Kent

In May 1641, the justices of the peace in Kent were forced to undertake extensive repairs to the shire house at Pickenden Heath, the venue for county elections. As Sir Roger Twysden* recorded, ‘there having been two elections of knights of the shire to serve in Parliament, 1640, the shire house at Pickenden Heath was much in decay in respect the concourse had been far greater than at former elections and that both coming to poll many had broke down the walls of it to put through the names of the freeholders for their friends to be written down’. Cent. Kent Stud. U47/47/O1, p. 15. Twysden’s comment indicates how contentious the two 1640 elections had been, and this is also reflected in the wealth of contemporary correspondence they generated, as well as accounts of the election by both Twysden and Sir Edward Dering, and a notebook compiled by the latter. M.A. Kishlansky, Parliamentary Selection (1986); Hirst, Representative; Everitt, Community of Kent; F.W. Jessup, ‘The Kentish election of March 1640’, Arch. Cant. lxxxvi. 1-10; D. Hirst, ‘The defection of Sir Edward Dering 1640-1’, HJ xv. 193-208; F.W. Jessup, Sir Roger Twysden (1965), 137-42; J. Peacey, ‘Tactical organisation in a contested election’, in Parliament, Politics and Elections, 1604-1648 ed. C.R. Kyle (Cam. Soc. ser. 5, xvii), 237-72. Twysden had an overtly historical motive for drawing up his account of the Short Parliament election, writing that ‘I have for posterity sake thought good a little note of the manner of the carrying of it’. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 5.

The election of March 1640

When news emerged, in December 1639, of forthcoming elections, the first candidates to emerge were Norton Knatchbull of Mersham le Hatch, Sir George Sondes† of Lees Court, a former Ship-Money sheriff who would become an inactive royalist, and his friend Sir Thomas Walsingham* of Scadbury. Everitt, Community of Kent, 64, 278; CCC 867-8. Knatchbull quickly secured firm support for the first seat from many influential cousins and neighbours, and was regarded as being likely to succeed from an early stage. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 1-3, 3-5, 6. The second seat initially looked like being a straight contest between Sondes and Walsingham. Sondes wrote to Walsingham on 9 December in the hope that the latter would stand down and help his own campaign, not least since Walsingham was thought to be assured of a place at Rochester. Sondes also sought to honour the desires of the lord chamberlain (Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke) that ‘there should be no clashing amongst ourselves’. Stowe 743, f. 136. Yet the chances of avoiding a contest were already slim. Sondes hinted that Sir Henry Vane I* – ‘whom I conceive to be very deserving’ – was likely to seek a place, and he also explained that he recognised the ‘likelihood of opposition’. Specifically, he perceived that Dering’s supporters were ‘labouring in it, but I hope they will quickly see their own weakness and so desist’. Stowe 743, f. 136. Dering later claimed that, having heard about the election on 8 December, he initially intended to stand for Dover, not least because the expense of seeking a county seat ‘made me decline thought of that for myself’. He instead lent his support to Knatchbull with active lobbying in London, although he also admitted that he would have stood if the latter had not been a candidate. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, p. 81; Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/73. Moreover, those canvassing on Dering’s behalf at Dover reported that many of Knatchbull’s supporters would have preferred Dering to stand, and that ‘had you stood for the shire you could not have missed’. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/73.

Before the end of 1639 it was apparent not just that there was likely to be a contest, but also that the election was likely to be based as much upon politics as upon personalities. Sondes justified his decision to stand by saying that ‘we which have been sheriffs and had such employment in our offices of deputy lieutenants had need be present to justify ourselves the best we can when our actions are questioned, as undoubtedly they will’. Stowe 743, f. 136. Dering, meanwhile, evidently decided against supporting anyone who had been a deputy lieutenant during the 1630s. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, p. 81 Another political dimension was introduced with the candidacy of Vane, lord treasurer of the household, and, from February 1640, secretary of state. Vane sought support from Edward Sackville†, 4th earl of Dorset and his kinsmen, who campaigned zealously in the region. Everitt, Community of Kent, 70-1; Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 3-6; Stowe 743, ff. 136, 140; Stowe 184, f. 10; CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 526-7. Moreover, when Dering was canvassed by Twysden as a possible supporter of Vane, he ‘absolutely resolved that in times so desperate I would contribute no help to any privy councillor’. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, p. 81. Dering’s preferred ticket was one which combined Knatchbull and Twysden, even though he was confident that the latter was assured of a seat at either Rye or Winchelsea, and he told his kinsman that ‘if you be not fettered beyond all freedom, appear for yourself’, adding that ‘I did, with some eastern friends … name you for a knight’s service to the house, which was received with a cheerful desire’. Noting the strength of Knatchbull, Dering reassured Twysden that ‘I hope to appear in that court in a lower sphere’. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 1-3. Dering also sought to persuade Twysden against supporting Vane: ‘if you love Mr Treasurer, persuade his desistance’. He felt confident that ‘Sir Thomas Walsingham and Sir George Sondes have left many more voices free than they have taken’, and that, if Vane stood down, there was a strong chance of Twysden being returned alongside Knatchbull. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 1-3.

