Winter King: Henry VII and the Dawn of Tudor England (41 page)

‘For bleeding inwards and shut vapours strangle soonest and oppress most.’

Francis Bacon,
Henry VII

‘Right mighty prince & redoubted sovereign
From whom descendeth by the rightful line
Noble prince Henry to succeed the crown
That in his youth doth so clearly shine
In every virtue casting the vice adown
He shall of fame attain the high renown.’

Stephen Hawes
, Pastime of Pleasure

According to the London chronicler, it was around the autumn of 1506 that things started to get really bad, when ‘much sorrow’ spread ‘throughout the land’. Elaborating, he described how many ‘unlawful and forgotten laws’, some of them hundreds of years old, were reactivated to the ‘great inquietness’ of the king’s subjects. This was something that had been going on for a while, he added, but recently, ‘and especially since Empson and Dudley were set in authority’, the situation had rapidly deteriorated.
¹

Two years had passed since Henry had given Empson the duchy of Lancaster seals, and with them the informal presidency of the council learned in the law. He had been impressed with the assiduity with which Empson worked, pursuing the king’s rights with a ruthlessness of which Bray himself would have been proud, and had confirmed him in his post, appointing him chancellor of the duchy.
²
Under Empson, the council learned was becoming even more systematic, or rather, more indiscriminate. It pursued any and every case that was brought in front of it, irrespective of the reliability of the informers – often ‘simple persons of small reputation and little credence’, who were just out for what they could get, ‘for to have a bribe’ – who were motivated as much as anything else by personal animosity or personal gain.
³

When hauled in front of the king’s counsellors, people were presented with one option: to ‘fall to agreement’, which invariably meant paying fines and accepting financial bonds. Many, in order to mitigate their own financial punishment, agreed to turn informer themselves.
⁴
They had no choice. The council learned’s ubiquitous ‘letting and stopping of justice’ and use of bonds meant that once people had been informed against to the king and his counsellors, they had stepped outside a world governed by recognized judicial processes into one of nightmarish contingency, from which there was no escape: where the law was the king’s will, expressed by mutable committees that coalesced and fragmented, and in which paper trails vanished into thin air, into the duchy of Lancaster’s offices, into the boxes in Henry’s secret chamber – or into Edmund Dudley’s house.

Since his appointment two years previously, Dudley had become the king’s go-to man for legal and financial matters, from the dredging up of old debts and managing bonds to brokering Henry’s investments. Theirs was a curiously intimate relationship, one defined entirely by their mutual absorption with the law, and by Dudley’s ability to distort and twist it into baroque patterns. The evidence of their private discussions lies in Dudley’s account book – page after page of fines and payments for every conceivable offence and opportunity: the sale of export licences, wards, marriages, lucrative crown lands and ‘temporalities’, the sinecures that accompanied religious office; the king’s favour in everything from royal appointments to court cases; and, throughout, the sale of justice, fees for royal pardons for offences from illegal wool-trading and customs infringements to murder. At the bottom of each page, the king signed his monogram, the imprimatur to their decisions. One entry in Dudley’s book seems to sum up their relationship: a note about the ‘great book of jura regalia which I had of his highness’.
⁵
In order to help his protégé in his work, Henry had lent the counsellor his own book of sovereign rights. Of all Henry’s counsellors, Dudley understood his system best – he even talked of knowing the king’s ‘inward mind’ on the subject.

In 1506, Henry appointed Dudley president of the king’s council. Two years after becoming a royal counsellor, and still only an esquire, he was the first layman ever to be appointed to a post traditionally held by one of the great lords spiritual. Now in his mid-forties, he had reached the very top. Dudley’s promotion spoke volumes for Henry’s priorities, and for his own effectiveness. Since the reshuffle that had followed Bray’s death, the number of people in debt to the crown had soared, increasing by hundreds each year; the amounts owed on bonds and fines had also risen steeply and was rapidly climbing. For the calendar year of 1506 alone, debt due to the crown from financial sureties of one kind or another came to an unprecedented £106,382, a sum that, if all those debts were to be called in, would more than double the king’s annual income.
⁶

