the House, suffering from debilitating attacks of gout. Yet even during two prolonged attacks, in December 1656 and June 1657, Broghill was still capable of managing affairs from a distance, calling on influential allies, such as Thurloe and Whitelocke, to rally support for various measures debated in his absence.66Whitelocke, Diary, 451-2, 454, 462, 467, 469; Longleat, Whitelocke XVIII, f. 64; TSP v. 655, 665-6. And when good health and extra-parliamentary demands allowed Broghill to devote his full attention to Parliament, his direct intervention could be decisive.

The first three months of the Parliament were uncontroversial, as Broghill joined other supporters of the regime in an attempt to reinforce the authority of the protectorate. The decision to exclude troublemakers from Parliament – whether royalists or republicans – was supported by both Broghill and Lambert, who were tellers in favour on 22 September 1656.67CJ vii. 426b. There was also agreement on other issues, and Broghill was heavily involved in preparing a declaration for a public fast across the three nations (18-23 Sept.), and included in committees to frame a formal renunciation of the claims of Charles Stuart (19 Sept.) and to safeguard the person of the protector (26 Sept.).68CJ vii. 424a, 425a, 426a, 427a, 429a. On 1 October Broghill was named to the committee to prepare a declaration supporting the war against Spain (a cause that was popular with military as well as civilian Cromwellians) and he reported from this committee on 17 October.69CJ vii. 431b, 440a. Another uncontroversial issue that concerned Broghill in this period was the relief of creditors and debtors. He was named to the committee on the bill on 29 October and joined another Scottish councillor, Sir Edward Rodes, as teller against the rejection of it on 1 November, joining the committee set up to revisit the issue later the same day.70CJ vii. 447a, 449a.

As the conjunction of Broghill and Rodes suggests, resolving the difficulties of creditors and debtors across the three nations had important implications for the heavily indebted landowners of Scotland. Indeed, the internal affairs of Ireland and Scotland, and their eventual integration into the British state remained a priority for Broghill throughout this Parliament. On 23 September the committees for Irish and Scottish affairs were appointed (with Broghill being named for both), and these became the vehicles for measures advanced in the next few weeks to bring in the union legislation which had failed to reach fruition in 1654-5.71CJ vii. 426b, 427a. Throughout the first sitting of this Parliament Broghill was also involved in attempts to settle individual land cases in Ireland, being appointed to committees on the cases of Anthony Morgan* (10 Nov.), John Blackwell (31 Dec.), Sir Theophilus Jones* (16 Feb.), Viscount Loftus of Ely (19 Feb.) Sir Hardress Waller* (17 Mar.), and Sir Charles Coote* and others (1 May).72CJ vii. 452a, 477a, 491b, 494b, 505b, 529a. He was named to the committee on the Irish attainder bill on 30 March, and to that on the reallocation of confiscated estates in Ireland on 29 April, and in debate in May defended the rights of the Old Protestants and questioned the grant of Irish lands as compensation for the city of Gloucester.73CJ vii. 515a, 526b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 95-6, 107-10. When it came to Scottish affairs, Broghill was at pains to conciliate his opponents. He played a part in moves to confirm General Monck’s title to his ‘donative’ lands at Kinneil, and was named to the committee on the bill on 30 December.74CJ vii. 476b. The details of this committee are unclear, but on 8 January Monck wrote to thank him ‘for the pains and care you have taken concerning the security of Kinneil unto me by act of Parliament, for truly without that be done I may chance to be troubled with a law suit, and be a loser by that gift’.75Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS LI, f. 2v. (It may not have been a coincidence that during 1657 the frosty relations between Monck and Broghill started to thaw.) Broghill was also chosen to bring in a bill confirming the pardon of the earl of Callander and Lord Cranston on 29 April – a case of particular interest for the earl of Tweeddale.76CJ vii. 527b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 76; Little and Smith, Protectorate Parliaments, 279. Such secular issues seem to have been resolved fairly amicably, but the future of the Scottish Kirk was much more divisive. Agents from the rival Resolutioner and Protester factions had travelled to London to lobby the protectoral council during the winter of 1656-7, and Broghill soon became a close adviser of the Resolutioner delegate, James Sharp. The army interest naturally supported the Protesters, and sought to overturn the compromise over the appointment of ministers effected by the Scottish council in the previous summer. At one meeting in March 1657, by Broghill’s own admission, tempers became frayed, and ‘my Lord Lambert and I fell very hot: that the council’s proceedings in Scotland, being just, ought not to be thus questioned’.77 Consultations ed. Stephen, ii. 31.