However, Dering’s plans were quickly blocked by Twysden, who reaffirmed his support for Vane, and his desire to avoid a contest. On 24 December Twysden told Dering that ‘I should be sorry (if he or any of his stand) they should not carry it, but without all opposition, and therefore am resolved never at all to appear, where there may be any contestation with such a friend’. He informed Dering that he was not assured of another seat, not least because he sought to secure Winchelsea for his brother, Thomas Twisden*, although he later wrote that Vane had promised to help secure a place in one of the boroughs. Whatever his own prospects, he was clearly resolved not to stand against Vane, unless the latter stood down: ‘if the treasurer give out I am free’. At this stage, Twysden evidently felt able to convince Dering to support Vane: ‘I doubt not but to give you such reasons for the treasurer’s election as shall with willingness persuade you to interest all your friends’. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 3-5, 6. Much as he wanted to avoid a contest, and politicisation of the county election, Twysden was wise enough to recognise the mood of the freeholders. He later reflected that, ‘the common people had been so bitten with Ship Money [that] they were very averse from a courtier’, although this merely prompted Twysden to redouble his efforts on Vane’s behalf, and he said that ‘I dealt with all my neighbours effectually, and had promise of many’. Nevertheless, he admitted that he could ‘not be confident of his being elected’, and as a result ‘I did therefore think the best way of facilitating it was to get all else but himself and one more sit down’. Twysden sought to ensure that the county would return Knatchbull and Vane by selection rather than election, in order to avoid a contest, and in order to maintain consensus. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 6-7.

Twysden’s determination to avoid a contest may actually have brought political issues to the fore, and thus helped to ensure a contest. His tactic, apparently successful, was to persuade Sondes and Walsingham to withdraw, and to secure for Vane their supporters in the north east and north west of the county. Twysden sought to keep this manoeuvre secret, not least in order to retain the support of Dering, and ‘I did then conceive him as firm for him as any man’. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 6-7; Stowe 743, f. 138. When the withdrawal of Walsingham and Sondes became known, however, Dering found himself urged to stand, not least by men such as the dean of Canterbury, Isaac Bargrave, and George Strode of Westerham, and in the face of such requests, Dering yielded and decided to stand. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, pp. 81-2. This decision appears to have been made at the spring assizes, held on 26 February 1640, when, having spoken ‘more coolly’ of Vane, he held ‘private consultation’ with Strode and Bargrave, before announcing his candidacy. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 7. According to Dering, the effect of this decision was that Vane ‘in great indignation did immediately sit down’, therein throwing the election into disarray. The first reaction came from the lord chamberlain, who ‘in great fury’ persuaded Sondes to re-join the contest, with the support of the deputy lieutenants. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, p. 82. Writing to Dering on 4 March, Sondes explained that, having promised the lord chamberlain to assist Vane by sitting down, the latter’s decision to withdraw ‘left us freely to ourselves as we were’. He also expressed ‘much wonder’ at

how this desisting of ours should be so confidently and generally reported abroad, when it was only in private promised to my lord, and on that condition and not otherwise, and that which I did neither send, nor write to any friend of mine that stood for me, that I would do. Stowe 743, f. 138.

Sondes immediately resumed campaigning, as a letter to Sir Robert Darell indicates.

The time of the election now draws nigh, which occasioneth these lines to desire of you the performance of that assistance which you so nobly promised, being confident these rumours of my sitting down have not at all shaken you, hearing nothing from me of it, with which I should certainly acquainted you had I been fully resolved. Cent. Kent Stud. U386/O6.

Perhaps fearing that Dering’s support among the local militia captains, not to mention his determination to secure a victory, would ensure Sondes’ defeat, Vane then supported Twysden’s candidacy, ‘in revenge’ as Dering felt. Dering complained that ‘since he could not make one kinsman (Vane) he would hinder another (Dering)’. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 7-8; Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, p. 82. Twysden’s reaction to Dering’s decision, meanwhile, was clear from a letter sent on 9 March.

I am and always have been so desirous to do you service that I cannot but be sorry you show yourself at a time in which I cannot further your success. The truth is I took it very unkindly to see Sir Edward Dering, from whom I hoped (and had good reason to do so) assistance, in the cause of a kinsman almost as near to him as to me, should be erected only to make a stop in the business, and was as sorry to see him for such a toy contract so potent enemies (which I was assured would follow) as for any other cause in it. Stowe 184, ff. 10-11v.

It rapidly became apparent not just that such manoeuvrings were likely to cause a contest, but that this would be fiercely fought. Twysden later reflected that his was ‘a troublesome task’, since ‘all the gentlemen of Kent were engaged already for Knatchbull’, and since ‘to publish to friends by letter that I intended to stand was to meet with a certain denial from them whose assistance I desired’. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 8. By 7 March, however, it was clear that Twysden was able to rely upon the assistance of Vane, who was reported to have been using ‘all the instruments and power he possibly can’ on his behalf. Stowe 743, f. 140.

The highly competitive nature of the contest was also evident from Dering’s tactics immediately after the assizes. Twysden later reflected that he ‘did never lie still, but ride up and down soliciting everybody, yea, such as were for Sir Henry Vane he strove to get a promise of, that, he giving out, they should be for him’. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 8. Dering appears to have approached county grandees like Sir Edward Hales*, although the latter responded that, having supported Vane, he now planned to revert to his first choice, Sondes. Stowe 743, f. 142. However, Dering was able to draw upon the assistance of Sir John Sedley who, upon hearing of Vane’s withdrawal and Twysden’s candidacy, wrote to Dering of his having ‘fixed my active desire on your service … knowing so well the man to be of no such merit’. Stowe 743, f. 140. Sedley immediately began canvassing on Dering’s behalf. Stowe 743, f. 140.