Something else had changed, too. It said something about the current atmosphere that even the days of Sir Reynold Bray had acquired a rosy glow. Bray, wrote the London chronicler, might have been ‘rough’ and intimidating, but at least he would never accept gifts, only food and drink. This, of course, was nonsense – Bray had made himself extremely rich through graft in the king’s name, as indeed the chronicler, immediately contradicting himself, pointed out. But although Bray did take gifts, ‘the giver was sure of a friend and a special solicitor in the matter’. Ultimately, the chronicler was saying, you had known where you stood with Bray: despite his harshness, he adhered to an accepted culture of lobbying, petitioning and palm-greasing, the sense of quid pro quo, favours bestowed for service rendered. Empson and Dudley, on the other hand, didn’t.

Like all royal servants, their own interests blurred indistinctly with those of the crown. Showered with bribes, cash and land in exchange for ‘secret labour’ with the king, they took every opportunity that came their way – and proved particularly adept at doing so. Empson took bribes and fat ecclesiastical sinecures as danger money, for ‘avoiding of his displeasure’; people paid him lobbying fees to further their legal cases, only to discover that he was also accepting money from the other side. When the Sussex gentleman Roger Lewknor was imprisoned for murder, Dudley sold him a pardon in return for the title deeds to his estates.
⁷

These were men, the chronicler continued, who ‘spoke pleasantly’, in the smooth officialese that most of Henry’s counsellors were accustomed to deploy, but ‘did overthwartly’. In pushing the law to its limits, they lured people into making compromising statements and provoked them into seeking extra-legal ways of solving their problems, then accused them of breaking the law. Then, they sold their victims justice on the king’s behalf. It was all, said one of Dudley’s victims, Sir William Clopton, ‘contrary to the right and order of the law’. Clopton’s own case illustrated the point. Dudley had halted a private suit which Clopton was on the point of winning, then let it proceed after Clopton offered the king half the ‘profits’: two hundred marks, a sum for which he sought the counsellor’s approval. Dudley then invited him and his lawyer in for a chat. In Dudley’s eyes, the agreed settlement was too low. Evidently thinking he could do better, he offered Clopton fifty marks to ‘go his way’, he proposed to take on the case himself, on the king’s behalf, at which point Clopton’s lawyer – himself a royal counsellor, as it happened – intervened, mildly pointing out the blatant irregularity: this was a private case and the king had ‘no right’ in it anyway. Dudley exploded. ‘Are you of the king’s council and yet would argue against the king’s advantage?’ What happened next had an air of inevitability about it. Dudley took the case on and won, receiving damages of three hundred marks, which disappeared into the king’s coffers; Clopton received ‘not one penny thereof’.
⁸
If this behaviour – the probing inquisition, the pleasant, reasoned benevolence combined with violent anger – seemed familiar, it was. Dudley was behaving rather like Henry himself.

As the London chronicler bitterly observed of Dudley, the greatest lords in England were ‘glad to be in his favour, and were fain to sue to him for many urgent causes’. In an echo of Robert Plumpton’s comment about Empson, he noted that it was easier to approach and speak to ‘the best duke in the land’ than to Dudley, a mere esquire, a man who flaunted his title of ‘counsellor to our sovereign lord the king’ as though it were a noble title.
⁹
A deep-rooted sense of betrayal underscored Londoners’ criticisms of Dudley – after all, the city had nurtured him, helped make him what he had become. It was, above all, in the economic honeypot of London, through its wharves and warehouses loaded high with luxury goods, its whorehouses and taverns, townhouses, marketplaces and Guildhall that Dudley’s shadow was spreading inexorably.

Despite Henry’s sporadic trade embargoes with the Netherlands and his interference in city politics, business in London was booming. Although in meetings of the common council, self-censorship was the norm – minute books often revealed large gaps where full and frank discussions about the king’s attentions had presumably taken place – and the city inveighed against Henry’s preference for foreign merchants – ‘we the king’s subjects’ merchants no thing in regard to them’, noted the mercers grimly – the truth was more complex. City merchants and London’s alien communities worked hand in hand in illegal exchanges and import/export rackets, while with the increase in trade came endless ‘new ways or deceits’ to avoid the crown’s attentions.
¹⁰
But where there were offences, Henry’s lawyers saw opportunities to extract wealth, and to extend royal control over the city’s government. For those who knew where to look, and how to use the law, the dark underbelly of finance and commerce represented almost limitless opportunities for threats, intimidation and extortion. Edmund Dudley did, and Henry gave him open season.

In Dudley’s hands, Henry’s tactics against the city reached fruition. He knew exactly how much the Corporation would be prepared to pay for renewal of its charters of self-government and trade privileges, and how much he could squeeze out of London’s merchants in customs duties and the sale of export licences. He knew, too, how to exploit the city’s pressure points, meddling in its politics and preying on the grudges and jealousies between its guilds, privileging certain companies over others and interfering in city elections. As various London politicians pointed out uneasily, the king was riding roughshod over due process, changing procedures when he had ‘none authority’ to do so. In the municipal elections of autumn 1506, the city rejected the king’s preferred candidate for sheriff, the merchant taylor Sir William Fitzwilliam. Dudley walked into Guildhall, annulled the results and called a new election, which Fitzwilliam duly won – paying Henry £100 for the king’s ‘gracious favour for being sheriff’. The London chronicler noted acidly how city elections were now fairly academic anyway – it didn’t much matter who Londoners voted in because ‘whosoever had the sword borne before him, Dudley was mayor, and whatever his pleasure was, was done’.
¹¹
The real centre of power was, as the chronicler intimated, not to be found in Guildhall, but a short walk east and south from there in Dudley’s own house in Candlewick Street.

One of the city’s main commercial thoroughfares, running east to west parallel with the river, Candlewick Street was the centre of the city’s textile trade, lined with wealthy drapers’ warehouses. With the financial centre of Lombard Street a few minutes’ walk north, and the port of London to the south, Dudley’s house was perfectly positioned, an island of royal power in the city’s commercial heart.

Despite a two-storey frontage extending 180 feet along the street, the house’s exterior was unassuming enough. Like many merchants’ townhouses with their small windows and plain façades that to one unimpressed Venetian ‘do not seem very large from the outside’, it gave little sense of the extent within. But once inside, such houses – living spaces, offices and warehouses rolled into one – seemed to expand to an extraordinary degree in a proliferation of chambers, parlours, corridors and closets. As the same visitor discovered, to his surprise, ‘they contain a great number of rooms and garrets and are quite considerable’.
¹²

So it was with Candlewick Street. In its warren of rooms, fashionable touches of interior design – ‘rich arras’ lining the walls, fine inlaid furniture and exotic glassware of ‘beyond sea making’ – vied for space with the luxury goods and textiles in which Dudley dabbled, and the endless coffers and boxes crammed with financial and legal paperwork, ‘bills, obligations, evidences and other writings’. At the back, its double-storeyed gallery gave onto a fine garden. The nerve centre of his operations, Candlewick Street was incessantly in motion. Apart from its domestic staff, the house admitted a constant flow of clerks, messengers, city representatives, guild- and company-men, royal officials and counsellors and, above all, Dudley’s victims. People came to plead their innocence, arrange their schedule of payments, or to pay an instalment of their debt, received and logged by one of his clerks: the smaller of the two parlours where he conducted his interviews incorporated a counting-house. Or, like Sir William Clopton, they came to progress matters in which Dudley had taken a hand, and left defrauded or bound over to the king.

Among the regular faces in Candlewick Street were Dudley’s eyes and ears in the city, those who supplied the fuel for Henry’s fiscal machine. Many of them worked in the world of economic crime where, in the way of informers more generally, they were allowed a cut of the possessions of those they managed to convict, and where the pickings were particularly rich. People had a special name for them: promoters. Royal promoters had long been at work in the city, several of them familiar and hated faces; now, working with Dudley and his sidekick and enforcer Richard Page, their activities acquired a new virulence and impunity.
¹³