course which, in the event of their resorting to that extremity, it would follow. The lay lords[1] and the House of Commons found no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion. They passed a fresh penal statute with prohibitions even more emphatically stringent, and decided that 'if any man brought into this realm any sentence, summons, or excommunication, contrary to the effect of the statute, he should incur pain of life and members, with forfeiture of goods; and if any prelate made execution of such sentence, his temporalities should be taken from him, and should abide in the King's hands till redress was made.'[2]
So bold a measure threatened nothing less than open rupture. The Act, however, seems to have been passed in haste, without determined consideration; and on second thoughts, it was held more prudent to attempt a milder course. The strength of the opposition to the Papacy lay with the Commons.[3] When the session of Parliament was over, a great council was summoned to reconsider what should be done, and an address was drawn up, and forwarded to Rome, with a request that the then reigning Pope would devise some manner by which the difficulty could be arranged.[4] Boniface IX. replied with the same want of judgement which was shown afterwards
- ↑ The abbots and bishops decently protested. Their protest was read in Parliament and entered on the Rolls. Rot. Parl. iii. [264] quoted by Lingard, who has given a full account of these transactions.
- ↑ 13 Ric. II. stat. 2.
- ↑ See 16 Ric. II. cap. 5.
- ↑ This it will be remembered was the course which was afterwards followed by the Parliament under Henry VIII. before abolishing the payment of first-fruits.
