¹ Sharpe, Kevin, ‘The personal rule of Charles I’, in Before the English civil war, ed. Tomlinson, Howard (London, 1983), pp. 53–4, 74–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Carlton, Charles, Charles I (London, 1983), p. 154Google Scholar. Earlier versions of this paper were read to the Cambridge Historical Society and to Professor G. R. Elton's seminar in Cambridge. I am grateful to members of both groups, and especially to Dr J. S. Morrill, for their helpful comments.

² SirDering, Edward, A collection of speeches…in matter of religion (London, 1642Google Scholar; Wing, Donald, Short-title catalogue‥1641–1700 (30 vols., New York, 1945–1951)Google Scholar, D.1104) (Dering's collection is cited hereafter as Speeches, and Wing's catalogue as Wing). Although this edition of Dering's speeches was not published until 1642, the text of the earlier speeches is generally supported by surviving MS copies, some of which appear from their context to be roughly contemporary with the dates of the speeches (e.g. for the first speech: Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson A. 103, fos. 33–5; British Library, Additional MS (hereafter: Add. MS) 24863, fo. 22; Cambridge University Library, Additional MS 39, fos. 57–61), and by earlier printed editions, some of which cannot be shown to have been authorized by Dering, (e.g. Foure speeches made by Sir Edward Deering… (London, 1641: Wing D. 1111)Google Scholar, but also including one which Dering himself had entered in the Stationers' Register on 15 Apr. 1641 (Three speeches of Sir Edward Dearings… (London, 1641: Wing D.1118)Google Scholar; Plomer, H. R., A transcript of the registers of the worshipful Company of Stationers, 1640–1708 A.D. (30 vols., London, 1913–1914), I, 20)Google Scholar. Cf. Hirst, Derek, ‘The defection of Sir Edward Dering, 1640–1641’, Historical Journal, XV, 2 (1972), 201, 205Google Scholar. This is not the place for a full discussion of the editions of Dering's speeches.

³ The principal collections cited here are the various groups of Dering MSS in Kent Archives Office, Maidstone (hereafter: Dering MSS), and in the British Library: Stowe MSS 184, 743–4; Add. MSS 26785–6 (largely printed in Proceedings, principally in the county of Kent, ed. Larking, L. B., Camden Society, LXXX (1862)Google Scholar (hereafter: Proceedings)), 34195, 47788–9, 52798A. Dering's poll book for the Kent Short Parliament election is Bodleian Library, MS Top. Kent e. 6; the accompanying narrative of the election is printed in Jessup, F. W., ‘The Kentish election of March 1640’, Archaeologia Cantiana, LXXXVI (1971), 2–4Google Scholar (hereafter: ‘Election’). This and the following notes are intended to provide a guide to the sources cited in this paper, and not to constitute a complete list of Dering MSS. I am grateful to the staff of the libraries and repositories whose holdings are cited for their generous co-operation and assistance.

⁴ For Dering's own summary of his activity in this area, see Folger Shakespeare Library MSS (hereafter: Folger MSS), v.b.307, pp. 61, 63. The Library kindly gave permission to cite MSS in their care. CF. L[arking], L. B., ‘On the Surrenden charters’, Archaeologia Cantiana, I (1858), 55–8Google Scholar.

⁵ SirDering, Edward, The foure cardinall-vertues of a Carmelite-fryar (London, 1641: Wing D. 1109–10)Google Scholar (hereafter: Vertues); Thomas Doughty's reply is Add. MS 22465; Dering, , A discourse of proper sacrifice (Cambridge, 1644: Wing D.1115)Google Scholar (hereafter: Sacrifice). The drafts are Dering MSS: U. 275, Z.2; U. 2479, Z.1.

⁶ Cited below are Bodleian Library, MS Gough Kent 20; Add. MS 47787; Folger MSS, v.b.296 (available on microfilm as British Library, RP.27) and, of especial importance for this paper, Folger MSS, x.d.488 (British Library, RP. 58 is a rather unsatisfactory photocopy).

⁷ Lamont, William M., Godly rule (London, 1969), pp. 81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hirst, , ‘Defection’, pp. 193–208Google Scholar. Relevant aspects of Dering's career are also considered in Clark, Peter, English provincial society from the reformation to the revolution (Hassocks, 1977)Google Scholar and in Everitt, Alan, The community of Kent and the great rebellion (2nd impression, Leicester, 1973)Google Scholar. See also n. 127.

⁸ For Dering's biography, see the articles by Gardiner, S. R. in Dictionary of national biography, ed. Stephen, Leslie and Lee, Sidney (63 vols., London, 1885–1900)Google Scholar (hereafter: D.N.B.), XIV, 395a–396b, and by Bruce, John in Proceedings, pp. viii–liGoogle Scholar. The account which follows in this paragraph is taken from these works except where other references are given. I am grateful to Mr P. H. Blake for helpful discussions on the course of Dering's career.

⁹ Keeler's suggestion that Dering was born in 1599, rather than the previously accepted date of 1598, is not borne out by his age at death as given on his monumental inscription: Keeler, Mary Frear, The Long Parliament, 1640–1641 (Philadelphia, 1954), p. 155Google Scholar; Haslewood, Francis, The parish of Pluckley, Kent (Ipswich, 1899), p. 12Google Scholar. The account of Dering's father, Sir Anthony, in Hasler, P. W., The history of parliament: the house of commons, 1558–1603 (30 vols., London, 1981)Google Scholar, II, 33 can be supplemented from Public Record Office (hereafter: P.R.O.), Crown office docket books, C.231/1, fo. 104r; British Library, Lansdowne MS 89, fos. 107–9 and Dering MSS, especially U. 350, Z.8, reversed, unfoliated letter book of Sir Anthony Dering, 1597–1612.

