Chapter 2 - Henry VII’s Government Flashcards
What was the council and its three main functions?
The king ruled with a ‘council of advisers who supported him in making kev decisions. Around 227 men are recorded as having attended the Council during his reign. In practice, however, Henry VII’s actual working Council was a much smaller affair with around six or seven members.
The Council under Henry VII had three main functions:
• to advise the king
•to administer the realm on the king’s behalf
• to make legal judgements.
What were the three main types of councillor?
- Members of the nobility, such as Lords Daubeney and Dynham, though the working Council only rarely included the great magnates of the realm.
- Churchmen such as John Morton and Richard Fox, who often had legal training and were excellent administrators.
- Laymen, either gentry or lawyers, who were skilled administrators, such as Sir Reginald Bray and Edmund Dudley. This dependence on lawyers did not begin with Henry VII; they had also played a significant role in the ‘second reign’ of Edward IV from 1471, so Henry was continuing a trend which had become increasingly evident.
Info about how the council functioned
During Henry VII’s reign the Council had no established rules and procedures, though it was a permanent body with a core membership. Sometimes members also met separately, however, to deal with key administrative concerns when the king was not present, so it was possible for different members of the Council to meet in two places simultaneously. Those professional councillors such as Bray and Dudley, who did not see themselves as courtiers, often met to deal with legal and administrative matters in London when other councillors were with the king elsewhere. The importance of the Council depended on its key members (particularly Bray) and its offshoot, the Council Learned.
Was it essential to be a councillor to influence the king?
It was not essential for a man or woman to hold office as a councillor in order to advise the king. Indeed, the historian David Loades has argued that Henry’s most influential adviser was someone who held no office, his formidable mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort.
What was the Great Council?
The Council should not be confused with the Great Council. The Great Council was a gathering of the House of Lords, meeting without the House of Commons. It had no clearly defined functions and was an occasional rather than a permanent body. It met only five times in total throughout Henry VI’s reign. It usually concerned itself with issues relating to war or rebellion and was a means of binding the nobility to key decisions relating to national security.
What is the Council Learned in the Law, what was its function and how did it function?
The Council’s main offshoot was the Council Learned (or Council Learned in Law). This body developed during the second half of the reign, at first under Bray’s leadership. It often met in the office of the Duchy of Lancaster, where it formed what the modern historian John Guy describes as a ‘specialist board. Its function was to maintain the king’s revenue and to exploit his prerogative rights. It was the Council Learned which made the system of bonds and recognizances work so effectively and thus able to entrap many of the king’s subjects.
Perception of TCLINTL
The workings of the Council Learned have often been seen as a rather ‘shady operation by historians.
It was not a recognised court of law and those summoned before it had no chance to appeal. The modern historian Thomas Penn has argued that the Council Learned caused fear, frustration and anger, as it bypassed the normal legal system It was, however, the expression of the king’s will and was thus as important for the maintenance of his authority as it was for the raising of finances.
Unsurprisingly, in the process they created enemies amongst some of the king’s other key advisers, such as Bishop Fox and Sir Thomas Lovell, who removed them after Henry VIl’s death. The downfall of Empson and Dudley brought rejoicing on the streets. This is an indication of just how feared and unpopular their financial control became in the last years of Henry VIIs reign.
Who were the key figures of TCLITL and did they change?
Sir Richard Empson (c1450-1510)
Empson was a member of the king’s Council from 1494. He eventually chaired the Council Learned. Closely identified with the increasing ruthlessness of Henry VI’s regime, Empson was arrested shortly after the death of the king, charged with treason and executed in the following year.
Edmund Dudley (c1462-1510)
Dudley came to prominence following the death of Bray. Steven Gunn argues that his role was to exploit financial opportunities, which gave him ample opportunity to make influential enemies. He therefore became vulnerable to counter-attack as soon as he lost the king’s protection. Upon Henry Tudor’s death he became accountable for what had been the king’s demands.
What was the chamber?
The Chamber was overseen by the Lord Chamberlain.
It was used for holding audiences and public dining. It was the centre of court communications and court patronage.
What was the privy chamber?
This was the king’s private quarters.
He used it for work and leisure.
He met his personal friends and servants in these rooms.
Significance of the royal court
The Tudors, like their predecessors, relied heavily on the royal court. This was the centre of government. Since wealth was power, the royal court had to be magnificent and generous. In this, Henry VII was influenced by continental examples of royal courts, especially those in Burgundy and France. The royal court was always to be found wherever the king was at any given time. It was the focus of a personal monarchy and a place for royal ceremony, about which Henry VII was very enthusiastic. It was where the power of the monarch was demonstrated to all the courtiers in attendance. It was through the court that rewards and status were distributed to those who were deserving or, more likely, well connected.