It is in this context that Dering’s ‘poll list’ needs to be analysed. Hirst, Representative, 122-3; Kishlansky, Parliamentary Selection, 132; Jessup, ‘Kentish election’, 1. Dering prepared a notebook whose pages were divided between the 355 parishes, into which he inserted the names of 642 freeholders and ministers. This was only a tiny proportion of an electorate of perhaps 6,000, but the intention was to ascertain how the county’s elite was likely to vote in a contest between himself and Twysden, and Dering’s list indicates the preferences of 194 individuals. Hirst, Representative, 117. Dering did this by means of horizontal dashes next to the names of decided voters, using red ink for his own supporters, and black for those of Twysden. Dering’s list, in other words, represents an important example of a canvassing document, for use as he ‘rode up and down soliciting everybody’, not least in the face of Twysden’s own vigorous campaigning, and the alarm with which Dering’s supporters observed Vane’s lobbying. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, p. 8; Everitt, Community of Kent, 73-4; Add. 34173, f. 18; Stowe 743, f. 140. Twysden was certainly able to secure the support of leading gentry like Sir Francis Barnham*, Sir Edward Boys* and William James*. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, p. 85. Since Dering only had two weeks in which to organise his campaign, he concentrated his canvassing on areas where he had good contacts, and where he felt likely to be able to gather support, notably in Canterbury, Sandwich, Folkestone, Maidstone, Ashford, and Dover. Jessup, ‘Kentish election’, p. 6. Dering had particularly strong ties to the last of these, from his time as lieutenant of Dover Castle (1629-34), and he was able to enlist help from a brother-in-law Anthony Percivall, who was captain of the forts and customer of the port of Dover, as well as another prominent local gentleman, Humphrey Mantle. Everitt, Community of Kent, 71-2; Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 2, 7. Dering evidently hoped that friends and kinsmen would help to secure support from among dependant or client freeholders. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, p. 84; Stowe 743, f. 140; Hirst, Representative, 116.

Such vigorous electioneering also reflected the politicisation of the election. Sedley told Dering on 7 March that Vane

hath endeavoured as far as may be to poison the good opinion the country hath of you, by possessing them how diligent and eager a servant you were for the court in the knighting moneys [knighthood compositions]. This aspersion (wheresoever I have met with it) I have vindicated you from, and suppressed as much as could possible. Stowe 743, f. 140.

Moreover, it also became clear that Dering’s religious views were likely to become a factor in the election. Twysden affirmed as much in a letter of 9 March, while seeking to distance himself from allegations regarding his cousin’s puritanism.

For that other imputation – will you be for Sir Edward Dering? He is none of our church – I will not go about to excuse it, much less defend it, if you have any opinion not of my wit, but that I have common sense.

Twysden said that he could see no difference between the two men on religion

unless on the affirming … that you never would go up to the rails to receive the communion (which I do and justify the doing of). I did once say that there was some other cause in you for refusing to do so, for all the world know you were no puritan, which I am confident you will not take ill. Stowe 184, ff. 10-11v.

Dering’s enemies sought to dissuade what was evidently perceived to be a diverse group of supporters by means of allegations regarding both his service to the Caroline regime and his reputed puritanism. Such comments indicate that the election was politicised, albeit in ways which affected Dering in a complex fashion.

At the county election on 16 March 1640 it emerged that Dering’s canvassing, and his apparent cooperation with Knatchbull, had been in vain. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, pp. 83-4. With Knatchbull assured of the first place, attempts were certainly made to avoid a poll, and Sir George Sondes, ‘perceiving he had fewest voices on his side, gave it over’. Bodl. Rawl. D.141, p. 4. This prompted frantic attempts by both Twysden and Dering to secure support from Sondes’ powerbase, notably Sir Thomas Culpeper and his dependents. According to Dering, the votes which Culpeper could provide were divided, ‘ten to me for one to Twysden’. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, p. 84. Even at this point, however, attempts were made to avoid a poll. Dering claimed that he ‘was offered to cast dice for the choice [and] when three of us stood the sheriff offered to draw lots between me and Twisden and the clerks offered in the afternoon to cast dice again’. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, pp. 84-5. At this point, Dering’s account alleged, underhand tactics began to be employed. Dering claimed that he ‘wished the field in each side to be set in rank and file, but the sheriff was made to warp strongly to Twysden’. Dering claimed that ‘the strength with me in eye and ear was a thousand more than on the other side’, adding that ‘all the gentry of Kent and most of the clergy were with me, and a mighty advantage of freeholders, yet the poll must be taken’. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, p. 85. Dering also alleged that one of Twysden’s supporters, Sir Francis Barnham, claimed that a poll would be useless, at which point many freeholders left to return home. As a result, Dering alleged, out of 10,000 in the field – ‘which in all sense could not be less than 6,000 for me’ – only 2,325 were polled. Dering claimed that the result of this poll was that Twysden received 1,231 votes to Dering’s 1,094. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, p. 86; D. Hirst, Representative of the People? (1975), 117. This result is confirmed from other sources. Bodl. Rawl. D.141, p. 4.

It may have been at this point, if not earlier, that Dering sought to record the strength of his support, by amending the list which he prepared during the campaign, by adding vertical crossing marks to his earlier indications of predicted support. It is probably true that his vote proved most solid nearest to his own residence, although it is difficult to assess the extent to which other supporters defaulted, as opposed to Dering merely being unable to record votes during the poll. Hirst, Representative, 116, 123. Dering’s motivation for recording the reliability of his supporters may have reflected his concern regarding perceived bias on the part of the officials. Dering alleged that the clerks were ‘industrious’ for Twysden, and that one sheet of his supporters’ names was ‘embezzled’. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, pp. 86, 87. Dering concluded that he had been defeated, rather than supported, by the godly community in Kent. He suggested that, ‘plain it is that the puritan faction made Twysden’ by ‘black artifice’, as well as ‘foul play, false clerks and [a] warping sheriff’, and that the ‘obscure and peevish sort’ of separatists had backed his opponent, while he faced allegations regarding his religious beliefs, and his involvement in the wine patent and the collection of Ship Money. Bodl. Top. Kent.e.6, pp. 83, 87; Bodl. Rawl. D.141, p. 4; Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, p. 5. This complicated political picture ensured that there was no obvious split between future royalists supporting Twysden and future parliamentarians supporting Dering. Jessup, ‘Kentish election’, 6-7. More interesting is the fact that Dering’s supporters included a number of clerics who would be removed from office by Parliament during the 1640s, while of Twysden’s clerical supporters the majority suffered after 1660, thus apparently confirming that Dering was defeated by the local godly community. Hirst, Representative, 123.

The election of October 1640

Dering’s grievances regarding the spring election ensured that he was determined to secure one of the county seats in the Long Parliament elections later in the year, and once again he appears to have engaged in vigorous canvassing. By 2 September George Strode had signalled his support, saying that ‘you do yourself a great deal of right in resuming your pretension (which in my apprehension was most unequally carried in the last election’, and before the end of the month other leading figures like Sir Peter Heyman* had also promised their assistance, although Sir Edward Boys* offered merely conditional support. Add. 26785, ff. 3, 5, 7; Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 8-9, 9-10, 10-11. Other letters received indicated support from George Sondes, who promised to assist Dering ‘at least in his friends and tenants’, as well as ‘Mr Thomas, lieutenant to Sir George’, who ‘hath promised to engage his company’. Stowe 743, f. 155. Writing to Dering on 5 October, Sir John Sedley, meanwhile, said that he could not

refuse your commands, assuring you still the claims of the choicest share in my affections, which that my active endeavours may the better manifest, nothing shall be wanting within my sphere to support you from anything that is like to fall.

Sedley also offered practical support, telling Dering that he had ‘engaged many of my friends for you and will do more’, and adding that in order ‘to bring with them the same constancy I intend to wait on you with myself at the election. Add. 26785, f. 11; Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 12. In another letter, Sedley told Dering that ‘I have made my neighbour Mr [William] James strongly for you’, and ‘Sir Humphrey Style and Stephen Leonard have engaged themselves to me to assist with at least 100 voices’. Stowe 184, f. 15.

Once again, Dering relied upon agents, clerics and kinsmen to work on his behalf. His agent, ‘honest’ Edward Kemp, reported on 1 October not merely that eastern Kent looked promising, but also that he expected strong support in Hythe, Romney and Lydd. He had visited Sir Thomas Peyton*, and advised Dering that he, along with ‘many more of quality’ were ‘constant friends’. Stowe 743, f. 150. It was later claimed that Kemp had ‘secured all the gentlemen in the country to you’. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/82. Another important ally was John Player, vicar of Kennington, who with his friends used ‘much importunity among mine acquaintances, and have received a return of good hopes’ from the freeholders of Canterbury and Sandwich. Fearing also that some freeholders from the Wealden areas ‘might fail our expectation’, Player also travelled to Maidstone for meetings, from where he was able to report having ‘endeavoured, and not without some effect, their establishment’. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/83 On 2 October, Dering’s cousin, George Haule of Maidstone, claimed to have canvassed support in his town, and advised Dering of the necessity of making his intentions clear: ‘if you intend to stand for one of the knights of the shire you must speedily appear in these parts, either in person or by letter’. Haule added that Dering’s supporters in Maidstone ‘wish they had your letter to publish, you will lose many by it else’. Add. 26785, f. 9; Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 11. Such comments suggest that in October 1640, Dering was able to secure support from some men who had opposed him in the spring, and it is likely that this reflected a conscious attempt on Dering’s part to counter negative perceptions regarding his religious beliefs, and a concerted effort to court the county’s puritans. It was reported in early October, therefore, that Sir Edward Partheriche* ‘and the rest of the brethren’ backed Dering and were ‘unmoveable’, while Robert Bargrave reported that all the puritans of Sandwich did likewise. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11. A few days later, John Player claimed to find the puritan minister, Thomas Wilson, ‘fast and firm … all which bids me conceive very good hopes’. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/83.

From late September, however, it was clear that other candidates were entering the election. Knatchbull and Sir John Culpeper* were known to have held discussions, perhaps in order to decide that it would be the latter who stood for election. Stowe 743, f. 146. On 2 October, Haule also claimed that Richard Spencer† of Orpington intended to stand, and that ‘here are many very glad of it’, while Culpeper mentioned that Richard Browne I* planned to stand, as well as suspicions that Sir Henry Vane II* would also join the race. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 11; Stowe 743, f. 149. By 15 October, another candidate, Sir Robert Mansell, had come forward in East Kent, and it was even reported that Sir Roger Twysden was ‘voiced much’. Stowe 743, f. 156; Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking,15. Indeed, during early October a variety of rumours and conflicting stories circulated about likely candidates, and about the county’s electoral dynamic. Kemp reported to Dering that, although he was reasonably confident of support from Tenterden, ‘I know Sir John Culpeper hath a good party in those parts, but the Isle of Thanet and Sandwich know your desires’. Stowe 743, f. 150. It soon became clear that Knatchbull was employing his interest on Culpeper’s behalf, and Haule claimed that ‘many here have passed their votes for him’. Stowe 743, ff. 146, 150; Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 11. Writing to Dering on 1 October, Sir Edward Hales suggested that there was a Dering-Culpeper ‘ticket’, and recommended that both men should ‘crave my lord chamberlain’s favour and furtherance as a good freeholder in this county’. Stowe 743, f. 147. This combination also found support from Sir Thomas Peyton, who promised Dering that ‘I have yet some stock of my own left for your service, besides what I am able to take up of others upon credit’. Add. 44846, f. 2v. Dering and Culpeper were certainly in correspondence about the election by 2 October. Stowe 743, f. 149. Haule, however, advised Dering against relying upon Culpeper, saying ‘I doubt Sir John Culpeper’s voices in these parts will not be very fast to you’. Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 11-12. Others went as far as to consider Culpeper as a competitor to Dering, and although John Player expressed ‘very good hopes’ regarding Dering’s chances, he advised ‘no remissness of endeavours, because of [the] industriousness of competitors’. Player said that he knew of no ‘considerable’ candidate besides Culpeper, and did not think that Culpeper was likely to ‘shake our hopes’, but added that Culpeper, ‘of his own and friends confidence, hath put off the burgess-ship of Rye, being tendered to him as I hear’. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/83.