¹⁰ Edward's involvement with the court in the 1620s can be traced through his account book: Dering MSS, U. 350, E.4, unfoliated. He obtained a warrant to be sworn a gentleman of the privy chamber extraordinary on 23 Jan. 1627: ibid., under date; cf. Stowe MS 743, fos. 130–1.

¹¹ Add. MS 49977, fo. 51r; Dering MSS, U. 350, G.2/23; Add. MS 52798A, fo. 46r.

¹² Dering last presided over the chancery of the Cinque Ports on 8 Dec. 1634; his successor first presided on 12 Mar. 1634/5: Kent Archives Office, Cinque Ports chancery proceedings, CPw/CS.2, fos. 205V, 214r.

¹³ See e.g. P.R.O., S.P. 16/363/100. Dering had succeeded his father on the commission of the peace in 1626, during the lifetime of the latter, who died in 1636: ibid.. C.231/4, fo. 209V; Dering MSS, U. 350, C.2/11.

¹⁴ Speeches, pp. 7, 4, 10, 12.

¹⁵ Heylyn, P., Cyprianus anglicus (London, 1668: Wing H. 1699), pp. 539–40Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Dering MSS, U. 275: C.1/5, C.1/9.

¹⁷ For the earlier disputes see e.g. Folger MSS, v.b.296, pp. 222–31 and leaf between pp. 240 and 241; Dering MSS, U. 1107, E.34, fos. 15v–16r. Some idea of the Bettenhams' standing can be deduced from the fact that John, the head of the family in the 1630s, was styled ‘esquire’; a son served as churchwarden of Pluckley, but the office of borsholder was thought beneath him: P.R.O., Chancery proceedings, C.2/Charles I/D.25/38: Dering MSS, U. 275, Q.2, p. 257; Kent Archives Office, Twysden MSS, U. 47/47, O.1, p. 17.

¹⁸ S.P. 16/266/35.1; Stowe MS 743, fo. 98; Haslewood, Francis, ‘Pevington and its rectors’, Archaeologia Cantiana, XXII (1897), 110–11Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Dering MSS. U. 350. Q.1 (Dering to Laud); U. 570, 0.1, p. 130; Kent Archives Office, Darell MSS, U. 386, Q.1.

²⁰ S.P. 16/347/27. I.

²¹ Stowe MS 743, fo. 98r; Haslewood, , ‘Pevington’, pp. 110–11Google Scholar. It might also be noted that, while there is no evidence of the Dering family running into problems with leases from earlier archbishops, as Dering did with Laud, Laud's general leasing policy may not have differed much from that of his predecessors: Heal, Felicity, ‘Archbishop Laud revisited: leases and estate management at Canterbury and Winchester before the civil war’, in Princes and paupers in the English church, 1500–1800, ed. O'Day, Rosemary and Heal, Felicity (Leicester, 1981), pp. 139–40Google Scholar. For a recent summary of Laudian measures against lay influence in the church, and of contemporary reactions thereto, see Sommerville, J. P., Politics and ideology in England, 1603–1640 (London, 1986), pp. 220–1Google Scholar.

²² Heylyn's picture of Laud's deviation from his predecessors on this score is borne out by Heal, Felicity, ‘The archbishops of Canterbury and the practice of hospitality’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XXXIII, 4 (1982), 559Google Scholar.

²³ MS Gough Kent 20. p. 7; Dering MSS, U. 350, C. 2/29.

²⁴ Dering MSS, U. 275, C.1/6; Clark, , Provincial society, p. 373Google Scholar; for Laud's relationship with the queen of Bohemia, see Trevor-Roper, H. R., Archhishop Laud (2nd edn, London, 1962), pp. 216–18Google Scholar; for Dering's friendship with Honeywood: Add. MS 47787, fo. 35r; Dering MSS, U. 350, Z.6.

²⁵ Add. MS 47789, fos. I5v–16r; Dering MSS: U. 350, E.4, 28 Sept. 1621; U. 1107, E.61.

²⁶ D.N.B. in, 183b, and see nn. 138–40.

²⁷ Dering MSS, U. 350: C.2/54; Q. 1 (Bargrave to Dering).

²⁸ Dering MSS: U. 1551; U. 275, C.1/8.

²⁹ B[ulteel], J[ohn], A relation of the troubles of the three forraign churches in Kent (London, 1645: Wing B.5452), pp. 27, 42–3Google Scholar; Proceedings, p. 91; S.P. 16/276/35; cf. Levack, Brian P., The civil lawyers in England (Oxford, 1973), pp. 169, 189–90, 193, 212–13Google Scholar.

³⁰ S.P. 16/347/27; cf. Stowe MS 743, fo. 98V.

³¹ Dering MSS, U. 350: C.2/27, C.2/54, C.2/72; Add. MS 47788, fos. 3V, 4r, 57r–v.

³² British Library, Egerton MS 2584, fo. 307r; S.P. 16/8/35. The household establishment for 1641 describes Reading as an extraordinary chaplain only, and presumably he had always held the office in such a capacity: P.R.O., L.C.3/1, fo. 38r. For the religious views which were consistent with preferment in the mid 1620s, see Tyacke, Nicholas, ‘Puritanism, Arminianism and counter-revolution’, in The origins of the English Civil War, ed. Russell, Conrad (London, 1973), pp. 128–9Google Scholar.

³³ Clark, , Provincial society, p. 323Google Scholar; Reading, John, Job's house (London, 1624Google Scholar: Pollard, A. W. and Redgrave, G. R., A short-title catalogue…1475–1640 (2nd edn, in progress, London, 1976–), IIGoogle Scholar (hereafter: S.T.C. ²), 20790), pp. 12–13; cf. White, Peter, ‘The rise of Arminianism reconsidered’, Past and Present, CI (1983), 51, 53 and n.74Google Scholar.

