ASHBURNHAM, John (1656-1710)

ASHBURNHAM, John (1656–1710)

cr. 20 May 1689 Bar. ASHBURNHAM

First sat 4 June 1689; last sat 4 Feb. 1709

MP Hastings 1679 (Mar.)-1681, 1685-87

b. 15 Jan 1656, o.s. of William Ashburnham (d.1665) and Elizabeth, da. of John Poulett, 1st Bar. Poulett. educ. Eton 1668-70; Peterhouse, Camb. 1670-1; travelled abroad (France and Switzerland) 1672-4.1 m. 22 July 1677, Bridget (d. 12 May 1719), da. and h. of Walter Vaughan of Pembrey, Brec. and New Sarum, Wilts. 3s. 2da. suc. grandfa. John Ashburnham 1671, gt.-uncle William Ashburnham 1679. d. 21 Jan. 1710; will 7 Nov. 1709, pr. 6 Feb 1710.2

Dep. lt., Suss. 1685-May 1688, Brec. 1689-?d.; custos rot. Brec. 1702-d.

Associated with: Ashburnham Place, Ashburnham, E. Suss.; Ampthill, Beds.; Ashburnham Ho., Westminster; Southampton St, Bloomsbury, Mdx.

The Ashburnhams were proud to claim descent from an Anglo-Saxon family established in Sussex from before the Norman Conquest. Their landholdings in the parish of Ashburnham can be traced back to the mid-twelfth century although there was a slight hiatus in the early seventeenth century when the family lands were lost. The setback proved to be temporary and the family fortunes were revived by a remarkable pair of brothers: Ashburnham’s grandfather John and his great uncle William. As a young man Ashburnham succeeded to both their estates, thus finding himself in possession of extensive properties in Westminster, Sussex, Bedfordshire and Hampshire. His good fortune was further enhanced by his marriage to Bridget Vaughan who possessed substantial estates in the West Country and in Breconshire, which seem to have been administered until then in trust by her mother’s second husband, William Ball of Gray’s Inn.3 Ashburnham was careful to respect his wife’s interest in her patrimony. When making leases of properties that were previously hers, for example, he was always careful to do so in her name as well as his own even though he was not legally required to do so.4 Ashburnham was undoubtedly a very wealthy man. He had extensive liquid assets, finding that in March 1687 the trustees who had been administering the family estates had £20,000 ‘lying dead’ in their hands’.5 His Sussex estates alone were valued at over £2,600 per annum in 1690 and at just over £3,000 in 1703.6 Surviving inventories show that his houses were comfortably furnished with an abundance of plate and jewels and on 17 Sept. 1689 as part of the peerage’s self-assessment exercise he acknowledged possession of a personal estate of £10,000 ‘in ready money and money at interest.’7 He was still lending money in 1705, perhaps as much as £15,000 to Charles Bodville Robartes, 2nd earl of Radnor, in company with Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, and Sir Thomas Powys.8 Ashburnham also later lent substantial sums of money to Nottingham and Sir Thomas Cave, as well as to Peregrine Osborne, the future 2nd duke of Leeds.9

Ashburnham’s antecedents were decidedly royalist. His grandfather was a committed royalist who treasured a watch given to him by Charles I and he himself was a committed member of the Church of England. His family’s long residence in Sussex meant that he either knew or was related to all the leading local families: his diary for 1686-7 records social interactions with many of the leading notables.10 In later life (in the course of an argument about being double rated by the vestry of St. Margaret Westminster) he referred to the constitutional role of Parliament ‘so jealous of all oppressions, so ready to redress’.11 Perhaps the remarks were no more than heavy irony for although Ashburnham became a member of the Commons at the earliest opportunity, he appears to have taken little interest in its proceedings. His absence from the division on the first exclusion bill foreshadowed his future somewhat lacklustre opposition to the policies of James II. His surviving diaries and correspondence show that his major interest in life was the management of his estates and nurturing his financial affairs. In August 1686 he recorded without comment a report that several prominent local Catholics had sat on the bench at the assizes and that they were ‘very courteously received by the lord chief justice’.12 In January 1687 he was taken aback to learn that the Pelhams had been left out of the Sussex commission of the peace. Abortive attempts to check the accuracy of this report eventually led him to the crown office where he discovered that he had shared in the Pelhams’ disgrace.13 A half-hearted attempt to win him back to the court by using Sir John Gage to invite him to attend the king’s rising failed when Ashburnham told Gage ‘that I had nothing to say to the king but that if his majesty had any commands for me I was always ready to obey them.’ The following day Ashburnham resolved ‘not to speak with the king except he should send for me’.14 In 1686-7 Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds), listed him as a member of the opposition, possibly from personal knowledge as in May 1687 Ashburnham exchanged visits with Danby during his stay in London.15 After being absent when the three questions were first asked in Sussex, Ashburnham later returned non-committal answers and was removed from his deputy lieutenancy.16

Ashburnham supported the Revolution and was elected to the Convention. Despite his obvious distaste for the court and its policies there is little about his known activity that explains why Ashburnham should have been singled out for the reward of a peerage by William III so soon after the revolution of 1688. It has been suggested that the peerage might reflect his support for the toleration bill, or perhaps some undisclosed financial support for the new regime.17 The timing of the grant, just one month after Danby’s elevation to a marquessate certainly fuels speculation about a reward for services rendered, and it is perhaps noteworthy that his patent of creation specifically mentions his love of his country’s liberties.18

Merely a day after his writ of summons had been issued, Ashburnham took his seat in the Lords on 4 June 1689, being introduced by Charles North, 5th Baron North, and Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis. He was then present on 30 days of the session, 46 per cent of the remaining days, although he only attended six days in July and one day in August. He was named to seven committees, including the committee for privileges on 14 June. On 20 June he was named to report a conference on the bill appointing commissioners of the great seal, and to manage the subsequent conference on the 22nd. On 17 July, together with James Brydges, 8th Baron Chandos, he introduced Charles Granville, Baron Granville, into the House.

Ashburnham was present on the opening day of the 1689-90 session, 23 Oct. 1689, and attended on 69 days of the session, 95 per cent of the total, being named to 22 committees. In a list compiled between October 1689 and February 1690 Carmarthen (as Danby had become) classed him among the supporters of the court. On 11 Jan. 1690 he acted as teller in opposition to North on whether to adjourn the hearing in Fountaine v. Coke. When, on 23 Jan., the House voted to omit the words ‘declared and were and are illegal’ in the bill to restore corporations, he signed a protest in which James II’s drive against corporations was described as ‘the most horrid action that King James was guilty of during his reign’. He was present when the session of March-May 1690 began on 20 Mar., attending on 40 days, 74 per cent of the total and being named to 19 committees. He attended the prorogation of 12 Sept. 1690. He was absent when the 1690-1 session began on 2 Oct., first attending on 27 October. After 31 Oct. he did not attend until 26 Dec. 1690, being present on 14 days of the session, 19 per cent of the total. He was named to six committees. He was absent from the beginning of the 1691-2 session on 22 Oct. 1691, first sitting on 18 November. He attended on 71 days, 73 per cent of the total and was named to 28 committees. On 17 Dec. he was named to report a conference on the treason trials bill. He held the proxy of Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon, from 23 Jan. 1692 until the end of the session. On 22 Feb. 1692 he was named to report on a conference on the small tithes bill.

Ashburnham was present on the second day of the 1692-3 session, 7 Nov., attending on 89 days, 87 per cent of the total and being named to 32 committees. On 31 Dec. he voted in favour of committing the place bill and on 3 Jan. 1693 he not only voted in its favour but entered his dissent when the bill failed. His attitude to the divorce bill promoted by Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, was unclear. On 17 Jan. he entered two dissents concerning the refusal of the House to entertain the claim of Nicholas Knollys to the earldom of Banbury. Two days later he entered another pair of dissents to the refusal of the House to refer its proposed amendments to the land tax bill to the committee for privileges and then to abandon those amendments. On 4 Feb. he found Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder. On 20 Feb. he acted as teller in opposition to Louis de Duras, 2nd earl of Feversham, on a procedural motion that effectively secured the House’s agreement to the reading of the list of commissioners of lieutenancy of the City of London for 1690, together with the names of those added or omitted from the commission.

Ashburnham arrived in London on 14 Nov. 1693, a week after the 1693-4 session had begun, being absent from a call of the House on that day. He took his seat on 17 Nov. and was then present on 95 days, 74 per cent of the total and was named to 21 committees. On 22 Dec. 1693 he entered a protest against the decision not to call the judges to account over the duchess of Grafton’s case. On 16 Feb. 1694, together with John Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley of Stratton, he introduced Charles Butler, Baron Butler of Weston (commonly known as earl of Arran [I]), into the House. On 17 Feb. he voted against reversing the court of chancery’s dismission of the appeal of Ralph Montagu, earl of Montagu, in the long running Albemarle inheritance dispute. He travelled to his Ampthill estate on 22 Feb., returning to London on 2 Mar. and to the House on 5 March.19

Ashburnham paid several visits to London during the early autumn of 1694 but was absent for the whole of the 1694-5 session. He was absent from a call of the House on 26 Nov. and again on 3 Dec., when the Speaker was ordered to write to him ordering him to attend on 18 Dec.: on that day two of his servants attended to explain that Ashburnham was too ill to attend and he was accordingly excused.

Although there is virtually no evidence relating to his activities during the general election campaign of 1695 (which may be explained by his sons being some way off their majority) his involvement in other electoral conflicts suggests that he would certainly have played some part. The Ashburnhams exercised considerable influence in Hastings, and it can scarcely be coincidence that Robert Austen, the successful candidate there, was one of Ashburnham’s business partners as well as a relative of Lady Ashburnham.20 They also had influence in Breconshire and their support may have helped to secure the county for the Tory Edward Jones.

When the first session of the 1695 parliament opened on 22 Nov. 1695 Ashburnham was absent. He first sat on the fourth day of the session, 2 Dec. 1695, and after sitting 12 days in December, he was absent after 19 Dec. until 29 Feb. 1696, when he signed the Association. Yet his absence did not prevent him from keeping a careful eye on proceedings in Parliament. His correspondence with his London agent included a request for a copy of the Coinage Act, and indicates that he monitored the progress of a bill affecting his interests in the Bedford Level promoted by Arthur Herbert, earl of Torrington.21 He did not sit after 20 Mar., having attended on 24 days, 19 per cent of the total and been named to four committees. Prompted by the success of the Scots, he wrote to his banker, Sir Richard Hoare, on 15 Apr. to enquire whether an act in favour of the East India trade had any chance of passing. He feared ‘that if nothing should now be done for us in this matter very probably the trade might be quite lost to England. I am the more inquisitive in what concerns this affair because I desire my self to be concerned in it in case an act of parliament should come forth to my liking.’22 Over the summer he planned a journey to Wales, called for copies of the Coinage and Treason Trials Acts and fell ill with jaundice.23 He also became involved in an acrimonious dispute with Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, over his plans to build a private gallery for his family in Ampthill church.24

On 22 Oct. 1696 Ashburnham told Sir John Morton that having been in London for a week, he had needed a spell hunting in the country ‘to lay in health for the service of the House this winter’ and promised that ‘I shall be at Parliament before Xmas’.25 His first attendance at the 1696-7 session was on 19 Nov., having been ordered on 14 Nov. to attend by the 23rd for the proceedings over the Fenwick attainder. An additional motive for his arrival at this time was his quarrel with Ailesbury over the gallery at Ampthill, which although it had been arbitrated in his favour by Christopher Wren, still had to receive the assent of James Gardiner, bishop of Lincoln. Gardiner was expected to arrive in London on 18 Nov. when he would seek guidance from Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury.26 A further round of negotiation appears to have followed through William Lloyd, bishop of Lichfield, and Simon Patrick, bishop of Ely, as referees.27 On 2 Dec. 1696 Ashburnham was named as one of the managers of the conference on the bill remedying the ill state of the coinage. His last attendance of the session was 23 Dec., when he voted with the majority to convict Sir John Fenwick. On 4 Mar. 1697 he registered his proxy in favour of John Holles, duke of Newcastle. He had attended on 24 days of the session, 21 per cent of the total and been named to two committees. By January 1697 he was back at Ampthill and promising his and his wife’s support to Sir Edward Williams at the forthcoming by-election for Breconshire under the caveat ‘that when my son comes to be of age and that we shall desire your interest for him in the same nature in case he shall be a pretender to be chosen for the county ... you will be as cheerful and ready to promote his election as we now are to ascertain yours.’28 Somewhat oddly considering that Williams was a Welshman aiming for a Welsh seat, Ashburnham also declared that he believed Williams to be ‘a good Englishman and one of good sense and capable to serve his country, and such are the persons that ought only to be elected.’29 Ashburnham also backed Williams in 1698, when Sir Rowland Gwynne won the seat, and then endorsed Gwynne in 1701. He then backed the victorious John Jeffreys in 1702, and seemed willing to back Williams in 1705, if Jeffreys would not stand.30

Ashburnham attended the prorogation on 23 Nov. 1697 and was present when the session opened on 3 December. He attended regularly until 9 Feb. 1698 and then absented himself for the rest of the session, apart from two days early in June. He attended 34 days in all, 26 per cent of the total and was named to 12 committees. On 3 Dec. 1698, just prior to the meeting of the new Parliament, Ashburnham asked his London man of business, James MacBurnye, to send him pamphlets on the standing army controversy ‘for my diversion in the country’.31 He was present on the second day of the 1698-9 session, 9 Dec., and last attended on the penultimate day of the session, 3 May, but these were rare attendances as, in total, he managed only 17 days, 21 per cent of the total. He was named to six committees including that to draw the address on the king’s speech (20 December). On 13 Mar. 1699 he was one of the peers ordered to be written to in order to attend the trial of Edward Rich, 6th earl of Warwick, which was scheduled for 28 March. He was present on that day and on the following day for the trial of Lord Mohun. Ashburnham’s absence between 23 Feb. and 28 Mar. may perhaps be explained by his comment on 23 Mar. to Whitelocke Bulstrode, on his ‘being up and down in Wales, Bedfordshire, Sussex and Middlesex’.32

During the 1699-1700 session Ashburnham was present a mere three days, 4 per cent of the total. On two of those days the business of the House included debate over the attempt of Thomas Watson, bishop of St Davids, to resume privilege in his fight against removal from office. On 4 Dec. 1699 Ashburnham was named to the committee to consider matters of procedure concerning the attorney general’s submission on the Watson case (his only committee during the session). Ashburnham wrote to Charles Davenant on 17 Feb. 1700, apologizing for not committing himself on the issue of continuing the East India Company as a corporation, which was before the House.33

Although not noted in the attendance list, Ashburnham was present on the opening day of the next Parliament, 10 Feb. 1701 to take the oaths and be nominated to the committees for privileges and the journal. He was then present nearly every day until 22 Feb., but he was absent for the whole of March, not returning to the House until 1 Apr. when he was named to the committee to consider precedents for the impeachment of the Whig lords. He attended fairly regularly through the first two weeks of April, entering a dissent on 16 Apr. to the decision to ask the king not to pass censure on the impeached lords whilst the impeachments were depending. His final attendance of the session was on 25 Apr., a full eight weeks before the prorogation. He attended for 18 days in all, 17 per cent of the total.

In December 1700, Ashburnham had backed the candidature of Edward Southwell at Hastings, as part of scheme whereby one of the sitting Members would come in at Lewes.34 This may have been a device to keep a seat warm for his son, William Ashburnham, the future 2nd Baron Ashburnham, who had recently come of age. Following the dissolution on 11 Nov. 1701, Ashburnham recommended his son, William, to Hastings, referring to his ‘stake in our English hedge’, and added on 5 Dec. the general observation that for England to be ‘settled and made happy, it must be done by councils of such who love their country and value their estates beyond anything else of any consideration whatsoever’.35 Shockingly, at least to Ashburnham, the electors of Hastings chose instead John Mounscher, a Portsmouth ‘ropemaker’, described by Ashburnham as ‘a fellow that I believe such an one has not sat in the House of Commons since the Conquest, and that’s a bold word’. Ashburnham also sought to influence the Bedfordshire county poll, instructing to his agent in November ‘I would have you go round to such of my tenants as are freeholders’ in order to acquaint them ‘that I shall take it very well if they all appear and vote for my Lord Edward Russell and Sir William Gostwick on the election day as they all were so kind to do the last Parliament’.36

Ashburnham was absent from the opening of the 1701-2 session, first attending on 5 Jan. 1702, when he took the oaths, but he may have been present on 1 Jan. when the Journal recorded his signature to the address concerning the Pretender being owned by France (although he may have signed it later). He was recorded as present on 63 days, 63 per cent of the total and was named to 20 committees. On 6 Feb. he was also named as one of the managers of the conference with the Commons on the bill to attaint the Pretender. Afterwards he was named to the committee to inspect precedents for adding clauses to such a bill, in order to provide reasons for insisting on their amendments, and as such was named to the conference on the 10th. On 27 Apr. he acted as a teller in opposition to John Jeffreys, 2nd Baron Jeffreys, on whether to adjourn in the case of Ranger v. Ashmeade.

During the summer of 1702 Ashburnham was appointed custos rotulorum of Breconshire. He appears to have believed that this would allow him to replace the clerk of the peace with a candidate of his own choosing but, on taking legal advice, soon discovered that he was wrong.37 Although he secured the election of his son at Hastings, ‘with a general voice’, Southwell reported as to the second seat that ‘those who were there concluded if my Lord Ashburnham had proposed me or any other at the time of election, he would have lost it’.38 Ashburnham also expended considerable time in support of Southwell at Rye, strengthening his position sufficiently for him to be seated on petition in December 1702.39

Ashburnham first attended the 1702-3 session on 27 Oct. 1702, when he took the oaths. On 9 Nov. he was named to the committee to draw up the address to the queen on the recovery of Prince George, and later he acted as a teller in opposition to Charles Bennet, 2nd Baron Ossulston, on whether to adjourn the House for a thanksgiving service at St Paul’s. After 19 Nov. he did not attend until the House resumed after Christmas on 7 Jan. 1703, sending a proxy up to Nottingham on 9 December.40 In January 1703 Nottingham forecast that Ashburnham would support the bill against occasional conformity, and on 16 Jan. he voted against adhering to the Lords’ wrecking amendment to the penalty clauses of the bill. In all, he was present on 40 days of the session, 47 per cent of the total.

Ashburnham attended the prorogation of 4 Nov. 1703 and was present when the next (1703-5) session opened on 9 November. During the session he was present on 49 days, 50 per cent of the total and was named to 23 committees. According to both assessments of Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, in November 1703, he was again expected to support the bill to prevent occasional conformity and voted in its favour on 14 Dec. 1703. Nottingham included him on a list of members of both Houses he drew up in 1704 which perhaps indicates support over the ‘Scotch Plot’. He was absent from the beginning of the 1704-5 session on 24 Oct. 1704 and attended only between 9 and 13 Nov. 1704, four days in total. He then entered a proxy on 14 Nov. in favour of Nottingham which remained in force for the remainder of the session. He was absent from a call of the House on 23 Nov. 1704. It was probably his name (rather than that of Hugh Cholmondeley, Baron Cholmondeley) which was marked on what seems to have been a list, compiled in November 1704, of supporters of the tack. In April 1705 he was listed as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession.

Despite his inactivity in Parliament, Ashburnham was careful to keep his Hastings clients happy, acting as intermediary between the town and the admiralty in April 1705 in order to obtain protection and convoys for the townsmen during the mackerel fishing season and assuring them that whatever ‘you think fit to entrust to my affectionate care and concern for the good of your town shall be always performed to the best of my skill’.41 His son was re-elected for Hastings on 12 May 1705, with the help of Ashburnham, who on 7 May began his journey into Sussex as an ‘absolute necessity’, and three days later fired off from Ashburnham some legal advice to the mayor of Hastings about his duties in the election.42 On 21 May Ashburnham seemed to be coordinating the travel arrangements for a party of freeholders to accompany his son to the county poll in support of General Henry Lumley and Sir George Parker, and wrote personally to Lumley’s brother, Richard Lumley, earl of Scarbrough, of his efforts in the election. The election over, he decamped to Bedfordshire.43

Ashburnham may have been somewhat distracted during this period by his son’s marriage in October 1705. This brought a considerable estate ‘lying in sight from the windows of my house in this country’ near Ampthill into the family.44 Unfortunately, it also brought an attendant dispute over the marriage settlement, particularly concerning which lands had been settled on his son, and which were part of his son’s mother-in-law’s jointure lands. He seems to have been delighted with his new daughter-in-law, but he was appalled by her mother’s financial laxity and did not hesitate to sour relations by making his views known and demanding interest for late payment.45 Although Ashburnham was present on the opening day of the 1705 Parliament, 25 Oct. 1705, he then left London, and was absent until 22 Nov., his only other appearance before the Christmas recess.46 He kept his eye on legislation, asking his London man of business, Martin Folkes, on 7 Dec. whether Sir Thomas Cave’s estate bill would affect the security of his loan.47 However, he was present when the House resumed on 8 Jan. 1706 and sat regularly until 21 February. Although he was not listed as being appointed to the committee for a bill to naturalize William Lewis Le Grand on 14 Jan., he chaired the committee on the 15th and reported it to the House later that day.48 Thereafter he sat for five days in March, the last being 9 Mar., on which day he entered a protest to the decision of the House to agree with the Commons that Sir Rowland Gwynne’s&dagger pamphlet, A Letter to Stamford was a scandalous, false and malicious libel. In all he attended on 33 days, 35 per cent of the total. By 23 Mar. 1706 he was at Ampthill.49

Although Ashburnham had announced from Ampthill on 23 Nov. 1706 his intention of being at the opening of the 1706-7 session on 3 Dec., he missed the opening few days, first attending on 9 December.50 He then managed only two more days before Christmas. He was delayed on his return to Westminster after the Christmas recess, arriving at Westminster by 25 Jan. 1707.51 He sat for nine days at the end of January and beginning of February. On 3 Feb. he entered a dissent to the failure of the House to insist on making the Test Act perpetual and unalterable and a fundamental condition of union with Scotland. He sat again for four consecutive sitting days 15-19 March. He last sat on 19 Mar., having been present on 16 days, 19 per cent of the total. He did not attend the brief session of April 1707 session. He was missing on the opening two days of the 1707-8 session in October but was present when the sessional committees were appointed on 6 November. He sat for nine days in November and on 11 Mar. 1708, 9 per cent of the total. Although some of his earlier activity in the Lords indicated Whiggish (or perhaps country) sympathies, by May 1708 his party allegiances were far clearer and he was unsurprisingly listed as a Tory. Ashburnham’s only appearances in the 1708-9 session were 3 and 4 Feb. 1709.

By mid April 1709, it was reported that Ashburnham had been ‘above three months in a consumptive, dropsy and asthma with a hectic fever.’52 He drew up a will in November 1709, a careful and detailed document. He appointed Southwell, Hoare, Sir John Osborne and Richard Webb of the Inner Temple as trustees for his son and heir, William. He left £10,000 and £8,000 respectively to his two younger sons, provided portions of £5,000 apiece for his two daughters and made generous provision for his widow. He also made exceptionally liberal provision for friends, servants and the poor. He died on 21 Jan. 1710, ‘after a lingering and tedious sickness’, at his house in Bloomsbury, ‘the master of a very plentiful estate, the bulk of which, together with his title’ went to his son, William and then to his second son, John Ashburnham, the 3rd Baron Ashburnham.53


  • 1 E. Suss. RO, ASH 3994.
  • 2 TNA, PROB 11/514.
  • 3 ASH 4168, 4170.
  • 4 ASH 845, Ashburnham to Lanion, 13 July 1705.
  • 5 BIHR, lx. 65.
  • 6 Ibid. 77n.
  • 7 ASH 2759; Chatsworth, Halifax collection B25.
  • 8 ASH 845, Ashburnham to Hoare, 2 Apr., 7 June, 10 Nov. 1705; same to T. Gibson, 6 Apr., 7 May 1705; same to M. Folkes, 5 Dec. 1705.
  • 9 Ibid. Ashburnham to Nottingham, 28 Aug. 1705; ASH 846, same to Hoare, 16 Jan. 1706; Add. 28041, ff. 4, 21.
  • 10 ASH 931-2.
  • 11 ASH 840, Ashburnham to MacBurnye, 22 Jan. 1695[-6].
  • 12 ASH 931, 10 Aug. 1686.
  • 13 ASH 932, 7, 12 and 17 Jan. 1687.
  • 14 Ibid. 2 and 3 Feb. 1687.
  • 15 Browning, Danby, iii. 157; ASH 932, 18 May 1687.
  • 16 Duckett, Penal Laws, 188, 193.
  • 17 HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 354; BIHR, lx. 66n.
  • 18 ASH 780.
  • 19 ASH 975.
  • 20 HP Commons, 1690-1715, iii. 94.
  • 21 ASH 840, Asburnham to MacBurnye, 15, 24, 29 Jan. 1695[-6].
  • 22 Ibid. Ashburnham to Hoare, 15 Apr. 1696.
  • 23 Ibid. Ashburnham to Hoare, 2, 5 May 1696; same to Mr Jones, 18 June 1696; same to W. Vaughan, 29 June 1696.
  • 24 Ibid. Ashburnham to B. Fairfax, 10, 15 Oct. 1696.
  • 25 Ibid. Ashburnham to Morton, 22 Oct. 1696.
  • 26 Ibid. Ashburnham to Canterbury, 19 Oct., 5 Nov. 1696; same to bishop of Lincoln, 27, 30 Oct. 1696; same to A. Cunningham, 10 Nov. 1696.
  • 27 Ibid. Ashburnham to bishop of Ely, 3 Feb. 1697; same to Cunningham, 11 Feb. 1696[-7].
  • 28 Ibid. Ashburnham to Williams, 2, 9 Jan. 1696[-7].
  • 29 Ibid. Ashburnham to Vaughan, 16 Jan. 1696[-7].
  • 30 HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 789; ASH 845, 29 Mar., 15 Apr. 1705.
  • 31 BIHR, lx. 70.
  • 32 Ibid. 69.
  • 33 Ibid. 70n.
  • 34 HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 761.
  • 35 Holmes, Pols. in Age of Anne, 163.
  • 36 W.A. Speck, Tory and Whig, 4, 26.
  • 37 ASH 3205.
  • 38 Add. 29588, f. 103.
  • 39 HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 761-2, 769-70.
  • 40 BIHR, lx. 66n.
  • 41 ASH 845, Ashburnham to mayor and jurats of Hastings, 3, 7 Apr. 1705; same to Burchett, 4 Apr. 1705.
  • 42 Ibid. Ashburnham to John Lanyon 7 May 1705; same to mayor of Hastings, 10 May 1705.
  • 43 Ibid. Ashburnham to Samuel Roberts, 21, 28 May 1705; same to Scarbrough, 21 May 1705.
  • 44 Ibid. Ashburnham to Sir R. Guildeford, 23 Oct. 1705.
  • 45 ASH 846, Ashburnham to Mrs. Taylor, 2 Jan., 18 Feb. 1705[-6], 30 May 1706.
  • 46 ASH 845, Ashburnham to Mr Bedingfield, 10 Nov. 1705.
  • 47 Ibid. Ashburnham to Folkes, 7 Dec. 1705.
  • 48 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/7, p. 118.
  • 49 ASH 846, Ashburnham to Sir T. Powys, 23 Mar. 1705[-6].
  • 50 Ibid. Ashburnham to R. Savage, 23 Nov. 1706.
  • 51 Ibid. Ashburnham to J. Hanbury, 21 Jan. 1706[-7]; same to Nottingham, 25 Jan. 1706[-7].
  • 52 NAS, GD73/1/34(g).
  • 53 Post Boy, 21-24 Jan. 1710.