The King's Own Conference: Abstract

Right: James I by Nicholas Hillyard

The first major act of James VI & I touching the Church of England affairs was to convene a conference of bishops and other clergy before himself and his Privy Council at Hampton Court in January 1604. The commonly accepted account of this conference is that James called it in response to the Millenary Petition, which was presented to him on his first journey into England and which sought a "conference among the learned" to settle complaints of the "puritans". The conference has been seen as a meeting between the two sides. However, when the evidence is examined carefully, doubts arise about this account. There is no contemporary report of either the presentation of the petition or of the King's response to it, nor is there any record that James said he had called the conference because he was asked to. Indeed, the reference to a conference in the Millenary Petition is hardly a request. Furthermore, James's actions in the months between his accession and the conference show that he felt quite free to act in the Church without calling a conference. However, since no convening circular or agenda of the conference has survived, his intentions must be gathered from the record of what happened at Hampton Court in January 1604. Here arises the question of the sources of the conference. The quasi-official account of the conference by William Barlow, although long accepted as authoritative, has been also been accused of inaccuracy and bias. It has been claimed that another, anonymous account is accurate. No careful study of these accounts has ever been published. It is argued here that such a study shows that Barlow's work does indeed seem to report the conference fairly. The identity of the participants in the conference and the course of discussion show that this was not really a conference between the puritans and conformists. The clergy who took part were nine bishops, eight deans, two other clergy ("the doctors"), and four ministers who had been invited to say what was in need of reform. For most of the conference only the bishops and deans met with the King: it was at these sessions that most of the substantial decisions were reached. The four ministers were present on the second day of the conference, along with two of the bishops, the deans, and the doctors. Only a few of the ministers' points were accepted, while others had been dealt with by the King and bishops. The records of the conference also show that James was very concerned for the state of Ireland, a matter than had not been mentioned in any English petition. This and the Scottish background to his ready acceptance of the request for a new translation of Scripture suggest that we should not look at Hampton Court as only a matter of English church history. At the time, James's plan for an incorporating union of England and Scotland had not yet been rebuffed by Parliament. Indeed, these considerations lead to the question as to whether the King had a religious policy for all three kingdoms, and what place this conference might have had in it which is a broader question not answered in this discourse. While there are many precedents for a conference to settle Church affairs, and James himself appealed to the example of his predecessors, the real precedent for this conference is to be sought in James's own experience. It had long been his habit in Scotland to summon conferences of clergy and lords. It is perhaps because such a thing was unknown in England that historians wanted to find an easier explanation, and said that James had called the conference because the petition had sought it. We conclude that James called the conference for the reason he gave: for his own instruction in the ecclesiastical disputes of England so that he could do what was necessary for religious peace and unity. The conference was not called to settle the disputes of bishops and puritans: the King would do that. Hampton Court 1604 was the King's conference not only because he presided but because it was called on his initiative and he controlled the agenda.