Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:24:33.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. Henry VII's Last Years Reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J.P. Cooper
J.P. Cooper
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Dr Elton has now written at length (Historical J. I (1958), 21–39) to support his view that Henry VII's reputation for rapacity was undeserved, while the idea that this ‘policy turned from just to unjust exactions was based only on insufficient knowledge of the facts’. He may have shown that Henry's actions were legal; he has not shown that they were just.What is unpopular is not necessarily unjust, but the opinions of subjects merit as full and sympathetic treatment as the policies of kings. Dr Elton's argument is of a type with those which claimed that, since Hitler's was a legally constituted government, it was sentimental to complain that its persecution of the Jews was unjust.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 1959 , pp. 103 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 England under the Tudors (1955), p. 52Google Scholar and n. 1.

2 Richardson, W. C., Tudor Chamber Administration [1485–1547] (Baton Rouge, 1952), 151–2.Google Scholar

3 Somerville, R., ’Henry VII's Council Learned in the Law’, E[nglish] H[istorical] R[eview], LIV (1939), 441–2.Google Scholar

4 Somerville, R., [History of the] Duchy of Lancaster (1953), 1, 264.Google Scholar

5 Brodie, D. M., ‘Edmund Dudley, Minister of Henry VII’, T[ransactions of the] R[oyal] H[istorical] S[ociety], 4th ser. xv (1932), 155.Google Scholar

6 Bell, H. E., [An Introduction to the History and Records of the] Court of Wards (Cambridge, 1953), 8.Google Scholar

7 Thome, S. E., introd. to Robert Constable, Prerogativa Regis (Yale, 1949), p. xi.Google Scholar

8 Brodie, D. M., introd. to Edmund Dudley, The Tree of Commonwealth (Cambridge, 1948), 8–9.Google Scholar

9 For Sunnyff, see T.R.H.S. 4th ser. xv (1932), 153–4; for the J.P. L[etters] and P[apers Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of] Henry VIII, Addenda, 1 (1929), no. 92.Google Scholar

10 Op. cit. p. x.

11 Ante, 1, 24.

12 This bill appears to have been introduced into the Lords on the first day of business and was then given to the Crown's law officers for redrafting; (J [oumals of the] H[ouse of] L[ords], 1, 4).

13 Op. cit. p. xxii, e.g. extension of primer seisin to lands held of others.

14 Op. cit. p. xix.

15 See below, p. 108.

16 Empson was accused of maintenance and of naming a jury through a sheriff for his own private gain (Plumpton Correspondence, ed. T. Stapleton, Camden Society, iv (1839), pp. cvii-cix, and P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice], K.B. 9/353/87). The maintenance is attested by numerous witnesses and took place in January 1505.

17 Keilwey's Les Reportes (1688), 158v., Mich., 2 Hen. VIII 5; a case argued before all the judges was ended when ‘le Chanceller qui interfuit omnibus praedictis argumentis sans ladvise de ascun Justice et sans faire ascun del counsel del Rey privy dona judgement en le Chancery que les mains le Rey soient amoves Et hoc contra legem ut dicitur mes fuit ditque ils ceo fist per ceo que loffice fuit trova per le faux subtilite de Sir Richard Empson et Dudley en le temps de lauter Rey les queux fuerent les hauts et cruels approvers’, etc. Mr Simpson has shown that the Reportes were the work of a king's Serjeant of the early years of Henry VIII, probably John Carrell (Law Quarterly Review, LXXIII (1957), 92).

18 P.R.O., S.P. 1/1/3, see below, p. 115.

19 Ante, 1, 25.

20 The act books are P.R.O., D.L. 5/2 and 4. As some entries occupy more space than others and not all pages are filled, a count of this sort is only a very rough guide. Mr Somerville considers that from 1504 two act books may have been needed, because Empson and Dudley kept one each (E.H.R. LIV (1939), 438).

21 Ante, 1, 33 and n. 68.

22 [The] Great Chronicle [of London] (ed. Thomas, A. H. and Thornley, I. D., 1938), p. xl.Google Scholar

23 [The] Anglica Historia [of Polydore Vergil A.D. 1485–1537] (ed. Hay, D., Camden Series, LXXIV (1950), p. xv).Google Scholar Professor Hay considers that Vergil had begun collecting material in 1506 (p. xx).

