My introduction to document listing practices in Thomas Cromwell’s office can be found at Postcards from the Past – The National Archives published as part of the International Conference on the History of Records and Archives (ICHORA) 2022.
If one had an interest in the government record-keeping practices of Tudor England the documentary source one would naturally turn to is the collection of State Papers housed in the National Archives.* The nature of their present organization however, an artificial collection of chronological order from a variety of records creators, frustrates any understanding. The disappearance of any original order has produced the present contorted physicality of these records. Nevertheless, one would expect to see some evidence of control over information and evidence.
I think it is worthwhile to have a close look at what is available and see what we can see. Perhaps there are techniques of documentary organization and information management which are not obvious, but are there in some fragmented form. I’ll focus on the records of a person whose fame for administrative skills would seem to offer us the best potential, Thomas Cromwell (d.1540). The survival of copious incoming correspondence, as well as large inventories of a variety of document types, attest to the fact he retained a large amount of active and inactive records, for ongoing administration or future reference or otherwise. The breadth and scale of document-supported operations Cromwell conducted suggest a need for managing their effective use. However, the office’s methods of organizing these documents remains under-described.**
The management of incoming correspondence in early modern England followed a basic pattern. After a piece of correspondence was opened and read by a secretary or one of his staff it could be re-folded into a docket shape and often endorsed, usually with the sender’s name, perhaps a brief summary of the matter, and perhaps a date. This process we can observe on most of the discrete items kept by Cromwell now remaining.
There is also physical evidence of other forms of control. An examination of the dorse sides of the Cromwellian correspondence certainly shows evidence of folded docket management, but also, I would propose, another stage of unfolded accumulations. These accumulations, we can call them files, collected together incoming correspondence for particular time periods and in an alphabetical arrangement, and which were bound at the head. I don’t know when this aggregate was created, but it seems likely to me to be while in semi-active use, sometime before Cromwell was executed in 1540.
Their arrangement was alphabetical. For instance, a letter dated October 17, 1532 includes an inscriptional-styled roman character ‘H’ on the dorse along with a description (Lres ao xxiiijo et xxvo R H viii) indicating that this was used as a cover sheet for letters from the 24th and 25th years of the reign of Henry VIII, that is from April 22nd 1532 to April 21st 1534:
This piece of correspondence to Cromwell, initially endorsed with the name of the sender Christopher Hales, has become a cover sheet for an accumulation of semi-active administrative records. There are also extant cover sheets for the letters F, G, I/J, L and O in the same format and covering the same time period.
That this was part of a physical file can be seen from the puncture at the top of each cover. In the example above, directly under the abbreviated “Christopher”, is a hole in the paper where it would have been tied together with other “H” correspondence. For any other extant correspondence then, this puncture mark left by the file’s stitch is an indication it could have been included in one of these files. My rough survey of letters to Cromwell at this time indicate about 20-35% were included in this type of filing.
Each cover represents the surname, or corporate name, of a writer on which it is labeled. The labels are written on letters from Sir William Fitzwilliam (Treasurer of the Household), Sir Edward Guldeford (Lord Warden of the Cinque ports), Christopher Hales (Attorney General), Richard Jones (?), Dr. John London (Warden of New College Oxford), and the Town of Oxford. Presumably many other writers would also have been captured in these alphabetical accumulations. The surviving names suggest that these files could have been a core series of incoming correspondence for Cromwell’s office staff; generally they are central figures in the day-to-day administration of the realm.
Although Cromwell is the records creator he is not necessarily the addressee. Fitzwilliam’s correspondence is actually addressed to the Bishop of London, John Stokesley. It was included in Cromwell’s filing system because it was not a private letter; it represented government business. It consists of the king’s instructions to his servants, received from one councilor and forwarded to another. So Cromwell must have acquired it, and kept it, as a councilor carrying out its prescribed or related task. This is before the development of modern bureaucracy, but these written records are just as able to represent a structure of delegated authority and accountability.
In the 26th regnal year the two-regnal-year date range of the files is modified. Now, for a single regnal year, the 26th, there are at least three extant cover sheets with similar labeling, for the letters F, G, and P. Possibly this change reflects an increase in the volume of correspondence: the sorted units are adjusted down in scale for ease of use. Or it is just a new preference.
A curious fact about these three of year 26, which will need to be explained before we really understand this level of organization, is that two of the three writers are the same as two of the six from the previous years: label ‘F’ is on correspondence from Fitzwilliam, and label ‘G’ on Guldeford’s, the same writers of the previous system’s ‘F’ and ‘G’ covers. It seems unlikely to be a coincidence, given the small number of examples. Perhaps it points to a non-chronological and non-alphabetical division within the file by some other category.
There is at least one other cover sheet extant: “Italeon lettres and other matiers / In a° xxvj RH VIII” (SP 1/80 f.199v). I haven’t found others like this, perhaps because they were not regularly made; but it does point to a division of all correspondence into ongoing series. I am assuming the creation of these files was concurrent with the closing of the date range, and not a later organization. The possibility exists that all or some of this labeling is of a later hand, added by custodians after 1540, but I doubt it. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it would be more reasonable to assume the original record-keepers had a need for organizing correspondence by author and time period, for the sake of continual finding and managing, after their immediate use was past.
There do not seem to be any cover sheets like these created in Cromwell’s office again. By 1535 this system of managing some of the correspondence primarily by regnal year was either modified somehow, or the cover sheets on the same model are now lost. Without any evidence I think we assume it was probably abandoned for another or similar system. This could be a sign the office was dealing with different kinds of business, or the focus had changed. In fact, in April 1534 Cromwell became Principal Secretary. It may be significant that in October 1534 Cromwell also acquired a new office, Master of the Rolls, and a new physical location for some of his clerical staff.
Analyzing how Cromwell fit into Royal governance provides a key to the appearance and disappearance of this system. The two regnal year system begins from the time Cromwell was elevated from being a junior member of Henry VIII’s council to his first office, that of Master of the King’s Jewel House, in April of 1532. Then, once he became Principal Secretary to the king, in April 1534, his work and his relationship to the king’s council changed a great deal. Some other storage arrangement must have been created by the time the one regnal year file ends. Something with more ephemeral labeling, and perhaps including cabinetry. Something more expensive and modern may have been called for.
||24TH and 25TH Regnal year||SP 1/74 f.43|
|G||24TH and 25TH Regnal year||SP 1/72 f.171|
|H||24TH and 25TH Regnal year||SP 1/71 f.118|
|I/J||24TH and 25TH Regnal year||SP 1/73 f.1|
|L||24TH and 25TH Regnal year||SP 1/72 f.97|
|O||24TH and 25TH Regnal year||SP 1/75 f.55|
|F||26TH Regnal year||SP 1/84 f.102|
|G||26TH Regnal year||SP 1/238 f.125|
|P||26TH Regnal year||SP 1/79 f.178|
**Descriptions of the administrative context will help: Mary Robertson’s dissertation from 1975 “Thomas Cromwell’s Servants: The Ministerial Household in Early Tudor Government and Society”, while acknowledging the severe limits on any comprehensive analysis, provides a useful history of this writing office, its staff, and some of its practices. Michael Everett’s book “The Rise of Thomas Cromwell” describes Cromwell’s varied activities in the service of the crown, a noteworthy addition to the study of public administration for this time period.
There are two extant letters handwritten by Archbishop Cranmer to Henry VIII which are worded almost the same, addressed, sealed and delivered on the same day in 1533.¹ The appearance of these two near clones in the King’s secretary’s record-keeping system is a strange sight and can seem somewhat bewildering. However, a comparison of the texts explains their relationship, and provides a unique view of the role of the King’s secretariat.
One version is identifiable as the first written and delivered because the same version is copied into Cranmer’s letter-book. He thought the matter was dealt with. If we compare this to the other version we can conclude that the first most have been reviewed by Henry’s secretarial staff and found wanting. The differences are clearly edits. The improved version includes a number of changes, possibly dictated to Cranmer by someone like Thomas Cromwell:
To see why these edits where thought necessary we have to look at the subsequent response authorizing the Archbishop to proceed with the divorce from Catherine. Some of the language used in the license — “order, judge, and determine”, “examination and final determination” — is language added to Cranmer’s request. So, what to me sound like the legal or administrative requirements of the license text were also considered requirements of the request. This is what made it necessary to retroactively change what Cranmer was asking for.
The pair of letters show us that from the perspective of the King’s Secretary the chronological sequence of request and response is not necessarily a restriction on his action. Within his realm of incoming and outgoing mail the Secretary may take whatever action is possible to further the interests of his master. As Ann Stockho describes the role of secretary: “A secretary was an agent of his master, there to articulate the latter’s will, to carry out that will, and even to help formulate that will.”² In this instance we can see how the secretary can go further than this, amplifying what’s possible. Sender and recipient become mere conventions of form.
This extension and magnification of the will of the recipient can be seen in some of the other edits to the letter. These perhaps are intended to strengthen the rhetoric for propaganda purposes, but seem to follow from the Secretary’s single-minded selflessness. Henry does not have “predecessors” but “progenitors”: his kingship is the culmination of natural forces, not mere office holding. In one deft edit Cranmer’s agency is diminished and the petitionary nature of the letter, already advanced, is further emphasized: rather than the author beseeching on his knees to Henry, he is placed prostrate at his feet by the Secretary.
1. Both of these documents are preserved in the National Archives of the UK (SP 1/75 ff. 78-81). Cranmer’s letter-book is now in the British Museum, (Harl. MS. 6148, f.4.)
2. Stockho, Ann Catherine, “The Master’s Voice: Secretarial Information Management and Gendered Authorship in Works” (2011). English Graduate Theses & Dissertations. Paper 19. (p.2)
Thank you to Louis Cabri and Rhoda Rosenfeld for their performance of the letters at the Projector Verse event on July 23rd.