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:
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment