NON
NGLAND
CIRCULATING
AND
ROME
INGRAM
BX
1491
.154
RAG
Be Co.

!
1
ARTES
1837
SCIENTIA
VERITAS
LIBRARY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
↑ PLURIBUS UNUM
TUFBOR
SI
QUAERIS PENINSULAM AMOE NAM
CIRCUMSPICE
1
i

1:1052.
BX
1491
154
ENGLAND AND ROME.
!
1
ENGLAND AND ROME:
•
A HISTORY OF THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN
3-1416
THE PAPACY
AND
THE ENGLISH STATE AND CHURCH
FROM THE
NORMAN CONQUEST TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688.
Thosicas
BY
DUNBAR INGRAM, LL.D.
OF LINCOLN'S INN, BARRISTER-AT-LAW
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
AND NEW YORK, 13, EAST 16th STREET
1892
די
и
о
sclass 12-30-4
PREFACE
THE three most ancient and most venerable Estab-
lishments in Europe are, the Papacy, the English
Church, and the English Monarchy. Of all the
Western nations, England has been the most
uniform and homogeneous in her growth, and
amongst her people a sense of unity, under
a central government which represented the
national consciousness, was developed far earlier
than in the other communities. That feeling
hardly existed in France before the English were
driven out of the country. In Germany it was
impeded and delayed by her fatal connexion with
Italy. Spain was consolidated by her long wars
with the Saracenic infidels which ended in com-
paratively modern times. Italy is the newest birth
into the family of nations. With respect to the
English Church, though the conversion of the
Anglo-Saxons dates from the coming of Augustine
in 596, yet, if we add to the thirteen centuries of its
existence, the period during which the elder branch
}
vi
PREFACE
1
-the early British or Welsh Church-flourished, its
origin is almost coeval with the foundation of a
Christian bishopric at Rome.' But it is not only the
antiquity of the English Church that commands our
attention and respect. Before the smaller States
on the Continent had been incorporated into ex-
tensive kingdoms, and before their Churches had
ceased to be local bodies deriving their importance
from their dependence on Rome, the English
Church was a great national institution, with a
name of its own to distinguish it from the Roman,"
completely organised, having its recognised repre-
sentative assemblies, possessing the right of canoni-
cally legislating for itself, managing its own affairs,
and exercising a powerful influence in the forma-
tion or reform of our constitution. It is the
object of the following pages to give an account
of the Relations which prevailed between the
Papacy on the one hand, and the English State
and Church on the other, from the Norman Con-
quest to the Revolution of 1688.
3
¹ Stillingfleet, Origines Britannica. Collier follows this author almost
word for word.
2 In our records, statutes, and rolls of Parliament, it is always spoken
of as "the Church of England" or "holy Church of England" in oppo-
sition to the term "Roman Church."
3 "The Charter of Runnymede was drawn under Langton's eye;
Grosseteste was the friend and adviser of the constitutional opposition.
Berksted, the episcopal member of the electoral triumvirate, was the
pupil of S. Richard of Chichester; S. Edmund of Canterbury was the
adviser who compelled the first banishment of the aliens; S. Thomas of
Cantilupe, the last canonized Englishman, was the chancellor of the
baronial regency."-Bishop Stubbs, Const. History, 2, 299.
PREFACE
vii
It is time that the expression "Tudor Supre-
macy" should be banished from our histories; for
it implies that the ecclesiastical-not spiritual-
headship of the English Church was first claimed
by that family, and that it did not exist before the
reign of Henry VIII. No suggestion could be more
unfounded. There is no fact in our history more
certain than that, from the earliest period of our
monarchy, our Kings exercised a large supremacy
over the external regimen and adjuncts of the
Church, differing in no respects from that which
Henry enjoyed. In the Anglo-Saxon times, the
sovereigns both claimed and exercised all the rights
which are included in the term of the canonists "ex-
ternal jurisdiction," that is, to execute the ordinances
of the Church, to enforce the performance of their
duties by the bishops and clergy, to defend the
ecclesiastical system from all harm from within and
without, and to preserve the purity of the faith.
Edgar, the Pacific, declared that he held the sword
of Constantine, and that he was, within his domi-
nions, the Lord's husbandman, the pastor of pastors,
and the representative of Christ upon earth. In
the presence of Archbishop Dunstan, he told his
clergy that it was his duty as King "to examine
into the morals of both seculars and regulars,
whether they lived chastely and conducted them-
selves with propriety towards the laity, whether
they were careful in the administration of their
office and assiduous in the instruction of the people;
viii
PREFACE
and to see, that they were moderate in their food,
regular in their habits, and equitable in deciding
the causes which came before them." Before the
Conquest, English sovereigns considered it to be a
part of their kingly office to keep their bishops and
clergy up to their duties, to remove and punish
abuses of whatever kind which had crept into the
Church, to appoint bishops and regular prelates
without any external interference, to call national
councils in which the affairs of the Church were
regulated, to preside over them in person, and to
confirm by their authority the decrees passed in
these assemblies.
The Norman Kings jealously maintained their
ecclesiastical supremacy, and guarded their Church
from all external intervention. No bishop or abbot
was allowed to go to Rome without the King's
license. No Papal bull, constitution, or letter could
be received into the kingdom unless it were first
inspected and approved by the sovereign. A Papal
legate or nuncio could not set his foot in England
without the royal permission. In 1115 Pope
Paschal II. complained, that no communication
between England and Rome was allowed by the King
and the English bishops, and that all the concerns
1“De quorum omnium [ecclesiarum ministri, greges monachorum,
chori virginum] moribus ad nos spectat examen, si vixerint continenter,
si honeste se habeant ad eos qui foris sunt, si divinis officiis solliciti, si
ad docendum populum assidui, si victu sobrii, si habitu moderati, si in
judiciis sint discreti. Pacè vestra loquor, reverendi patres, si ista solerti
scrutinio curâssetis, non tam horrenda et abominanda ad aures nostras
de clericis pervenissent."-Spelman, Concilia, 1, 477.
PREFACE
ix
of the national Church were settled in the country
without his knowledge and without consulting the
Papal See. Until the reign of John-with the ex-
ception of the anarchy of the times of Stephen-the
English Church was exclusively managed at home;
but the alliance of the former sovereign with the
Papacy seriously affected the royal supremacy and
the independence of the Church. During the latter
portion of John's reign and the whole of that of his
successor, the English Church was delivered over
as a prey into the hands of strangers, whose mis-
management laid the foundation of that universal
distrust and indignation which brought about
the anti-Papal legislation of Edward III. and
Richard II.
The accession of Edward I. put an end to the
alliance between the Papacy and the Crown of
England. In the reign of this King commenced
the long struggle between the English State and
the Popes, which lasted upwards of a hundred
years, and ended in the enactment of the statutes
of Provisors and Præmunire. These Acts re-estab-
lished the old order of things, restored to the
sovereign his ecclesiastical supremacy, and secured
to domestic hands the patronage and administration
of the Church. After their enactment, no Papal
bull, letter, process, or instrument whatever, could be
received by any English subject without the King's
permission. No one, either lay or cleric, could
apply to the Papal Court for any document, or
X
PREFACE
accept from the Pope the smallest office in the
Church of the kingdom, without the same per-
mission. If any one did so, he incurred outlawry
and forfeiture of all his goods, and it depended
wholly on the discretion of the King whether or
not these penalties should be exacted. Though the
Pope continued to go through the lucrative form of
providing by his bulls fit persons for English pre-
lacies, as he did even in Cranmer's case, yet his
appointments were absolutely worthless until con-
firmed by the letters-patent of the King. Each
prelate, to whom such bulls were sent, was obliged
by an immemorial custom to renounce everything
in them prejudicial to the royal prerogative or the
English laws; and further, after the passing of the
Acts of Præmunire, it was necessary for him to sue
out the King's pardon for having asked, or received,
or acted upon such instruments. In 1426, thirty-
four years after the enactment of the last of the
Præmunire statutes, Martin V. declared that the
Church of England was governed, not by the Pope
but by the King, and that all communication
between England and the Papal See was forbidden
by the laws of the country.
Henry VIII. was well aware of the nature of
the supremacy which had been handed down to
him, and was resolved to maintain it. In 1521,
Leo X. bestowed on him the title of "Defender of
the Faith" for his book against Luther. Notwith-
standing his devotion to the Papal See up to this
PREFACE
xi
date,' Henry would not allow any application to be
made to the Roman Court, or any Papal bull or
other instrument to be received, published, or
executed in England without his previous license
granted on the petition of the applicant. The
permissions granted in this reign "to accept, read,
publish, or execute bulls," or to apply for such
instruments, are exceedingly formal, and invariably
commence by reciting the clause of the last Pro-
munire Act, which referred to such documents :2
"Though it was enacted in the sixteenth year of
Richard II. that those, who procured, or caused to
be procured, in the Roman Court, any processes,
sentences of excommunication, bulls, instruments, or
any other thing touching our Crown, or realm, and
those who brought them into the kingdom, should
be put out of our protection, their lands and goods
forfeited and themselves attached, yet We, moved
by certain considerations, do, by these presents, give
and grant our license, &c."
In 1514, Wolsey was created a cardinal, and in
1518, he obtained from the Pope, with the consent
of the King, a commission as legate a latere, but
without the usual powers granted to such legates.
Wolsey was a candidate for the Papal throne, and
1 When Henry wrote against Luther, and showed his book to Sir
Thomas More, the latter advised him not to advance the Pope's authority
too much, lest he should diminish his own.
2 De licentia ad bullas impetrandas et deferendas, 1512.-Rymer,
xiii. 340. Pro Priore de Novo Burgo de bullis impetrandis, 1513.—
lb. 383. De licentia impetrandi bullas, 1514.—Ib. 469.
xii
PREFACE
was not, therefore, likely to diminish the pretensions
of the Roman See, or the number of instruments
issued by it. Under colour of his commission, he
took into his hands the management of the English
Church, and acted directly contrary to the statutes
of Provisors and Præmunire, which had been passed
to secure for ever the independence of that Church,
and its freedom from foreign interference. In his
violation of these statutes, Wolsey was abetted by a
great number of the clergy. The offences of that
body, and their claim to a complete immunity from
the criminal law of the country, determined the
King to exact an acknowledgment of his headship
over them, considered not as spiritual pastors but as
citizens. Henry also confirmed and restored to
their former vigour the old laws which had been
made, before the Reformation was even thought of,
to limit the exercise of Papal power. But he did
not touch, or wish to touch, the spiritual supremacy
of the Popes. What Archbishop Bramhall states is
most true, "that Henry VIII. did cast no branch of
Papal power out of England but that which was
diametrically repugnant to the ancient laws of the
land." The spiritual supremacy of the Popes in
England was put an end to, not by the King but by
Paul III. By his bull, excommunicating Henry
and his adherents, interdicting the kingdom, and
delivering over its inhabitants as slaves to those who
should capture them, Paul destroyed his spiritual
¹ Works, 2, 449.
PREFACE
xiii
authority, lost the affections of the English people,
and drove them and their Church out of Catholic
unity.
The
Under Mary, the kingdom was reconciled to the
Roman See. The effects of this transaction have
been greatly exaggerated. Though the Queen
repealed the anti-Papal Acts of her father, which
had been passed after the twentieth year of his
reign, 1528, yet farther back she did not go.
supremacy of the sovereign and the independence of
the English Church were left in the same situation
in which they had been before that date. Mary
exercised her ecclesiastical supremacy just as
her predecessors had done. She made use of the
statutes of Provisors and Præmunire against the
Pope himself; compelled her archbishops and
bishops to renounce everything in their Papal
bulls prejudicial to her prerogative and the laws
of the realm; would not allow a legate who had
been appointed against her consent to exercise
his office; ordered a bearer of Papal letters to be
arrested; and issued proclamations about religion,
as her father had done.
With the reign of Elizabeth began, on the part of
the Popes, a series of aggressions against England,
which is without a parallel in history, and which en-
tailed the most disastrous consequences on the Roman
Catholics of the kingdom. For upwards of thirty
years, the Roman Pontiffs directed all the moral
and material resources at their command to the
Xiv
PREFACE
destruction of England, and her conquest by the
King of Spain. During all these long years,
they never rested for a moment from their hostile
attempts. Laying aside all pretence of acting as
spiritual teachers, they took into their hands the
temporal sword. They invaded English territories
with their own troops; encouraged rebellions;
instigated conspiracies; fomented civil wars; taught
that religion was to be restored by blood and
violence; preached crusades against England ;
organised confederations of the Catholic Powers
against her; and despatched missionaries to teach
a new faith, which was not the Catholic faith, but
a corrupt compound of religion and treason. The
four Popes, Pius V., Gregory XIII., Sixtus V., and
Clement VIII., destroyed their Church in England;
made the country Protestant; shut it out from the
Roman Catholic revival which took place in the
rest of Europe; and brought down upon their own
adherents the afflictions under which they laboured
so long.
The thirty years' war waged against England
by the Popes and the Spanish Kings, came to an
end with the accession of James I. to the English
crown. This cessation was not the result of any
change in the Papal policy, but of the exhaustion
of Spain, and the new strength which England had
acquired by her union with Scotland. After the
discovery of the Gunpowder plot, James made an
attempt to establish a means of distinguishing
PREFACE
XV
between the loyal Roman Catholics and the
Papistic faction, the members of which enter-
tained the belief that all modes of restoring their
religion—however immoral—were justifiable. With
this view he drew up an oath of allegiance which
referred only to the civil obedience due by subjects
to their sovereign. The attempt was defeated by
the Popes, who forbade the English Roman Catholics
to take the oath, on the ground that it contained
many things contrary to faith and salvation. This
statement was a mere pretence; their real reasons
being (1) that the oath denied the power claimed
by the Popes of deposing princes, and (2) the fixed
resolution of the Pontiffs, as avowed by themselves,
never to allow Roman Catholics to testify their
allegiance to a heretical or Protestant sovereign.
The effect of the Papal denunciations of the oath
was, to prevent a reconciliation between the English
Roman Catholics and the government under which
they lived, and to necessitate a continuation of the
penal enactments.
This obstructive policy of the Popes was persisted
in during the reigns of Charles I., Charles II., and
after the abdication of James II., throughout the
subsequent reigns until the 18th year of George
III. We have no reason to believe that this policy
would have been departed from by the Papal Court,
had not the English Roman Catholics themselves at
last cast off the political ascendency of Rome, and
its dictation as to their civil duties. In 1778 they
xvi
PREFACE
presented a petition to the King in which they
acknowledged his title to the crown, and assured
him of their affection to his government, and their
"unalterable attachment to the cause and welfare
of this our common country." The First Relief
Act in 1780 was the consequence of this petition.
The Act contained an oath disclaiming unreservedly
the deposing and absolving powers, and also an
anti-social doctrine which had long been attributed
to Roman Catholics, viz. that no faith was to be
kept with heretics. The oath was taken universally
by them, and the way was thus cleared for further
relief. The apprehensions which had been caused
by the long-continued aggressions of the Popes,
by the crimes of the Papistic party, and by the
errors of the general body of the Roman Catholics
in refusing a profession of their allegiance, in
holding themselves apart, as a separate body, from
their fellow-citizens, and in declining to recog-
nise the Government established by the Revolution
of 1688, began to disappear. The impressions
of two centuries, however, fade but slowly from
the mind of a people, and fifty years had to
elapse before the belief, that the Roman Catholic
religion was inconsistent with the safety of the
State, was entirely removed."
1 "If, during the present reign [1792], the fatal impression [that the
Catholic religion is inconsistent with the government of this country] is
in great measure effaced, it is because the Catholics, in both islands,
have dared to profess their allegiance, and solemnly abjure the deposing
and absolving powers, without even consulting Rome, or regarding its
PREFACE
xvii
We, at the present day, are able to discriminate
between the words "spiritual" and "ecclesiastical."
But in the times of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, the
notions of all men were indistinct on the subject.
The claims of the Papacy were so vast and so
undefined that it is not to be wondered at if princes,
in repudiating those claims, made use of words
capable of too great an extension. Yet it is un-
doubted that all the moderate men in England,
during the reign of Henry, attributed to the ex-
pression "spiritual or ecclesiastical" the meaning
which we give to the single word "ecclesiastical."
Fisher himself, who has always been considered as
an advocate of the Papal authority, advised his
brother bishops to swear obedience to the King "in
causes ecclesiastical and spiritual"-advice which
most certainly he would not have given if he had
believed that the formula included spiritual concerns
strictly so-called. Queen Mary restored bishops to
what she called "their spiritual and temporal rights."
Though the expression "spiritual or ecclesiastical"
occurs in Elizabeth's oath of supremacy, yet the
Queen published a contemporaneous explanation of
it, in which she renounced all spiritual authority,
and declared. that she only claimed jurisdiction
over the persons of all subjects born within her
former vain pretensions and unchristian condemnation. The spirit of
1778 snapped the chains of Papal tyranny. When their social and
political principles are concerned, English Catholics will never again be
ill-advised enough to resort to any foreign country for directions."
Sir John Throckmorton, Second Letter to the Catholic Clergy of England,
72.
b
xviii
PREFACE
dominions, thus merely rejecting the pretension
of the clergy to be judged by the Pope alone.
We must not forget that princes were willing to
limit their ecclesiastical supremacy to the external
concerns of their Churches, and that they made
infinitely fewer mistakes in confounding the tem-
poral and spiritual provinces than the Popes, who
recognised no distinction between things secular
and sacred. It was clearly the duty of the Roman
Pontiffs to define the nature of the authority which
they challenged within the dominions of independent
sovereigns, and of the obedience which they required
from their subjects. They were themselves tem-
poral princes as well as supreme pastors, and there-
fore their claims might be misunderstood. It was
necessary for the security of governments, and for
the
peace of their people, that the authority to which
such foreign princes declared themselves entitled in
the kingdom of another, should be accurately de-
fined, and limited strictly to their spiritual domain.
This was not done. On the contrary, the Popes
claimed a paramount temporal jurisdiction and
suzerainty in England, overriding the laws of the
country, and incompatible with its existence as an
independent kingdom. In opposing and breaking
down the whole mass of the Roman pretensions,
political and ecclesiastical, and in confirming the
old laws of the land, Henry VIII. and Elizabeth
made use of general expressions, which those
princes believed could not be applied to things of
PREFACE
xix
divine institution, and which were wilfully misin-
terpreted by Papal advocates, who concealed the
fact that Henry limited his claims to a supremacy
over the clergy, regarded not as spiritual teachers
but as citizens, and that Elizabeth, by her explana-
tion of her oath, followed the same course.
The edition of Rymer made use of in the following pages is the
second, 1727-1735, unless where another is mentioned.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
THE SAXON AND ANGLO-NORMAN PERIODS UNTIL THE
ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
PAGES
1-78
CHAPTER II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I TO THE END OF THE
REIGN OF HENRY VII
79-129
CHAPTER III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
131-198
CHAPTER IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI TO THE END OF
THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
199-325
CHAPTER V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I .
327-375
CHAPTER VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I TO THE REVO-
LUTION OF 1688 .
LC
377-430
7
CHAPTER I
THE SAXON AND ANGLO-NORMAN PERIODS
UNTIL THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
SECTION I
THE words "spiritual" and "ecclesiastical" have been often
confounded in our books and in our statutes. Thus we read
of spiritual persons, spiritual lords, spiritual courts, and
spiritual subjects, when the meaning intended to be con-
veyed is what we understand by the term "ecclesiastical."
In one Act of Parliament, and as late as the time of Queen
Mary, we even find the expression "spiritual and ecclesias-
tical possessions and hereditaments."
In almost every case,
if not in all, where the word "spiritual" occurs in our legis-
lation, what we more properly call ecclesiastical is meant.
It becomes necessary to distinguish carefully between
these words when we apply them to jurisdiction or supre-
macy. A possible case will show us the difference between
them, and explain what a purely spiritual jurisdiction or
supremacy is. Let us suppose the existence of a religious
body dwelling in a pagan state, and owning obedience to
the Roman Pontiff. This body would be governed-not as
to civil rights, as these would be exclusively regulated by
the law of the country, but as to religious matters-by the
Pope, and the authority exercised by him would be purely
spiritual. The objects of that authority would be the matters
which belong to the soul, such as faith, morals, sacraments,
and the like. The only means of enforcing his commands at
1 1 & 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8.
B 2
4
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
the disposal of the Pontiff would be those which appeal
to the conscience, viz. monitions, censures, suspensions, and
in the last resort excommunication from the flock. No
physical or external compulsion would be in his power. For
as the law of the country would not recognize the body as
a separate community, no temporal means of enforcing his
injunctions would be at his disposal. The members of the
body who disobeyed his orders would incur no civil incon-
venience, as the Pontiff's commands would be ineffectual
to deprive them of the smallest legal right. The last
punishment in his power, namely, excommunication, would
carry with it no temporal or civil loss, for the persons
excommunicated would remain with their status unchanged,
and in the enjoyment of all rights and benefits formerly
possessed by them. Such a jurisdiction or supremacy as
this would be a spiritual authority in the true sense of the
term, acting only on the conscience of the person affected,
and unsupported by any external or legal compulsion. This
example points out to us the three characteristics of a
spiritual supremacy, viz. that its operations are limited to
the domain of faith and morals, that it possesses no means of
external or temporal coercion, and that the obedience which
is yielded to it is voluntary.
For some centuries the ministers of the early Christian
Church possessed no means of enforcing their teaching but
those which have been mentioned, that is, monition, censure,
and exclusion from their society. The Church was composed
of members who of their own free will bound themselves to
it, and voluntarily submitted to its instruction and correction.
Their subsequent separation from it, or their renunciation of
it, brought no loss to them either in their lives, their liberty,
or their estates. As they were free to join, so were they
free to depart, and their withdrawal was not attended with
the slightest inconvenience so far as their civil rights were
SEC. I
5
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
concerned. The sanctions of the early Church were not
carnal and temporal, but spiritual. Its arms were prayers,
tears, supplications, and excommunications. Its appeals were
directed, not to the expectation of worldly advantage, or the
apprehension of temporal suffering on the part of its adhe-
rents, but to their fear of the unseen, their love for Him who
had redeemed them, and their hopes of an everlasting life.
But in process of time, as the nations of the world were
converted to Christianity, a close alliance was contracted
between the temporal and spiritual authorities. The temporal
power incorporated with itself the religious community-
which up to that time had been governed within itself and
by itself-and lent it a coercive legal power which it did not
before possess. Sovereigns and States attached civil sanctions
to spiritual judgments, and added external accessories to the
essential jurisdiction of the Church. What had formerly
been addressed to the conscience was now enforced by the
strong arm of the temporal power. An addition was made
to the Church from the outside by the State, and there grew
up a system of ecclesiastical rights, privileges, and functions,
which may be described as its civil establishment. Hence
arose those ecclesiastical courts which, by the concessions of
Kings and States, exercised a coercive power, and awarded
suspensions and excommunications which differed from the
early suspensions and excommunications inasmuch as they
were followed by the loss of civil rights, and were no longer
purely spiritual. The mere fact that a decision of these
courts was attended by a legal or civil sanction, proves that
the tribunal which gave it was a mixed one, partly spiritual
and partly temporal, for the true spiritual jurisdiction of the
Church is never followed by an external sanction. An enume-
ration of the causes which in England came before these courts
will show us that a large class of them was purely temporal.
