Page:History of england froude.djvu/577

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

1530.]

THE PROTESTANTS

555

come a tribunal where oppression would not any longer cry wholly unheard; Philips appealed to it for protection, and recovered his liberty.^[1]

The weight of guilt in this instance presses essentially on Stokesley; yet a portion of the blame must be borne also by the chancellor, who first placed Philips in Stokesley's hands; who took part in the illegal private examinations, and who could not have been ignorant of

↑ 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 subpœnaed 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.

[1] 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 subpœnaed 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.

[1]