"He sayth the complaynt of Hereford to Mowbrey, reported in other cronicles, do imply in sence that the kinge's councell accounted auncient nobilitie a vaine jest,--wealth and vertue the ready meanes to bring to destruction: which complaint is extant in Hall and Polidore Virgill and many other wrighters. He sayth that he read in Bodine and other authors that the subject was rather bounde to the state then to the person of the kinge, which he inserted as a matter spoken by the Earle of Derby and Duke Hereford to serve his owne tourne, which is a libertie used by all good wrighters of historie, and to invent reasons and speaches according to the matter; and saith that Bodin's distinction is that where the government is democraticall or aristocraticall, there the subject is bound to the state rather then to the person that beare the title of a prince, but where it is monarchicall, as in England, there the allegiance is to the person of the prince; and being demaunded wherfore he invented that the erle should speake so for that this government was monarchicall, sayth that he found but remembreth not where he spake to that purpose. And further saith that in the Bishops of Carlile's speache he hath sett down that distinction and confuted the error, and that he did of himselfe according to the example of the best historians; and being reprehended for mencioning of that matter at all, speciallie because the Erle that held the error prevailed, and the Bishop that confuted it was punished, sayth that he did it after the example of the best historians, that applie spechis according to the matter. He sayth he sett forth the oration of the B. of Caunterburie according to the matter he found in other authorities, but remember them not, and cannot affirme that he found those eight stories in any oration the archbishop made in any other cronicle, but saith as before that it is lawfull for an historian so to doe, and besides he confuteth the same, page 107 in the Bishop of Carlisle's speach, the last line of that page.