Dramatis Personae of the Conference

Part II: “Extras”, Clerks, Servants, and Experts

Before turning to the list of clerical participants at the Hampton Court Conference. It is useful to take note of persons who were or might have been present but were not participants. Taking such extra personnel into account is helpful in constructing a picture of that the conference was like.

i. 'Extras'

First, there are three individuals whose writings suggest that they were present at the conference even though they were not participants. To these is added an individual whose present is uncertain, but who ought still to be noted.

26. Sir Roger Wilbraham is not mentioned in any other account of the conference except his own journal, in which he does not explain why he was present.[1] Wilbraham was a Master of the Requests and former Solicitor General in Ireland. Although Masters of the Requests were not automatically Privy Counsellors they were sometimes summoned to meetings of the council. There is no reason to doubt Wilbraham's claim that he was present for all three days of the conference
27. Dudley Carleton described the first day of the conference in a letter to John Chamberlain which is dated from Hampton Court on Sunday, 15 January and preserved in the State Papers. [2] Carleton had been controller of the household to Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland since September 1603.[3] He is not mentioned in any accounts of the conference, and in his letter he does not claim that he was at the meeting. If he was not, he is possibly passing on information that came to him from Northumberland. If he was present, the possibility arises that other Privy Counsellors had attendants with them at the conference, and the task of trying to ascertain who was present becomes even more difficult.
28. Sir John Harrington, who was godson of Queen Elizabeth I, wrote an account of the conference for his wife, which sounds for all the world like the report of someone who was listening at the door.[4] From the internal evidence, and in particular his reference to Reynolds, it seems he was only present on the second day of the conference, and apparently at the invitation of Bishop Bancroft. He says: "I cannot be present at the next meeting, though the bishop of London said I might be in the ante‑chamber."
29. If only for completeness’ sake it should be mentioned that R. G. Usher stated that the Genevan envoy was also present. [5] This person is not mentioned in any of the accounts of the conference.

ii Clerks and Servants
Although none of the accounts of the conference mention such staff as one might expect to find in attendance. But it might be reasonable to suppose that someone was there to take notes. or to produce a list of the matters that were decided. It is not unusual for such persons to be overlooked. Though they would not have taken part in the discussions or influenced the decisions, they were eyes and ears at an event that seems to have provoked much gossip, and could have been sources of information. Five clerks of the Council are mentioned in the first months of James I's reign: Anthony Ashley, William Waad, Thomas Smith, Thomas Edmonds, and Ralph Winwood, who may be numbered 30-34 in our list of persons who might have been present. The records also name two Keepers of the Council Chamber, Alexander Dowglasse and Humfrey Rogers, who may be numbered 35 and 36. Dowglasse, or Douglas, was a Scot.[6]

iii. Experts
On the third day of the Conference Whitgift called in legal experts, who are mentioned only in Barlow's: account, although Tobie Matthew informed Archbishop Hutton that one of them, Sir John Bennet could give him further information on the conference. These were "the knights and doctors of the Arches", that is, the court of the Province of Canterbury.[7] Barlow names [37] Sir Daniel Dunne, [38] Sir Thomas Crompton, [39] Sir Richard Swale, [40] Sir John Bennet, and [41] Dr Drury. Barlow gives us no idea of the role they played at the conference, saying only that they were called by the archbishop and that they were amazed by the King's ability to express himself. Strype says that they were summoned on the third day because the ecclesiastical courts were "then to be justified".[8]

[1] "The Journal of Sir Roger Wilbraham", edited by Harold Spencer Scott, in The Camden Miscellany, vol X (London: Royal Historical Society, 1902), pp. 66-67.
[2] SPD, James I, 14/6/21: printed in Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain, pp 53-59, and in Shriver, "James I and The Puritans", p. 59.
[3] Maurice Lee, Jr., ed. Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain 1603-1624: Jacobean Letters. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1972) pp. 7f.
[4] Nugae Antiquae, by Sir John Harington, Knt., and others, selected by the late Henry Harington, newly arranged by Thomas Park. 2 volumes. (London: by J. Wright for Vernor & Hood, &c., 1804), 1.181.
[5] Usher, Reconstruction, i. 316 and note 2.
[6] Acts of the Privy Council of England, 498, B. Galloway, The Union of England and Scotland, 1603-1608, p. 25 n. 15.
[7] Barlow, Summe and Substance, M3r.
[8] Strype, Whigift, p. 573.

Dramatis Personae of the Conference

A Note on Lord Henry Howard
The list of Privy Counsellors who particpated in the conference given in the anonymous Harleian Account includes Lord Henry Howard, under the title "Lord Northampton". It should be noted that since Howard was not given this title until 13 March 1604, this account must have been written after that date. This account makes no other mention of Lord Henry Howard, or that he took any part in the conference. No other document clearly states that Howard was present at the conference: two accounts that seem to suggest that he was at the conference, but might be interpreted otherwise; one statement appears to be evidence against his presence.
One passage which suggests that Howard was present is in the "Anonymous Account in favour of the Bishops". Among four notes at the end of the document is a comment about practices at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, of which Laurence Chaderon was Master. "Chaderton must conform, and his irregular college to wear the surplice, and receive the communion kneeling or else be put out of it. The King imposed this by reason of information given him by the Lord Henry". This statement might mean that Lord Henry was at the conference and gave the information to the King there, but it might just as well mean that the King said, "We have heard such and such about Emmanuel College from Lord Henry Howard". The other text that might be evidence of Lord Henry Howard's presence at the conference is in William Barlow's Summe and Substance. This reference comes in the discussion of popish and seditious books:

My Lord Cecill here taxing, also, the unlimited liberty of the dispersing and divulging there Popish and seditious Pamphlets, both in Pauls Churchyard, and the Universities, instanced one lately set forth, and published, namely, Speculum Tragicum, which both his Majestie & the Lord Henry Howard, now Earl of Northampton, termed a dangerous book, both for matter & intention.

This is a speech in which Robert Cecil reported that the King and the Lord Henry Howard called the Speculum Tragicum a dangerous book, that is, that he had heard them say so, not necessarily that they said it at the conference.
The third piece of evidence is against Howard's presence. It is the letter in cipher of the King undated but ascribed to some point during or just after the conference, and taken as decribing it [see Akrigg, Letters of James VI & I, p. 221]. The relevant passage begins: "We have kept such a revel with the Puritans here these two days, as was never heard the like: where I have peppered them as soundly as ye have done the Papists there". The recipient is clearly somewhere else (although it cannot be known to which place "there" refers) where he has been dealing with papists and not at Hampton Court. Later the King writes, "I was forced at last to say ...”: this cannot be meant for someone who had heard what the King had said. That the absent recipient was the Lord Henry Howard is shown by the code the King used for his correspondents. The letter begins, "My honest black, I dare not say faced, 3," (a blank space precedes "faced"). In James’ code, the numeral 3 stands for Henry Howard. But since the king would hardly have written a letter to Howard describing his "revel" if Howard had been there and taken part, the natural conclusion from this letter is that Lord Henry Howard had not been present at the conference.
On the other hand, it should be remembered both Dudley Carleton and Levinus Munck mention Lord Henry Howard as one of the Privy Counsellors who were at Richmond the day before the conference. Others who were present at that meeting also attended Hampton Court: Howard did not miss the conference because he was too far away.
Another possibilty is that the king’s letter refers to another event and not the conference at Hampton Court, but it would be necessary to find what event it does refer to. This is perhaps another area in the history of the conference where more work is needed.

Dramatis Personae of the Conference

Part I: The King and Privy Council

Missing from the literature of the Hampton Court Conference, both contemporary documents and modern studies,is a definite list of the participants. The list of the bishops, deans and ministers who took part has been generally established, and some writers, particularly Nicholas Tyacke, have made important comments about these clergy who were invited to the conference.[1] Other participants have not been so carefully identified. Moreover, it appears that some people who were not participants were also present for some of the time. As accurate a list of participants as possible would seem to be a useful tool in trying to establish the history of the conference. Not the least important reason for this is so that we might have an idea of how many people were physically present, and from have an idea of what it must have been like for them.
In this paper I have made use of all the surviving accounts and notices of the conference in order to establish a list of particpants and other who may have been present. The first part lists the Kin and the Privy Council.

A. The King and Prince Henry
1. King James VI & I (1566-1625). No comment on the King is needed here.
2. Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales (1594-1612). Only William Barlow’s The Summe and Substance mentions that King James’ elder son was present for the second day of the conference. Prince Henry, who was nearly ten years old, took no active part in the meeting. In 1606 the Prince would likewise be present for part of the King's conference with eight Scottish ministers.[2] His presence at these events was part of his education in the craft of kingship.

