The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) (19 page)
Read The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) Online
Authors: Peter Gwyn
53
A vast and controversial subject with a literature to match – but for revisionist views see
inter alia
Haigh,
History
, 68 (1963); Harper-Bill,
JEH
, 29 (1987); O’Day and Heal; Scarisbrick,
Reformation
; and for a measured restatement of the previous orthodoxy see Dickens, ‘The shape of anti-clericalism’.
54
VCH, London
, i, p.256.
55
Brigden, ‘Early Reformation’, pp.118-48.
56
Dickens,
English Reformation
, pp.90ff. as a
locus classicus
– and despite my strong disagreement with him, I remain an admirer of his work.
57
My approach to anticlericalism has been much influenced by R.W. Southern.
58
Storey,
The End of the House of Lancaster
, p.9.
59
This may be considered an over-bold statement – and the subject is under-researched. The best introduction, with a good bibliography, is probably J.R. Lander,
Government and Community
, pp.105-51.
60
Wilkins, iii, pp.583-5; Scofield, i, pp.390-2.
61
See Firth, for a detailed discussion of the charter; also
Registrum Thome Bourgchier
, pp.xxxii ff. and 102-7.
62
Houlbrooke, ‘The decline of ecclesiastical jurisdiction’, p.240; Woodcock, pp.79-92.
63
Wilkins, iii, p.616.
64
Inter alia
Condon, pp.110-32; M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.97-110.
65
4 Hen.
VII
, c.13 (
SR
, ii, p.538).
66
12 Hen.
VII
, c.7 (
SR
, ii. p.639).
67
Gabel; but also Baker, ii, pp.
327-34
; Bellamy,
Crime and Public Order
, pp.154-5; Blatcher, pp.56-7.
68
Houlbrooke, ‘The decline of ecclesiastical jurisdiction’, pp.239-41; M. J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.104-8.
69
See Harrison for a full transcript.
70
Included in Dudley’s list.
71
Dudley, pp.32-3 for all these quotations.
72
Ullmann.
73
BL, Tib. E.
VIII
, fo.89. Ullmann suggested that they were, but the 1530s does seem more likely.
74
PRO, SCI/44/fo.83; quoted in Houlbroke, ‘The decline of ecclesiastical jurisdiction’, p.241.
75
See pp.42-3, above.
76
Registrum Ricardi Mayew
, p.55.
77
LJ
, i, pp.4-6.
78
Wilkins, iii, p.651 – the summons to the 1510 convocation; see also M. J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.95-147 – an outstanding piece of work that should have been published.
79
Lupton, p.297; for the whole sermon ibid, pp.293-310.
80
BL, Vit. B. ii, fos.80-1. In the quotations that follow I have made use of R.E. Brock’s translation in his ‘Career of John Taylor’, pp.309-15.
81
4 Hen.
VIII
, c.2 (
SR
, iii, p.49).
82
Jedin, i, pp.128 ff.
83
The two bulls were
Supernae dispositionis arbitrio
(5 May 1514) and
Regimini universalis ecclesiae
(4 May 1515); see Schroeder, pp.488-98, 500-3.
84
Found in Keilwey, a major, and sometimes questioned source for the Standish affair, used extensively in his own translation by A. Ogle in his
Lollards’ Tower
, pp.140 ff. For important discussions on the
Reports
see A. F. Pollard, pp.44, n.2 and Simpson. Many of the doubts about its authenticity as a source for this episode have been removed by J.A. Guy’s discovery of an early sixteenth-century version; see Guy,
EHR
, xvii, p.497, n.2 – though this does not prevent it from being biased against the clerical position. I am grateful to J.A. Guy for providing me with a photocopy of his discovery.
85
Registrum Ricardi Mayew
, pp.50-2.
86
Jedin, i, pp.135-6.
87
By drawing together the various arguments put by both sides it has proved difficult to provide satisfactory references, but see Ogle, pp.140 ff. For a sermon putting forward the clerical view see PRO, SP6/3/5/ fos.45-85 (
LP
, v, 1021, where wrongly dated; see M. J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, p.139, n.2).
88
Ogle, p.150.
89
Ibid, p.151.
90
PRO, SP1/12/fos.18-21 (
LP
, ii, 1314).
91
Ogle, pp.151-2.
92
Ibid, p.152 for this exchange.
93
Ibid, p.152. J.M.D. Derrett in his important, but to my mind confusing, article wrongly attributes Warham’s remarks to Wolsey; see Derrett, pp.234-5.
94
Ogle, p.152.
95
Ogle, pp.152-3 – but, like the above, a translation from Keilwey,
Reports
; see p.47, n.1 above.
96
Scarisbrick,
Henry VIII
, p.417.
97
Ibid, p.279.
98
Foxe,
Acts and Monuments
, iv, p.196.
99
Ogle, pp.151-2.
100
LP
, ii, 1314; see M. J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.135-6.
101
See p.7 above.
102
M. J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.42-94.
103
Thus Dickens could write: ‘Amongst the higher clergy the impressive feature is the virtual unanimity with which they followed the lead of the king.’ (
English Reformation
, p.124). Admittedly in recent years the consensus has been challenged, especially by Scarisbrick, both in his
Henry VIII
, pp.273-81, 329-31 and
Reformation
, pp.61 ff; see also Bernard,
JEH
, 37 (1986).
104
LP
, ii, 780, 966.
105
Rymer, xiii, p.495;
LP
, ii, 1105, 1281.
106
Wilkins, iii, p.713; Bellamy,
Criminal Law
, pp.138-40.
107
The standard account is Thornley, but see also Baker, ii, pp.
334-46
. I am very grateful to A. G. Rosser for his comments on what I originally wrote on this subject – and for the Westminster sanctuary see his
Medieval Westminster
.
108
Baker, ii, p.
340
.
109
Thornley, p.197, though for a different view see Kaufman, ‘Henry
VII
and sanctuary’.
110
Keilway, pp.190-2 is the source, but extensively summarized in Gasquet,
The Eve of the Reformation
, pp.51 ff. Ives, ‘Crimes, sanctuary and royal authority’ is very important, especially for the events leading up to the discussion, which I have not been able to tackle.
111
Keilway, p.191.
112
Keilway, pp.191-2.
113
LP
, iv, 2935-6, 3334 for evidence of continuing trouble – including the possibility of an attack on Wolsey’s London residence, York Place.
114
Baker, ii,
345
.
115
LP
, iv, 2385.
116
For Henry’s stated intentions at the discussion see Baker, ii, p.
343
.
117
Lupton, pp.193-8 (
LP
, ii, 1153), a transcript of a document in the College of Arms giving a detailed description of Wolsey’s installation, including Colet’s sermon.
118
Lupton, p.197.
119
Elton’s description of him ‘flaunting his scarlet, his maces, his tapers, his canopies, the trappings of his mule’ (
Reform and Reformation
, p.64) is a good example.
120
O’Malley, pp.135-8.
C121
Lupton, p.198 – for the ‘grovelling’.
HAPTER
T
HREE
T
HE
M
AKING OF THE
T
REATY OF
L
ONDON
THE YEAR 1518 HAS SOME CLAIM TO BEING CALLED WOLSEY
’
S
ANNUS MIRABILIS
.
On 17 May he was created legate
a latere
, a position he had been working hard to obtain for well over two years. It was true that for the time being he would have to put up with a fellow legate in Cardinal Campeggio and that his legatine powers would only last for as long as Campeggio remained in England. It was also true that the initial grant of these powers by Leo
X
was for the sole purpose of enabling the two cardinals to promote the papal plans for a five-year truce in Europe and a crusade against the Turk. Still, as legate
a latere
Wolsey would have authority over the whole English Church, not excluding those religious orders previously exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, while even the archbishop of Canterbury would have to recognize his superiority. Thus, if Leo
X
could be persuaded to prolong Wolsey’s new powers after Campeggio’s departure, and perhaps even to enlarge their scope, then at last he would be truly in a position to govern the English Church, and maybe even to reform it.
That was for the future. What of the price demanded by Leo x, his plans for European peace and a crusade? This Wolsey refused to pay, or rather he made very certain that it was his own plans for peace that dominated the attention of the European powers in the summer and autumn of 1518, and these did not include a crusade. On 3 October a treaty of universal peace was proclaimed in London at St Paul’s Cathedral. In fact, it was but one of a number of treaties drawn up at this time collectively referred to as the Treaty of London, the central purpose of which had been the renewal, on even more favourable terms to England, of the Anglo-French alliance of 1514. Still, in all the elaborate ceremonials that accompanied its signing, it was the universal peace that was given the greatest prominence, and that brought the greatest honour to its architects, the king of England, and his leading councillor, Cardinal Wolsey. Undoubtedly, the Treaty of London was a great diplomatic coup, as to a lesser extent was the obtaining of Wolsey’s legatine powers. The purpose of this chapter will be to show how both these events were brought about.