Read The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) Online
Authors: Peter Gwyn
The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) (113 page)
17
Wolfe,
Crown Lands
, p.86 for scepticism about Henry
VII
’s ‘mighty treasure’, while for the view that he took his scepticism too far see Starkey, ‘King’s privy chamber’, pp.393 ff., usefully summarized. in Elton,
Reform and Reformation
, p.30.
18
Rawdon Brown, ii, p.313 (
LP
, iii, 402).
19
Elton,
Reform and Reformation
, p.84.
20
Thomas More,
Correspondence
, pp.512-13 in a letter allegedly from Margaret Roper to her step-sister Lady Alington, in which she recounts More’s reaction to use of this same fable to persuade him not to continue his opposition to Henry’s ‘break with Rome’. It should not, therefore, be taken as a final statement of More’s view of Wolsey’s foreign policy.
21
Ibid, p.518.
22
Inter alia
C.S.L. Davies,
Peace, Print and Protestantism
, p.160; Elton,
Studies
, 1, pp.122-3.
23
Knecht, p.121.
24
This an underlying theme of Scarisbrick’s treatment; see
Henry
VIII
, pp.125-47.
25
Knecht, pp.121-2.
26
Gunn,
EHR
, ci, pp.622-3.
27
Brandi, p.218.
28
The central argument of Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
. Much of what follows is a commentary on this work. The fact that I am one of its dedicatees is, I hope, an indication of my respect for the argument, despite my disagreement with it.
29
Most of what follows derives from Schofield, ‘Direct lay taxation’.
30
Hoskins,
Age of Plunder
, pp.214-15; Schofield,
EcHR
, 2 ser, xviii.
31
Schofield, ‘Direct lay taxation’, p.203.
32
Wolfe,
Crown Lands
, pp.66-75.
33
Central to Elton’s ‘Tudor Revolution’; see his
Tudor Revolution
, pp.160 ff.
34
For much of the above see Wolfe,
Crown Lands
, pp.76 ff.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid, pp.79-80 for the suggestion that the Acts of 1515 bore ‘the stamp of Chancellor Wolsey’s clear legal and administrative mind’; see also Elton,
Tudor Revolution
, pp.45 ff. The statutes were 6 Hen.
VIII
cap.24; 7 Hen.
VIII
cap.7; 14 & 15 Hen.
VIII
cap.18.
37
Gunn, ‘Act of resumption’, p.106.
38
See pp.204 ff., 561 ff.
39
BL Titus B i, fo.188 (
LP
, iii, 576).
40
J.R. Lander,
Crown and Nobility
, p.188; Myers.
41
Elton,
Tudor Revolution
, pp.380-414.
42
Inter alia
Prestwich, pp.206 ff. for household reform in James
I
’s reign.
43
Ross, p.372.
44
Dietz,
English Government Finance
, p.89; Elton,
Tudor Revolution
, pp.399-400.
45
Dietz,
English Public Finance
, pp.412-20; Prestwich, p.207.
46
L.B. Smith,
Henry
VIII
, pp.77 ff; also Newton.
47
Royal Household
, pp.137-61 is the most convenient, but not the best text for the Eltham ordinances. For a discussion of the various versions see Elton,
Tudor Revolution
, p.375, n.4.
48
Inter alia
Stone.
49
Newton is still probably the best account, but see also Elton,
Tudor Revolution
, pp.370 ff; D.R. Starkey, ‘King’s privy chamber’, pp.133 ff.
50
The so-called bouge, bouche or, as Skelton entitled one of his poems, ‘Bowge of Court’.
51
Royal Household
, cap.52, p.153, quoted in Newton, p.251.
52
Royal Household
, cap.40, p.149.
53
D.R. Starkey, ‘King’s privy chamber’, pp.133 ff.
54
Newton, pp.242-3 where he suggests the removal of a hundred gentlemen ushers, fifty-four grooms and an unspecified but greater number of guardsmen.
55
Royal Household
, p.137.
56
In this I am following Wolfe,
Crown Lands
, pp.1-28, but for criticism of this view see Harriss’s review in
EHR
, lxxxvii, p.172 and ibid, xciii, p.723, n.1.
57
Prestwich, pp.206 ff.
58
LP
, iv, 3231, 3243.
59
For 1530-1 the figure was £24,908, for 1539-40 £32,933, with some variation in between. What the figure was during the 1520s is not known, but in 1526 Wolsey seems to have hoped that the statutory allocation of £19,394 (1 Hen.
VIII
c.16) would be sufficient; for all of which see Elton,
Tudor Revolution
, pp.39, 399 ff.
60
For 1519 see BL Titus B i, fo.188 (
LP
, iii, 576).
61
LP
, iv, 1572, 1939 [4].
62
LP
, ii, 3313; see also Gunn, ‘Act of Resumption’ for other examples of Wolsey’s involvement in the detail of financial administration.
63
LP
, iv, app.36.
64
‘No minister with such opportunities left so little trace upon the statute-book, and his single parliament of 1523 was one of the most barren in English history.’ (A.F. Pollard, p.337).
65
Elton,
Studies
, i, p.128.
66
For other critical assessments see C.S.L. Davies,
Peace, Print and Protestantism
, p.169; Graves, pp.43, 61-2; Lehmberg, p.1. Guy’s ‘Wolsey and the parliament of 1523’ appeared too late to be fully considered but it is by and large critical.
67
LP
, iii, 3024, 3249.
68
Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, pp.119 ff. is excellent on all this.
69
Even Elton in
Reform and Reformation
, p.89 concedes this point.
70
Ibid.
71
14 & 15 Hen.
VIII
c.10; for all these acts see
SR
, iii, pp.206 ff.
72
6 Hen.
VIII
c.5, 7 Hen.
VIII
c.l.
73
But for a different view of the provisos see Scarisbrick, ‘Cardinal Wolsey’, pp.63-4.
74
BL Caligula D vi, fo.115 (
LP
, ii, 1223).
75
A.F. Pollard, pp.51-2, 343-4, but see also C.S.L. Davies,
Peace, Print and Protestantism
, p.169; Elton,
Reform and Reformation
, p.58; Roskell, p.320, none of whom make specific reference to the letter but can only have it in mind, or Pollard’s use of it.
76
Two subsidy Acts and one fifteenth and tenth had been granted.
77
Merriman, i, p.313 (
LP
, iii, 3249).
78
Elton,
Studies
, i, p.224.
79
Graves, pp.7, 41, 159-60 as a useful check for my arithmetic.
80
Ibid, pp.73-6; Lehmberg, pp.31-5.
81
Quoted in Graves, p.42. See also Speaker Audley’s request to Henry in March 1532 to dissolve parliament considering ‘what pain, charge and cost his humble subjects of the Nether house had sustained since the beginning of this parliament’.
82
There were two parliaments, 1512-4 and 1515, and five sessions, Feb.-March, Nov.-Dec. 1512, Jan.-March 1514, Feb.-April and Nov.-Dec. 1515.
83
See p.542 below.
84
The resistance to the Amicable Grant in 1525 would have discouraged any attempt to ask for money.
85
In April 1521 thought was given to calling a parliament in order to finance Surrey’s military activities in Ireland and resistance to a possible Scottish invasion. The idea was rejected because in this ‘hard and dear year’ people were not in a position to pay and anyway such money that might be granted could not have been raised in time or so at least Surrey was informed; see
St. P
, iii, p.67 (
LP
, iii, 1252).
86
A Commons’ Journal did not begin until 1547. For a good introduction to the sources see Graves, p.44.
87
Roper, p.19.
88
St. P
, i, 124 (
LP
, iii, 3267). For More’s thank you, see St. P, i, 125 (
LP
, iii, 3270).
89
See also Imperial ambassador’s report of 1 June: ‘Parliament has been postponed from the eve of pentecost to the 10th of this month because there are divers opinions and several difficulties have arisen… What is worse it seems likely the opposition will be greater this time than before. Wolsey is incredibly unpopular here and matters will not go so easily as he and Henry seem to believe.’ (
Sp. Cal., F.S
., p.235).
90
Roper, pp.16-19; Hall, p.655.
91
Hall, p.656.
92
But both Hall and Vergil do; see Hall, p.657; Vergil, p.307.
93
Hall, p.657.
94
Henry Ellis, I ser, i, pp.220-1 (
LP
, iii, 3024).