From early October, an important ally in Dering’s campaign was his wife, Unton, whose letters of 3 and 5 October indicate that she was assiduous in reporting news and gossip regarding the election campaign. In one letter she wrote that ‘The gentlemen in these parts take it ill, that Mr Knatchbull should recommend any to them; he hath dispersed his letters for Sir John Culpeper’. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/82. In another she relayed news of Browne’s candidacy; she was ‘sorry to hear of a third started out of Sir Roger’s ashes’. She advised Dering that Browne’s support was likely to be strongest ‘about Ashford and Maidstone, and Nettlested, for no doubt Sir Edward Scott† will befriend him what he can’. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11. In order to obtain such information, Lady Dering herself travelled to Canterbury on Dering’s behalf and in his absence, from where she reported on meetings

where were most of the gentlemen in the county, and though I presume they will be all firm for you, yet your own presence would more have quickened them, and been a tie upon them, but if you can secure the other papers, as this, I shall be confident of your good success. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11.

Lady Dering provided powerful allies from her own family and its networks. On 3 October she informed Dering that ‘you are beholden to my brother [Anthony] Percivall, who is very active and careful for you’. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/82. At the meeting of the Kentish gentry in Canterbury, ‘as soon as my brother P[ercivall] came into the room there, all the gentlemen cried out, let us choose the knight of the shire, all in one voice professing themselves for you’. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11. Dering was also ‘beholden to Mr [Henry] Oxinden*, brother Percivall’s neighbour, who is very zealous for you’; Oxinden had even ‘made ten of his tenants freeholders for your sake this election, with promise to resign afterwards’. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11. Another key family member was Lady Dering’s cousin, Edward Swann, who ‘appears to be exceeding zealous for you, by his endeavour to lead his uncle with him’. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11. Lady Dering also engaged in canvassing herself, telling her husband that ‘wanting a letter to Sir Thomas Palmer, who as Mr Kemp said, is a material man, I presumed to frame a letter to him, and Mr Kemp wrote it, and conveyed it to him’. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/82. Having learned from Kemp that, as in the spring, Isaac Bargrave ‘professes to be earnest and real for you’, she revealed that ‘tomorrow I and my brother Percivall propose to dine at the dean’s, where we shall meet my cousin Swann, who shall have our second conjuration’. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/82, U275/C1/11.

More interestingly, Lady Dering’s letters also contained words of counsel. In part this advice was moral and godly in nature. Electioneering ‘will be a chargeable business, which we have no need on, but being only assumed for God’s glory, it is not to be valued’. She therefore offered her ‘heartiest prayers for his blessing upon all thy proceedings, who can only make them successful and acceptable to himself’. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/82. She conveyed promising news about the strength of Dering’s support, but urged him, ‘let not this possess thee too deeply, but let it be indifferent to thee what success soever it shall please God to give’. Yet she knew ‘thy desires and endeavours pursues it, for so virtuous and good ends, as I cannot but hope for a conclusion to our own desires. If not God knows what is best’. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11. This tone was echoed in letters from other key allies like John Player, who advised that

all must be resolved into a wise providence, which disposeth of all things and persons according to the good pleasure of its unsearchable wisdom. For my part, who am the weakest of all that wish you success, I shall not fail to put forth my hardest desires, and most effectual endeavours for you, assuring you that nothing shall joy me more, than to see an opportunity to draw forth that earnest desire of yours into all to the service of our God and country. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/83.

Lady Dering’s advice also extended to practical and tactical issues. She recommended that ‘you will take care for yourself to the archdeacon [Dr William Kingsley] and others when you are at Canterbury’. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/82. She also advised her husband to ‘put your cousin George Haule to it amongst his brethren’. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11. On the other hand she warned against an alliance with Culpeper. Upon hearing from her cousin, Edward Darell, that Dering ‘writ to many by him, and in the behalf of Sir John Culpeper’, she expressed concern that this might prove to be a mistake, since ‘their answer was they had fixed you in their thoughts and choice if you had not written, but Sir John Culpeper was a stranger, yet for your sake they should respect him’. Subsequently she expressed regret that Dering ‘showed yourself so much’ for Culpeper, and warned her husband ‘by no means do not be drawn to join with him, for I find it will endanger you. They report here already that you have joined with him’. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11.

Lady Dering’s letters also reveal that the county elite was absorbed by discussion regarding the election, and that particular grandees were prepared to be, or were at least perceived to be, two-faced regarding their allegiance. ‘Sir Edward Boys professes to be for you, yet he works earnestly for some other underhand, whom he will not name publicly’. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11. As a result, Lady Dering ‘was thinking to get the Dean [Bargrave] to go to Sir Edward Boys, to try his power to fasten him to us, but upon better consideration I doubt his solicitation may make him fly further off’. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11. However, she then learned from cousin Darell that Sir Edward Boys* and John Boys* ‘profess themselves in the first place for you, in the second for Mr Browne’. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11. Another cousin, Swann, likewise assured her that ‘Sir Edward Boys is for you in the first place and for Mr Browne in the second. He told me also that he had sent of purpose to make as many as he could for you, both at Sandwich and Canterbury’. Cent. Kent Stud. U275/C1/11.

Dering himself may not have been beyond a degree of duplicity. Evidence from his correspondence indicates that he heeded his wife’s advice regarding too close an association with Culpeper, and Kemp subsequently wrote not merely that ‘I hear of nothing but Sir Edward Dering in the first place, and no doubt at all to be made of your carrying it’, but also added that ‘I have assured them that you join not with Sir John Culpeper, which breeds their confidence’. Stowe 743, f. 153. On 15 October, John Player likewise wrote of Culpeper as a competitor, rather than as a colleague, saying of the latter that ‘I hear of no progress greatly nor accruement to the endeavours this way’. Player considered that Culpeper’s ‘friends know his utmost strength, which is like rather to decline to a consumption than any healthy augmentation’, and suggested that he would have been more than happy to secure second place. Add. 26785, f. 13; Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 15.

Evidence from mid-October, however, indicates that Culpeper and Dering were still cooperating in order to share the spoils, in order to ensure that Dering took the premier seat. On 15 October, Culpeper informed Dering that, while Sir Robert Mansell had secured some support, ‘I scarce find any but you have, and more in the first place’, including Sir Edward Boys*. Indeed, Culpeper could ‘assure you of these parts’, for ‘I hardly meet with any voices but is for us both’. Since both men’s supporters stood firm, the only way of losing the election would by ‘play, I mean by the destruction of the first voices, whereby it may be given to a competitor’. Culpeper even proposed cooperating over the arrangements for entertainment on election day. Stowe 743, f. 156.

Nevertheless, Culpeper also expressed concern that Dering’s influence was not sufficient to secure his own second place. He had learned that

the second voices in divers parishes of your neighbourhood, within four or five miles of you, are not firmly fixed on me. Your example in those parts hath made me not intermeddle there, and I have cause to fear that the ministry there have not in this point pursued your directions.

In contrast, in the 23 parishes under Culpeper’s influence, he could ‘assure’ Dering that

of above 400 householders there are but three who have not promised me their second voices for you. The like I have done by my friends in every parish in Milton hundred, whence I have full assurance for you as well as for myself, so have I from Sheppey and several other parts.

Culpeper asked Dering to ‘send to one or two fit men in each parish to make sure for me the second voice of every freeholder’, since ‘without this particular care you may fail of the success of your intentions in favour of me’. He was alarmed by recent evidence from the Canterbury area that ‘all the voices’ met with were for Dering and Browne, and although he expected Mansell to withdraw before the election, he nevertheless expressed concern that ‘a great party’ intended to choose Sir Roger Twysden, and that if ‘Mr Browne be discouraged in the field’, Twysden would ‘rise up out of his ashes’. Culpeper also feared that the sheriff inclined towards either Browne or Twysden. Stowe 743, f. 157. He subsequently became concerned that although Mansell had withdrawn and offered to back Dering, his supporters were ‘so far distant that the moon cannot bring them’. Culpeper’s solution to such problems was to propose a ‘conference’ with Dering, ‘that by comparing notes, we may resolve whether the business wants them’, and how best to avoid ‘trouble and charge’. He also wrote to Norton Knatchbull, doubtless in order to secure the support of the man who was recognised as being one of the most powerful members of the county community. Stowe 743, f. 158.

That Culpeper had grounds for concern became evident within days. Sir John Sedley informed Dering of the ‘plots’ and ‘malevolence’ of Twysden

who turns all the teeth he hath, though but few, and those ill, upon you by setting up old Browne in opposition, when his good service the last Parliament had destroyed his own hopes. Yet his malice or his extreme officiousness to Mr Treasurer Vane, or both, have so transported him that he solicits many by letters for Browne, with a servile importunity which I have met withal in many of my friends hands and so smothered them in their first endeavours. Stowe 184, f. 15.

Sedley also recommended that Dering should

re-examine the confidence you have in Norton Knatchbull, because I have seen some letters from him to some friends of mine near Maidstone pressing them exceedingly to engage for their first voice to Sir John Culpeper, and some other of my friends have lately told me they have seen letters from him sent to some in or about Canterbury urging the same engagement.

Sedley suspected a plot among ‘the Barnham faction and the gang of the Culpepers to cry up Sir John Culpeper for the first voice, for otherwise they imagine Browne is gotten so strong by the support of Twysden and his bangle-eared props out of the dirt’. If Culpeper was chosen in first place

there will not be that mutual exchange of voices towards you as you may expect, for believe me all Barnham’s faction and all others that can be seduced will turn to Browne, and Sir John Culpeper will have excuse enough to say [that] he persuaded seriously but could not compel. The canvass will be heartily endeavoured to be put between yourself and Browne, whom I perceive they are afraid of. Stowe 184, f. 15.

Sedley suspected that ‘the greatest part of your voice will be for Culpeper if he should be first named, but very many of Sir John Culpeper’s votes will … go after he is chosen to Browne’. Although Sedley confirmed that ‘there are many that come for you and Browne and not for Culpeper’, nevertheless, ‘if Sir John Culpeper be first chosen, [they] are resolved [that] if the bawdy come between you and Browne, to leave you and cleave to Browne’. Indeed, he claimed to have received information that Culpeper was canvassing for the first seat – ‘alleging in his letter that there will be much danger in the second’ – and working for Dering only for the second place, apparently having persuaded 800 freeholders to vote in this way. Sedley’s conclusion, and secret advice, was that Dering needed to consult with Culpeper, ‘that you may appear for the first voice’, and he added that ‘you may well perceive that if you be not first in vote you will very hardly be at all’. Stowe 184, f. 15v-16. Sedley also warned Dering about the trustworthiness of the sheriff, not least given ‘how grossly he abused us all the last time by his partiality, and you shall find him the same still, his converse being wholly with clowns and brutes’. Stowe 184, f. 15v. On 22 October, James Hugessen confirmed Sedley’s reports, for while he promised that he, his son, and ‘as many of my tenants as I can procure will given our attendance and our voices for yourself and for Sir John Culpeper’, he also added that Sir Edward Hales* had been canvassing support for Culpeper to take the first seat, and Dering the second. Add. 26785, f. 17; Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 18-19.