³⁴ His desire for a prebendal stall at Canterbury was frustrated until the Restoration: S.P. 16/8/35; S.P. 16/108/79; D.N.B. XLVII, 364a.

³⁵ Reading, John, Characters of true blessednesse (London, 1638: S.T.C. ², 20787), pp. 107–8Google Scholar.

³⁶ P.R.O., Lord chamberlain's warrant books, L.C. 5/134, p. 311.

³⁷ He was a protégé of Archbishop Abbot and a friend of Simonds D'Ewes in the 1620s; he rose no higher in the church than the prebendal stall that he gained at Canterbury in 1629, during Abbot's archiepiscopate, but he may have lacked ambition. He seems to have published nothing. John, and Venn, J. A., Alumni Cantabrigiensis (10 vols., Cambridge, 1922–1954), part 1, vol. II, p. 465Google Scholar; British Library, Harleian MSS: 646, fo. 46V; 6711, fo. 55r.

³⁸ Dering MSS, U. 350, Q.I (Bargrave to Dering).

³⁹ Dering's poll-book for the Short Parliament election shows that he was not then interested in Abbot's position, but he invited Abbot to dinner in July 1640: MS Top. Kent e.6, p. 16; Folger MSS, v.b.96, unnumbered pp. after p. 247.

⁴⁰ Collinson, Patrick, The religion of protestants (Oxford, 1982), pp. 274–5Google Scholar; Stowe MS 184, fos. 28r, 47r.

⁴¹ Matthews, A. G., Calamy revised (Oxford, 1934), p. 154Google Scholar; Proceedings, p. 120. Cf. Everitt, , Community, pp. 62–3Google Scholar. Dering was evidently also close to John Craig (Dering promoted his studies and wanted Laud to institute him to Pevington), but unfortunately little seems to be ascertainable regarding Craig, except that he kept a school at Throwley: Dering MSS, U. 350, C.2/40; S.P. 16/347/27; The diaries and papers of Sir Edward Dering, 2nd baronet, 1644–84, ed. Bond, Maurice F. (London, 1976), p. 108Google Scholar.

⁴² S.P. 16/347/27.I. Dering's reply, if any, to Copley's charge that he had opposed the ‘priviledges’ of the church by trying to impose an apprentice upon him does not survive; Dering, finding his actions utterly unacceptable to Laud, may have abandoned his position on this question: Darell MSS. U. 386. Q.I.

⁴³ Stowe MS 743, fo. 99V; S.P. 16/266/35.IV.

⁴⁴ The works of…William Laud, ed. Scott, William and Bliss, James (7 vols., Oxford, 1847–1860), V, 323, 336, 347–8, 355, 361Google Scholar; Dering MSS, U. 350, C.2/54.

⁴⁵ Hirst, , ‘Defection’, p. 198n. 19Google Scholar; Dering MSS, U. 275, C.1/8.

⁴⁶ Dering to Laud, Bargrave to Dering and Jeffrey to Dering, all in Dering MSS, U. 350, Q.I; S.P. 16/347/27.

⁴⁷ Dering MSS, U. 275, C.1/6; Stowe MS 743, fo. 98r.

⁴⁸ S.P. 16/347/27.1.

⁴⁹ There is no reference to an institution to Pevington after 1584 in P.R.O., Institution books, E.331, ser. A, vol. v, section for Kent, fo. 20r. On the exchange of livings, see Dering MSS, U. 350, Q.I (Jeffrey to Dering).

⁵⁰ Heal, , ‘Laud revisited’, p. 140Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Dering MSS, U. 275, C.1/6; Stowe MS 743, fo. 132r; Holmes, Clive, Seventeenth-century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), p. 118Google Scholar; Slack, Paul, ‘Religious protest and urban authority’, Studies in Church History, IX, ed. Baker, D. (Cambridge, 1972), 301Google Scholar; Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 134, fo. 189. Dorset could, however, denounce ‘purytynes’ in other contexts: Harleian MS 383, fo. 185r. Dorset's career during the 1630s warrants further study beyond the scope of this paper.

⁵² MS Top. Kent e.6, p. 41; Folger MSS, v.b.296, unnumbered pp. after p. 247. The reconciliation was not, however, permanent on Dering, 's part: Proceedings, p. 47Google Scholar.

⁵³ Though one might note Dering, 's reference to the ancient rights of the laity to have ‘power and voices’ in choosing ministers, which he would ‘not presse’: Speeches, pp. 36–7Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Proceedings, pp. 31, 29n. This and other comments on Dering, 's modifications to the petition are based on the text of the original petition (as identified and published in Proceedings, pp. 28–38)Google Scholar and on the revised version, published in Speeches, and reprinted in Proceedings, pp. 28n–30n. Whatever may be the general reliability of Speeches, the version of the amended petition there given can at least be said to differ from a 1641 publication of the petition in only minor details: cf. To the honourable houses of parliament…the humble petition…of Kent (1641: Wing T. 1418).

⁵⁵ Speeches, p. 5.

⁵⁶ Cf. Lamont, 's comment that ‘patronage could take place without commitment’ in 1640–1641: Godly rule, p. 93Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ D.N.B. XII, 189b. It was Laud's observation that converts from Roman Catholicism ‘for the most part’ became ‘as rigid the other way’: Works of Laud, II, epist. ded., p. xv.

⁵⁸ S.P. 16/266/35. I describes a ‘meeting’ of ‘many of the parishioners’ around the communion table, probably the incident described in Dering's petition to Laud as having taken place early in 1633: Dering MSS, U. 350. Q.I. There seems to be no evidence for arrangements at Pluckley in the later 1630s.

⁵⁹ Dering MSS, U. 133, O.2/8; cf. Folger MSS, x. d.488, fo. 33v, for date.

