The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) (115 page)

¹⁷⁵
Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, pp.28-9 for the view that it was accidental. For Wolsey’s detailed account see
St. P
, vi, pp.386 ff. (
LP
, iv, 1083).

¹⁷⁶
Sp. Cal
, iii (i), pp.75 ff.

¹⁷⁷
Knecht, pp.160-1.

¹⁷⁸
LP
, iv, 8, 26, 30, 61, 170, 186, 356.

¹⁷⁹
Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, pp.24-5; Jacqueton, pp.63 ff.

¹⁸⁰
LP
, iv, 882, 1002, 1015, 1017.

¹⁸¹
His letter to Sampson of 19 Nov. was perhaps the most pessimistic (
LP
, iv, 841), but as against this see
LP
, iv, 882.

¹⁸²
Thomas More,
Correspondence
, pp.314-16 (
LP
, iv, 1018).

¹⁸³
Cf. Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, pp.7-8.

¹⁸⁴
St. P
, i, p.157 (
LP
, iv, 1078).

¹⁸⁵
St. P
, i, p.158 (
LP
, iv, 1078).

¹⁸⁶
Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, p.30.

¹⁸⁷
St. P
, i, p.157 (
LP
, iv, 1078).

¹⁸⁸
Sp. Cal
., iii(i), pp.75-82.

¹⁸⁹
LP
, iv, 1160.

¹⁹⁰
LP
, iv, 1628-9 for a list drawn up in Sept. to be used against Imperial objections to England’s seperate peace.

¹⁹¹
See pp.78 ff. above.

¹⁹²
Jacqueton, pp.90-1 and Scarisbrick,
Henry
VIII
, p.139 for the view that an agreement was about to be made; Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, p.30 for the view that it was not.

¹⁹³
Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, p.31 for the view that the smallness of England’s contribution was a serious flaw in Wolsey’s policy; also Jacqueton, pp.107-8. For Imperial attitudes see
LP
, iv, 1190, 1213, 1237-8;
Sp. Cal
., iii (i), pp.75 ff.

¹⁹⁴
Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, p.32 for the Angel Gabriel; also
Sp. Cal
., iii (i), pp.82 ff.

¹⁹⁵
LP
, iv, 1212.

¹⁹⁶
Scarisbrick,
Henry
VIII
, p.141.

¹⁹⁷
This is the central theme of Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
.

¹⁹⁸
Sp. Cal
, iii (i), p.8. 95, with its reference to ‘last Tuesday’, the 24 March 1525 being a Friday.

¹⁹⁹
Sp. Cal
., iii (i), pp.82 ff;
LP
, iv, 1199, 1200, 1212.

²⁰⁰
LP
, iv, 1249, 1255.

²⁰¹
LP
, iv, 1249, 1255.

²⁰²
LP
, iv, 1261, 1265.

²⁰³
LP
, iv, 1301;
Sp. Cal
., iii (i), pp.86 ff.

²⁰⁴
LP
, iv, 1243.

²⁰⁵
LP
, iv, 1443 Clerk’s report of his interview dated 22 June. Wolsey’s letter to him, brought by Casale, must have been written on or about 19 May; at any rate letters delivered by Casale to Russell and Pace were dated 18 and 19 May respectively; see
LP
, iv, 1410, 1419.

²⁰⁶
St. P
, i, 160 (
LP
, iv, 137); for its dating see Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, p.51, n.210.

²⁰⁷
BL Vespasian C iii, fo.76v (
LP
, iv, 1488).

²⁰⁸
Henry Ellis, 2 ser, i, p.335 (
LP
, iv, 2033).

²⁰⁹
Sp. Cal
., iii (i), p.132.

²¹⁰
Sp. Cal
., iii (i), p.135.

²¹¹
Sp. Cal
., iii (i), pp.111-2.

²¹²
LP
, iv, 1301, 1307.

²¹³
Sp. Cal
., iii (i), p.153.

²¹⁴
Sp. Cal
., iii (i), p.153.

²¹⁵
Due on 9 Feb. but not paid until considerably later though interestingly, given the widespread pleas of poverty, almost in full; see Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, pp.125-9.

²¹⁶
Harriss,
HJ
, 6; J.R. Lander,
Crown and Nobility
, pp.220-41; Ross, pp.205-38, 278-95.

²¹⁷
The decision to postpone was taken sometime before 7 April and the instructions went out on 21st; see
LP
, iv, 1249;
LP
App
, 34.

²¹⁸
Charles was anyway to be offered about £40,000. He was also advised to ask his own subjects for a benevolence; see
St. P
, vi, pp.421-3, 427-8 (
LP
, iv, 1212).

²¹⁹
LP
, iv, 1301 (1);
Sp. Cal
, iii (i) 92, 109-12, pp.125, 131-6, 146.

²²⁰
Hall, p.694; Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, p.56.

²²¹
Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, pp.76 ff.

²²²
On 1 April Norfolk reported some initial opposition in Norwich, but by 14th Lynn and Yarmouth had agreed, while three days earlier most of Suffolk was ‘conformable’; see
LP
, iv, 1235, 1260, 1265.

