Read The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) Online
Authors: Peter Gwyn
78
For Elyot’s comments on the dorse of Joan Staunton’s bill of complaint see PRO STAC 10/4 pt.2/355.
79
BL Lansdowne 639, fo.16v.
80
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.63-4.
81
Hall, p.585.
82
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.40-5.
83
Ibid, p.154, n.110.
84
Ibid, p.109.
85
Ibid, p.154, n.103.
86
Ibid, p.109.
87
191 out of 245.
88
BL. Vitellius C i, fos.13v, 16, summarized in Skeel, pp.49-51.
89
Rawdon Brown, ii, p.314 (
LP
, iii, 402).
90
Baldwin, pp.276-7.
91
11 Henry
VII
c.12.
92
BL Lansdowne 639, fos.52v-3.
93
Metzger, ‘Medieval Chancery’, p.81; Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.113; and for scepticism about the claim that More was able to clear the enormous backlog of cases that had built up under Wolsey, see Guy,
More
, p.92.
94
Such a view underlies Pollard’s treatment of Wolsey’s legal work (A.F. Pollard, pp.59-98), but see
inter alia
, Baker, ii, pp.
77-80
. It really derives from Maitland’s argument that the existence of the common law was at this time under serious threat from Roman law and equity; for a discussion of which, see ibid, ii, pp.24
ff
.
95
For what follows see Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.29, 65, 131;
More
, pp.40-9; Metzger, ‘Medieval Chancery’, pp.83-9.
96
Baker, ii,
pp.53ff
.
97
Art. 21 (
LP
, iv, 6075).
98
Guy,
More
, pp.86-9.
99
LP
, iii, 2393 Sir Richard Wingfield to Wolsey, 17 July 1522.
100
Wolsey’s treatment of Fitzherbert comprised art.31 of the accusations brought against him in 1529 (
LP
, iv, 6075).
101
Quoted in Boersma, p.6.
102
Boersma, p.8.
103
See especially his ‘A Little Treatise concerning Writs of Subpoena’ in Hargrave, pp.332 ff.
104
See Guy,
Christopher St German
, pp.81, 94; also Guy,
More
, pp.42-9; Baker, ii, pp.
24ff
., St German,
Doctor and Student
.
105
Metzger, ‘Medieval Chancery’, pp.83ff.
106
Hargrave, p.325.
107
If the ‘sergeant’ was an unsuccessful lawyer, his attack could be attributed to sour grapes, but recently the future lord chancellor Thomas Audley has been suggested; see Baker, ii,
198-200
.
108
Art.10 (
LP
, iv, 6075).
109
PRO E 315/313 A, fo.43v, transcribed in Wolfe, p.192.
110
Blatcher, pp.4-5.
111
Ibid, pp.111-37; Baker, ii, pp.
51-61, 220-98
.
112
Baker, ii,
pp.184-7
.
113
A rather topical subject, but see Cromwell’s unsuccessful attempt to introduce land registration in the 1530s (Elton,
Reform and Renewal
, pp.144-9).
114
LP
, iv, 4937 a letter of Nov. 1528 in which Rich expressed a wish to present his own ideas on legal reform.
115
One of the chief justices being Fitzherbert. More was one of the common lawyers on the commission, for a complete list of which, see Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.45.
116
BL Lansdowne 639, fo.56v.
117
Cavendish, p.117.
118
Pronay, pp.97-99.
119
See
inter alia
Henry’s concern to to appoint a successor to Compton as sheriff of Worcestershire in 1528 (
LP
, iv, 4476); for his close interest in the commissioners for the general proscription see Goring,
EHR
, lxxxvi, p.685.
120
For all these appearances see Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.30-5, 72-8, 121-3.
121
LP
, ii, app.38.
122
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.72-8.
123
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.30.
124
Lancashire and Cheshire Cases in Star Chamber
, p.20.
125
Ibid, p.23.
126
Ibid, p.121.
127
Ibid, p.21.
128
Ibid, p.22.
129
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.116.
130
For Brereton’s career see Ives,
Trans of the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire
, cxxiii, and Ives (ed.),
Letters and Accounts of William Brereton
.
131
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.33.
132
BL. Lansdowne 639, fo.54v.
133
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.33.
134
Ibid, pp.32-3;
LP
, ii, 2579.
135
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.120.
136
Ibid.
137
For instance, Sir John Savage’s appointment as sheriff of Worcestershire for life.
138
Inter alia
Bellamy,
Crime and Public Order
, pp.13-4, 91-2; Blatcher, pp.63-89.
139
Ives, ‘Crime, sanctuary, and royal authority’, pp.296 ff.
140
BL Lansdowne 639, fo.57v undated, but c.1523-4.
141
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, p.73.
142
PRO STAC 2/26/395.
143
In 1537 to be executed for his ambiguous role in the Lincolnshire rebellion of the previous year.
144
BL Lansdowne 639, fo.47v.
145
Ibid.
146
I think that it is not too naïve to suppose that many complaints against officials, both then and now, are unjustified and, of course, the evidence that there was some investigation may not have survived.
147
Implicit in much of what Guy has argued; see his
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.34, 76-8.
148
Ibid, pp.76-8; A.F.Pollard, pp.45, 52; Roskell, pp.311 ff.
149
PRO SP l/16/fo.130 (
LP
, ii, 3951) for the contemporary accusation.
150
LP
, ii, 4616.
151
LP
, ii, 3487, 3951.
152
PRO SP l/16/fo.143 (
LP
, ii, 3951); PRO STAC 10/4 pt.2/127-32; these two accounts of Sheffield’s examinations are virtually identical.
153
LP
, ii, 3487 Thomas Allen to Shrewsbury 27 July 1517.
154
BL Lansdowne 639, fo.49.
155
LP
, ii, 3487.
156
BL. Lansdowne, 637, fo.47. Lucas’s quarrel with Wolsey may have had something to do with his running battle with Buckingham in which for the most part he seems to have been the loser and he was not a man to mince his words; for which see Baker, pp.
77, 108-9, 244-5
.
157
Hall, p.719; A.F.Pollard, p.220,n.3 for Warham believing that Wolsey had over-reacted; see also
LP
, iv, 2854.
158
PRO E/38/216/fo.176, though the document gives no reason for the fine. But it is most unlikely that it could have had anything to to with a verbal attack on Wolsey, and from the evidence of his examination the verbal attack was merely an aggravating factor (PRO STAC 10/4 pt.2/127-32).
159
PRO C/66/627, m.17 (
LP
, ii, 2537). The question of whether or not the pardon prevented further action did become an issue in Feb. 1518; Wolsey gave Sheffield considerable time to consider with his counsel whether to stand by it, though indicating that he did not himself think such a course of action was in Sheffield’s best interests (PRO STAC 10/4 pt.2/129). On the subject of pardons generally see Blatcher, pp.53 ff, 81-7.
160
It seems to have derive from A.F. Pollard, p.52 and was followed by Guy in
Cardinal’s Court
, p.78.
161
PRO PROB 11/19/fo.15.
162
A.F. Pollard, p.52, n.2.
163
Cf. Sir John Savage’s fine of 5,600 marks to the Crown and an additional 1,000 marks to the widow and children of the murdered man.
164
See pp.218-20, 291.
165
LP
, iv, 6075.
166
Entry into a religious order in later life by devout laymen who were previously married is a much under-researched subject, but was not uncommon and the evidence of Stanley’s will suggests that his reasons for entering Westminster had nothing to do with Wolsey’s alleged treatment of him. In drawing up art.38 it may have helped that Stanley had died the previous year; see B. Harvey, p.387, n.7.