THE VENUE

By choosing Hampton Court as the venue for this important meeting, James was making a strong statement about the power and magnificence of the monarchy. The rooms were large with elaborate plaster ceilings painted in pale blue and gold. James sat on a velvet-covered chair at one end of the room in front of a splendid embroidered hanging of the royal coat of arms. As it was January and very cold, there were huge fires burning in the Renaissance fireplaces and braziers in every room. There would have been little question as to who was in control. (It also had the benefit of being outside London, where there had been an outbreak of plague at the end of the previous year.)

THE AGENDA

James had issued a proclamation on October 24, 1603, stating that he would hold a conference at Hampton Court to discuss the concerns of the Anglican and Puritan factions, or as he put it “for the reformation of some things amiss in ecclesiastical matters”. Both sides had been petitioning him (the Puritans had presented him with a petition signed by 1,000 people, known as the Millenary Petition, setting out their demands) since he set foot in England and he had to find a way to reconcile the tensions which had been brewing since Henry VIII’s time. [Read more about Henry VIII and the Reformation here.]

The bishops of the Anglican Church wanted an end to the challenges to their authority by the Puritans and to prove to the King that his power depended on them retaining their positions.

The Puritans wanted to “clean up” the practices and structure of the Anglican Church, which they saw as straying dangerously close to Roman Catholicism. They wanted to be able to opt out of certain ceremonies and rituals which they claimed were not written as the word of God in the Bible and to reform the hierarchies which put the bishops in charge. The Puritans were very pleased that James had agreed to consider their demands, something that Queen Elizabeth before him had always refused to do. Maybe this Scottish King – with his sympathies towards John Knox and Calvin – would finally allow them to reform the Church?

At a meeting on January 12, 1604, James set out the three topics to be discussed – notice that there is no mention at all of a new translation of the Bible!

• The Book of Common Prayer and divine service used in this church.
• Excommunication in the ecclesiastical courts.
• The providing of fit and able ministers for Ireland.

The stakes were high for all concerned and the outcome was eagerly awaited.

THE GUEST LIST

Invitations to the meeting were issued by the King’s Privy Council. The following people were required to attend:

• King James I

James had been King of England for less than a year, although he had been King of Scotland for more than 35 years. He was a good politician but knew he had a difficult job to steer through all the different factions that were represented. His goal was to establish stability in religious affairs and ensure that the power of the monarchy went unchallenged. Among the many things that set James apart from the other men in the room, it’s worth remembering that he alone was speaking in a very strong Scottish accent.

Members of the King’s Privy Council

Four members were invited, including:

• Secretary of State: Robert Cecil (1563-1612)
  

A workaholic, dedicated bureaucrat and talented administrator serving under both Elizabeth I and James, Cecil had done much to smooth James’ path to the throne when Elizabeth’s health was failing. He was a trusted advisor to James and a very powerful man in government.

Members of the Established Church

• Archbishop of Canterbury: John Whitgift (1530-1604)

He had held this position as the Senior Clergyman of the established Church of England for many years – indeed, he had given most of the men in the room their current jobs. He had been very close to Elizabeth I but his influence was fading with age and his relationship with the new King remained uncertain. He was not a well man at the conference and it was going to be up to King James to choose his successor.

• Bishop of Carlisle: Henry Robinson (1551-1616)

Robinson was a man known for his great interest in the pastoral care of his flock. He was worried about illiteracy in his diocese and the woeful ignorance of both the poorer people and his own lay clergy!

• Bishop of Chichester: Anthony Watson (?-1605)

Described as corpulent, Watson was in a somewhat embarrassing position at the conference. The county of Sussex over which he presided was a hotbed of Puritanism: the campaign to win the King’s support the previous year had started there and a large proportion of the advisors supporting the four Puritan representatives at the conference came from there. It is not reported that he said very much.

• Bishop of Durham: Toby Matthew (1544-1628)

Known as a charismatic speaker with a friendly disposition and a sharp wit, he would have been a match for King James’s dry sense of humour. He was rabidly anti-Catholic and had a network of spies hunting out priests in his diocese. He was also very ambitious and was hoping to be made Archbishop of Canterbury when Whitgift died – he was not the only one.

• Bishop of London: Richard Bancroft (1544-1610)

Although not in the top job at this time, Bancroft was ruthlessly ambitious and anxious to impress the new King. He took upon himself the responsibility of leading the bishops at the conference and was a prime mover at all times. Accounts of the conference portray him as impatient, combative and hard line – at one point even being told off by the King for interrupting John Reynolds (Puritan). He had always been a ruthless opponent of Puritanism and saw that James’s fear for his own position and his belief that Kings were appointed by God could be manipulated to the advantage of the bishops. Bancroft wanted to be seen as the obvious candidate for the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

• Bishop of Peterborough: Thomas Dove (1555-1630)

Dove had risen under the reign of Elizabeth I, who was a great admirer of his preaching. James, however, was not a fan and reportedly treated Dove’s only contribution to the conference with scorn. He did not receive any promotions under James.

• Bishop of St David’s: Anthony Rudd (1548/9-1615)

Rudd was a conscientious bishop and looked after his Welsh diocese well. He had had an embarrassing incident earlier in his career when he had preached to Elizabeth that she should be mindful of how much she was ageing – not something a lady wants to hear, and, not surprisingly, he never rose higher than Bishop of St David’s! He would have been relatively sympathetic to the moderate Puritan views put forward by Reynolds at the conference.

