The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) (73 page)

²⁸
LP
, iii, 2536 for Dacre’s own account of the event.

²⁹
LP
, iii, 3291.

³⁰
LP
, iii, 2271, 3304, 3306, 3286; iv, 133, 218, 220, 279, 682, 701, 726, 822, 893, 1223, 1239, 1429, 1460, 1517. For the charges and Darcy’s replies see Hodgson, v, pp.31-40.

³¹
LP
, iii, 3544; iv, 218, 220. For the bishop of Carlisle’s comment that the Dacres were not loved in the East and Middle Marches see
LP
, iii, 2271.

³²
LP
, iii, 3544. This was one of the chief points that he made in his defence: he had endeavoured to keep the East and Middle Marches in as good order as the West, ‘albeit his power was not so good of the one as the other’; see Hodgson, v, p.33.

³³
LP
, iv, 220.

³⁴
LP
, iii, 2537.

³⁵
Inter alia
, Wolsey’s marginal note to Surrey’s recommendation that Dacre succeed him: ‘True it is that there is no man so meet as the Lord Dacre is, as well for his great wisdom and experience, as for his power ready at hand to withstand excursion to be made by the Scots from time to time.’ (
LP
, iii, 3515). For Wolsey remitting all to Dacre’s wisdom see
LP
, iii, 1950; for Fox’s favourable assessment see Richard Fox, pp.137-8; for Surrey being unable to spare Dacre see
LP
, iv, 726.

³⁶
LP
, iv, 1665, 1725.

³⁷
Hodgson, v, pp.31-40. The chief burden of the case against Dacre was that he had been unable to maintain law and order because he was too closely involved with those who were causing the disorder. BL Lansdowne, 1, fo.105 states that on 1 Feb.1525 Dacre confessed to the ‘bearing of thieves … Whereupon he is committed to the keeping of the warden of the Fleet and his recognizance, taken and knowledged the 31 January last part as well for himself and his sureties, is decreed by the said most reverend father [Wolsey] to be utterly void, prostrate, and cancelled.’ See also BL Vespasian C xiv (pt. 2), fo.267;
LP
, iv, 302. For a different account see Guy,
Cardinals’ Court
, pp.122-3.

³⁸
LP
, iv, 2401, 2402; Reid, p.104.

³⁹
LP
, i, 2443.

⁴⁰
LP
, iii, 2402.

⁴¹
LP
, iii, 3603.

⁴²
LP
, iii, 3286 though it should be said that Dacre was not mentioned by name. For a fuller treatment of the Dacre/Percy conflict see James,
BP
, 30, pp.28 ff. James makes the point that those who signed were closely connected with the Crown, but since all the leading gentry were likely to have had connections both with the Crown as well as Northern noblemen it hardly carries the weight he wishes it to. The conflict between local clientage and Crown service was never as great as he suggests and there is little evidence that it was growing.

⁴³
LP
, iv, 331.

⁴⁴
Bean, p.140, who puts his income in 1523 at c. £3,900. The nobility’s average income was £1,000; see Miller, ‘Early Tudor peerage’, p.127.

⁴⁵
I owe this information to R.W. Hoyle.

⁴⁶
For biographical information see
inter alia
Fonblanque, pp.310-360, a splendid though not entirely reliable source.

⁴⁷
James,
BP
, 30, pp.18-9;
Select Cases
, pp.41-4. For the dispute with Savage see PRO STAC/2/24/79.

⁴⁸
Bean, p.143; James,
BP
, 30, pp.21-2.

⁴⁹
James,
BP
, 30, p.27, n.101.

⁵⁰
Ibid, 27, n. 102;
LP
, i, 2053.

⁵¹
Fonblanque, i, p.552, but James gives the figure as 762; see
BP
, 30, p.27, n.102.

⁵²
Inter alia
, Bernard,
Early Tudor Nobility
, pp.38-58; C.S.L. Davies,
Past and Present
, 41, pp.54-76. Fonblanque, i, p.458 gives a figure of nearly 35, 000 for the rebel army.

⁵³
LP
, i, 157.

⁵⁴
See pp.159-72.

⁵⁵
LP
, iii, 1293.

⁵⁶
LP
, iii, 1284 [3].

⁵⁷
James states that the case involved another abducted heiress, but none of his references appear to support this view; see
BP
, 30, p.26.

⁵⁸
BL Lansdowne 639, fos.45v-6; Vespasian C xiv (pt.2), fo.266v; Guy,
Cardinals’ Court
, pp.27, 31 though he sheds no light on what the charges were.

⁵⁹
LP
, ii, 3209, 3278. Fonblanque, i, p.350 quotes the relevant letters in full. It should be said that Northumberland showed himself very reluctant to perform this duty.

⁶⁰
Russell,
Field of Cloth of Gold
, pp.51-4.

⁶¹
LP
, iii, 2412.

