Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Books, poems, drama…

History of the Catholic Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution Volume 2 by Rev. James MacCaffrey

Part 3 out of 8

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 0.9 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

Nor was it merely from the side of the Catholics that the bishops and
the government anticipated serious danger. The men, who, like Hooper,
objected to the Edwardine settlement as not being sufficiently
extreme, had approached more closely to Calvinism in doctrine and in
ritual during their enforced sojourn at Frankfurt and Geneva. They
were enthusiastic in their praise of Elizabeth for her attacks upon
Rome, but they found fault with her religious programme as flavouring
too much of idolatry and papistry. They objected to crosses, candles,
vestments, copes, blessings, and much of the old ritual that had been
retained in the Book of Common prayer, and insisted that, until
religion had been brought back to a state of scriptural purity, the
English people should not rest satisfied. Whatever sympathy some of
the English political advisers may have had with the Puritans in
theory they had no intention of yielding to their demands, as such a
policy would have stirred up all the latent Catholicity in the
country. The official church "as by law established" was to be a
church for the nation, standing midway between Rome and Puritanism, a
kind of compromise between both extremes. Elizabeth was determined to
put down Puritanism, irreverence, and unlicensed preaching with a
heavy hand. As a foretaste of what the champions of innovation might
expect, much to the disgust of the archbishop, she struck a blow at
the married clergy by ordering the removal of women and children from
the enclosures of colleges and cathedrals (1561).

It cannot be said that it was the opposition of Rome to her accession
that forced Elizabeth to establish a national church. Paul IV., whose
undiplomatic and imprudent proceedings had caused such grave
embarrassment to her predecessor, made no protest against the
recognition of Elizabeth's claims, although he was urged to do so by
France. The same attitude of friendly reserve was maintained by his
successor Pius IV. (1559-65).[12] Shortly after his consecration he
addressed a kindly letter to Elizabeth exhorting her to return to the
bosom of the Church.[13] His envoy was not allowed, however, to enter
England, nor had another envoy, dispatched in 1561 to invite the queen
and the English bishops to take part in the Council of Trent, any
better success. Though Elizabeth discussed the matter with the Spanish
ambassador and even made preparations for the reception of the papal
envoy, the necessary safe conducts were not forwarded to Flanders, and
in the end a notification was sent that the papal messenger could not
be received, nor would the English bishops attend the Council of
Trent. Possibly owing to the friendly attitude of the Pope, rumours
were put in circulation that he was not unwilling to accept the new
English Book of Common Prayer if Elizabeth would consent to
acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. That there was never the least
foundation for such a statement is now generally admitted, but at the
time it helped to confirm many Catholics in the view that to escape
fines and punishment it was lawful for them to attend the English
service, particularly as they took care to assist at Mass in secret
and made it clear both by their actions and demeanour that their
presence at the new religious rite was not voluntary. Others, however,
refused to follow this opinion, and in order to put an end to the
dissensions that had arisen a petition was drawn up and forwarded to
the Pope requesting him for permission to attend Common Prayer, but,
though the request was supported by the Spanish ambassador, the
permission was refused (1562).

Elizabeth's second Parliament (1563) met at a time when the downfall
of the Huguenots to whom England had furnished assistance, the failure
of a plot entered into by the nephews of Cardinal Pole for the
overthrow of Elizabeth's government, and the reports from the
ecclesiastical commissioners and the bishops, showing as they did that
contempt for the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity was still strong,
made it necessary to undertake more repressive measures against the
Catholics. An Act was passed entitled, "an Act for the assurance of
the queen's royal power" commanding that the oath of supremacy should
be administered to members of the House of Commons, schoolmasters,
tutors, attorneys, and all who had held any ecclesiastical office
during the reigns of Elizabeth, Mary, Edward VI. or Henry VIII., and
to all who manifested their hostility to the established religion by
celebrating Mass or assisting at its celebration. Refusal to take the
oath when first tendered was to be punished by forfeiture and life
imprisonment, and on the second refusal the penalty was to be a
traitor's death. Had such an Act been enforced strictly it would have
meant the complete extirpation of the Catholics of England, but
Elizabeth, having secured a weapon by which she might terrorise them,
took care to prevent her bishops from driving them to extremes by a
close investigation of their opinions regarding royal supremacy. Fines
and imprisonment were at this stage deemed more expedient than death.

Convocation met at the same time, but Convocation had changed much
since 1559 when it declared bravely in favour of the Real Presence,
Transubstantiation, the Mass, Papal supremacy, and the independence of
the Church. The effects of the deprivation of the bishops, deans,
archdeacons, canons, and clergy, and of the wholesale ordinations "of
artificers unlearned and some even of base occupations" by Parker and
Grindal and others were plainly visible.[14] Convocation was no longer
Catholic in tone. It was distinctly Puritan. A proposal was made that
all holidays and feasts should be abolished except Sundays and "the
principal feasts of Christ," that there should be no kneeling at
Communion, no vestments in the celebration of Common Service except
the surplice, no organs in the churches, no sign of the cross in
baptism, and that the minister should be compelled to read divine
service facing the people. The proposal was debated warmly and in the
end was defeated only by one vote.[15] One of the principal objects
for which Convocation had been called was to draft a new dogmatic
creed for the Church "as by law established." This was a matter of
supreme importance. But as it was necessary to affirm nothing that
would offend the Huguenots of France and the theologians of
Switzerland and Germany, or rouse the latent Catholic sentiments of
the English people, it was also a work of supreme difficulty. In other
words the creed of the established Church must be in the nature of a
compromise, and a compromise it really was. The Forty Two Articles of
Edward VI. were taken as the basis of discussion. As a result of the
deliberations they were reduced to Thirty Nine,[16] in which form they
were signed by the bishops and clergy, before being presented to
Elizabeth and her ministers for approval. As an indication to the
clergy that the office of supreme governor was no sinecure Elizabeth
would not authorise the publication of the Articles until a very
important one dealing with the Eucharist had been omitted, and until
another one regarding the authority of the Church to change rites and
ceremonies had been modified. That influences other than doctrinal
were at work in shaping the Thirty Nine Articles is evident from the
fact that the particular Eucharistic Article referred to was omitted
in 1563 lest it should drive away Catholics who were wavering, and
inserted again in 1570 when the government, then in open war with
Rome, was determined to give back blow for blow. The catechism drawn
up by Convocation for the use of the laity was promptly suppressed by
Cecil.

By the adoption of the Thirty Nine Articles as its official creed the
English Church "by law established," cut itself adrift from the
Catholic Church and from the faith that had been delivered to the
Anglo-Saxon people by Rome's great missionary St. Augustine. However
ambiguous might be the wording to which the authors of the Articles
had recourse in order to win followers, there could be no longer any
doubt that on some of the principal points of doctrine the new creed
stood in flagrant contradiction to the doctrines received by the
Catholic world. The Pope, whose spiritual powers had never been called
into question till the days of Henry VIII., was declared to have no
jurisdiction in England. The Sacrifices of the Masses (as it is put)
were denounced as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits;
Transubstantiation was regarded as unscriptural and opening the way to
superstition; the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence of Christ
was implicitly condemned; the summoning of a General Council was made
dependent on the will of the secular princes; the fact that such
assemblies could err and did err in the past was emphasised; five of
the Sacraments, namely, Confirmation, Penance, Holy Orders, Matrimony
and Extreme Unction were declared not to be Sacraments of the Gospel,
and the Roman doctrine concerning Purgatory, Indulgences, the
invocation of saints, and veneration of images and relics was
pronounced to be a foolish and vain invention, contradictory to the
Word of God.[17]

The new repressive legislation, at least in regard to fines and
imprisonment, was enforced strictly against Catholics who were still a
strong body, especially in the north. On the accession of Pius V.
(1566-72) the friendly attitude hitherto maintained by Rome was
changed. There could no longer be any hope that Elizabeth would modify
her religious policy, as even her former ally and supporter Philip II.
was forced to admit, and there was grave danger that the opinion
entertained by some, that Catholics should be permitted to attend
Common Prayer was a purely legal function, might do considerable harm.
Hence a strong condemnation of the English service was published by
the Pope, and a commission was granted to two English priests, Sanders
and Harding, empowering them to absolve all those who had incurred the
guilt of schism (1566). As even this was not sufficient to put an end
to all doubts, and as the authority of the papal agent Laurence Vaux
was questioned by certain individuals, a formal Bull of reconciliation
was issued in 1567, authorising the absolution of those who had
incurred the guilt of heresy or schism by their obedience to the Acts
of Supremacy and Uniformity.

Apart from other considerations, this clear and definite statement of
the attitude of the Pope towards attendance at the English service
helped to stiffen the backs of the English Catholics, and to determine
even the waverers to stand firm; but in addition to this the question
of the succession to the throne raised considerable discussion.
Elizabeth was still without a husband, and for reasons probably best
known to herself she refused to allow her Parliament to drive her into
marriage, although partly through vanity, partly through motives of
policy she was not unwilling to dally with the advances of several
suitors both native and foreign. In the eyes of Catholics Elizabeth
was illegitimate, and except for her father's will and the
parliamentary confirmation of that will, as an illegitimate she had no
right to the throne. Mary Queen of Scotland, the grand-daughter of
Henry VIII.'s eldest sister Margaret, was from the legal point of view
the lawful heir; but as she was the wife of the Dauphin of France at
the time of Elizabeth's accession, Englishmen generally did not wish
to recognise her claim for precisely the same reasons that drove them
to oppose Queen Mary's marriage with Philip II. of Spain. After the
death of her French husband and her return to Scotland opinion began
to change in her favour, and this grew stronger in Catholic circles,
when she fled into England to claim the support of her cousin Queen
Elizabeth against the Scottish rebels (1568). A strong body even in
the council favoured the plan of a marriage between Mary and the Duke
of Norfolk, and the recognition of their rights and the rights of
their children to the throne on the death of Elizabeth, as the best
means of avoiding civil war and of escaping from the delicate position
created by the presence of Scotland's Queen in England. Norfolk was
regarded as a kind of Protestant and was backed by a very considerable
body of the council, but his communications with Philip II. of Spain,
who favoured the marriage, and with the Catholic lords of the north,
who, driven to extremes by religious persecution and by the treatment
accorded to Mary in England, were not unwilling to depose Elizabeth,
he professed his intention of becoming a Catholic. Elizabeth, however,
was strong against the marriage, and Cecil, though he pretended to
favour it, supported the views of his sovereign. Rumours of
conspiracies especially in the north were afloat. The noblemen of
Lancashire had met and pledged themselves not to attend the English
service; the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland declared openly
their attachment to the Catholic Church; the attitude of Wales and
Cornwall was more than doubtful, and the Spanish ambassador was well
known to be moving heaven and earth to induce his master to lend his
aid.[18]

Elizabeth determined to strike at once before the plans of the
conspirators could be matured. The Duke of Norfolk was commanded to
appear at court and was soon lodged safely in the Tower (11th Oct.,
1569). A peremptory order was issued to the Earls of Northumberland
and Westmoreland to come immediately to London, and as they knew well
the fate that was in store for them they determined to stake their
fortunes on the chance of a successful rising. They appealed to the
Catholic lords of Scotland, to the Duke of Alva, and to Spain for
support, and mustered their forces for war. They entered Durham (10th
Nov. 1569), where they swept out from the cathedral both the Book of
Common Prayer and the communion table, set up the altar once more, and
had Mass celebrated publicly. They marched southwards with the object
of getting possession of the Queen of Scotland who was imprisoned at
Tutbury, but their design having been suspected Mary was removed
suddenly to Coventry. A strong force was sent to prevent their march
southward, while Moray, the regent of Scotland and Elizabeth's
faithful ally, assembled his troops on the border to prevent the
Scottish Catholic lords from rallying to the assistance of their
co-religionists. The insurgents, caught between the two fires, were
routed completely, and the leaders hastened to make their escape.
Westmoreland to the Netherlands, where he lived for thirty years in
exile, and Northumberland to Scotland only to be sold again to
Elizabeth for £2,000 and executed. Martial law was proclaimed and
hundreds "of the poorer sort" were put to death. The trouble seemed to
be over for the time, but suddenly in January 1570, encouraged by the
assassination of Moray and by the raids of the Catholic borderers,
Lord Dacre rose in revolt, and threw himself upon the queen's forces
on their march from Naworth to Carlisle. He was defeated and barely
succeeded in escaping with his life. All resistance was now at an end,
and more than eight hundred of the insurgents were executed. The
failure of the Northern Rebellion served only to strengthen
Elizabeth's power, and to secure for Protestantism a firm footing in
England.

While preparations were being made in England for the rebellion,
Catholic representatives in Rome, both lay and clerical, pressed Pius
V. to issue a decree of excommunication and of deposition against
Elizabeth. Such a decree, it was thought, would strengthen the hands
of those who were working in the interests of Mary Queen of Scotland,
and would open the eyes of a large body of Catholics who stood firmly
by Elizabeth solely from motives of extreme loyalty. Philip II. was
not acquainted with the step that was in contemplation, though
apparently the French authorities were warned that Rome was about to
take action.[19] Had the advice of the King of Spain been sought he
might have warned the Pope against proceeding to extremes with
Elizabeth, and in doing so he would have had the support of those at
home who were acquainted most intimately with English affairs. In
February (1570) the process against Elizabeth was begun in Rome, and
on the 25th of the same month the Bull, /Regnans in Excelsis/,[20]
announcing the excommunication and deposition of Elizabeth was given
to the world. Had it come five or six months earlier, and had there
been an able leader capable of uniting the English Catholic body, a
work that could not be accomplished either by the Duke of Norfolk or
the Northern Earls, the result might have been at least doubtful; but
its publication, at a time when the northern rebellion had been
suppressed, and when Spain, France, and the Netherlands were unwilling
to execute it, served only to make wider the breach between England
and Rome, and to expose the English Catholics to still fiercer
persecution.[21] For so far Catholics had been free to combine with
moderate Protestants to secure the peaceful succession of Mary Queen
of Scotland without any suspicion of disloyalty to Elizabeth, but from
this time forward they were placed in the cruel position of being
traitors either to the Pope or to Elizabeth, and every move made by
them in favour of Mary Queen of Scotland must necessarily be construed
as disloyalty to their sovereign. Copies of the Bull were smuggled
into England, and one man, John Fenton, was found brave enough to risk
his life by affixing a copy to the gates of the palace of the Bishop
of London. He was taken prisoner immediately, and subjected to the
terrible death reserved for traitors (8th August 1570).

While anti-Catholic feeling was running high, Elizabeth summoned
Parliament to meet in April 1571. As danger was to be feared both from
the Catholics and the Puritans special care was taken to ensure that
reliable men should be returned. Several measures were introduced
against the Catholic recusants, who had few sympathisers in the House
of Commons, but in the House of Lords, where the Duke of Norfolk, who
had been released, pleaded for moderation, and was supported by a
small but determined body of the Lords, the feeling was less violent.
Bills were both framed and passed making it treason to obtain Bulls,
briefs, or documents from Rome. The penalty of Praemunire was levelled
against all aiders and abettors of those offenders mentioned above,
together with all who received beads, crosses, pictures, etc., blessed
by the Bishop of Rome, or by any one acting with his authority;[22]
while those who had fled from the kingdom were commanded to return
within six months under penalty of forfeiture of their goods and
property. It was proposed too that all adults should be forced to
attend the Protestant service and to receive Communion at stated
times, but the latter portion was dropped probably at the request of
the Catholic lords. However subservient Parliament might be in regard
to the Catholics it was not inclined to strengthen the hands of the
bishops against the Puritans. Notwithstanding Elizabeth's refusal to
allow discussion of the Thirty Nine Articles, or to permit them to be
published under parliamentary sanction, the members succeeded in
attaining their object indirectly by imposing them on recusants.
Elizabeth was determined, however, to show her faithful Commons that
she and not the Parliament was the supreme governor of the Church.[23]
She took Convocation and the bishops under her protection and
empowered them to issue the Articles in a revised form, so that there
were then really two versions of the Thirty Nine Articles in force,
one imposed by Convocation and the queen and the other by Parliament.

To secure aid against Spain as well as to draw away the French from
supporting the Queen of Scotland Elizabeth made overtures for marriage
to the Duke of Anjou, and at the same time the party in favour of Mary
determined to make a new effort to bring about a marriage between Mary
and the Duke of Norfolk. Ridolfi[24] was the life and soul of the
conspiracy, assisted by the Duke of Norfolk and by the Bishop of Ross,
Mary's ambassador in London. It was hoped to enlist the sympathy of
the Duke of Alva, Philip II. and the Pope, none of whom were unwilling
to aid in overthrowing Elizabeth's rule, but before anything definite
could be done Cecil's spies brought him news of the steps that were
being taken. The Duke of Norfolk was arrested in September 1571, and
placed on his trial in the following January. He was condemned to
death, but as Elizabeth did not wish to take the responsibility of his
execution on herself she waited until it had been confirmed by
Parliament, after which he was led to the block (2nd June 1572).
Parliament also petitioned for the execution of the Queen of Scotland,
but for various reasons Elizabeth refused to accede to their request.

Though the new laws were enforced strictly it is clear from the
episcopal reports that in London itself, in Norwich, Winchester, Ely,
Worcester, in the diocese and province of York, and indeed throughout
the entire country Catholicism had still a strong hold.[25] The old
Marian priests were, however, dying out rapidly. The monasteries and
universities, that had supplied priests for the English mission, were
either destroyed or passed into other hands, so that it became clear
to both friends and foes that unless something could be done to keep
up the supply of clergy the Catholic religion was doomed ultimately to
extinction. This difficulty had occurred to the minds of many of the
English scholars who had fled from Oxford to the Continent, but it was
reserved for Dr. William Allen,[26] formerly a Fellow of Oriel
College, and Principal of St. Mary's Hall, Oxford, and later in 1587 a
Cardinal of the Roman Church, to take practical measures to meet the
wants of his co-religionists in England. He determined to found a
college on the Continent for the education of priests for the English
mission, and as Douay had a new university, in which many of the
former Oxford men had found a home, he opened a college at Douay in
1568.[27] Depending on his own private resources, the contributions of
his friends, and the pensions guaranteed by the King of Spain and the
Pope, he succeeded beyond expectation. Students flocked from England
to the new college, whence they returned on the completion of their
studies to strengthen and console their co-religionists at home. Could
Douay College boast only of the 160 martyrs whom it trained and sent
into England Cardinal Allen would have had good reason to be proud of
his work, but in addition to this the numerous controversial tracts of
real merit that were issued from the Douay printing-press, and
scattered throughout England, helped to keep alive Catholic sentiment
in the country. In Douay too was begun the translation of the
Scriptures into English, the New Testament being published at Rheims
(1582) whither the college had been removed in 1578, and the old
Testament in 1609. In 1576 Allen visited Rome and persuaded Gregory
XIII. to found a college in Rome for the education of English
priests.[28] Students were sent in 1576 and 1577, and a hospice was
granted in 1578 as an English seminary, over which the Jesuits were
placed in the following year. A college was established at Valladolid
by Father Persons (1589), another at Seville in 1592, and one at St.
Omers in 1594.

The failure of the northern rebellion, the repressive measures adopted
by Parliament in 1571, and the betrayal of Ridolfi's fantastic
schemes, did not mean the extinction of Catholicism in England. On the
contrary there was a distinct reaction in its favour, partly through
the failure of the Protestant bishops and clergy to maintain a
consistent religious service such as that which they had overthrown,
partly to the revulsion created by the fanatical vapourings of the
Puritans, but above all to the efforts of the "seminary priests," as
the men who returned from Douay and the other colleges abroad were
called. The older generation of clergy who had been deprived on
Elizabeth's accession were content to minister to their flocks in
secret, and were happy so long as they could escape the meshes of the
law; but the new men who returned from Douay were determined to make
the country Catholic once more or to die in the attempt. They went
boldly from place to place exhorting the Catholics to stand firm, and
they seemed to have no dread of imprisonment, exile or death. Many of
them were arrested and kept in close confinement, while others, like
Thomas Woodhouse (1573), Cuthbert Mayne (1577), John Nelson, and
Thomas Sherwood (1578), gloried in being thought worthy of dying as
their Master had died.[29]

Nor did their fate deter others from following in their footsteps. It
was reported in 1579 that a hundred students had been ordained and
sent into England from Rome and Rheims. The result of the labours of
these apostolic men was soon evident. The government, alarmed at the
sudden resurrection of Popery, urged the bishops and officials to make
new efforts for its suppression. Throughout the various dioceses
inquiries were begun which served only to show that recusancy was no
longer confined to Lancashire or the north. The bishops were obliged
to admit (1577) with sorrow that papists "did increase in numbers and
in obstinacy." They recommended the infliction of fines, and furnished
the authorities with a list of recusants and the value of their
property. In York the archbishop reported that "a more stiff-necked or
wilful people I never knew or heard of, doubtless they are reconciled
with Rome and sworn to the Pope," and what was worse they preferred to
be imprisoned than to listen to the archbishop's harangues. From
Hereford it was announced that "rebellion is rampant, attendance at
church is contemptuous, and John Hareley read so loudly on his latin
popish primer (that he understands not) that he troubles both minister
and people." In Oxford and amongst the lawyers in the Inns of Court
and in the Inns of Chancery popery and superstition were still
flourishing.[30]

To make matters worse it was soon bruited about that the Jesuits,
whose very name was sufficient to instil terror, were preparing for an
invasion of England. The invading force it was true was small, but it
was select. Persons and Campion,[31] both Oxford men, who having gone
into exile joined themselves to the Society of St. Ignatius, were
entrusted with the difficult undertaking. The government, warned by
its spies of their mission, had the ports watched to capture them on
their arrival, but the two priests contrived to elude the vigilance of
their enemies, and succeeded in arriving safely in London (1580). The
news of their arrival could not be kept a secret, and hence they
determined to leave London. Before they separated for the different
fields they had selected, to prevent future misrepresentation of their
aims, Campion wrote an open letter addressed to the lords of the privy
council in defence of his views, which letter having been published
was known as "Campion's challenge." Persons went through the country
from Northampton to Gloucester, while Campion preached from Oxford to
Northampton. They took pains to set up a small printing press, which
was removed from place to place, and from which was issued sufficient
literature to disconcert their opponents. Probably the most remarkable
volume published from the Jesuit printing-press was Campion's /Ten
Reasons/,[32] addressed particularly to the Oxford students amongst
whom it created a great sensation. At last after many hair-breadth
escapes Campion was captured at Lyford and committed to the Tower. He
had challenged his opponents to meet him in a public disputation, and
now that he was in their hands, worn out by his labours and
imprisonment, they determined to take up the challenge in the hope
that by overthrowing him they might shake the faith of his followers.
But despite his weakness and infirmity they found in him so dangerous
and so learned an adversary that the government thought it wiser to
bring the controversy to an end, or rather to transfer it to the law
courts. Even here the captive Jesuit showed that he was quite able to
hold his own with the lawyers. He had been guilty of no treason, he
averred; he acknowledged the queen to be his lawful sovereign; but he
refused to disown the Bull of Deposition. He was found guilty,
condemned to death as a traitor, and was executed with two other
priests in December 1581.[33]

During the wild start of alarm and vexation caused by the reports of
the rising strength of the recusants, the invasion of seminary priests
and of Jesuits, and the help given by Gregory XIII. to the Desmond
rebellion, Parliament met (Jan. 1581). An Act was passed immediately
making it high treason to possess or to exercise the power of
absolving or withdrawing anybody from the established church, and a
similar penalty was levelled against those who permitted themselves to
be reconciled or withdrawn, together with all aiders or abettors. The
punishment decreed for celebrating or assisting at Mass was a fine of
100 marks and one year's imprisonment. Fines of £20 per lunar month
were to be inflicted upon all those who absented themselves from
Common Prayer, and if their absence lasted for an entire year the
delinquents should be obliged to provide heavy securities for their
good behaviour. All schoolmasters or tutors not licensed by the bishop
of the diocese were declared liable to a year's imprisonment, and the
person who employed them to a fine of not less than £10 per month. The
Act was enforced with merciless severity. Fathers Campion, Sherwin,
and Briant were hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn (Dec. 1581);
eleven other priests met a similar fate before the end of the
following year, and two priests and two school-masters were hanged,
drawn and quartered in 1583.[34] The news of the execution of Campion
and his fellow labourers created a profound impression on the country.
In reply to the protests that were raised Elizabeth thought at first
of issuing an official statement, but in the end the idea was
abandoned and Cecil, now Lord Burghley, published anonymously two
pamphlets to justify the action of the government. The jails were so
filled with popish recusants that in order to escape the expense of
supporting them, a plan was formed to convey them to North America,
but it could not be executed owing to the opposition of the Spanish
Government. The seminary priests did not, however, allow themselves to
be drawn away from their work either by the terrors of treason or by
the echoes of the wordy war, that was being carried on between Lord
Burghley and his friends on one side, and Dr. Allen and his friends on
the other. A catechism introduced by them was bought up so rapidly
that in a few months it was out of print. A great body of the English
noblemen still held the old faith. In the north Catholics were
numerous and active, and even in the southern and western counties and
in Wales opinion was veering rapidly towards Rome. Had the seminary
priests been left free to continue their work, unimpeded by foreign or
English political plots on the Continent, it is difficult to say what
might have been the result. Unfortunately new plots were hatched under
the protection of France or Spain for the release of Mary Queen of
Scotland, and for her proclamation as Queen of England. Throckmorton,
who had taken the principal part in this affair, was arrested and put
to death; the principal conspirators, men like the Earl of
Northumberland and the Earl of Arundel were sent to the Tower; the
jails were filled with Catholics, and five priests were put to death
at Tyburn (1584).[35]

