[56] In his _Apology to Charles the Fifth_, Pole says that Henry in his answer to the book said that he was not displeased with him for what he had written, but that the subject was a grave one, and that he wished to see and speak with him. He, however, remembered the fable of the fox and the sick lion, and would not show himself less sagacious than a brute. Upon this, Lingard and other writers have built a charge of treachery against Henry, and urged it, as might be expected, with much eloquent force. It did not occur to them that if Henry had really said anything so incredible, and had intended treachery, the letters of Tunstall and Starkey would have been in keeping with the king's; they would not have been allowed to betray the secret and show Pole their true opinions. Henry's letter was sent on the 14th of June; the other letters bore the same date, and went by the same post. But, indeed, the king made no mystery of his displeasure. He may have written generally, as knowing only so much of the book as others had communicated to him. That he affected not to be displeased is as absurd in itself as it is contradicted by the terms of the refusal to return, which Pole himself sent in reply.--Strype's _Memorials_, Vol. II. p. 295. [57] Starkey to Pole: Strype's _Memorials_, Vol. II. p. 282. [58] Tunstall to Pole: _Rolls House MS._, Burnet's _Collectanea_, p. 479. [59] Starkey to Pole: _Rolls House MS._ [60] Phillips' _Life of Cardinal Pole_, Vol. I. p. 148. Reginald Pole to Edward VI.: _Epist._ Reg. Pol. [61] Wordsworth's _Excursion_, Book V. [62] _Sermons of Bishop Latimer_, Parker Society's edition, p. 33. [63] In the State Paper Office and the Rolls House there are numerous "depositions" as to language used by the clergy, showing their general temper. [64] Printed in Strype's _Memorials_, Vol. II. p. 260. The complaints are not exaggerated. There is not one which could not be illustrated or strengthened from depositions among the _Records_. [65] This, again, was intended for Latimer. The illustration was said to be his; but he denied it. [66] Many of the clergy and even of the monks had already taken the permission of their own authority. Cranmer himself was said to be secretly married; and in some cases women, whom we find reported in this letter of Cromwell's visitors as concubines of priests, were really and literally their wives, and had been formally married to them. I have discovered one singular instance of this kind. Ap Rice, writing to Cromwell in the year 1535 or 6, says: