Do you accept the view of Ian Dawson that Wolsey's domestic policies were disappointing?

made the struggling class struggle more. This again adds to the strength of the source that Wolsey's domestic policies were disappointing. On the other hand, there were domestic policies bought in by Wolsey which were successful and clearly illustrated that his policies were not disappointing. One case in which Wolsey excelled with his domestic policies was his running of the court of the Star Chamber. Wolsey excelled in this as the figures show, in Wolsey's first year of running the court his death with over 120 cases personally and made it easily accessible that anyone could apply for a case. This domestic policy was not disappointing what so ever as it helped everyone and bought equality amongst the laity. Source U agrees with this point that Wolsey's domestic policies weren't actually disappointing. This source states that "He alone transacts as much business as that which occupies all the magistrates, offices and councils of Venice, both civil and criminal - clearly illustrating that Wolsey does everything for everyone which is a complete contrast to the point of Source V that Wolsey was disappointing. However, Source U was written by the Venetian ambassador. The fact that the ambassador was Venetian meant that he was catholic like Wolsey, meaning this source is unreliable as the ambassador would only have good words to say about Wolsey as they both followed the same faith. This again effects the strength of the source and argument, overall this argument is weaker to Source V as the reliability severely weakens the Source and the argument that Wolsey's domestic policies were disappointing, which on the contrary further strengthens the argument of Source V that Wolsey's domestic policies were overall disappointing.In contrast, another disappointing domestic policy that Wolsey bought in was the financial side of things - in particular the Amicable grant 1525. This was a non-parliamentary tax bought in by Wolsey to increase the king’s crowns. This was an extremely disappointing policy in the eyes of the laity. On top of all the other taxes, many people struggled to pay this. Even the King eventually ruled this out as unjust therefore banning it in May 1525. Conclusively, making this a disappointing policy bought in by Wolsey. This point is backed up by Source T as the Amicable grant could of ”aroused against himself hatred of the whole country" as Source T states. Source T however, is also a weak source to back up this argument as it's unreliable, this is because it was written by Polydore Vergil who was imprisoned by Wolsey, which caused bad tension between them; ultimately meaning that Vergil would over exaggerate and only talk about the bad stuff that Wolsey done, further weakening this source. Comparing this to the Source V it disagrees and they do not support each other. Due to the reliability and strength of this source it further strengthens source V and the argument that Wolsey's domestic policies were actually disappointing. Conversely, one good policy bought in by Wolsey under finance was the taxation of other countries. For example, England started to use taxation laws and enforce them on France to prevent an invasion. Although logically this would be a a foreign policy it is still classed as a domestic policy as it was for the benefit of the laity and the monarch. This finance policy conversely weakens the argument of Source V's point that Wolsey's domestic policies were disappointing compared to the amicable grant as it strengthened the British monarch, relieved taxation pressure of the laity and provided reassurance that England was safe from being invaded by France.  My final point to back up my argument for acceptance of Source V's point that Wolsey's domestic policies were disappointing is under the factor of the nobility. Firstly, was the strict monitoring of the nobles, for example, Wolsey sent the Earl of Northumberland to prison in this regime. This was extremely disappointing as Wolsey there on created a hierarchy, choosing himself to be at the top. This could arguably be a good point amongst the laity as it kept the nobles in line which protected them from being exploited. However, it made Wolsey fen more powerful which is a controversial point as many people believe that the power got to Wolsey from the start as he had a bigger house than the King and walked around in jewelled slippers. Overall, this point was disappointing for the laity as even though they weren't going to be exploited by the nobles, they would have ended up being exploited by Wolsey. This again adds weight to the argument of Source V because Wolsey's domestic policies ultimately did not help anyone, pushing me more towards accepting the fact that Wolsey's domestic policies were disappointing and comparing with my own knowledge of the subject it again strengthens my view on the argument.To conclude, I agree to a certain extent with Source V that Wolsey's policies were disappointing. This is because Source V is a clear strong source due to its reliability that it's a historian who's analysed all the evidence, the nature that it's just a general report, origin that it's a modern piece so has a non-bias views and finally its purpose is to give everyone an understanding of the matter which is not trying to be influential. This dramatically strengthens Source V and the argument within the source as it's extremely reliable. Followed up by my knowledge of Wolsey's policies it tends to agree with the source. Firstly the main disappointing policies which were the church forms of nepotism and ecclesiastical extravagance. These were extremely disappointing as it didn't help anyone and Wolsey essentially stole from the laity. This is followed up by the amicable grant which isn't important to the other two as people rioted and got the law changed by Henry, however relating it to the question it was an extremely disappointing policy. Then followed by the least important but still disappointing fact of his controlling of the nobility, again he made himself more powerful and meant he was fairly untouchable throughout England. On the other hand Wolsey did have some policies which were actually good, like his reformation and expansion of the court of the Star Chamber which was extremely beneficial and fair to the laity. Similarly, the taxation of France as it relieved the taxation of the laity again making it beneficial for them. Overall, the disappointing policies outweighs the good, the laity and people affected by these policies were extremely disappointed with Wolsey. To strengthen this argument, Source V is reliable and outweighs the other two sources on strength and reliability wise to this argument due to the other two being unfairly bias therefore unreliable.