"Henry VII's government was more effective than that of Henry VIII before 1530 simply because he employed such "conciliar" methods more consistently, more energetically, and perhaps more ruthlessly. But if they are to be judged they must not be measured against a false standard of morality or constitutionalism. For they were neither immoral nor unconstitutional, resting as they did on the king's just prerogative and the needs of the country. One might condemn them because they caused more unpopularity than they were worth: that seems to have been the opinion of those who advised Henry VIII on his accession. The whole history of Henry VII's reign seems to me to disprove this judgment. Hostile views of these methods have prevailed for so long that Henry VII's reputation looked like being permanently damaged by those very things he thought most conducive to strong and good government in England. Yet by an agreeable stroke of justice he has now recovered a high standing among English sovereigns precisely because he governed well and wisely by methods which those who evaded the law might well resent but which represented no rapacity and required no remorse."