Study Sources 1, 2 and 3.
How far do Sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that, in his role as Lord Chancellor, Wolsey genuinely tried to achieve justice for all? Explain your answer, using the evidence of Sources 1, 2 and 3.
At face value the sources appear to be conflicting. On one hand S1 states that the King’s laws were essentially unjust, and to soften the “rigour” of the law Henry brought in Wolsey as Lord Chancellor in order to act for Henry in the “Court of Chancery” i.e. “The Court of Justice”. Both S2 and 3 contrast with S1 as they seem to remark that Wolsey allowed there to be and introduced unfair laws and treated poor people unfairly and he did not see them to be equal.
Source 1 writes about how whilst the King may have acted within the law when it came to trialing and punishing people, those people may not have been trialed justly. The source may be suggesting that the law was outdated and furthermore that is why Henry brought Wolsey in to take charge of the Court of Chancery. “The King ought for his royal dignity and prerogative”, this quote highlights how Henry may have only brought Wolsey in to handle to court of justice in order to keep the general public onside. However, the source itself is written by Wolsey and therefore would be biased towards himself and the King. Of course Wolsey is going to say he will make the law more “just” and “equal”, otherwise the judges will doubt him.
Source 2 is written by bakers in London in 1526. This means that the source should give the general opinion of the working public in London at the time. The source is a petition written to Wolsey appealing for some form of compensation for being punished by the Mayor for them refusing to buy moldy Wheat at a higher price when sweet wheat can be bought cheaper. At face value it may seem that Wolsey has allowed the Mayor to do this but, the fact that the bakers wrote a petition to Wolsey may suggest that they ...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document