Potter David. Henry VIII and Francis I
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
240 chapter five
Montreuil) had to be sent from Imperial territory, mainly through
Saint-Omer. is required serious transport, which the government of
the Netherlands was committed to supply. As was seen in chapter 4,
this posed problems of security but also simple problems of transport.
e English were demanding more (2556 chevaulx lymmoniers, draught
horses for artillery and 2260 four-horsed wagons for supplies – 11,596
horses) than the Netherlands could supply. is was at a time when
the same country was having to supply horses for the Emperor’s artil-
lery. Mary of Hungary was only prepared to oer 4000 for supplies
and bargain over the artillery horses. Unsurprisingly, English agents
thought the resources of the Netherlands countryside could easily pro-
duce the necessary waggoners (especially as they would serve under
favourable conditions receiving their forage) and that the Dutch ports
could easily provide the hoys needed. Joint investigations of resources
were eventually agreed and Layton managed to get agreement for 2400
lymoners and 200 wagons by 11 May.
156
In fact, the Regent did send
out orders to the cities of Flanders in May but this was still not enough.
157
e wagons and horses provided were inadequate for the job and
Francis Hall was commissioned to nd 500 wagons and 1100 lymoners
in the Low Countries late in June for the Vanguard and Rearguard.
158
All formations received, as has been seen, ‘coat and conduct’ money
to get them to their point of embarkation or formation. Many lists for
these survive but perhaps the most salient point, besides the consider-
able cost, was the maintenance of the social hierarchy. So, the allow-
ance per mile for an earl was 10d, for a lord 7d., for a captain 4d., petty
captain 2d. and a common soldier, a halfpenny.
159
Moving soldiers
across the Channel had its own problems. e Emperor had under-
taken to supply 200 ‘hoys’ to transport the English troops. 300 ‘playtes’
and ‘hoys’ (small coastal vessels sometimes at-bottomed) were identi-
ed at Amsterdam. e English agent John Broke reported the arrange-
156
Mary of Hungary to Chapuys, 1 April 1544, L&P, XIX, i, 284; Layton to Coun-
cil, 3 April 1544, St.P., IX, p. 634 (L&P, XIX, i, 289) Ibid., no. 289.2 and 4; Layton to
Council, 1 May 1544, ibid., no. 453; 11 May 1544, ibid., no. 495.
157
Mary of Hungary to Ypres, 10 May 1544, Diegerick, Inventaire . . . Ypres, VII,
p. 270, no. 2801: order for 11 dray horses for the king of England’s army.
158
Council to Hall, 22 June 1544, L&P, XIX, i, 755; Hall to Council, 24 June,
L&P, i, 766.
159
SHC, LM/1330/98, fo. 5. Figures conmed by conduct money of men from Dudley
to London, 1543, NA SP1/182, fo. 182.
an unequal contest? 241
ments for these in mid-May: they were ‘prested’ at 28 stuivers (3s. 6.d)
the ton and allocated to the following ports:
Ipswich, 48 16 May
Ramsgate, 21 20 May
Margate, 20 20 May
Sandwich, 26 20 May
Winchelsea, 21 20 May
Rye, 20 20 May
Hythe, 5 20 May
Folkestone 15 20 May (also 10 more to be there on the 24th),
Dover 25 20 May (and other 27 to be there on the 24th),
London and into the ames, 62, 24 May.
e rest were held back because of French raiders and the ineective-
ness of the Admiral of Flanders in putting out to escort them; there
was some problem of ships being held up at Dover so that Ipswich was
short. e Regent complained that the English were trying to do every-
thing at the last minute, which hardly seems unfair.
160
In mid-June, the
Council passed on to Norfolk the King’s order that, in order to avoid
Kent being eaten up by the passage of troops to Dover, East Anglian
levies should be embarked at Ipswich and Harwich and those from the
south at Rye and Winchelsea, which had presumably been the point
all along. Norfolk was required to send back the boats that had trans-
ported his men to carry the Battle and the agents responsible were
busy in mid-June turning boats around and getting them back to
London and Ipswich.
