Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T17:17:20.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fall of Lord Chancellor Wriothesley: A Study in the Politics of Conspiracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Arthur J. Slavin
Get access

Extract

In the autumn and winter of 1546-1547 there was a major change in the distribution of political power in England. A group of leading councillors linked by conservatism were driven from court and council. Some forfeited office, others their freedom, and the Earl of Surrey his life. Bishops Gardiner and Bonner went to gaol. Tunstal suffered the loss of much of his vast liberty of Durham. Great Norfolk lay under sentence of death, in the Tower. Lord Chancellor Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton, was deprived of his office, allegedly for acts ultra vires, and was under house arrest in Ely Place, his London palace. He had also been fined 4,000 pounds, under the sentence given on the 6th of March and the additions to it made on June 29th.

Historians seeking an explanation of the political earthquake have often adopted a simple but attractive thesis. As Henry VIII's life ebbed the balance tipped toward the “Protestants,” perhaps because it was the king's own wish or because there was a secret pact, in fact a conspiracy, between Sir William Paget and Sir Edward Seymour. The chief historians of the transit of power have provided direct evidence supporting the idea of a pact between Paget, the ‘master of Practices,’ and the king's brother-in-law, the military hero Hertford who was also the uncle of Prince Edward.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , Winter 1975 , pp. 265 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1975

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 For the sentence against Wriothesley see the Privy Council Book in the Public Record office [PRO], PC2/2, fols. 105 and 186-190. There is a full discussion of the political balance in Scarisbrick, J. J., Henry VIII (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), pp. 458–497Google Scholar. See also Smith, L. B., “Henry VIII and the Protestant Triumph,” American Historical Review, lxxi (1966): 1237ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. My own account is in The Precarious Balance (New York, 1973), ch. 5.Google ScholarPubMed

2 The will established a regency arrangement of executors and guarantors who were mostly favorable to reform, whatever Henry VIII's intentions might have been. For its analysis see Smith, L. B., “The Last Will and Testament of Henry VIII,” Journal of British Studies, II (1962): 20ffGoogle Scholar. Professor Smith's views on the document itself have been challenged in Levine, Mortimer, “The Last Will and Testament of Henry VIII: A Reappraisal Reappraised,” Historian, xxvii (1964): 481ff.Google Scholar

3 Jordan, W. K., Edward VI The Young King: The Protectorship of the Duke of Somerset (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1968), pp. 51–54Google Scholar. See also Pollard, A.F., Henry VIII (London, 1902), pp. 293ffGoogle Scholar. and his England Under Protector Somerset (London, 1900), pp. 18–24Google Scholar. The source for these accounts is in PRO, SP10/1 fos. 1-2; 8 May 1549.

4 See Slavin, A. J., Politics and Profit (Cambridge, England, 1966), pp. 151–157Google Scholar. Too much is made there of self-conscious factionalism.

5 Pollard, A.F., England Under Protector Somerset, pp. 23–24 and p. 24, note 2.Google Scholar

6 Froude, J. A., History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada, 12 volumes (London, 1870), IV: 247.Google Scholar

7 Pollard, pp. 31-33.

8 Jordan, , Edward the Young King, pp. 69–72Google Scholar; Calendar of State Papers, Spanish, IV, 65: 1 April 1547Google Scholar, ibid, 91-92. (Hereafter cited as CSP Sp.). The traditional view of Wriothesley's opposition assumed its modern form in Burnet's, BishopHistory of the Reformation of the Church of England, ed. Pocock, H., 7 vols. (Oxford, 1865), II: 40.Google Scholar

9 PRO, P.C. 2/2, fols 85-108 contain the complaint, the commission by Wriothesley to the deputies, the charge to the “triers” of the complaint, their decision, the sentence of the Council, and an account of the actual execution of the degradation. The documents are in Dasent, J. R., Acts of the Privy Council of England, New Series, 29 vols. (London, 1890-1902), II: 48–59Google Scholar. (Hereafter cited as Dasent, APC). Burnet, Bishop, History of the Reformation of the Church, II: 57–58Google Scholar, prints the commission. There is a narrative of the problem in Council in BM, Harleian MSS. 249, article 4.

10 Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Edward VI, No. 471: 8 November 1551.

11 On these points see Scarisbrick, pp. 478-482; and Jordan, pp. 506-523.

12 Ponet, John, A Shorte Treatise of politike power, and of the true obedience which subietes owe to kynges (1556)Google Scholar, Sig. D vij-Eij verso for Bonner, Oxford, Sussex and Riehe; on Gardiner see Sig. I iiij-v; the “character” of Wriothesley appears at Sig. I iij recto and verso. The book was published surreptitiously, without either place or author on the title page. I have used the copy in the Huntington Library, STC 20178.

13 Foxe, John, The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe, ed. Cattley, S.R., 8 volumes (London, 1837-1841), V: 564.Google Scholar

14 Nott, G.F., The Works of Henry Howard Earl of Surrey and of Thomas Wyatt the Elder, 2 volumes (London, 1815-1816), II: 422.Google Scholar

15 Foxe, V: 564; see also Smith, L. B., Henry VIII; The Mask of Royalty (Boston, 1971), pp. 240–241.Google Scholar

16 Smith, p. 47.

17 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII, XIV: i, 247Google Scholar. (Hereafter cited as L.P.).

18 L.P., xvi, 1409; questions framed by Wriothesley to be administered to the dowager Duchess of Norfolk. See also PRO, SP 1/168, fox. 58-9, Wriothesley-Sadler, 4 December 1541, where the future Chancellor urged his co-worker to “pick owte what served for their busines” from a body of evidence he forwarded.

19 The best discussion is in Foxe, V: 553ff, from which modern authors derive their own accounts; e.g. Scarisbrick, pp. 478-482.

20 C.S.P. Sp, XI: 100-101.

21 Haynes, Samuel, Collection of State Papers Left by William Cecill, Lord Burghley (London, 1740), p. 7Google Scholar, for the Norfolk episode; on the exchange of lands see The Seymour Papers Longleat (Wiltshire), IV, fos. 41-42d, 43-44d, 49-50d, 53-54d, 56-56d, 60-61d, 66-69 and 70-71d; John Berwick to Seymour, March 6-April 15, 1544.

22 Until my study of Wriothesley is completed, the best accounts of his career are in Elton, G. R., The Tudor Revolution in Government (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 309ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar; also, Slavin, A. J., Politics and Profit, pp. 49–52Google Scholar, and Tudor Men and Institutions (Baton Rouge, 1972), ch. 3Google Scholar: “Lord Chancellor Wriothesley and Reform of Augmentations: New Light on an Old Court,” pp. 49-69. On Paget see Gammon, S. R., Sir William Paget: The Master of Practices (London, 1973).Google Scholar

23 Jordan, p. 71.

24 Ponet, Short Treatise, Sig. I iij.

25 BM Sloan MSS. 1523, to. 30a.

26 BM Sloan MSS. 1523 fo. 30 b.

27 Longleat (Wiltshire), The Seymour Papers, IV: 70-71d, 15 April 1544.

28 Smith, pp. 248-249; also Slavin, , Politics and Profit, pp. 152–153Google Scholar; and Haynes, , State Papers, p. 5.Google Scholar

29 Stype, John, Ecclesiastical Memorials, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1822), II: i, 35Google Scholar; PRO, SP10/vii, fo. 5: Paget to Somerset, 8 May 1549; SP 10/viii, fo. 4; BM, Cotton MSS, Titus F iii, fos. 277-279; and CSP. Fos. Edward VI, No. 192.