24 Great Chronicle, pp. lxv-lxix.

25 Ante, 1, 34.

26 Dr Elton curiously chooses to quote this passage in Hall's version (ante, 1, 29), thus robbing it of its contemporaneity and of much of its sting: ‘”Learned men in the lawe when they were requyred of their aduise, would saye to agree is the best counsayll I can geue you.” Very likely...but was it because the accused was patently guilty...?’ The Great Chronicle's version makes Dr Elton's question superfluous.

27 Great Chronicle, 334–5.

28 Great Chronicle, 347–8.

29 Ante, 1, 27. One set of legislation which seems to have been profitably exploited was that concerning weirs, especially perhaps 1 Henry IV c. 12 and the penalties imposed concerning it in 12 Edward IV c. 7. Dudley's account contains twenty-one payments for discharge of kedell mills in 1506, B[ritish] M[useum], Lansdowne MS. 127, fos. 20–1.

30 Ante, 1, 29. Dr Elton gives as the authorities for these charges Polydore Vergil and Hall (n. 46), but they are made more specifically by the Great Chronicle, 334–6, 339, 348–9.

31 [Corporation of] London R[ecord] O[fffice], letter Book M, fo. 169.

32 Jenyns had been nominated mayor by Henry VII, see below, p. 110.

33 P.R.O., K.B. 9/453/458. This document is damaged and in places illegible. The summary given must be regarded as sometimes a slightly tentative, but generally plausible, interpretation of its contents.

34 Ante, I, 29.

35 Acts [of the Court] of the Mercers [Company] (Cambridge, 1936), 347–8.Google Scholar

36 ibid. 319. The merchants’ representatives refused consent ‘Insomoche as it longith to the generalitie of all the realm, withoute there were therefore a generall assemble.... Miss Brodie (Tree of Commonwealth, 6—7) believes that the demand was for consent to the new rates. But the new book of rates was issued in July 1507 ‘by the aduyce surueyors and cowntrowlers and costomers off the porte of London and the merchants adventerers of the same’ (N. S. B. Gras, The Early English Customs System (Harvard, 1918), 694). The act book shows Dudley demanding ‘Custome’; the custom on cloth was by the piece, natives only paid subsidy on worsted at a penny in the pound (ibid. 691–2). Ordinary woollen cloth was not valued in the book of rates, so it is perhaps reasonable to assume that some sort of new custom, or imposition was being demanded.

37 1 Henry VIII c. 5.

38 19 Henry VII c. 7.

39 Sharpe, R., London and the Kingdom (1894), 1, 337.Google Scholar According to W. C. Richardson (Tudor Chamber Administration, 148, n. 244) the City had already paid £5000 in 1498.

40 Great Chronicle, 332—3; ree of Commonwealth, 6. Fitzwilliam paid £100 for the royal nomination.

41 London R.O., Repertory, 11, 50; 5 Oct. 1508: ‘At this corte it is agreed that the Wardens of every fealeship shalbe sumonyd agaynst Thursday to appeare at the guyldhall...to thentent that the kyngys letter addressed for the eleccion of Mr Jennyns to thoffice of maoraltie shalbe redde to theym.’

42 ibid. fo. 66; 28 Apr. 1509.

43 J.H.L. 1, 4, 6; see below, p. 125.

44 B.M. Lansdowne MS. 127, fo. 3 V.; the Archbishop of Canterbury gave recognizances for £1600 for the escape of sixteen clerks.

45 ibid. fos. 56 v., 60.

46 ibid. fo. 53 V.

47 ibid. fo. 54.

48 Dr Elton doubts the practice of selling offices (England under the Tudors, 53, n. 1), but Professor Richardson (Tudor Chamber Administration, 156) and Mr Somerville (Duchy of Lancaster, 1, 401–2, 441). give examples for Henry's last years. Many other examples exist in Dudley's account book alone, e.g. 100 marks cash and 400 by obligation from Mr Reade for the king's ‘favour to him shewed in thoffice of chief justice of the comon place’ (26 Nov. 1506, fo. 33).

49 B.M. Lansdowne MS. 127, fos. 37, 55; 2 Feb. 1507 and 28 Jan. 1508.

50 ibid. fo. 57, 20 Feb. 1508.

51 [Select] Cases in the Council of Henry VII, [ed. Bayne, C. G. and Dunham, W. H., Selden Society, LXXV (London, 1958)], p. xxxiv.Google Scholar

52 P. 35.

53 Tudor Chamber Administration, 212; E.H.R. LXVI, 74.

54 ibid. 70–1.

55 Great Chronicle, 334–5.

56 Tudor Chamber Administration, 209–10. This entry could be read as referring to the whole profits of the office, not only outlawries.

57 ibid. 199.

58 Edward Hall, The Vnion of the two noble and illustre Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke (1809 edn.), 502.

59 Great Chronicle, 334–5.

60 4 Henry VIII c. 4, This act was made perpetual by 6 Henry VIII c. 8 which specifically included writs of exigent ‘awarded at the sute...of the King or any other...in any accion personall’. It is worth noticing that Christopher St German specifically discusses the king's taking of outlaws’ goods in these circumstances and the Doctor holds that it is good in conscience only thanks to these statutes, Doctor and Student, Diaegr- II, cap. III.

61 It would be rash to dismiss them as altogether unfounded. Sir George Holforde complained to Southwell ‘I was owtlawde oppon a faynyde accion in the kings daie that dede is as mastr Belknap knoweth well trowbylde me for the same matter... I was compellyde to make the fyne agenst all consyens’ (B.M. Stowe MS. 141, fo. 52; Richardson, E.H.R. LVI, 74, n. 3).

62 The only other king to make such provision was apparently Henry VI and he used a brief formula, similar to that used by subjects, ‘y ordeyne and devise that of my gooddis restitution be made to all hem that y have wrongfully grevyd, or any good had of theirs without just tytle’ (Royal Wills, ed. J. Nichols (1780), 204). I am indebted to Mr K. B. McFarlane for this reference.

63 Ante, 1, 38.

64 The Will of Henry VII (ed. T. Astle, 1775), 11–12. The executors included his mother, Fisher, five other bishops, two earls and the two chief justices, as well as Empson and Dudley and other administrators. The inclusion of Empson and Dudley may support their case that they had merely been Henry's instruments, but it is not, as Dr Elton seems to imagine, an argument that there was nothing requiring remedy.

65 ibid. 13.

66 P.R.O., C. 82/361/2/452; 7 Apr. 1511. (L. and P. Henry VIII, no. 749 (24)); C. 82/348 (no. 448 (4)); C. 82/357 (no. 651 (7)); C. 82/360 (no. 731 (20)); C. 82/361 (749 (3)); C. 82/365 (no. 804 (49)); C. 82/374 (no. 1123 (45)).

67 C. 82/360/2/463, 12 March 1511. This warrant was the last stage of much earlier hearings during Dudley's lifetime (T.R.H.S. 4th ser. xv (1932), 153–4).

68 C. 82/360/2/360; 4 March 1511.

69 The total payments involved were £4100 plus a surety of £2100.

70 L. and P. I, no. 1123 (45) is misdated in the calendar to 4 Henry VII, the correct date is 6 Dec. 24 Henry VII (C. 82/374/3/45).

71 B.M. Stowe MS. 141, fo. 52.

72 P.R.O., S.P. 1/1/712. Dacre says he ‘had sundrye tymes heretofore made suit unto the kings highnes and yor good lordshippes’, but the editor of L. and P. dates it as July 1509 (1, no. 131).

73 Ante, 1, 38.

74 Fisher, J., English Works (ed. Mayor, J. E. B., 1876), 271.Google Scholar

75 Ante, I, 36.

76 The bishop of Salisbury paid 1000 marks for one and Lord Clifford 4000 marks; B.M. Lansdowne MS. 127, fos. 60, 22V.

77 It covered ‘Mysprisons felonies trespasses forfaitures outlawries certain recognisauncs and many other offencs’, P.R.O., S.P. 1/1/2.

78 Institutes, iv, 196.

79 Coke says that he owned a copy of the proclamation. Henry VIII's proclamation has ‘old true course of his lawes’.

80 ‘Md concernyng outlawries exigents of felony and maridges of the kyngs wedowes assessed by his highnesse’ since 8 Sept. 1508. Entries show payments of £12. 13s. 4d. to pardon an outlawry at the suit of a party, or £13. 6s. 8d. to traverse outlawries (P.R.O., E. 101/517/15).

81 Anglica Historica, 130.

82 The Great Chronicle's date is confirmed by the Journal book of the City where a copy is preserved (II fo. 64). This text has only slight variations from that in P.R.O., S.P. 1/1/2, and may be taken as the authentic published version; the order of the contents is slightly different.

83 Ante, I, 37.

84 P.R.O., S.P. 1/1/3, emended from the Journal version.

85 Tree of Commonwealth, 35–7.

86 Fisher may have had this in mind in referring to the promise that justice would be truly and indifferently executed in the future, see above, p. 114.

87 Lord Herbert of Cherbury speaks of their arrest as a result of complaints following the proclamation and seems to imply (not very plausibly, if this was so) that it took place on 25 April, but neither his authority nor his chronology is clear (Life and Reign of Henry the Eighth (1649), 5). Empson's followers in Northamptonshire were evidently unaware of his arrest as late as 26 April (Third Report [of the Deputy Keeper of the] Public Records (1861), 228).

88 London R.O., Repertory, 11, 66–7.

89 ibid. fo. 69 v.

90 The exact date of the commission for London is uncertain. True bills were found by London juries against Empson on 12 and 16 July (P.R.O., K.B. 9/453/458–9) and Dudley on 12 July (Tree of Commonwealth, 9). On 14 July a general summons to the companies from the Mayor was read to the Mercers, to prepare information against strangers to be presented at a sitting at the Guildhall on the following Monday, 16 July (Acts of the Mercers, 325). A copy of the Midland commission under which Empson was tried is in the Baga de Secretis (K.B. 8/4/451), that for Yorkshire is dated in K.B. 9/453/55, while Cornwall is 22 July (ibid. 203). Although these commissions were by letters patent under the great seal they do not appear on the patent rolls. This is probably because they were revoked within a few months (see below, p. 123). I am indebted to Mr E. K. Timings of the P.R.O. for much help with the problems arising out of these commissions and still more patience in listening to my queries.

91 The commissions are recited or summarized in K.B. 8/4/51 (for Northants, Warwickshire, Leics, Notts, Derby, Lines, and Rutland) and K.B. 9/453/8V. (Sussex), 69V. (Oxford).

92 E.g. to sheriff of Northants, 1 Aug.; K.B. 8/4/51.

93 MissThompson, F., Magna Carta (Minneapolis, 1948)Google Scholar does not mention this episode. Warham's invocation of Magna Carta to defend the Church's liberties in 1532 is the first politically significant incident which she mentions for this period.

94 Sessions noticed in K.B. 9/453 in chronological order: London(i2, 16 July), Westminster (18 July), Southwark (30 July), Essex (1 Aug.), Salisbury (6 Aug.), Northampton (15 Aug.), Coventry (16 Aug.), Sussex (17 Aug.), Leicester (20 Aug.), Derby (23 Aug.), Nottingham (27 Aug.), Oxford (3 Sept.), Hereford (5 Sept.), Staffordshire (7 Sept.), Westmorland (7 Sept.), Gloucester (10 Sept.), Bristol (20 Sept.), York (c. 21 Sept.), Hull (24 Sept.), Derby (24 Sept.), Canterbury (25 Sept.), Cornwall (28 Sept.), Exeter (2 Oct.), Shaftesbury (4 Oct.), Wells (8 Oct.), Basingstoke (18 Oct.).

95 The names are to be found in K.B. 9/453. The lists of those present are clearly much fuller for some sessions than for others, but they always end ‘etal.’. The sessions for Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire were held before Brudenell and Lord Dudley.

96 Westmorland: Northumberland, Clifford, Latimer, Scrope of Bolton, Dacre (ibid. 51); York: the same, less Clifford (ibid. 55); Southwark: Prior of St John's, Berners, Dacre (ibid. 434); Westminster: Buckingham and Willoughby de Broke, in addition to those at Southwark (ibid. 444); Guildhall: Buckingham, Northumberland, Surrey, Shrewsbury, Derby, Prior of St John's, Herbert, FitzWater, Scrope, Dacre, Berners, Hastings, Willoughy (Third Report Public Records, App. 226).

97 P.R.O., K.B. 9/453/4–7. Cf. Cases in the Council of Henry VII, 123–30.

98 K.B. 9/453.

99 ibid. 108.

100 ibid. 154, 157–8.

101 ibid. 53.

102 ibid. 277, 279–80.

103 ibid. 24–6.

104 ibid. 87.

105 ibid. 142, at Estoneston, Northants.

106 ibid. 138.

107 ibid. 139.

108 ibid. 145.

109 ibid. 140.

110 ibid. 461.

111 Coke, Institutes (1669), iv, 198, cited by Mr Bell, Court of Wards, 8. Coke only gives part of the indictment, the rest is to be found in poor condition in K.B. 9/453/469.

