Ellis, third series, Vol. II. p. 77.

[83] With some others he "was cast into a prison where the salt-fish
lay, through the stink whereof the most part of them were infected; and
the said Clark, being a tender young man, died in the same
prison."--Foxe, Vol. IV. p. 615.

[84] London to Warham: _Rolls House MS._

[85] Petition of the Commons, Vol. I. cap. 3.

[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 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 u