B. The Lords of the Council.
Members of the Privy Council also attended the meetings at Hampton Court. In the proclamation of 24 October 1603 James had stated that the conference on ecclesiastical matters was not to be a synod but a body called to advise the King and Council. If in the meetings with the bishops and other learned men he was to find that there were corruptions “which deserve a review and amendment", he will himself "therein proceed according to the laws and customs of this realm by advice of our council, or in our high court of parliament, or by convocation of our clergy, as we shall find reason to lead us".[3] If the Counsellors were to advise the king, it was necessary that they were present at these meetings.
It is not known exactly which Consellors were present. The title page of The Summe and Substance states that "most of the Lords of the Council were present". At the time of the conference the Privy Council had twenty-four members, and the ones who are noted in accounts of the conference are hardly "most" of them. Barlow only mentions the Treasurer, the Chancellor, the Chamberlain, and the king’s principal secretary, Lord Robert Cecil in the narrative of the meeting. The anonymous Harleian Account lists nine counsellors as present: The Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Nottingham, the Earl of Devonshire, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Cecill, the Lord Worcester, Lord Northampton, the Lord Chief Justice ‘at Kingston’. However, only Robert Cecil, the Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Lord Admiral are named in that text. Some other accounts name individual counsellors in the course of the narrative, but do not give a list.
To allow a reasonable estimate to be made of which Privy Counsellors were present, the following list includes all members at the time of the conference and states whether they are mentioned in the accounts and any other reason for thinking they might or might not have been present. The only exception is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Although Whitgift was a Privy Counsellor, he did not attend the conferfence as such and is here listed later, among the Bishops.

This list is a shortened form of the one in chapter 2 of The King’s Own Conference, which includes more exensive notes, especially on the religious views of the Counsellors.
3. Sir Thomas Egerton, Baron Ellesmere & Viscount Brackley (1540?-1617), Lord Chancellor. The sources generally agree that he attended the conference, and took an active part on the second and third days.[4]
4. Sir Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst (1536-1608), Lord Treasurer. is mentioned in both the anonymous Harleian Account and Barlow’s The Summe and Substance.[5]
5. Ludovick Stewart, second Duke of Lennox (1574-1624), was the eldest son of Esmé, first duke of Lennox, a cousin and "favourite" of the young King James. He was named to the English Privy Council on 4 May 1603, and naturalized in England on 18 June. It was reported that James meant to make Lennox Lord President of the Council, but in fact he did not do so.[6] Lennox is not mentioned in any of the accounts of the Conference: it is uncertain whether he attended.
6. Charles Howard, Earl of Nottingham (1536-1624), Lord Admiral of England, is not mentioned by Barlow, but the Harleian Account says that he was at the Conference and spoke on the apparel of ministers, and in favour of conformity.[7] The day before the conference, Friday, 13 January 1604, Nottingham had met with the Spanish ambassador at Richmond, about five miles from Hampton Court, along with the Earls of Northumberland and Devonshire, Lord Cecil, and Lord Henry Howard, so there is no reason he could not have been at Hampton Court for the conference.[8] It is reasonable to suppose that he favoured conformity.
7. Henry Percy, ninth Earl of Northumberland (1564-1632), had been appointed to the Privy Council by James on 25 April 1603. Northumberland is not mentioned in any of the accounts of the conference, but since he was at the meeting at Richmond the day before the conference, he could easily have been present at the conference. It should also be noted that his household Controller, Dudley Carleton, was at Hampton Court at the time of the conference and wrote an account of the first meeting. Carleton’s knowledge would be more easily understood if Northumberland had taken part in the meeting.
8. Gilbert Talbot, seventh Earl of Shrewsbury (1553-1616), had been a Privy Counsellor since Elizabeth’s time, James continued him in the council but gave him no new offices. Shrewasury spent most of his time at Sheffield castle and there is no reference in any document to his attendance at the Hampton Court Conference. That he might not have been at the conference is suggested by the notice in eh Journal of Cecil’s secretary Levinus Munck that letters were sent to Shrewsbury at Sheffield from court in late December.
9. George Clifford, third Earl of Cumberland (?-1605) was named to the Privy Council by James on 25 April. There is no reference to him in connection with the conference, and no particular reason to think that he was present.
10. Edward Somerset, fourth earl of Worcester (1553-1628), had been appointed to the Council in 1601 and was continued by James. The Harleian account lists him as at the Conference but does not mention that he took an active part. There is no reason to doubt that he was present.
11. John Erskin, Earl of Mar (1558-1634), was one of the noblemen who accompanied King James from Edinburgh on 5 April 1603: at York he turned back to join Queen Anne. He was named to the Privy Council of England on 4 May 1603 but is not mentioned in any account of the conference. However, Ralph Winwood's Memorials record a letter from the Council of 23 December which Mar and others signed.[9] If Mar was at Court as late as Christmas, he may well have been present at the conference, even though there is nothing to show that he took an active part.
12. Thomas Howard, first Earl of Suffolk (1561-1626), the Lord Chamberlain, had been appointed to the Council on 4 May 1603. He and his uncle Henry had worked closely with Cecil in arranging the peaceful accession of James I. He was at the conference: not only is he listed by the Harleian Account, but Barlow notes that it was he that who shut the door after the bishops had entered the Privy Chamber on the first day of the conference.[10] There is no other record of his participation.
13. Lord Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton (1540-1614), second son of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, and grandson of the third Duke of Norfolk, had been named to the Privy Council on 4 May 1603.[11] He was made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports on 1 January 1604, and on 13 March following was created Baron Howard of Marnhull, Devonshire, and Earl of Northampton. Although he is mentioned in some accounts of the conference, he is the only counsellor about whose attendance there is any serious question: a more detailed discussion of this point is given below.
14. Charles Blount, Lord Mountjoy, Earl of Devonshire, (1563-1606), had succeeded the Earl of Essex as Lieutenant in Ireland, defeated Tyrone's rebellion early in 1603, and was called back to England by James. Mountjoy was named to the Privy Council on 25 April and on 12 July was created Earl of Devnshire. The Harleian account lists Devonshire as having being at the conference, but mentions no active part he took in the meeting. He was one of the counsellors who met with the Spanish Ambassador at Richmond on Friday.
15. Sir William Knollys, Treasurer of the Household (1547-1532), is not mentioned in any of the records of the conference, although there is no other evidence for or against his presence at the conference. He is known to have been at Hampton Court on 23 December, since he signed the letter mentioned in the note on the Earl of Mar.
16. Sir Edward Wootton, Comptroller of the Household (1548-1626) is not mentioned in any of the records of the conference, and there is no explicit evidence for or against his presence.
17. Sir John Stanhope, Vice-Chamberlain (1545?-1621), is not mentioned in any of the records of the conference, and there is no evidence for or against his presence at the conference.
18. Robert, Lord Cecil, Secretary of State (1563?-1612), was the son of William Cecil, Lord Burleigh, by his second wife. His father had educated him for service to the sovereign. He had been Secretary of State since 1596, Lord Privy Seal since 1597, and was instrumental in ensuring James's quiet accession to the throne. James continued him in office and created him Baron Cecil of Essendon on 31 May 1603. He is mentioned in both Barlow’s account and the anonymous Harleian account.
19. Sir George Hume, Lord Treasurer of Scotland, Chancellor of the Exchequer (d. 1611), was one of the Scots who accompanied King James to England. He was appointed to the English Council on 4 May, and did not return to Scotland. Sometime after 10 May 1603 he replaced Sir John Fortescue as Chancellor of the Exchequer of England. Although he is not mentioned in any of the records of the conference, he seems to have been at Court at the time of the conference, and so probably attended. In 1605 he was made Earl of Dunbar, and thereafter played a leading part in James's Scottish policies.
20. Sir John Popham, Lord Chief Justice (1531?-1607), had been member of the Privy Council since 1571 and Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench since 1592. He is not mentioned in The Summe and Substance but is in the second anonymous account printed by Barlow.[12] In the Harleian Account he is mentioned as the "Lord Chief Justice at Kingston". There is no reason to doubt that he attended the conference at Hampton Court, but it cannot be established what part he played in it.
21. Sir James Elphinstone, a Scot, had been appointed to the council 4 May but is not mentioned in any account of the conference. Levinus Munck mentions that Cecil sent a packet to him on 17 December; which suggests that he was then in Scotland, so that it seems unlikely that he was at the conference.
22. Sir John Herbert, second Secretary of State, had been appointed in 1600 and was clearly Cecil's subordinate, popularly known as 'Mr. Secondary Herbert'."[13] On 10 May he was listed in the council, but as then being "at Bremen". The Venetian secretary Scaramelli noted in a letter of 1 May that Herbert was "just returned from his mission (to Copenhagen)".[14] He is again noted as absent on the 10th, and it is not clear whether he was in England at the time of the conference. He is not mentioned in any of the accounts and was probably not at the conference.
23. Edward Bruce, The Lord of Kinloss, (1548/9-1611), accompanied the King to England in 1603, where he was naturalized by an act of parliament and served the crown until his death. He was appointed to the Privy Council on 4 May. Bruce is not mentioned in any account of the conference, but since he was in London at the time may well have been present.
24. Edward La Zouche, eleventh Baron Zouche, Lord President of the Council of Wales (1556?-1625) is not mentioned in any account of the conference. Levinus Munck records that Cecil sent him a packet of letters on 15 January, so that it is most likely that he was not at Court and did not attend the conference.
25. Thomas, Lord Burleigh, Lord President of the Council of the North, was elder son of William Cecil and half-brother of Robert Cecil. He is not mentioned in any account of the conference, and it is unlikely that he was present: Cecil sent him letters on 23 December.[15]