²²³
LP
, iv, 1272.

²²⁴
The St. George’s day celebrations on and around 23 April would have provided the opportunity.

²²⁵
Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, pp.56-60.

²²⁶
LP
, iv, 1332.

²²⁷
Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, pp.138-40. According to Hall the poorest category asked to pay consisted of those worth between £20 and £1. In Kent no one worth less than £20 appears to have been approached (
LP
, iv, 1306). In Norfolk they were, but a clear distinction was made between those worth over and under £20, which seems a high dividing line if those under £1 were to be included (
LP
, iv, 1241, 1265).

²²⁸
Hall, pp.699-700;
LP
, iv, 1236.

²²⁹
Ross, p, 217; Chrimes,
Henry
VII
, pp.203-5.

²³⁰
Chrimes,
Henry
VII
, pp.88-92.

²³¹
LP
, iv, 1319, 1323, 1325; Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, pp.136-49.

²³²
LP
, iv, 1319.

²³³
BL Cleopatra F vi, fo.261 (
LP
, iv, 1323) a document which for once was inadequately calendared.

²³⁴
PRO SP l/34/fo.196 (
LP
, iv, 1329).

²³⁵
LP
, iv, 1330.

²³⁶
LP
, iv, 1329.

²³⁷
Scarisbrick,
Henry
VIII
, pp.138-9; Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, pp.66-7 for a rejection of such a view.

²³⁸
Bernard,
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, pp 60-6 for a full treatment of this important point.

²³⁹
LP
, iv, 1233. This much mutilated letter is printed in Jacqueton, pp.316-20. He dates it to the first fortnight of May (ibid, p.112). In
LP
it is placed at the beginning of April.

²⁴⁰
LP
, iv, 1371, dated by Bernard 27 May (
War, Taxation and Rebellion
, p.51, n.210);
Ven. Cal
., iii, p.446 for Joachim’s departure from Lyons; Braudel, i, p.362 for the speed of letters.

²⁴¹
BL Vitellius B vii, fo.116 (
LP
, iv, 1336).

²⁴²
BL Vitellius B vii, fo, 126 (
LP
, iv, 1336).

²⁴³
LP
, iv, 1600-6, 1609; Jacqueton, pp.113 ff.

²⁴⁴
LP
, iv, 1609, 1617.

²⁴⁵
LP
, iv, 1379.

²⁴⁶
LP
, iv, 1390, 1484, 1557, 1559.

²⁴⁷
St. P
, vi, pp.468-71 (
LP
, iv, 1557). The comments are in Tuke’s handwriting, but are clearly Wolsey’s views for Henry’s benefit.

²⁴⁸
St. P
, vi, pp, 469-70.

²⁴⁹
Most informative is probably the one just discussed (
LP
, iv, 1557), but see also
LP
, iv, 1380, 1421-2, 1555, 1655.

²⁵⁰
St. P
, vi, 470 (
LP
, iv, 1557).

IT WOULD BE TO MAKE NO JUDGEMENT ON HIS MORAL WORTH TO STATE THAT
Wolsey took a great interest in the well-being of the king’s subjects: what he and his contemporaries called ‘the common weal’. Whatever his private shortcomings, as a leading royal councillor he could hardly have avoided doing so. Unhappy subjects are dangerous, or at the very least uncooperative, and even the most cynical of regimes is inclined to avoid trouble if it can. The lord chancellor’s special responsibility for the poor, discussed earlier, devolved to him from the king, whom both theory and tradition enjoined to ‘seek the profit of the people as much as his own’.
¹
Tradition and theory can, of course, be ignored, but unless necessity compels otherwise most people are conventional enough to go along with them, even to believe in them! As a starting point, therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that Henry
VIII
and his councillors, including Wolsey, were no exceptions.
²
It was also the case that both late medieval and early modern governments very much favoured state regulation over the workings of the free market. Whether, as a consequence, it makes sense to talk of them having an economic policy – what for the early modern period has been called mercantilism – is much disputed; most recent historians have tended to be sceptical, in part because so much government intervention in social and economic matters was apparently so half-hearted and ineffective.
³
In what follows this larger issue cannot be ignored, but a warning is called for. By its very nature, it is a wide and open-ended debate, for the subject matter ranges from the minutiae of village life to the complexities of the European money markets, taking in on the way the size and quality of pieces of cloth, the question of whether people should be allowed to play cards, what they should be allowed to wear, what Thames watermen should be allowed to charge, and so on. The terrain is vast, the existing maps unclear, and the danger of getting lost very great. Furthermore the problem of trying to define Wolsey’s contribution in this area is even more acute than elsewhere. No writings or memoranda by him on social or economic matters have survived, and it is even quite hard to connect him directly with any social or economic legislation. But in two matters, enclosure and the combination of bad harvests and the dislocation of trade during 1527-9, the government’s involvement was so great that, given his position and personality, it is not possible to doubt his personal involvement. Indeed, he seems to have instituted major government initiatives, and, furthermore, to have gone to considerable efforts to try to ensure their success.