Armed with such evidence, Dering appears to have spent the last days before the election in frantic canvassing, and correspondence from the final days of the campaign reveals that the electoral dynamic involved issues of politics and religion as well as competition for the status associated with the first place. By 19 October, Dering had learnt that both Spencer and Mansell had withdrawn, and that ‘all sit down but yourself, Sir John Culpeper and Mr Browne’. Add. 26785, f. 15; Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 16. Indeed, by 15 October it had been reported of Mansell that ‘his fame doth scarce reach us; his relations less affect these parts and his assistants not so powerful with any … his hopes are likely to prove desperate’. Add. 26785, f. 13; Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 15. However, Dering appears to have been alarmed at the threat posed by the other candidates. He was certainly aware that Browne was the favoured candidate of ‘the precise party’, and probably feared that this would seriously undermine his support. Stowe 743, f. 149. Dering evidently sought reassurance even from one of his powerbases, Dover, since the mayor, Thomas Teddeman wrote to him of having conveyed ‘your loving letters’, and of the local freeholders’ promise of support. Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/84.

Dering also wrote to another supporter, Sir Thomas Peyton, who was forced to ‘crave pardon for my absence and breach of promise’ and excuse himself from the election, blaming the need to attend at Sandwich where he himself sought to be returned. Peyton hinted, however, that Dering’s concerns may have been well-founded. Promising to ‘eye upon such as shall appear for Mr Browne out of the ports’, Peyton suspected that the election would reveal ‘many insufficient … freeholders in the county’. Peyton professed that

I could never, since the first agitating of this business, find that man in these parts that had not resolved for you in the first place, but making reservations in the second (upon which I have often found Sir John Culpeper, who for my part I do heartily wish may be your companion and I think it will prove)

but he nevertheless sought to keep his confidence and his absence ‘very private … to avoid the example to others’. Add. 44846, ff. 4v-5; Stowe 743, f. 159. Dering may even have written to Twysden, although the latter refused to lend his support: ‘I told you at Maidstone what barred me of running freely to serve you, neither is that stop taken off’. However, Twysden claimed to be ‘absolutely free from Sir John Culpeper’, and added that ‘I do not hear of any but comes singly into the field, and think it much the better, for I find the county in many parts desirous of that freedom too in placing their voices’. Stowe 184, f. 17.

Although precise details regarding the election on 26 October remain unclear, Browne was evidently ‘put by’ at an early stage, and although this meant that Dering and Culpeper were both returned, the fact that the election was only resolved ‘at length’, and ‘with much ado’, indicates tension over who should be returned in the first place, an honour which eventually went to Dering. Bodl. Rawl. D.141, p. 6. However, the subsequent complaint regarding the election, which surfaced in early December, emerged from within the ranks of Browne’s supporters. On 4 December, Culpeper secured an order that those MPs who had been present at the election should testify to its fairness, and when Sir Peter Heyman and others did so, the House resolved that Browne ‘lost it by many voices’. D’Ewes (N), 103, 107.

The elections of 1642 and 1645

The expulsion of Dering in 1642 ensured that a by-election was held on 14 February 1642, which resulted in the return of Augustine Skynner*, whose parliamentarian views were probably well known. Skynner’s election was effected with ‘little opposition being made against him’, although ‘some few cried up one Mr [Richard] Spencer†’, which forced a poll. Bodl. Rawl. D.141, pp. 20-1. That this was a politicised election is evident from the fact that Spencer was a former client of George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham, and a supporter of the Arminians, who would become an active promoter of Sir Edward Dering’s proto-royalist petition in the months which followed, and who would be arrested by Parliament as a result. Everitt, Community of Kent, 95, 98-100; ‘Richard Spencer’, HP Commons 1660-1690. This was little more than academic, however, since Skynner had ‘very great odds’, and was duly chosen. Bodl. Rawl. D.141, pp. 20-1.

Much more contentious was the recruiter election in 1645, a writ having been issued on 12 September, to provide a replacement for Sir John Culpeper*, who had been disabled. Writing to his father on 15 September, Sir Henry Vane II* indicated that there was ‘great contestation’, and named four candidates who stood publicly – Sir John Sedley, Henry Oxinden*, Richard Beale*, and Sir Richard Hardres, the latter a moderate parliamentarian who would later join the Kentish revolt of 1647. Vane also noted, however, the ‘underhand’ candidacy of Colonel Thomas Blount* of Charlton, one of the county’s leading radicals. CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 138; Everitt, Community of Kent, 146, 154, 243-4, 249-50, 267, 274. Sedley himself explained that

I am now, after this long turbulency of action, desirous to retreat to a more sedentary condition, whereby yet I may the better be enabled to serve my country more effectually in the change of my capacity, and therefore am engaged by some of the best of my friends to appear in the next election for knight of the shire, to try the affections of my country. ‘Papers relating to proceedings in Kent, 1642-46’, 42.

Little over a week later, however, Vane was forced to report that the seat had been taken (on 22 September) by a sixth candidate, John Boys*. CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 155; Scotish Dove no. 102 (26 Sept.-3 Oct. 1645), 806 (E.303.34).

All of the candidates were local parliamentarians, but the contest between them indicated the factional divisions within the county, and the way in which it was possible for political allies to cooperate in order to serve larger factional goals. Oxinden withdrew from the contest in mid-September, ‘upon deliberation and consultation with some at Maidstone’, as a result of which he chose to ‘give up my interest to Captain Boys ... who hath a strong party’. Oxinden then ‘resolved to help him with all the power’ he possessed. Add. 28001, f. 35. Both Oxinden and Boys were involved in the attempt by Sir Anthony Weldon and the county committee to block the return of Sedley, a moderate and quarrelsome parliamentarian. Everitt, Community of Kent, 110, 117-18, 131, 146, 149-51. During the mid-1640s Weldon’s colleagues in Kent included men who, like Oxinden, his father, and to a lesser extent Boys as well, later became political Presbyterians. During 1645-6, however, they appear to have been willing to support Weldon and the ‘violent’ party in Kent.

The 1650s

The Kentish Members of the Nominated Assembly in 1653 were selected only in part by the 19 local congregational churches. Of the four men whom the churches recommended to Cromwell on 25 May, only one, William Kenwricke, subsequently sat for Kent, although two others, Thomas St Nicholas* and Samuel Hyland* sat for Yorkshire and Southwark respectively. The final candidate recommended by the Kentish churches, George Jackson of Sandhurst, may have been too aged and infirm to take his seat, given that he prepared his will in August 1653, and died sometime before 20 January 1654, having left bequests to the congregational churches at Cranbrook, Rolvenden, Lydd and Biddenden. Original Letters ed. Nickolls, 95-6; PROB11/239/158; A. and O. ii. 37, 119, 301, 469, 666.

It remains unclear how the other Members for Kent were selected, although in general they were radical and of humble social origins. Thomas Blount had emerged as a religious and political radical, albeit one who refused to cooperate with the high court of justice for the trial of Charles I, although he had subsequently served the Rump in both a military and civilian capacity. Another radical was Andrew Broughton, a figure of some standing both at Maidstone, where he had been mayor in 1647, and in the county, having been clerk of the peace since 1640; he had also served as clerk during the king’s trial. William Cullen was another prominent civic figure, and incumbent mayor of Dover, beyond which his influence extended little. The MP whose background and beliefs did not fit this pattern was Philip Sidney, Viscount Lisle, heir to the 2nd earl of Leicester (Robert Sidney†), one of the county’s preeminent peers. As a former lord lieutenant of Ireland, and a moderate Member of the Rump, Lisle had served on three councils of state, and it is thus possible that he was co-opted, rather than elected, to Parliament.

Under the Instrument of Government of December 1653, Kent was assigned 11 seats. In the elections for the first protectorate Parliament in 1654, the freeholders took the chance to return a variety of men who were critical of the regime, even if few of them were active opponents of it. The odd man out was the aged Sir Henry Vane I*, whose election probably reflected his standing as an elder statesman of the local community; otherwise, the MPs returned included political Independents, republicans, regicides and prominent figures during the Rump Parliament, like Lambarde Godfrey*, Augustine Skynner*, and John Dixwell*. Another member of this group, albeit one whose radical zeal had been expressed through military service rather than parliamentary activity, was Ralph Weldon*, former governor of Plymouth. A second group included men who had been zealous parliamentarian administrators during the civil wars, although they were of relatively minor political standing, and had played little role in public life during the Rump. These included local sequestrators, treasurers, and receivers, like Richard Beale* and Daniel Shetterden*, as well as minor gentry figures like William James* and John Seyliard*. In addition, the freeholders returned more moderate figures from the Long Parliament, like Henry Oxinden*, a Presbyterian, and John Boys, a leading figure among moderate Independents in the Commons, both of whom had been secluded at Pride’s Purge.

During parliamentary debates on the settlement of the government in early 1655, moves were made to redistribute Kent’s seats – including giving the county 12 seats, and re-enfranchising Hythe; but the pattern ultimately remained unchanged in 1656, when the county once again returned 11 knights of the shire. CJ vii. 411b. What had changed by 1656 was the presence of one of the Cromwellian major-generals. Thomas Kelsey* was already established in the county, as lieutenant of Dover Castle, and de facto lord warden of the Cinque Ports. However, Kelsey made no appreciable impact upon the county election, and the fact that nine of the men returned had been elected in 1654 (Beale, Boys, Dixwell, Godfrey, James, Oxinden, Seyliard, Shetterden, and Weldon) indicates the strength of opposition to Cromwellian rule in the county. Indeed, writing during the election, the navy commissioner Peter Pett* bemoaned the fact that Kelsey had been ‘too much undervalued’, and expressed his fear that this ‘may prove a sad presage’. CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 416; SP18/144, f. 111. The two new men, elected in the places of Vane I (who had died in 1655), and Skynner, were both men of minor political standing in the county: Sir Thomas Style*, for whom Skynner had once been guardian, and Richard Meredith*, the heir to a Kentish baronet. The latter, as the son-in-law of the Cromwellian councillor Philip Skippon*, is the only one of the 11 knights who may have benefited from Kelsey’s patronage.

Pett’s letter also revealed that the election took place in at least three stages. The first, on 20 August, saw the election of Dixwell, James, Oxinden and Styles, while another six men were elected on the following day (Godfrey, Beale, Boys, Weldon, Seyliard, and Meredith). In a demonstration of the major-general’s weakness, the third phase saw a contest between Kelsey and Shetterden for the last seat. Pett noted that the two men were ‘in competition and polling’, and Kelsey was eventually defeated. SP18/144, f. 111. Another indication of the strength of opposition in the county was that no fewer than seven of the successful candidates (Boys, Beale, Godfrey, James, Seyliard, Shetterden, and Style) were excluded by the protectoral council, while three of those admitted (Dixwell, Meredith and Oxinden) may only have been permitted to take their seats because it was perceived, correctly, that they would prove inactive. CJ vii. 425a. Weldon may only have been allowed to retain his seat out of a sense of duty to a man whose military service had resulted in personal financial ruin, and who was actively seeking substantial remuneration from the regime. Perhaps sensing, however, that some of the excluded men were far from being Cromwell’s most vocal critics, four of Kent’s MPs were later readmitted to the House. Godfrey was admitted to on or before 22 September, although he did not return to Westminster until mid-December. Burton’s Diary, i. 135, 194; CJ vii. 426a, 469a. Seyliard returned to the Commons sometime before 23 December. CJ vii. 473b. James and Style were readmitted during the second sitting, in early 1658. Bodl. Tanner 51, ff. 8-10; CJ vii. 580b, 581a, 588b, 589a, 592a. When the distribution of parliamentary seats was restored to a traditional pattern for Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament in 1659, James and Style secured the county seats, despite the fact that they remained relatively minor political figures in the county.