However, Wolsey’s activities in the judicial system were not all good. He was known to occasionally abuse his power to crush his rivals, a famous example of which is his treatment of Sir Amyas Paulet. This misuse of the legal system gave the nobility better reasons to resent him. Another negative of Wolsey’s work in the Star Chamber came from Wolsey’s desire to do a huge amount of administrative work off his own back. Because of the huge workload that Wolsey was taking on and the new, massive amount of cases being seen, there was a significant backlog of cases in the Star Chamber – meaning that the system was not run efficiently and not all cases were seen to.
Wolsey’s domestic policy in the legal system did not stop there. He also advocated civil law over common law and frequently used his courts to overturn common law verdicts. This was a good thing because civil law was seen as the better of the two because it laid emphasis on natural justice rather than on precedent when decisions were being made. This was seen as more progressive and just than the ‘outdated’ common law, which allowed unjust conclusions to cases because of legal technicalities based on past precedents. Wolsey also launched a national enquiry into enclosed land which kicked up something of a stir. The enquiry challenged the power of the aristocracy by taking action against the nobles who enclosed land illegally. Many of those who were brought to court were ordered to rebuild houses that had been destroyed and return land to arable farming. Obviously on the surface this would be seen as a good thing as it meant that justice was sought after by Wolsey and the poorer people who were being done wrong by were given the opportunity to get a fair deal. However, this was not how it turned out. The ruling classes who Wolsey was trying to bring to justice were outraged by the enquiry and in 1523 Wolsey was forced to accept all existing enclosures. This was an indication of the limits of Wolsey’s power over the nobility, and he was forced to accept that he could not control everything.
Wolsey’s domestic policy was not limited to the judicial system. He was also prolific in his financial work, most notably regarding taxation. Wolsey replaced the traditional tax system – the fifteenths and tenths with a more accurate, realistic, payable system that placed a greater burden on the wealthy and that bears greater resemblance to the tax system in England today. It is arguable that without Wolsey’s influence the modern day tax system of England would not be the same and it is undeniable that Wolsey’s new system was very good for the lower classes in England. Wolsey’s efforts in finance, however, often caused frictions between the cardinal and parliament, and even between Wolsey and the King. For example, Wolsey once demanded over £800,000 in taxation from parliament but this was met with vicious displeasure and eventually he was forced to settle for much less than he had originally asked for. Though this was nothing compared to the tumultuous opposition that Wolsey was presented with after his introduction of the amicable grant. Because the amicable grant had come so soon after the forced loans and parliamentary tax, people flat out refused to pay the amicable grant, and for a time the country came very close to rebellion. The grant was abandoned in May 1525, with Henry VIII denying all knowledge of the grant, indicating his displeasure with Wolsey’s tax. The abandonment of the grant also meant the abandonment of the impending English invasion of France, which the tax had been intended to finance. The amicable grant was so unsuccessful that many historians actually see it as the mark of the beginning of Wolsey’s downfall.
As Papal Legate, Wolsey had a huge influence over what went on in the church. The extent to which Wolsey’s domestic policy weakened the church has been much debated by historians. It is true that a large amount of Wolsey’s influence was used to increase royal power and control over the church and in doing so the church lost a lot of its sense of independence, the church was also weakened by Wolsey’s intense centralising of policies in all aspects of ecclesiastical affairs(these policies were essentially centralised because Wolsey wanted to avoid sharing power as best he could) – it could even be argued that it was because of Wolsey’s actions that the church was unable to withstand the attack that it came under in the 1530’s. However, to his credit Wolsey did shield the church as best he could from monarchical attack between 1515 and 1529, and tried to defend clerical privileges to the best of his ability concerning the issue of benefit of the clergy.
To conclude, Wolsey had both successes and failures in his domestic policy, and the extent of both have been largely debated. I feel that, without Wolsey, the state of modern England would be very different, particularly regarding tax and the legal system, and that is to his credit. However, it is clear that he did have very significant failures such as the amicable grant and his weakening of the pre-reformation church.