ASHBURNHAM, John (1602-71), of Westover, Hants, Whitehall, Westminster, and Ashburnham Place, Suss.

The Ashburnham family lived in the parish from which they took their name from at least the twelfth century; one John Ashburnham† first sat as Member for Sussex in 1397.42HP Commons 1386-1421. However, the family’s fortunes were dissipated by our MP’s father, who died in the Fleet prison, having sold the Ashburnham estate.43Ashburnham Archives, p. v. The career of John Ashburnham junior flourished perhaps partly because of the credit gained by his kinsman John Ashburnham of Broomham, who was knighted in 1625 for his long service to Elizabeth Stuart, queen of Bohemia, and who continued as a member of her household into the 1630s.44Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 189; HMC 4th Rep. 311; SP84/139, ff. 10-10v; 140, ff. 182-183v; 141, ff. 175-175v; 142, ff. 68-68v. However, his success stemmed principally from his mother’s position in the household of Queen Anne of Denmark, and her kinship with George Villiers, 1st marquess and later 1st duke of Buckingham.45SO3/8, unfol. From 1624 the future Member rose in the service of Buckingham, accompanying him abroad, representing him in Paris and The Hague (1627), acting as a commissary for the expeditions to the Ile de Ré and La Rochelle, and managing his entourage, becoming a close colleague and friend of Edward Nicholas†, the future secretary of state.46R. Lockyer, Buckingham (1981), 358, 382, 393-4; CSP Ven. 1626-8, pp. 134, 393, 416-7, 431, 468, 480; CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 260, 295, 352, 359, 362, 365, 372-3, 404, 405-6, 407, 409; 1625-1649, p. 277; SP78/82, ff. 16-17. Returned as a Member for Hastings to the Parliament of 1628 on the duke’s interest as lord warden of the Cinque Ports, Ashburnham faithfully defended his master against the attacks on the royal favourite, although he was otherwise little in evidence.47CD 1628, iv. 125-6; HP Commons 1604-1629.

Following the prorogation of Parliament, in early August Ashburnham prepared to depart with Buckingham for La Rochelle by drawing up his will, which revealed a £2,000 investment in Ireland in the hands of Richard Lumley, the newly created 1st Viscount Lumley, money owing to him from several courtiers and a diamond worth £400 which he left to Nicholas, but the cumulative value of this was almost cancelled out by numerous debts and obligations (some incurred with Nicholas). Describing his estate as ‘decayed’, he could make no direct provision for his brother William and sister Elizabeth, but invoked Buckingham’s aid to oversee its recovery.48CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 248; SP16/112, ff. 54-55v. The latter’s assassination at Portsmouth shortly afterwards meant that it was Ashburnham who assisted in settling Buckingham’s estate.49CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 506.

Deprived of his patron, he soon benefited from the king’s largesse. As early as late October ‘Jack’ Ashburnham was sworn groom of the bedchamber.50Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 1. Royal favour brought accretions to his income, including the fine imposed on Walter Long* for his part in the 1629 parliamentary session (and perhaps in Ashburnham’s view, for his attacks on Buckingham), and a gift of £1,300 from the king in May 1630.51CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 409. In the meantime he made an advantageous marriage to Viscount Lumley’s stepdaughter, gaining, as he later acknowledged, ‘a great fortune’.52Hants. Mar. Lic. 67; SP16/485, f. 102. In the 1630s he was a founder member of the Society of Fishing, and was involved in a number of other financial schemes, some of them with Nicholas.53CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 378, 510-11; 1635-6, p. 532; 1637, pp. 79, 119; 1637-8, p. 562; 1638-9, pp. 375, 439. Helped by the privy council, he recouped some of his debts, and following protracted negotiations was able in 1639 to regain control of the ancestral Ashburnham estate.54CSP Dom. 1633-4, pp. 17, 300; 1639-40, p. 187; SP6/251, f. 65; PC2/47, f. 204; C54/3212/19; C54/3148/31; C54/3153/8; C54/3077/17; C66/2859/109; C66/2882/33.

