by S B Chrimes
1 4 Henry VII, c. 8; S.R., II, 533.
2 4 Henry VII, c. 9; S.R., II, 534.
3 19 Henry VII, c. 2; S.R., II, 649.
4 7 Henry VII, c. 3; S.R., II, 551.
5 11 Henry VII, c. 4; S.R., II, 570.
6 12 Henry VII, c. 5; S.R., II, 637.
7 3 Henry VII, c. 6; S.R., II, 515. This act had, however, been preceded by a proclamation against unlicensed exchanges. Hughes and Larkin, op. cit. 11–12, No. 10, c. June 1486. ‘Chevisaunce’ means a loan by which profit was obtained.
8 11 Henry VII, c. 8; S.R., II, 514.
1 1 Henry VII, c. 2; S.R., II, 501.
2 19 Henry VII, c. 8; S.R., II, 653. ‘Scavage’ was a toll leviable by town authorities on merchant strangers on their goods offered for sale within the precincts.
3 19 Henry VII, c. 23; S.R., II, 665. See below, p. 235.
4 19 Henry VII, c. 27; S.R., II, 667. For the preservation of Calais and the Staple and the payment of the wages of the captain and soldiers of Calais, etc., a grant was to be made to the mayor and fellowship of the Staple of customs duties on wool payable there for sixteen years, in return for which they were to pay £10,000-odd to the treasurer of Calais for these purposes. A convoy for staplers’ ships was to be provided by the king. cf. the agreement made by Edward IV, in 1473 (R.P., VI, 55–61).
5 4 Henry VII, c. 18; S.R., II, 541.
6 19 Henry VII, c. 5; S.R., II, 650. On this subject, see below, p. 224.
7 11 Henry VII, c. 2, repealed by 12 Henry VII, c. 3.
8 4 Henry VII, c. 16; S.R., II, 540. cf. Joan Thirsk, The agrarian history of England and Wales, IV (1967), ch. IV: ‘Enclosing and engrossing’, 200–55.
9 4 Henry VII, c. 19; S.R., II, 542.
1 Thirsk, op. cit. 214.
2 S.R., II, 569. cf. P. Ramsey, op. cit. 156.
3 S.R., II, 656.
4 C.P.R., I, 28. The year 1486 at the top of this page is a mistake for 1485. Materials, I, 105.
5 C.P.R., I, 49–53; Materials, I, 107.
6 45 ryals, 671/2 angels, and 135 anglets, were to equal 1 lb of weight of the Tower in gold. Of the silver coins, there were to be 1121/2 groats, 225 half-groats, 450 pennies, 900 halfpennies, and 1,800 farthings to the pound weight of silver.
7 C.P.R., I, 319; G. C. Brooke, English coins (3rd ed. 1950), 169. See pl. 10.
1 G. C. Brooke, op. cit. 162 ff; L. A. Lawrence, On the coinage of Henry VII’, Numismatic Chronicle, 4th ser. XVIII (1918), 205–61; W. J. W. Potter and E. J. Winstanley, ‘Coinage of Henry VII’, B.N. J., XXX (1960–1), 262 ff.
2 P. Grierson, ‘The origins of the English sovereign and the symbolism of the closed crown’, B.N.J., XXXIII (1964), 118–34. The letter from Cuthbert Tunstall to Henry VIII, dated 12 February 1517, cited, ibid. 133, from H. Ellis, Original letters, 1st ser. I, 136, contained the striking assertion, ‘But the Crown of England is an Empire of hitself, mych bettyr than now the Empire of Rome: for which cause your Grace werith a close crown’ (cited, ibid. 124).
1 S.R., II, 650; and Hughes and Larkin, op. cit. I, 60–1, No. 54, wherein a facsimile of an impressive contemporary print of the proclamation is provided.
2 ibid. 26–7, No. 25 (1491); 41–2, No. 38 (1497); 47–8, No. 43 (1499); 48–9, No. 44 (1499).
3 ibid. 42, No. 39 (1498); and III, 263, No. 207 (1490).
4 ibid. I, 47, No. 42 (1498).
5 ibid. 70–4, No. 57.
6 P. Ramsey, ‘Overseas trade in the reign of Henry VII: the evidence of the Customs accounts’, Econ.H.R., 2nd ser. VI (1953–4), 178.
7 For what follows, see C. F. Richmond, ‘English naval power in the fifteenth century’, History, LII (1967), 1–15. Fuller details are provided by C. S. Goldingham, ‘The navy under Henry VII’, E.H.R., XXXIII (1918), 472–88.
1 Richmond, op. cit. 14–15; Goldingham, op. cit. 475, 480. Valuable documentation in Naval accounts and inventories of the reign of Henry VII, ed. M. Oppenheim, Navy Records Soc., VIII (1896).
2 Wernham, op. cit. 62
3 D. Burwash, English merchant shipping, 1460–1540 (1947, repr. 1969), 155; S. V. Scammell, ‘Ship owning in England, c. 1450–1550’, T.R.H.S., 5th ser. 12 (1962), 105–22.
4 There were precedents for such royal bounties from 1449. The scale was 5s a ton but only for large ships; the required tonnage was not specified, but vessels over 80 tons would be deemed in that category. Bounties were also given for the purchase of foreign ships. Goldingham, op. cit. 475–6.
5 See above, p. 220.
6 See below, p. 232.
7 P. Ramsey, loc. cit. 178–9, and tables, 181. 53 per cent of the exports were by denizens, 24 per cent by Hansards, and 23 per cent by other aliens.
1 P. Ramsey, ibid. The value of alien goods paying petty customs rose from £50,849 in 1485–6 to £108,109 in 1508–9, of those paying poundage from £116,780 to, £252,967, and the tunnage of non-sweet wine imported rose from £5,151 to £10,259.
2 E. M. Carus-Wilson and Olive Coleman, England’s export trade 1275–1547 (1963); graphs, (wool) 123, (cloth) 139; tables 68–70, and 109–13.
3 J. A. Williamson, The Cabot voyages and Bristol discovery under Henry VII, Hakluyt Soc., 2nd ser. CXX (1962), recounts the story very thoroughly, with full documentation. Brief allusions are made in J. H. Parry, The age of reconnaissance (1963); and B. Penrose, Travel and discovery in the Renaissance, 1420–1620 (1963).
4 Williamson, op. cit. 170.
5 ibid. 19–43.
6 ibid. 49–50; printed in full, 203–5.
1 Imports brought back were to go to Bristol only, and the grantees were to be exempt from customs (in practice, for foreigners 3d in the £1) but the subsidy of tunnage and poundage was not remitted, ibid. 53.
2 ibid. 54–64; and doc. No. 26.
3 ibid. 86; and doc. No. 27.
4 ibid. 85–6.
1 Williamson, 88–91; and doc. No. 35.
2 ibid. 101–3.
3 ibid. 116–44; and docs. 43, 45, 46, 47, 49.
4 ibid. 145–72.
5 For details of this story, see G. Schanz, op. cit. I, 327–51.
6 G. F. Ward, ‘The Early History of the merchants Staplers’, E.H.R., XXXIII (1918), 297.
1 Cambridge economic history of Europe, III (1963), ch. VI, E. Miller, ‘Economic policies of governments’, 337.
2 ibid. 471.
3 See generally, E. M. Carus-Wilson, ‘The origins and early development of the Merchant Adventurers’ organization’, Econ.H.R., IV (1933), repr., Mediaeval Merchant Venturers (1954, 2nd ed. 1967), 143–82.
4 See above, p. 221.
1 C.P.R., II, 388–9. An impressive list of the councillors present is given.
2 ibid. 445.
3 Wernham, op. cit. 62. What follows is much indebted to ch. 5, ‘Sea Power and Trade 1485–1509’, 62–76.
4 ibid. 62.
5 ibid. 67.
6 Proclamation dated 18 September 1493, Hughes and Larkin, op. cit. 35, No. 31.
7 ibid. 37, No. 33. Proclamation dated 28 February 1496.
1 Henry VII, ed. Lumby, 146. ‘This is that treaty which the Flemings call at this day intercursus magnus; both because it is more complete than the precedent treaties of the third and fourth year of the king; and chiefly to give it a difference from the treaty which followed in the one and twentieth year of the king, which they call intercursus malus.’ The two earlier agreements referred to are presumably those resulting in the proclamations of 4 April 1489, and 17 November 1489; Hughes and Larkin, op. cit. 24–6, No. 24. But a treaty with the Netherlands, prolonging the treaty of 1478, had been made in January 1487. Foedera, XII, 320, repr., Pollard, Henry VII, II, 282–5.
2 Foedera, XII, 578–88; repr. with some corrections in Pollard, op. cit. 285–309.
3 L. & P., II, 69–72; Pollard, op. cit. 309–11.
4 ibid. 309.
5 Foedera, XII, 654–7.
6 ibid. 713–20.
1 L. & P., I, 327–36, letter of Henry VII to Margaret of Savoy, May 1502.
&n
bsp; 2 ibid.
3 Foedera, XIII, 105; Venetian Calendar, I, No. 846.
4 Foedera, XIII, 132–42, summarized in Pollard, op. cit. 322–3. I cannot see myself that the Intercursus Magnus conceded freedom of wholesale trade, whilst the Intercursus Malus included retail trade as well. Wernham, op. cit. 68–70. The distinction is hard to identify in either text.
5 L. & P., I, 327–31.
6 Foedera, XIII, 168, summarized in Pollard, op. cit. 324.
7 Busch, op. cit. 197–8.
1 ibid. 71–4, 152–6; Wernham, op. cit. 64, 71–3.
2 Foedera, XI, 793–803.
3 Materials, I, 115–16. See Busch, op. cit. 73.
1 19 Henry VII, c. 23; S.R., II, 665; extract in Pollard, op. cit. 272–3.
2 Busch, op. cit. 179–80; Wernham, op. cit. 73. Henry’s subsequent unscrupulous use of the proviso in the act of 1504 to re-exact the higher duties from the Hansards on the grounds that preferential rates were prejudicial to the privileges of London, and his seizure in 1508 of the £20,000 pledge by the Hansards not to trade with the Netherlands during the suspension of trade in 1493, on the ground that they did so trade during the suspension of 1505, were no more than acts of chicanery. For details, see Busch, op. cit. 180, and 367, n. 8.
3 Wernham, op. cit. 72–3, proclamation 15 April 1490; Hughes and Larkin, op. cit. I, 22–3, No. 21. The thrusting commercial enterprise of the English fishermen in Iceland, however, evoked complaint from the king of Denmark, and Henry VII was obliged to forbid them from carrying to Iceland more goods than they required for their own use. Paston letters, ed. Gairdner, III, 367–9, No. 922, Henry VII to the earl of Oxford, admiral of England, 6 April 1491, cited (with incorrect reference), E. M. Carus-Wilson, Mediaeval Merchant Venturers, 127.
1 Foedera, XII, 700; extract in Pollard, op. cit. II, 311–13.
2 Foedera, XIII, 120; extract in Pollard, op. cit. II, 315–22; cf. Busch, op. cit. 181, 185, 370, n. 12.
3 Foedera, XII, 303–12, 315–16.
4 ibid. 277, 278–9, 281–2.
5 Foedera, XII, 505, proclamation, 12 December 1492; Hughes and Larkin, op. cit. 31, No. 29.
6 Proclamation, 23 August 1498; ibid. 43–5, No. 40; Foedera, XII, 683 ff.
7 Foedera, XII, 351, 378–9.
8 ibid. XI, 569–72 (Castile), 3; 1486, 633–5 (Aragon).
1 Cal. S.P. Spanish, I, 21; text of execution of the treaty, Foedera, XII, 420–8.
2 Cal. S.P. Spanish, I, 244; summary in Pollard, op. cit. II, 313–15.
3 Wernham, op. cit. 64–5, 74–6.
4 7 Henry VII, c. 7; S.R., I, 553.
1 For full details, see M. E. Mullet, ‘Anglo-Florentine commercial relations, 1465–1491’, Econ.H.R., 2nd ser. XV (1962), 250–65.
Chapter 13
RELATIONS WITH THE CHURCH
Henry VIP’s relations with the papacy and the Church were in no way remarkable. He was himself conventionally orthodox and pious in his religious observances and he made many notable contributions to the building of churches and religious houses.1 His policy towards the Church followed closely precedents that had been set in the time of Edward IV. There were no new departures of much significance in his attitudes. He allowed occasional influence to his mother Margaret Beaufort in making a few of his many appointments to the episcopate;2 he appointed several foreigners, for diplomatic reasons;3 he assented to a few acts of parliament which, in a very modest way, further defined and slightly curtailed one or two ecclesiastical privileges.4 But he kept a firm control over episcopal appointments, and at the same time remained on amicable terms with the papacy, with which he normally acted in agreement. He was glad of papal support, especially in the earlier years of his reign. The three successive popes, Innocent VIII (1484–92), Alexander VI (1492–1503), and Julius II (1503–13), with whom he had to deal, had no desire to antagonize the English king, whose neutrality or support they sooner or later wanted to cultivate in their efforts to resist French or Spanish aggressions in Italy. Henry VII was therefore, whilst accepting marks of papal favour and support, able to get his own way without overt friction; and being orthodox and at least outwardly pious, he acquiesced in the persecution of heretics in accordance with the existing law.5 About seventy-three persons are known to have been put on trial for heresy during the reign. Nearly all these abjured, but probably three were burnt. The king did not, of course, have any option in such acquiescence and doubtless had no wish but to acquiesce. He is said to have gained great honour by his successful exhortation to a priest condemned as a heretic at Canterbury in 1498, whom he converted from his erroneous opinions so that ‘he died as a Christian’. There were no religious innovations whilst he remained on the throne. ‘The advent of the Tudor dynasty formed no landmark; the reign of Henry VII was far from presaging major crises in Anglo-papal or Church-State relations.’1 Professor Dickens also assures us, ‘the advent of the first Tudor sovereign marked no epoch in the history of the religious orders in England’, and that ‘neither the policy of the king nor the external events of his reign affected in any direct way the fortunes of the monasteries’.
No dispute between the king and the papacy arose. After Bosworth, Henry was prudent enough to declare his obedience, and Innocent VIII quickly reciprocated by providing the necessary dispensation for Henry’s marriage with Elizabeth of York and pronouncing that their children would be legitimate, and at the same time obliged by declaring that rebels, including those in Ireland, were ipso facto excommunicate.2 No difficulties were made about Morton’s promotion to the archbishopric nor eventual cardinalate. The alliance between Henry and Morton in Church matters was supported by the Curia; papal assistance was forthcoming in various minor matters; privileges were given to the chapels royal at Windsor and Westminster. Henry could allow the pope’s jubilee indulgence to be preached in 1501 and permit £4,000 to be contributed to a crusading levy. He could take over the English Hospice in Rome, hitherto an indépendant lodging for pilgrims, which for a time became a part of the royal administration, accommodating men of rank. In time the papacy could present honours to Henry three times in the form of the Cap and Sword and the Golden Rose.3 Above all, mutual agreement between the king and the papacy eliminated the cathedral chapters from any active part in the election of bishops throughout the reign. So sure was he of getting his nominees appointed that it became common practice to grant the temporalities before translation or consecration.
Only three of the bishops in post at the time of Bosworth were sufficiently identified with Richard III’s regime to be excluded from summons to Henry VH’s first parliament, but two of these were soon received back into favour, and of these one, Thomas Langton, was advanced very highly in due course.4 According to Richard III, Henry had started promising preferment to some of his followers long before his expedition set out,1 and certainly he determined both to control and manipulate elections to the episcopal bench primarily in the interests of himself and his government. Circumstances placed many opportunities in his hands for making such appointments. By April 1509 all the bishops elected before 1485 were dead or had resigned, except one.2 Thirty-six bishops died during the reign, but Henry’s manipulations frequently produced one or two vacancies in addition to the see vacated by death or resignation. Thus when Archbishop Bourchier died in 1486, Morton was translated from Ely to Canterbury Alcock from Worcester to Ely, and Robert Morton (John’s nephew) to Worcester. When John Morton died in 1500, similar situations occurred; Deane was translated from Salisbury to Canterbury, Audley from Hereford to Salisbury, and Castello appointed to Hereford. Such manipulations had not occurred to Edward IV, but Henry VII doubtless saw the financial advantages of multiplying vacancies for short periods, whilst promoting several faithful civil servants or supporters at a time.3
Otherwise his policy was fundamentally the same as Edward IV’s. A high proportion of the bishops at the time of Henry’s death in April 1509 had been legally trained civil servants.4 Nine others were lawyers by training, and only four
can be described as theologians. Two Italians had been successively appointed to Worcester,5 on the strength of their services as diplomatie agents at the Curia, and another, Adrian de Castello, who had been appointed to Hereford in 1502 and then translated to Bath and Wells in 1504. A fourth foreigner, Michael Deacon, a native of Normandy, whose main recommendation apparently was that he had made acquaintance with Henry when he was in exile, was appointed to St Asaph. In Wales only three Welshmen were nominated to sees, and of these nominations one took effect only after Henry’s death.1 Henry VII could therefore rely very thoroughly on the loyalty of the bishops, all the more, no doubt, because a number of them were required to enter into recognizances with him.2 It was not to be expected that any strong resistance would come from the bench when later on Henry VIII adopted different ecclesiastical policies. By then the tradition of close alliance between the episcopate and the Crown was firmly entrenched.
The legislation of Henry VII’s reign relating to ecclesiastical matters was of rather minor importance.3 The first parliament passed a statute authorizing bishops and their ordinaries to punish by imprisonment or otherwise at discretion priests, clerks, and religious convicted by canon law of adultery, fornication, incest, or any other fleshly incontinency.4 A statute of the fourth year declared void letters patent granted in the past to abbots, priors, and certain other ecclesiastical officials to be quit of collecting tenths,5 whilst an act of the seventh year limited letters patent exempting abbots and priors from contributions to tenths and fifteenths to the beginning of the reign of Edward IV.6 The most important act sought to curtail abuse of benefit of clergy. Benefit of ecclesiastical rather than secular penalties was to be allowable once only to persons not actually in orders. Clerics convicted of murder were to be branded with an ‘M’ on their left thumb, or with a ‘T’ for any other felony, before being delivered to the ordinary. Any person brought to trial a second time was not to have benefit of clergy if he failed to bring certification of his orders on the appointed day.7