As the row between Broghill and Lambert suggests, by the spring of 1657 personal and factional rivalries had begun to infect all parts of the body politic. In Parliament the first signs of tension came in December, with the controversy surrounding the blasphemies of James Naylor, the Quaker. Broghill had been appointed to the initial committee on this matter on 31 October, but illness meant he was absent from the more controversial exchanges in the House a month later.78CJ vii. 448a. This was perhaps just as well, for the early arguments over Naylor revealed an alarming rift between the Presbyterian MPs, supported by the Scottish and Irish members (notably Broghill’s close ally, William Jephson), and most of the councillors and courtiers who upheld the wide religious toleration favoured by Cromwell himself. It was small wonder that Broghill’s first intervention in the debate, on 20 December, was to propose a quick vote to resolve the issue.79Burton’s Diary, i. 183. As the Naylor debate dragged on, secular overtones became more apparent, as the judicial role of Parliament came into question. On 30 December Broghill spoke in favour of Parliament taking on the old judicial role of the House of Lords, saying that ‘we have done as a Parliament’, and casting doubt on the extent of religious toleration extended by the Instrument of Government, saying that authority should be taken ‘only from such precedents as were, when both constitutions were in peace and unity’. In taking this line, Broghill was supported by the civilian interest at court but violently opposed by Lambert and the army interest, whose proponents attacked Parliament’s actions as those of ‘an arbitrary power’.80Burton’s Diary, i. 274, 281-2.

In its later stages, the Naylor dispute had been influenced by the fierce debate over the Militia Bill, and thus the fate of the major-generals, which was introduced by Lambert’s ally, John Disbrowe, on 25 December. Broghill’s own initiatives in Ireland and Scotland had been based on the principle of removing the military from local government, and his efforts to rehabilitate former royalists in both countries were also threatened by the decimation tax which supported such a system. There was also a personal element to this legislation, as Broghill tried to torpedo a scheme founded and championed by his great rival, John Lambert. The key-note speech was delivered by Broghill on 7 January 1657. He denounced decimation as unjust, as Parliament (the ‘judges of those whom we have conquered’) had a duty to abide by their own articles of war and the 1652 act of oblivion, which had absolved former royalists for their past crimes. Echoing a Presbyterian MP, Thomas Bampfylde, Broghill cited scripture in favour of this argument, pointing out how God had punished Saul for reneging on his promises to the vanquished Gibbeonites. There was also a practical argument in favour of relieving the pressure on former royalists, for otherwise ‘men of no fortune and desperate condition may rebel’.81Bodl. Tanner 52, f. 186; Surr. Hist. Centre, Loseley MS LM/1331/56; Burton’s Diary, i. 314-5, 317-8; Little, Broghill, 142-3. Support for Broghill’s line came from a wide range of MPs: Cromwellians such as Thurloe, Claypoole and Whitelocke; Presbyterians, including Bampfylde, John Trevor and Francis Drake; and a bloc of Irish and Scottish MPs, led by Jephson. The final vote on 29 January, which rejected the bill by 36 votes, was a demonstration of the power of Broghill’s coalition.82CJ vii. 483b.

The dispute over the militia bill was interrupted by revelations, made on 19 January, that a plot by a disgruntled soldier, Miles Sindercombe, against Cromwell’s life had been foiled. The failed assassination attempt shifted the focus temporarily towards the vulnerability of the protectorate, dependent as it was on the life of one man, and encouraged those who sought to put the regime on a sounder footing by making the succession hereditary. Broghill had supported the holding of a day of thanksgiving for the protector’s narrow escape, but his involvement in moves to make constitutional changes is less easy to pin down.83Burton’s Diary, i. 357, 361; CJ vii. 484b. Earlier proposals ‘to settle upon the old bottom’, put forward in October and November 1656, had involved Broghill’s allies, William Jephson, John Bridges and George Downing, but during the debate on the Sindercombe Plot in January 1657, the call for a return to ‘government according to the ancient constitution’ had come from a Presbyterian, John Ashe.84Ludlow, Mems. ii. 20; Burton’s Diary, i. 362; iii. 160; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 186-7. During February there was a more organised attempt to change the regime by drafting a new constitution, initially titled the ‘Remonstrance’, and there are strong indications that Broghill was a key figure in preparing this, apparently working closely with the eminent lawyer John Glynne. Whitelocke identified ‘Lord Broghill and Glynne and others of their friends’ as being the men behind the new constitution, while another contemporary thought that it was the brain-child of a ‘cabal’ of seven, comprising Nathaniel Fiennes I, Wolseley, Jones, Thurloe, Montagu, Glynne and Broghill.85Whitelocke, Diary, 463-4; Coventry City Archives, BA/H/Q/A79/302. When Sir Christopher Packe introduced the Remonstrance to the Commons on 23 February, he was widely believed to be acting as the front-man for Broghill.86Burton’s Diary, iii. 216.

As with earlier issues, Broghill seems to have delegated much of the management of the passage of the Remonstrance through the House to his close allies, but he was prepared to intervene personally, when crucial issues were debated. His ‘prudence in postponing the first paragraph’ of the first article – concerning making Cromwell king – on 2 March, was commended by Henry Cromwell.87Henry Cromwell Corresp. 245. Broghill was also active in shaping the fourth article, which extended voting rights to former Scottish royalists: a controversial measure opposed by (among others) the Protester faction in the Kirk. Broghill was named to the committee that introduced the necessary amendments on 6 March, and the measure was passed by seven votes on 9 March, with Broghill and Wolseley acting as tellers against a further paper on the subject being introduced by Lambert’s supporters.88CJ vii. 499b, 500b, 501a; Little, Broghill, 150 It was probably this incident that Bridges had in mind when he told Henry Cromwell on 10 March that Broghill had ‘gained to himself much honour by his prudent and dexterous deportments in the House’.89Henry Cromwell Corresp. 221-2. On 12 March Broghill was named to the committee to consider the judicial role to be exercised by the upper chamber, known as the ‘Other House’; and he was also involved in committees on articles for the ‘liberty and property’ of the people (16 Mar.), religious liberties (19 Mar.), and the best way to secure the nation against former royalists (20 Mar.).90CJ vii. 502a, 505a, 507b, 508b. In the ‘pitched battle’ that was the debate on 25 March concerning including a formal offer of the crown to Cromwell in the first article, Broghill played a prominent part, as was acknowledged by Henry Cromwell, who urged him ‘to make his highness thoroughly sensible of the danger of slighting this offer’.91Henry Cromwell Corresp. 236, 245. The following day, Broghill was named to the committee to draw the amended Remonstrance into a formal document, the Humble Petition and Advice, and he was one of those chosen to present it to the protector on 27 March.92CJ vii. 511b, 514a.

Broghill was heavily engaged in the careful management of the different interest groups which broadly supported the new constitution. The Scottish and Irish MPs remained firm supporters of Broghill’s initiatives, with 29 following his lead in voting in favour of offering Cromwell the crown.93Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 23 (E.935.5). But the allegiance of the civilian Cromwellians and the Presbyterians was much less certain; and the differences between them caused Broghill considerable difficulty. On 19 March he was named to the committee to consider the degree of religious tolerance to be allowed under article ten. According to Whitelocke, Broghill was one of the four MPs chosen to draft the final version of the article, so that ‘any man might believe it, and never hurt his conscience’, which was passed on 20 March.94CJ vii. 507b; Harl. 6848, f. 146; TSP vi. 123. It was inevitable that this issue would be bitterly opposed by the Presbyterians, but Broghill was willing to take the risk, as rejection of toleration would have alienated not just the courtiers, but also the protector himself. Events soon proved him right. Despite the open opposition of the Presbyterians, the coalition managed to survive this vote, and the final version of the Humble Petition and Advice was presented to the protector by its supporters on 31 March.95CJ vii. 511b, 514a. The success of Broghill and his allies in the Commons forced the army interest to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Lambert and Fleetwood and their supporters repeatedly attended the protector, and were much encouraged by his initial refusal to accept kingship. By contrast, in early April Broghill and other leading ‘kinglings’ briefly absented themselves from the House, thoroughly disillusioned, leaving Henry Cromwell to urge his friend to ‘consider that if names and titles only be changed, things may easily slide back again, either where they were or to a worse condition. Remember that tis not names or words that govern the world, but things’.96Henry Cromwell Corresp. 248, 266.

In another letter to Broghill at this time, Henry Cromwell advised him to emulate his opponents in seeking to influence the protector directly: ‘pray stand fast not only in the House, but also improve your interest with his highness’.97Henry Cromwell Corresp. 277. Broghill acted on this advice, joining Whitelocke, Glynne, Jones and others in a series of conferences with the protector from the middle of April.98Monarchy Asserted to be the Best, Most Ancient and Legall Form of Government (1660), 26-7, 69-72, 75-6. In these ‘kingship debates’, Broghill’s arguments were in part legalistic, urging that ‘the title of king is that which the law takes notice of’ and would bind the people to the regime, ‘once they knew their duty to him and he the duty of his office towards them’. Broghill also deployed religious arguments, countering Cromwell’s fears that the revival of the crown would provoke divine retribution with the assertion: ‘I cannot believe, if that office were blasted by the hand of God, that the Parliament would advise and petition you to take it up’. He went on to compare Cromwell with that other commoner-turned-monarch, King David, using a story of the submission of the king to God’s will as a ‘parable’ for ‘scrupulous good men’s cases in the particular of kingship’.99Little, Broghill, 154-7. Yet Cromwell still refused to be drawn, and in the face of such prevarication, the pro-kingship coalition became restless. On 24 April the Presbyterians, led by Bampfylde, voiced objections to measures in the Humble Petition to grant the protector a permanent revenue, and forced Broghill and his allies to impose a time limit instead; and on 28 April they again challenged toleration, asserting Parliament’s right to accept or reject preachers, and prompting Broghill to intervene ‘to help to secure this’ by proposing that Parliament could approve the nominations.100Burton’s Diary, ii. 24-31, 50-5. Through such compromises, Broghill again kept the alliance together, but his political credit with the different factions was by now perilously low.

Cromwell’s final refusal of the crown, on 8 May, was a disaster for Broghill, who had apparently come to see the new-fashioned monarchy in quasi-religious, as well as political, terms. In this he differed from some of his closest allies, including Thurloe and Henry Cromwell, who were content to let the title drop, as long as the body of the Humble Petition passed into law. On 19 May Broghill acted as teller with Sir William Roberts in a last-ditch attempt to prevent the title of king being replaced by that of protector in a revised version of the Humble Petition. When this move was rejected by 77 votes to 45, Broghill was duly named to the committee to consider how the title ‘protector’ might be bounded by the laws; but thereafter his involvement in constitutional issues was slight.101CJ vii. 535a, 540b. At the end of May, Broghill succumbed to another attack of gout which kept him out of Parliament for most of June. In his absence, the delicately balanced kingship coalition collapsed altogether. On 8 June a conciliatory motion granting Irish lands to Fleetwood, supported by the courtiers and some Irish MPs, was challenged by ‘Bampfylde, Godfrey , Grove and their gang’; and on 10 June the English ‘country’ MPs opposed attempts by the Irish and Scots to reduce their tax burden. The army interest, backed by the Protesters, seized the opportunity, joining efforts to oppose concessions to Scottish royalists under the Humble Petition, and, on 15 June, re-imposing the voting restrictions which Broghill had succeeded in lifting in March.102Little, Broghill, 158-9. Wariston was jubilant: ‘blessed be God that has laid aside, these three weeks, Broghill by the gout, or else he had stopped both our public and private business’.103Wariston Diary, iii. 84. Broghill was also subjected to personal attacks, which focused on the confirmation of his own land-grant in Munster. The early stages of the bill had been passed without problems in April and May, but when, on 5 June, his allies tried to increase the grant by 2,000 acres, there was ‘great debate’, with Lambert, William Sydenham, Thomas Kelsey and other members of the army interest opposing the increase. The bill was eventually passed without opposition, but only because Lambert, Fleetwood, Sydenham and Disbrowe had withdrawn from the House, in a calculated insult to their political rival.104CJ vii. 517a, 537b, 543a, 545b, 546a; Burton’s Diary, ii. 175-8. When Broghill returned to Parliament on 26 June, he found his alliance had been destroyed, and with it all hope of setting up a Cromwellian monarchy.

Last Years of the protectorate, 1657-9

In the summer of 1657 it looked like Broghill’s attempt to remove military influence from the government had been generally successful: the revised Humble Petition was now on the statute books; and his main political rival, John Lambert, had been removed from his military commands and from the protectoral council by Cromwell. Yet the failure to persuade the protector to take the crown left Broghill thoroughly disillusioned. In August he returned to Ireland, where he found a similar sense of frustration, as moves to appoint Henry Cromwell as lord deputy were delayed by Fleetwood and others with greater influence at Whitehall.105Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol.: 29 Aug. 1657. As Broghill complained to Montagu in November, ‘if all things move at the rate our settlement of Ireland has done, I shall think the body politic has got the gout’.106Bodl. Carte 73, f. 143. Henry Cromwell’s eventual promotion to the deputyship in November, and his own inclusion in Cromwell’s ‘Other House’ in December did little to lift Broghill’s spirits, and he threatened to retire altogether, as ‘I find I do more oblige my poor family at home than I can serve the public abroad’.107Bodl. Carte 73, f. 156. He was persuaded to travel to England for the second sitting of Parliament in January 1658, but there he found the Commons riven with factionalism, and the Other House reduced to a secondary role. Broghill attended the Other House every day, taking the oath on 20 January, and being named to the committee for privileges on 21 January and on a bill against the profanation of the Lord’s Day on 29 January. 108HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 505-24. The only tangible result of this brief sitting was the strengthening of the army interest, with the closure of Parliament marked by Disbrowe’s appointment as general of horse, and alarming reports of a new ‘intimacy’ between Fleetwood and the disgraced Lambert.109Little, Broghill, 163-4 Although Broghill was not excluded from government circles, it was said in March 1658 that he and his friends ‘are entertained with the trivial business of the council’ while true power rested with Fleetwood, Disbrowe and their cronies.110Bodl. Clarendon 57, f. 157v. In April Broghill again threatened to leave London, on grounds of ill health, and Henry Cromwell told Thurloe that he suspected that ‘either he is not consulted well enough in England, or that such as do not like him are more, or that some present melancholy has seized him’.111TSP vi. 858. Despite Henry Cromwell’s attempts to persuade him to stay in London, Broghill arrived backed at Lismore on 14 August.112Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol.: 14 Aug. 1658.

The death of Oliver Cromwell in September 1658 forced Broghill’s return to the political stage, but his renewed involvement tended to be reactive, as the agenda was increasingly set by his old enemies in the army interest and the republican (or ‘commonwealth’) camp. Broghill gave the new protector, Richard Cromwell*, his qualified support, saying that he thought the regime might survive ‘if his friends stick to him’.113TSP vii. 399. The test would come with the new Parliament set for January 1659, and Broghill supported Henry Cromwell’s attempts to secure the Irish seats for friends of the government. Boyle influence in co. Cork ensured the return of two MPs, Francis Foulke and Maurice Fenton – both of whom had long-standing connections with the family. Broghill probably also influenced the elections of Henry Markham, Thomas Stanley and Thomas Waller to other Irish seats. But as the elections and the subsequent parliamentary session demonstrate, Broghill’s personal influence was not as great as it had been in 1656. His authority in the Boyle heartland of co. Cork was challenged by his former ally, Vincent Gookin, who put up rival candidates; and in Parliament the unionist line supported by Broghill and his friends was opposed by the former Presbyterian MP Arthur Annesley: incidents which suggest that the unanimity of the Irish MPs could no longer be taken for granted.114Little, Broghill, 165-6; T.C. Barnard, ‘Lord Broghill, Vincent Gookin and the Cork elections of 1659’, EHR lxxxviii. 352-65; P. Little, ‘The First Unionists? Irish Protestant attitudes to union with England, 1653-9’, IHS xxxii. 54-7.

Broghill’s ability to manage Parliament was further restricted by two factors: his late arrival in Westminster (1 Mar.) after another attack of gout; and his position in the Other House – away from the Commons, which remained the epicentre of conflict in 1659 as it had been in 1658.115Chatsworth, CM/30, no. 63; TSP vii. 600; HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 543. Thus, although Broghill arguably had greater influence over Richard than over Oliver, he was unable to initiate the kind of legislative programme that had proved so successful in 1656. Nor could he intervene to secure the majorities needed to steer such a programme through Parliament. Instead, he diligently attended the impotent Other House, and involved himself in side-issues, while the enemies of the protectorate combined to disrupt Parliament and discredit the regime.116HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 545-6, 550-1, 554-60, 562-5; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 482, 490. As tensions increased during March, Richard Cromwell turned to Broghill, ‘telling him his thoughts with great freedom and sending for him when he thinks he has need of advice’, and even inviting him to join the protectoral council.117Chatsworth, CM/30, no. 99; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 61. But in the face of increasing opposition from the army, Broghill could do little to help. On 21 April Richard Cromwell was forced to hold an emergency meeting ‘with the Lord Broghill, Fiennes, Thurloe, Wolseley, Whitelocke and some others, whether it were not fit to dissolve the present Parliament’, and it was reported that ‘the Lord Broghill persuaded his highness to sign the commission for dissolution’.118Whitelocke, Diary, 512; Clarke Pprs. v. 285. The session was closed on 22 April, and Richard was forced to resign as protector on 6 May.

Restoration, 1659-79

Broghill’s role in the year between the collapse of the protectorate and the restoration of the Stuart monarchy was one of crisis-management. Having failed to secure ‘settlement’ in the three nations, he concentrated his energies on promoting stability in Ireland – although this in turn depended on the political situation across the Irish Sea. With the closure of Parliament, Broghill hurried back to Ireland, landing at Waterford on 9 May, and meeting Henry Cromwell in Dublin later in the month. Although Richard Cromwell still had hopes that if ‘Broghill can retrieve and the fleet stand’ the protectorate might be revived, it is far from clear that Broghill was willing to risk everything by opposing the restored commonwealth.119Henry Cromwell Corresp. 516-7. Indeed, when Henry Cromwell finally gave up his post on 15 June, Broghill again announced his intention of retiring to the country, to ‘his small library, his wife and children, his ploughmen and shepherds’.120Longleat, Whitelocke XIX, f. 31. As in 1648-9, retirement encouraged friends in the royalist camp to make tentative approaches, including his old sparing-partner, Thomas Howard, his wife’s relative, Edward Villiers, and his own younger brother, Francis Boyle.121Little, Broghill, 170-3. But in the autumn of 1659 such low-key discussions were interrupted by events in England, where a group of senior officers led by Broghill’s bugbear, John Lambert, seized power. In Ireland, the Old Protestants responded in December, taking Dublin Castle and other strongholds, and refusing their general, Edmund Ludlowe II*, permission to land. Broghill travelled up from Cork to meet the insurgents in January 1660, and joined the army commission which now took control of affairs in Dublin. The Dublin Convention, which met in March, was dominated by Broghill, assisted by the president of Connaught, Sir Charles Coote. In the elections, Broghill showed that the Boyle interest once again controlled Munster, with most of the Cork and Waterford seats going to his friends and relatives. Broghill was himself returned for Dublin University. As the Convention began to reorganise Irish affairs, Broghill stepped up his contacts with the Stuart court, and, through the earl of Cork (now resident in London) made common cause with the ‘Presbyterian Knot’ who hoped to secure religious and political concessions from the restored monarchy.122Clarke, Prelude to Restoration, 137, 142, 146, 201, 211-14, 217-19, 264-5, 275-7. Chief among this group was Broghill’s old friend, the earl of Northumberland, and it was through the earl’s influence that he was nominated for Cockermouth, and elected for Arundel in the Convention Parliament of 1660.

Once assured by the earl of Cork that the situation was favourable, Broghill came to London in June 1660 to take his seat at Westminster. By this time he had also been appointed president of Munster by Charles II, and in September he was created earl of Orrery and received a confirmation of all his land gains. In the following months he was made a member of the Irish privy council and appointed one of the lords justices of Ireland, alongside Coote (now earl of Mountrath) and Sir Maurice Eustace. Orrery’s ambitions were cut short by the arrival of his old enemy, the duke of Ormond, as lord lieutenant in 1662, and although he still retained a measure of independence in Munster until 1672, he became vulnerable to the activities of his rivals at court, and narrowly avoided impeachment by the earl of Arlington’s allies in 1669. Towards the end of his life, Orrery’s health declined further, and his death in 1679 was as a result of the gout which had dogged his political career since the mid-1650s. He was succeeded by his son, who became 2nd earl of Orrery.123Oxford DNB; HP Commons, 1660-90.

Conclusion

It might be argued that Lord Broghill was the greatest political manager of the first and second protectorate Parliaments. In 1654-5 he worked closely with the ‘court’ interest to defend the protectorate as it then stood, but his experiences as president of the Scottish council and his concern at developments in England and Ireland in 1655-6, encouraged him to try to change the very nature of the regime. In the spring of 1657 he made his move, introducing a monarchical constitution which would both broaden the support base for the government and reduce its reliance on the army. Broghill’s connections in all three nations also allowed him to build the coalition of MPs necessary to force through the Humble Petition and Advice in its original form, and his skill as a politician ensured that, despite serious disagreements, that coalition remained united. The passing of the new constitution, in the face of considerable opposition from the army, was not all Broghill’s work, but the plan could not have succeeded without his careful management of the House. As it turned out, the kingship debates were both the high point and the crisis point of Broghill’s career; for while he could deliver the crown to Cromwell, he could not persuade him to wear it.