Michael Everett's detailed and enjoyable book, The Rise of Thomas Cromwell, traces Cromwell's journey from a relatively ordinary London lawyer and merchant in the 1510s and 1520s to royal secretary in 1534. Everett presents Cromwell as a highly organized and efficient administrator whose competence and capacity for hard work ensured that his responsibilities (and with them, his power and influence) quickly expanded after his entry into royal service. This initially came about as Henry VIII sought to confirm his legal title to the confiscated lands of Thomas Wolsey's educational foundations in Oxford and Ipswich, Cromwell being the obvious candidate to assist given that he had previously helped the cardinal acquire these same lands.
Subsequent management of these new crown lands continued to occupy much of Cromwell's time. His surety in handling this legal, administrative, and financial work also brought similar business related to the church, such as collecting revenues owed for vacant bishoprics and managing monastic elections, and government offices, like master of the king's jewels. It was this ever-growing workload, acquired through an aptitude for effectively carrying out routine tasks and frequently accomplished through cooperation with other ministers, which eventually enabled Cromwell to emerge as the king's dominant advisor. For Everett, this was the operative word, as Henry, while listening to his councillors’ views, ultimately made the decisions and Cromwell, as his loyal, hardworking servant, faithfully carried them out in combination with his colleagues.
In identifying the causes of Cromwell's ascent, Everett's analysis reveals not only what he did but also, and just as importantly, what he did not do, undermining numerous historiographical arguments about the minister's significance in the process. Cromwell did not become leader of any court faction in the early 1530s which could precipitate his rise, his position in the council being more important; he did not exhibit a unique commitment to Parliament that accounted for its extensive use in the 1530s, but was merely part of the broader legal profession which already saw statute as the highest form of law, and part of a government that valued the legitimacy that a representative assembly could confer on its controversial policies; and he did not seek to gain control of royal finances through his offices in order to fund independent initiatives, instead simply utilizing flexible government machinery to receive money connected to his wide responsibilities directly and thereby implement policy quickly. Most importantly, he did not single-handedly accomplish the break with Rome (and he certainly did not come up with the ideas that underpinned it). Rather, he only became involved with Henry's Great Matter in 1532, helping to draft legislation, coordinate an accompanying propaganda campaign, and enforce the law. Far from being the key to his rise to power, Cromwell's role here is just another example of him acquiring further responsibilities because of his administrative skills and work ethic, and executing them in a joint effort with his peers, notably Thomas Audeley.
Everett's arguments are authoritative and generally convincing, resting as they do on thorough and meticulous archival research, with the frequent re-dating of calendared letters indicative of his extremely impressive grasp of the sources. Nevertheless, perhaps one area that may not fully convince everyone is the discussion of Cromwell's religion. Contrary to the frequent presentations of him as an evangelical reformer, Everett argues that evidence for this in the period before 1534 is lacking, while admittedly maintaining that it is possible, but by no means certain, that he subsequently acquired evangelical beliefs. Although Everett makes some fair points to support this conclusion, drawing attention to Cromwell's traditional-looking will, amended soon after September 1532 (133), and Stephen Vaughan's eagerness in December 1531 to assure his master that he was not a Lutheran (implying that Cromwell was not either) (136), other parts of the discussion are less satisfactory.
Accepting the argument that shared religious belief was not a prerequisite for friendship or acquaintance does not sufficiently explain the remarks made by Miles Coverdale and another anonymous writer, which apparently influenced Sir Geoffrey Elton's thinking, concerning Cromwell's “godly communication” (137). Similarly, countering arguments for Cromwell's reforming credentials based on his provision of patronage and protection to evangelicals by suggesting that this reflected the government's need to defend the Royal Supremacy rather than the minister's own religious preferences arguably ignores the fact that these were not mutually exclusive motivations. At a more fundamental level though, it does not address how far Cromwell's ecclesiastical patronage was actually focused on reformers, with Everett's discussion of this (127–130) saying little about the religious views of those who benefited. Just as Everett points to the need for a nuanced analysis of Cromwell's relationships with men like Hugh Latimer and Robert Barnes in the later 1530s to determine how far he shared their views, these objections suggest that something similar may still be beneficial for the early 1530s regarding the minister's interactions with the likes of Coverdale, William Marshall, and other recipients of his patronage.
Of course, these criticisms should not be seen as detracting from Everett's considerable achievement. After all, in doubting many historians’ previous views of Cromwell's religious outlook in the early 1530s Everett demonstrates his willingness to question assumptions as well as the high burden of proof that this requires. Together these qualities make for an original and scholarly work that succeeds in providing a more multi-dimensional view of Cromwell, his rise to power, and the politics of the early 1530s more generally, and by extension also in raising serious questions about how the rest of the decade played out.
