The Arrival of the Four Ministers
The postponement of its opening from January 12 to January 14 is not the only sign of confusion in the planning of the conference at Hampton Court. It is worth remembering before moving on to the other sign of confusion that no order papers, agendas, or minutes of this conference have survived, so that it is not possible to know what King James had planned for it. The first part of this paper showed that it is not even clear just when the conference was supposed to begin. In the second part it emerges that the participants do not seem to have been summoned for the same day, and that the disruption of events on the 12th continued on Saturday the 14th.
William Barlow reports that when he and the other deans returned to the Presence Chamber with the bishops on Saturday morning January 14,
The postponement of its opening from January 12 to January 14 is not the only sign of confusion in the planning of the conference at Hampton Court. It is worth remembering before moving on to the other sign of confusion that no order papers, agendas, or minutes of this conference have survived, so that it is not possible to know what King James had planned for it. The first part of this paper showed that it is not even clear just when the conference was supposed to begin. In the second part it emerges that the participants do not seem to have been summoned for the same day, and that the disruption of events on the 12th continued on Saturday the 14th.
William Barlow reports that when he and the other deans returned to the Presence Chamber with the bishops on Saturday morning January 14,
there we found sitting upon a form, Doctor Rainolds, Doctor Sparks; Master Knewstubs, and Master Chaderton, agents for the Millenary Plaintiffs. The bishops entering the Privy-Chamber, stayed there, till commandment came from his Majesty that none of any sort should be present, but only the Lords of the Privy Council, and the Bishops with five Deans, viz. of the Chapel, Westminster, Paul’s, Westchester,[1] Salisbury, who being called in, the door was close shut by my Lord Chamberlain. [2]
There are several points of interest in Barlow’s description. First, the day appointed for the beginning of the conference was Thursday January 12th. Only the bishops and deans came to the palace that day. [3] Second, when the bishops and deans returned on Saturday morning, they found the four ministers, who had not been there on Thursday, waiting in the Presence Chamber. Third, the bishops immediately went into the Privy Chamber, apparently leaving the deans. Tobie Matthew adds that the bishops were sent for by the king “into an inner withdrawing chamber.” Matthew’s statement seems to imply that the bishops were so summoned after they withdrew from the other clergy, but this is not entirely clear. It does not help the interpretation of events that Matthew never mentions the deans [4] After a short while word came that the King would meet with the bishops and five deans in the presence of the lords of the privy council, the five deans were called in, the door was shut by the Lord Chamberlain and the conference began. At the end of the session, Monday was appointed for the ministers to “bring in their complaints”; the anonymous Harleian account states that “The Lord Chancellor called for Doctor Reynolds and those that were seekers of reformation, and appointed them to attend there on Monday.”
Only Barlow mentions that the four ministers were in the Presence Chamber on 14th, though the Harleian account implies as much. However, while Barlow’s account has been called partial and unreliable, this detail has not been questioned. Indeed, Laurence Chaderton, whose annotated copy of Barlow has been studied by Arnold Hunt, objected that Barlow at this point called the four "agents for the millenary plaintiffs," but not that he said they at the palace but left out of the meeting on Saturday morning..[5] There does not seem to be any reason why Barlow should have invented this detail.
The question that arises is for what day the four ministers were invited to meet with the king. Thursday January 12th was the day appointed for the conference; if they had been summoned for that day, why did they not come that day? If they had been summoned to come on Saturday January 14th, why were they left out of the meeting on that day?
It seems likely that the conference had been meant to begin on the 12th with a meeting of the king with the bishops in the presence of the Privy Council, and continue with a meeting with the four ministers on the 14th. As was suggested in the first part of the paper, however, this schedule was disarranged at the last minute in order to give a banquet for the ambassador from Savoy. The change seems to have been made so late that the bishops had only heard a rumour of the postponement before they came to present themselves at the appointed time. It is reasonable to suppose that the four ministers were also not informed of this sudden change, and came when they were supposed to, only to find that they were not yet wanted. This avoids Peter White’s suggestion that the four ministers were left out of the session as a "deliberate snub."[6] It might indeed have been taken as a snub, but not meant as such.
