opposition, in carrying it through the Lords. March.The Lower House, however, required that Tunstal's accusers should be brought face to face with him, and that he should be heard in his defence, which for many reasons would be inconvenient. The Duke, therefore, withdrew his bill, and proceeded by commission, which did the work for him less scrupulously, but did not improve his reputation. Cranmer refused to sit, and the Bishop of Durham was deposed by a court composed of laymen.
Still more significant was the treatment which a new Statute of Treason received in the House of Commons. As the administration became more detested, incendiary pamphlets and handbills multiplied, and it was desired to restore in some degree the sharp discipline of the last reign. The Lords again complied.[1] The Commons rejected the Government measure, and drew another of their own.[2] In the absence of a copy of the rejected bill, it is impossible to say what it contained; it may be conjectured, however, with some certainty, that it did not contain a clause which appears in the Act as it was finally passed, a clause providing that no person should in future be attainted or convicted of treason under that or any other statute, unless the charges in
- ↑ It is easy to see why: there wore but forty-seven lay peers who had seats in this Parliament; thirty-one was the fullest attendance during this session, the Catholic lords systematically absenting themselves. The council and their friends, therefore, being punctually at their seats, and having bishops of their own creation at their backs, were certain in almost all cases of a majority.
- ↑ Commons Journals. 5 and 6 Edward VI.
