By this period Ludgershall had long lost its medieval importance. Its eleventh century castle was already ruinous, its market was small, and although there were clothworkers living in the town, its economy was predominantly agricultural. VCH Wilts. xv. 119, 121, 128. Situated at the eastern edge of Salisbury plain on a road from Marlborough to Winchester, it was separated from the textile centres of north west Wiltshire and of Salisbury itself, the nearest large town being Andover, over the border in Hampshire. VCH Wilts. xv. 119.
Traditionally the borough was governed by the castle bailiff, but although he could serve for a long time (from 1597 to 1611 in one case), and thus might be expected to wield continuing and unchallenged authority, in practice the unfounded claims of inhabitants to incorporation held good. In the early decades of the seventeenth century not only a bailiff but also two constables and two aldermen were appointed at court leet; in 1640 there was a mayor. VCH Wilts. xv. 129; C219/43, pt. iii, no. 7/127. Changing structures may have been facilitated by something of a power vacuum: the lords of the manor, the Brownes, were non-resident recusants. VCH Wilts. xv. 130, 132. There was evolution also in the franchise. The borough sent two Members to Parliament intermittently from 1295 and regularly from 1421. From 1625 the number of voters increased from the previous dozen, first to more than 20 and then to over 35 in October 1640; those involved were variously designated as burgesses, freeholders and inhabitants. VCH Wilts. xv. 129-30; ‘Ludgershall’, HP Commons 1604-1629; C219/42, pt. ii, no. 58; C219/43, pt. iii, no. 7/127. This was probably a relatively large percentage of the adult male population: the Compton census of 1676 recorded 488 conformist heads of household and five papists. Compton Census, 124.
Although outsiders had occasionally been elected to Parliament in the early seventeenth century – the most prominent being John Selden* – the majority had had some connection with the borough. HP Commons 1604-1629. This practice continued. William Ashbournham* and Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire*, who were returned both in March and October 1640, resided nearby. While the former was born in Surrey and had spent the 1620s soldiering on the continent, he had settled at Tidworth, less than three miles away, on his marriage to the widowed countess of Marlborough, and had leases in Chute forest, just north of the town. The latter was lord of the manor of Everleigh, four and a half miles away, as well as of West Dean, where he lived. Ashbournham had court connections and Evelyn did not, but the pair had worked together on the commission of the peace in the 1630s and were both associated with Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland. At least at the outset, therefore, their relationship may have been co-operative. Even in the summer of 1641 Evelyn, by that time a relentless pursuer in the Commons of some court supporters, took no visible part in the prosecution of Ashbournham for his part in the ‘army plot’, which allegedly involved taking an oath to promote the king and the bishops.
Following Asbournham’s exclusion from the House on 9 December 1641, a writ for a new election was issued the next day. CJ ii. 333a, 337a; D’Ewes (C), 239, 258-9; C231/5, p. 493; CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 493. The sheriff must have acted promptly: the new Member received a committee nomination on 27 December. CJ ii. 358b. The successful candidate, Walter Long*, had been waiting in the wings for just such an opportunity and, since he was not only a Wiltshireman but also a former brother-in-law of Evelyn, this perhaps seemed ideal. However, his stature as a sufferer from the crown’s retaliation on those who had opposed it in the 1628 Parliament may have counted for at least as much in his election as his relationship with Evelyn. Once Long was in the House the pair followed divergent political trajectories.
Indeed, in the short term there are signs that Ashbournham had a lingering influence in the area and connection with Evelyn. In the early spring of 1642, before leaving Wiltshire to join the king at York, he was delegated to discharge magistracy business in the area with Evelyn. Western Circuit Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 224, 231. Until February he may well have had support from the pulpit: the rector of Ludgershall, who died that month, was Bartholomew Parsons, ‘an enthusiastic exponent of the divine right of kings’. ‘Bartholomew Parsons’, Oxford DNB. Parsons’ successor, Andrew Reade, was said to have taken the royalist oath of association at the hearing which led to his deprivation, and even Henry Cusse, the minister who replaced him in 1646 and who signed the Presbyterian Testimony in 1648, had been first licensed to preach in 1638 in Ashbournham’s home parish. Walker Revised, 379; Calamy Revised, 155.
As a political Presbyterian Walter Long was one of the ‘Eleven Members’ impeached in 1647 following the failure of the coup. The fluid political situation meant that it was not until 23 March 1648 that the Speaker was ordered to sign the warrant for a writ for another by-election at Ludgershall, and it was another three weeks before it was actually issued. CJ ii. 512a; C231/6, p. 112. No conclusive action appears to have been taken locally before Long’s disablement was finally withdrawn on 19 June. CJ v. 584a, 589b, 593b, 599b, 605b.
Long was already recorded as absent from Parliament before Pride’s Purge and Evelyn did not sit after it. The borough was not enfranchised again until the third protectorate Parliament, to which there is no evidence that either sought election. Commissioners of the great seal Bulstrode Whitelocke* and Nathaniel Fiennes I* eventually succeeded in getting their nominees returned on 13 January 1649, but not without opposition from the sheriff, Isaac Burges of Marlborough. One of the final victors, James Dewy II*, the commissioners’ clerk – a Hampshire-born lawyer and a kinsman of Evelyn and another former Wiltshire Member, William Wheler* – informed Whitelocke of this difficulty on 30 December, although only in relation to the candidature of his partner. Whitelocke, Diary, 503. This was Richard Sherwyn*, a treasury official, Westminster resident and protégé of Sir Robert Pye I*, whose tenuous connection with Wiltshire at this point consisted in holding a share of land at Marlborough. This election may have been controversial with the voters too: although the indenture lists many burgesses, there appear to be less than ten signatures, of which the majority are marks. C219/48. As it was, Sherwyn was also returned for Westminster and although he attended, it is not known which seat he waived; there is no record of a further election writ. Neither he nor Dewy took any visible action to promote Ludgershall interests, but there is no evidence that the record of Long and Evelyn, who returned promptly to the recalled Long Parliament in February 1660, was much better. Evelyn survived a double return to sit again in the Convention, while Ashbournham was elected in 1661, but in a context where the Brownes were able to reassert their earlier influence, neither Evelyns nor Ashburnhams were chosen for the borough thereafter.
