[86] Ibid. And, as we saw in the bishops' reply, they considered their practice in these respects wholly defensible.--See _Reply of the Bishops_, cap. 3. [87] Petition of the Commons, cap 3. [88] 2 Hen. V. stat. 1. [89] 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 be the sorest enemy that they could have, if they would not repent."--More's _Life of More_, p. 211. [90] See Foxe, Vol. IV. pp. 689, 698, 705. [91] 2 Hen V. stat 1. [92] John Stokesley. [93] Petition of Thomas Philips to the House of Commons: _Rolls House MS._ [94] Ibid. [95] Foxe, Vol. V. pp. 29, 30. [96] The circumstances are curious. Philips begged that he might have the benefit of the king's writ of corpus cum causâ, 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 unâ voce dicebant, quod non consentaneum fuit aliquem procerum prædictorum 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 justify himself, his victim might at least be released from unjust imprisonment. The case was referred to the king and by the king and the House of Commons Philips was set at liberty. [97] Petition of John Field: _Rolls House MS._ [98] Jan 1529-30. [99] Illegal. See 2 Hen. V. Stat. 2. [100] Seventh Sermon before King Edward. First Sermon before the Duchess of Suffolk. [101] Foxe, Vol. IV. p. 649. [102] Articles against James Bainham: Foxe, Vol. IV. p. 703.