Parliament met (1585) at a time when the discovery of the plot against
Elizabeth and the news of the assassination of William of Orange had
created great excitement through the country. An association that had
been formed to defend the life of the queen or to revenge her death
was granted statutory powers by Parliament. The queen was authorised
to create a special commission with authority to deal with all
plotters and to exclude from succession to the throne everyone in
whose interest she herself might be assassinated. An Act was passed by
which all Jesuits and seminary priests were commanded to leave England
within forty days under penalty of treason; all persons not in holy
orders studying in any foreign seminary or college were ordered to
return within six months and to take the oath of supremacy within two
days of their arrival if they did not wish to be punished as traitors;
all persons harbouring or assisting a priest were to be adjudged
guilty of felony; all who sent their children abroad except by special
permission were to be fined £100 for each offence, and all who had
knowledge of the presence of a priest in England, and who did not
report it to a magistrate within twelve days were liable to be fined
and imprisoned at the queen's pleasure.[36] This Act was designed to
secure the banishment or death of all the seminary priests, and if any
of them survived it was due neither to the want of vigilance nor to
the mildness of the government. Spies were let loose into every part
of England to report the doings of the clergy and laity. Wholesale
arrests were effected, and great numbers of the clergy put to death
merely because they were priests, and of the laymen merely because
they harboured priests. Three were executed in 1585, thirteen in 1586,
and seven in 1587. To secure the conviction of the prisoners, though
the law had made the conviction sufficiently certain, but more
especially to create popular prejudice against them in the minds of
loyal Englishmen, a series of questions were administered to them
known as the "bloody" or "cut-throat" questions, as for example,
"whose part would you take if the Pope or any other by his authority
should make war on the queen."[37]

The dismissal of the Spanish ambassador after the discovery of the
Throckmorton plot and the assistance given by England to the rebels in
the Netherlands helped to increase the hostility between England and
Spain, and to induce Philip II. to make renewed efforts for the
overthrow of Elizabeth's government, while at the same time the
merciless persecution of the Catholics in England drove many of them
who wished to remain loyal to co-operate with their brethren abroad
and to assist Philip's schemes. This unfortunate combination of
English Catholics with Spanish politicians did more to mar the work of
the seminary priests, and to set back the rising Catholic tide than
all that could have been accomplished by Elizabeth's penal laws or
merciless persecution. The large and increasing body of English people
who began to look with a friendly eye towards the old faith were
shocked by the adoption of such means, and when they found themselves
face to face with the necessity of selecting between an Anglo-Spanish
party and Elizabeth, they decided to throw in their lot with the
latter. The discovery of the Babington plot for the rescue of
Scotland's queen led to the death of its author and the execution of
the lady in whose favour it had been planned (1587). The news of
Mary's execution created a great sensation both at home and abroad. To
prevent hostilities on the part of Mary's son, James VI. of Scotland,
or of the Catholic sovereigns on the Continent, Elizabeth, pretending
to be displeased with her ministers for carrying out the sentence,
ordered the arrest of Davison the secretary to the council, and had
him punished by a fine of £10,000 and imprisonment in the Tower.
Philip II. was not, however, deceived by such conduct, or influenced
by the overtures made for peace. Elizabeth's interference in the
affairs of the Netherlands, the attacks made by her sailors on Spanish
territories and Spanish treasure-ships, and the execution of Mary
Queen of Scotland determined him to make a final effort for the
overthrow of the English government. The great Armada was got ready
for the invasion of England (1588). But the Spanish ships were not
destined to reach the English harbours, nor the Spanish soldiers whom
they carried on board to test their bravery and skill in conflict with
Elizabeth's forces on English soil.

Though there is no evidence either from English or Spanish reports
that Catholics in England welcomed the Armada, since both Lord
Burghley[38] and Philip II. were convinced that Spain could not rely
on their co-operation, and though in many parts of the country
Catholics volunteered for service to fight the invader, the government
determined to wreak its vengeance on the helpless victims in prison.
Within three days six priests and eight laymen were executed near
London (August); nine priests and three laymen were put to death in
October, and before the end of the year thirty-one had suffered the
terrible punishment reserved for traitors, merely because they refused
to conform. The prisons were so full of recusants that new houses were
opened for their detention. The government reaped a rich harvest by
the heavy fines inflicted on the wealthy Catholics and took pains,
besides, to annoy them at every turn by domiciliary visits in search
of concealed priests. Yet the reports from the country, especially
from such places as Lancashire and Cheshire, showed that the Papists
were still dangerously strong. A new proclamation was issued against
seminary priests and Jesuits (1591). Nine priests and two laymen had
been put to death in the previous year (1590), and in 1591 fifteen
were martyred, seven of whom were priests and the rest laymen.
Throughout the remainder of Queen Elizabeth's reign Catholics in
England were not allowed to enjoy peace or respite. If priests, they
were by that very fact liable to be hunted down and condemned as
traitors; if they were laymen of substance, they were beggared by
heavy fines imposed for non-attendance at the English service, or
punished by imprisonment, and if they were too poor to pay a fine they
could be driven from the kingdom for refusing to conform. Apart
altogether from the immense sums levied on Catholics by fines and
forfeitures, and from the number of people who died in prison either
from confinement or torture, one hundred and eighty-nine were put to
death for the faith under Elizabeth, one hundred and twenty-eight of
whom were priests; and yet, notwithstanding this persecution,
Catholics were still comparatively strong at the death of Elizabeth,
and the supply of clergy showed no signs of being exhausted. Over
three hundred and sixty priests were in England attending to the wants
of their co-religionists in 1603.

Unfortunately the dissensions among the Catholic party in England and
on the Continent did more harm to their cause than Elizabeth's
persecutions. The close co-operation of Allen and Persons with Spanish
political designs for the overthrow of Elizabeth and the invasion of
England was as distasteful to a large body of the lay Catholics in
England as it was to many of the clergy.[39] Though serious disputes
had broken out long before, it was only after the death of Cardinal
Allen in 1594 that the crisis reached a head. Many of the secular
clergy objected warmly to the influence of the Jesuits, and ugly
controversies broke out in England and in the English colleges abroad.
Persons and his friends were supposed to be plotting in favour of the
succession of a Catholic to the throne on the death of Elizabeth,
while most of their opponents favoured the succession of James VI. of
Scotland, from whom they expected at least toleration. To put an end
to what the latter regarded as the excessive authority of the Jesuits
they insisted on the appointment of a bishop who would take charge of
English affairs, but for various reasons the Holy See refused to yield
to their request. As a compromise, however, George Blackwell was
appointed archpriest (1598) with secret instructions, it was said, to
consult Garnet, the Jesuit superior in England. The selection was
singularly unfortunate, as neither from the point of view of prudence
nor of reliability was Blackwell fitted for the extremely delicate
position which he was called upon to fill. The seculars refused at
first to obey his authority and appealed again to the Pope, who
confirmed the appointment. As many of the seculars were still
unwilling to yield some of the leaders were censured by the
archpriest. A new appeal was forwarded to Rome. In 1602 Clement VIII.
issued a document upholding the authority of the archpriest, and,
while firmly defending the Jesuits against the charges that had been
made against them, warned Blackwell that he should not take his
instructions from any person except from the Pope or the Cardinal
Protector of England.[40] This controversy could not be kept a secret.
It was known to the entire Catholic body, and it was used with great
force and success by their opponents. The government took sides with
the secular clergy and offered them facilities for carrying their
appeals to Rome, but news of the secret negotiations between the
seculars and the authorities having been divulged Elizabeth issued a
new proclamation (1602) in which she announced that she had never any
intention of tolerating two religions in England.[41] The Jesuits and
their adherents were commanded to quit the kingdom within thirty days,
and their opponents within three months under penalty of treason. To
give effect to this proclamation a new commission with extraordinary
powers was appointed to secure the banishment of the Catholic clergy.
The seculars, who had opposed the archpriest, encouraged by the
distinction drawn in the proclamation between the two classes of
English priests, the loyal and the disloyal, determined to draw up an
address to the queen proclaiming their civil allegiance,[42] but
before it was considered Elizabeth had passed away, and the fate in
store for them was to be determined by a new ruler.
----------

[1] Cf. F. W. Maitland in /Eng. Hist. Review/ (April, 1900). Father
Pollen, S.J., in /The Month/ (Oct., 1900). Id., /Papal
Negotiations with Mary Queen of Scots/, xxvi.

[2] Wilkins, /Concilia/, iv. 180.

[3] Birt, /The Elizabethan Religious Settlement/, 36-8.

[4] On the constitution of the House of Commons, cf. Froude, /Hist. of
Eng./, vii., 40-41.

[5] Wilkins, /Concilia/, iv., 179.

[6] For an account of this Conference, cf. /English Catholic Record
Society/, vol. i. Foxe, /Acts and Monuments/, 1839, viii., 679
sqq.

[7] Birt, op. cit., 91-2.

[8] Phillips, /The Extinction of the Ancient Hierarchy/, 112-114.

[9] For a full treatment of the attitude of the clergy, cf. Blirt, op.
cit., chap. iv. The best history of the resistance and sufferings
of the Marian Bishops is to be found in Phillips' /Extinction of
the Ancient Hierarchy/, 1905.

[10] Cf. Estcourt, /The Question of Anglican Orders/, 1873. Barnes,
/The Pope and the Ordinal/, 1898. Smith, S.J., /Reasons for
Rejecting Anglican Orders/, 1896. Moyes (in the /Tablet/, 1895,
Feb.-May, Sept.-Dec., also 1897).

[11] Cf. Birt, op. cit., chaps. iv., v., xii. Kennedy, /Parish Life
under Queen Elizabeth/, 1914, chap. vii. Frere, /History of the
English Church in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I./, 1904,
61-7.

[12] Pollen, /Papal Negotiations/, etc., xlvi-vii.

[13] Dodd-Tierney, op. cit., iii., app. cccxi.

[14] Frere, op. cit., 60.

[15] Id., op. cit., 99.

[16] Hardwick, /Articles of Religion/, 1859. Gibson, /Thirty-nine
Articles/, 2nd edition, 1898.

[17] Cf. Newman, /Tract 90/ (/Tracts for the Times/). Duchesne,
/Églises Séparées/, 1896. Lingard, vii., 384 sqq. Moyes, /A Talk
on Continuity/ (C. T. Society, authorities cited). /Tablet/ (1911-
12).

[18] /Political History of England/, vi., chap. xv. (The Crisis of
Elizabeth's Reign).

[19] Meyer, /England und die Katholische Kirche/, 64.

[20] Printed in Dodd-Tierney, iii., app. ii.

[21] Meyer, op. cit., 70 sqq.

[22] /Statutes/, 13 Eliz., c. 2.

[23] /Political History of England/, vi., 363.

[24] Rev. J. H. Pollen, S.J., /The Month/, Feb., 1902.

[25] Kennedy, /Parish Life under Queen Elizabeth/, chap. vii., viii.

[26] Haile, /An Elizabethan Cardinal/, 1914. Knox, /Letters and
Memorials of William Cardinal Allen/, 1882. /Allen's Defence of
Eng. Catholics/, 1913 (The Cath. Library, ii.).

[27] Cf. /The English Cath. Refugees on the Continent/, i., 1914.
Lechat, /Les Refugiés anglais dans les Pays-Bas espagnols durant
le règne d'Elisabeth/, 1914. Bellesheim, /Wilhelm Cardinal Allen
und die Engl. Seminare auf dem Festlande/, 1885.

[28] Foley, /Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus/,
ii. /Cath. Record Society of Engl./, ii., 1906.

[29] Bede-Camm, /Lives of the Eng. Martyrs/, ii., 204-49.

[30] Frere, op. cit., 206-15.

[31] Persons, /Memoirs Cath. Rec. Society of Eng./, ii., iv., 1906-7.
Simpson, /Edmund Campion/, 1896.

[32] Published in Cath. Library Series, vol. 6, 1914.

[33] Allen, /Martyrdom of Edmund Campion, and his Companions/, edited,
Father Pollen, 1908.

[34] Bede-Camm, op. cit., 249 sqq.

[35] Burton-Pollen, /Lives of English Martyrs/, vol. i., 1583-88,
1914.

[36] /Statutes/, 27 Eliz., c. 2.

[37] Burton-Pollen, op. cit., xvi. sqq.

[38] Burton-Pollen, op. cit., xxiv. sqq.

[39] Pollen, /Politics of the English Catholics during the reign of
Elizabeth/ (/Month/, 1902-4). Law, /Jesuits and Seculars in the
reign of Elizabeth/, etc., 1889. Id., /The Archpriest Controversy
Documents/, etc., 1896 (Camden Society). /Eng. Catholic Record
Society/, vol. ii.

[40] Dodd-Tierney, iii., app. xxxiv.

[41] Dodd-Tierney, app. xxxv.

[42] Id., app. no. xxxvi.

CHAPTER V

CATHOLICISM IN ENGLAND FROM 1603 TILL 1750

See bibliography of chap. ii., iii., iv. /Calendars of State
Papers/ (James I., Charles I., The Commonwealth, Charles II.).
Knox, /Records of the English Catholics under the Penal Laws/, 2
vols., 1882-84. Challoner, /Memoirs of Missionary Priests and
other Catholics that suffered death in England/ (1577-1684), 2
vols., 1803. Lilly-Wallis, /A Manual of the Law specially
affecting Catholics/, 1893. Butler, /Historical Memoirs of
English, Scottish, and Irish Catholics/, 3 vols., 1819-21. Id.,
/Historical Account of the Laws respecting the Roman Catholics/,
1795. Willaert, S.J., /Négociations Politico-Religieuses entre
L'Angleterre et les Pays-Bas/, 1598-1625 (/Rev. d'Histoire
Ecclés/, 1905-8). Kirk, /Biographies of English Catholics in the
Eighteenth Century/ (edited by Rev. J. H. Pollen, S.J., and
E. Burton, 1909). Morris, /The Condition of Catholics under
James I./, 1871. Id., /The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers/,
1872-77. Payne, /The English Catholic Nonjurors of 1715/, etc.,
1889. Id., /Records of English Catholics of 1715/, etc., 1891.
Pollock, /The Popish Plot/, etc., 1903. /The Position of the
Catholic Church in England and Wales during the last two
Centuries/, 1892. Hutton, /The English Church from the Accession
of Charles I. to the death of Anne/.

With the accession of James I. (1603-25) Catholics expected if not a
repeal at least a suspension of the penal laws. As a son of Mary Queen
of Scots for whose rescue Catholics in England and on the Continent
had risked so much, and as one whose religious views were thought to
approximate more closely to Catholicism than to Nonconformity, it was
hoped that he would put an end to the persecution that had been
carried on so bitterly during the reign of his predecessor. But
whatever might be the sentiments he entertained secretly or gave
expression to while he was yet only King of Scotland, his opinions
underwent a sudden change when he saw an opportunity of strengthening
his hold upon the English people, and of providing for the penniless
followers who accompanied him to his new kingdom. Unfortunately a
brainless plot, the "Bye Plot," as it is called, organised to capture
the king and to force him to yield to the demands of the conspirators,
afforded the more bigoted officials a splendid chance of inducing
James to continue the former policy of repression. Two priests named
Watson and Clarke joined hands with a number of malcontents, some of
whom were Protestants, others Puritans anxious to secure more liberty
for their co-religionists; but news of the plot having come to the
ears of the archpriest and of Garnet the provincial of the Jesuits,
information was conveyed to the council, and measures were taken for
the safety of the king, and for the arrest of the conspirators. James
recognised fully that the Catholic body was not to blame for the
violent undertakings of individuals, especially as he knew or was soon
to know that the Pope had warned the archpriest and the Jesuits to
discourage attempts against the government, and had offered to
withdraw any clergyman from England who might be regarded as disloyal.
James admitted frankly his indebtedness to the Catholics for the
discovery of the plot, and promised a deputation of laymen who waited
on him that the fines imposed on those who refused to attend the
Protestant service should not be exacted. For a time it was expected
that the policy of toleration was about to win the day, and the hopes
of Catholics rose high; but in autumn (1603) when the episcopal
returns came in showing that Catholics were still strong, and when
alarming reports began to spread about the arrival of additional
priests, the wonderful success of their efforts, and the increasing
boldness of the recusants, an outcry was raised by the Protestant
party, and a demand was made that the government should enforce the
law with firmness.[1]

Shortly before the meeting of Parliament in March (1604) James
determined to show the country that his attitude towards Catholicism
was in no wise different from that of his predecessor. In a
proclamation (Feb. 1604) he deplored the increasing number and
activity of priests and Jesuits, denounced their efforts to win
recruits for Rome, declared that he had never intended to grant
toleration, and ended up by commanding all Jesuits and seminary
priests to depart from the kingdom before the 19th March, unless they
wished to incur the penalties that had been levelled against them in
the previous reign.[2] In his speech at the opening of Parliament
(March 1604) after announcing his adhesion to the religion "by law
established" he outlined at length his attitude towards Rome. "I
acknowledge" he said "the Roman Church to be our mother church
although defiled with some infirmities and corruptions as the Jews
were when they crucified Christ;" for the "quiet and well-minded"
laymen who had been brought up in the Catholic faith he entertained
feelings of pity rather than of anger, but in case of those who had
"changed their coats" or were "factious stirrers of sedition" he was
determined if necessary to take measures whereby their obstinacy might
be corrected. The clergy, however, stood on a different footing. So
long as they maintained "that arrogant and impossible supremacy of
their head the Pope, whereby he not only claims to be the spiritual
head of all Christians, but also to have an imperial civil power over
all kings and emperors, dethroning and decrowning princes with his
foot as pleaseth him, and dispensing and disposing of all kingdoms and
empires at his appetite," and so long as the clergy showed by their
practices that they considered it meritorious rather than sinful to
rebel against or to assassinate their lawful sovereign if he be
excommunicated by the Pope, they need expect no toleration.[3]
Parliament soon showed that it was guided by the old Elizabethan
spirit. An Act was passed ordering that the laws framed during the
late reign against Jesuits, seminary priests, and recusants should be
rigidly enforced; all persons studying in foreign colleges who did not
return and conform within one year, as well as all students who should
go abroad for instruction in future should be declared incapable of
inheriting, purchasing, or enjoying any lands, chattels, or annuities
in England; all owners or masters of vessels who should convey such
passengers from the country were to be punished by confiscation of
their vessel and imprisonment, and if any person should dare to act as
tutor in a Catholic family without having got a licence from the
bishop of the diocese, both the teacher and his employer should be
fined £2 for every day he violated the law.[4] Lord Montague, having
ventured to speak his mind openly in the House of Lords against such a
measure, was arrested for his "scandalous and offensive speech," and
was committed to the Fleet. The old penal laws and the new ones were
enforced with unusual severity. Courts were everywhere at work drawing
up lists of recusants and assessing fines. Never before, even in the
worst days of Elizabeth, were the wealthy Catholics called upon to pay
so much. Numbers of priests were seized and conveyed to the coasts for
banishment abroad; one priest was put to death simply because he was a
priest, and two laymen underwent a like punishment because they had
harboured or assisted priests.

English Catholics were incensed at such pitiless persecution. Had it
been inflicted by Elizabeth from whom they expected no mercy, it would
have been cruel enough; but coming from a king, to whom they had good
reason to look for toleration, and who before he left Scotland and
after his arrival in London had promised an improvement of their
condition, it was calculated to stir up very bitter feeling. Forgetful
of the warnings of the Pope conveyed to the archpriest and the
superior of the Jesuits, some of the more extreme men undertook a new
plot against the king. The leading spirit in the enterprise was Robert
Catesby, a gentleman of Warwickshire, whose father had suffered for
his adhesion to the old faith. He planned to blow up the Parliament
House at the opening of the session of Parliament when king, lords,
and commons would be assembled. Hence his plot is known as the
Gunpowder Plot. His followers had to be ready to rise when the results
of this awful crime would have thrown the government into confusion.
They were to seize the children of the king and to assume control of
the kingdom. The scheme was so utterly wicked and impracticable, that
it is difficult to understand how any man could have conceived it or
induced others to join in its execution. Unfortunately, however,
Catesby secured the assistance of Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, an
Englishman who had served in the Spanish army, John Wright, Thomas
Percy, cousin of the Earl of Northumberland, Sir Everard Digby, and
Francis Tresham. A mine was to be run under the House of Commons
charged with gunpowder, which Fawkes undertook to explode. An
adjoining house was secured, and the cellar stretching under the
Parliament buildings was leased. Everything was arranged for the
destruction of the king, lords and commons at the opening of
Parliament fixed finally for the 5th November 1605, but Tresham,
anxious to save his brother-in-law, Lord Monteagle, sent him a letter
warning him to absent himself on the occasion. By means of this letter
the plot was discovered, and Guy Fawkes was arrested. The other
conspirators fled to Wales, where they hoped to stir up an
insurrection, but at Holbeche where they halted they were surrounded
by the forces of the sheriff of Worcester. In the struggle that ensued
Catesby and several of his followers, who defended themselves with
desperate courage, were killed, and the remainder were put to death
before the end of the month (Nov. 1605).

Whether the plot had not its origin in the minds of some of the
ministers, who in their desire for the wholesale destruction of
Catholics had employed agents to spur on Catesby and his companions,
or, at least had allowed them to continue their operations long after
the designs had been reported it is difficult to determine; but
immediately an outcry was raised that the plot had been organised by
the Jesuits Garnet, Gerard, and Greenway, for whose arrest a
proclamation was issued. Garnet had undoubtedly done much to persuade
Catesby from having recourse to outrage or violence, and had never
been consulted except in such a vague way that he could not possibly
have suspected what was in contemplation. He had even secured from
Rome a condemnation of violent measures, and had communicated this to
Catesby. Greenway was consulted after the plot had been arranged, but
apparently under the seal of confession with permission, however, to
reveal it to none but Garnet, and according to Greenway's own
statement he had done his best to persuade Catesby to abandon his
design. Garnet was then consulted by his Jesuit companion, from whom
he obtained permission to speak about the secret in case of grave
necessity and after it had become public. When Garnet and Oldcorn had
been arrested they were permitted to hold a conversation with spies
placed in such a position that all they said could be overheard.
Garnet, when informed of this, told his story plainly and frankly. He
was condemned and put to death, as was also Father Oldcorn. There is
no evidence to show that the Jesuits urged on the conspirators to
commit such a crime. On the contrary, both from the statements of the
conspirators and of the Jesuits, it is perfectly clear that the
Jesuits had used every effort to persuade the plotters to abandon
their design, and the worst that could be said of Garnet is that he
failed to take the steps he should have taken when he found that his
advice had fallen on deaf ears.[5]

Though Blackwell, the official head of the Catholic body in England,
hastened to issue a letter urging his co-religionists to abstain from
all attempts against the government (7th Nov. 1605), Parliament,
without attempting to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty,
determined to punish Catholics generally. Recusants who had conformed
were commanded to receive the Sacrament at least once a year under
penalty of a heavy fine. In place of the £20 per month levied off
those Catholics who refused to attend Protestant service, the king was
empowered to seize two-thirds of their estates. Catholics were
forbidden to attend at court, to remain in London or within ten miles
of London unless they practised some trade and had no residence
elsewhere, or to move more than five miles from their homes unless
they got the permission of two magistrates, confirmed by the bishop or
deputy-lieutenant of the county. They could not practise as lawyers or
doctors, hold any commissions in the army or navy, act as executors,
guardians, or administrators, appoint to benefices or schools, or
appear as suitors before the courts. Fines of £10 per month were to be
paid by anyone who harboured a servant or visitor who did not attend
the English service. In order to test the loyalty of his Majesty's
subjects it was enacted that a bishop or two justices of the peace
might summon any person who was suspected of recusancy, and require
him to take a special oath of loyalty embodied in the Act. If any
persons not of noble birth refused to take the oath they should be
committed to prison till the next quarter sessions or assizes, and if
in these assemblies they persisted in their refusal they incurred
thereby the penalty of Praemunire.[6]

Both in its substance and particularly in its form the oath of
allegiance was objectionable, and whether or not it was designed with
the intention of dividing the Catholic body, it succeeded in producing
that effect. Many Catholics thought that, as they were called upon to
renounce merely the authority of the Pope to depose princes or to make
war on them, they could take it as a sign of civil allegiance without
abandoning their obedience to the Pope as their spiritual superior.
Others thought differently, however, and as a consequence a violent
controversy broke out which disturbed the England Catholics for close
on a century. The archpriest Blackwell condemned the oath at first,
but in a conference with the clergy held in July 1606 he declared in
its favour. Acting on this opinion the lay peers and many of the
clergy consented to take the oath. The other side appealed to Rome for
a decision, and a brief was issued on the 22nd September 1606, by
which the oath was condemned as unlawful. Blackwell neglected to
publish the brief probably from motives of prudence, though other
grounds were alleged, and in the following year a new condemnation was
forwarded from Rome (Aug. 1607). Meanwhile Blackwell had taken the
oath himself, and had published letters permitting Catholics to act
similarly. As he was unwilling to recede from his position
notwithstanding the appeals of Father Persons and Cardinal Bellarmine,
he was deposed from his office and George Birkhead or Birket was
appointed archpriest (1608). The controversy now became general. James
I. entered the lists with a book entitled /Apologie for the Oath of
Allegiance/, in which he sought to meet the reasons contained in the
papal documents and in the letters of Father Persons and Cardinal
Bellarmine. Both writers replied to the royal challenge, and soon
hosts of others, both Catholic and Protestant hastened to take part in
a wordy war, the only result of which was to disedify the faithful, to
turn away waverers from the Church, and to cause rejoicings to the
enemies of the Catholic cause. Birkhead, who had been empowered to
suspend all priests who did not show some signs of repentance for
having taken the oath, acted with great moderation in the hope of
avoiding a schism, but at last he was obliged to make use of the
powers with which he was entrusted (1611).[7]

The old controversies between the Jesuits and a large section of the
seminary priests were renewed both at home and on the Continent. The
seculars objecting to the control exercised by the Jesuits in England,
in regard to English affairs at Rome, and in the foreign colleges,
continued to petition for the appointment of a bishop. Ugly disputes
ensued and many things were done by both sides during the heat of the
strife that could not be defended. The Holy See found it difficult to
decide between the various plans put forward, but at last in 1623 Dr.
Bishop was appointed Bishop of Calcedon /in partibus infidelium/, and
entrusted with the government of the English mission. During these
years of strife one important work, destined to have a great effect on
the future of Catholicism in England, was accomplished, namely the
re-establishment of the English congregation of the Benedictines. The
Benedictine community had been re-established at Westminster in 1556
with the Abbot Feckenham as superior, but they were expelled three
years later. Of the monks who had belonged to this community only one,
Dom Buckley, was alive in 1607. Before his death he affiliated two
English Benedictines belonging to an Italian house to the English
congregation, and in 1619 the English Benedictines on the Continent
were united with the English congregation by papal authority.[8] The
houses of the English Benedictines on the Continent were situated at
Douay (1605), at Dieulouard (1606), at Paris (1611), Saint-Malo (1611)
and Lambspring in Germany (1643). The members bound themselves by oath
to labour for the re-conversion of their country, and the list of
Benedictine martyrs who died for the faith in England bears testimony
to the fact that their oath was faithfully observed.

While these unfortunate controversies were weakening and disheartening
the Catholics the penal laws were enforced with great severity. One
martyr suffered in 1607, three in 1608, five in 1610, two in 1616, and
five in 1618. Great numbers of priests were confined in prison or
transported abroad. Laymen were ruined by imprisonment, and especially
by the high fines required by the king to meet his own expenses.
According to his own statement he received from the fines of Popish
recusants a net income of £36,000 a year. Parliament and the
Protestant party generally were anxious about the marriage of Prince
Charles, the heir to the throne, and of the princess Elizabeth his
sister. If they were married into Protestant families the religious
difficulty, it was thought, might disappear; but, if, on the contrary,
they were united to the royal houses of France or Spain the old battle
might be renewed. Hence the marriage of Elizabeth to the Elector
Frederick of the Palatinate, one of the foremost champions of
Protestantism in Germany, gave great satisfaction at the time, though
later on it led to serious trouble between the king and Parliament,
when Elizabeth's husband was driven from his kingdom during the Thirty
Years' War.

Regardless of the wishes of his Parliament the king was anxious to
procure for Prince Charles the hand of the Infanta Maria, second
daughter of Philip III. of Spain. To prepare the way for such a step
both in Spain and at Rome, where it might be necessary to sue for a
dispensation, something must be done to render less odious the working
of the penal laws. Once news began to leak out of the intended
marriage with Spain and of the possibility of toleration for Catholics
Parliament petitioned (1620) the king to break off friendly relations
with Spain, to throw himself into the war in Germany on the side of
his son-in-law, and to enforce strictly all the laws against
recusants. But the king refused to accept the advice of his Parliament
or to allow it to interfere in what, he considered, were his own
private affairs. The marriage arrangements were pushed forward, and at
the same time care was taken to inform the magistrates and judges that
the laws against Catholics should be interpreted leniently. In a few
weeks, it is said that about four thousand prisoners were set at
liberty. The articles of marriage were arranged satisfactorily (1623),
due provision being made for the religious freedom of the Infanta, and
a guarantee being given that the religious persecution should cease,
but for various reasons the marriage never took place. Parliament
promised the king to provide the funds necessary for war if only he
would end the negotiations for a Spanish alliance, and this time James
much against his will followed the advice of his Parliament (1624). A
new petition was presented for the strict enforcement of the penal
laws against priests and recusants, to which petition the king was
obliged to yield. But hardly had the negotiations with Spain ended
than proposals were made to France for a marriage between the prince
and Henrietta Maria, sister of Louis XIII., and once more it was
necessary to be careful about offending Catholic feeling. By a secret
article of the agreement with France James promised to grant even
greater freedom to Catholics than had been promised them in his
dealings with the Spanish court, and as a pledge of his good faith he
released many prisoners who had been convicted on account of their
religion, returned some of the fines that had been levied, and gave a
hint to those charged with the administration of the law that the
penal enactments should not be enforced. Application was made to Rome
for a dispensation, which though granted, was to be delivered by the
papal nuncio at Paris only on condition that James signed a more
explicit statement of his future policy towards his Catholic subjects.
Louis XIII., annoyed by the delays interposed by the Roman court, was
not unwilling to proceed with the marriage without the dispensation,
but for obvious reasons James refused to agree to such a course.
Finally all difficulties were surmounted, though not before James had
passed away leaving it to his son and successor to ratify the
agreement. In May 1625, Charles was married by proxy to Henrietta
Maria, and in the following month the new queen arrived in London.[9]

During the later years of the reign of James I. the foreign policy of
the king rendered a relaxation of the penal code absolutely necessary.
In the course of the marriage negotiations with France James I. had
pledged himself by a secret agreement to adopt a policy of toleration,
and on his death the agreement was ratified more than once by his son
and successor Charles I. (1625-1649). But Charles, though personally
well disposed towards the Catholics, was not a man to consider himself
bound by any obligations if the fulfilment of them should involve him
in serious difficulties. At the time of his accession public opinion
in England as reflected by Parliament was intensely hostile to
toleration. On the one hand the Puritan party, who had grown
considerably despite the repressive measures of Elizabeth and James
I., was determined to bring the Church into line with Calvinism, while
on the other hand a body of able and learned men within the Anglican
Church itself longed for a closer approximation towards Catholic
beliefs and practices. With both the Bible was still in a sense the
sole rule of faith, but the Puritan party would have the Bible and
nothing but the Bible, while the High Church men insisted that the
Scriptures must be interpreted in the light of the traditional usages
of the Christian world, and that in matters of doctrine and practices
some jurisdiction must be conceded to the teaching authorities of the
Church. The opponents of the latter stirred the people against them by
raising the cry of Arminianism and Papistry, and by representing them
as abettors of Rome and as hostile to the religious settlement that
had been accomplished. As a result of this controversy, in which the
king sided with Laud and the High Church party against the
Presbyterians and Calvinists,[10] Parliament, which supported the
Puritans, clamoured incessantly for the execution of the penal laws.

In the first Parliament, opened the day after Queen Henrietta's
arrival in England (1625) a petition was presented to the king praying
for the strict enforcement of the penal laws. Yielding to this
petition Charles issued a proclamation ordering the bishops and
officials to see that the laws were put into execution, but at the
same time he took care to let it be known that the extraction of fines
from the wealthy laymen and the imprisonment or transportation of
priests would be more agreeable to him than the infliction of the
death penalty. Louis XIII. and the Pope protested warmly against this
breach of a solemn agreement. Charles replied that he had bound
himself not to enforce the penal laws merely as a means of lulling the
suspicions of Rome and of securing a dispensation for his
marriage.[11] Still, though the queen's French household was
dismissed, the king did everything he could to prevent the shedding of
blood. The Parliamentarians, who were fighting for civil liberty for
themselves, were annoyed that any measure of liberty should be
conceded to their Catholic fellow-countrymen. They presented a
petition to Charles at the very time they were safeguarding their own
position by the Petition of Rights (1628) demanding that priests who
returned to England should be put to death, and that the children of
Catholic parents should be taken from their natural guardians and
reared in the Protestant religion.[12] Charles defended his own policy
of toleration on the ground that it was calculated to secure better
treatment for Protestant minorities in other countries, yet at the
same time he so far abandoned his policy of not shedding blood as to
allow the death penalty to be inflicted on a Jesuit and a layman
(1628).[13] So long however as he could secure money from the
Catholics he was not particularly anxious about their religious
opinions. Instead of the fines to which they had been accustomed, he
compounded with them by agreeing not to enforce their presence at the
Protestant service on condition that they paid an annual sum to be
fixed by his commissioners according to the means of the individual
recusants.

The appointment of a bishop to take charge of the English Mission
(1623) did not unfortunately put an end to the regrettable
controversies that divided the Catholic party. On the death of Dr.
Bishop, Dr. Richard Smith was appointed to succeed him (1625), and was
consecrated in France. For a time after his arrival affairs moved
smoothly enough, but soon a more violent controversy broke out
regarding the respective rights and privileges of seculars and
regulars, and the obligation on confessors of obtaining episcopal
approbation. The dispute became public, and in a short time numerous
pamphlets were published in England and in France by the literary
champions of both parties. As the Puritans resented strongly the
presence of a bishop in England, Dr. Smith was obliged to go into
hiding, and ultimately made his escape to France, where he died in
1665. The Pope found it difficult to apportion the blame or to put an
end to the strife, but an opportunity was afforded him of learning the
facts of the case when an English agent deputed by the queen arrived
in Rome (1633). In return Urban VIII. determined to send an envoy into
England mainly to settle the controversy between the regulars and the
seculars, but also to discover the real sentiments of the court and
the country towards Rome. The person selected for this difficult work
was Gregory Panzani,[14] an Oratorian, who arrived in England in 1634
and had several interviews with the king and queen. Whatever might
have been the hopes of inducing Laud and some of the leading bishops
to consider the question of returning to the Roman allegiance, the
main object the king had in view in permitting the residence of a
papal envoy in London and in sending English agents to Rome was to
secure the help of Urban VIII. for his nephew of the Palatinate, and
especially to induce the Pope to favour a marriage between this nephew
and the daughter of the King of Poland. Very little was obtained on
either side by these negotiations, nor did the papal agents in England
succeed in composing the differences between the clergy.

In 1640 Laud published the canons framed by Convocation for the
government of the English Church. With the object of clearing himself
of the charge of Papistry he ordered a new persecution to be begun,
but the king intervened to prevent the execution of this measure. At a
time when Charles was receiving large sums of money by way of
compensation for non-attendance at the Protestant services, and when
he foresaw that in the conflict that was to come he could rely on the
Catholic noblemen to stand loyally by him, he had no wish to
exasperate the Catholics in England, or to outrage Catholic feeling in
France and at Rome. In 1640, however, Parliament returned to the
charge. The presence of papal agents in England, the payment of
£10,000 by the Catholic noblemen to help the king in his expedition
against the Scots, and the enrolment of a Catholic army in Ireland by
Strafford, were urged as arguments to prove that the king's failure to
carry out the laws against Catholics was due to causes other than had
been alleged. Indeed both before and after the outbreak of the Civil
War (1642) the king's cause was damaged badly by his secret alliance
with Rome. As a matter of fact the Catholics did rally to the standard
of the king, but the persecution to which they had been subjected
wherever the Parliament had control made it impossible for them to act
differently. During the years that elapsed between 1642 and 1651,
twenty-one victims, including priests, both secular and regular, and
laymen, were put to death for their religion.[15] When at last
Parliament had triumphed a new persecution was begun. An Act was
passed in 1650 offering for the apprehension of priests rewards
similar to those paid for securing the arrest of highway robbers.
Informers and spies were set at work, and as a result of their labours
many priests were captured and confined in prison or transported. Yet,
though the opponents of the king made it one of their main charges
against him that he refused to shed the blood of the clergy, they
adopted a similar policy when they themselves were in power. During
the whole Protectorate of Cromwell only one priest was put to death in
England. But recourse was had to other methods for the extirpation of
the Catholic religion, imprisonment, transportation, and above all
heavy fines exacted off those Catholics who held property in the
country.

From Charles II. (1660-1685) Catholics had some reason to expect an
amelioration of their sad condition. They had fought loyally for his
father and had suffered for their loyalty even more than the
Protestant loyalists. In the hour of defeat they had shielded the life
of the young prince, and had aided him in escaping from enemies who
would have dealt with him as they had dealt with the king. Mindful of
their services and of promises Charles had made in exile, and well
aware that he had inherited from his mother, Queen Henrietta, a strong
leaning towards the Catholic Church, they hoped to profit by the
Declaration of Breda, which promised liberty of conscience to all his
subjects. But Charles, though secretly in favour of the Catholics on
account of their loyalty to his father and to himself, was not a man
to endanger his throne for the sake of past services, more especially
as his trusted minister, the Earl of Clarendon, was determined to
suppress Dissenters no matter what creed they might profess. A number
of Catholics, lay and cleric, met at Arundel House to prepare a
petition to the House of Lords (1661) for the relaxation of the Penal
Laws. The petition was received favourably, and as there was nobody in
the House of Lords willing to defend the infliction of the death
penalty on account of religion, it was thought that the laws whereby
it was considered treason to be a priest or to shelter a priest might
be abolished. But dissensions soon arose, even in the Catholic
committee itself. The kind of oath of allegiance that might be taken,
the extension of the proposed relaxations so as to include the
Jesuits, and the anxiety of the laymen to get rid of the fines levied
on rich recusants rather than of the penalties meted out to the
clergy, led to the dissolution of the committee, and to the
abandonment of their suggested measures of redress.[16]

Clarendon was determined to crush the Nonconformist party
notwithstanding the promises that had been held out to them in the
Declaration of Breda. He secured the enactment of a number of laws,
the Act of Uniformity (1662), the Conventicle Act (1664) and the Five
Mile Act (1665) known as the Clarendon Code, which, though directed
principally against the Dissenters, helped to increase the hardships
of the Catholic body. Once, indeed, in 1662-63, Charles made a feeble
attempt to redeem his promise to both Catholics and Nonconformists by
announcing his intention of applying to Parliament to allow him to
exercise the dispensing power in regard to the Act of Uniformity and
other such laws, but the opposition was so strong that the proposed
declaration of indulgence was abandoned. The terrible fire that broke
out in London (September 1666) and which raged for five days,
destroying during that time a great part of the city, led to a new
outburst of anti-Catholic feeling. Without the slightest evidence the
fire was attributed to the Papists, and an inscription to this effect
placed upon the monument erected to commemorate the conflagration
remained unchanged until 1830. When Parliament met a committee was
appointed to inquire into the increase of popery, and a demand was
made that proclamations should be issued for the banishment of all
priests and Jesuits.

On the fall of Clarendon (1667) the Cabal ministers succeeded to
power. These were Clifford, who was a convinced Catholic, Arlington
who if not a Catholic at this time had at least Catholic tendencies,
Buckingham, Ashley, a man of no fixed religious opinions, and
Lauderdale, a Scotch Presbyterian (1670).[17] The contest for the
succession to the Spanish throne was at hand, and Louis XIV. was as
anxious to secure the support of England as was Charles to escape from
the Triple Alliance and the domination of Parliament. Besides, his
brother James, Duke of York, and heir-presumptive to the English
throne, had announced his adhesion to the Catholic Church, and his
example produced such an effect upon the king's mind that he
determined to imitate it if only France would promise support. It was
resolved to conclude a secret treaty with France by which Charles
should pledge himself to profess openly the Catholic religion and to
assist Louis in his schemes against Holland and Belgium, provided that
Louis would supply both money and men to suppress the disturbance to
which the king's change of religion might give rise in England. The
treaty was signed in May 1670, but as Charles was more anxious about
the subsidies than about the change of religion, and as Louis XIV.
preferred that the religious question should not be raised till the
war against Holland had been completed, very little, if anything, was
done, except to publish a Declaration of Indulgence (1672) in which
Charles by virtue of his "supreme power in ecclesiastical matters"
suspended "all manner of penal laws against whatsoever sort of
Nonconformists and Recusants." By this document liberty of public
worship was granted to Dissenters, while Catholics were allowed to
meet for religious service only in private houses.

A strong Protestant feeling had been aroused in the country by the
rumour of the conversion of the Duke of York, by the certainty that
his first wife, the daughter of the Earl of Clarendon, had become a
Catholic on her death-bed, and by the suspicion of some secret
negotiations with France. When Parliament met (1673) a demand was made
that the Declaration of Indulgence should be withdrawn. The Duke of
York urged the king to stand firm in the defence of his prerogatives,
but as neither Charles nor his ally Louis XIV. wished to precipitate a
conflict with the Parliament at that particular period, the king
yielded to the storm by revoking his original declaration. Immediately
the Test Act was introduced and passed through both houses despite the
warm opposition of the Duke of York and of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.
According to the terms of this measure it was enacted that all civil
or military officials should be obliged to take the oath of supremacy
and allegiance, to receive Communion according to the English service,
and to make a declaration "that there is not any Transubstantiation in
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of bread and
wine at or after the consecration thereof by any persons whatsoever."
James, Duke of York, resigned his office of Lord High-Admiral and his
example was followed by Clifford and most of the Catholic noblemen
(1673).

From this time forward the Protestant party concentrated their efforts
on securing the exclusion of the Duke of York from the English throne.
Charles II. had married Catharine of Braganza, by whom there was no
issue, and consequently his brother was the lawful heir. At the same
time it was clear to everybody, that James was so firmly attached to
the Catholic Church that neither the fear of losing the crown nor the
zealous efforts of Stillingfleet and other distinguished ecclesiastics
were likely to bring about his re-conversion to Protestantism. The
news, too, of his projected marriage with Mary the daughter of the
Duke of Modena, opening as it did the prospect of a long line of
Catholic rulers in England, was not calculated to allay the fears of
the Protestants. After he had been dismissed from office the Earl of
Shaftesbury set himself deliberately to fan the flames of religious
bigotry, in the hope of securing the exclusion of the Duke of York
from the throne. With this object in view it was proposed either that
Charles should procure a divorce from Catharine of Braganza, so as to
be free to marry some younger lady by whom an heir might be born, or
else that with the consent of Parliament he should vest the succession
in his illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth. Just then, when feeling
was running high in England, a wretch named Titus Oates came forward
with a story of a Popish Plot. Oates, formerly a preacher and minister
of the Established Church, had feigned conversion to Catholicism, and
had gained admission to the English colleges at Valladolid and St.
Omer from which he was dismissed. Acting in conjunction with Israel
Tonge he concocted the details of a plot, according to which the Pope
and the Jesuits were to bring about the murder of the king and the
overthrow of the Protestant religion. His story was so full of
contradictions and absurdities that it is difficult to understand how
it could have obtained credence among sane men, but in the state of
opinion at the time, it was seized upon by Shaftesbury and others as
the best means of stirring up a great anti-Catholic agitation that
would bar the way to the accession of the Duke of York. The mysterious
death of Sir Edmund Godfrey, a London magistrate to whom Oates had
entrusted a copy of his depositions, and the discovery of some French
correspondence amongst the documents of Father Coleman, the private
secretary of the Duchess of York, helped to strengthen public belief
in the existence of the plot. When Parliament met in 1678 both houses
professed their belief in the existence of a "damnable and hellish
plot," voted a salary to Oates, ordered all Catholics to leave London
and Westminster, procured the arrest of a number of Catholic peers,
and decreed the exclusion of Catholics from the House of Commons and
the House of Lords by exacting a declaration against the Mass,
Transubstantiation and the invocation of the Blessed Virgin (1678). It
was only with the greatest difficulty that the king succeeded in
securing an exemption in favour of the Duke of York. A number of
priests and laymen were arrested, one of whom was put to death in
1678, eleven in 1679, two in 1680 and one, the Venerable Oliver
Plunket, Archbishop of Armagh, the last victim put to death for
religion upon English soil, in 1681. In addition to this eight priests
were put to death during the agitation merely because they were
priests.[18]

Three times the Exclusion Bill was introduced, but it failed to become
law owing to the determination of Charles II. to uphold the rights of
his brother. At last the storm of passion began to die away, and the
absurd statements of Oates, even though supported by the testimonies
of infamous hirelings like Bedloe and Dangerfield, were no longer
accepted as trustworthy. Shaftsebury was obliged to make his escape
from England; the Duke of York returned from exile to take up his
residence at court, and for the remainder of the reign of Charles II.
Catholics enjoyed a comparative calm. In February 1685 Charles II.
became seriously ill, and died in a short time, after having been
reconciled to the Catholic Church by the ministrations of Father
Hudleston, who had helped to save his life years before, and who had
enjoyed the special protection of the king.

The accession of James II. (1685-88)[19] was welcomed by the vast
majority of the English people, who had come to admire his honesty and
courage, as well as to sympathise with him on account of the violent
persecution to which he had been subjected by his unscrupulous
adversaries. He had made no secret of his religion and of his desire
to abolish the penal laws from which his co-religionists suffered, but
at the same time he declared his intention of maintaining the Church
of England as by law established. The Tory landowners and the cities
were equally loyal to him, and the first Parliament he called was not
unwilling to do everything to gratify his wishes, provided, however,
he left religion untouched. When the Duke of Monmouth arrived in
England to stir up a rebellion (1685) the country in the main rallied
to the king, although the cry of "Protestantism in danger" had been
utilised to stir up discontent.

The violent persecution that followed the rebellion, and above all the
"bloody circuit" of Judge Jeffreys, whose conduct was unworthy of his
judicial position, helped to dull the edge of the king's popularity.
The selection of advisers like the unprincipled Earl of Sutherland,
the position occupied at Court by Father Edmund Petre,[20] the public
celebration of Mass at which the king assisted in state, and the
opening of direct negotiations with Rome, were calculated to stir up
strong Protestant opposition. During the rebellion the king had found
it necessary to dispense with the Test Act in the appointment of
officers, and to raise a well equipped standing army, and people began
to be alarmed lest he should ally himself with Louis XIV., and by
means of French subsidies attempt to make himself absolute ruler of
England. Parliament met once more in November 1685. The king had set
his heart on securing a modification of the Test Act, so as to be free
to appoint Catholics to positions of trust, and had dismissed the Earl
of Halifax from the council because he refused to agree to the
proposal. But on the two questions, the maintenance of the Test Act
and of a standing army, Parliament was unbending in its refusal to
meet the wishes of James II., and was on this account prorogued (Nov.
1685).

Most of the prominent opponents were dismissed immediately from their
offices. The fact that the late king had embraced the Catholic
religion before his death was made known officially, and two papers,
in which Charles II. explained the motives which induced him to take
this step, were given to the public. The papal nuncio at London was
received at court, and Lord Castlemaine was dispatched to Rome to act
as the agent of James II. Dr. Leyburn arrived in England as vicar
apostolic, to be followed by another in the person of Dr. Giffard, and
a little later England was divided into four vicarates, over which
were placed four vicars with full episcopal orders and jurisdiction.
Several of the Protestant ministers, alarmed by these measures, opened
a violent campaign against Popery, particularly in London where anti-
Catholic feeling was easily aroused. The king appealed to the Bishop
of London to moderate the fanaticism of his clergy, and as the bishop
was unable or unwilling to comply with this request, the king
established once more a king of High Commission Court, to be presided
over by a number of bishops and laymen, with the avowed object of
keeping the clergy in subjection.

As Parliament had refused to abolish the Test Act James II. determined
to make use of the dispensing powers which he claimed to have as king.
To compensate for the absence of parliamentary confirmation, it was
decided to secure the approval of the judges. For this purpose Sir
Edward Hales, a recent convert to Catholicism, was brought into court
for having accepted and retained a commission in the army without
having made the necessary declarations. Hales pleaded as his excuse
that he had received a dispensation from the king, and that
consequently he was not obliged to comply with the terms of the Test
Act. The plea was accepted by the judges and the case against the
defendant was dismissed. As a result of this decision James II. felt
free to confer civil and military offices on Catholics. Four Catholic
peers, Lord Bellasis, Powys, Arundell of Wardour and Lord Dover, were
sworn in members of the privy council (1687), and later on Father
Petre, a Jesuit, took a seat at the council board. For the latter the
king sought to obtain a bishopric and a cardinal's hat, but Innocent
XI., who was not an admirer of the imprudent haste shown by James II.
for the conversion of the English nation, nor of his alliance with
Louis XIV., refused to grant either request. By virtue of royal
dispensations a Catholic master and three fellows were appointed to
some of the Oxford colleges.