• Bishop of Winchester: Thomas Bilson (1546 -1616)

A very learned man, practiced in being at the centre of theological controversy, Bilson had been opposed to the idea of the conference in the first place. He thought it a mistake to allow the Puritans to state their case at all and he felt it beneath his dignity to meet with “men of so meane place and quality”. He too was tipped as a possible successor to the ailing Archbishop of Canterbury. Ill-health meant that Bilson was surprisingly quiet during the conference and was rather over-shadowed by Bancroft.

• Bishop of Worcester: Gervase Babington (1549/50-1610)

There had been a hint of gossip in 1603 that Babington had “turned Puritan” but although he was the most sympathetic to their cause, it is unlikely that this is true. In his sermons Babington preached for moderation between the Established Church and the Puritans, regarding the pettiness and spite of the quarrels as the greatest sin. Babington and Bancroft crossed swords frequently at the conference and for the rest of their careers.

• Dean of Westminster Abbey: Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626)

Andrewes had recently preached a sermon explaining how he thought that various passages in the Bible showed that the King should rule over Church and State – with the help of the bishops. He was very much a part of the Whitgift-Bancroft-Cecil ecclesiastical-political alliance but was also a favourite of James. He was a man of great integrity and well respected as a scholar and preacher who used striking literary language in his sermons. His early writings show leanings towards Puritanism but this was firmly behind him by the 1580s.

• Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral: John Overall (1560-1619)

Overall was one of Andrewes’s most loyal supporters and friends. He wasn’t happy in the pulpit – he apparently found it “troublesome to speak English as a continued oration” after years of lecturing in Latin – but was nevertheless given the honour of occasionally preaching sermons before Elizabeth I. Made Dean of St Paul’s by Whitgift in 1602, it is known that he spoke about predestination on the second day of the conference.

• Dean of Chapel Royal: James Montagu (1568-1618)

Also known as “Bertie”, Montagu was a great personal friend of the King and Francis Bacon rated him as one of the three most influential servants in the King’s household. He had been made Dean of the Chapel Royal by Whitgift the previous year, specifically because his ideas on the relationship between Church and King and keeping the Anglican Church strong fitted in with Whitgift’s and would strengthen James’s views in that direction. He had some sympathy for the Puritan cause but soon learned that James did not share his opinion. Bancroft detested him.

• Dean of Chester: William Barlow (?-1613)

He had already proved himself useful to the Crown when in 1601 he preached a sermon exactly as commissioned by Robert Cecil explaining that the Essex Rebellion was a threat not just to the Queen but National Security. He was a political yes-man and was the person who wrote up the official account of the conference.

• Dean of Windsor: Giles Tomson (1553-1612)

There is no record of his contribution, although it is known that he was present.

• One further Dean: unknown

The Puritan Contingent

• John Reynolds (Rainolds): President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford (1549-1607)

Reynolds was the leader of the contingent and did most of the talking. In Barlow’s account of proceedings he refers to him as the “Foreman”. He was a well respected academic and a prominent Puritan. His relations with John Whitgift were amicable and he was a close personal friend of Henry Robinson.

• Laurence Chaderton: Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, known for its Puritan sympathies (1536?-1640)

A formidable scholar and a famous preacher, Chaderton apparently remained “mute as any fish” during the conference! He was a personal friend of Richard Bancroft and had attended Cambridge with Lancelot  Andrewes.

• John Knewstubs: Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge (1544-1624)

During Elizabeth’s reign he had been one of the dominant members of the Puritan movement in the Stour Valley and was an advocate for that cause throughout his life. He was often criticised for refusing to wear a surplice [the white linen robe worn over a cassock] and not using the sign of the cross in baptism but no action was ever taken against him.

• Thomas Sparke: Minister of Bletchley in Buckinghamshire (1548-1616)

Sparke had been one of the Puritan champions at a meeting in 1584 to discuss subscription to the Book of Common Prayer, presided over by Archbishop Whitgift. That meeting had a disappointing outcome for the Puritans with few concessions being made, so Sparke would have had high hopes for this conference.

Notice, by the way, that the members of the Established Church far outweigh the Puritans. The Puritans were not even allowed to choose their own representatives. The four men were vetted by the Privy Council and were known as moderates and were personal friends with many of the bishops and deans. This was a meeting of like-minded men in many ways, not an open debate. As it turned out, there would indeed be more fighting between the bishops than between the Established Church and Puritans!

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED?

There are several eye-witness accounts of the proceedings. The longest and most detailed is by William Barlow, Dean of Chester. His is the officially commissioned version and shows the bishops in the best light. It was approved by Bancroft, the King’s private secretary and possibly even the King himself. Published on May 25, as The Summe And Substance Of The Conference, it does not claim to be a verbatim account but is crafted carefully to be both a good read and show that the King and the Puritans would never be reconciled. Toby Matthew was taking notes. One of the men included details in a letter to a friend in the country. James himself wrote about the goings-on at the conference in a letter to Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton. Each account is a little different, putting their individual spin on affairs.

What did actually happen?

Find out here...