112 Cases in Henry VII's Council, pp. xxvii-viii, 46.

113 Westminster Abbey Muniments, 12249, 9260. I am indebted to Mr Tanner, the Keeper of the Muniments, for permission to see these. The first document is badly damaged at the end so that I have conjectured that 9260 and P.R.O., K.B. 9/453/461 must refer to the final imprisonment, since they mention longer periods than those in the first part of 12249.

114 Great Chronicle, 365, cf. 337, 339.

115 Huntington Library, California, Ellesmere MS. 2655, fo. 7. This is a book of extracts from the lost act books of the council. I am indebted to the Librarian and the Curator of the Department of Manuscripts for providing photostats and giving me permission to quote from this book. The presence at this meeting was the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Durham, Norwich and St Davids, the earls of Surrey and Shrewsbury, the Prior of St John's, Sir John Cutte, the two chief justices and five judges.

116 ibid. 8. The presence was the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Norwich and Rochester, the duke of Buckingham, the earls of Surrey and Shrewsbury, Lords Herbert and Darcy, the Prior of St John's, Sir Thomas Lovell, Sir Thomas Englefield, the two chief justices, three judges, ‘the kinges seriaunts his attorneye and Solicitor’.

117 P.R.O., C. 82/342/1/576. A bill to assist poor litigants was introduced into the first Parliament of Henry VIII, but came to nothing (J.H.L. 1, 5).

118 P.R.O., C. 82/343/1/615- None of the twelve is among those disfranchised and banished by the City, but they had been detained ‘for suche unlawfull demeanures as they used’ under Henry VII ‘to the great...damage and preiudice of sundry or subiects’.

119 Keilwey, Les Reportes, 159, Pasch. 1 and 2 Henry VIII; he also cites a decision in King's Bench in Hilary term 2 Henry VIII (150V.).

120 L. and P. Henry VIII, 1, no. 157, dated by the editor Aug. 1509. The full text is in Letters of Richard Fox 1486–1527 (ed. P.S. and H. M. Allen, Oxford, 1929), 43–4.

121 According to Dr Elton's latest views, the Council Learned continued to exist (ante, 1, 38–9). He cites as evidence for this references (Tudor Revolution in Government (Cambridge, 1953) 143 f., 162, 292 n. 1) which originally led him to believe that it had ceased to exist. It may be in this instance that first thoughts were the better.

122 The writs of summons are dated 17 Oct., L. and P. Henry VIII, 1, no. 205.

123 J.H.L. I, 3.

124 Henry VIII c. 6.

125 Institutes, n, 51; iv, 41.

126 J.H.L. 1, 5, 6; 1 and 6 Feb.

127 ibid. 8; 22 Feb.

128 ibid. 6, 7; 4 and 16 Feb.

129 ibid. 4–6; 24 and 28 Jan., 8 Feb.

130 ibid. 5; 28 and 31 Jan.

131 ibid. 5—7; 1, 4 and 19 Feb. ‘in prosecutione earum non habendis quam billam Domini in certis verbis decrev’ esse ampliandum’.

132 ibid. 5, 7; 30 Jan., 16 Feb.

133 J.H.L. 1, 7–8; 21–3 Feb.; Tree of Commonwealth, 9, n. 5. The bill had only passed the Commons in its latest form, an earlier version had been read three times in the Lords.

134 ibid. 6, 7; 6 and 14 Feb.

135 Latimer, H., Sermons (ed. Corrie, G. E., Cambridge, 1844), 279.Google Scholar

136 Acts of the Mercers, 346–8.

137 London R.O., Repertories, II 86v., 87.

138 Great Chronicle, 375; Clode, C. M., Early History of the Guild of Merchant Tailors (1888), 11, 45–9.Google Scholar

139 London R.O., Repertory, 11, 69 v.

140 Ante, 1, 39.

141 Ante, 1, 21.

142 Great Chronicle, 339; Anglica Historia, 146.

143 The Chronicles of Fabyan (ed. Ellis, H., 1811), 690, 768.Google Scholar

144 Great Chronicle, pp. lxxv-lxxvi; ‘ From 1503 to 1512 the Great Chronicle stands alone—a copious narrative of independent value, related to the brief notes of the other Chronicles, which for 1503 to 1509 are almost identical, only by a common phrase or two.’

145 Hall, op. cit. 504–5.

146 Great Chronicle, 344–7, 351–65.