The Tory party that had been so loyal to the king hitherto, took
offence at the favour shown to the Catholic body, and as there could
be no hope of winning their approval for the measures he had in
contemplation, James II. determined to appeal to the Dissenters. The
Earl of Rochester was dismissed from his office, and the Earl of
Clarendon was recalled from Ireland. In April 1687 a Declaration of
Indulgence was published, granting freedom of worship to Dissenters
and Catholics, and abolishing all religious tests as necessary
qualifications for office. For a time it seemed as if the king were
likely to secure the support of the Nonconformists, particularly as
measures were taken through the lords-lieutenant of the various
counties to influence public opinion in their districts. But the
hatred entertained by the Dissenters for Rome overcame their gratitude
to the king for the liberty he had granted them, and they preferred to
live in bondage rather than allow the Catholics to share with them the
advantages of religious toleration. The appointment of several
Catholic lords to the very highest offices of state, the public
welcome given to the papal nuncio, and the attempt to force a Catholic
president on the fellows of Magdalen College helped to increase the
feeling of dissatisfaction. Dangerous riots broke out in London, and
to prevent still more dangerous manifestations a force of 16,000 was
concentrated on Hounslow Heath. In April 1688 a second Declaration of
Indulgence was published. By a order in council, published some days
later, the clergy were commanded to read this declaration on two
consecutive Sundays in all their churches.

A petition was presented to the king by Archbishop Sancroft of
Canterbury and six of his episcopal colleagues requesting him to
withdraw this command to the clergy (18 May 1688). To make matters
worse thousands of copies of the petition were printed immediately and
circulated throughout the country. Annoyed by such opposition the king
summoned the bishops before the council, and as they refused to give
securities for their attendance at the trial, they were committed to
prison. The trial opened on the 29th June 1688, and ended with a
verdict of acquittal to the great delight of the vast body of the
English people.

So long as James II. had no heir many Protestants were inclined to
keep silent on the ground that at his death the succession of a
Protestant ruler was assured. But during the popular excitement
following upon the arrest of the bishops the news spread rapidly that
the queen had given birth to a son. Already negotiations had been
opened up with William of Orange to induce him to take up the cause of
Protestantism in England, but the fact that an heir was born to the
throne gave a new impetus to the insurrectionary movement. The state
of affairs on the Continent favoured the designs of William of Orange.
Louis XIV. was at war with the Emperor and with the Pope, and as James
II. was regarded as an ally of France no opposition might be expected
from the imperial forces in case William determined to make a descent
upon England. Had James II. taken the bold course of inviting Louis
XIV. to assist him, the invasion of England from Holland would have
been attended with much more serious difficulties, but till the last
moment James affected to regard such an invasion as an impossibility.
When at last he realised the gravity of the situation he was willing
to make some concessions, but soon, finding himself deserted by a
great many of the men on whom he had relied, by some of his own
relatives, and even by his own daughter, he determined to make his
escape from England (Dec. 1688).

During the weeks that preceded the withdrawal of James II. to France
violent riots had taken place in London, where several of the Catholic
chapels were attacked, and in many of the other leading cities.
William III. was not personally in favour of a policy of religious
persecution, particularly as he had promised his imperial ally to deal
gently with his Catholic subjects. But the popular prejudice against
them was so strong that a policy of toleration was almost an
impossibility. The Catholics were excluded specially from enjoying the
concessions made in favour of the Dissenters, and in the Bill of
Rights (1689) it was provided that no member of the reigning family
who was a Catholic or had married a Catholic could succeed to the
throne, and that any sovereign of England who became a Catholic or
married a Catholic thereby forfeited the crown. Catholics were
prohibited from residing within ten miles of London; magistrates were
empowered to administer the objectionable oath of allegiance to all
suspected Papists; Catholics were forbidden to keep arms, ammunition,
or a horse valued for more than ten pounds; they were debarred from
practising as counsellors, barristers, or attorneys; if they refused
to take the oath they were not allowed to vote at parliamentary
elections; they were incapacitated from inheriting or purchasing land;
and prohibited from sending their children abroad for education; while
priests were to be punished with imprisonment for life for celebrating
Mass, and spies who secured the conviction of priests were offered
£100 as a reward.[21]

During the reign of Anne (1702-14) and during the early portion of the
reign of George I. the persecution continued, especially after the
unsuccessful rebellion of 1715 in which many Catholics were accused of
taking part.[22] After 1722 the violence of the persecution began to
abate, and Catholics began to open schools, and to draw together again
their shattered forces. Fortunately at the time there was one amongst
them in the person of Richard Challoner, who was capable of infusing
new life into the Catholic ranks and of winning for the Church the
respect even of its bitterest opponents. Richard Challoner (1691-1781)
was born in London, and was converted to Catholicism at the age of
thirteen. He entered Douay College, in which he remained twenty-five
years, first as a student and afterwards as a professor, and vice-
president. He returned to London in 1730, and threw himself into the
work of strengthening the faith of his co-religionists in all parts of
the city. He went about disguised as a layman, visiting the poorest
quarters, and celebrating Mass wherever he could find a place of
security. Already he had published a book of meditations under the
title /Think Well On't/ (1728), and a little later he found time to
prepare for the press /The Christian Instructed in the Sacraments,
etc/. In 1740, much against his own will, he was appointed coadjutor
to Dr. Petre, vicar-apostolic of the London district. As coadjutor he
undertook to make a visitation of the entire district as far as it was
situated in England. But his work as bishop did not interfere with his
literary activity. In quick succession he published /The Gardin of the
Soul/, /The Memoirs of Missionary Priests/, containing the Lives of
the English Martyrs (1577-1681), the /Britannia Sacra/, or a short
account of the English, Scottish and Irish Saints, an edition of the
New Testament (1749), of the old Testament (1750), together with a
revised edition (1752).

Besides all this he founded two schools for boys, one at Standon
Lordship, the other at Sedgley Park, and one for poor girls at
Hammersmith. Though more than once he stood in the gravest danger of
having his career cut short by the activity of the priest-hunters, he
had the good fortune to survive the storm and to see the First Relief
Act of 1778 placed upon the statute book.[23]
----------

[1] Frere, op. cit., 289-90.

[2] Dodd-Tierney, iv., app. no. iv.

[3] Id., iv., 10-13.

[4] /Statutes/, 1 James, c. 4.

[5] On the Gunpowder Plot, cf. Gerard, /What was the Gunpowder Plot/,
1897. Rev. J. H. Pollen, /Arrest and Examination of Father
Garnet/; /Trial and Execution of Father Garnet/ (/The Month/, July
1888, Sept., 1888). /The Month/ (Oct., 1878, Sept.-Oct., 1897,
Aug., 1898, Aug., 1904). Sidney, /A History of the Gunpowder
Plot/, 1904.

[6] /Statutes 3/, 1 James, c. 4, 5.

[7] Many documents relating to this unfortunate controversy are to be
found in Dodd-Tierney, op. cit., vol. iv. Appendix. /Memoirs of
Gregorio Panzani/, edited by Berington, 1793.

[8] Guilday, op. cit., chap. vii.

[9] /Political Hist. of England/, vii., chap. v., vi.

[10] Hutton, /The Life of Laud/, 1895. Shaw, /The English Church
during the Civil War and under the Commonwealth/, 2 vols., 1900.
Neale, /History of the Puritans/, 4 vols., 1732-8.

[11] Lingard, vii., 157-9.

[12] Lingard, vii., 168.

[13] Burton-Pollen, op. cit., xxxvi.

[14] /The Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani/, 1634-36, etc. Transl. Ed. by
Rev. J. Berington, 1793.

[15] Burton-Pollen, op. cit., xxxvi.

[16] /Memoirs of Panzani/, 308-11 (Supplement).

[17] /Political Hist. of England/, viii., 87.

[18] On the Titus Oates' Plot, cf. Gerard, /Some Episodes of the
Oates' Plot/ (/Month/, Aug. 1894). Marks, /Further Light on the
Oates' Plot/ (/Month/, Aug. 1903). Pollock, /The Popish Plot/,
1903. Markes, /Who killed Sir Edmund Godfrey?/ 1905.

[19] Onno Klopp, /Der Fall des Hauses Stuarts/, 1875-9.

[20] Cf. Foley, /Records of the English Jesuits/, v., vii., /The
Month/ (1886-87).

[21] Cf. Lilly-Wallis, /Manual of the Law specially affecting
Catholics/, 1893.

[22] Payne, /Records of the English Catholics of 1715/, 1889.

[23] Cf. Burton, /The Life and Times of Bishop Challone (1691-1781)/,
2 vols., 1909 (an excellent biography).

CHAPTER VI

THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND

Lang, /History of Scotland/, 1900-2. Bellesheim-Blair, /History of
the Catholic Church in Scotland/, 1887 (tr. from the German, 2
Bde., 1883). Forbes-Leith, S.J., /Narratives of the Scottish
Catholics/, 1885. Id., /Memoirs of Scottish Catholics during the
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries/, 2 vols., 1909. Walsh,
/History of the Catholic Church in Scotland/, 1874. Grub, /An
Ecclesiastical History of Scotland/, 4 vols., 1861. Dawson, /The
Catholics of Scotland (1593-1852)/, 1890. Pollen, S.J., /Papal
Negotiations with Mary Queen of Scots (1561-67)/, 1901. Lang,
/Mystery of Mary Stuart/, 1901. /Catholic Tractates of the
Sixteenth Century/ (edited by Law, 1901). Theiner, /Vetera
Monumenta Hib. et Scotorum (1216-1547)/, 1864. /Works of John
Knox/, (edited by Laing), 1855-64. Herkless, /Cardinal Beaton/,
etc., 1891. Gordon, /Scoti-Chronicon/, 1867. Tytler, /History of
Scotland/, 1879.

In Scotland a long succession of infant kings and weak regents helped
to increase the power of the lords at the expense of the crown. The
king or regent had no standing army at his disposal, nor were the
resources of the royal treasury sufficient to allow the ruler to
invoke the assistance of foreign mercenaries. As a result the king was
dependent more or less on the lords, who were prepared to support him
if their own demands were conceded, or to form private confederations
or "bands" against him if they felt that they themselves were
aggrieved. Parliament, which included the spiritual and lay lords,
together with representatives of the lower nobility and of the cities,
did not play a very important part in the government of the country.
For years Scotland had been the close ally of France and the enemy of
England. Such an alliance was at once the best pledge for Scotland's
independence, and the best guarantee against England's successful
invasion of France.

To put an end to the controversies regarding the primatial rights
claimed by the Archbishop of York over the Scottish Church, Clement
III. issued a Bull in 1188 declaring the Church of Scotland subject
directly only to the Apostolic See.[1] A further step was taken by
Sixtus IV. in 1472, when St. Andrew's was erected into a metropolitan
See, under which were placed as suffragans the twelve dioceses,
Glasgow, Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Moray, Brechin, Dunblane, Ross, Caithness,
Candida Casa, Argyll, the Isles, and Orkney.[2] This measure was
resented by many of the bishops, but more especially by the Bishops of
Glasgow, who were unwilling to submit to the jurisdiction of St.
Andrew's even after it had been declared that the latter in virtue of
its office enjoyed primatial and legatine powers over Scotland (1487).
In the hope of putting an end to the controversy Glasgow was erected
into a metropolitan See with four suffragan dioceses, Dunkeld,
Dunblane, Galloway and Argyll (1492). The bishops of Scotland were
supposed to be elected by the chapters, but in reality the king or
regent enjoyed a decisive voice in the selection of candidates
especially during the greater part of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries.

As a result of this enslavement of the Church, men were appointed to
bishoprics without reference to their fitness for this sacred office,
and solely with the intention of providing themselves and their
relatives with a decent income. Thus for example, James, Duke of Ross,
brother of James IV., was appointed to the See of St. Andrew's at the
age of twenty-one, and he was succeeded by Alexander Stuart, the
illegitimate son of James IV., when he had reached only his ninth
year. What is true of St. Andrew's is almost equally true of many of
the other dioceses of Scotland, though it would be very wrong to
assume that all the bishops of Scotland during the latter half of the
fifteenth or the first half of the sixteenth centuries were unworthy
men.

The religious orders of men were well represented by the Benedictines,
Cistercians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, etc., while in
most of the large cities and towns flourishing convents had been
founded. The state of discipline in these various institutions varied
considerably according to circumstances, but although serious attempts
were made to introduce reforms especially in the houses of the
Cistercians, Franciscans, and Dominicans, it cannot be contended for a
moment that the Scottish monasteries and convents were free from the
gravest abuses. Possibly the erection of such a multitude of
collegiate churches in Scotland during the fifteenth century was due
to the sad condition of so many of the religious houses, but if it
was, the remedy was almost as bad as the disease. In connexion with
the monasteries, the chapters, and the collegiate churches, schools
were carried on with a fair amount of success, sufficient at least to
prepare students for the higher education given at the Universities of
St. Andrew's founded by Benedict XIII. (1410), of Glasgow, founded by
Nicholas V. (1451), and of Aberdeen established through the exertions
of the learned and holy Bishop Elphinstone with the approval of
Alexander VI. (1495) and of James IV. Owing to the close connexion
with France many of the Scottish ecclesiastics pursued their studies
at Paris.

The Church in Scotland was comparatively wealthy at the beginning of
the Reformation movement, though it should be remembered that out of
its resources it was obliged to maintain the schools, hospitals, and
institutes of charity. Still the wealth of the Church in Scotland
instead of being a source of strength was in reality a source of
weakness, and in the end it proved to be one of the main causes of its
overthrow. It excited the cupidity of the hungry nobles, and made them
anxious to share in the plunder of religious houses, particularly
after the example had been set across the border by Henry VIII.'s
attack on the English monasteries. But before any steps were taken to
bring about the forcible seizure of the ecclesiastical property the
rulers and lords of Scotland adopted other means of controlling the
wealth of the Church and of the monasteries. Members of the royal
family or sons of the nobles were introduced into the bishoprics
irrespective of their merits, and were induced to enrich their
relatives by bestowing on them portions of the diocesan property. Many
others of a similar class were appointed as commendatory abbots of
religious houses solely for the purpose of controlling the revenue of
these establishments. In some cases those so appointed were only
children, in nearly all cases they were laymen, and in no case did
they do anything for the maintenance of discipline, for the
cultivation of a good religious spirit, or for the promotion of the
wishes of the founders and endowers of the monastic institutions. What
was true of the monasteries was equally true of the convents, in many
of which discipline was completely relaxed. Several attempts were made
to bring about a reformation, but on account of the exemptions and
special privileges claimed by the religious houses, such attempts were
doomed to failure, whether they were made by the bishops or by the
regular superiors. Nothing less than a papal visitation, in which the
visitors could have relied upon the full power of the Church and
State, would have sufficed to put an end to the evil, and
unfortunately no such step was taken in time to avert the calamity.

As elsewhere, so too in Scotland, it was no uncommon thing to find one
man holding several benefices to which the care of souls was attached,
notwithstanding all the canons that had been passed against such a
glaring abuse. The clergy, following the example of so many of their
superiors, showed themselves entirely unworthy of their position. Many
of them were quite negligent about preaching and instructing their
flock, completely regardless of clerical celibacy, and oftentimes they
devoted more attention to their farms and to their cattle than to
their religious obligations. One has only to refer to the decrees of
the diocesan synods held by Archbishop Forman of St. Andrew's (1515-
22),[3] to the national synods of 1549-1552, and to the letter of
Cardinal Sermoneta to the Pope in 1557[4] to see how grievous were the
abuses flourishing in all departments of the Church in Scotland at the
time when the very existence of Catholicism in the kingdom was
trembling in the balance. The root of all this evil was the
destruction of the independence of the Church, and its complete
subjugation to the crown and to the lords. As a result, when the
crisis came and when most of the lords went over to the party of Knox,
they found but little resistance from their unworthy relatives, whom
they had introduced into positions of trust, not that they might
promote religion, but that they might live by it, and in the end
betray it.

It was during the reign of James V. (1513-42) that the religious
revolution began on the Continent and in England. Henry VIII. of
England was his uncle, and he left no stone unturned to detach his
nephew from his alliance with France and from his submission to Rome;
but despite Henry's endeavours James V. refused to join in Henry's
attacks on the Pope, or to listen to the proposals for a closer union
with England. The Scottish Parliament held in 1525 forbade the
introduction of Lutheran books into the kingdom or the preaching of
Luther's doctrine, and a papal envoy was dispatched to the Scottish
court to exhort the king to stand firm in the defence of the Church.
The reply of James V. was reassuring. Soon however the new heresy
began to make its appearance in the kingdom. Patrick Hamilton,
commendatory abbot of Ferne and closely related to some of the most
powerful families in Scotland, had come into contact with Luther and
Melanchthon during his wanderings on the Continent, and on his return
home he set himself to spread their teachings amongst his countrymen.
He was arrested, tried for heresy, and handed over to the secular
authorities who inflicted the death penalty (1528). His execution did
not put an end to the movement in Scotland. In 1533 the Benedictine,
Henry Forest, was condemned to death for heresy; in the following year
a priest and a layman met a similar fate, and before the death of
James V. several others including Dominicans and Franciscans, laymen
and clerics, were either burned or obliged to seek safety in flight.
James V. set himself resolutely to the task of suppressing heresy, and
was supported by Parliament, which forbade all discussion on Luther's
errors except in so far as it might be necessary for their refutation,
and ordered all who had Lutheran writings in their possession to
deliver them to the bishops within a period of fourteen days.

Political influences, however, favoured the spread of the new
doctrine. It had been the dream of Henry VII., as it was also the
dream of his son and successor, to strengthen England at the expense
of France, by bringing about an alliance and if possible a union
between England and Scotland. It was in furtherance of this design
that Henry VII. had given his eldest daughter in marriage to James
IV., who was slain with most of his nobles in a battle with the
English on the fatal field of Flodden (1513). The schemes for a union
with Scotland were continued by Henry VIII., particularly after his
rupture with Rome had shown him the danger that might be anticipated
from the north in case the French or the Emperor should declare war in
defence of the Church. A regular contest began at the Scottish court
between the friends of Rome and of France and the agents of Henry
VIII., the latter of whom took care to encourage those who favoured
religious innovations. The queen-mother, sister of Henry VIII., and
many of the nobles favoured the plans of Henry, who sought to induce
the King of Scotland to join him in the struggle against Rome, and who
promised him in return for this service the hand of his daughter the
Princess Mary and the friendship of the English nation. James V.,
backed by the bishops and encouraged by messengers from Rome, refused
to come south for a conference with Henry VIII., or to give any
countenance to the schismatical policy of his uncle. As a sign that
Scotland was still true to France he married the daughter of Francis
I. of France (1537), and on her death shortly after her arrival in
Scotland, he took as his second wife (1538) Mary of Guise, daughter of
the Duke of Guise and sister of the Cardinal of Lorraine.[5]

He was ably assisted in his struggle against heresy and English
interference by David Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrew's (1539-46) and
a cardinal of the Roman Church. The latter was at once a churchman and
a politician, loyal to Rome and to France, earnest in his defence of
Scottish independence, and determined to defeat the English schemes
against both the religion and liberty of Scotland. As friendly
remonstrances and invitations failed to produce any effect, Henry
VIII. determined to have recourse to war. He felt that he could rely
upon the assistance or the neutrality of many of the Scottish nobles
whom he had won over to his side, and soon events showed that this
confidence was not misplaced. The Scottish army was put to a shameful
flight at Solway Moss, probably more by treachery than by the
cowardice of the Scottish nobles, and James V. was so heartbroken by
the news of this disaster that he died in a few weeks (Dec. 1542)
leaving behind him an infant daughter, to be known later as Mary Queen
of Scots.

After the death of James V. the Earl of Arran, who as one of the
Hamiltons was next after the king's daughter the heir-presumptive to
the throne, and who favoured the new religion and English influence,
was appointed regent despite the resistance of Cardinal Beaton and of
the clergy. Henry VIII. believed that the favourable moment had come
for carrying out his plans. He hoped to be able to imprison his old
enemy Cardinal Beaton, to seize the person of the young princess, to
arrange for a marriage between her and his own son Prince Edward, and
to make himself virtual sovereign of Scotland. To their shame be it
said he induced a number of the Scottish nobles, the Douglasses, the
Earls of Cassilis, Glencairn, Bothwell, and Angus, together with many
others, to agree to his designs and to promise their assistance.
Unmindful of their duty to Scotland they consented to sell both their
country and their religion for English gold. The regent was only too
willing to lend his aid, and before the end of January the English
agents were able to announce to "their Sovereign Lord" that the
cardinal was a prisoner. Everything seemed to favour the religious
change and the plans of union with England. Parliament met in March
1543. It decreed liberty to all to read or to have in their possession
a copy of the Bible in the English or the Scottish tongue, and
appointed commissioners to treat with Henry for the marriage of Mary
to his son. But popular opinion in Scotland supported strongly the
religious and political policy of Cardinal Beaton. The clergy of the
diocese of St. Andrew's refused to continue their ministrations until
their archbishop was released. The people supported them in their
demands, as did several of the nobles, and in the end, despite the
protests of the English party, among the lords, the cardinal was set
at liberty. The regent, the Earl of Arran, deserted his former
friends, became reconciled with the Catholic Church, joined himself to
the party of the cardinal and of the queen dowager, and welcomed the
arrival of the French forces that had come to defend the kingdom
against an English invasion.

The Scottish nobles in the pay of Henry VIII. were convinced, as was
Henry VIII. himself, that so long as Cardinal Beaton was alive to
guide affairs in Scotland no advance could be made in the work of
destroying both the religion and the independence of the kingdom.
Several of the Scottish enemies of the cardinal entered into
communication with Henry himself or with his agents. They offered to
murder the cardinal if only Henry promised a sufficient reward, and
Henry expressed his approval of the step that was in contemplation.[6]
Meanwhile the cardinal was busy preparing schemes for a genuine reform
of the Church to be submitted to a national synod called for January
1546, and in making a visitation of his diocese for the purpose of
suppressing heresy. George Wishart, formerly a Greek master at
Montrose, had returned from the Continent, and had begun to stir up
religious dissension in several cities of Scotland. He was the close
ally of the Scottish lords who were in the pay of Henry VIII., and he
himself was the trusted messenger employed by Crichton, Lord of
Brunston, to communicate to the English court the projected murder of
Cardinal Beaton and the destruction of certain religious houses in
Scotland.[7] The cardinal, who was probably aware of his plots as well
as of his preachings, secured his arrest, and brought him to St.
Andrew's, where he was tried and executed for heresy (1546). The news
of the execution created considerable commotion especially in those
centres where Wishart had preached, and gave new impetus to the
movement for the assassination of the cardinal. In May 1546 some of
the family of Leslie, who had grievances of their own to revenge, with
a number of other accomplices secured an entrance to the palace of the
Archbishop of St. Andrew's, put his servants and attendants to flight,
and murdered him before any help could be summoned. The murder of
Cardinal Beaton was an irreparable misfortune for the Catholic Church
in Scotland. He was at once an able churchman and a patriot,
determined to maintain the independence of his country against the
group of pro-English traitors, who were determined to change the
religion of Scotland at the bidding of Scotland's greatest enemy. John
Knox, a fanatical priest, who had gone over to the new religion,
welcomed the murder of the cardinal as a veritable triumph for the
gospel and as a "godly act." He hastened to join the murderers who had
taken possession of the castle of St. Andrew's, and to whom he
preached as the first reformed congregation in Scotland.[8] Henry
VIII., no less jubilant for the disappearance of his strongest
opponent, was not slow to assist the murderers.

But the assassination of the cardinal did not mean the triumph of the
English party. It served only to embitter the feelings of the vast
majority of the people, and to force the regent and queen-dowager to
throw themselves more unreservedly into the arms of France. A French
fleet arrived at Leith and forced the murderers assembled in the
castle of St. Andrew's to surrender. Those of them who were not
fortunate enough to make their escape were taken prisoners and
condemned to the French galleys. An English army led by the Duke of
Somerset marched into Scotland to enforce the English demands, and
especially to secure the person of the infant queen. But though it
inflicted considerable havoc on Scotland, particularly on several of
the religious houses, and though it overthrew the forces of the regent
in the battle of Pinkie (1547), it was obliged to re-cross the borders
without having secured the submission of the nation. In the following
year (1548) a new French force arrived in England to assist the Scotch
in their struggle against England. A Scottish Parliament renewed the
alliance with France, approved of the betrothal of the young queen to
the Dauphin of France, and determined to provide for the safety of her
person by sending her into France. After several fruitless attempts
made by the English to secure a foothold in Scotland they were obliged
to give up the contest in despair, and to conclude a nine years'
peace. For so far the alliance between Catholicism and independence
had won the victory against heresy and English influence (1550).

The murder of Cardinal Beaton helped to force the bishops and clergy
to realise the danger of their position. They urged the regent to take
stern measures in defence of the church, and what was of much more
importance they attempted to set their own house in order as the best
preparation for the conflict. John Hamilton, brother of the regent,
was appointed Archbishop of St. Andrew's in succession to Cardinal

Book of the day: