BROMLEY, Henry (1632-70), of Holt Castle, Worcs.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
bap. 5 Mar. 1632, 2nd but 1st surv. s. of Henry Bromley of Holt by Beatrice, da. of Richard Newport†, 1st Baron Newport of High Ercall. educ. Shrewsbury 1643, Christ Church, Oxf. 1650; I. Temple 1653. m. 16 May 1654, Mercy, da. of Edward Pytts of Kyre Park, Worcs., 2s. (1 d.v.p.) 2da. suc. fa. 1652.1
J.p. Worcs. 1654-d. , commr. for assessment 1657, Jan. 1660-9, militia Mar. 1660, oyer and terminer, Oxf. circuit July 1660-d.; dep. lt. Worcs. c. Aug. 1660-d., capt. vol. horse 1661, commr. for loyal and indigent officers 1662.2
Bromley’s ancestors had held land in Shropshire since the 13th century. The Worcestershire branch was founded by his great-great-grandfather, who sat for Bridgnorth in 1558, became lord chancellor in 1579, and bought Holt Castle together with other estates in the county. Bromley’s father, an active Royalist, was fined £4,000 for his delinquency. But Bromley himself was appointed to local office under the Protectorate. Having thereby given evidence of his good affection to Parliament, he stood for the county in 1660 with (Sir) John Talbot. ‘Proper young gentlemen, arrant Cavaliers by generation and education’, they defeated the Presbyterian Thomas Foley I. Bromley was not an active Member of the Convention, being appointed only to the committee to prepare exceptions to the indemnity bill. On 9 Aug. Lord Falkland (Henry Carey) acquainted the House with the misconduct of a City constable, who had committed Bromley to gaol, ‘saying likewise he was a smart Parliament man’. He probably did not stand again, though he was recommended for the order of the Royal Oak, with an income of £1,000 p.a. He died on 30 Sept. 1670, aged 38, and was buried at Holt. His widow, who later married George Walsh, described him as ‘eminent both for his natural and acquired qualifications; for his great proficiency in the learned languages; for his compassionate humanity to the distressed; for his obliging affability in his conversation; and for his unspotted loyalty towards his Prince’.3