elton's cromwell

Eltons Cromwell

G. W. BERNARDUniversity of Southampton

AbstractSir Georey Eltons presentation of Thomas Cromwell as the architect of the Tudorrevolution in government rested upon assumptions about Cromwells relationship withHenry VIII that are here scrutinized and questioned. Cromwells remembrances, inparticular, are drawn upon to argue that, far from holding the government of thecountry in his hands alone, Cromwell was rather the kings hard-working servant.

For Sir Georey Elton, Thomas Cromwell was one of the mostremarkable English statesmen of the sixteenth century and one ofthe most remarkable in the countrys history,1 who instigated

and in part accomplished a major and enduring transformation invirtually every aspect of the nations public life.2 He was a statesmanwith real and even elevated purposes, a man of genuine understandingand aability, a tower of strength to those who sought his help.3 Aboveall, he was the architect of the Tudor revolution in government, arevolution in the kingdom from which the nation emerged transformedand altered in every aspect of its life.4 In his last book, Elton continuedto assert essentially the same views of Cromwells work: he instilled sonovel a force and concentrated purpose into government that somethinglike a major transformation took place in the relations between rulers andruled.5 In contrast, Henry VIII, according to Elton, had an unoriginaland unproductive mind, one unable to penetrate independently to the

*c The Historical Association 1998. Published byBlackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UKand 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

I would like to thank those who have commented on drafts of this article: C. S. L. Davies,T. B. Pugh, Mark Stoyle, Peter Gwyn, Greg Walker, Richard Hoyle, R. B. Wernham, PatrickCollinson and Penry Williams.

1 G. R. Elton, Thomas Cromwell Redivivus, Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte, lxviii (1977)[hereafter Elton, Cromwell Redivivus], 192208, at 192, reprinted in G. R. Elton, Studies in Tudorand Stuart Government (4 vols., Cambridge, 197492) [hereafter, Elton, Studies], iii. 37390, at 373.2 Elton, Cromwell Redivivus, 192 (Studies, iii. 373).3 Review in London Review of Books, 16 July 1981.4 G. R. Elton, Reform and Reformation (1977) [hereafter Elton, Reform and Reformation], p. 295.The classic statement of these claims is G. R. Elton, The Tudor Revolution in Government(Cambridge, 1953) [hereafter Elton, Tudor Revolution].5 G. R. Elton, The English (Oxford, 1992) [hereafter Elton, The English], p. 126.

heart of the problem.6 It was Cromwell who saw to the administration ofthe kingdom: the details of government, the day-to-day work of theexecutive, the control and reform of the administrative machine, thesewere in his hands.7 In Cromwells years of power the king rarelyinterfered in administrative matters and . . . Cromwell, not Henry, wasreally the government.8 By and large Eltons interpretation hascommanded the field, owing not least to his tireless articulation of itover forty years. R. B. Wernham, who wrote a pungent review ofThe Tudor Revolution in Government, was unusual in questioning Eltonsclaims about the relationship between Henry VIII and Cromwell; but,unlike Elton, he did not reiterate his views.9 Later critics of The TudorRevolution in Government concentrated, in what became a famousdebate, on the issues of administration and government that Elton hadraised, rather than on the specific question of king and minister. Mean-while Elton received powerful support from A. G. Dickens:

The eight years of Cromwells ministry form a truly notable episode in thehistory of the English state. In that of the church they are equallyrevolutionary years, in part destructive, in part as highly constructive.And it cannot reasonably be questioned that Cromwell supplied theirchief guiding force . . . By contrast, outside these eight years, the reign ofHenry VIII has scarcely a single creative or revolutionary achievement toits credit . . . between the years 1532 and 1540 all is dierent. Creation,destruction and change are visible on all sides; something like a plannedrevolution issues from the mind of a minister . . . Cromwell had his ownclear vision of the sovereign state.10

True, J. J. Scarisbricks biography, Henry VIII (1968), is generally seenas modifying Elton in emphasizing Henrys role once again exaltingHenrys personal responsibility for the reformation;11 and Scarisbrickdoes indeed claim that as far as the central event of the 1530s is con-cerned, namely the establishment of the royal supremacy, he [Cromwell]was the executant of the kings designs . . . he neither worked alone norwas the true initiator of these royal undertakings. Yet those remarksfollowed a rather more Eltonian claim:

That the 1530s were a decisive decade in English history was due largelyto his [Cromwells] energy and vision. He was immediately responsible forthe vast legislative programme of the later sessions of the Reformation

6 G. R. Elton, King or Minister?: The Man behind the Henrician Reformation, History, xxxix(1954), 21632, at 218, reprinted in Elton, Studies, i. 17388, at 175.7 G. R. Elton, Thomas Cromwell: Aspects of his Administrative Work, unpublished Ph.D. thesis(University of London, 1948) [hereafter Elton, Thomas Cromwell], p. 6.8 Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 175; quoted by R. B. Wernham, Review of The Tudor Revolutionin Government , English Historical Review, lxxi (1956), 95.9 Wernham, English Historical Review, lxxi (1956), 925, esp. 95.10 A. G. Dickens, The English Reformation (2nd edn., 1989) [hereafter Dickens, EnglishReformation], p. 133. Cf. A. G. Dickens, Thomas Cromwell and the English Reformation (1959)[hereafter Dickens, Thomas Cromwell], pp. 1746.11 R. ODay, The Tudor Age (1995), p. 293.

*c The Historical Association 1998

588 ELTONS CROMWELL

Parliament. He oversaw the breach with Rome and the establishment ofthe royal supremacy.

Later Scarisbrick described Cromwell as a genius, perhaps the mostaccomplished servant any English monarch had enjoyed, a royal ministerwho cut a deeper mark on the history of England than have many of hermonarchs.12

More recent studies of the reign of Henry VIII have emphasizedfaction as the key to the understanding of politics, building on a strand ofEltons arguments that were first elaborated in his discussion of the fallof Thomas Cromwell. No one has doubted that the machinations ofCromwells enemies, with Norfolk and Gardiner at their head, weredecisive in turning the king against his minister, Elton wrote, addingthat it was not false policies or opposition to the kings religious desiresreally brought about his overthrow, but the personal enmity of the menwhose power he had taken away.13 Yet such approaches have once againemphasized the dominant role of Cromwell until toppled, and, evenwhen conceding an ultimate though only occasional role as arbiterto the king, have correspondingly reduced that of Henry. E. W. Ives hassummarized arguments he has been elaborating over two decades:government policy and initiative did not arise from the monarchsexecutive will; they emerged from the shifting political and individualcontext around him.14 J. A. Guy has on occasions adopted a stronglyfactional interpretation; for example, writing that Henry listened to hisintimates far more than he supposed and was influenced and evenmanipulated by the prevailing balance at court; and that Cromwell was. . . the driving force behind the reformation in the 1530s.15 Morerecently, he has put forward a diluted version. The king is still weak orled: Henry VIII was relatively manipulated by women and intimates; hewas less attentive to mundane aairs of state than his father orElizabeth I; he allowed Cromwell to make the running in religious policyin the mid- and late 1530s until 1539, by which time the king hadresumed command of his religious policy, a comment that implies thathe had earlier relinquished command of it for a time. But somewhatcontradictorily Guy also asserts that it was the king who ruled and nothis ministers. The contradiction in his thought is sharply revealed whenhe claims both that what mattered in Henrician politics was the kingsunqualified trust and yet goes on to oer a factional interpretation of thefall of Anne Boleyn followed by the assertion that afterwards Cromwellspower was sustained by factional politics rather than the kingsunqualified trust. Just what does Guy see as the significance of the

12 J. J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII (1968), pp. 304, 303, 383.13 G. R. Elton, Thomas Cromwells Decline and Fall,Historical Journal, x (1951) [hereafter Elton,Decline and Fall], 15085, at 150, 185 (reprinted in Elton, Studies, i. 189230, at 189, 229).14 E. W. Ives, Henry VIII: The Political Perspective, The Reign of Henry VIII, ed. D. MacCulloch(1995), p. 33.15 J. A. Guy, Tudor England (Oxford, 1988) [hereafter Guy, Tudor England], pp. 83, 181.


G. W. BERNARD 589

kings unqualified trust? And when he sees Cromwell executed in 1540 asa victim of faction politics, he is still endorsing Eltons assessment of thebalance of power between Cromwell, his supposed opponents and theking.16

It is the contention of this article, however, that Elton was wrongabove all in minimizing, as have so many of the historians who havefollowed him, the independent role of Henry VIII, so misrepresenting therelationship between king and minister. Given their long and continuinginfluence on a generation of Tudor historians, Eltons claims stilldemand close and critical attention. Cromwell, it will be argued here, wasno more, and no less, than the kings loyal and hard-working servant.Much of Eltons case, when scrutinized, turns out, as we shall see, to reston surmise and assertion. A typical instance is Eltons declaration thatCromwell chose for himself the most important of the oces to which hewas appointed principal secretary in about April 1534, master of therolls in October 1534 and lord privy seal in July 1536: Henrys share inthe business was confined to allowing the minister to accumulate hiscollection of oces.17 But Elton oers no evidence whatsoever insupport of this somewhat improbable claim.

I

Just what then was Cromwells role? At the beginning of his University ofLondon Ph.D. thesis, Thomas Cromwell: Aspects of his AdministrativeWork (1948),18 Elton, in a momentary hedging of his bets, suggests thatit may be unprofitable to engage in a controversy which may for everremain undecided. King and minister are so inextricably entangled witheach other, and the evidence is so insucient, that every answer will, inthe last resort, remain a personal verdict.19 But within a page he had

16 J. A. Guy, Henry VIII and his Ministers, History Review, xxiii (1995) [hereafter Guy, HenryVIII and his Ministers], 3540, at 3740.17 Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 123.18 It is interesting to note that Eltons thesis, while advancing the bold claims for Cromwells roleand achievement that were to become so familiar, nowhere refers to any revolution in government.Does that lend support to the anecdotal evidence (for which I am grateful to Dr Alastair Duke,Professor Patrick Collinson cf. his obituary of Elton in the Independent, 9 Dec. 1994, p. 16 andDr Peter Roberts) that the term was coined in the viva by one of his examiners, Professor C. H.Williams, who suggested to the candidate that you have stumbled upon what shall I call it? aTudor revolution in government ? It is instructive here to note how profoundly influenced byEltonian ideas was C. H. Williams in English Historical Documents, Volume V: 14851558 (1967), inmarked contrast to his work in the 1930s. Unfortunately, this may be no more than ben trovato.Professor R. B. Wernham, who was the external examiner at Eltons viva on 20 December 1948,does not recall any such remark. Instead, drawing attention to Eltons acknowledgement in thepreface of The Tudor Revolution in Government of his very great debt to Sir John Neale, in responseto whose criticisms in particular Elton says that he had twice rewritten the book, ProfessorWernham suggests that if that remark was made, then or later, it sounds to me more like Neale,who had a tendency to get hold of an idea (e.g. the Puritan choir in Elizabeth and her Parliaments)and push it a bridge too far (letter from Professor Wernham, 10 January 1997).19 Elton, Thomas Cromwell, pp. 34.


590 ELTONS CROMWELL

roundly declared that whatever of lasting value was done in Englandunder Henry VIII was done while Cromwell was in power.20 He added:

No one can now say with confidence exactly how much each man con-tributed to the work of the decade, but it is simply not possible to acceptthat the powerful revolutionary impulse of those years should have comefrom the king since there is no sign of it at all in the other parts of thereign. It came from the minister whose clear sight and willingness to takerisks throughout contrasted with his masters habitual preference forcaution and procrastination in face of all major issues.21

Nothing, said Professor Elton, is further from the truth than the oldprejudice which sees in him only a faithful instrument to his master.22

While it may be doubtful how far the policy of those years was his orHenrys, it is quite certain that the administration and detailedgovernment of the country were in his hands alone. His correspondencetestifies to that in ample manner.23

The diculty with Eltons argument is that he so often invokes thegeneral to prove the particular: when this is done repeatedly it strainscredulity. For example, when Elton discusses the court of augmenta-tions, he comments:

that it was Cromwell who designed the new organisation on the model ofthe duchy [of Lancaster] is a point which cannot be proved directly . . . Hisoutstanding position at this time, and his interest in administrativematters, cannot be in doubt, nor has it ever been suggested that he wasnot responsible for the policy of confiscating the monastic lands whichmade the court of augmentations necessary. The least that must be said isthat he is more likely than anyone else to have stood godfather to the newplan; if there is individual responsibility to be allotted, it must be to him.24

If there was a single brain behind the administrative innovationembodied in the court of augmentations, it must have been his. Ascheme so carefully worked out suggests one individual schemer; theplan requires a planner.25 It is a dangerously convenient style of argu-ment.Most vividly, Eltons Cromwell was the author of the break with

Rome, devising both the practical policies that implemented it and the

20 Ibid., p. 5.21 Elton, Cromwell Redivivus, 202.22 Elton, Reform and Reformation, p. 172.23 Elton, Thomas Cromwell, p. 258.24 Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 212.25 Elton, Thomas Cromwell, p. 258. It is interesting to note that earlier Elton did cite evidence asproof positive of Cromwells hand in the establishment of the court of augmentations, namely adraft document drawn up by Thomas Wriothesley, Cromwells chief clerk, and corrected byCromwell (ibid., p. 261, from Public Record Oce [PRO], E36/116 fos. 503, Letters and Papers,Foreign and Domestic, of Henry VIII [hereafter LP] X, 721 (4)). But such an interpretation is not theonly possible reading and elsewhere Elton saw it rather as the commission for the commissioners forthe dissolution, drafted by Wriothesley and corrected by Cromwell, and thus nothing to do with thecourt of augmentations (Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 212).


G. W. BERNARD 591

imperial ideology that justified it, and so saving a clueless and hesitantmonarch from the embarrassment of failure. Henry turned to the manwho intended to throw out the pope with the cast-o wife, to carrythrough the divorce in England, and to create the empire of Englandwhere no foreign potentates writ should run.26 Elton reiterated this viewsome forty years later: Cromwell, the man who showed Henry the wayout of the dilemma created by the popes refusal to end that firstmarriage, brought to the task his vision of a strictly independent, unitaryrealm, organised entirely within its own borders and dedicated to reformin both the spiritual and the secular sphere.27 Such an interpretationnow fails to convince since it is clear from materials for the kings causecompiled as early as 15279 and from diplomatic correspondence in thesame years that Henry VIII was already deploying ideas and issuingthreats that could lead to a break with Rome.28 Moreover, when the Billof Annates was attacked in parliament in March 1532, it was Henry whowent to the House of Commons in person on three occasions; in the endhe forced the house to divide, with some members coming on to his sidefor fear of his indignation.29 And a month later, when two MPs (accord-ing to the imperial ambassador) or one MP named Temse (according toHall) dared to criticize the kings divorce, Henry sent for the speaker andtwelve MPs, and made a long speech in denunciation of the oaths ofallegiance that bishops swore to popes.30 Such evidence of Henrysactions casts grave doubt on Eltons claims for Cromwells role in themaking of the break with Rome.In making his case for Cromwell as the author of that policy, Elton

relied heavily on his interpretation of parliamentary drafts. But here inmany ways Elton became a prisoner of his sources. His early articles onCromwells work in preparing the parliamentary statutes that gave legalsanction to the break with Rome rested on a minute scrutiny of survivingdrafts of the Supplication against the Ordinaries, the Act of Appeals andother statutes. But Elton assumed, rather than proved, that the ideasexpressed in these acts were Cromwells. Just because these drafts or,more often, corrections written on to those drafts were in Cromwellshandwriting does not prove that the ideas expressed in them werethemselves devised by Cromwell, as Elton tended to assume. That some(but not all) of the corrections in some of the drafts of the Supplicationagainst the Ordinaries (A, B, C1, C2, but neither D, apart from whatElton sees as two small exceptions, nor E, to use Eltons notation) were

26 Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 95.27 Elton, The English, p. 116.28 G. W. Bernard, The Pardon of the Clergy Reconsidered, Journal of Ecclesiastical History,xxxvii (1986), 25882 esp. 2624; The Fall of Wolsey Reconsidered, Journal of British Studies,xxxv (1996), 277310; The Divorce Tracts of Henry VIII, ed. E. Surtz and V. Murphy (Angers,1988), introduction; V. Murphy, The Literature and Propaganda of Henry VIIIs First Divorce,The Reign of Henry VIII, ed. D. MacCulloch (1995), pp. 13558.29 LP V, 879, 898.30 LP V, 989; E. Hall, Chronicle (1809 edn.), p. 788.


592 ELTONS CROMWELL

in Cromwells hand is less revealing of authorship and motivation thanElton claimed. If Cromwell had a master plan ready made in 1532, asElton supposed he . . . supplied a new version [of the Commonssupplication] based on the 1529 drafts31 it is curious that he did notprepare a complete text wholly in his own writing. That all the survivingevidence of Cromwells involvement lies in corrections to texts written byothers does rather suggest that he was reacting to matters which othershad raised. Others were also involved in the work of revision, notablyThomas Audley, whose revisions are found in draft D.32 The complexityof the relationships between eight drafts and four fragments of the Act ofAppeals (Elton oers a diagram) makes the construction of an intellec-tual development a highly hazardous undertaking. In the end assertionbacks up assertion.

The man who appears again and again is Cromwell. His clerks drew upthe drafts, or most of them. He supervised the drafting, himself addedsome of the more important clauses, and shaped the provisions one byone by constant correction . . . The act against appeals was his act. Itembodied his political thought and marked the triumph of his policy inthe counsels of the king.33

Elton claims that in the course of the drafting of the Act of Appeals,Henry added ill-considered contributions which were then removed,34

but the paper in which that claim is presented does not really validate itin detail. The most significant insertions by Henry not included in thestatute were claims that temporal and spiritual authority ar deryvedand dependeth frome and of the same imperiall crowne of this realme . . .and in this manner of wise proceedeth the iurisdiccion spirituall andtemporall of this realme of and from the said imperiall crowne and noneotherwise. If the brief addition and subsequent removal of suchphrases has any special significance and it need not have it seems topoint to Henrys, rather than Cromwells, insistence on imperialideology.35 Elton himself briefly came close to conceding the criticismthat the origin of the ideas in these bills is far from clear-cut whendiscussing the act concernyng the clerkes of the signet and privie seale

31 Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 95.32 G. R. Elton, The Commons Supplication of 1532: Parliamentary Manoeuvres in the Reign ofHenry VIII, English Historical Review, lxvi (1951), 50734, at 5079 (reprinted in Elton, Studies,ii. 10736, at 10711). J. P. Cooper, The Supplication against the Ordinaries Reconsidered,English Historical Review, lxxii (1957), 61641, stressed the independent role of the Commons inproducing these drafts, and thus reduced Cromwells role to assistance in the drafting of theCommons ecclesiastical grievances.33 G. R. Elton, The Evolution of a Reformation Statute, English Historical Review, lxiv (1949)[hereafter Elton, Reformation Statute], 17497, at 1967 (reprinted in Elton, Studies, ii. 82106, at1056).34 Elton, Cromwell Redivivus, 201 (Elton, Studies, iii. 383), drawing on Reformation Statute,1967 (Elton, Studies, ii. 1056).35 Elton, Reformation Statute, 184 (Elton, Studies, ii. 91); British Library [BL] Cotton MS,Cleopatra E vi, fos. 179202, at fo. 185).


G. W. BERNARD 593

of 1536,36 but only momentarily: on the other hand, it is of coursepossible that the first proposal came from someone else, he notes, beforegoing on to conclude that however that may be, it is inconceivable . . .that Cromwell should not have been squarely behind the act as passed; itought to be considered as one of his administrative measures.37

Similarly in a discussion of memoranda prepared for a council meetingon 2 December 1533, Elton asserts that the corrections in Cromwellshandwriting show that he was in charge. Cromwell made additions towhat Elton sees as a second draft. Whoever prepared the first draft . . .these and other corrections show who supervised the second. Theydemonstrate Cromwells complete control of the councils agenda. Butwhy should Cromwells handwriting prove any such thing?Why could henot simply be writing down what the king, or someone else, had said?Eltons failure to argue the point directly vitiates his approach. Thematters under consideration were the households of Catherine, Maryand Elizabeth. Twice the minute states that the kynges highnez hathapoynted who shall go there, and once that the kynges highnez hathapoynted that Mary should be conveyed from her house to Hatfield.Elton remarks that the fact that this matter came up before the councilonly to be immediately taken out of its hands again suggests that Henryhad little to do with the drawing up of the agenda. A reading moreattentive to what the record says would rather suggest that it was the kingwho was making the decisions and issuing orders on matters clearly ofconsiderable personal concern.38

Elton also oered a convoluted argument concerning the Dispensa-tions Act.39 Cromwell drafted it; promoted it in the Commons before theking saw it; amended it at the kings instance by adding a clause delayingthe coming into force of the act; and then overbore Henry a week later.

The mess into which this very important bill got suggests strongly thatCromwell, in the Commons, was moving faster than the King foundhimself able to follow, an interpretation supported by the note for somevery drastic anti-papal legislation planned on the eve of the session but ofwhich nothing materialized.40

Here Elton is engaged in a doubtful attempt to reconcile conflicting andpatchy evidence relating to three distinct bills or acts: (a) a bill or billsabolishing Peters pence and papal dispensations; (b) a bill abolishing theauthority of the bishop of Rome, committed to Chancellor Audley; and

36 Statutes of the Realm, iii. 5424 (27 Henry VIII c. 11).37 Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 275.38 State Papers of Henry VIII, i. no. xx, pp. 41115; (LP VI, 1486 (79); Elton, Thomas Cromwell,pp. 399404; Tudor Revolution, pp. 3636; endorsed by J. A. Guy, The Privy Council: Revolutionor Evolution?, Revolution Reassessed, ed. C. Coleman and D. Starkey (Oxford, 1986), p. 71: bythen Cromwell had achieved control of the Councils agenda and minutes.39 Statutes of the Realm, iii. 4714 (25 Henry VIII c. 22).40 G. R. Elton, Reform and Renewal (Cambridge, 1972) [hereafter Elton, Reform and Renewal],p. 89.


594 ELTONS CROMWELL

(c) the Dispensations Act as finally passed. Eltons elaboration rests on aseries of guesses about origins and actions, which then produce a firmconclusion which leads to a re-reading of the whole story. All he saysabout the king being overborne is pure speculation. And what are Eltonsgrounds for claiming the Dispensations Act as Cromwells work? Itswhole tenor shows that it was. What exactly was the mess into whichthe bill fell? The bill was not to come into eect until the king confirmedit by letters patent, something Elton sees as that very belated after-thought, indicating discordant counsels within the government itself,namely Cromwells singlemindedness and Henrys preference forprocrastination: Cromwell, in the Commons, was moving faster thanthe King found himself able to follow.41 Yet that need not have been thecase. Perhaps Henry was still eager to have some leverage in bargainingwith the pope.42 Another explanation could be some opposition inparliament, which was contained by the oer of suspended implementa-tion, not seriously intended, but a useful ploy. Whatever the reason,royal letters patent were issued a week after the end of the session.43

Elton also uses the evidence of parliamentary legislation to make acase for Cromwell as social reformer: Cromwell manifestly stands at thecentre of whatever was being planned and done.44 Cromwell wasinvolved in the sheep bill of 1536, writing a letter to the king that Eltoncharacterized as quite uncommonly anxious, flamboyant and defer-ential.45 He corrected a petition about decayed towns.46 He probablyencouraged towns to seek acts to help rebuild ruinous houses (but nospecific evidence is cited: this rests on Eltons hunch).47 His memorandacontain notes for bills of parliament.48 He introduced a bill for theestablishment of a bourse in London, following Gresham, in 1539, asumptuary bill in 1532, and a woodlands bill in 1540.49 And there was, ofcourse, what is usually seen as Cromwells poor law.50 Eltons evidence,and speculations, make a good case for the involvement of a minister inthe preparation of parliamentary business, often in response to pressures,petitions, letters and, no doubt, the hard facts of problems. What Eltondoes not squarely consider is whether he was unusual and how novel themeasures of the 1530s were. How far did all this dier fromWolsey? Had

41 Ibid., pp. 89, 183.42 S. E. Lehmberg, The Reformation Parliament, 15291536 (Cambridge, 1970), p. 192; cf. thesuggestion that the power of delaying the implementation of the bill may have been intended toprovide bargaining-chips in some deal with the pope (D. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer (1996),pp. 11617).43 Elton, Reform and Renewal, pp. 879.44 Ibid., p. 9.45 Ibid., pp. 902, 1026; Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, ed. R. B. Merriman (2 vols.,Oxford, 1902), i. 373.46 Elton, Reform and Renewal, p. 107.47 Ibid., pp. 1089.48 Ibid., p. 115.49 Ibid., pp. 1201.50 Ibid., pp. 1226, for Eltons account.


G. W. BERNARD 595

not governments long attended to the problems of the common weal inthis way? How clear is the supposedly unique position of Cromwell in allthis activity?Discussing a paper entitled A memoriall for the Kings Highnes,

declaring the kynde of thingis wherein risith yerelye aswell his certeinReuenues as his Casuall Reuenues, and who be ocers to his highnes inthat behalf,51 Elton claims that the facts that Cromwell (a) drafted thelast paragraph, relating to the mint, and (b) in places added some notes(none of them very striking) show that he was responsible for having itdrawn up.52 That seems to run way ahead of the evidence. And HenryVIII may have been much more closely involved in the making of thepoor law in 1536 than Elton allowed. A letter by Thomas Dorset to themayor of Plymouth described how on Saturday [11 March] the kingesgrace came in amonge the burgesis of the parliament, and delyveredtheym a bille, asking them to examine it and weigh it in conscience, tosee yf it be for a comyn wele to his subjectis. He would come there againon the Wednesday to hear their minds. There shalbe a proviso made forpoore people, Dorset continued, sturdye beggaris . . . shalbe sett aworke at the kynges charge. Henry was clearly taking a leading part inthe parliamentary passage of what became the poor law. For Elton,Cromwell was in charge: he mobilized Henry VIII to help through acommonwealth measure. But would it not be more convincing to seeHenrys actions rather as strong evidence for his close involvement in themaking of the policy?53

In Eltons early work, Cromwell was seen as an essentially secularfigure. Later, most especially inReform and Renewal (1972) and inReformand Reformation (1977), Elton allowed Cromwell a religious dimension,seeing him as a proponent of evangelical reform, though still assertingthat to Cromwell, the reformed church was to serve the purposes of thereformed commonwealth, whereas more definitely religious minds wouldhave wished to reverse that order of priorities.54 Again Elton insisted onthe primacy of Cromwells role. Nearly always he [Cromwell] professedto be acting in the Kings name, though twice at least he wrote in his own,but that the drive for this extremely vigorous activity (unknown beforeand much reduced thereafter) came from the minister both thedocuments and the probabilities make plain. Cautiously, Elton notedthat one can speak with less assurance of the mind behind the developingpolicies, before going on boldly to proclaim that

there are general signs that in the four years or so from mid-1535Cromwell applied himself to the building of a new commonwealth . . .Changes in doctrine, changes in ceremonies, attacks on monasteries andpurgatory and superstitions, the promotion of the English Bible, positive

51 PRO, SP1/67 fos. 2931 and not 327 (LP V, 397); cf. Elton, Tudor Revolution, app. ii B.52 Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 160.53 BL Cotton MS, Cleopatra E v. fo. 110 (LP X, 462); Elton, Reform and Renewal, p. 123.54 Elton, Cromwell Redivivus, 378.


596 ELTONS CROMWELL

moves towards a better education for laity and clergy alike, the institutionof parish registers these and other manifestations of Cromwells relent-less reforming zeal brought real disturbance to the people at large.55

The story of the English Bible in the 1530s provides very clear proofthat, notwithstanding his careful professions of subservience, thevicegerent was quite capable of pushing on reforms not altogetherpleasing to the supreme head and of doing this by disguising the truth ofevents from his master.56 Here Elton was linking his interpretation withthat of A. G. Dickens,57 and this emphasis on Cromwell as religiousreformer has become fashionable.58The direct evidence for Cromwellsreligion, however, is surprisingly thin, and claims for his evangelism tendto circularity: since he is supposed to have been responsible for thepolicies pursued in the mid-1530s, then, given their evangelical nature, hemust have been evangelical; since he was an evangelical, and given thatthe policies pursued in the 1530s were evangelical, he must have been incharge. Moreover, Elton himself did not elaborate these claims inanything like the detail which he had earlier deployed to make the casefor Cromwells part in the break with Rome; instead, he essentiallyendorsed the vision of Cromwell as reformer that Dickens had putforward. For that reason this will simply be noted here.59 Despite Eltonsconfident claim that Cromwell . . . in four years eortlessly swept some800 monastic houses o the map of England,60 and his remark (in apassage in which his main concern was to prove Cromwells role in thesetting up of the court of augmentations) nor has it ever been suggestedthat he [Cromwell] was not responsible for the policy of confiscating themonastic lands,61 it is extraordinarily dicult to document Cromwellssupposed authorship of the dissolution of the monasteries. Elton oers aschematic picture of the evolution of Cromwells policy from

the erection of a principle (monastic seclusion is a false retreat from socialduty, and the wealth thus locked up should be employed for social reform,especially education), through the collection of statistical data (the ValorEcclesiasticus), to the first steps which tackled a manageable number ofinstitutions, the carrying through of the vast programme in a mere fouryears, and the solution of the many administrative problems raised.62

55 G. R. Elton, Policy and Police (Cambridge, 1972), p. 243; cf. Reform and Reformation, pp. 1712,293; Reform and Renewal, pp. 346; and Cromwell Redivivus, 1967.56 Elton, Reform and Reformation, p. 274.57 Dickens, English Reformation, esp. pp. 1345; and Thomas Cromwell, esp. pp. 17982.58 Cf. Cromwell showed an increasingly reformed outlook after Wolseys fall, and may havedecided that England was best served by a form of protestantism after the Act of Appeals (Guy,Tudor England, p. 178); Cromwell was an evangelical: a proto-protestant who gave covertsupport for protestantism (Guy, Henry VIII and his Ministers, 389).59 I oer a very dierent view of Henry VIII and of Cromwells religion in my article The Makingof Religious Policy 153246: Henry VIII and the Search for the Middle Way,Historical Journal, xli(1998), and I hope to deal with the question of Cromwells religion elsewhere.60 Elton, The English, p. 116.61 Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 212.62 Elton, Cromwell Redivivus, 199.


G. W. BERNARD 597

But no references are cited in support of such claims, so leaving vexedquestions unresolved. How far, for example, can the statute of 1536dissolving the smaller monasteries be taken to reflect Cromwellsopinions? Does Cromwells obvious involvement in the process ofdissolution in the later 1530s prove that he was the author of the policy?Or might Henry himself have been instrumental? He was, after all, a kingwho, in orders to his ambassador Sir Ralph Sadler in 1543, could advisethe earl of Arran, the governor of Scotland, to instruct commissionersmost secretly and groundely to examyn all the religious of thereconversacion and behavour . . . wherby if it be wel handeled [myemphasis] he shal get knowleage of all there abhomynacions. Theknowingly cynical tone of that advice hints at the kings earlier role inachieving in England thextirpation of the state of monkes and fryers,thenterprise wherof requireth politique handelyng.63

Elton, of course, made strong claims for Cromwell as author of arevolution in government, but those claims, always controversial, havenot worn well, and even those of Eltons pupils who have written onaspects of the 1530s closest to their masters interests have increasinglydissented from them.64 Much of what was done was simply obvious andnecessary, such as the administrative arrangements to deal with themonastic lands acquired by the crown. It is hard, pace Elton, to seeanything particularly creative or even especially distinctive aboutCromwells work (even Elton at one point concedes against the mainthrust of his arguments that it is doubtful whether there was anythingtotally new about any of the ideas that became operative in the 1530s).65

Cromwell looks increasingly unconvincing as a supposed advocate ofconstitutional government as against royal despotism, despite Eltonsinsistence that in the sixteenth century the possibility of a despotism wasdeliberately and with care demolished, and this too was the work ofThomas Cromwell.66 Cromwells supposed concept of a unitary state67

over-schematizes what were neither particularly original nor radicalapproaches to the perennial challenges of ruling Wales and Ireland,heightened by obvious fear of potential opposition to the break withRome. Moreover, such a formulation once again assumes that thesemeasures must have been Cromwells. Here it is interesting to note thatwhile Peter Roberts, a pupil of Elton, endorses the general view ofCromwell as the architect of the legislative programme for the extensionof the realm in the 1530s, when he turns to his own interest, Wales andthe Act of Union, he oers a dierent assessment: though the problem

63 Hamilton Papers, ed. J. Bain (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1890), no. 348, i. 499500 (LP XVIII, i. 364);cf. J. J. Scarisbrick, The Reformation and the English People (Oxford, 1984), p. 79.64 Cf. Revolution Reassessed, ed. C. Coleman and D. Starkey (Oxford, 1987).65 Elton, Cromwell Redivivus, 200 (Studies, iii. 384).66 Elton, The English, p. 131; contrast C. S. L. Davies, The Cromwellian Decade: Authority andConsent, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th ser., vii (1997), 17795.67 Elton, The English, p. 137; Elton, Cromwell Redivivus, 199200 (Studies, iii. 384).


598 ELTONS CROMWELL

of disorder in Wales appears regularly in Cromwells own memoranda inthese years, he was not responsible for devising the solution that waseventually adopted.68

What is perhaps most remarkable is Cromwells energy, his busy-ness,though the distinctiveness of even that may be an illusion created by thesurvival of more evidence relating to Cromwell than to other ministers.(It is worth remarking that one of the poet John Skeltons satires againstWolsey berated him precisely for being excessively, futilely busy: besy,besy, besy and besynes agayne,69 and that Sir Thomas Wyatts satire ofFrancis Bryan presented him as ever busy: to thee . . . that trots still upand down / And never rests, but running day and night / From realm torealm, from city, street, and town, like a pig in royal service.)70 It is bestto see Cromwell as the kings hard-working secretary, writing hisletters why keep a secretary and write letters yourself, as Wernhamwisely enquired many years ago in his review of The Tudor Revolution inGovernment71 sending out his instructions, dealing in a routineexecutive way with a mass of day-to-day concerns, contributing, nodoubt, to the working out of details, but in the end much less influentialthan he has been presented, and probably less independent in action thanWolsey had been. As Elton himself momentarily recognized, it may bethat Cromwell appears to dominate his age because his papers havesurvived, though he at once went on to say that the accident ofpreservation ought not to be ignored, but it must not be overstressed,and to claim that the record . . . cannot really be suspected of seriousdistortion when it sets the stamp of Cromwell on nearly everything donein these ten years [the 1530s].72

If Cromwell was not the author of the Reformation, no great socialreformer, and not the architect of a revolution in government, was henone the less still the leader of a court faction, as Elton hinted in hisearly paper on the fall of Cromwell, and as his pupil David Starkey hasextravagantly elaborated?73 Such an interpretation once again asserts thedominance of Cromwell and minimizes the part played by Henry, who isseen more as puppet than puppeteer. In making such claims, both Eltonand Starkey have tended to proceed by assuming the truth of theirfactional model of politics and then using it to rewrite the detailed

68 P. Roberts, The English Crown, the Principality of Wales and the Council in the Marches, 15341641, The British Problem c. 15341707, ed. B. Bradshaw and J. Morrill (1996), pp. 11847, atpp. 1212, 124.69 The Complete English Poems of John Skelton, ed. J. Scattergood (1983), p. 232, line 57; cf.G. Walker, John Skelton and the Politics of the 1520s (Cambridge, 1988), p. 69.70 Sir Thomas Wyatt: The Complete Poems, ed. R. A. Rebholz, (1977), no. cli, pp. 1923.71 Wernham, English Historical Review, lxxi (1956) 925, at 95.72 Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 5.73 Elton, Decline and Fall, 150, 185 (Studies, iii. 189, 229); Reform and Reformation, pp. 2504,28992; D. Starkey, Court and Government, Revolution Reassessed, ed. C. Coleman andD. Starkey, p. 57; D. Starkey, The Reign of Henry VIII: Personalities and Politics (1985), pp. 10523, 171 (index entry).


G. W. BERNARD 599

narrative of events. What is largely missing, however, is any consideredevaluation of the relationship between king and minister. Yet there isimportant and suggestive material on that question that Elton andStarkey have ignored or misinterpreted. And where much of what hasbeen discussed so far has necessarily involved a sceptical assessment ofEltons claims, here it is possible to oer definite evidence in support ofthe proposition that Cromwells role was in every sense that of asubordinate to the king.

II

Much may be gleaned from Cromwells language. In his many survivingletters (confiscated when he fell), Cromwell always refers to the kingswishes and orders: the kinges highnes desireth you . . . ; the kingeshighnes pleasure and commawndment is . . .; the kinges maieste whosegraciouse pleasure is . . ; his magestye hathe willid me to sygnyfie vntoyoue that his graciouse pleasur and commaundyment is . . . .74 Was thatmere form? Does this reflect just Cromwells care to seem always to beexecuting only Henrys will?75 Was Cromwell actually acting whollyindependently of the king, while referring to the king simply to coverhimself? But who would have been taken in? Is it conceivable thatCromwell should have acted in the form of a modern British governmentin which the prime minister and cabinet decide on bills which are firstannounced in the queens speech written on their instructions, thenpassed by parliament and finally enacted as the queens; or, moremodestly, that Cromwell should have acted like a protector ruling duringa royal minority? Are Cromwells letters referring to the kingscommands to be interpreted as really containing Cromwells commands?Was Elton correct in suggesting that even when writing on his ownCromwell would often pretend to be merely communicating ordersreceived from king and council,76 or that everything was ostensibly bythe kings pleasure, but in reality Henrys ministers had considerably [sic]latitude and discretion, provided they pretended to be authorized by hiswill?77 To prove that last assertion, Elton cites a letter from the councilof the north to Cromwell in 1540 that seems to show the opposite of whatElton claims. The members of the council were anxious becauseCromwell had informed them that the kings pleasure was that aproperty should go to a man he had named, even though Sir RichardRich had at the same time written to them that it was the kings pleasurethat it should go to someone else. They wanted to know what the kings

74 Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, ed. R. B. Merriman (2 vols., Oxford, 1902) [hereafter Lifeand Letters of Thomas Cromwell], ii. 2456, 689 (LP XV, 35, 90, 108; XII, ii. 457).75 Elton, Reform and Reformation, p. 172.76 Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 356.77 Ibid., p. 122.


600 ELTONS CROMWELL

pleasure really was. Clearly, they did not think that Cromwell orRich could have the decisive say.78 It is interesting that on receiving aletter from Cromwell in July 1537, the duke of Norfolk replied, my goodLord, to wright to you playnlie, as to myne especiall good Lord andfrend, surely I thinke ye wolde not haue wryton to me concernying thismatier as ye did, but that His Majestie was pryvey therunto.79 In July1536, when upbraiding Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester,Cromwell declared that I will not wade in any priuate matier in theking my soueraign lordes name vnles I haue his commaundement soo todoo.80 Later, after suche contencyous matier between them, Cromwellassured Gardiner that he had not writen more at any season vnto you inany matier thenne the kinges highnes hathe befor the sending of it furtheperused.81 Marillac, the French ambassador, wrote in April 1540 ce roycommence a faire des ministres, en rappellant a credit et authorite ceuxquil auoit rebutez, et en rabaissant ceux quil auoit eleuez: the stress isvery much on the king here. It was rumoured that Tunstal would succeedCromwell as vicar-general. But if Cromwell retained his credit andauthority it would be a cause quil est fort assidu es aaires, bien quilsoit grossier pour les manier, et quil ne fait chose quil ne communiquepremierment a son maistre: because Cromwell did nothing without firstconsulting the king his master.82 When in April 1539 Cromwell wrote toHenry that this daye I have writen your graces advises to yourseruauntes Christophor Mount and Thomas Paynell to be declared vntothe duke and Landsgrave as your highnes prescribed vnto me are we tosuppose that Henry had in fact not given his minister any instructionsand that Cromwell was simply pretending to the king to be followinginstructions that Henry had not actually given him?83

Scattered through his papers are notes that Cromwell regularly madeof things to do. Typically, they begin in a secretarys hand and end withadditions, often even greater in length, in Cromwells own writing.Cromwell cannot have made these notes for any purpose other than toserve as reminders for himself; they were not meant for anyone elseseyes, apart from his own and those of his secretaries. They may thereforebe regarded as especially revealing. A good deal of business is simplylisted. But, significantly, Cromwell often makes a note of the need toknow what the king wants done. Cromwell frequently writes to knowwhether the king will . . . or to know the kings pleasure or what theking will have done with . . . .84 Often this involved dealings with foreignpowers, whether Henrys ambassadors abroad, or foreign ambassadors

78 PRO, SP1/157, fo. 25 (LP XV, 36).79 State Papers of Henry VIII, v. 913, no. cccxxii (LP XII, i. 229).80 Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, ii. 20 (LP XI, 29).81 Ibid., ii. 136 (LP XIII, i. 832).82 G. Ribier, Lettres et Memoires destat, (2 vols., Paris, 1666), i. 513 (LP XV, 486).83 Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, ii. 21213 (LP XIV, i. 781).84 LP VI, 1056, 1194, 1370, 1381, 1382; VII, 48, 52, 143, 257, 263; VIII, 527, 892; IX, 498; XII,i. 1315; XII, ii. 192; XIII, i. 877; XIV, ii. 287, 427, 494, 5489; XV, 322, 438.


G. W. BERNARD 601

in England. For knowleage of the kinges pleasur in the pointes to betreated of with thambassadors;85 to speke with the kyng touching theduke of Bavyers ambasyador for his dispache and what shalbe the eectof the kynges lettres that his highnes wyll wryte, and what gyftes hewyll gyue hym;86 what answer the kyng wyll gyue to the duke ofLunnenborges messenger and Doctor Adam;87 to remembre to knowewhat reward the kynges highness will gyue the Lubek;88 to knowe thekinges pleasure whenne the Lubikes shall repayre to his grace;89 whatthe kyng myndyth for sendyng into Germanye;90 to know whom theking will appoynt to go with Doctor Lee to Lubek;91 to know hisplesure whether he wyll wrytt any thing to Sir John Wallop.92 WhenStephen Vaughan and Christopher Mont were negotiating with the dukeof Saxony in the autumn of 1533 (not especially fruitfully since the dukewas reluctant to add to his quarrel with Charles V by taking on Henryscause as well), Cromwell noted: to know the kynges plesure whetherVaughan shall goo forward or return. In the same set of remembranceshe noted: To declare Cristopher [Monts] and Stephyns Vaughans lettresand to know answer.93 That would appear to dispose of any claim that itwas Cromwell who was masterminding a German alliance: Henrysattitude would appear to be crucial and Cromwell emerges as theexecutor of the kings wishes. Strategic decisions were the kings: whatorder the kinges highnes will take if the Scottes do not sue for peax afterthis treux and abstinence of warre and what promysions shalbe made inthat behalf by cause the treux lakith but a yere.94

State trials evidently required the kings decisions. Several remem-brances refer to Elizabeth Barton, the nun of Kent. To know what theking will haue done with the None and her complyces;95 what shalbethe kynges plesure for sendyng the Nun to Canterberye and whether sheshall return;96 what the kynges highnes wooll haue done with them thatshall go to Canterburye to do penaunce;97 to knowe whether the kyngwyll haue all the rest of the monkes and frers [involved with the nun ofKent] sent for, to know what way the kyng wyll take with all the saydmalefactors;98 that all the other monkes of Cristes churche may be sentfor also with conuenyent diligens and to knowe the kynges pleasure

85 PRO, SP1/122, fo. 185 (LP XII, ii. 192).86 BL Cotton MS, Titus B I, fo. 448v (LP VI, 1370).87 Ibid., fo. 415v (LP VIII, 475).88 Ibid., fo. 459v (LP VII, 108).89 Ibid., fo. 413 (LP VII, 1436 (2)).90 Ibid., fo. 415v (LP VIII, 475).91 Ibid., fo. 420v (LP VII, 48 (2)).92 Ibid., fo. 460 (LP VII, 108).93 Ibid., fo. 449 (LP VI, 1370).94 Ibid., fos. 446v and 478v.95 Ibid., fo. 422 (LP VII, 52).96 Ibid., fo. 462 (LP VI, 1382).97 Ibid., fo. 461v (LP VI, 1382).98 Ibid., fo. 448v (LP VI, 1370).


602 ELTONS CROMWELL

therein;99 to know the kinges pleasure whether all they which haue beneprevey vnto the nonnes boke shalbe sent for or not; whether the kingwill haue my lord of Rochestor send for not [sic].100

In 1535 Cromwells notes, in a set of remembrances at my next goyngto the courte, included the following: to aduertise the kyng of theorderyng of Maister Fissher; to knowe his pleasure touchyng MaisterMore and to declare the opynyon of the judges; whether MaisterFissher shall go to execucion, with also the other; when shalbe donefarther touching Maister More.101 Other remembrances also dealt withopposition: what the king wyll haue done at the Charterhouse ofLondon and Rychmonde;102 to knowe the kinges pleasure touching theLord Mordant and suche other as Frere Forest named for his principalfriendes;103 for the dyettes of yong Courteney and Pole and also of thecountes of Sarum and to know the kinges pleasur therin;104 what thekyng wyll haye done with the lady of Sares [Margaret, countess ofSalisbury];105 what the kynges highnes will haue feder don with the lateabbott of Westminster.106 The remembrances included religious matters:first touching the anabaptistes and what the king will do with them;107

to know the kynges plesure for Tyndalle, and whether I shall wryt ornot;108 for the convocation of the clergy and what shalbe the kyngespleasure therin.109 More general policy questions and practical decisionsalso occur: to know the kinges pleasure for my lorde of Kyldare and mylorde of Osserooyde and for the determynation of the mattiers ofIrelande;110 to declare the matiers of Irland matters to the kingeshighnes and to devise what shalbe done there;111 to knowe the kingespleasure touching a general pardon;112 to know what the kingis pleasureshalbe for suche persons as be outlawed in all shires of this realme andwhat processe shalbe made agenst them;113 to knowe the kingespleasure when he will haue musters of his gonners and also to knowwhether he will have any of my men and when he will see them;114

generall musters to be made thorow the realme yf so shall stand with thekynges plessure.115

99 Ibid., fos. 446v and 478v.100 Ibid., fos. 447 and 479.101 Ibid., fos. 4745 (LP VIII, 892).102 Ibid., fo. 415v (LP VIII, 475).103 Ibid., fo. 405 (LP XIII, i. 877).104 PRO, SP1/153, fo. 171 (LP XIV, ii. 287).105 BL Cotton MS, Titus B I, fo. 439v.106 Ibid., fo. 427v (LP XV, 322).107 Ibid., fo. 415 (LP VIII, 475).108 PRO, E36/143, fo. 69 (LP IX, 498).109 BL Cotton MS, Titus B I, fo. 429.110 PRO, SP1/82, fo. 113 (LP VII, 107).111 BL Cotton MS, Titus B I, fo. 475 (LP VIII, 892).112 Ibid., fo. 450 (LP XII, i. 1315).113 Ibid., fos. 446v and 478v.114 Ibid., fo. 476 (LP XV, 438).115 Ibid., fo. 464v (LP VII, 420).


G. W. BERNARD 603

It is dicult to see why Cromwell should have made such essentiallyprivate notes for his own use in this form if he were in eect makingdecisions and ruling the country himself. There would have been no needto remind himself to learn the kings pleasure if he was not in actual factdoing so. These remembrances strongly suggest that the minister did notact without knowing what the king wanted. They show that the king wasvery much in command, that Cromwell referred constantly to him on anyquestions that needed judgement. Henry was asked to decide who shouldgo abroad and when, to say at what moment ambassadors should bebrought to see him, and to determine what answers should be made toletters, messages and requests from abroad. Henry was asked forinstructions on how the principal opponents of the kings policies thenun of Kent, More, Fisher should be dealt with. The strong impressionis of a minister doing the daily executive work of government, drawinghis masters attention to the need to fill vacant posts, but asking the kingfor guidance on how to act in all issues of importance. There is no sensewhatsoever here of a minister acting on his own initiative, or manipulat-ing his master, or making substantial suggestions to the king, or trying totemper the kings proposals.Elton, of course, draws on these remembrances in places, but he does

not consider what they might reveal when analysed together as a genre.And his detailed readings are open to challenge. He treats a long list ofmatters to be reported to the king, including the despatch of money toIreland, the delivery of 300 to Mr Gonson (clerk of the ships), thepreparation of 1,000 for building at Calais, the making ready of asimilar sum for the making of the haven at Dover, as evidence thatproves the closest personal attention to every detail involved in the oceof a treasurer such as Cromwell was. But that argument cuts both ways.If such lists are evidence of close personal attention to every detail, andif such lists are matters to be reported to the king, does not that suggestthat the king far from being a lazy king was maintaining a detailedoversight of the administration of his government? Was not Wernhamcorrect to urge that Cromwells submitting a whole string of quite minordetails to the king . . . powerfully suggest[s] that it was the minister andnot Henry who did as he was told?116

Other sources rather confirm the impression of the king in control. In asummary of council decisions taken on 2 December 1533, alongside item14, which deals with a league and amity with German princes, is writtenthe phrase, in the kynges arbytrement; alongside item 15 (like practise

116 Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 153, citing BL Cotton MS, Titus B I, fo. 433 (LP VIII, 527) (BLTitus B I, fo. 425 is another copy, and there is also a second summary in LP XIV, ii. 399); TudorRevolution, p. 211 for lazy king; Wernham, English Historical Review, lxxi (1956), 925; cf. S. Jack,Henry VIIIs Attitude towards Royal Finance: Penny Wise and Pound Foolish, Francois I etHenry VIII. Deux Princes de la Renaissance (15151547), ed. C. Giry-Deloison (Lille, 1996),pp. 14563: Henry . . . was in many ways his fathers son with a shrewd appreciation of the value ofmoney, attempting to keep personal, private control of his finances (pp. 148, 163).


604 ELTONS CROMWELL

to be made and practiced with the cytees of Lubeke, Danske, Hamburgh,Bromeswyke and other Hanse towns) is written the instruction, toknow when of the kyng.117 That would reinforce the claim that it wasHenry who took decisions. Sometimes Cromwell reveals a little more ofhow things happened. In August 1535 he received a packet of letters fromWallop, the kings ambassador in France,

which indelayedlie I delyuered vnto the kinges highnes and conferred withhis grace theectes both of your lettres and all others within the saidepacket being directed aswell to his highnes as to me. And after his highneshad with me pervsed the hole contentes thoroughlie of your saide lettres,. . . ye shall vnderstonde that his highnes commaundid me to make youanswer in this wise folowing . . .

and there followed much detailed instruction.118 It points to a closeworking relationship between king and minister, but one in which theking not only took a detailed interest in policy, especially in diplomacy,but told his minister what to say; Cromwell then set out his masterspleasure and instructions. In February 1539 Cromwell wrote to the kinghow Castillon, the French ambassador, who had just received lettersfrom Francis I responding to proposals made by Henry, would not tellCromwell what they said until he had first informed Henry: as touchingthe declaration of the special poinctes he shewed hymself so loth todeclare them to me afore he had exposed them to your maieste that Icould not conveniently with honeste presse hym of thesame.119 In 1540Cromwell testified how Anne of Cleves often desired to speak with him,but that he had not dared until Henry allowed him to.120 Praising thekings presiding at the trial of the sacramentary John Lambert, Cromwellwished

the princes and potentates of Christendom to have a meate place for themthere to have seen it vndoubtedly they shuld have moch merveilled at hismaiestes most highe wisedome and jugement and reputed hym nonotherwise after thesame then in maner the Miroer and light of all otherkinges and princes in christendom.121

Should Cromwells awed admiration be seen as disingenuous? FromCromwells supposed control of the signet, Elton argues that its useenabled Cromwell to control the kings correspondence, and this controlwas increased by the regular employment of signet clerks to draftHenrys letters which quite possibly he never saw until they were sub-mitted ready for his signature.122 How can one be so sure that thecontents of such letters were unknown to the king: is it not far more

117 State Papers, i. no. xx, pp. 41415 (LP VI, 1487).118 Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, ii. 416 (LP IX, 157).119 Ibid., ii. 176 (LP XIV, i. 227).120 Ibid., ii. 266 (LP XV, 776).121 Ibid., ii. 162 (LP XIII, ii. 924).122 Elton, Thomas Cromwell, p. 315.


G. W. BERNARD 605

likely that they were written according to his instructions? In April 1540Thomas Wyatt wrote to Cromwell from the emperors court at Ghent.Cromwell passed on the letter not just some summary of it withobvious possibilities for doctoring to the king. As Sadler informedCromwell,

the Kinges Majestie hath seen these letters of Mr Wyates; the advertise-ments wherein His Grace liketh well. After the reding of the same, HisMajestie commaunded me to remytte, and sende them agayn to yourLordeship; sayeng that, forasmoche as theye were directed to you, it isbest that they be answered by you,

giving detailed instructions on what answers should be made to Wyatt:

these answers to be made to Mr Wyat by your Lordeshippes properletters; prayeng you, nevertheless, after your Lordship hathe conceyvedthe same, to send the mynute therof to his Highnes, before the post bedepeched, to thintent that His Majeste (if it be not according to hismynde) may alter and refourme the same, as shall stonde with hisgracious pleasure.123

Cromwell duly acknowledged these instructions, while oering somedierent suggestions on whether Wyatt should accompany Ferdinand deSan Severino, Prince of Salerno, or return later; though it seems that theycame together, contrary to Cromwells preferences.124 The impressionSadler leaves of a dominant king is unmistakable: the minister is orderedto draw up the letter, given detailed instructions on what to say, andrequired to show the draft to the king for final amendment. Occasionallythere are further glimpses into the relationship between king andminister. When the French ambassador, Castillon, complained to theking about his treatment by Cromwell, who was so pro-imperial thatCastillon thought he was at the court of the emperor, not that of the kingof England, Henry a chante une chanson a mon milord Prive seel, disantquil estoit bon pour le mesnaige, mais non pour entremettre des aairesdes roys; et nen a pas fait moins a troys ou quatre dudict conseil. Stagedno doubt, yet revealing about the superiority of king to servant.125

George Paulet, a commissioner in Ireland, brother of William, wasalleged to have said of Cromwell how

the king beknaveth him twice a weke, and sometyme knocke him wellabout the pate; and yet when he hathe bene well pomeld about the hedde,and shaken up, as it were a dogge, he will come out into the greatchambre, shaking of the bushe with as mery a countenaunce as thoughehe mought rule all the roste.126

123 State Papers of Henry VIII, i, no. cxxxiv, pp. 6245 (LP XV, 468).124 Ibid., no. cxxxv, pp. 6257 (LP XV, 469); LP XV, 566.125 Correspondance politique de MM de Castillon et de Marillac, ed. J. Kaulek (Paris, 1885), p. 50(LP XIII, i. 995).126 Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, i. 153; State Papers of Henry VIII, iii. 5512.


606 ELTONS CROMWELL

That makes Cromwell very much the kings slave. Under arrest in1540, Cromwell wrote to Henry that if it were in my power to make youlive for ever, God knows I would; or to make you so rich that you shouldenrich all men, or so powerful that all the world should obey you. Foryour majesty has been most bountiful to me, and more like a father thana master.127 The stricken Cromwells appeal to Henry, I crye for mercyemercye mercye, is hard to read as anything other than the desperate andabject plea of a fallen servant to his tyrannical lord,128 and would havebeen the more pointless if Cromwell had thought the king to be a weakman now controlled by a rival faction. Cranmers letter to Henry, onCromwells arrest, if it can be trusted (since what we have are extractsfrom a lost original quoted by Herbert of Cherbury), reinforces the senseof Cromwell as the servant of a tyrannical master, rather than themanipulator of a puppet. Cranmer was sorrowful and amazed thatCromwell should be a traitor:

he that was so advanced by your majesty; he whose surety was only byyour majesty; he who loved your majesty (as I ever thought) no less thanGod; he who studied always to set forwards whatsoever was yourmajestys will and pleasure; he that cared for no mans displeasure toserve your majesty; he that was such a servant, in my judgment, inwisdom, diligence, faithfulness, and experience, as no prince in this realmever had . . . if the noble princes of memory, king John, Henry the Second,and Richard II had had such a councillor about them, I suppose that theyshould never have been so traitorously abandoned and overthrown asthose good princes were . . . I chiefly loved him for the love which Ithought I saw him bear towards your grace, singularly above all other.129

For Elton, that merely shows that Cromwell was always careful toappear as the kings servant;130 but it would be more convincing toconclude rather that Cranmers description of Cromwell as studyingalways to set forwards whatsoever was Henrys pleasure was as shrewd asit was succinct.

127 LP XV, 776.128 Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, ii. 26473 (LP XV, 776, 823).129 Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, ed. J. E. Cox (Parker Society, 1846), p. 40 (LP XV,770). It is worth remarking in passing that John, Henry II and Richard II were curious models ofgood kingship for Cranmer to choose and, by implication, to see Henry VIII as admiring.130 Elton, Tudor Revolution, p. 354.


G. W. BERNARD 607