How Far do you Agree with the View that Wolseys Domestic Policies were Disappointing?

   However, the reliability of the source can be questioned as Vergil had personally experienced Wolsey’s defensive nature after being imprisoned for writing negatively about Wolsey to the Pope, whilst Wolsey was trying for the title of Papal Legate. Vergil had been a close advisor to Henry VII and saw how Wolsey’s influence would lead to the sacrifice of his own position and saw how Wolsey’s failure in reforming the Catholic Church could be damaging to its survival. Therefore, although the Vergil’s view could be seen as reiterated by many members of the nobility, the source must be considered as restricted in reliability. Virgil’s perception could be considered as out of resentment towards Wolsey’s newfound power and influence rather than as a reaction to his policies. Due to this, Wolsey’s alienation of various groups in society could be the key element to why his policies were perceived as disappointing, rather than his actual actions.

  Source U, on the other hand, contradicts the view of Source T as it suggests that Wolsey’s domestic policies were a success rather than a disappointment; “he favours the people exceedingly… hearing their cases and seeking to dispatch them instantly”. Under Wolsey, the Star Chamber dealt with 120 cases per year in comparison to under Henry VII’s rule. This shows that Wolsey was genuine in his attempt to ensure justice was delivered in the courts, especially in relation to the poor. Although this is a prime example of Wolsey’s alienation of the nobility, like Vergil, it did help the poor a great deal. In 1517 Wolsey issued an Enclosure Inquiry to help control land that was being fenced off for private gain and which was ultimately responsible for rural poverty and depopulation. This furthermore showed Wolsey’s dedication to the circumstances of the poor. Due this, it can be said that these domestic policies were considered a success and thought of as such by a large proportion of the people.

   Source V appears to be an intermediate between the views expressed in Sources T and U. “There is a danger of judging by anachronistic standards…the sixteenth century sought stability and security-objectives”; as a 20th century historian Dawson illustrates how, by modern standards, Wolsey achieved very little and so his domestic policies could not be deemed a disappointment merely from a lack of change. The Amicable Grant was a failure, and so left Henry’s desire for a reputation as a chivalrous king unachieved, and Wolsey’s possessive nature left his relationships with the government in ruins. Also, the source states “the ultimate responsibility lay with the King” which demonstrates that to deem Wolsey’s domestic policy as disappointing, would also be deeming the King as a failure as it was him who appointed and kept Wolsey. As Henry considered Wolsey as a success, reiterated in the source written by the Venetian Ambassador, this could be the reason for how Wolsey’s policies were perceived at the time, and that can we considered them a success.

    In conclusion, I think that the views on Wolsey’s policies were heavily influenced by the perception of Wolsey himself from his enemies and opponents whom he had alienated. Their resentment towards Wolsey’s power and position could be the reason for their negative views, rather than based on Wolsey’s actual domestic policies. Wolsey’s domestic policies can only be deemed as disappointing in the sense that they achieved no lasting change from reformation of the church and government, to the introduction of taxes; all of which ended in failure. The fact that Wolsey was kept in office for so long evidences Henry’s trust and devotion towards him, showing that he did not see Wolsey’s domestic policies as a disappointment.