⁶²
LP
, iv, 1431.

⁶³
Reid, pp.103 ff.

⁶⁴
Cavendish, pp.29-34 is the main source for the 6th earl’s presence in Wolsey’s household, but though it is confirmed by other references such as
LP
, iv, 4082, 4093 nothing gives us a precise date.

⁶⁵
Again this date is conjectural, but Anne really only appeared at court in 1522 and by September 1523 Percy was engaged to be married to Mary Talbot.

⁶⁶
LP
, iii, 3563. Fonblanque, i, pp.357-8 quotes the relevant passage in full.

⁶⁷
LP
, iv, 2729.

⁶⁸
Clifford Letters
, pp.105-7. It predates Wolsey’s good word, which was in December, and was perhaps a consequence of it.

⁶⁹
Ibid for crucial evidence of the quarrel; also Cavendish, pp.29-34.

⁷⁰
See pp.172-3 above.

⁷¹
Fonblanque, i, p.379: ‘Before Ambrose came unto me I was coming unto my house at Topcliffe towards the funeral of my late lord and father, whose soul J’hu pardon; … but seeing I know my lord grace’s [Wolsey’s] pleasure contrary, I will not come to the funeral to Beverly, the which to have been at I would have been very glad.’ The fact that he would have liked to have been at the funeral may suggest rather better relations between the two than I have suggested, but it could equally well indicate remorse or perhaps even pleasure at his father’s death!

⁷²
Hall states that in 1523 the 5th earl turned down an offer of a wardenship, as a result of which he ‘was not regarded of his tenants, which disdained him and his blood, and much lamented his folly’; see Hall, pp.651-2. If Hall was correct, our puzzle would be solved: the 5th earl never received high office because he did not want it. But it seems unlikely, while no hint of such an offer has survived, and the documentation for Northern concerns in 1522 and 1523 is quite extensive.

⁷³
D.R. Starkey, ‘King’s privy chamber’, pp.80 ff. but the detail needs checking in Gunn,
Charles Brandon
, pp.6-11, 66-71.

⁷⁴
Bean, pp.135-43.

⁷⁵
LP
, iii, 2328.

⁷⁶
LP
, iii, 3240 for this analysis, but all Surrey’s letters in 1523 and 1524 should be consulted.

⁷⁷
Hodgson, pp.31 ff.

⁷⁸
Hodgson, pp.31 ff.

⁷⁹
LP
, iii, 3544; iv, 22. Though Dacre defends himself in these letters, he also admits difficulties and not just on account of his gout!

⁸⁰
St. P
, iv, pp.153-6 (
LP
, iv, 701).

⁸¹
See p.219, n.7 above.

⁸²
LP
, iii, 3240.

⁸³
LP
, iv, 133, 220, 279, 332, 404.

⁸⁴
LP
, iv, 405.

⁸⁵
LP
, iv, 497.

⁸⁶
LP
, iii, 3365, 3384, 3509, 3515.

⁸⁷
LP
, xvii, 940.

⁸⁸
For even a Clifford doubting his influence in the West March see Cumberland’s letter to Wolsey in November 1525 (
LP
, iv, 1762). One of the points that an unknown writer made about holding office in the North, was that he must be ‘enabled to support a plenteous and liberal home of meat and drink; otherwise I shall not be regarded amongst them, but shall be held in [approby] and derision’, this because he lacked land in the area; see
LP
, iv, 1764. The unknown man may have been Ralph Neville earl of Westmorland, appointed vice-warden of the East and Middle Marches in 1525. For the general problem of ever more ‘foreign noblemen’ see Bush,
NH
, 6, pp.59 ff.

⁸⁹
Bernard, ‘Fourth and fifth earls of Shrewsbury’, pp.164 ff.

⁹⁰
LP
, iv, 1431, 1510 his appointments in the North were dated 22 July 1525.

⁹¹
Reid, pp.103-5.

⁹²
R.B. Smith, pp.154-6.

⁹³
Virtually no one was deliberately dropped. Reid’s list of councillors suggests that Frankleyn may have been, but the evidence for this is not altogether convincing and he was certainly restored to it; see Reid, pp.113 ff.

⁹⁴
See pp.125 ff.

⁹⁵
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.123-4; Reid, pp.102 ff.

⁹⁶
LP
, iv, 1727, 1762, 1764, 2003, 2176, 2401-2, 2729, 3230, 3370, 3404, 3421, 3477, 3501.

⁹⁷
That it was perceived to be cheaper at the time, see especially Surrey’s letter to Wolsey in Nov. 1523: ‘Also if my Lord Dacre be well written to by the king’s highness, and your grace … I doubt not he will occupy as warden for 40s. a day; and I having of the king’s highness £5 a day, £3 may be saved.’ (
St. P
, iv, p.55
LP
, iii, 3515). In a marginal note Wolsey accepted this. See also
LP
, iv, 2004.