Of the twenty-three Counsellors (apart from the Archbishop of Canterbury), seven were certainly present: Egerton, Buckhurst, Nottingham, Suffolk, Devonshire, Cecil, and Popham. Six more, Northumberland, Worcester, Mar, Knollys, Wotton, and Stanhope, could well have been present. Five members, Shrewsbury, Cumberland, Zouche, Burghley, and Elphinstone, seem to have been too far from London to have attended the conference. Although it is not known where Lord Henry Howard was, he does not appear to have been at the conference, as will be argued in the note below. There is no particular reason to think Sir John Herbert, Kinloss, Lennox, and Home were absent, but we cannot certainly say they were present. Thus it appears that between thirteen and seventeen of the counsellors were at the conference.
[1] Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, pp. 11-22.
[2] James Melvill, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr James Melvill ... with a Continuation of the Diary, edited by Robert Pitcairn (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1842) p. 658.
[3] Proclamation of 24 October, 1603, printed in Cardwell, pp 148-150.
[4] Barlow, Summe and Substance, pp. H4v, J1r, M2v, N1r, N2v, N3v.
[5] Barlow, Summe and Substance, N2v.
[6] Ibid, p 176.
[7] Usher, Reconstruction, ii. 349.
[8] For the meeting at Richmond, see Jones, "The Journal of Levinus Munk, p. 250. This meeting is mentioned by Dudley Carleton, SPD James I 14/6/21.
[9] Ralph Winwood, Memorials of Affairs of State (1725), ii. 12.
[10] Barlow, Summe and Substance, B2r.
[11] Acts of the Privy Council of England. vol. XXXII., p. 496.
[12] Barlow, Summe and Substance, P2v.
[13] Penry Williams, The Later Tudors, p. 374, n.
[14] CSPV x.34
[15] Not numbered in this list is Sir John Fortescue, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer under Elizabeth and, at first, continued in office by James. He was deprived of office and replaced by Lord Home at some point in May 1603. On Fortescue's loss of office, see N. Cuddy "The revival of the entourage", p. 174f and note 4.

Notes on Documentation

I: Surviving Accounts and other contemporary Notes of the Conference

Sixteen contemporary documents which are either accounts of the Hampton Court Conference or provide significant information about what happened at it have survived. In this list those by persons who attended the whole of the conference are marked **, those by persons who are known only to have been present for some part of the meetings are marked *. Those documents not marked are mostly anonymous.

This list is roughly grouped around the two principal accounts of the Conference, Barlow's (no 1) and the Anonymous Harleyan Account (no 5); nos 9-16 do not fall into either group, chiefly because they are too short and do not report the points where the main accounts differ.

**1 The Summe and Substance of the Conference, by William Barlow, dean of Chester. This is a quasi-official account, commissioned by the Archbishop and approved by the King. It was published in quarto, 103 pages, in the summer of 1604 and reprinted several times, including an edition in French. Reprinted by Cardwell in the History of Conferences. Barlow was a participant in the conference and present at all three sessions.