⁶⁰ Dering's work at Pluckley was not his only project for restoring ecclesiastical fabric, but all involved family chapels, and family pride may well have been a major motive for them; at Charing, Dering's plans apparently followed complaints from the churchwardens and seem to have been slow to come to fruition. However, the 1635 screen at Pluckley does bear the inscription ‘Dilexi decorem in domus Dei’ (seemingly a paraphrase of Psalm 25, v. 8 in the vulgate) and, though it bears Sir Anthony's name, may in fact have been Sir Edward's responsibility, like the earlier changes in the church. Sir Edward would suggest in 1642 that Laud's restoration of St Paul's cathedral would be his ‘perpetual monument’. Dering MSS: U. 350, E.4, 20 Aug. 1621; U. 350, F.17/5; U. 275, C.1/5; author's observations at Pluckley; Stowe MS 743, fos. 98–9; Speeches, p. 5.

⁶¹ Add. MS 52798A, fos. 37r–8r; Speeches, p. 11. Dering appears to have drafted a petition on behalf of Edward Fenner, a brother of the separatist, in 1638. Edward Fenner was later said to be bound for New England, but his petition insisted that he had resisted his brother's pressures towards separation. The consistency of Dering's attitude to separation in other contexts may suggest that he believed the terms of the petition to be true, even if Edward had indeed developed separatist tendencies by the date of the petition; it is even possible that the report of his emigration was false, since an Edward Fenner of Egerton appears twice in Dering's list of his supporters during the Short Parliament election. Dering MSS, U. 350,0.8; S.P. 16/424/48; MS Top. Kent e.6, pp. 19, 58.

⁶² Dering MSS, U. 350, E.4: 20 Jan. 1624/5; II Apr. 1627.

⁶³ Dering MSS: U. 1311, O.3/6; U. 350, C.2/24.

⁶⁴ Dering MSS, U. 350, E.4, 27 Feb. 1626/7; Larking, , ‘Surrenden charters’, pp. 55–8Google Scholar; Proceedings, p. 69; Shirley, E. P., Stemmata Shuleiana (2nd edn, London, 1873), pp. 120–1Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Dering MSS, U. 2479, Z.1, unfoliated. This draft is not precisely datable, but presumably belongs to 1639–40, the period of Dering's other anti-papist compositions. Its reference to Sir Humphrey Lynde's Via Tula (S.T.C. ², 17097) shows that it post-dates 1628.

⁶⁶ Sacrifice, p. 106; cf. Vertues, sig. Br; Folger MSS, x. d. 488, fo. 11r.

⁶⁷ Russell, Conrad, Parliaments and English politics, 1621–9 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 154–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁸ Vertues, sigs. A3r, A4V, p. 30.

⁶⁹ Sacrifice, sig. bv. If ‘Mrs Copley’ was the genuine name of another of those whom Dering tried to convert, then she may have been a member of the vicar's recusant family: Folger MSS, x. d. 488, fos. 3r–4r. Dering was also active against papists in his capacity as a J.P. in 1640: Dering MSS, U. 133, O.2/8; Folger MSS, x. d. 488, fo. 33V.

⁷⁰ For dates of composition see Vertues, sig. Br; Sacrifice, sig. br. One of the incomplete works also certainly belongs to July 1640: Dering MSS, U. 275, Z.2; cf. Vertues, sig. bv.

⁷¹ Dering MSS, U. 1107, Z.3; Folger MSS, x. d. 488. Parts of the notebook are devoted to references to the church Fathers and later divines intended to expose the weakness of the papal position on a number of points where it differed from that of the church of England (fos. 1r–v, 35v–40v); interspersed are more or less chronologically ordered drafts of letters to one of the parties whom Dering was trying to convert, which assist in dating the volume and its contents.

⁷² One of the objects of Dering's attention had been ‘not long since…cosened of his religion’: Dering MSS, U. 275, Z.2, p. 1.

⁷³ For the king's concern at this, reported by Laud to convocation in 1640, see S.P. 16/456/44.

⁷⁴ Proceedings, pp. 38, 31n–32n.

⁷⁵ Twysden MSS, U. 49, F.19, 10 Feb.

⁷⁶ Hibbard, Caroline, Charles I and the popish plot (Chapel Hill, 1983), p. 57Google Scholar; Richard, Mo(u)ntagu, Appello Caesarem (London, 1625Google Scholar: S.T.C.², 18030), sigs. av–a2r; Works of Laud: II, epist. ded., p. xvi; IV, 379; VI, 43.

⁷⁷ Folger MSS, x.d. 488, fos. 4V–5V.

⁷⁸ Ibid. fos. 6r, 9r, 10r: notes from [Williams, John], Holy table: name and thing (1637Google Scholar: S.T.C.², 25725.4), pp. 82, 85 (Dering was aware of Williams's authorship: Folger MSS, x.d.488, fo. 6v); Pocklington, John, Altare Christianum (2nd edn, London, 1637: S.T.C.³, 20076), pp. 59, 92Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Heylyn, Peter, Antidotum Lincolniensc (London, 1637Google Scholar: Pollard, A. W. and Redgrave, G. R., A short-title catalogue…1475–1640 (London, 1926)Google Scholar (hereafter: S.T.C), 13267), I, 84.

⁸⁰ White, , ‘Arminianism’, pp. 50–1Google Scholar; Tyacke, , ‘Puritanism, Arminianism and counterrevolution’, pp. 131–5Google Scholar; Lockyer, Roger, Buckingham (London, 1981), p. 307Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Dering MSS, U. 2479, Z.1, unfoliated.

⁸² White, , ‘Arminianism’, p. 51Google Scholar; Add. MS 22465, fo. 16r.

⁸³ Montagu, , Appello, pp. 210–11Google Scholar, 213–14. The fullest sense of assurance would seem to be inconsistent with Dering's suggestion, presumably in 1630, for a ninscription reading ‘ORATE pro bono statu D[omi]ni Edoardi Dering…cuius anime propitietur Deus’: Dering MSS, U. 350, F. 17/5. It may be, however, that Dering's views on justification developed during the 1630s, or else that the form of the inscription was dictated more by his antiquarianism than by his theology.

