WOLSEYS DOMESTIC POLICIES: AN OVERVIEW

WOLSEYS POLICIES EVIDENCE? SUCCESS OR FAILURE?

CHURCH Wolsey papal legate
Wolsey weakened Church
Tried to centralise Church affairs
Did defend the Church on occasion
Bad personal record
Shortly after Ws death H =
Head of C of E
Churchen orders fro the
Crown! "ndependence reduced
Defended clerical pri#ilege
W did not #isit dioceses
Ws huge wealth contradicted
$esus life
%#erall it could &e argued that Wolsey
failed in ters of anaging the Church!
His personal conduct was not
ipressi#e! 'any criticised his lack of
interest in grass(roots Catholicis!
)ltiately he was the *ings agent not
the Churchs agent! He worked to
increase royal control o#er the Church!
NOBILITY/
COUNCILLORS
W = of low &irth+ any no&les ,ealous of his
rise to power - wealth
.ot a great relship with no&ility &ut is e#idence
that he tried to get on with the
Was there a no&le conspiracy against W/
Did W intentionally antagonise no&ility/
Ws relship with councillors was strained
W did ha#e close personal
relship with *ing0 did cause
en#y
W did consult no&les on
iportant policy decisions
)npopular with Dukes of
.orfolk - Suffolk
W had a great desire to raise 1
for H for foreign con2uest
FINANCE W as no! 3 4&usiness anager05 wanted to
centralise finance
'ake ta6 syste ore realistic - fle6i&le
Wanted to increase re#enue fro Crown lands
Deands for 1 caused W pro&les with
parliaent! 7lus went to war then tried to raise
1 for it8
9iscal policies caused resentent aong
upper classes
:ct of ;esuption 3<3<= return
lands which had &een granted
away
Sir $ohn Heron reained as
Treasurer of the Cha&er until
3<>?
Ended ta6 syste of fifteenths
- tenths! .ow &ased on a&ility
to pay @the 4su&sidy5A
Coissioners localities to
ake assessents of wealth
"n 3<>B W deanded o#er
1CDD DDD in ta6ation
Eate payents 3<>B(><
4:ica&le Frant5 crisis 3<><!
:ttept to raise a non(
parliaentary ta6 for war!
;esulted in re&ellion88
JUSTICE W acti#e in distri&uting ,ustice
Tried to &ring fairness to syste for :EE
:ny one could &ring a case to Star Cha&er
regardless of wealth or social status
W created resentent in Star Cha&er as
no&les targeted for a&using pri#ileges
Didnt change legal institutions long ter -
uch of adinistration chaotic
W acti#e in Court of Chancery
@the *ings courtA - Court of
the Star Cha&er
Star Cha&er dealt with o#er
3>D cases per year under W
@3> per annu under HGA
3<3<= Earl of .orthu&erland
prison
3<3H= Eord Burga#enny
accused of illegal retaining
3<>I= enorous &acklog of
cases
ENCLOSURE E.CE%S);E = fencing off coon land to
ake profit
W wanted to find out how enclosure was
working
:ctions against no&les enclosing illegally!
CH:EEE.FE 7%WE; %9 :;"ST%C;:CJ
Soeties the no&ility showed they were ore
powerful than W
Supported people whod &een hared &y
3<3G= launched an in2uiry into
enclosure
3<>B= W forced to accept all
e6isting enclosures
Houses had to &e re&uilt - land
returned to ara&le faring
enclosure