[We should also note that sometime around 1660, a clergyman of London diocese included a Latin translation of The Summe and Substance in his Gesta Britannica, a collection of notes on English church history, now Stowe MS 76 in the British Library. The catalogue identifies the clergyman as probably Roger Ley or Lea. He did not translate either Barlow’s preface to the reader or the appendix. The BL catalogue states that the MS includes “a discussion of the Hampton Court Conference" but does not note it as a translation of Barlow.]
*2. Dudley Carleton’s letter of 15 January 1604 to John Chamberlain describes the first day of the conference. It is preserved in the UK Public Record Office State Papers (14/6/21) and has been published. The portion of the letter on the conference is 245 words. Dudley Carleton was at Hampton Court but not a participant, but he may have witnessed the meeting on the first day.
**3. A letter of James Montagu, Dean of the Chapel Royal, to his mother written the day the conference ended, gives a brief description of the meetings. It has been published in Cardwell’s History of Conferences where it is in the main narrative. It is approximately 1,170 words long. James Montagu was a participant and present at all three sessions. He does not mention the "false start"on Thursday, January 12.

*4 A letter of Bishop Matthew of Durham wrote to Archbishop Matthew Hutton of York describing the conference written on 19 January. Along with all the bishops but two, Bishop Matthew was not present for the second day of the Conference, 16 January, but was elsewhere, writing up the decisions made on the first day. The letter was printed by John Strype in his Life of Whtigift. A copy of this account from which the personal references have been omitted is found in British Library Egerton MS 2877. This account is about 1,720 words in length.

5. The Anonymous Account in British Library Harley MS 828 and Additional MS 38429, first printed by R. G. Usher in 1910, and put forward by Mark Curtis as a more reliable account than Barlow's. It is somewhat more than 5,000 words in length.
6. An anonymous letter dated 15 January 1604 describing the first day, in general agreement with Harley 828. This letter was the first of three documents printed by Barlow at the end of the Summe and Substance as examples of "untrue" accounts of the Conference which were then in circulation. Reprinted by Usher; 333 words. It should be noted that documents 6, 7, and 9 were in circulation before Barlow completed The Summe and Substance, which he stated in a letter to Lord Cecil on May 12 1604 to be "ready for the press".
7. The second anonymous account printed by Barlow is undated. It reports all three days but gives little detail. Generally agrees with Harleian 828. Reprinted by Usher, 396 words.
*8. A letter from Patrick Galloway to the Presbytery of Edinburgh on 10 February describes the conference very briefly and is more important as a covering letter for a list of the decisions that were made at the Conference, which Galloway claims was amended and approved by King James. Although Galloway claims to have been an “ear and eye-witness”, he was apparently only present at the second session. His letter was published by David Calderwood in the History of the Kirk of Scotland.

9. The third document printed by Barlow is also anonymous and undated. It is not an account of the conference but “some of the speeches that are bruted upon Master Doctor Rainolds return to Oxon. concerning the late conference, before his Majesty.” It presents the conference as an unqualified success for the ministers. 197 words
***10. An undated letter of King James to Lord Henry Howard describes as a “revel with the Puritans”. It is printed in Akrigg, Letters of James VI & I, p. 221.
*11. Thomas Sparke, one of the four ministers, wrote at some length about the conference in A Brotherly Perswasion to Unity, in 1607. He mentions Barlow’s account but does not questioning its accuracy.
*12. Roger Wilbraham, a Master of Requests, wrote a brief description of the conference in his journal. This entry agrees with Barlow at some points. It is not entirely clear why Wilbraham was present at the Conference. [Wilbraham, Roger. "The Journal of Sir Roger Wilbraham, Solicitor-General in Ireland and Master of Requests, for the Years 1593-1616", edited by Harold Spence Scott, in Camden Miscellany X (London: Royal Historical Society, 1902).]
*13. Sir John Harington as also present, but only on the second day; he wrote a brief note in his Nugae Antiquae. He says that the King rather used upbraidings than arguments with the ministers. [Nugae Antiquae, by Sir John Harington, Knt., and others, selected by the late Henry Harington, newly arranged by Thomas Park. 2 volumes. (London : by J. Wright for Vernor & Hood, &c., 1804) ][
14. Reginald Usher printed a document from Baker MSS M.m.1.45, f. 155-157 as Anonymous Account in Favour of the Bishops. It only describes the second session. As an anonymous account there is no way of judging its information. 843 words.
15. A letter which fell into government hands and has been preserved in the State Papers (14/6/37) includes a brief description of the conference. It is impossible to know where the writer, one Ortelio Renzo, obtained his information, or the copy of the brief note of decisions made at the conference that he includes. It has never been printed.
16 An anonymous account of the conference is found in volume IV of the Historic Manuscript Commission report Various Manuscripts, the ms of F. H. T. Jervois. The writer says he is giving information obtained from a friend at Court. It is of little value except for what rumours were circulating about the conference.