It was perhaps cruel to compel the clergy to be the first to mention separation—­or the language may have been furnished by the Erastian party in the Church, who hoped to gratify the King by it, and save the annates for themselves; but there was no intention, if the battle was really to be fought, of decorating the clergy with the spoils.  The bill was passed, but passed conditionally, leaving power to the Crown if the pope would consent to a compromise of settling the question by a composition.  There was a Papal party in the House of Commons whose opposition had perhaps to be considered,[355] and the annates were left suspended before Clement at once as a menace and a bribe.

“Forasmuch,” concluded the statute, “as the King’s Highness and this his high Court of Parliament neither have nor do intend in this or any other like cause any manner of extremity or violence, before gentle courtesy and friendly ways and means be first approved and attempted, and without a very great urgent cause and occasion given to the contrary; but principally coveting to disburden this Realm of the said great exactions and intolerable charges of annates and firstfruits:  [the said Court of Parliament] have therefore thought convenient to commit the final order and determination of the premises unto the King’s Highness, so that if it may seem to his high wisdom and most prudent discretion meet to move the Pope’s Holiness and the Court of Rome, amicably, charitably, and reasonably, to compound either to extinct the said annates, or by some friendly, loving, and tolerable composition to moderate the same in such way as may be by this his Realm easily borne and sustained, then those ways of composition once taken shall stand in the strength, force, and effect of a law."[356]

The business of the session was closing.  It remained to receive the reply of convocation on the limitation of its powers.  The convocation, presuming, perhaps, upon its concessions on the annates question, and untamed by the premunire, had framed their answer in the same spirit which had been previously exhibited by the bishops.  They had re-asserted their claims as resting on divine authority, and had declined to acknowledge the right of any secular power to restrain or meddle with them.[357] The second answer, as may be supposed, fared no better than the first.  It was returned with a peremptory demand for submission; and taught by experience the uselessness of further opposition, the clergy with a bad grace complied.  The form was again drawn by the bishops, and it is amusing to trace the workings of their humbled spirit in their reluctant descent from their high estate.  They still laboured to protect their dignity in the terms of their concession:—­