The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) (84 page)

The practice of prevention had been common in England throughout the Middle Ages, reaching a peak in the fourteenth century when, it has been estimated, an average of about forty-four parochial benefices were filled each year in this manner,
as well as many of the more important church dignities such as cathedral prebends.
²¹⁷
But as the practice grew, so did opposition, resulting in the fourteenth century in a number of statutes of provisors and praemunire designed to exclude papal interference of all kinds.
²¹⁸
The wider aim was not achieved, but by the middle of the fifteenth century preventions had ceased. Thus, in making use of them, Wolsey was reviving a practice which had not been seen in England for about seventy years, and, given its previous history, was unlikely to be popular – but with some important qualifications. Although theoretically it was the pope who prevented, in practice he only did so when asked to by all manner of people and institutions, but especially by the English Crown, which had found it a useful way of, in effect, extending its own patronage. It is not therefore surprising that the Crown’s opposition to prevention had been to say the least ambivalent. Moreover, although in its most aggressive and theoretical moods, the papacy claimed the right to appoint to all dignities and benefices, as a general rule it was careful not to interfere with the rights of lay patrons. It was the ecclesiastical patronage that was plundered, but as it was churchmen who were in receipt of the plunder, by being prevented to benefices, it is not surprising that there had been a certain ambivalence about the English Church’s response as well.

Given this background, certain suggestions about Wolsey’s approach to a revival of the practice can be made. The most important is that it is highly unlikely that Wolsey would have interfered in the rights of lay patrons, and if this is so, then the scale of his preventions was limited from the start, more than half of all available benefices being in lay hands. It is also likely that his approach would have been in general rather cautious, because any sudden large-scale interference, even in ecclesiastical patronage, would have led to considerable opposition. And that he was cautious is shown by the way episcopal rights to patronage were specifically safeguarded in the compositions made between Wolsey and the bishops.
²¹⁹
There was also another limitation imposed upon him, at least for a time, by the specific terms of his legatine commissions. It was not until July 1521 that he was granted any right to prevent,
²²⁰
and nearly three years later, in February 1524, he was still complaining that he found ‘somewhat more strangeness to be showed to me than my merits require, that there hath been difficulty made to amplify my faculties
pro non familiaribus
[those not in his household or legatine administration], and such other things contained in my instructions’.
²²¹
In August John Clerk was writing from Rome that the pope had at last agreed to most of Wolsey’s requests, but unfortunately what precisely had been agreed does not emerge.
²²²
Still, it looks as if after 1524 Wolsey was authorized to prevent whom he liked, for prevent such people he did – and even if one takes the worst view of him, to have done so illegally would have raised so many complications as to make such a step very counter-productive for all those involved.

At any rate, it is important to realize that there were restraints, both technical and tactical, on Wolsey’s freedom of action in this area, because they go a long way to explaining why so very few examples of prevention by Wolsey have been discovered. The two most important are those that were used in drawing up the praemunire charge against him in October 1529.
²²³
One was his prevention of John Allen – as a leading legatine official covered by the provisions of the 1521 commission – to the living of Galby in Leicestershire in the gift of the hospital of Burton Lazars; and the other was the prevention of James Gorton, who does not appear to have had any close connection with Wolsey, to the living of Stoke-next-Guildford in Surrey in the gift of the priory of St Pancras, Lewes.

There are, in fact, worries about both these charges, especially as regards the first. The bishop of Lincoln’s register records that on 10 January 1527 John Allen was presented to Galby by Thomas Allen, a valet of Henry
VIII
, who had been given the presentation by the masters and fellows of Burton Lazars. Later in the same year, John Allen was given permission by the masters and fellows to give the living to a certain Thomas Hykman.
²²⁴
There was nothing unusual about either of these transactions; and certainly no mention of Wolsey or of his legatine authority. What these formal entries do not tell us is why the hospital chose to do what it did – and it could be that pressure was brought by Wolsey for it to reward his hardworking official. But even if that were so, that does not make what happened into a prevention. This raises a number of questions, including the possibility of Allen’s collusion with the Crown in 1529 in framing Wolsey – and with the fall of his master Allen was in no position to resist such an invitation. Before, however, considering the other questions raised, the second charge needs to be looked at. There is no reference in either Fox’s or Wolsey’s register – the living was in the diocese of Winchester – to Gorton’s acquisition of Stoke. This in itself may indicate that he was prevented. On the other hand, there appears to be no good reason why Wolsey would have wanted to favour Gorton in this way, while the priory of St Pancras had some reason to dislike Wolsey. In 1526 the priory had agreed to part with some of their manors to help endow Cardinal College.
²²⁵
The next year there was an attempt to remove the prior – a move not normally attempted without good reason – but in this case it does not seem to have been successful, and thus in 1529 the priory would have been run by a man who had no reason to like Wolsey.
²²⁶
In addition, St Pancras was a Cluniac monastery, exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. It was, therefore, particularly affected by Wolsey’s legatine powers to visit exempt monasteries. The evidence concerning St Pancras is all too thin, but given the serious doubts about the first charge, there has to be some doubt about the second.

And why, if so many preventions had taken place, were only two used by the Crown in making its accusations against Wolsey? Of course, it was anxious to move quickly, and these two cases may have been the ones most readily to hand – though even more readily if they were essentially fabrications. It is also true that legally one case would have been sufficient, but then why produce two, and if two why not more? After all, the case against Wolsey was a political one, and to produce more examples would have been a successful propaganda exercise – if, that is, there were more to produce. There was certainly one which the Crown knew all about, for on 7 July 1528 Dr Bell informed Wolsey that Henry wished him to confer the vicarage of Thaxted, in the gift of the college of Stoke-by-Clare, whose patron was Catherine of Aragon, on a royal chaplain, Nicholas Wilson, by ‘his legatine prerogative and prevention’
²²⁷
– but one can quite see why this prevention might not have been thought compelling evidence of Wolsey’s guilt!

The prevention to Thaxted was one of eight recorded in the register of Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of London.
²²⁸
Of these, seven were inserted at a later date, following an entry recording the presentation on 10 December 1526 of Oliver Vessy to the living of South Ockendon, on Wolsey’s legatine authority but with the consent of the patrons who were laymen – a fact which would seem to go against the earlier assertion that Wolsey was unlikely to have interfered with the rights of lay patrons. That it happened here, allegedly with the consent of the lay patrons, is a further complication. If Wolsey had obtained consent, what need was there for legatine interference? One possible explanation is that there had been a dispute over who the lay patrons were, which had been brought before the legatine court, and that this curious form of appointment was a way of implementing its judgment. And that this happened on more than one occasion will be suggested when a series of court cases brought just after Wolsey’s fall is discussed. The scribe also recorded that the seven additional preventions were made without the consent of the bishop of London, and added, though not without an element of contradiction, that it was because of their acceptance of the exercise of Wolsey’s legatine powers that the bishops and clergy had been found guilty of praemunire and consequently forced to pay a subsidy of £100,000.

Eight preventions for the diocese of London over a period of seven or eight years is not a lot, and on close inspection the number begins to dwindle. Other evidence in Tunstall’s register indicates that in the 1520s appointments to four of these livings – Purleigh, Alphamstone, Edmonton and Lammarsh – took place in an entirely regular way.
²²⁹
As regards one, the living of Moreton, there is no evidence of any appointment between 1484 and 1532, and as it was in the gift of the Crown, any prevention could only have taken place with Henry’s knowledge. This leaves one living so far unmentioned, that of Barnston. Like Moreton, it was in the gift of the Crown. In 1526, a William Borne was appointed without any aid from Wolsey.
²³⁰
But nine years later a James Hampton resigned, and as there is no record of when he succeeded Borne it is possible that he was prevented, though it would again have
had to be with the consent of the Crown.

Thus the eight London preventions appear to dwindle to at the most four, and in three of those the most significant feature is that the Crown was closely involved. Other preventions are hard to come by. In March 1524, Warham complained that one of Wolsey’s chaplains had entered into All Hallows, Lombard Street without the consent of the patrons, the prior and convent of Christ Church, Canterbury, which could indicate a prevention, though Warham made no mention of any legatine authority for the chaplain’s action.
²³¹
In July 1528, Wolsey informed Henry that following the death of the dean of Lincoln, the gift of the vicarage of Wirksworth in the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield was Wolsey’s ‘by prevention’. What he meant by this is uncertain but perhaps, unlike All Hallows, Wirksworth should be counted as an example of a legatine appointment.
²³²
In May 1529, there were preventions to two livings in the gift of the bishop of Bangor, though in fact made in person by one of Wolsey’s commissaries in Wales, Edward Johns.
²³³
There is also something a little suspicious about John Laylond’s resignation of the rectory of Laverstoke in the diocese of Winchester on 10 November 1529 – this, of course, very shortly after Wolsey’s fall. In resigning, Laylond stated that he had been collated to the rectory by Wolsey, suggesting thereby that it was in Wolsey’s gift, presumably as bishop of Winchester.
²³⁴
But in fact it was in the gift of Hyde Abbey, so that Laylond could only have received the rectory from Wolsey by prevention, and, if so, may have decided to get out before he found himself facing a charge of praemunire.

Finally, there are six possible preventions that are known about as a result of legal proceedings brought before King’s Bench in 1530, at least four of which seem to have involved a dispute between patrons settled by Wolsey’s legatine court and then, after his fall, reopened.
²³⁵
But even if this suggestion is wrong and they were all in the strict sense preventions, that only six cases came to light after Wolsey’s fall hardly supports the view that Wolsey was making preventions on a large scale. Neither, of course, does the total number that have been discovered. Accepting every possible prevention, the total is twenty; a stricter definition reduces it to under double figures,
²³⁶
and this over a period of eight years. Even if these figures were trebled, it would still be difficult to argue that preventions played a significant part in Wolsey’s ‘despotism’. Indeed, it is more reasonable to ask whether it played any.

But in emphasizing the very small number of preventions one might give a false impression. There is, for instance, the undoubted fact that Wolsey was able to secure for his illegitimate son, Thomas Winter, a very large number of ecclesiastical dignities and livings, many of which were not his to give. Remember Bishop Nix having to battle to prevent Winter obtaining the archdeaconry of Norfolk, an office that was wholly in the bishop’s gift. Other bishops also suffered. In 1518 Nicholas
West was asked to appoint somebody of Wolsey’s choosing to one of the benefices in his gift, even though, as bishop of Ely, he had ‘the fewest benefices of any value that any bishop hath in this realm’; and this was not the only occasion that he was asked to do so.
²³⁷
In 1528 Wolsey was hoping to make Thomas Winter dean of Lincoln, but Bishop Longland, anxious for a resident dean, had someone else in mind.
²³⁸
As with Nix, Longland got his way, but in both cases the impression is that Wolsey, in allowing the bishops’ choices to stand, was granting them a favour, and was thereby exercising some control over episcopal patronage, if only indirectly. He may even have been making use of his legatine powers to prevent in order to force bishops to consult with him over important appointments, the threat being that if they did not do so he would make the appointments himself. However, two difficulties stand in the way of such a suggestion. In his composition with the bishops, Wolsey specifically excluded legatine interference by prevention,
²³⁹
while there is no extant evidence that he did use such a threat. What, therefore, seems more likely is that the kind of pressure that Wolsey did exert on bishops, and indeed on anyone else, was of a much more general kind, deriving not from any specific office or legatine commission but from his position as the leading servant of the Crown – which brings us back, as so often, to Henry
VIII
.