⁸⁴ Marriott, Robert, A sermon tn commemoration of…Mistns Elizabeth Dering (1641: Wing M.715), p. 34Google Scholar; Dering MSS, U. 2479, Z. I, unfoliated.

⁸⁵ Folger MSS, x.d. 488, fo. 6v; Vedelius, Nicolaus was the author of, inter alia, De arcane Armimanismi (Leiden, 1631)Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Folger MSS, x. d. 488, fo. 7v, quoting Montagu's claim that Calvin was Luther's ‘secondary’. Dering later expressed a high view of Calvin, but did not regard Calvin's theological system as authoritative; the joint testimony of the early Fathers was for him of prime importance in interpreting the scriptures: Sacrifice, sigs. d2r, e4v, p. 59; Folger MSS, x. d. 488, fo. 19r. This was not exceptional and says little about Dering's theological position; cf. White, , ‘Arminianism’, p. 35 and n. 8Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ Dering's notes at Folger MSS, x. d. 488, fol. 7v are in fact confined to pp. 43–7 of Montagu's Appello, but see fo. 40v for evidence of Dering's reading elsewhere in the volume.

⁸⁸ Folger MSS, x. d. 488, fos. 39V–40V (cf. also fos. 36r–38r); for Laud, see White, , ‘Arminianism’, p. 53Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Dering MSS, U. 350, C. 2/19; Lockyer, , Buckingham, p. 307Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Proceedings, pp. 30, 29n.

⁹¹ Speeches, pp. 13, 94, 103. It is, of course, possible that Dering's reluctance to raise the debate on justification sprang not from a lack of concern, but from a recognition that the issue was exciting little attention and that its introduction might therefore be politically ineffective; ‘Arminianism’ as such was not in fact mentioned in the charge against Laud: Morrill, J. S., ‘The attack on the church of England in the Long Parliament’, in History, society and the churches, ed. Beales, Derek and Best, Geoffrey (Cambridge, 1985), p. 116Google Scholar.

⁹² Folger MSS, x.d.488, fo. 8v.

⁹³ For Grantham see Gardiner, S. R., History of England…1603–1642 (10 vols., London. 1883–1884), VII, 16–17Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ For contemporary observation regarding Kent, see Add. MS 34163 (Sir Roger Twysden's notebook), fo. 131r.

⁹⁵ S.P. 16/250/12; Dering's notes embrace Williams, Holy Table; Heylyn, Antidotum; Pocklington, Altare and the comments on the placing of the altar in Laud's speech at the censure of Bastwick, Burton and Prynne: Folger MSS, x.d. 488, fos. 6r–v, 9r, 10r.

⁹⁶ Ibid. fo. 9r.

⁹⁷ Ibid. fo. 6v.

⁹⁸ Verities, pp. 18–19.

⁹⁹ Sacrifice, sig. d2r.

¹⁰⁰ Folger MSS, x.d.488, fo. 19v.

¹⁰¹ Add. MS 22465, fos. 32V, 42r v, 75V 76r; cf. Sacrifice, sig. d4r.

¹⁰² Works of Laud: II, epist. ded., p. xvi; VI, 59.

¹⁰³ Folger MSS, x. d. 488, fos. 5V 6r, Dering's notes on Mo(u)ntagu, Richard, Immediate addresse unto God alone (London, 1624Google Scholar: S.T.C. ², 18039).

¹⁰⁴ Folger MSS, x.d.488, fos. 9r, 7v.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid. fo. 9r; Sacrifice, sig. d2v.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. more general references to ‘Popish ceremonies’, e.g. in the Grand Remonstrance. That Dering was not alone in seeing popery as lying, not in mere outward resemblance, but in an implication of proper sacrifice, is suggested by the insistence of Canon VII of 1640 on the invalidity of this line of argument. The journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes from the beginning of the Long Parliament…, ed. Nostestein, Wallace (New Haven, 1923), p. 38Google Scholar; Gardiner, S. R., The constitutional documents of the puritan revolution, 1625–1660 (3rd edn, Oxford, 1906), p. 230Google Scholar; Works of Laud, V, 625, quoted below.

¹⁰⁷ Proceedings, pp. 38, 31n–32n.

¹⁰⁸ Folger MSS, x.d.488, fos. 6v, 10r, 6r.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid. fo. 6v; Sacrifice, sig. d4v.

¹¹⁰ Sacrifice, sigs. d2v, ev–e2v; Works of Laud, II, 326–7; Folger MSS, x.d.488, fo. 17r. Laud himself pointed out that, though there was a difference between the doctrine of the real presence, which he upheld, and that of transubstantiation, the two were often confused: Works of Laud, IV, 284.

¹¹¹ Speeches, p. 5. Dering indeed cited Laud, 's Conference with Fisher, pp. 305–6Google Scholar (Works of Laud, II, 340–1) in early 1640 in opposition to the Roman position on the sacrifice of the mass, but this is no indication of Dering's attitude to Laud then, since he was happy to quote even papists against the doctrines advanced by their co-religionists when he could: Folger MSS, x. d. 488, fo. 36 V (the Conference is identifiable, by the press-mark given, from Dering's library catalogue ibid. v.b.297, p.17); cf. Vertues, pp. 24–5.

¹¹² ‘Election’, p. 4; Works of Laud: V, 342–3; VI, 478–9.

¹¹³ Add. MS 22465, fo. 103r; Cardwell, Edward, Synodalia (2 vols. in one, Oxford, 1862), p. 255Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Sir Roger Twysden, writing to Dering, made no excuse for taking it seriously: Stowe MS 184, fo. 10r.

