Tower Correspondance.

While researching my next blog post (regarding Cromwell’s downfall), I found this letter (lLetters and Papers: vol. 15). I thought that I would share it both here, and on the Facebook page. Cromwell, in between dealing with the routine business, defends himself against the charges that have been laid against him:

Prostrate at your Majesty’s feet, I have heard your pleasure by your Controller, viz., that I should write such things as I thought meet concerning my most miserable state. And where I have been accused of treason, I never in all my life thought to displease your Majesty; much less to do or say “that thing which of itself is so high and abominable offence.” Your Grace knows my accusers, God forgive them. If it were in my power to make you live for ever, God knows I would; or to make you so rich that you should enrich all men, or so powerful that all the world should obey you. For your Majesty has been most bountiful to me, and more like a father than a master. I ask you mercy where I have offended. Never spoke with the Chancellor of the Augmentations and Frogmerton together at a time; but if I did, I never spoke of any such matter. Your Grace knows what manner of man Throgmerton has ever been towards you and your proceedings. What Master Chancellor has been to me, God and he know best; what I have been to him your Majesty knows. If I had obeyed your often most gracious counsels it would not have been with me as now it is. But I have committed my soul to God, my body and goods to your pleasure. As for the Commonwealth, I have done my best, and no one can justly accuse me of having done wrong wilfully. If I heard of any combinations or offenders against the laws, I have for the most part (though not as I should have done) revealed and caused them to be punished. But I have meddled in so many matters, I cannot answer all.

The Controller showed me that you complained that within these 14 days I had revealed a matter of great secrecy. I remember the matter, but I never revealed it. After your Grace had spoken to me in your chamber of the things you misliked in the Queen, I told you she often desired to speak with me, but I durst not, and you thought I might do much good by going to her and telling her my mind. Lacking opportunity I spoke with her lord Chamberlain, for which I ask your mercy, to induce her to behave pleasantly towards you. I repeated the suggestion, when the lord Chamberlain and others of her council came to me at Westminster for licence for the departure of the strange maidens. This was before your Grace committed the secret matter to me, which I never disclosed to any but my lord Admiral. By your commandment on Sunday last; whom I found equally willing to seek a remedy for your comfort, saying he would spend the best blood in his belly for that object.
Was also accused at his examination of retaining contrary to the laws. Denies that he ever retained any except his household servants, but it was against his will. Was so besought by persons who said they were his friends that he received their children and friends—not as retainers, for their fathers and parents did find them; but if he have offended, desires pardon. Acknowledges himself a miserable sinner towards God and the King, but never wilfully. Desires prosperity for the King and Prince. “Written with the quaking hand and most sorrowful heart of your most sorrowful subject, and most humble servant and prisoner, this Saturday at your (Tower)* of London.”

*The word “tower” is omitted from Cromwell’s original letter.

The Relief Of The Poor Bill, 1535.

On this date, July 28^th, four hundred and sixty one years ago, Thomas Cromwell was led out onto Tower Green, Tower of London, and beheaded by order of King Henry VIII. He had been tried in absentia the previous month, and having no chance to defend himself, had been found guilty of fabricated charges of Sacramental Heresy. He died bravely, and according to Edward Hall, “he patiently bore the stroke of a ragged, and butcherly miser.” However, regardless of today’s anniversary, this post will not dwell on the sorry end of England’s most revolutionary of ministers. Instead, it will be looking into some of the lesser known aspects of Cromwell’s term in power. One that is especially over looked by historians who only seem interested in feeding into the demonisation of Thomas Cromwell;  and it’s impact on one of the other great Cromwellian myths. His role in the downfall of Anne Boleyn.

It was in 1535, following the first wave of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, that we’re told Thomas Cromwell and Queen Anne Boleyn argued, and began a blood feud that would end with her downfall and execution. The row, we’re led to believe, was about the distribution of proceeds from the reclaimed monastic lands. Queen Anne is supposed to have remonstrated with Cromwell about how this money should be put to far better uses, such as protecting the poor and needy; whereas Cromwell, (presumably), wanted to spend it all on sweets.

However, it was in this same year that Cromwell drafted a truly revolution set of reforms that completely explodes this theory for the myth that it undoubtedly is. The legislation in question is the Poor Relief Bill of 1535. Nothing like it had been proposed before, and sadly, nothing like would be seen again for a very long time after the MPs defeated the Bill.

Cromwell, and his army of staff, spent a year investigating the causes of poverty. Among their conclusions were: cruel employers, ill health/incapacity, crime, and bad living conditions/poor upbringing.

With the chief causes of poverty identified, Cromwell then set about drafting what he believed to be the remedy, and the result, (for it’s time), can only be described as revolutionary. Eminent historian John Schofield goes into great detail about this in his 2008 Cromwell biography (The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell), and has this to say:

“An ambitious plan of public works was then laid out. It included new buildings, repairs to harbours, highways, and fortresses, and scouring and cleansing of water courses; all under the direction of officers reporting to a central council.” (p103).

The poor, until now, had been almost wholly dependent on hand outs (“Alms”) from the monastic houses. However, what Cromwell was doing was empowering the poor to be able to stand on their own two feet, and better themselves through their own hard work. Because, in return, the labourers would be paid “reasonable wages.” But, also among Cromwell’s listed causes of poverty, were the terminally ill, and the incapacitated. So, the legislation did not stop with helping the able bodied to empower themselves.
“There would be free medical treatment for poor persons unable to work through sickness, and provisions were made for those too old, or terminally ill. Officials would be appointed to make sure no one was abusing the system… They would record the details of men who had become impoverished through no fault of their own and were unable to live on their wages, either because they had too many children to feed, or because they were victims of robbery, or some natural disaster.” (p104).

Public funds would become available to compensate the victims, and the ill. Child beggars were to be taken off the streets, and hired as apprentices to learn a skill, and make a valuable contribution to society.

So much for the greedy, ruthless Thomas Cromwell who was only interested in lining his own pockets from the lands of the God fearing, selfless monks! However, flippancy to one side. There is another point that needs to be made, at this juncture. Unsurprisingly, this Bill was rejected when put before Parliament in the autumn of 1535. So, something that Cromwell badly wanted was rejected. Cromwell who, we’re told time and time again, was supposed to have had Parliament “in his pocket”, and none dared refuse him anything lest they should feel the sharp edge of his wrath? In light of the failure of this Bill, we once again see that Cromwell didn’t quite have everything his own way. It was a bitter setback for him, and the Bill that was eventually passed by Parliament had been somewhat watered down.

So, what did he and Anne Boleyn fall out over, exactly? Because it surely wasn’t Cromwell’s lack of care for the most vulnerable sections of Tudor society. If this argument ever actually happened at all, and there is doubt over it, then it happened one full year before Anne Boleyn’s eventual downfall, and there was no evidence of long running bad blood between them (Anne referred to Cromwell as “her man”, several times over that period).

This, however, is not just about exposing the myth of Cromwell’s “Boleyn vendetta”. It’s about showing the man behind the “blood stained henchman myth”. It shows that Cromwell never forgot his roots. He never abandoned his people, despite the fact that his star had long entered an altogether higher orbit. It showed that he wanted to take this nation, and build it into something bigger, stronger, and much more progressive. As with everything he did, he was hindered every step of the way by the Conservative nobility who feared the effects of the “upstart” Cromwell’s legislation.

In conclusion, Thomas Cromwell is one Tudor personality that has been long in need of reassessment. John Schofield’s excellent biography, “The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell: Henry VIII’s Most Faithful Servant”, and the much more established, (and excellent), works of Professor G.R Elton, have all gone a long way towards doing just that. However, the pantomime villain version of Cromwell makes for better drama, and this is a tragedy. For we’re losing one of England’s greatest revolutionary’s to myth, hysteria, and sentimentality over a few ruined abbeys.

~Hannah, 28^th July, 2011~

Sources/Refernces:

• Elton. G.R. “England Under The Tudors”. (1990 Edition) Routledge.

• Hall, Edward. “The Chronicle of Edward Hall” (online)
• Schofield, John. “The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell: Henry VIII’s Most Faithful Servant”. (2008) History Press LTD