Courtiers enjoyed paid positions or the right to receive free food. Not only was the court where advancement could be attained, it was also where the support of the king or other influential persons could be obtained, which might be useful in the event of legal problems.
When was privy chamber created?
1495
Significance of ‘personal monarchy’
Medieval monarchy was personal. In any personal monarchy the political power and influence of an individual depended more on the relationship that person had with the monarch than on any specific office which they might have held. Access to the king, therefore, was the main determinant of power and it was through the royal court that access was controlled. This remained the case whatever a particular monarch’s style of kingship was.
What were the two different levels to the court?
- The household proper was responsible for looking after the king, the courtiers, guests and other ‘hangers-on’ who were being entertained.
These personal and catering requirements were supervised by the Lord Steward. - The politically important part of the system was the Chamber, presided over by the Lord Chamberlain. The Lord Chamberlain and other senior household officials were influential courtiers. The position of Lord Chamberlain was both powerful and a matter of considerable trust. It was therefore a considerable blow to Henry VII to discover in 1495 that his Lord Chamberlain, Sir William Stanley, had been involved in a treasonable plot with the pretender Perkin Warbeck.
Henry’s response to conspiracy at court
Henry’s response to this challenge was to remodel the Chamber by creating a new Privy (i.e. private) Chamber, to which the king could retreat, protected by his most intimate servants.
Impact of creation of privy chamber
This changed the character of the court, thus making it more difficult for those who were out of favour to regain the king’s support. Henry cut himself off from much of the king’s traditional contacts at court.
Importance of parliament at this time
Parliament, comprising the House of Commons and the House of Lords, had existed since the thirteenth century, but it only met occasionally and was not, therefore, central to the system of government.
Two main functions of parliament
To pass laws and to grant taxation to the Crown. It had a further subsidiary function as a means by which local issues and grievances could be passed on to the king’s officials by local Members of Parliament (MPs).
Info about lords and mps
At this time the House of Lords, comprising the Lords Spiritual (bishops and abbots of major religious houses) and the Lords Temporal (the nobility), was the more important of the two houses. The House of Commons comprised two MPs for each county, two MPs for each borough, and representatives of the two universities (Oxford and Cambridge). The right to vote was largely restricted to men of property,
‘forty shilling freeholders in the counties, though the precise voting qualification varied in boroughs
Dates and number of parliaments called
Only the king could call Parliament, and Henry demonstrated his right to rule by calling his first parliament early in his reign. Henry called a total of seven parliaments in his reign, though five of these met in the first ten years of the reign leaving only two to meet in the remaining fourteen years.
- Nov 1485 - Mar 1486
- Nov 1487 - Dec 1487
- Jan 1489 - Feb 1490
- Oct 1491 - Mar 1492
- Oct 1495 - Dec 1495
- Jan 1497 - Mar 1497
- Jan 1504 - Apr 1504
Reasons for calling his parliaments
Henry’s early parliaments were largely concerned with issues of national security and the raising of revenue. For example, his first two parliaments passed numerous Acts of Attainder. These declared individuals guilty without having to go through the inconvenience of a trial if they were alive; if they were dead, their property would be forfeit to the Crown. His first parliament granted tonnage and poundage (customs revenues) for life; other parliaments granted extraordinary revenue, taxation granted to enable the king to wage war. The most usual form of extraordinary revenue was fifteenths and tenths, which were imposed upon the alleged value of a taxpayer’s goods. Fractional taxes of fifteenths and tenths were made in 1487, 1489-90, 1491-92 and 1497, yielding £203,000. Henry’s final parliament in 1504 did manage, however, to limit the demand for eva pariname revenue, and received an undertaking that the king would not seek more revenue by this means.
Did parliament function effectively
There is little surviving evidence of the parliamentary proceedings in
Henry’s reign. However, the research of historian Paul Cavill has shown that, on the whole, Parliament operated effectively, the king respected its decisions and there were a number of private acts passed in response to local demands for improvements. There is little evidence that the king tried to ‘manage Parliament through his ministers.
Henry’s attitude to maintaining law and order
As had been traditional throughout earlier centuries, the king relied on well-placed members of the nobility to exercise power on his behalf, although there was a delicate balance to strike to ensure that the more influential of these nobles did not themselves become so powerful that they could challenge the king’s own
authority.
Situation with number of magnates
Henry did not have the luxury enjoyed by Edward IV, who had divided the whole country into spheres of influence, each controlled by a great noble (or magnate). The number of magnates had been reduced in the last years of the Wars of the Roses and their lands had fallen into the hands of the Crown.
Magnate control was largely confined to the north of England, to Henry’s relatives the Stanleys in the northwest and to the Earl of Northumberland in the northeast and Yorkshire, though the murder of the latter in 1489 left Henry without a great magnate to exercise power on his behalf in that strategically important area.
How did Henry solve the fewer magnate issue in the North?
He solved this problem by releasing the Yorkist Earl of Surrey from the Tower, where he had been imprisoned since the Battle of Bosworth, to rule the north on his behalf. Sending a known supporter of Richard III to the area which had been his predecessor’s centre of power was a high-risk strategy, but Surrey proved his loyalty through effective service in the north for ten years. In much of the rest of the country Henry had to rely on those whom he did trust, such as the Earl of Oxford and Lord Daubeney, but who lacked the resources of the great magnates. Elsewhere he had to rely on those in whom he had little real faith, such as the Marquis of Dorset. This lack of trust was demonstrated by Henry’s employment of a spying network whose task was to report on magnate performance as well as with the imposition of bonds and recognizances.
How did Henry solve the fewer magnate issue in the rest of the country?
In much of the rest of the country Henry had to rely on those whom he did trust, such as the Earl of Oxford and Lord Daubeney, but who lacked the resources of the great magnates. Elsewhere he had to rely on those in whom he had little real faith, such as the Marquis of Dorset. This lack of trust was demonstrated by Henry’s employment of a spying network whose task was to report on magnate performance as well as with the imposition of bonds and recognizances.
Significance of JPs at local level
At a local level, Henry relied increasingly on justices of the peace (JPs) to maintain law and order in the countryside. JPs were appointed on a county-by-county basis and met four times a year to administer justice through the quarter sessions. Though it was quite common for royal officials to be appointed as JPs in counties in which they had an interest, most JPs were local gentry who fulfilled their unpaid tasks either out of a sense of duty or because they perceived that doing so might open the path to greater advancement or local prestige.
How was the power of JPs increased?
Increased number of them.
Various Acts of Parliament were passed to increase the powers and responsibilities of JPs who were responsible for routine administration such as: tax assessments, alehouse regulation, the investigation of complaints against local officials, and the maintenance of law and order. In that role they superseded the traditional authority of the county sheriff.
How did Henry use bonds to ensure law and order?
Henry VII restored law and order largely through forcing many of his subjects to take out bonds and recognizances.
Some of the bonds and recognizances were the result of genuine debts owed to the Crown. However, many of them were purely political. In the words of Edmund Dudley, the king wished to have many persons in danger at his pleasure.
This means that the king used bonds to enforce order and obedience, and defeat the law, a system which can be regarded as morally dubious.
Types of courts
Church courts
Local courts
Manor courts
Borough courts
King’s courts at a county level
King’s common law courts
Chancery and other equity courts
Sources of royal income?
• Crown lands
• profits from feudal dues and the exercise of the royal prerogative
• customs revenue
• pensions from other powers
• profits of justice
• extraordinary revenue.
. Customs revenue: tonnage and poundage had been granted for life by Henry’s first parliament. Over the course of the reign there was a small increase in the annual revenue from this source from £34,000 to £38,000.
Pensions from other powers: at the Treaty of Etaples in 1492 the French agreed to pay Henry a pension of £5000 per annum.
• Profits of justice: this included fines and income from bonds. Bonds represented a potential rather than an actual asset. For example, between 1504 and 1507 a total of at least £200,000 was promised to the king, though not all was collected.
. Extraordinary revenue: Henry received over £400,000 from extraordinary taxation. However, raising all this revenue came at a price and helped to provoke rebellions in 1489 and 1497. Henry had to promise the Parliament of 1504 not to raise any more money by this method. In 1489, when Parliament had granted Henry a subsidy of £75,000, the Convocation of Canterbury in addition offered £25,000 on behalf of the clergy.
Traditional assumptions about Henry’s finances
For many years two things were assumed about Henry VII and finance: that he was a miserly king who begrudged throwing money away like many other contemporary rulers, and that he had transformed the royal finances by leaving a vast amount of money to his son, Henry VIII. Each of these views lea be a cad to Francis Bacon’s History of the Reign of King Henry VIL, written in 1621. In recent years, however, there has been considerable research on Crown finances, often based on the interpretation of complex sources, such as Henry VIIs own private accounts. As a consequence, a different picture of Henry’s finances has emerged.
Historiography of Henry VI’s justice system
On balance Steven Gunn considers that the administration of justice broadly improved during Henry
VII’s reign, with limited but effective steps being taken to improve the law.
Christine Carpenter is much more critical in her judgement, especially of Henry’s mistrust of the nobility and local society.
Henry greed debate
There is some debate as to whether Henry’s greed was a feature throughout his reign or whether he became much greedier in the later stages of the reign, as was suggested by the contemporary chronicler Polydore Vergil.
Certainly, there is evidence that contemporaries were relieved at his death. Lord Mountjoy wrote that such extreme greed was now dead and Sir Thomas More wrote a Latin poem for Henry VIII which contained criticism of both Henry VII and his advisers. Henry VIII was not slow to take the hint and to achieve cheap popularity by executing Empson and Dudley.
Significance of crown lands for the king
Henry VII was by far the country’s largest landowner and the rental income from his property was a very important part of the Crown’s ordinary revenue.
Income from Crown lands had significantly increased during the reign of Edward IV.
Change in income collection methods and results
At the beginning of Henry’s reign income had dropped to about £12,000
per year. This was because the income from lands was collected and administered through the inefficient Court of Exchequer, which exemplifies Henry’s inexperience in such financial matters. It was probably in 1492 that Henry decided to revert to Edward’s system of administration through the Chamber (in other words through the royal household rather than through an administrative department), where policies were formulated and decisions were made. Finances improved markedly and the income from land had increased by the end of the reign to around £42,000 per year. This was partly achieved by effective treasurers of the Chamber, such as Sir Thomas Lovell and Sir John Heron.
The historiography of
Henry VIl’s income collection method change
Even Christine Carpenter, who is very critical of many aspects of Henry’s kingship, regards this growth of income from Crown lands as impressive.
Profits from feudal dues and the exercise of the royal prerogative
The pursuit of the king’s feudal rights was tightened. There were increased profits from wardship and Parliament granted a feudal aid in 1504. A thirteenth-century text, Prerogativa Regis, was examined by court lawyers anxious to find precedents for the levying of fees deriving from the king’s prerogative, and from feudal powers. Obligations payable on the death of a feudal tenant-in-chief became a useful additional source of revenue which landowners found particularly irritating, especially when the Statute of Uses of 1489 cut out a potential loophole for avoidance of the charge.
What finances Henry left
In total, Henry left plate and jewels worth around £300,000 and £10,000 in cash. Although a substantial sum, this is a far cry from Bacon’s estimate of £1.800,000.
Price of Henry’s financial policies
Much energy was spent on improving Henry’s revenues, but there was a political price to be paid. The main victims of Henry’s policies were the nation’s landowners, precisely the people whose support Henry would need if his throne was threatened. Yet Henry treated them in a way which might have made them threaten the Crown. Whenever earlier medieval monarchs had adopted this strategy, the outcome for the Crown’s authority had been disastrous. Henry’s policies were therefore quite dangerous ones.
Debate over whether Henry was a ‘new monarch’
In 1874 John Richard Green put forward the argument that Edward IV and Henry VII together represented a ‘new monarchy. For a long time historians accepted that Henry was a ‘new monarch, either by taking further Edward Is innovations in government or by being himself the innovator. The latter view implies that the Tudors were not only a new dynasty but were a consciously modernising dynasty that had set aside the weaknesses of medieval and personal monarchy. On the other hand, Stanley Chrimes, in his biography of Henry published in 1972, claimed that he was no innovator, a view condemned by David Starkey, who has emphasised the originality involved in the establishment of the Privy Chamber.
Some recent views of Henry VII have revived notions of a new monarchy, though in rather different forms. Steven Gunn, for example, places Henry’s reign in a century of governmental centralisation lasting from the reign of Edward IV to the accession of Elizabeth I. He regards the reign as having been broadly beneficial to both the monarchy and most of the people and believes that Henry’s policies, though sometimes harsh, were a necessary response to the problems which he inherited as king. Moreover, Gunn sees the monarch as being deeply involved at a personal level in the business of government. In this respect, Gunn’s views differ from those of John Watts, for whom Henry largely stood aside from the business of government, leaving the work to bureaucrats such as Morton, Bray and Empson who pursued their own interests as much as they pursued those of the king. Each of them arguably accords more substance to Henry than does Christine Carpenter; for Carpenter, Henry is a ruler of very modest ability who failed to understand the needs of the nation over which he had control.
Most historians agree that Henry VI’s rule was distinctive, though they might differ about its nature. John Watts, in particular, has played down Henry’s role in the day-to-day management of government. After Henry’s death the downfall of some of Henry’s key courtiers was sudden. However, as Margaret Condon has argued, it was Henry himself who created the fragility in government, which brought about a division within the ruling elites.
