| Constituency | Dates |
|---|---|
| Wootton Bassett | 1450 |
In the sheriff’s schedule recording the names of those returned for the Wiltshire boroughs, the name of Alexander Appleby has been asserted over an erasure as one of the MPs for the recently-enfranchised borough of Wootton Bassett.1 C219/16/1. There is an obvious context for his election: Richard, duke of York, recently returned from Ireland, was lord of the borough and, as evidence from other constituencies shows, was active in securing the election of his adherents to the forthcoming Parliament. It thus seems probable that Appleby was elected as one of the duke’s servants, but, if so, that service has left no trace on the records.
Nor can Appleby be securely identified. Only one candidate presents himself and all that is known of him relates to a later period. This Alexander was head of one of the principal families of Carlisle. He does not appear in the records until 10 Sept. 1470, when, described as ‘of Carlisle, gentleman’, he received a general pardon with 200 others of the north country for involvement in the rising in favour of the Nevilles in the previous July. He may have been drawn into involvement by the constable of Carlisle castle, Richard Salkeld†, one of the leaders of the Neville retinue in Cumberland.2 CPR, 1467-77, p. 214.
While, however, it is possible that this Appleby was the MP of 20 years before, it is unlikely that the MP is to be identified with the namesake active in Henry VII’s reign. That Alexander fought against the King at the battle of Stoke on 24 June 1487, perhaps as a servant of Sir Thomas Broughton of Broughton-in-Furness (Cumberland), who had encouraged the Simnel rebels to land on the Furness peninsular. In May 1488 he was pardoned and then showed his gratitude by indenting to serve in the 1492 expedition to France.3 PROME, xv. 361-2; P. Booth, ‘Landed Soc. in Cumb. and Westmld.’ (Leicester Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1997), 259; Materials for Hist. Hen. VII ed. Campbell, ii. 249; E101/72/4/1106. These later references weaken rather than strengthen the case for identifying the MP with the rebel of 1470, and, on balance, the MP remains effectively unidentified.