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.
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]
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]
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment