by S B Chrimes
Not for nothing did Dominic Mancini in 1483 describe Morton as being ‘of great resource and daring, for he had been trained in party intrigue since King Henry’s time’, and a man who ‘enjoyed great influence’.4 Sir Thomas More, who as a boy had cause to know Morton well, had some revealing remarks to make. Morton, he wrote, was ‘a man of great natural wit, very well learned, and honourable in behaviour, lacking no wise ways to win favour’, a man who ‘had got by great experience the very mother and mistress of wisdom, a deep insight in politic worldly drifts’.5 Elsewhere More wrote of him, ‘the Kynge put muche truste in his counsel, the weale publique also in a maner leaned unto hym’. Even an anonymous and not specially friendly London chronicler could say of him that he was ‘a man worthy of memory for his many great acts and especially for his great wisdom … in our time there was no man like to be compared with him in all things’.6 It may be that when the council dealt with affairs of state the lord chancellor was merely one among other members,7 but in fact Morton was present at almost all meetings of the council of which we have a record, and there can be no doubt that he was preeminent among the councillors and Henry VII’s most trusted adviser. It may well be that Morton began as a careerist and opportunist, but having weathered such vicissitudes of fortune and gained such knowledge of affairs, he survived to provide Henry VII with what he most lacked – indispensable experience of statecraft in all its diverse forms.
On Morton’s death, the gap was filled temporarily from 13 October 1500 by the appointment as keeper of Henry Deane, bishop of Salisbury since earlier in the year, formerly since 1494 bishop of Bangor, who had been chancellor, deputy, and justiciar in Ireland in 1496. He was destined to succeed Morton as archbishop of Canterbury from 26 May 1501, but he died in 1503.1 Another future archbishop, more renowned, William Warham (1450–1532), a former practitioner in the court of Arches and distinguished diplomat extensively employed by Henry VII, about to become bishop of London, was appointed keeper on 11 August 1502. After succeeding to the archbishopric in 1503, he was promoted to be chancellor on 21 January 1504, and retained the office not only until the end of the reign but until the end of 1515, when he was displaced by Wolsey.2
How far the functions of the treasurer were mainly honorific at this time remains a matter of some doubt, but it is clear that the holder of the office was regarded as one of the three principal officers, and was usually present at council meetings. The patent appointing John, Lord Dinham (d. 1501) to the office is dated 14 July 1486,3 and there is evidence that Archbishop Rotherham in fact was retained as treasurer after his displacement as chancellor, doubtless to preserve a further degree of continuity in administrative experience.4 But it is also clear that Dinham was appointed in February 1486 by the king’s express command by the advice of his council, so that Rotherham’s retention was by way of filling the gap temporarily. Lord Dinham was another outstanding instance of a man whose early career and advancement had been wholly at the favour of Edward IV and Richard III. He had materially assisted Edward to escape to Calais after the rout at Ludford in 1459, and had led the attack on Sandwich which resulted in the capture and humiliation of Lord Rivers and others. On return he became sheriff of Devon in 1460–1, a king’s councillor, and was summoned to parliament in 1466 and held to be a baron thenceforth; he received a number of grants, was appointed commander of the forces at sea in 1475, and from that year was numbered among the king’s councillors. By February 1483 he had become chief steward of the duchy of Cornwall, but before the year was over he had been appointed Richard III’s lieutenant of Calais, where presumably he remained until he had made his peace with Henry VII. His value to the new king must have been considerable; from him he received various grants, was appointed to many commissions, was very active as councillor, and remained in office as treasurer until his death in January 1501.1
Henry VII’s choice of a successor to Dinham was even more remarkable, being none other than Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey (1443–1524), the only son of Richard III’s stalwart supporter, John Howard, who had been created by him the first duke of Norfolk (of the Howard line) and had fought and was killed at Bosworth. Thomas Howard had followed his father in a Yorkist career, had fought for Edward IV at Barnet, been created earl of Surrey when his father was made a duke, became steward of the Household, 1483–4, and also fought for Richard III at Bosworth, when he was wounded and at first reported dead, but was captured alive, attainted, and imprisoned in the Tower. By some means, however, he placated Henry VII, who pardoned him, restored his earldom in 1489, appointed him lieutenant-warden-general of the Scottish Marches on the death of the earl of Northumberland, and advanced him in his service. His military achievements in the Yorkshire rising and against the Scots in 1497 secured him in favour. He was to hold the treasurership from 1501 to 1522, to be the victor at Flodden in 1513, and to have the dukedom of Norfolk restored to him in 1514. That he was a man of distinguished abilities and large political ambitions cannot be doubted, and Henry VII seldom showed his talent for selecting valuable servants to better advantage than when he decided to forget antecedents and win over Thomas Howard, who was doubtless eager enough to be won over. He could not anticipate that the Howard family might not always enjoy the goodwill of the Tudor dynasty.2
Henry VII was fortunate also in having to find only two keepers of the Privy Seal. Both for differing periods had been his companions in exile. Peter Courtenay (d. 1492), the third son of Sir Philip Courtenay of Powderham (not the same branch of the Courtenay family who became earls of Devon), began his career as a civil lawyer, a doctor of Oxford and perhaps Padua, had made his way and obtained preferments under Henry VI, became dean of Windsor in 1477 and bishop of Exeter in 1478. His advancement under Edward IV, however, did not induce him to support Richard III, and he joined the duke of Buckingham’s plots in 1483, was attainted but fled to Brittany. He was appointed keeper of the Privy Seal as early as 8 September 1485, and was translated to the bishopric of Winchester in 1487, when he gave up the Privy Seal.1
His successor, Richard Fox (1448–1528), also a lawyer of Oxford, had been accepted into Henry’s service straight from the University of Paris, and very soon acted as the king’s secretary, probably informally in France, formally from at least November 1485. In 1487 he succeeded Courtenay both as keeper of the Privy Seal and as bishop of Exeter. He was to remain keeper until 1516, and was promoted to a bishopric from 1492. As keeper he was frequently in attendance at the council, but was extensively employed on diplomatic missions, and became Henry VII’s ace negotiator.2
The five councillors who appear to have attended meetings most frequently without holding one of the three principal offices, and who were clearly high in the king’s confidence and upon whom he relied for intimate service over many years, were very diverse types, and each appears to have brought special talents to bear upon the work of government. All five in one way or another aligned themselves with Henry before Bosworth. These were Reginald Bray, who in the earliest days of the Buckingham conspiracy enlisted at least two of the others – Giles Daubeney and Richard Guildford; the other two, Thomas Lovell and John Riseley, also joined Henry in exile. All five as councillors or holders of various offices retained great importance in Henry VII’s regime and great personal influence with the king himself, in most cases for the rest of their lives. The testimony of foreign ambassadors, even though ambassadors were often wrongly informed in such matters, is of value in this connection. In 1497 the Milanese ambassador described Daubeney, Bray, and Lovell as the leading men of the realm.3 In the same year Venice was informed that Morton and Fox, Bray, and Lovell were the king’s principal ministers.4 The following year the Spanish envoy reported that these four men, together with Daubeney, Thomas Savage, and Margaret Beaufort were the most influential persons in England.5 It is remarkable that as late as 1507 Catherine of Aragon could write to her father Ring Ferdinand and say that Daubeney was the man who could do most in private with Henry.1
These five councill
ors merit a far more detailed study than has yet been accorded to them. Here we can only sketch their careers, and much must be left to surmise. Bray and Lovell were the most important in the work of government, and both were preeminent in the sphere of finance; Daubeney’s métier was military command, but he was clearly a great deal more than a soldier. Richard Guildford had a speciality which marks him out among the others. He was expert in military and naval engineering. John Riseley remains the least known of the five, but performed important diplomatic services, including that of acting as interpreter in 1492, and presumably therefore was more than usually expert in at least the French language; but he attended council meetings with remarkable frequency and was presumably well within the more intimate circle of councillors. All five, except Daubeney, who was in the Lords, were frequently elected members of parliament during the reign; all except Riseley became knights of the Garter.
Bray (d. 1503) had been used as the go-between by Buckingham and Morton and Margaret Beaufort in 1483.2 Of an old Norman family, he had begun his administrative career as receiver-general to Sir Henry Stafford, Margaret Beaufort’s third husband, and remained in her service, after her remarriage, and had become a member of parliament in 1478. He rendered invaluable services in the early stages of the plot. Whether he actually went into exile is not clear, but at Bosworth he became a knight banneret and a knight of the Bath at the coronation, as well as a knight of the Garter later on. He was almost at once singled out as a principal financial administrator and property manager, made chancellor of the duchy, appointed to numerous offices, mostly with financial bearings; served on about a hundred commissions of various kinds, and was a member of parliament many times. In the process he acquired a great reputation as financier and administrator, as well as large property for himself. Constantly in demand as a trustee, he seems to have escaped adverse criticism from his contemporaries.3
Thomas Lovell (1453–1524) acquired substantial financial interests and could be described by the Venetian ambassador in 1499 as the king’s ‘chief financial officer’. But of the five councillors he was probably preeminent in the general political sense. So far as the evidence goes, he attended more council meetings than any other man except John Morton. As the fifth son of Ralph Lovell of Barton-Bendish, Norfolk, he doubtless had to make his own way in the world, which he did by entering Lincoln’s Inn and successfully following a common law career for some twenty years before he threw up the likelihood of further advancement in his profession by joining the uncertain prospects of Buckingham’s rebellion in 1483. Exile and attainder followed. The impression he made upon Henry in exile must have been considerable, for after Bosworth he was very quickly appointed chancellor of the Exchequer, treasurer of the Household, an esquire of the body (i.e. a squire in attendance on the king’s person) and a councillor, and was chosen to be the speaker in Henry’s first parliament. He was a member of probably all the parliaments of the reign, but not again speaker. He was knighted after Stoke in 1487, appointed to numerous offices and given many rewards, including the Garter in 1503, was retained in many of his offices by Henry VIII, who gave him others as well, and he remained associated with the government until his death in 1524.1
Giles Daubeney (1451–1508), son and heir of William Daubeney, began his military career in the service of Edward IV. He accompanied him to France in 1475, became an esquire of the body in 1477, was knighted in 1478, and was sheriff of Somerset and Dorset in 1480–1. But he joined Buckingham’s revolt in 1483, was attainted and fled into exile with Henry. He was at Bosworth, after which his attainder was reversed and he was rapidly advanced. Appointed master of the Mint and lieutenant of Calais in March 1486, he was made a baron, largely, it would seem, on the grounds of his descent from an ancestor who had been a baron by writ in the fourteenth century. He went on to the embassy in Burgundy in the same year. He was made a chamberlain of the Exchequer from December 1487; he participated in minor military successes in Flanders during the half-hearted English intervention in the Breton interest in 1489; he came closer to the king’s person as chamberlain of the Household in 1495, and from then on he was a frequent attender at council meetings. He was in command of forces that had been intended to march against the Scots in 1497, and his rapid change of objective and direction enabled him, with some difficulties, to suppress the Cornish rising at Blackheath in 1497.2 His services were considerable, but it is not easy to see from his career why Catherine of Aragon should have described him in the terms that she did. Bernard André, Henry VII’s poet laureate, thought fit to extol Daubeney very highly, to give him a lengthy obituary notice, and to provide him with an epitaph, whereas he scarcely mentions any of the other councillors. Daubeney, he says, was a sound, most prudent and faithful man, ‘vir bonus, prudens, justus, probus, et omnibus dilectus’ (a good man, prudent, just, honest, and loved by all).1
Richard Guildford (1450–1506) was probably a more sophisticated man than Daubeney. He had participated with his father Sir John Guildford of Rowerden, Kent, in Buckingham’s rebellion, was attainted, and fled to Brittany. He was knighted on the landing in Milford Haven, and made a chamberlain at the Exchequer, and appointed master of the Ordinance in 1485. This was a post for which he was especially fitted, as he apparently had a flair for ‘engineering’, and busied himself with the building of forts, artillery, and shipbuilding, and played a notable role in building up the new regime in this field. He became controller of the Household in 1492 and was frequently at council meetings. In 1499 he was commissioned with another to seek Edmund de la Pole in Flanders and try to persuade him to return.2 A surprising change of outlook came when he decided in 1505 to set out on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where he died in September 1506.3
John Riseley’s (1450–1512) place in the regime is less easy to assess. He was the son of John Riseley of Chetwode, Bucks, became an esquire of the body and accompanied Edward IV to France in 1475, and received financial favours before 1484. He did not, it seems, serve Richard III, but apparently took no part in Buckingham’s insurrection. He fled to join Henry abroad, as he, like Richard Guildford, was knighted at the landing in Milford Haven. He received a number of rather minor grants and offices after the accession, and became a councillor before 1490. In that year he acted as interpreter at the reception of the French ambassador and was employed in diplomatic service of one kind or another on several occasions. He appears never to have held any important office.4 Perhaps he should not be reckoned one of the closest advisers of the king, but he attended the council nearly as many times as Lovell, and he would not have been so frequently summoned without reasons that seemed sufficient to the king himself.
The number of councillors attending a meeting of the council varied greatly. As few as four and as many as forty are recorded, and the commonest number was seven. There is no means of ascertaining what determined the summons of few or many. All depended on the circumstances of the occasion, who was available, and the nature of the business to be considered. No doubt the king’s wish was the dominant factor, but the king himself would hardly decide on every occasion on each individual summons, and normally the chancellor would see to it that a suitable group of councillors was got together; and the personnel varied a good deal according to whether the business was primarily political or judicial in character. Although the council was always the King’s Council whatever its business, some of the judicial work clearly called for a considerable degree of specialization, whether it was jurisdiction before the king, or exercised in Star Chamber, or of the ‘requests’ variety, or conducted by the ‘Council Learned’, or however conducted. Conciliar jurisdiction in its various forms is best considered as part of the judicial structure.
But the business of the council in Henry VII’s time made no distinction between judicial and administrative work.