30 PRO SP 10/6, fo. 41ff. (January 1549).

31 BM, Sloan MSS. 1523, fo. 30b.

32 The details are in Foxe, , Acts and Monuments, V, 553 ff.Google Scholar

33 Pollard, , England Under Protector Somerset, pp. 260–261Google Scholar. This thin account rests on Ponet, Short Treatise, Sig. 1 iij-iiij and also Wriothesley, Charles, A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the Tudors from 1485 to 1559, ed. Douglas, W. H., 2 vols. (London, 1875-1886), II: 41.Google Scholar

34 There was a reconciliation on the eve of Cromwell's fall, however; see Muller, J. A., Stephen Gardiner and The Tudor Reaction (London, 1926), p. 89Google Scholar and L.P., XV: 427.

35 BM, Cottonian MSS. Cleopatra E IV, fo. 341; PRO SP 7/1, a volume of Wriothesley letters, many of them bearing on the monasteries; also, Wriothesley took a very active part in the Iconoclasm of 1538: See BM, Royal MSS. App. 89, fo. 20.

36 PRO, C 54/436, m. 3, beginning “I Thomas Wriothesley Knyght lord Wriothesley lord Keper of the brode seale having nowe the vaile of darkness of the usurped power…of the see and bishoppe of Rome clearly taken away from myne eyes…”

37 The life annuity to Cox is only one of many in the Wriothesley Deeds on deposit in the Hampshire Record Office (HRO), 5M53, No. 288. On the friendship with Cranmer see Pridley, Jasper, Thomas Cranmer (Oxford, 1962), p. 247.Google Scholar

38 Stone, Lawrence, Family and Fortune, Studies in Aristocratic Finance in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Oxford, 1973), p. 209Google Scholar; the will exists in copy in BM Harleian MSS 813, ff. 119-125, where it accompanies copies of the various inquisitions post mortem taken after the earl's death. The probate of the will on 14 May 1551 exists in the HRO, 5m53, No. 231. See also the copy of the will in BM, Additional MSS 24936, from which it was printed in Trevelyan Papers (London, 1893), i, 206–216Google Scholar. The original is in PCC (Somerset House, London) Fo. 13 Bucke.

39 Wriothesley Chronicle, II: r1.

40 Foxe, , Acts and Monuments, V: 692, and Appendix xvi (last document).Google Scholar

41 Scarisbrick, J., Henry VIII, pp. 473–477.Google Scholar

42 L.P., XXI: i, 1181(5) and ii, 756. On this account by Chapuys Hertford addressed “violent and injurious words” to Wriothesley because of the chancellor's threats to the countess. Lady Hertford was a second wife, Anne Stanhope, proud, scheming and loyal, but also a burden because of her lack of good sense: see Jordan, pp. 496-97.

43 McConica, James C., English Humanists and Reformation Politics under Henry VIII and Edward VI (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar has an excellent chapter on the Queen's circle: see pp. 218 ff.

44 Smith, p. 228.

45 Ibid., pp. 21-24.

46 PRO, C 33/2, fo. 49.

47 On this episode see Dasent, , Acts of the Privy Council, V: 127Google Scholar; PRO, SP 10/1, fols. 103-106; and Winchester Cathedral Muniments, HRO, Register of Bp. Gardiner, fo. 52.

48 PRO, SP 1/197, fols. 228-229; see also L.P. XXI, ii, 487-88, 493, 647(10).

49 See the accounts in Scarisbrick, , Henry VIII, pp. 482–483Google Scholar and Smith, pp. 250-258. Wriothesley was busy gathering material to establish the existence of a Howard-led conspiracy against the Crown: PRO, SP 1/227, fo. 129—a memo in the Chancellor's hand, detailing suspicious coincidences in brawls, property transactions, and other politically significant relationships.

50 Calendar of Patent Rolls Edward VI: I, 292Google Scholar; also, HMC, Bath MSS, IV. Seymour Papers, p. 111; HMC 11th Report, Appendix, pt. III, 116-117; VCH Hampshire, IV, 469Google Scholar; PRO, SP 10/8, fo. 41.

51 The many schemes for marriage alliances were only in part successful. The firstborn son died in infancy in 1537. A second son (Anthony) died in 1542 (see BM, Lansdowne MSS. 76, art. 81). Henry, his heir and only surviving son, married into the powerful family of Sir Antony Browne, Viscount Montague, while still a minor and without the consent of the countess. Most of the marriage schemes involved the five Wriothesley daughters, therefore: Elizabeth, Mary, Catherine, Mabel and Anne. On the alliance projections there are many manuscript sources; Henry Wriothesley-Mary Browne: HRO, 5M53, 198; Anne-Oliver Wallop, son of Sir John Wallop: HRO, 5MM3/935; Elizabeth-Thomas Ratcliffe, Lord Fitzwalter, son and heir of the Earl of Sussex: HRO 5M53/281 and 984, art. 5; Mary-Sir Michael Lyster, son and heir of Sir Richard Lyster: HRO, 5M53/932; Catherine-Matthew Arundell, son and heir of Sir Thomas Arundell: HRO, 5M53/933-934. Sir Thomas also took care to record such agreements on the dorse of the Close Rolls in Chancery; see PRO C 54/442 mm. 33-34; 431 m. 52, 443 mm. 7-9; 442 mm. 29 and 32, and 444 mm. 8-9.

52 The original determination is in BM, Harleian MSS. 284, art. 7, fols. 9-10. Additional sources in print are Burnet, II, 57-58—the commission; APC, II, 48-56—the complaint; SPC, II, 57-59—the sentence. BM, Harleian MSS 249, article 4, contains a narrative of the Council discussion.

53 PRO, PC 2/2, fols. 87-88.

54 Idem., fols. 88-90.

55 Kerridge, Eric, Agrarian Problems in the Sixteenth Century and After (London, 1969), p. 69Google Scholar: “because Wolsey and Wriothesley illegally commissioned ministers to act in their steads, so facilitating the uncontrolled growth of Chancery business...deliberately diverted suits from the lawcourts to Chancery.” Pollard, , England Under Protector Somerset, p. 32Google Scholar. There is a long tradition behind the myth, subscribed to by Holdsworth, IV: 253 and Maitland, , Selected Historical Essays, ed. Cam, H.M. (Cambridge 1957), p. 143.Google Scholar

Jones, William J., The Elizabethan Court of Chancery (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar, devoted an entire section of his book to “Relations With Other Courts” (pp., 339-499). On the power of a Chancellor to commission deputies see pp. 29-30, where Jones guesses at the practice in Wriothesley's time. For his view of the alleged “conflict” of laws see especially pp. 17-24 and 449-467; Jones emphasizes the general lack of clarity in relations among the courts.

I have recently sorted out the details of some cases in Requests, Star Chamber, and Council, bearing on the claim made by Sir Julius Caesar, that the Council had actually set aside sentences given by the Chancellor: see the edition of Caesar's manuscript treatise on Requests by Hill, Lamar M., On The Court of Requests (Cambridge, 1975), p. 73Google Scholar. Caesar was correct, and my own research, when it is published, will show how this important but overlooked precedent arose.

56 PRO, PC 2/2, fo. 91.

57 PRO. PC 2/2, fols. 94-94.

58 BM, Harleian MSS 284, fo. 10 recto.

59 Kerridge, p. 69.

60 PRO, PC 2/2, fo. 99.

61 PRO, PC 2/2, fo. 101; the emphasis is mine.

62 PRO, PC 2/2, fo. 102; this was Somerset's advice.

63 PRO, PC 2/2, fo. 102 verso.

64 It was the common practice in all courts to commission a variety of assistants to “hear, examine, and absolutely to determine” all matters; see Jones, pp. 271ff. Jones does not give evidence for the Chancery commissions before the 1540's and therefore supposes it was an innovation in Wriothesley's time caused by the press of business on a Chancellor very busy with politics and administration of war finances (pp. 29-30). For the letters patent authorizing Wolsey, More, and Audley to delegate determinative powers see BM Lansdowne MSS. 163, fols. 101-102 for the original of Wolsey's commission to Dr. Taylor and nine other masters. That Wolsey had the power to commission is shown in patent of appointment; PRO C54/383, m. 1d; see the similar enrollments for More and Audley in C54/398, mm. 18-19 and C54/401, pt. 2, m. 24. That Wolsey actually took advantage of his power we know from Lansdowne MSS 163, fols. 101-102, which is pripted in Rymer, Thomas, Foedera, 20 vols. (London, 1728), XIV: 299.Google Scholar

65 PRO, C54/436, m. 3, records the delivery to Wriothesley as Keeper (22 April) and then as Chancellor (3 May). Wriothesley exercised his power by issuing a commission on 17 October 1544: C66/747, m. 1d.; printed in Rymer, , Foedera, XV: 58Google Scholar; copies of this patent in favor of Southwell, Tregonwell, Oliver and Bellasis are in BM, Royal MSS. 13 B I, fo. 291 and also Lansdowne MSS. 171, fo. 129b. as well as Lansdowne MSS. 163, fo. 310. Oliver was also one of the commissioners of the Court of Delegates: PRO, DEL 4/1 (19 April 1543), fo. 421. The similar powers of Wriothesley's immediate successors and judges appear in C 54/453, m. 33.

66 BM, Lansdowne MSS. 163, fo. 101b.

67 PRO, C 66/747, m. 1d.: “Quia praedilectus et fidelis consiliarius noster Thomas Wriothesley…nostris arduis Negotiis ex mandato nostro continuens intendens…Wriothesley had to subscribe all determinations, however.

68 Wriothesley's commission of 18 February 1547 is printed in Acts of the Privy Council, (1547-1550), II: 51–52Google Scholar, from the volume in PRO, PC 2/1 fols., 92-94; there is a copy of this register in BM, Additional MSS. 5476. For the commission activities of Southwell et alia see PRO, C66/799, mm 43d-44. They acted under the authority of Lord St. John, Lord Keeper. I have found similar commissions for chancellors on the patent rolls for 4 ED. VI, 5 Edward VI, 2 Mary, 1 Eliz., 23 Eliz., and 35 Elizabeth. The investment of St. John, Riche, Gardiner, Kempe, Bacon etc. are also described on the dorse of the Close Rolls: PRO, C54/802, commissioners he expanded the number to nine, joining six masters in chancery to two of the common law judges (Portuman and Hales) and the Master of the Rolls: see Rymer, , Foedera, XV: 246Google Scholar, for Oliver, Ballasis, Tregonwell and Southwell as commissioners.

69 PRO C54/453, m. 33. This memorandum of the surrender on 31 January 1547 details the power to have a new seal struck with Edward Vl's style and title suitably inscribed. It also records the grant of the office back to Wriothesley “cum omnibus et signulis auctoritatibus…eidem officio quoquo modo…ut idem Thomas dominus Wriothesley officci illud tempori dictu Regis Henrici Octavi….” Furthermore, the enrollment of the deprivation (C54/453, m. 34) of 6 March 1547 declares that Wriothesley held the Great Seal by an order of Edward VI executed by Somerset and others of the Council.

The vital point of perjury is established in PRO, C54/453, m. 33. The enrollment states that Wriothesley accepted the seal from the King's hand “in presensia ipsius domini Regis ac in presensia reverendissimi Thome (in Christo) Cantuariensis episcopi ac dominorum concilii….” The list of councillors attending the investiture has these names: Paulet, Russell, Hertford, Lisle, Browne, Paget, Seymour (Sir Thomas), Montagne, Herbert, North, Denny, John Croke, Hales, etc.

70 PRO, C66/804, m. 12d. contains the four patents commissioning Wriothesley to do the following things: to deliver new letters patent, writs and commissions to all the justices in England and Wales; to make and seal such comfirmations of charters and letters patent of Edward Vl's predecessors, except Richard III, as the king's subjects shall require; to deliver writs of liberate et allocate and other writs necessary for all to whom Henry VIII by letters patent had granted offices, fees, wages, annuities for life, etc.; to survey and kingdom and dominions overseas and to take orders for the surety of the realm and dominions.

71 PRO, PC 2/2, fo. 7.

72 Copies of the patents were made in the 1590s for Sir Thomas Egerton, who was concerned about all precedents bearing on the powers of the lord keeper or chancellor: Huntington Library, Ellesmere MSS. 1240 and 1241. The actions of the Council appear in Dasent, , APC, II, 6–7.Google Scholar

73 PRO, PC 2/2, fo. 8.

74 PRO, C66/804, m. 12d.: “Proclamations to be made within the Cities of London and all the shires of England and Wales.”

75 L.P., XXI: ii, 634; also PRO, SP 10/1, fols. 12-13.

76 Wriothesley, , Chronicle, I: 179Google Scholar. For Wriothesley's stand see Burnet, II: 40. The executors had heard the will read by Paget, on 29 January in Council. It was read again on February 1st, after both the letter and spirit had been violated in setting up the Protector.

77 Statutes of the Realm, III: 655–662Google Scholar. There were two Henrician succession statutes (28 H. VIII, c.7 and 35 He. VIII, c.1). Their chief importance lay in the grant of power to alter the succession by will, excluding the Scottish line. The will made under their authority ultimately failed, of course, but it raised the political question of the royal power with which we are concerned.

78 PRO, PC 2/2, fols. 4-5 and fol. 11.

79 On March 13, after the purge of Wriothesley, Somerset obtained a new grant of sovereign powers but by “word of mouthe” only:: APC, II: 63; PRO, PC 2/2, f. 118.

80 Slavin, , Tudor Men and Institutions, pp. 49–69.Google Scholar

81 CSPSp, IX: 65.

82 PRO, PC 2/2, f. 118. This important action was passed by only seven of the full list of eighteen executors of Henry VIII's will and the additional twelve guarantors: Somerset, St. John, Russell, Parr, Cheyne, Paget and Browne.

83 See fns. 7 and 8.

84 Malkiewicz, A.J., “An Eyewitness's Account of the coup d'etat of October 1549,” EHR, LXX (1955): 600–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Malkiewicz published only folios 7a-15a of BM, Additional MSS. 48126, omitting entirely the valuable explanatory sections in 15b-16a. The writer was apparently a clerk or secretary in Somerset's own household (fol. 71) thoroughly familiar with the routine of the royal seals and council. It may well have been Sir Thomas Smith, one of Somerset's men who was in 1547 Clerk of the Council, later admitted to membership in the Privy Council on 17 April 1548; see the list in BM, Lansdowne MSS. 160, F. 273. The hand is mid-Tudor Secretary. Other items in the volume are directly traceable to Smith.

85 BM, Additional MSS. 48126, fol. 15a-b. It is unclear at this to whom the writer refers. Perhaps he meant Sir John Russell or Paulet, Lord St. John, who were among the immediate beneficiaries of Wriothesley's disgrace in 1547. But he probably was referring to Sir John Dudley, Earl of Warwick. Smith was writing ca. 1560, long after the treason of Dudley against Mary in the 1553 Lady Jane Grey plot. And he subsequently wrote this passage: “the earl of warwicke hearing his owne condemnacion to approache…said [to Wriothesley]; my lorde you seke hys blode and he that seketh hys blode wolde have myrre also….” The upshot was that Somerset was put at liberty when Wriothesley, having served his purpose, was placed in house arrest.

86 Professor Malkiewicz (p. 601) explained his omission from his printed account of the explanation of Southampton's fall in 1547 by saying the exculpation of Wriothesley was “dramatized and mixed with the fictitious and unprovable.” He therefore joined a long line of authorities who have preferred the received account over the truty discoverable in contemporary records. Nothing on the entire episode appears in Dr. Michael Bush's new study of Somerset: The Government Policy of Protector Somerset (London, 1975)Google Scholar. But Bush does characterize Somerset as a harsh and vindictive man eager to give the appearance of justice and virtue. In the main Dr. Bush corroborates my criticisms of Somerset and the historians who continue the legend of the “Good Duke.”