¹¹⁵ Add. MS 22465, fo. 15r–v.

¹¹⁶ The canon did permit a man to cover his head in case of ‘infirmity’: Cardwell, , Synodalia, p. 255Google Scholar; cf. Diaries and papers of Sir Edward Dering, 2nd baronet, ed. Bond, , p 109Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ Speeches, pp. 85–6; Dering MSS, U. 2479, Z. I, unfoliated.

¹¹⁸ Folger MSS, x.d.488, fo. 6r; Add, MS 47787, fo. 75V. Even in 1641, Dering said that he had ‘never liked…the severe Inquisition upon the bare omission’ of bowing at the name of Jesus conducted by the hierarchy in the 1630s, implying that he had then objected to the enforcement of a ceremony laid down in the 1604 canons. The argument which Dering ultimately compiled to show the invalidity of the canons of 1640 did equally (but tacitly) suggest that those of 1604 had no binding force on the laity. Speeches, pp. 88, 41–2.

¹¹⁹ Stowe MS 184, fo. 10r.

¹²⁰ Dering later described the mayor of Dover whom he accused of encouraging separatists as ‘having much favoured the Puritanes’; ‘separatists’ and ‘Puritan faction’ were apparently interchangeable as descriptions of Twysden's supporters in the Short Parliament election: Add. MS 52798A, fos. 37r–38r; Add. MS 47788, fo. 10r–v; ‘Election’, pp. 3, 4. Dering also said in 1640 that he ‘love[d]’ to be called a ‘Puritan’ by his Carmelite opponent, but this is hardly surprising, since Doughty argued that not to be ‘Romanised’ was to be a ‘rigid Puritan’: Dering MSS, U. 275, Z.2, p. 5; Add. MS 22465, fo. 15V.

¹²¹ Proceedings, pp. 34, 30n.; this comment is based on a comparison with Cardwell, , Synodalia, pp. 255Google Scholar, 260–4 and with a 1639 edition of the book of common prayer.

¹²² The clergy in question were Wilson, Thomas of Otham, , Snelling, Lawrence of Cray, St Paul's, Bright, Edward of Goudhurst, and Culmer, Richard of Goodnestone, : Speeches, pp. 9–11Google Scholar; D'Ewes, ed. Notestein, , p. 20Google Scholar n.I. pp. 83, 537; Commons' journals, II, 29b; Proceedings, pp. 90–3, 120, 143–4; Matthews, , Calamy revised, pp. 74–5, 154Google Scholar.

¹²³ Speeches, p. 13; Foure speeches, p. 3. See n. 124.

¹²⁴ Equally, the ordinand did not make clear how he had answered it: Speeches, p. 44; Add. MS 26785, fo. 74 r. Dering's comment on Wilson quoted above was not repeated in the first edition of his speeches whose publication he certainly authorized; unless the apparently unauthorized versions and the MS copies which contain the phrase all depend on a single corrupt copy of the original, it seems that Dering had decided by April 1641 that he could not sustain the claim that Wilson was a conformist in practice: Three speeches, p. 6; see n. 2 for MS copies of this speech. Yet Dering's earlier claim may have been sincere, for Wilson, whatever his later reputation, had not balked at citing the prayer book in his own defence during the 1630s: G[eorge] S[winnock], The life and death of Mr Thomas Wilson (1672: Wing S.6277), pp. 15–16; cf. Speeches, p. 11. Equally, Snelling had been accused of omitting parts of the liturgy in the 1630s, but nothing of this seems to have emerged when his case was discussed in 1640; Dering may or may not have been aware of the charge, therefore: S.P. 16/381/63; Proceedings, pp. 91–3.

¹²⁵ Speeches, p. 4.

¹²⁶ The younger Dering later moved to Emmanuel, but in late 1642, not in 1640 as stated in his memoirs: Diaries and papers of Sir Edward Denng, 2nd baronet, ed. Bond, , p. 109Google Scholar; Emmanuel College, Cambridge, archives, CHA. 1.4, fo. 147r, confirming Venn, , Alumni Cantabrigiensis, part 1, vol. II, p. 36Google Scholar (I am grateful to the sub-librarian of Emmanuel College, Miss A. S. Bendall, for help on this point). For Sidney, see Cliffe, J. T., The puritan gentry (London, 1984), pp. 97–8Google Scholar; for Dering's later comments: Sacrifice, sig. b2 v.

¹²⁷ ‘Election’, pp. 2–3; S.P. 16/447/43; Stowe MS 184, fo. 10r. The section which follows is not intended to offer a full discussion of the 1640 elections in Kent, and treats only those aspects relevant to the theme of this paper. The fullest account, in Everitt, , Community, pp. 69–83Google Scholar, was compiled before Dering's own account of the Short Parliament election became available to scholars; cf. Plumb, J. H., ‘The growth of the electorate in England from 1600–1715’, Past and Present, XLV (1969), pp. 104–6Google Scholar; Hirst, , ‘Defection’, pp. 197–9Google Scholar; ‘Election’, pp. 1–10; Clark, , Provincial society, pp. 379, 384–7Google Scholar; Fletcher, Anthony, ‘National and local awareness’, in Before the civil war, ed. Tomlinson, , pp. 159–61Google Scholar (resting, apparently, on an assessment of the secondary material).

¹²⁸ D.N.B. XXXVI, 89a–b; Stowe MS 743, fo. 156r; Add. MS 47788, fo. 46r–v.

¹²⁹ ‘Election’, p. 2.

¹³⁰ Cf. Twysden, 's account: Proceedings, pp. 6–7Google Scholar. However, even Twysden7s account is not inconsistent with Dering's claim that he had been intent from the start on the return of Norton Knatchbull, which would have ensured that at least one of the county's M.P.s was neither councillor nor deputy: ‘Election’, p. 2. None of this is intended to suggest that Dering's decision to stand for the county himself, and to persevere in his candidature, may not have been influenced by an element of personal pride, as suggested by Fletcher, , ‘Awareness’, pp. 159–61Google Scholar.

¹³¹ Dering MSS, U.350: C.2/72 (Dering to Mr Pringle), C.2/82. Why such a position should have led Dering to refuse to support any privy councillor or deputy lieutenant requires further discussion which, for reasons of space, cannot be presented here. Dering's refusal to support a deputy lieutenant may suggest that he did not feel that religion was the only issue at stake. Cf. n. 185.

¹³² MS Top. Kent e.6, p. 41.

¹³³ Ibid. p. 32; Swinnock, , Wilson, pp. 8–9Google Scholar.

¹³⁴ Dering MSS, U. 350, C.2/83; Proceedings, pp. 15–16; S.P. 16/499/67.I. Cf. n. 152.

¹³⁵ Stowe MS 743, fo. 149r.

¹³⁶ Fletcher, , ‘Awareness’, pp. 160–1Google Scholar, cf. Clark, , Provincial society, p. 379Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ MS Top. Kent e.6, p. 28; ‘Election’, p. 2; cf. Proceedings, p. 7; Dering MSS, U. 350, C.2/82.

¹³⁸ He told the Kentish Stranger churches in May 1635 that he wished that he could grant them a longer respite from the implementation of Laud's policies towards them: Bulteel, , Troubles of the three forraign churches, p. 37Google Scholar, cf. p. 2; S.P. 16/278/64.I.

¹³⁹ Bargrave was a chaplain to Charles by 1624. He could then speak of the church of England holding the ‘middle way’ on justification, the kind of view which might have been seen as 'Arminian later, and, indeed, in 1639 he wanted his son to be educated under Vossius: Bargrave, Isaac, A sermon against selfe policy (London, 1624Google Scholar: S.T.C., 1415), title page, pp. 24–5; Calendar of state papers, domestic…1639 (London, 1873), p. 353Google Scholar. On the other hand, that he was chosen by the House of Commons as a preacher in 1624, being recommended by Sir Nathaniel Rich, might suggest that he was not at that stage an ardent ceremonialist, and, indeed, while insisting that ‘Sanctitie [was] ever accompanied with Decency’, he said that he would not ‘make a quarrell of a Ceremony’; he expressed the view (as did Dering later) that an ‘Altar properly taken, infers sacrifice properly taken’, but he accepted the use of the term ‘altar’ metaphorically and it must remain an open question whether, in the 1630s, he shared Dering's belief that Laudian ceremonial implied proper sacrifice: Commons' journals, 1, 715b; Bargrave, , A sermon preached before…the lower house of parliament (London, 1624: S.T.C., 1413), pp. 12, 28–9, 30–2Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁰ This judgement is based principally on their correspondence during the 1630s, especially: S.P. 16/357/122; S.P. 16/361/15; S.P. 16/365/36; S.P. 16/366/29; cf. Culmer, Richard, Dean and chapter newes from Canterbury (2nd edn, London, 1649: Wing C.7479), p. 7Google Scholar. The tension between them was not simply a product of their respective positions as archbishop and dean; there had been differences as early as 1627, when Laud had hindered Bargrave's preferment: S.P. 16/83/48; Works of Laud, III, 206.

¹⁴¹ Woodruff, C. Eveleigh, ‘Some seventeenth century letters and petitions from the muniments of the dean and chapter of Canterbury’, Archaeologia Cantiana, XLII (1930), 111–13Google Scholar; Culmer, , Dean and chapter newes, p. 9Google Scholar; cf. Prynne, William, Canterburies doome (London, 1646: Wing P. 3917), p. 92Google Scholar.

¹⁴² Dering MSS, U. 350: C.2/73, C.2/54; Add. MS 52798A, fo. 37r–v; Egerton MS 2584, fo. 305V. For revived or continued separatism in Dover in 1639, see S.P. 16/432/27.1–III.

¹⁴³ Certain ‘Brownists’ intended, following Dering's return to the Long Parliament, to petition against him regarding his treatment of separatists during the 1630s: Stowe MS 184, fo. 27r. Cf. accusations earlier that Dering had ‘called ministers hedge-priests’: ‘Election’, p. 4.

¹⁴⁴ ‘Election’, p. 3. Twysden seems, in fact, an unlikely friend of separatism; he wrote to Dering that he was happy to go up to the rails to receive communion and that he would ‘iustyfy’ so doing: Stowe MS 184, fo. 10r; cf. Jessup, Frank W., Sir Roger Twysden (London, 1965), pp. 31–2, 138, 193–6Google Scholar. It seems probable, therefore, that, if Dering's depiction of Twysden as a friend of separatism had any foundation in reality, then that reality derived from the separatists' distrust of Dering, rather than from any positive identification with them on Twysden's part. The support for Twysden noted in MS Top. Kent e.6 in fact includes clerics of widely varying persuasions, such as John Player and Edward Ashburnham: pp. 28, 53; cf. Matthews, A. G., Walker revised (Oxford, 1948), p. 223Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁵ Stowe MS 743, fo. 149r.

¹⁴⁶ For Bargrave and Dering, see above. For Kingsley's friendliness towards Dering in 1633, see Add. MS 34195, fo. 26r, and cf. S.P. 16/147/79. Another reputed enthusiast for Laudian ceremonial who supported Dering in the Short Parliament election would later write that Dering knew him ‘intus et in cute’: MS Top. Kente. 6, p. 38; Matthews, , Walker revised, p. 223Google Scholar; Proceedings, p. III.

¹⁴⁷ Add. MS 22465, fo. 102r.

¹⁴⁸ ‘Election’, p. 4.

¹⁴⁹ Hirst, , ‘Defection’, pp. 197–8Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ Dering MSS, U. 350, C.2/72; Stowe MS 743, fo. 140r; Jessup, , Twysden, p. 22Google Scholar.

