espects wholly defensible.--See _Reply of the Bishops_,
cap. 3.

[535] Petition of the Commons, cap. 3.

[536] Hen. V. stat. 1.

[537] He had been "troublesome to heretics," he said, and he had "done it
with a little ambition;" for "he so hated this kind of men, that he would
fie the sorest enemy that they could have, if they would not
repent."--MORE'S _Life of More_, p. 211.

[538] See FOXE:, vol. iv. pp. 689, 698, 705.

[539] 2 Hen. V. stat. 1.

[540] John Stokesley.

[541] Petition of Thomas Philips to the House of Commons: _Rolls House MS._

[542] Ibid.

[543] FOXE, vol. v. pp. 29, 30.

[544] The circumstances are curious. Philips begged that he might have the
benefit of the king's writ of corpus cum causa, and be brought to the bar
of the House of Commons, where the Bishop of London should be subpoenaed to
meet him. [Petition of Thomas Philips: _Rolls House MS._] The Commons did
not venture on so strong a measure; but a digest of the petition was sent
to the Upper House, that the bishop might have an opportunity of reply. The
Lords refused to receive or consider the case: they replied that it was too
"frivolous an affair" for so grave an assembly, and that they could not
discuss it. [_Lords' Journals_, vol. i. p. 66.] A deputation of the Commons
then waited privately upon the bishop, and being of course anxious to
ascertain whether Philips had given a true version of what had passed, they
begged him to give some written explanation of his conduct, which might be
read in the Commons' House. [_Lords' Journals_, vol. i. p. 71.] The request
was reasonable, and we cannot doubt that, if explanation had been possible,
the bishop would not have failed to offer it; but he preferred to shield
himself behind the judgment of the Lords. The Lords, he said, had decided
that the matter was too frivolous for their own consideration; and without
their permission, he might not set a precedent of responsibility to the
Commons by answering their questions.

This conduct met with the unanimous approval of the Peers. [_Lords'
Journals_, vol. i. p. 71. Omnes proceres tam spirituales quam temporales
una, voce dicebant, quod non consentaneum fuit aliquem procerum
praedictorum alicui in eo loco responsurum.] The demand for explanation
was treated as a breach of privilege, and the bishop was allowed to remain
silent. But the time was passed for conduct of this kind to be allowed to
triumph. If the bishop could not or would not j