perial family and to the Catholic cause.
Henry, though provoked beyond measure at this outrage, dissembled his
resentment; and he sent a message to Pole, desiring him to return to
England, in order to explain certain passages in his book which he
found somewhat obscure and difficult. Pole was on his guard against this
insidious invitation; and was determined to remain in Italy, where he
was universally beloved.

The pope and emperor thought themselves obliged to provide for a man
of Pole's eminence and dignity, who, in support of their cause, had
sacrificed all his pretensions to fortune in his own country. He was
created a cardinal; and though he took not higher orders than those of a
deacon, he was sent legate into Flanders about the year 1536.[**]

* Goodwin's Annals

** Herbert.

Henry was sensible that Pole's chief intention in choosing that
employment, was to foment the mutinous disposition of the English
Catholics; and he therefore remonstrated in so vigorous a manner with
the queen of Hungary, regent of the Low Countries, that she dismissed
the legate, without allowing him to exercise his functions. The enmity
which he bore to Pole was now as open as it was violent; and the
cardinal, on his part, kept no further measures in his intrigues against
Henry. He is even suspected of having aspired to the crown, by means of
a marriage with the lady Mary; and the king was every day more alarmed
by informations which he received of the correspondence maintained in
England by that fugitive. Courtney, marquis of Exeter, had entered
into a conspiracy with him; Sir Edward Nevil, brother to the lord
Abergavenny; Sir Nicholas Carew, master of horse, and knight of the
garter; Henry de la Pole, Lord Montacute, and Sir Geoffrey de la Pole,
brothers to the cardinal. These persons were indicted, and tried,
and convicted, before Lord Audley, who presided in the trial as high
steward; they were all executed, except Sir Geoffrey de la Pole, who was
pardoned; and he owed this grace to his having first carried to the king
secret intelligence of the conspiracy. We know little concerning the
justice or iniquity of the sentence pronounced against these men:
we only know, that the condemnation of a man who was at that time
prosecuted by the court, forms no presumption of his guilt; though,
as no historian of credit mentions in the present case any complaint
occasioned by these trials, we may presume that sufficient evidence was