arraigned before his bishop, convicted of manslaughter,[29] and
condemned to make pecuniary compensation to the relations of the
deceased. Long afterward, Fitz-Peter, the itinerant justiciary,
alluding to the same case, called him a murderer in the open court at
Dunstable. A violent altercation ensued, and the irritation of Philip
drew from him expressions of insult and contempt. The report was
carried to the King, who deemed himself injured in the person of his
officer, and ordered De Brois to be indicted for this new offence in
the spiritual court. He was tried and condemned to be publicly
whipped, to be deprived of the fruits of his benefice, and to be
suspended from his functions during two years.

It was hoped that the severity of the sentence would mitigate the
King's anger; but Henry was implacable: he swore "by God's eyes" that
they had favored De Brois on account of his clerical character, and
required the bishops to make oath that they had done justice between
himself and the prisoner (A.D. 1163). In this temper of mind he
summoned them to Westminster, and required their consent that, for the
future, whenever a clergyman had been degraded for a public crime by
the sentence of the spiritual judge, he should be immediately
delivered into the custody of a lay officer to be punished by the
sentence of a lay tribunal. To this the bishops, as guardians of the
rights of the Church, objected. The proposal, they observed, went to
place the English clergy on a worse footing than their brethren in any
other Christian country; it was repugnant to those liberties which the
King had sworn to preserve at his coronation; and it violated the
first principle of law, by requiring that the same individual should
be tried twice and punished twice for one and the same offence. Henry,
who had probably anticipated the answer, immediately quitted the
subject, and inquired whether they would promise to observe the