The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) (42 page)

⁷⁸
For Elyot’s comments on the dorse of Joan Staunton’s bill of complaint see PRO STAC 10/4 pt.2/355.

⁷⁹
BL Lansdowne 639, fo.16v.

⁸⁰
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.63-4.

⁸¹
Hall, p.585.

⁸²
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.40-5.

⁸³
Ibid, p.154, n.110.

⁸⁴
Ibid, p.109.

⁸⁵
Ibid, p.154, n.103.

⁸⁶
Ibid, p.109.

⁸⁷
191 out of 245.

⁸⁸
BL. Vitellius C i, fos.13v, 16, summarized in Skeel, pp.49-51.

⁸⁹
Rawdon Brown, ii, p.314 (
LP
, iii, 402).

⁹⁰
Baldwin, pp.276-7.

⁹¹
11 Henry
VII
c.12.

⁹²
BL Lansdowne 639, fos.52v-3.

⁹³
Metzger, ‘Medieval Chancery’, p.81; Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.113; and for scepticism about the claim that More was able to clear the enormous backlog of cases that had built up under Wolsey, see Guy,
More
, p.92.

⁹⁴
Such a view underlies Pollard’s treatment of Wolsey’s legal work (A.F. Pollard, pp.59-98), but see
inter alia
, Baker, ii, pp.
77-80
. It really derives from Maitland’s argument that the existence of the common law was at this time under serious threat from Roman law and equity; for a discussion of which, see ibid, ii, pp.24
ff
.

⁹⁵
For what follows see Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.29, 65, 131;
More
, pp.40-9; Metzger, ‘Medieval Chancery’, pp.83-9.

⁹⁶
Baker, ii,
pp.53ff
.

⁹⁷
Art. 21 (
LP
, iv, 6075).

⁹⁸
Guy,
More
, pp.86-9.

⁹⁹
LP
, iii, 2393 Sir Richard Wingfield to Wolsey, 17 July 1522.

¹⁰⁰
Wolsey’s treatment of Fitzherbert comprised art.31 of the accusations brought against him in 1529 (
LP
, iv, 6075).

¹⁰¹
Quoted in Boersma, p.6.

¹⁰²
Boersma, p.8.

¹⁰³
See especially his ‘A Little Treatise concerning Writs of Subpoena’ in Hargrave, pp.332 ff.

¹⁰⁴
See Guy,
Christopher St German
, pp.81, 94; also Guy,
More
, pp.42-9; Baker, ii, pp.
24ff
., St German,
Doctor and Student
.

¹⁰⁵
Metzger, ‘Medieval Chancery’, pp.83ff.

¹⁰⁶
Hargrave, p.325.

¹⁰⁷
If the ‘sergeant’ was an unsuccessful lawyer, his attack could be attributed to sour grapes, but recently the future lord chancellor Thomas Audley has been suggested; see Baker, ii,
198-200
.

¹⁰⁸
Art.10 (
LP
, iv, 6075).

¹⁰⁹
PRO E 315/313 A, fo.43v, transcribed in Wolfe, p.192.

¹¹⁰
Blatcher, pp.4-5.

¹¹¹
Ibid, pp.111-37; Baker, ii, pp.
51-61, 220-98
.

¹¹²
Baker, ii,
pp.184-7
.

¹¹³
A rather topical subject, but see Cromwell’s unsuccessful attempt to introduce land registration in the 1530s (Elton,
Reform and Renewal
, pp.144-9).

¹¹⁴
LP
, iv, 4937 a letter of Nov. 1528 in which Rich expressed a wish to present his own ideas on legal reform.

¹¹⁵
One of the chief justices being Fitzherbert. More was one of the common lawyers on the commission, for a complete list of which, see Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.45.

¹¹⁶
BL Lansdowne 639, fo.56v.

¹¹⁷
Cavendish, p.117.

¹¹⁸
Pronay, pp.97-99.

¹¹⁹
See
inter alia
Henry’s concern to to appoint a successor to Compton as sheriff of Worcestershire in 1528 (
LP
, iv, 4476); for his close interest in the commissioners for the general proscription see Goring,
EHR
, lxxxvi, p.685.

¹²⁰
For all these appearances see Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.30-5, 72-8, 121-3.

¹²¹
LP
, ii, app.38.

¹²²
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.72-8.

¹²³
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.30.

¹²⁴
Lancashire and Cheshire Cases in Star Chamber
, p.20.

¹²⁵
Ibid, p.23.

¹²⁶
Ibid, p.121.

¹²⁷
Ibid, p.21.

¹²⁸
Ibid, p.22.

¹²⁹
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.116.

¹³⁰
For Brereton’s career see Ives,
Trans of the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire
, cxxiii, and Ives (ed.),
Letters and Accounts of William Brereton
.

¹³¹
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.33.

¹³²
BL. Lansdowne 639, fo.54v.

¹³³
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.33.

¹³⁴
Ibid, pp.32-3;
LP
, ii, 2579.

¹³⁵
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.120.

¹³⁶
Ibid.

¹³⁷
For instance, Sir John Savage’s appointment as sheriff of Worcestershire for life.

¹³⁸
Inter alia
Bellamy,
Crime and Public Order
, pp.13-4, 91-2; Blatcher, pp.63-89.

¹³⁹
Ives, ‘Crime, sanctuary, and royal authority’, pp.296 ff.

¹⁴⁰
BL Lansdowne 639, fo.57v undated, but c.1523-4.

¹⁴¹
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.73.

¹⁴²
PRO STAC 2/26/395.

¹⁴³
In 1537 to be executed for his ambiguous role in the Lincolnshire rebellion of the previous year.

¹⁴⁴
BL Lansdowne 639, fo.47v.

¹⁴⁵
Ibid.

¹⁴⁶
I think that it is not too naïve to suppose that many complaints against officials, both then and now, are unjustified and, of course, the evidence that there was some investigation may not have survived.

¹⁴⁷
Implicit in much of what Guy has argued; see his
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.34, 76-8.

¹⁴⁸
Ibid, pp.76-8; A.F.Pollard, pp.45, 52; Roskell, pp.311 ff.

¹⁴⁹
PRO SP l/16/fo.130 (
LP
, ii, 3951) for the contemporary accusation.

¹⁵⁰
LP
, ii, 4616.

¹⁵¹
LP
, ii, 3487, 3951.

¹⁵²
PRO SP l/16/fo.143 (
LP
, ii, 3951); PRO STAC 10/4 pt.2/127-32; these two accounts of Sheffield’s examinations are virtually identical.

¹⁵³
LP
, ii, 3487 Thomas Allen to Shrewsbury 27 July 1517.

¹⁵⁴
BL Lansdowne 639, fo.49.

¹⁵⁵
LP
, ii, 3487.

¹⁵⁶
BL. Lansdowne, 637, fo.47. Lucas’s quarrel with Wolsey may have had something to do with his running battle with Buckingham in which for the most part he seems to have been the loser and he was not a man to mince his words; for which see Baker, pp.
77, 108-9, 244-5
.

¹⁵⁷
Hall, p.719; A.F.Pollard, p.220,n.3 for Warham believing that Wolsey had over-reacted; see also
LP
, iv, 2854.

¹⁵⁸
PRO E/38/216/fo.176, though the document gives no reason for the fine. But it is most unlikely that it could have had anything to to with a verbal attack on Wolsey, and from the evidence of his examination the verbal attack was merely an aggravating factor (PRO STAC 10/4 pt.2/127-32).

¹⁵⁹
PRO C/66/627, m.17 (
LP
, ii, 2537). The question of whether or not the pardon prevented further action did become an issue in Feb. 1518; Wolsey gave Sheffield considerable time to consider with his counsel whether to stand by it, though indicating that he did not himself think such a course of action was in Sheffield’s best interests (PRO STAC 10/4 pt.2/129). On the subject of pardons generally see Blatcher, pp.53 ff, 81-7.

¹⁶⁰
It seems to have derive from A.F. Pollard, p.52 and was followed by Guy in
Cardinal’s Court
, p.78.

¹⁶¹
PRO PROB 11/19/fo.15.

¹⁶²
A.F. Pollard, p.52, n.2.

¹⁶³
Cf. Sir John Savage’s fine of 5,600 marks to the Crown and an additional 1,000 marks to the widow and children of the murdered man.

¹⁶⁴
See pp.218-20, 291.

¹⁶⁵
LP
, iv, 6075.

¹⁶⁶
Entry into a religious order in later life by devout laymen who were previously married is a much under-researched subject, but was not uncommon and the evidence of Stanley’s will suggests that his reasons for entering Westminster had nothing to do with Wolsey’s alleged treatment of him. In drawing up art.38 it may have helped that Stanley had died the previous year; see B. Harvey, p.387, n.7.