¹⁵¹ Fletcher, , ‘Awareness’, pp. 160–1Google Scholar.

¹⁵² John Player, who canvassed for Dering in the autumn, had voted for Twysden in the earlier election: see n. 144; cf. Clark, , Provincial society, p. 384Google Scholar. Yet the extent to which it is certain that, even in the autumn, Dering pursued support from such quarters can be exaggerated: Clark converts the observation that ‘all the puritans of Sandwich’ were ‘for’ Dering into Dering's ‘care to win [them] over’: cf. Dering MSS, U. 275, C.1/11.

¹⁵³ Hirst, , ‘Defection’, p. 199Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁴ Ibid. p. 198 and n. 22; Stowe MS 184, fo. 27r; Proceedings, p. 23.

¹⁵⁵ Dering MSS, U. 275, C.1/11. For contemporary assessment of Boys, see Proceedings, pp. 23–4.

¹⁵⁶ Such a formulation may help to reconcile the apparently contrasting characterizations of Dering's role in the 1640 elections offered by Everitt, , Community, p. 83Google Scholar, and by Clark, , Provincial society, pp. 379, 385Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁷ Speeches, p. 10, my italics. Dering was aware of Laud's concern to defend clerical jurisdiction: Folger MSS, x.d.488, fo. 6v.

¹⁵⁸ Speeches, pp. 9–11, 14–15.

¹⁵⁹ Proceedings, p. 91; D'Ewes, ed. Notestein, p. 20 n. 1; Dering MSS, U. 2479, Z.1. unfoliated; on the relevance of Sarpi's history in England, see Wright, A. D., The counter-reformation (London, 1982), pp. 13–14Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁰ Speeches, pp. 9–11, 12.

¹⁶¹ Speeches, p. 162 and references at n. 154.

¹⁶² Harleian MS 384, fo. 66r; Morrill, J. S., ‘Sir William Brereton and England's wars of religion’, Journal of British Studies, XXIV, 3 (1985), 324Google Scholar.

¹⁶³ Harleian MS 385, fo. 147r.

¹⁶⁴ Speeches, p. 136.

¹⁶⁵ Folger MSS, x. d. 488, fo. gr.

¹⁶⁶ Works of Laud, v, 625.

¹⁶⁷ Speeches, pp. 24–42.

¹⁶⁸ Cf. Selden's, view that, though the ‘prelaticall Clergie’ were charged with popery, they were known not to be guilty of it: Table talk of John Selden, ed. SirPollock, Frederick (London, 1927), P. 99Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁹ The range of business handled by Dering's committee is apparent from his own notes: Proceedings, pp. 80–100. That the discoveries of investigative committees prompted a sense of a ‘need for radical reform’ has been suggested by Morrill, , ‘Attack’, pp. 113–14Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁰ Most notably SirHesilrige, Arthur, who handed the ‘root and branch’ bill to Dering, and whom Dering later described as his ‘hearty friend’: Speeches, pp. 62–3Google Scholar; Stowe MS 184, fos. 64v, 95r, 104r. cf. Hirst, ‘Defectiom’, p. 199.

¹⁷¹ Lamont, , Godly rule, pp. 85–92Google Scholar; Hirst, , ‘Defection’, pp. 194–6, 200–1, 205–8Google Scholar.

¹⁷² Dering MSS, U. 350, C.2/85; Predeedings, pp. 25–6.

¹⁷³ Proceedings, p. 19.

¹⁷⁴ Speeches, pp. 12, 100, 104–5.

¹⁷⁵ Speeches, pp. 13, 44; Lambeth Palace Library, MS 943, p. 736 (copy in Dering's hand of an undelivered speech prepared during the 1641 recess); Folger MSS, x. d. 488, fo. 8v.

¹⁷⁶ Speeches, pp. 16–17; see n. 54.

¹⁷⁷ Folger MSS, x. d. 488, fo. 35V.

¹⁷⁸ Proceedings, pp. 33–4, 29 n–30 n.

¹⁷⁹ Hirst, , ‘Defection’, p. 196Google Scholar n. 12. The ultimate explanation of Dering's behaviour in his later years may well lie in the effects of a ‘great paine in one side of his head’ of which, according to his son, he had ‘a long time complained’ before his death: Diaries and papers of Sir Edward Dering, 2nd baronet, ed. Bond, , p. 109Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁰ Hirst, , ‘Defection’, p. 200Google Scholar; I.P., The copie of a letter (London, 1641/1642: Wing P. 4257)Google Scholar, sig. A3V.

¹⁸¹ As, for example, that emanating from the chapter of Canterbury in December 1640: Hirst, , ‘Defection’, p. 199Google Scholar.

¹⁸² As is the case with the comments cited at nn. 179–80.

¹⁸³ D.N.B. XXVI, 293a; Speeches, p. 63; Hirst, , ‘Defection’, p. 203Google Scholar; cf. Proceedings, p. 47.

¹⁸⁴ For recent consideration of such a view of Charles's court, see Hirst, Derek, Authority and conflict (London, 1986), pp. 31Google Scholar, 161, 165, but cf. the discussion of Dorset above.

¹⁸⁵ S.P. 16/453/11 One signatory of this letter, Sir Humphrey Tufton, was a deputy lieutenant, but Dering nowhere else appears in such a capacity outside his Dover period and was most probably, like other signatories, a more junior militia officer: ‘Election’, p. 3; Historical MSS Commission, 12th report, appendix, The MSS ofthe Earl Cowper (30 vols., London, 1888–1889), I, 212Google Scholar; Everitt, , Community, p. 32Google Scholar; cf. Dering MSS, U. 350, E.4, 16 June and 24 July 1626, 19 Apr. 1627. Cf. Clark, , Provincial society, p. 379Google Scholar.