During the personal rule of Charles I there is little indication that Ashburnham was either a political player at court or (in contrast to his brother William) a figure of standing in his locality, although he remained close to Nicholas (‘my dearest friend’) and at his home at Westover, Hampshire, socialized with the leading gentleman Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire*.55CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 378; 1636–1637, p. 488 Apparently aloof from the intrigues of some courtiers, he commented disdainfully on the conversion to Catholicism of Walter Montague (saying ‘sure the devil rides him’).56CSP Dom. 1635, p. 512; SP16/302, f. 230. In February 1639 he expressed sorrow at the rebelliousness of the Scots, but hoped he would not be called on to journey to the north with the king’s army.57CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 480, 503; SP16/413, f. 61.

Nevertheless, by the spring of 1640 he was prepared to play a more active role. In March he sought to reprise his role of 1627-8 and obtain the post of ‘provider’ for the army. He recognised ‘the pains that is required to the honest execution of that place’, but whereas Nicholas was ‘careful’ in advancing his candidacy, others were less helpful.58SP16/447, ff. 23, 163. In advance of the parliamentary elections, he was promoted by the lord warden of the Cinque Ports (at this point, Theophilus Howard, 1st earl of Suffolk) as a candidate at Hastings, alongside another, more controversial, court candidate, Robert Reade*, nephew and secretary of Sir Francis Windebanke*. But when it became clear that, in a four-cornered contest, at least one of them was likely to be squeezed out, John White I*, secretary to the earl of Dorset (Sir Edward Sackville†), who supported Reade, gave burgesses a strong disincentive to elect Ashburnham by telling them that the latter was about to depart with the army for Scotland. As Ashburnham admitted in recounting this to Nicholas, he had ‘nothing to blame but my own negligence in looking after it’, alongside the ‘impertinencies and over-busyness’ of White. He had assured local gentry like Sir Thomas Pelham*, who were inclined to contest the outcome of the poll, that Reade himself was not at fault: the latter ‘was (without doubt) abused, his discretion being far greater than to commit such follies as those’, although Ashburnham did concede that, ‘were he not my friend, I should question his election myself’.59SP16/449, f. 86. Resigned to observing from the sidelines what became the Short Parliament, Ashburnham hoped that it would ‘not come short in their compliments to the king’, but would follow the example of Ireland, where the Parliament had granted four subsidies.60SP16/450, f. 174.

By the autumn, when Reade’s bid for re-election looked less sustainable, Ashburnham probably made greater efforts to ensure that he was returned at Hastings, where he doubtless received support from the new lord warden, Buckingham’s son-in-law James Stuart, 1st duke of Richmond.61Hastings Museum, Hastings, C/A(a)2, f. 89. Duly returned, Ashburnham later claimed to have been ‘no inactive member’.62Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 2. Since his brother William Ashbournham was also elected (for a Wiltshire seat), there is a capacity for confusion, but it seems that the latter was usually referred to as ‘Colonel Ashburnham’, while John was simply ‘Mr Ashburnham’.

With William probably absent in service for the first two weeks of the session, John rapidly assumed a certain prominence, being appointed to a conference with the Lords on breach of privilege (10 Nov.), and to committees investigating returns made by blank indentures (14 Nov.) and the case of the monopolist William Watkins* (16 Nov.).63CJ ii. 25b, 29a, 30a. On 21 November, when Colonel Ashbournham was named with other officers to review the state of the army in the north, both brothers pledged £1,000 towards the loan for the defence of the kingdom.64CJ ii. 34a; Procs. LP i. 228-9, 236. While William apparently concentrated on military matters, it was almost certainly John who was nominated to realize his hopes of the spring and prepare a bill of supply (4 Dec.).65CJ ii. 45a. The same day it was probably he who was added to the committee investigating the dispute over the demolition of the church of St Gregory by St Paul’s, London: on the evidence of his letters to Nicholas, he was a moderately pious man, scornful of the pretensions of Archbishop William Laud’s friend Dr Richard Baylie, dean of Salisbury, whom he had found ‘more like a cardinal than a meaner prelate’.66CJ ii. 44b; SP16/449, f. 86. Probably also the Ashburnham appointed to examine abuses by those involved in collecting coat and conduct money (14 Dec.), he was almost certainly the brother named to consider the breaches of privilege in 1628 and 1640, and the associated proceedings against – among others – Walter Long, from whose estate he had himself profited (18 Dec.).67CJ ii. 50b, 53b. However, on 21 December he was given leave to go to the country because his wife was reported to be ‘lying a dying’.68CJ ii. 55b.

Mistress Ashburnham did not die, but her husband did not reappear in the Journal until 17 February 1641, when he was named to a committee to consider the bill for confirmation of letters patent granted to the queen.69CJ ii. 87b. In the next four weeks he received up to five further nominations, dealing with a range of business including measures against trials by battle (11 Mar.) and usury (19 Mar.).70CJ ii. 101a, 108a. Appointments to investigate customs farmers (24 Feb.) and to enable the sale of land which had belonged to the late Thomas Finch†, 2nd earl of Winchelsea (27 Feb.), may have reflected particular personal interests: the latter involved Sussex matters and the former bore some relation to the patent he had received in January 1640 to export corn through Chichester.71CJ ii. 92a, 94a; SP16/441, f. 264. Ashburnham was also twice a teller. His land dealings and social connections in Wiltshire doubtless formed a context for his marshalling of the majority (according to the diarists, whose account appears more accurate than that of the clerk) who supported the resolution of the election dispute at Salisbury in favour of Robert Hyde*, the recorder, and Michael Oldisworth* (3 Mar.), man of business to Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke, the lord chamberlain.72CJ ii. 95b; Procs. LP ii. 613, 618. Both were well known to him there and at court, and Hyde at least had earned his approbation in the past, although an oblique comment in one of his letters to Nicholas about ‘Long Phil’ and the man who facilitated his action suggests that he had little time for Oldisworth and Pembroke, if they indeed were meant.73SP16/449, f. 86. Still, the rival, godly candidates, John Dove* and John Ivie were probably even less to his taste. More straightforward is his stance on 5 March, when he was as teller with his brother-in-law, Sir Frederick Cornwallis*, for the minority who wished to vote on a proposal (made by Thomas Howard, 21st or 14th earl of Arundel) which would effectively have sent the Scottish army out of England – thus removing the buttress which guaranteed the continuance of the Parliament at Westminster, and thereby pleasing the king.74CJ ii. 97a; Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, 200.

On 19 March Ashburnham was placed on the committee deputed to identify how a deputation from the Commons might be accommodated at the trial in the Lords of Thomas Wentworth†, 1st earl of Strafford, the king’s chief minister in Ireland – which as a gentleman of the bedchamber he is likely to have opposed.75CJ ii. 107b. Three days earlier the counsel for Walter Long, Matthew Hale* (not then a Member), had argued before the committee for privileges that Ashburnham had acted unscrupulously in pursuit of his (‘unjust’) claim on Long’s estate, and that he in particular should make reparations for Long’s sufferings.76Procs. LP ii. 769-70. These experiences may help to explain why he then disappeared from the Journal until 3 May, when he took the Protestation, being listed with his brother and his brother’s colleagues Commissary John Wilmot* and Captain Hugh Pollarde*.77CJ ii. 133a. These men had already been noticed expressing their discontent over arrears in army pay – a disaffection that conceivably communicated itself to John Ashburnham – but the unfolding revelations over the summer of their involvement in the ‘army plot’ may have both heightened suspicions of him and encouraged him to keep a low profile in the House. He surfaced only when he was granted permission to attend ongoing proceedings regarding Long’s fine (30 June 1641) and to present a petition from his brother and Wilmot requesting bail (8 July).78CJ ii. 194a-b; Procs. LP v. 420, 427-8, 434, 564.

Over the rest of the summer and autumn there is no sign of Ashburnham at Westminster. Around October, seriously ill and near death, he made another will, naming his wife as executrix, and William Ashbournham and Edward Nicholas as overseers, but had recovered by 15 December.79SP16/485, f. 102; SP16/487, f. 41; Then he was a teller with Sir John Culpeper* for the minority who tried to block a vote on the printing of the Grand Remonstrance.80CJ ii. 344b It was his last recorded appearance in the Commons, and he may have left London with the king in January 1642.

On 18 April 1642 the Commons ordered Ashburnham and another courtier, Endymion Porter*, to attend the House.81CJ ii. 533a. The king’s response, in a letter of 2 May, was that he needed their presence in York, and indeed Ashburnham had become treasurer of the royal household by 1 April.82SP16/490, f. 66; Docquets of Letters Patent ed. Black, 273. On 6 May the House summoned him and Porter to attend before 16 May, on pain of contempt.83CJ ii. 560b; HMC 5th Rep. 178. When this was ignored, the Commons backed away from a proposal that they should be considered delinquents (30 May).84CJ ii. 594b. An order for their arrest by the serjeant-at-arms was issued on 9 June, but was not implemented; they were among those recorded as absent at a call of the House a week later.85CJ ii. 614b, 626.

By this time Ashburnham had attained a position of importance within Charles’s circle of advisers at York which went beyond his financial role. He was entrusted with delivering to Edward Hyde* a copy of the parliamentary declaration of 26 May regarding control of the armed forces, in order that it might be answered.86Clarendon, Life (1827), i. 138-9. His brother William, who briefly joined him at York, was the ‘Mr Ashburnham’ (and ‘Colonel Ashburnham’) whose subsequent movements in company with Wilmot and others came to the attention of Parliament in early July.87CJ ii. 651b, 653b; LJ v. 169b, 181b-182a, 197a, 205b. However, it was apparently John whom the Lords learned on 10 September had arrived in London ‘with a message from his majesty, and hath been in town since yesterday’; they ordered his arrest, presumably concerned at his intentions, but once again seem to have failed to secure his person.88LJ v. 346a.

By late January 1643, if not before, Ashburnham was attending Charles in Oxford.89Docquets of Letters Patent ed. Black, 2, 352. The financial responsibilities he continued to discharge were formalised as the role of treasurer at war on 14 November, and he was an integral member of the council of war.90Docquets of Letters Patent ed. Black, 273, 368; SO3/12, ff. 223, 241v; SO3/13, unfol.; CCSP i. 243; CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 132, 135, 161; 1644-5, p. 531; 1645-7, p. 51; C231/3, p. 156; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. appendix, pp. ix-xxxix; E. Suss. RO, ASH 2559; Harl. 6852, ff. 39, 48, 51, 145, 189-90, 201-4, 210-11, 224-5, 228, 233, 238, 245, 251, 254, 264. He also sat in the Oxford Parliament.91Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 574. His duties included army pay, secret service and arms procurement, while he kept Prince Rupert informed of news from Oxford and made personal loans to the king.92SO3/12, ff. 223, 241v, 260; CCSP i. 245; Preston Manor, Brighton, Thomas-Stanford MSS, L/LA/2-3, 5; HMC 9th Rep. 434-5, 437; Add. 18981, f. 13; CSP Dom. 1644, p. 69; SP16/498, ff. 21v-22. In April 1646 he was rewarded with a pension of £500, as well as other cash sums, and the grant of various parks and lands.93SO3/13, unfol.; E. Suss. RO, ASH 3987, p. 3; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 138. As the French ambassador Jean de Montereuil later commented, Ashburnham had become ‘the person in whom the king of Great Britain has now the greatest confidence’.94Montereul Corresp. i. 195.

Ashburnham’s influence at Oxford quickly fostered suspicion and envy, stoked by his attempts at self-aggrandisement. Edward Hyde registered a ‘jealousy or coldness’ between himself and Ashburnham, and a ‘disparity between their natures and humours’; he was aggrieved that Ashburnham, supported by Sir John Culpeper, had ‘prevailed with the king to assign him customs privileges’ and that Charles ‘had great affection for him, and an extraordinary opinion of his managery’.95Clarendon, Life (1827), i. 199-200. The duke of Richmond was troubled by ‘the power and credit’ Ashburnham had with the king, and ‘which his vanity made him own to that degree that he was not content to enjoy the benefit of it except he made it public, and to be taken notice of by all men, which could not but reflect upon his honour’. However, Charles dismissed fears that he was governed by Ashburnham, and other royalists, like Sir George Radcliffe, viewed Ashburnham more favourably, not least because he provided a counterweight to the influence of the Catholics at court.96Clarendon, Life (1827), i. 225-8; T. Carte, The Life of James Duke of Ormond (1851), vi. 147.

Writing to vindicate himself, Ashburnham later spoke of the ‘painful and vexatious part imposed on me during all the wars’, and suggested that he deserved pity for his great labours rather than envy for the honour and profit he received.97Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 62-3. The Commons resolved on 14 September 1643 to sequester his estates, and later assigned some of the profits to compensate Walter Long.98CJ iii. 240b; iv. 189b. Ashburnham was expelled from the House of Commons at Westminster on 5 February 1644, along with others who had joined the king.99CJ iii. 389b. His assessment was set at £1,500, although no action was taken, and in December 1646 the Lords approved a petition for Ashburnham’s wife to be granted maintenance from the family estate.100CCAM 435; LJ viii. 588a.

Late in 1644, amid rumours that he had been elevated to the peerage, Ashburnham was named among the king’s negotiators for the Uxbridge Treaty and was granted a pass by Parliament.101CSP Ven. 1643-7, p. 146; LJ vii. 150a, 155a, 157b, 159b, 166b, 176a; CJ iv. 29b; TSP i. 56-8. He returned empty-handed to Oxford to report to the council of war on 25 February 1645.102Harl. 6084, f. 150. That December Charles again sought to use him in peace overtures, but Ashburnham and others were refused passes to travel to London.103CSP Dom. 1645-7, pp. 248, 277; CSP Ven. 1643-7, p. 231; LJ viii. 31a, 36b, 64b, 72b; Add. 31116, p. 493. Like Culpeper, Ashburnham thought that the king needed foreign assistance, but that this would not be forthcoming from the continent. Distrusting the Irish, they pursued a treaty with the Scots, with whom the king gave them ‘full liberty’ to treat, so long as Presbyterianism was not granted.104CCSP i. 289, 305; Bodl. Clarendon 26, ff. 79-80v; 27, f. 71; Clar. SP ii. 196-7, 207; HMC Portland, i. 332-4. Ashburnham was, according to Hyde, ‘as entirely trusted by the king as any man in England’, but while parliamentarians appreciated his importance, they considered Ashburnham ‘a slippery piece, and dangerous to build upon’.105Clarendon, Hist. iv. 183; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 73. Hence they excluded him from indemnity in subsequent peace propositions.106CJ iv. 471b; LJ viii. 215a; TSP i. 80.

In the spring of 1646 Ashburnham’s Scottish policy became the king’s. In March Charles received assurances – through Montereuil – that the Scots would provide safe refuge for him, if not necessarily for Ashburnham.107Montereul Corresp. i. 172, 180-1. With a view to exploring an alternative settlement, late in April Ashburnham was sent to Woodstock to feel the pulse of the New Model army, but he made no headway.108Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 5, 64-6, 68-70; CCSP i. 314. Immediately on his return to Oxford, Ashburnham and the king left for the north, amid tight security.109Clarendon, Hist. iv. 192; Montereul Corresp. i. 188; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 72-3; CCSP i. 318; Bodl. Clarendon 28, f. 28. On discovering this early in May, Parliament requested the Scots to hand over Ashburnham as a delinquent.110Add. 31116, pp. 533, 538; LJ viii. 291b; CJ iv. 538a; Bodl. Tanner 59, ff. 170, 172. Arriving in Newcastle only to be disabused of their expectations from the Scots, Ashburnham proposed to the king that he re-open negotiations with Westminster, only to find that he was regarded as being ‘more obnoxious to the Parliament than any man living’.111Ashburnham, Narrative ii.76-7, 81. In May Charles therefore ordered his loyal adviser to flee to France and to join the queen, before Parliament could prevent him from leaving Newcastle.112Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 5, 84-5, 138; E. Suss. RO, ASH 3987, p. 3; Montereul Corresp. i. 195; Bodl. Tanner 59, ff. 200, 214; Add. 31116, p. 540; CJ iv. 554a-b, 559a. The Scots, who had prevaricated over acceding to Parliament’s request, may even have let him escape.113Clarendon, Hist. iv. 183; Montereul Corresp. i. 193-4; The Weekly Account no. 24 (3-10 June 1646), sig. Aa4 (E.340.13); Ludlow, Mems. i. 138.

Ashburnham spent the following months advising the queen, and working on her behalf with Cardinal Mazarin and the Dutch.114Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 85-8; CSPV 1643-7, 264; Clarendon, Hist. iv. 233. Having stayed in correspondence with Charles over strategy and money-raising, with Culpeper and Henry Jermyn*, 1st Baron Jermyn, he advised the king on a reply to the Newcastle Propositions.115E. Suss. RO, ASH 3987, pp. 4, 36; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 141, 162-3; CCSP i. 325, 327; Bodl. Clarendon 91, f. 25. But the trio were soon writing increasingly terse letters expressing frustration at the king’s obstinacy in the face of adversity. Advocating compromise, they told him that episcopacy was not exclusively iure divino, that the crown must not be identified with episcopacy, and that Charles were better a king of Presbytery than no king at all, only to have their advice rejected.116CCSP i. 326, 329, 330, 332, 333, 335, 336, 338; Bodl. Clarendon 91, ff. 30, 35, 38, 40, 49, 54, 68. Ashburnham was left to pursue the policy sought by the king, by travelling in November 1646 to The Hague in search of assistance from the prince of Orange and from Spain and Ireland.117E. Suss. RO, ASH 3987, unfol.; CCSP i. 343; Add. 15857, f. 14; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 164.

From February 1647, when the king was under Parliament’s control first at Holdenby and then at Hampton Court, Ashburnham’s correspondence and cyphers with Charles were intercepted, but he was permitted to return to England to assist in negotiations.118Ashburnham, Narrative ii. 88, 164; LJ ix. 189-90, 202b ; CCSP i. 378; Bodl. Clarendon 29, f. 226; Ludlow, Mems. i. 153. Clarendon unkindly claimed that the army did so because they recognised that he ‘was of no deep and piercing judgement’.119Clarendon, Hist. iv. 233-4. He commenced negotiations with three leading officers, Edward Whalley*, Oliver Cromwell* and Henry Ireton*, to whom he made a promise not to assist Charles in any escape plans.120Ashburnham, Narrative. ii. 88-9, appendix pp. clii-iii; Ludlow, Mems. i. 159; A Letter Written by John Ashburnham (1647), 1-2 (E.418.4). His frequent, secretive meetings with the army grandees fostered suspicion amongst the radicals, who claimed that ‘the doors of Cromwell and Ireton’ were open to Ashburnham ‘when they were shut to those of the army’.121HMC 5th Rep. 173; Ludlow, Mems. i. 165; Clarendon, Hist. iv. 250; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 90. Over the summer and autumn Ashburnham came to recognise the difficulty of reaching a negotiated settlement: Cromwell and Ireton were unfathomable; there were rumours of plots to kill the king; there was the context of the unsuccessful call for ‘no further addresses’ to be made to the king (22 Sept. 1647) and the army debates at Putney.122Dyve Letter Bk. 74-5, 77, 82-3; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 92-100, 107-10.

Planning an escape from Hampton Court, the king ordered Ashburnham to revoke his promise not to assist. While Ashburnham apparently told Cromwell that he feared for the king’s safety, and may have hinted at the intention to flee, he was also given responsibility for masterminding the escape. Initially he advised Charles to attempt to meet the Scottish commissioners in London, in the hope of winning support from Presbyterians in the City, but this was thwarted when the commissioners prevaricated, perhaps because they disliked Ashburnham.123Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 100-102, 104, 106; Montereul Corresp. ii. 241, 244, 254, 268; A Letter Written by John Ashburnham, 2. The latter then suggested escape to the Isle of Wight, which was far enough from the mainland to enhance the king’s safety without having the stigma of being ‘abroad’.124Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 107-10.

With the benefit of hindsight the decision to act on this was widely criticized. It was alleged that Cromwell was forewarned, that it was a ‘fatal mistake’ to trust Robert Hammond* (parliamentarian governor of the Isle of Wight), and that the escape was ‘weakly contrived’.125Ludlow, Mems. i. 168; Clarendon, Hist. iv. 264, 266. Hyde dismissed the idea of treachery on Ashburnham’s part, but noted the contemporary perception that there had been ‘treason in the contrivance’, and that Charles had trusted those ‘who were grossly imposed upon and deceived by his greatest enemies’. He concluded that Ashburnham and Sir John Berkeley* were ‘irresolute’ if loyal, and ‘seemed wholly to depend upon Cromwell and Ireton’.126Clarendon, Hist. iv. 266, 270. Charles himself was doubtful about trusting Hammond, and probably sought to escape to Jersey, while Berkeley later sought to distance himself from both the policy and from Ashburnham.127Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 119-20, app. pp. clxxii, clxxviii, clxxxvii.

On 11 November 1647 Ashburnham and Berkeley left Hampton Court with the king, reaching the Isle of Wight on 13 November.128Ludlow, Mems. i. 170; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 113, 115, 118. Parliament immediately sought the delivery of Ashburnham and Berkeley, but Hammond resisted, and was supported by both General Sir Thomas Fairfax* and Cromwell, perhaps in the hope of encouraging the king to accept the ‘Four Bills’ presented to him on 24 December.129CJ v. 356b, 359a, 366a; LJ ix. 525b, 538b; HMC 6th Rep. 210; Ludlow, Mems. i. 172; CCSP i. 399, 403; Bodl. Clarendon 30, ff. 175, 211v. However, the arrival of the new proposals, together with the difficulty of escape, led the king to embrace the Scots once again, despite Ashburnham’s counsels for caution.130Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 119-21; Ludlow, Mems. i. 178-9. Once the king had rejected the Four Bills and instead signed the Engagement with the Scots, Ashburnham and the other courtiers were removed from his counsel.131CCSP i. 407; Bodl. Clarendon 30, f. 255; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 3; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 122.

They retreated to Somerset, from where Ashburnham wrote a defence of his recent role, published in March 1648.132CCSP i. 408; Bodl. Clarendon 30, f. 262; CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 6-7; The True Copy of a Letter from Mr Ashburnham (1648), 1-6 (E.430.10); Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 41-54. While he retained the king’s favour, amid rumours of further secretive negotiations with Cromwell he was arrested in Hampshire, and held at Windsor.133HMC Hamilton, i. 118; CJ v. 566a; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 127. He was ‘the most considerable prisoner in the kingdom’, until July, when he was exchanged for Sir William Masham* on condition that he go first to Sussex and then leave England.134CJ v. 629b, 640a; CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 179; Perfect Occurrences no. 84 (4-11 Aug. 1648), 474; Perfect Weekly Account no. 21 (2-9 Aug. 1648), n.p. (E.457.24); Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 127. The king’s request that Ashburnham be allowed to rejoin him in the Isle of Wight was rejected in August.135LJ x. 474b, 484b, 549a; CJ v. 694b; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 128.

Thereafter, Ashburnham played little part in royalist affairs. He sought to compound in November 1648, and was fined £1,270 at an unprecedented rate of 50 per cent.136CCC 1863; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 129. He told Sir Edward Nicholas in February 1649 that the need to compound was the reason for his staying in England rather than joining the exiled court.137Eg. 2533, f. 468; Nicholas Papers, i. 111-2. Managing his financial affairs proved challenging. He later recorded that he was pursued for debts and ‘for the space of three years so persecuted by the committees to discover who had lent the king money during the wars, as I had scarce time to eat my bread’. He was forced to enter into recognizance for his appearance when required, and was only allowed to travel outside Sussex upon passes. The Sussex committee sought to protect him from further fines, however, and a measure of local reconciliation is suggested by the agreement of Harbert Morley* and Anthony Stapley I* – two prominent Sussex parliamentarians – to act as his trustees.138CCC 1390, 1863; CCAM 1208; Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 133; CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 520, 564; 1651, pp. 240, 529; PROB11/338/494. Among royalists there were many who still distrusted him, and even old friends such as Sir Edward Nicholas were forced to question his innocence.139Clarendon, Hist. iv. 267-8; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 47; Nicholas Pprs. i. 234. Ashburnham himself noted false rumours that he was paid £40,000 by Parliament for carrying the king from Hampton Court.140Ashburnham, Narrative, ii. 135. The fears of his former colleagues may have been compounded in the early months of the protectorate, when the restrictions on Ashburnham were lessened, and he was able to move to his house in Chiswick.141TSP ii. 321; CCSP ii. 362.

However, Ashburnham was soon in contact with Charles II and, suspected of having sent him money and plotting an uprising, was arrested for high treason pending a trial before the high court of justice (2 June 1654).142CSP Dom. 1654, p. 273; TSP ii. 395, 511-12; Clarendon, Hist. iv. 268. While Nicholas told Hyde that ‘this sufferance should be held a sufficient expiation for all his former faults’, a report from one of Ashburnham’s guards suggest that he expressed doubt about the efficacy of conspiracy in effecting a restoration of the monarchy.143Nicholas Pprs. ii. 72; TSP iii. 548. Continually shunted between prisons, in June 1655 he was moved to Guernsey, from where he complained of accusations made against him by the lieutenant of the Tower.144Nicholas Pprs. ii. 346; iii. 5; TSP iii. 548; E. Suss. RO, ASH 159/3, 4. In December 1655 Ashburnham was assessed at £850 a year for the decimation tax, although a year later this was reduced to £210.145CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 78; TSP iv. 240, 354; SP28/181, unfol.; E. Suss. RO, ASH 159/10. By July 1656, when he was released in order to attend the assizes as a witness, he was in the Upper Bench prison in London; subsequently rearrested, he was held in the Tower before being returned to Guernsey. He was never brought to trial, however, and by September 1657 was at liberty and back in London.146E. Suss. RO, ASH 159/9, 11, 16; CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. 13, 149, 436; CCSP iii. 175.

Once again, and this time with more reason, he was soon suspected of involvement in royalist plots, particularly in Sussex.147TSP i. 710. Arrested in February 1658 when the intrigues of John Stapley* collapsed, Ashburnham was sent to Guernsey for a third time. After a brief return to the Tower in November, however, he was released.148Bristol RO, AC/C74/5-6; E. Suss. RO, ASH 2015/7; CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 523; 1658-9, pp. 260, 580. Although free to travel around the country, he was under close scrutiny by the Rump in the summer of 1659.149CCSP iv. 297 He may have engaged in insurrectionary activity, but he was cautious, advising that the quietist position was more likely to bring success.150Bristol RO, AC/C74/5-6; CCSP iv. 171, 181, 243; E. Suss. RO, ASH 159/17; ASH 2015/9-11 Early in 1660, he advocated co-operation with General George Monck*, but while some royalists were willing to work with him, others, like Lady Mordaunt, recommended that he should not be countenanced.151CCSP iv. 579, 625. He was involved in lobbying for the elections to the Convention, at least in Somerset and possibly at Hastings, where his son-in-law Denny Ashburnham† was returned, but he does not appear to have sought a place for himself.152E. Suss. RO, ASH 2015/8; HP Commons 1660-1690. In May he signed the Humble Representation from Sussex welcoming Charles II.153SP29/1, f. 89.

Despite his controversial record, Ashburnham found favour and reward after the Restoration, both financially and as groom of the bedchamber.154CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 291; 1661-2, p. 150; 1668-9, p. 122; LR2/266, f. 19; SO3/14, unfol.; SO3/15, p. 231; SO3/16, p. 43. In 1661 he was elected to Parliament for Hastings alongside Denny Ashburnham, and he served as a deputy lieutenant for the county.155CSP Dom. 1668-9, p. 224. Nevertheless, lingering hostility towards him may explain why he was passed over for the titles of honour which were bestowed upon other leading royalists. His parliamentary career ended in November 1667, following charges that he had accepted a bribe.156E. Suss. RO, ASH 2015/33; HMC Astley, 34; C231/7, p. 316; HP Commons 1660-1690. He died in June 1671, and was buried in the family vault at Ashburnham.157PROB11/338/494; Ashburnham Archives, 19. His heir did not sit in Parliament but subsequent generations represented Hastings into the eighteenth century, and his grandson John Ashburnham† was created Baron Ashburnham by William III.158CP; HP Commons 1660-1690; HP Commons 1690-1715.