161
Security was assured by and Anglo-Flemish
eet. Lisle was in command of the English warships commissioned to
hold the Narrow Seas along with the Flemings during the crossing.
162
Getting the troops across was still a major undertaking. Russell
observed recruits loang around the wharfs in London because the
winds were contrary, wasting their money and evidently not eager to
get going. e winds were in NNE and so ships needed to tack out of
the ames estuary and he advised getting more men by land to Dover.
163
160
John Broke to Layton, 21 May 1544, L&P, XIX, i, 546; Layton to Council,
29 May, ibid., no. 598; Broke to Council, 29 May 1544, L&P, XIX, i, 599; Mary of
Hungary to Chapuys, 31 May 1544, L&P, XIX, i, 606.
161
Council to Norfolk, 11 June 1544, L&P, XIX, i, 672; Grith Appenryth and John
Broke to the Council, 26 June 1544, ibid., no. 783.
162
Order of Charles V, 10 June 1544, L&P, XIX, i, 665. Admiral of Flanders to
Henry VIII, L&P, XIX, i, 699.
163
Russell to Council, 11 am and 6 pm, 15 June 1544, L&P, XIX, i, 707, 708.
242 chapter five
Part of the reason for borrowing money in the Netherlands was
the need to advance money in Netherlands carolus to the waggoners
provided in that country. Aer the problems of getting enough trans-
port (and there was never enough throughout the campaign), such
money had to be advanced and on 7 June, Francis Hall of Calais was
paying out £4854 for 500 carts and 1100 dray horses.
164
None of this
absolved the English supply sta from their work in transporting
horses and wagons from England. Late in June, Gage and St. John, as
court ocials with the greatest skills in getting men and materiel
around, were furiously busy shipping dray horses from Sandwich and
‘road’ horses from Dover.
165
Aer the stabilization of Boulogne, a Council committee of experts
on military supply consisting of Gardiner, Gage, Rich, Rous and John
Ryther, coerer of the prince’s household, took charge of supplies for
the King’s new acquisition.
166
e most active in this group were
Gardiner, Gage and Ryther.
167
ey (or any two of them) were empow-
ered by periodic Council warrants to issue bills and draw funds from
the Exchequer and allocate them for expenses on arms and victuals.
168
As an example, we have the payment of £180 out of £2000 authorised
by them for oxen and feed procured by the commissioners in Kent for
victuals beyond the sea and another £100 for Romney Marsh animals.
169
Individuals were commissioned to supply specic items direct. So John
Guyldemyn, gentleman servant of the Woodyard, received £910 from
the Mint and Exchequer for stocksh and hops for Boulogne in late
164
Certicate by Hall, L&P, XIX, i, 642.4.
165
St. John and Gage to the Council, Dover, 30 June 1544, L&P, XIX, i, 807.
166
See J.A. Muller, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (London, 1926),
pp. 113–114. For Gage’s letters with John Ryther in 1545–1546 to Cobham acting for
the Council, concerning supplies for Calais (BL Harl. 283 fos. 297, 337). A John Rither
was listed by Gage as one of his servants at court who accompanied him to Firle for
his nal days (PRO PROB 11/38, fo. 51r).
167
Cobham wrote to the three of them for the supplies of Calais, eg. 15 April 1545,
BL Harl. 288 fo. 51 (L&P, XX, i, 526).
168
See the numerous warrants to the Exchequer during 1545 L&P, XX, i, 215, 228,
259, 358, 1095, 1119, ibid., ii, 33, 413, 441; XXI, i, 41, 414, 432, 1433, 1472. e Privy
Council allocated specic funds to them on by warrant of 18 Feb, 9 March, 3 July1545,
20 Sept. (L&P, XX, i, 215, 467, 1095.3, ii, 413); 21 May, 9 Aug., 24 Oct. 1545, 14 Feb.
1546, 18 & 21 March, 8 & 17 Aug. 1546 see J.R. Dasent et al., Acts of the Privy Council
of England, new series, 46 vols (London, 1890–) [hereaer APC], I, pp. 166, 226, 262,
208, 347, 351, 518.
169
Privy Council to Sir John Williams, 20 Aug. 1546, L&P, XXI, i, 1478.
an unequal contest? 243
1544 and early 1545.
170
Warrants accounting for £12,193 have sur-
vived for this kind of expenditure authorised by Gage and others.
171
e bulk of expenditure on supplies for Boulogne was processed
through Augmentations. In the year aer the siege, at least £16,742
was paid out for all sorts of major and minor items from shipments
of grain to timber, nails, shovels, baskets, livestock and mattresses;
Boulogne in eect needed everything to be supplied from England. In
the following year to Michaelmas 1546, a further £18,155 was paid
through Augmentations. Receiving the larger sums were the
Treasurer, Sir Hugh Paulet and the victualling commissioner,
Anthony Aucher, who took charge of everything from buildings to
food supplies.
172
e council committee continued its work through
1545 and 1546. Gage continued to procure arms in the Low Countries
through the Johnson brothers
173
and in the Privy Council, he obtained
a guarantee against losses for Flemish transport ships taking supplies
to Boulogne (which otherwise would not have sailed).
174
He also
seems to have been arranging for the supply ships to rendezvous with
Lisle’s eet in the summer of 1545.
175
Paying for War
Despite the extensive archival material preserved for the planning of
the campaigns of the 1540s, there is no complete sequence of accounts
which laid out their exact costs and how they were paid for; a number
170
NA, E351/184. omas Maltby, London shmonger supplied a range of com-
modities including bacon, cheese, honey and butter for £1129 between Jan. and
Nov. 1545 (NA, E351/186).
171
L&P, XX, i, 110, 215, 228, 259, 270, 358, 467, 1119, 1164, 1303; ibid., ii, 33, 105,
141, 202, 210, 413, 441, 471, 502, 558.
172
ese gures are computed from the Augmentations payments books, NA
E 315/249, E 315/253 (L&P, XIX, i, 368; XX, i, 517; XXI, i, 643), in each case sec-
tion v., gures rounded up to the nearest pound. For the supply of 620,000 rough
nails and 150,000 sprig nails, tile pins and 60 loads of laths, at cost of £71.6.10, NA
E 101/207/10.
173
Otwell to John Johnson, 9 June 1545, NA SP1/202, fo. 18 (L&P, XX, i, 900),
B. Winchester, ‘e Johnson Letters, 1542–1552’ 4 vols (London Ph.D. thesis, 1953),
II, p. 328: ‘this is chiey to desire you in my maisteres behalf to write to some trusty
and diligent frende of youres at Antwerpe to provide him jC Cullen clies [Cologne
pikes?] of xxj fote of lenght’ and 50 javelin staves as long as possible, ‘for he doubteth
to have nede of them sooner than anny wil be bought hier for him.’
174
20 Dec. 1545, APC, I, p. 295 (L&P, XX, ii, 1010).
175
Lisle to Gage, 17 Aug. 1545, St.P., I, p. 816 (L&P, XX, ii, 151).
244 chapter five
of dierent sources need to be compared. e most widely used is a
detailed general analysis of expenditure, based on accounts of war
treasurers which have not fully survived, drawn up by the government
of Edward VI in 1552 aer the end of the French and Scottish wars.
is helpfully divides expenditure since 1542 (and in some cases even
earlier), under several distinct headings, by period (see Appendix 8).
176
If used carefully, this can reveal the detailed costs of war. First, the
Landrecies campaign cost £36,500. en the Boulogne campaign cost
£ 586,718.2.4 and the war down to the end of the reign (including
fortications at Boulogne) another £ 426,306.19.5. (A useful context
for this is Wriothesley’s estimate of the cost of war from Michaelmas
1544 to Michaelmas 1545 as £560,000.)
177
Fortication and garrison at
Calais from 1538–1547 cost £276,765.9.7. e Scottish wars from
1542–1547 cost 350,243.2.2 and the navy in the same period
£265,024.4.3. Finally, fortication of the English coast from 1538 to
1547 cost £203,205.13.0. So, out of a total of £2,134,784.1.0 military
expenditure, mainly from 1542 to 1547, the direct conict with France
absorbed £1,049,525.9s and including war in Scotland £1,399,768.11.12,
but if we add the costs of the navy this rises to £1,664,792.8.2; of course
most of the other expenditure is related in some way to the Anglo-
French War.
A number of other army estimates in the period can be used as
comparisons. e consultation of November 1542 for a possible inva-
sion of Scotland put the cost of an army of 17,000 foot and 6000 horse
for two months at £55,552 (£91,555 if border defence was factored
in).
178
Suolk estimated the cost of an army of 20,000 for 6 weeks
against Scotland in January 1544 at £44,000.
179
Accounts of High
Treasurers of the Wars are not well preserved but some of Sadler’s are.
Sadler was appointed High Treasurer for the War in Scotland on 17
February 1544, obviously for the English invasion, and his account
until November 1546 reveals that he received £123,709.11.0ob. Aer a
large initial injection of £30,000 on 24 February, sums of £5–8000 fol-
lowed regularly until another subvention of £20,000 in July 1546. Of
this £93,861 was spent on wages and conduct for the soldiers (trans-
176
e costs of Henry VIII’s wars are examined by R. Hoyle, ‘War and Public Finance’
in D. MacCulloch (ed.), e Reign of Henry VIII (London, 1995), pp. 75–99.
177
Wriothesley to Petre, 8 Sept. 1545, L&P, XX, ii, 324.
178
NA SP1/174, fos. 50v–51v(59–60) (L&P, XVII, 1034).
179
L&P, XIX, i, 59.
an unequal contest? 245
ferred to John Uvedale, treasurer for the pay of the garrisons) and
£4241 on the hire of ships.
180
By far the largest single item in the overview of 1552 was the cam-
paign of Boulogne and Montreuil in 1544, as might be expected. e
components of this were made of many dierent items, perhaps the
largest single one being the cost of wages. One paper (by Wriothesley
with contributions from Rich as war treasurer) in April–May 1544
estimated the likely cost of the campaign and some other smaller items
from the King’s departure for Calais and therefore for three months as
£250,000.
181
(Appendix 9) is was a serious under-estimate since
most of the troops, conduct money included, had to be paid for four
months. A paper drawn up to estimate the cost of an army of 5200
cavalry and 33,639 infantry (rather larger than the one actually mus-
tered) puts the monthly cost of wages (wagoners and dray horses
included) as £44,853.10.0 or £179,376 for four months.
182
is too was
an under-estimate. e 1552 survey gives the cost of wages in the army
during the siege as £353,916.19.6 plus coat and conduct as £ 59,028.0.8
(Appendix 8). ese gures do not seem to include money written o
aer Landenberg had been paid and then dismissed without serving.
As the campaign was beginning, there was some question of a war
chest of £160,000 being made available to Norfolk but this was
rescinded when Henry denitely decided to go in person and Norfolk
was provided with £59,000 instead.
183
To re-assure Henry, his Council
with the Queen sent him out a ‘mass’ of £40,000 at the end of July.
184
Norfolk reported very quickly that his £59,000 would last only to
8 July and that a further £40,000 would soon be needed.
185
Only the
account by the vice-treasurer of the Rearguard has survived for June
180
ere are two complementary versions of his account: SHC LM/1330/98 and NA
E101/674/2 (neither is complete). Receipts are exactly the same in both accounts but
the expenditure on dierent purposes. Total expenditure listed in the two accounts
is £118,187.
181
L&P, XIX, i, 272.2.
182
NA SP1/184, fo. 220 (L&P, XIX, i, 273.6).
183
Council to Norfolk, rec. 17 June 1544 (later copy), BL Harl. 6980, fo. 119 (L&P,
XIX, i, 690): ‘His M., hath for the tyme caused nine and y thousand pounds to be
delyvered to his treasurer of the vauntgard and reregard . . .’ and the rest brought with
the battle.
184
Council letter 17 July NA SP1/190, fo. 68.
185
Norfolk to Henry VIII, 19 June 1544, NA SP1/188, fo. 192 (L&P, XIX, i, 738): ‘of
the which is paide cotes and conducte money and the wagies of hireng of caryages . . . .
and also the wages of this armye unto the eight of Julye.’
246 chapter five
to November and this seems to indicate that that corps was provided
with £60,258 for the whole period of the campaign, which cannot be
complete (see Appendix 10);
186
this was to cover the cost of conduct,
pay and incidentals for four months. If the Vanguard received
£59,000 plus another £40,000 and the battle about the same, this
would account for about £250,000 in running costs during the cam-
paign, well short of the sum declared in the 1552 account. Unless the
Battle was markedly more costly (certainly a possibility), the dier-
ence must be accounted for by the cost of bringing over reinforce-
ments during the siege. One further insight is provided by Rich’s
account (or rather ‘Brief declaration’) as High Treasurer for the Wars
from 24 September to 30 October, thus at the very end of the cam-
paign. From this we can learn how he functioned in this role. At the
start of the period, his cash reserve was down to £16,000 but then
bolstered by £33,000 from England and £12,000 from Edward
Wotton, Treasurer of Calais and others (£65,730 in all). He used
these funds partly by transferring large amounts to the Treasurers of
the three ‘wards’ of the army, to Paulet as Treasurer of the newly
occupied town of Boulogne or to various lesser accountants.
187
As for expenditure aer the end of the siege of Boulogne, this is
given as £426,306.19.5 in the 1552 document. is includes £318,884.3.4
for pay of soldiers and £47,166.18.3 for fortications (Appendix 10).
Sir Hugh Paulet’s account as Treasurer of Boulogne (Sept. 1544–August
1546) (Appendix 12) accounts for £169,904 as wages of the garrison in
the same period, the dierence almost certainly accounted for by the
cost of Hertford’s army in 1546, administered by its own Treasurer.
He spent only £23,676 on fortications, the dierence here probably
explained by work on Ambleteuse for which he was not responsible.
188
Other accounts are more limited in scope. A note of the cost of
Boulogne, including fortications, from September 1544 to October
1545 puts the total at £112,873.9.3.
189
is is fairly close to the estimate
of money spent on Boulogne since the King’s departure but unfortu-
nately with no date, £115,721.4s.
190
On the other hand, Paget estimated
186
BL Add. MS. 35,206 (L&P, XIX, ii, 552), paper roll headed ‘duplicata.’ e
receipts from Rich came in several parcels, the greatest being £25,000 on 11 June.
187
L&P, XIX, ii, 506.
188
NA E101/207/1.
189
Lambeth Palace MS 306, fo. 56 (L&P, XX, ii, 558).
190
Hateld House, Cecil Papers, 150, fo. 24 (Calendar Hateld, I, no. 188).
an unequal contest? 247
six months’ total military costs as £104,000, of which Boulogne
accounted only for £36,000, which must be an under-estimate.
191
Seven
months’ garrison costs at Boulogne and Guînes in April–November
1546 were estimated at £61,835.0.6., though 3–4000 were to be added
for extra troops at Calais over and above the ordinary garrison but a
scheme for the garrison at Boulogne and its forts (1300 foot) for a
whole year aer the peace treaty put the cost at only £24,506.19.8.
192
Wages, as at all times, were the greatest cost burden. e earlier
planning document discussed above makes clear that ordinary infan-
try would be paid at the traditional 6d per day and cavalry 9d. Infantry
captains would get 4s and petty captains 2s, while cavalry captains
would get 6s and petty captains 3s.
193
e planned army for Scotland
in 1542 would have included 17,000 infantry, also at at 6d p.d., com-
manded by 180 captains (4s) and the same number of petty captains
at 2s., so the wage rates were standard as was the convention of one
captain and one petty captain for about 100 men.
194
Food advanced to
the troops was deducted from their wages. e pay scales for foreign
troops employed by Henry are dicult to compare. An agreement
with Buren specied 4 orins p.m., which even at a favourable rate of
3s. 2d. would have been a little over 5d per day but the dierence was
that approximately one eighth of Buren’s troops were to be on double
pay (a common feature in French and Imperial armies which does not
seem to have applied in England).
195
e Spanish horsemen serving at
Boulogne in 1544 received 4 ducats a month (£1 or 8d. pd.), though it
is revealing that when they mutinied they declared they were not in
Henry’s service for the pay alone but the ransom they could earn.
196
How did soldiers’ wages compare with those of others? e question
191
Hateld House, CP, 36, fos. 21–23; S. Haynes and W. Murdin A Collection of
State Papers, relating to Aairs in the Reigns of King Henry VIII . . . (London, 1740–
1759) I, pp. 55–56, (Calendar Hateld., no. 189).
192
NA SP1/216, fos. 52–55 (L&P, XXI, i, 499), text damaged; SP1/216, fos. 64–72
(L&P, XXI, i, 505).
193
NA SP1/184, fo. 220 (L&P, XIX, i, 273.6). See also wage rates specied for Rich-
ard Lee’s company of 200 men divided into 2 companies of 100), by Hertford, New-
castle 26 April 1544, NA, E 101/612/60.
194
NA SP1/174, fo. 50.
195
L&P, XIX, ii, 247.A further agreement of 5 . of 20 stuivers p.m. (12s. 6d) would
be 5d p.d. (L&P. XIX, i, 419). When eventually mustered these were 5 ensigns are
1,842 persons receiving 2,666 1/2 pays, ‘besides the hault ocers.’ eir monthly pays
was 13,640 . 6 stivers, at 20 stivers the orin (Henry paid half of this). (L&P, XIX,
i, 773).
196
Hume (ed. trans), Chronicle . . . Written in Spanish, p. 120.
248 chapter five
is fraught with diculty because of a constant if mild rise in prices
throughout the rst half of the 16th century but we know that 1514
Statute of Articers attempted to x the wages of skilled crasmen at
6d. per day (4d without food), while other labourers were set at 4d
and ‘common husbandmen at 16s. 8d pa. (or a half penny p.d.). By
1565, the going rate for skilled crasmen was 10d to 1s per day, so it
is reasonable to assume that the rate of 6d per day was on the low
side for skilled men in 1544.
197
Higher commanders, unsurprisingly, were not paid in the same way
but instead received ‘diets.’ For instance, Lisle as Lord Admiral and
Hertford as Lieutenant-general in the North received 5 marks (£3.6.8)
p.d. in diets.
198
In the army of 1544, Russell received 100s a day in diets
from 11 June to 3 November 1544 (145 days, thus £725), earls, 10s.,
knights and squires, 6.8d. e total cost of wages in the account was
£34,488.3.10d.; 9000 ordinary soldiers for 145 days at 6d. per day
would have cost £32,625, though it is clear from the account that not
all of them were paid for that maximum period.
199
Soldiers of the
Boulogne garrison were being paid 8d. p.d. from 1546, which certainly
reects understanding the higher cost of living there.
200
e obvious question to ask is: how was money found for all this
expenditure? Any answer can scarcely be straightforward. Here, the
absence of clear statements about yearly crown revenues is, to say the
least, an impediment. e ordinary (non-Parliamentary) revenues
have been estimated at £90,000 in the 1520s. is was why the French
pension (bringing in over £20,000) was so important. Of course, crown
income was substantially increased in the 1530s by clerical taxation
and the dissolutions of the monasteries. From 1535, the Court of First
Fruits and Tenths was drawing in around £42,000 annually, while
Augmentations saw surpluses of around £25,000 p.a. rising to a peak
of just under £50,000 in 1541. en from 1539 to 1542, the crown sold
197
Statutes of the Realm, printed by command of His Majesty King George III, 11 vols
(London, 1810–1828), III, pp. 124–126 (6 Henry VIII, c. 3); L. Garnish, ‘e 1522 Muster
Role for West Berkshire,’ part 3 (Vale and Downland Local History Series) gives useful
indications on the movement of wages between 1522 and 1565.
198
L&P, XXI, i, 643.v; XX, i, 517.v (8 March).
199
BL Add. 35206, Dormer’s account for the Rearguard, (L&P, XIX, ii, 552): soldiers
pay ‘begynynge and endinge at divers and sondrie days.’ 90 captains of foot (the maxi-
mum) would have been paid £2250). e pay period for all the men cannot have
extended from June to November. It would seem more likely that the ordinary soldiers
were paid until early October.
200
NA SP1/16, fo. 64 (L&P, XXI, i, 505).
an unequal contest? 249
land worth about £66,000 annually. Part of these revenues was trans-
ferred to reserves, some to the cost of fortication but Henry must
have doubled his revenues in the late 1530s, though at the cost damag-
ing his future revenue base.
201
Henry had spent about 1 million on the war of 1512–1514, much of
it drawn from reserves. In contrast, the cost of war in 1522–1524 was
relatively small (£400,000 at the most) much of it defrayed by extraor-
dinary revenues such as loans. e massive expenditure of over 2 mil-
lions in 1543–1547 can only be explained by what Richard Hoyle has
called ‘the most breathtaking acts of will’ by the King, though whether
this displays the ‘singularity and success of Henry VIII’s scal policy’
as argued by Richardson is highly dubious.
202
Wriothesley, in eect
chief nance minister and ‘of great authority with his master,’ wrote a
series of despairing letters to Paget in September–November 1545 that
reect the extraordinary hand-to-mouth nature of the revenues, expe-
dients being all that could be hoped for. On 27 September he uttered:
‘God help us. For myne oune parte it makethe me wery of my life.’
And in November: ‘You [bid me] runne as though I coulde make
money. I [would] I had that gi but for oon yere for [His] Majestes
sake.’
203
He declared in September 1545 that since the start of 1544 the
King had spent 1.3 millions:
and his subsidy and benevolence ministring skant thre hundrethe thou-
sand therof as I muste sustyene where the rest being so greate a summe
hathe been gotten soo the landes being consumede, the plate of the
realme molten and coyned, wherof moche hathe assay, I sorowe and
lament the daunger of the tyme to com.
204
ough he was anxious to have the planned meeting of Parliament go
forward in September 1545, since without it ‘I see not howe we shal
lyve without some present helpe,’ Wriothesley was right to be doubtful
whether lay taxation could cope with the problem.
205
Subsidies and
201
Hoyle, ‘War and Public Finance,’ pp. 77–84.
202
Hoyle, ‘War and Public Finance,’ p. 91. W.C. Richardson, ‘Some nancial expe-
dients of Henry VIII, Econ. Hist Rev., ser. 2, 7, i (1954) p. 33. Richardson’ opinion that
‘economically the country was stable and prosperous’ (p. 35) also has to be questioned.
203
Selve to Francis I, 10 July 1546, Lefèvre-Pontalis, no. 6: ‘homme bien estimé . . . et
de grande aucthorité à l’entour de son maistre.’ Wriothesley to Paget, 27 Sept., Nov. 1545,
11 Nov. NA SP1/208, fos. 75, 210, fos. 43, 68 (L&P, XX, ii, 453, 746, 769).
204
Wriothesley to Council, 14 Sept. 1544, NA SP1/207, fo. 172(174), (L&P, XX, ii,
366).
205
Wriothesley to Paget, 2 Sept.[1545], NA SP1/207, fo. 66v (L&P, XX, ii, 272).