Roland Usher may well have been right to describe the incident as tense and awkward, and possibly “watched … with glee by the court gossips,” [7] but no comment of the court gossips has survived. After describing the first day’s session Dudley Carleton simply says that the ministers will have their turn on Monday and adds that that the “two companies as they differ in opinions so do they in fashions, for one side marches in gowns and rochets, and the other in cloaks and Nightcaps.”[8]
The incident shows more that the conference was badly planned than that anyone wanted to snub the four ministers. This bad planning itself suggests that the conference at Hampton Court was not so much a grand event intended to allow the parties of the church to face off against each other as what the king said it was, a meeting of learned clergy “by whose information and advise we might govern our proceeding” if it was made clear that anything really did need reform in the Church. At the second session, on Monday January 16th, the four ministers did not have a debate with the prelates, but presented their case to the king himself, with the bishops and deans acting more as the king's assessors than the ministers' opponents. This point will come up again in a later discussion on this blog.
Only Barlow mentions that the four ministers were in the Presence Chamber on 14th, though the Harleian account implies as much. However, while Barlow’s account has been called partial and unreliable, this detail has not been questioned. Indeed, Laurence Chaderton, whose annotated copy of Barlow has been studied by Arnold Hunt, objected that Barlow at this point called the four "agents for the millenary plaintiffs," but not that he said they at the palace but left out of the meeting on Saturday morning..[5] There does not seem to be any reason why Barlow should have invented this detail.
The question that arises is for what day the four ministers were invited to meet with the king. Thursday January 12th was the day appointed for the conference; if they had been summoned for that day, why did they not come that day? If they had been summoned to come on Saturday January 14th, why were they left out of the meeting on that day?
It seems likely that the conference had been meant to begin on the 12th with a meeting of the king with the bishops in the presence of the Privy Council, and continue with a meeting with the four ministers on the 14th. As was suggested in the first part of the paper, however, this schedule was disarranged at the last minute in order to give a banquet for the ambassador from Savoy. The change seems to have been made so late that the bishops had only heard a rumour of the postponement before they came to present themselves at the appointed time. It is reasonable to suppose that the four ministers were also not informed of this sudden change, and came when they were supposed to, only to find that they were not yet wanted. This avoids Peter White’s suggestion that the four ministers were left out of the session as a "deliberate snub."[6] It might indeed have been taken as a snub, but not meant as such.
Roland Usher may well have been right to describe the incident as tense and awkward, and possibly “watched … with glee by the court gossips,” [7] but no comment of the court gossips has survived. After describing the first day’s session Dudley Carleton simply says that the ministers will have their turn on Monday and adds that that the “two companies as they differ in opinions so do they in fashions, for one side marches in gowns and rochets, and the other in cloaks and Nightcaps.”[8]
The incident shows more that the conference was badly planned than that anyone wanted to snub the four ministers. This bad planning itself suggests that the conference at Hampton Court was not so much a grand event intended to allow the parties of the church to face off against each other as what the king said it was, a meeting of learned clergy “by whose information and advise we might govern our proceeding” if it was made clear that anything really did need reform in the Church. At the second session, on Monday January 16th, the four ministers did not have a debate with the prelates, but presented their case to the king himself, with the bishops and deans acting more as the king's assessors than the ministers' opponents. This point will come up again in a later discussion on this blog.
NOTES
[1] That is, Chester.
[2] Barlow Summe and Substance, 2-3.
[3] Barlow, 1; BL Harleian MS 828 (the “Anonymous Account”), folio 32, printed in Usher, The Reconstruction of the English Church, ii.341ff; Tobie Matthew to Matthew Hutton, 19 January, 1603, printed in E. Cardwell, History of Conferences. 161-166.
[4] Barlow, as quoted above; Tobie Matthew,
[5] Arnold Hunt, "Laurence Chaderton and the Hampton Court Conference" in S. Wabuda and C. Litzenberger, Belief and Practice in Reformation England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), pp. 206-228, p. 212.
[6] White, Predestination, policy and polemic, p. 144.
[7] Usher Reconstruction of the English Church, i. 318-19
[8] Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain, letter of 15 January 1604, SPD James I, 14/6/21 folio 55
[1] That is, Chester.
[2] Barlow Summe and Substance, 2-3.
[3] Barlow, 1; BL Harleian MS 828 (the “Anonymous Account”), folio 32, printed in Usher, The Reconstruction of the English Church, ii.341ff; Tobie Matthew to Matthew Hutton, 19 January, 1603, printed in E. Cardwell, History of Conferences. 161-166.
[4] Barlow, as quoted above; Tobie Matthew,
[5] Arnold Hunt, "Laurence Chaderton and the Hampton Court Conference" in S. Wabuda and C. Litzenberger, Belief and Practice in Reformation England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), pp. 206-228, p. 212.
[6] White, Predestination, policy and polemic, p. 144.
[7] Usher Reconstruction of the English Church, i. 318-19
[8] Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain, letter of 15 January 1604, SPD James I, 14/6/21 folio 55
No comments:
Post a Comment