These causes were: Blasphemy, Apostasy, Heresy, Schism,
6
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
Ordering, Admissions, Institution of Clerks, Celebration of
divine service, Matrimony, Divorce, Bastardy, Mortuary
claims, Tithes, Oblations, Dilapidations, Repairs of churches,
Wills, Administrations, Simony, Incest, Fornication, Adul-
tery, Pensions, Procurations, and Commutation of penance.
Even as to those causes which were really spiritual in their
nature, the sanction was invariably temporal,-that is, as it
was compulsory, it was necessarily derived from the civil
establishment of the Church, and from the commission
entrusted by the State to the Church to enforce its discipline
by the coercion of civil punishment. This compulsory power
which was exercised by these ecclesiastical courts was a gift
or concession from the State, and might be recalled without
touching the spiritual authority of the Church. The portion
of authority which the State had given might by the State be
revoked. Hence it follows that the Headship or Supremacy
of the civil establishment, which was thus conferred on the
Church, remained with the State, and the Bishops who
presided in the ecclesiastical courts, so far as they exercised
a worldly delegated authority, and awarded temporal punish-
ments, were the King's judges; whereas in purely spiritual
matters, that is, in teaching, preaching, binding and loosing
in foro conscientiæ, administering the sacraments, confirming,
conferring orders, and chastising by censures only, all
Christians have ever agreed that the Church was supreme.
It is of the utmost importance, if we would understand
the relations of the English State and Church to the See of
Rome, to keep the distinction between the words, spiritual
and ecclesiastical, ever before us. Partial writers have taken
advantage of the confusion of them to ascribe to our Kings a
claim which since the Norman Conquest they have never
made-namely, to interfere with things of divine institution
-and to affirm that the English Church has allowed a
spiritual supremacy to the secular sovereign. It has also
SEC. I
7
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
led some of our most respectable authorities far astray.
Thus, Lord Coke repeats with approval the opinion of an
earlier time, that "Kings being anointed with the sacred oil
are capable of spiritual jurisdiction." Hume attributes to
the English people and parliament, in the reign of Edward
III., an inclination to a reformation because they were
dissatisfied with the ecclesiastical exactions of the Pope.¹
Froude thinks that the unwillingness of the bishops to pay
annates in the reign of Henry VIII.-a purely secular
matter-shows that they "contemplated a conclusive revolt
from Rome." An acquaintance with the distinction between
an ecclesiastical and a spiritual supremacy would have saved
these authors from mistakes like this. "Spiritual” is limited
to the province of faith and morals, and is independent of,
and unacquainted with, the exercise of coercion. When
applied to jurisdiction or supremacy it means that essential
authority of the Church which manifests itself only in the
interior court by teaching, monitions, censures, and excom-
munication, and which is immaterial and unattended by any
temporal inconvenience or punishment. "Ecclesiastical
refers to the civil establishment of the Church, to its external
vesture, and to the accidental non-essential accessories which
it has received from time to time, either by the concessions
from sovereigns and states, or by usage and custom insensibly
introduced and allowed by these to continue.
¹“At another time they petition the King to employ no churchman
in any office of State; and they even speak in plain terms of expelling
by force the Papal authority, and thereby providing a remedy against
oppressions which they neither could nor would any longer endure.
Men who talked in this strain were not far from the Reformation."
8
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
SECTION II
Ar the time of the Norman Conquest, and for about two
hundred years after it, the Papacy was at the height of its
power and pre-eminence; a power and pre-eminence which
it had well deserved for its great services in spreading the
Gospel, in civilizing the peoples of the Western World, and
in assimilating them by breaking down the barriers of
national peculiarities. About the commencement of this
period, the conversion of Europe had been completed by the
propagation of Christianity among the northern nations, the
communities round the Gulf of Finland only excepted; and
in the south-east Hungary had renounced her idolatry.¹
Paganism had been overthrown, the great revolts from the
faith had been put down, and the Papacy had emerged from
the contests in the full splendour of its dignity. It was now
preparing itself to organize the nations for a joint enterprise
to recover the Holy Land, and to erect a perpetual bulwark
against the creed of Islam, which had once threatened and
was still dangerous to Christendom. While this central
authority was consolidating itself and extending its influence
in every quarter, political states, with the single exception of
England, were crumbling into pieces. The unity embodied
in the Carolingian Empire had disappeared. Italy was a
Russia is not mentioned here, as she received her Christianity from
Constantinople.
;
1
:
SEC. II
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
9
congeries of small independent principalities. France was
in the same condition. Spain was a mere geographical
expression, and as each province succeeded in throwing off
the Saracenic yoke a petty and distinct kingdom was formed.
In Germany the clergy had obtained great political power
with princely rank and jurisdiction. They and the other
princes of the Empire were already in the possession of the
substantial attributes of sovereignty, and by their claims
to complete independence were disintegrating the great
Teutonic Union. The Papacy, on the other hand, presented
to the eyes of men the view of a firmly compacted power
ruling over a body obedient to one head, united for a
common purpose, and bound by an internal principle of
cohesion. It is hard for us to realize the universal and
all-pervading influence which during this period it exercised
over the minds of men. Here and there doubt or question-
ings still lingered, and in sequestered localities murmurings
might be heard, but the vast majority in Western Europe
yielded a hearty assent to the teaching and to the unity of
the Papal authority. The signs of decadence which set in
from the middle of the thirteenth century had not as yet
made their appearance,,and men were satisfied to rest under
the faith and morals which emanated from Rome.
What was the position which the English State and
Church occupied in relation to the Pope and the Roman
Court in the Saxon times, and for nearly two centuries after
the Norman conquest?
From its adoption of Christianity the English people had
evinced a veneration and devotion to Rome and the Holy
See which were shown by no other nation. The Pope was
revered as a father, and Rome was regarded as a holy city.
1
1 "Not only did the doctrine take root in Germanic Britain, but with
it a veneration for Rome and the Holy See such as no other country had
ever evinced."-Ranke, Popes of Rome.
10
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
Many of the early English princes retired from the world
and assumed the cowl. There was a constant correspondence
and communication between the Mother Church and her
daughter.¹ Pilgrimages to the threshold of the Apostles
were frequent, and the orders and remonstrances of the Pope
were always respected, and generally obeyed. His spiritual
supremacy was acknowledged, and deference was shown to
every Papal suggestion, though occasionally, even in spiritual
matters, as in the case of image worship, the teaching of
the Roman See was questioned, and at first rejected. The
relation of the English Church to the Pope before the
Conquest was that of a child to a parent, but it was that
of an emancipated child, nor was its attitude to him that of
an unintelligent subservience. No jurisdiction on the part
of Rome was admitted by the national church save a purely
spiritual jurisdiction, and the Papal orders respecting its
management were occasionally neglected or passed over
in silence. Thus, the constitution of Gregory the Great
and of Honorius, which erected York into a province
with twelve suffragans, and made it independent of the
southern metropolitan, was disregarded. Bishops were
nominated and deposed; bishoprics were founded, divided,
removed, or given in commendam; monks were displaced
for prebendaries, and prebendaries for monks; and abbeys
were dissolved or restored, without reference to an ex-
ternal authority. There were no appeals to Rome, and
everything regarding the discipline and government of the
Church was settled at home. The case of Archbishop
Stigand affords us a remarkable illustration of the self-
government of the English Church. This prelate exercised
his jurisdiction as metropolitan without any application to
¹ These words refer not to the early British but to the Anglo-Saxon
Church.
SEC. II
11
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
Rome for his pall.' Though he was suspended by Pope
Alexander, the English Church paid no attention to the
suspension, and did not disown Stigand, for this archbishop
received his profession of canonical obedience from Wulstan,
on the appointment of the latter to the see of Worcester.
The third charter of the Confessor to the Abbey of West-
minster is subscribed by twelve bishops and several abbots;
yet Stigand signs it next to the Queen and before the
Archbishop of York, who had lately received his pall from
Nicholas II. No Papal legates, exercising a power of juris-
diction or appointment, were received into the kingdom.
There is but one instance of a legate presiding in an
English council or synod before the Conquest, viz. the
Council of Calcuith, in 787. But if we read the letter sent
to the Pope, in which the joint legates give an account.
of their mission, we shall see that they were mere occasional
envoys or friendly emissaries, directed from one Church to
another, for the purpose of monition or advice. They did
not convene the council, but the King; nor do they speak of
themselves as legates.3 One of them even chose for his
helper in the mission an abbot, not sent by the Pope, but by
Charlemagne-a fact which shows conclusively that they were
not legates in the sense afterwards given to that title. There
can be little doubt that these two legates were in the same
position in which Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus,
Bishop of Troyes, were, when they were called in by a
British synod to help it in its dispute with the Pelagians;
2
¹ Stigand was the first secular appointed to Canterbury after
Laurentius in 604. He was accordingly hated by the monks. He had
received his pall from an intruder on the Papacy calling himself
Benedict X.
2 Spelman's Concilia, i. 292.
3
³ Quia ut scitis, a tempore sancti Augustini pontificis, sacerdos
Romanus nullus illuc missus est, nisi nos.—Ib.
* Ego autem, assumpto mecum adjutore, quem filius vester excellen-
tissimus Rex Carolus ... nobiscum misit.—Ib.
12
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
or in that of John the Abbot, who attended the Council of
Hatfield in 680, at the request of Pope Agatho, to give him
an account of the faith held by the English Church. It is
impossible to read the Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical laws, and
the accounts of the early synods or councils in England
without coming to the conclusion that the Church before the
Conquest was in the same position towards the Papacy
which it occupied when, in the twelfth century, Pope
Paschal II. wrote the letters to which a reference will
shortly be made, and that its management was purely
domestic.
Though in no country the devotion to the Roman See
was greater than in England, yet the Church of the king-
dom was, before the Conquest, and continued, with the
exception of one interval, up to the time of Henry VIII., a
thoroughly national and self-governing institution, under
the protection of the temporal power, which exercised a
large supremacy over its discipline and patronage. The
Saxon Kings assumed without question, and as a matter of
course, an authority in the Church which differed in no respect
from the later Tudor supremacy, so called as if it were
peculiar to that family. They carried out a right to correct,
to reform, and to legislate in ecclesiastical affairs. They
acted as if the general care of the Church, as well as that
of the State, was committed to them, and as if it was their
business to mark out to the ecclesiastical authorities their
several paths and to keep them up to their duties. These
sovereigns asserted over the Church in their dominions the
same rights which Constantine, who convoked general
councils, presided in them, prescribed the subjects of debate,
and confirmed their decrees, had exercised in the Empire.
This is shown by the celebrated address of Edgar the
Pacific to the English clergy.' Edward the Confessor, a
¹ Ailredus Rievallensis.-Twysden, Scriptores, x. p. 360.
SEC. II
13
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
canonized saint, claimed as King to be the Vicar of God
appointed for the purpose of ruling and defending the
Church.¹ No subsequent English sovereign has ever made
so large a claim.
As illustrating the large share which the State, up to the
Conquest, took in the management of the Church, it should
be remembered that there were no separate ecclesiastical
courts before that era, and that all Church matters came for
decision before a tribunal composed of clerics and laymen.
Ecclesiastical and temporal causes were heard, and ecclesias-
tical and temporal decrees were made in the same assemblies,
local and national. The charter of William I., by which the
separation of ecclesiastical and civil causes was effected,
implies that even those matters which were purely spiritual
were adjudicated on by Courts in which laymen sat.²
No
No change as to the supremacy of the sovereign was
made after the Conquest, except that the State projected
itself, as it were, more and more into the ecclesiastical
department, and the rules which defended the national
Church from external interference were made stricter.
bishop or abbot was allowed to go to Rome without the
King's permission. No Papal constitution or bull could
be received into the kingdom unless it were first inspected
and allowed by the sovereign. A general council of the
bishops could not be called except with his consent, and when
such an assembly met, it could not ordain or forbid anything
3
•
¹ Rex autem, qui vicarius Summi Regis est, ad hoc constitutus est, ut
regnum et populum Domini, et super omnia, sanctam ecclesiam regat et
defendat ab injuriosis, maleficos autem destruat et evellat Illos
vocari decet reges qui vigilanter defendunt et regunt ecclesiam Dei et
populum ejus. Leges Edwardi.-Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes
of England, 193.
2 Nec causam quæ ad regimen animarum pertinet, ad judicium
secularium hominum adducant.
³ Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 10, Rolls series.
14
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
2
that was not agreeable to his will, or had not been previously
ordained by him.' No excommunication could be pronounced
against the servants of the sovereign without his license,
inasmuch as such sentences were followed by the loss of civil
rights, and it was the duty of the King to protect his
ministers against temporal punishments deemed by him to
be unjust. The King's supremacy over all persons, and in
all matters ecclesiastical and civil, was maintained by the
assertion and exercise of the royal prohibition. The baronies
of churchmen were assimilated to those of lay nobles, and
were made subject to the public burdens. It was the prero-
gative of the King to determine in a time of schism which of
the claimants was the rightful Pope, and in the exercise of
this prerogative the King was ever supported by the English
bishops and prelates. A closer examination of the laws and
customs of England will show us the freedom of the national
Church from external interference, and also how largely the
State shared in its management and superintendence during
the most splendid period of the Papacy. Two things, how-
ever, must be kept in mind, namely, first, that for some time
in the reign of John, and for the whole of the reign of
Henry III., the English Church was delivered up as a
spoil to foreign ecclesiastics. From this period, therefore,
no precedent is worth quoting. Secondly, that owing to the
permission of some of our Kings, who desired the support of
1 Tb. 10.
3
2 Episcopos, abbates, et alios principes per totam terram instituit, de
quibus indignum judicaretur si per omnia suis legibus, postposita omni
alia consideratione, non obedirent, et si ullus eorum pro quavis terreni
honoris potentia caput contra eum levare auderet, scientibus cunctis unde,
qui, ad quid assumpti fuerint. Cuncta ergo divina simul et humana
ejus nutum expectabant.-Ib. 9. See also Coke, Reports, Part 5, 11.
3 Archbishop Lanfranc in a remarkable letter to an adherent of the
antipope Guibert implies the King's right to decide between the com-
petitors to the Papacy [Collier, i. 252]. In the dispute between William
II. and Anselm on this point, all the bishops took part with the King,
SEC. II
15
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
the Popes for their doubtful titles, or to our civil wars, these
laws and customs were occasionally neglected.
I. No Papal legate a latere was allowed to enter England
except by permission of the King, and after having given
security, or taken an oath, not to attempt anything against
his will.
There are two senses in which the word legate may be
used. It may mean merely a friendly messenger sent by
one Church to another for the purpose of informing itself of
the spiritual condition of that other, or of strengthening its
faith; or it may mean a deputy despatched by the Pope and
claiming a visitatorial power of interfering in the manage-
ment of the Church to which he is sent. Of legates, in the
former sense, three instances have been already mentioned-
that of the two bishops sent by the Gallic Church to assist a
British synod in its dispute with the Pelagians; that of the
joint legates of the Pope in 787; and that of John, sent to
the Council of Hatfield by Pope Agatho, to give him an
account of the faith held by the local Church. It was to
legates sent direct from Rome, and claiming a visitatorial
power of interference with the management of the national
Church that the English sovereigns and clergy objected.¹
1
On two occasions in the reign of the Conqueror Roman
legates presided in an English ecclesiastical council, but we
are informed by our chroniclers that this was done at the
and would not recognise Urban II. until he was acknowledged by the
King. In 1378 the King and Parliament by the 2 Ric. II. c. 7, decided
legislatively that Urban VI. was the true Pope, and attached the penalty
of imprisonment and forfeiture of goods to the recognition of the other
claimant Clement, who was supported by France, Spain, Scotland, and
Sicily. In 1409 Henry IV. issued a proclamation declaring that
Alexander V. was the true Pope, and stigmatising Benedict XIII. and
Gregory XII. as heretics and schismatics. All the sheriffs in England
were ordered to publish the King's decision.-Rymer, viii. 604.
¹ Sed nec Legati sedis apostolicæ manus suas excutiunt ab omni
munere; qui interdum in provinciis ita debacchantur ac si ad ecclesiam
16
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
request of the King by whose order the councils had been
convened. The first occasion was at the council or synod
of Winchester in 1070, when Stigand was deposed.¹ The
second was in the same year when, by command of the King,
the same legate held a synod at Windsor.² -
In 1101 Guido, Archbishop of Vienne, afterwards Pope
Calixtus II., came into England as legate with a commission
from the Holy See. Eadmer tells us that the whole kingdom
was amazed at this proceeding, that the archbishop was not
recognized by any one as legate, and that he had to depart
as he came without having acted in his office.³
3
In 1116 Anselm, a nephew of the late archbishop, came
to Normandy to the King, Henry I., who was then in that
province, with letters from the Pope, appointing him legate
for England. On this being notified by the King to the
English nobility, bishops and abbots, a council was called in
London, the Queen presiding, to deliberate on the matter.
It was resolved unanimously that the Archbishop of Canter-
bury should proceed to the King, and, having pointed out to
flagellandam egressus sit Satan a facie Domini. Concutiunt angulos,
domos, ut prosternant filios et filias ejus qui languores et dolores
animarum curavit in cruce. Commovent et conturbant terram ut
videantur habere quod sanari oporteat [Johan. Saris. Fasciculus Rerum
Expetend. et Faciend. 2. 892]. Cardinalibus vestris clausæ sunt ecclesiæ
et non patent civitates, quia non videmus eos prædicatores sed prædatores,
non pacis corrobatores sed pecuniæ raptores, non orbis reparatores sed
auri insatiabiles corrasores [Answer of the Emperor Barbarossa to the
complaint of Adrian IV. that the churches and cities of the Empire were
shut against his legates.]—Ib. 237.
¹ Veniente Angliam Ermenfredo Sedunense episcopo legato Alexan-
dri papæ. Qui ad voluntatem regis coacto concilio Stigandum deposuit.
Will. Malmes., Gesta Pont. 37, Rolls Series. Jubente et præsente rege
Willelmo, domino Alexandro consentiente.-Roger de Hov. 1, 122,
R.S.
2 Cujus [regis] jussu mox in crastino prædictus Sedunensis episcopus
Armenfredus synodum tenuit.-Rog. de Hov. 1, 123.
3 Quod per Angliam auditum in admirationem omnibus venit, inau-
SEC. II
17
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
him the ancient customs and liberties of the kingdom, should
then go on to Rome, if the King approved, for the purpose
of "quashing these novelties." As for Anselm, the King,
"unwilling that the ancient customs of England should be
infringed,” would not allow him to pass into England in his
legatine character, and this legate also was obliged to return
without having performed any duty of his office."
After the defeat and capture of the antipope in 1121,
Calixtus sent legates into all parts of Europe. Amongst
these he sent Peter, a noble Roman, into France, with a
commission as legate over all Britain. On his arrival in
Normandy the legate waited there for the permission of the
King to enter England. The King sent a bishop and another
ecclesiastic to conduct him to his presence, and commanded
them so to order the journey through England, that the
legate should not enter any monastery or other religious
establishment under pretence of entertainment, or receive
supplies from any except the King's immediate servants.3
When the legate reached the court, and proposed to exercise
his legatine authority, the King told him that it could not be
done without the consent of the bishops, abbots, nobility,
and the parliament of the whole kingdom, and that as for
ditum scilicet in Brittania cuncti scientes, quemlibet hominum super se
vices apostolicas gerere, nisi solum archiepiscopum Cantuariæ. Qua-
propter sicut venit ita reversus est, a nemine pro legato susceptus, nec
in aliquo legati officio functus.-Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 126.
¹ Placuit omnibus archiepiscopum Cantuariensem quem res maxime
respiciebat regem adire, et exposita ei antiqua regni consuetudine simul
ac libertate, si consuleret, Romam iret et hæc nova annihilaret.—Ib.
239.
2 Sed rex Henricus antiquis Angliæ consuetudinibus præjudicium
inferri non sustinens, illum ab ingressu Angliæ detinebat.—1b.
3 Quibus etiam ipse rex . . . injunxit, quatinus iter ejus [legati] ita
disponerent, ut post ingressum Angliæ nec ecclesias nec monasteria
quælibet ad se tendens hospitandi gratia ingrederetur, nec aliunde quam
de suis victus necessaria ei ministrarentur.-7b. 295.
C
18
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
1
himself he was resolved not to give up as long as he lived
any of the privileges of his kingdom, one of the greatest of
which was that England should be free from the authority
of a legate.¹
Two years previously to the arrival of Peter as legate,
the King and the Pope had met at Gisors. It was there
agreed between them that no Papal legate should exercise his
office in England unless the King should desire it upon some
extraordinary emergency which could not be decided by the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the other English prelates.²
The result of these three attempts to send legates into
England is given by William of Malmesbury. "In the
beginning of the reign of King Henry, Guido, Archbishop
of Vienne, and afterwards Pope, had come to England with
the intention of acting as legate, then Anselm, and not long
after a certain Peter. All returned without effecting any-
thing, though not without handsome presents. The frequent
legations of Romans, who were endeavouring to undermine
Ralph, were defeated by the cautious conduct of Henry.
For the King did not wish to act against the ancient customs,
and to receive into England anyone as legate except the
Archbishop of Canterbury." Pope Paschal II. also, in a
letter to the King in 1115, among many other things com-
plained that no legates or Papal nuncios were admitted into
3
1 Super hæc sibi patrias consuetudines ab apostolica sede concessas
nequaquam se æquanimiter amissurum fore testabatur, in quibus hæc et
de maximis una erat, quæ regnum Angliæ liberum ab omni legati ditione
constituerat, donec ipse vitæ præsenti superesset.-Ib.
2 Si non ipse, aliqua præcipua querela exigente et quæ ab archi-
episcopo Cantuariorum cæterisque episcopis regni terminari non posset,
hoc fieri postularet a papa.—Ib. 258.
³ Ralph of Escures, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1114–1122.
4 Nam et in principio regni Henrici venerat Angliam ad exercendam
legationem Guido Viennensis archiepiscopus, qui postea fuit apostolicus;
tunc Anselmus; nec multo post quidam Petrus. Omnesque reversi
nullo effectu rei, grandi præda sui . . . Crebra ergo ad Angliam commea-
SEC. II
19
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
the kingdom without the permission of the sovereign. "We
are astonished and grieved," wrote that Pope to the King,
"that so little regard is paid to St. Peter in your dominions.
For neither nuncios nor letters of the Apostolic See can make
their way into your kingdom or receive any countenance
there without the consent of your Majesty."
In 1124 John de Crema was sent as legate by Honorius
II. After having been stopped in Normandy for some
time, he was at length permitted by the King to enter
England. During his stay he presided at a council of the
English clergy held at Westminster. What the public
feeling was on this occasion we learn from a monk who was
almost a contemporary. "At this time there came into
England a certain legate named John, who was pompously
received by the archbishops and the bishops of the realm.
Having travelled through the kingdom this legate held a
council at Westminster, and put the whole nation into no
small state of indignation. For there you might have
seen a sight hitherto unknown in England, a clerk who had
attained no higher grade than that of a priest seated aloft
on a throne and presiding over the whole assembly; over
archbishops, bishops, abbots, and the whole nobility of the
kingdom, while they occupying a lower position composed
their faces like men dependent on his nod. Upon Easter
2
bat legatio Romanorum insidiantium imbecillitati Radulphi, sed effuga-
bantur omnes cautela Henrici. Nolebat enim ille in Angliam præter
consuetudinem antiquam recipere legatum nisi Cantuariensem archiepis-
copum.-Gestu Pont. 128.
¹ Miramur vehementius et gravamur quod in regno potestateque tua
Beatus Petrus... honorem suum justitiamque perdiderit. Sedis enim
apostolicæ nuncii vel literæ præter jussum regiæ majestatis nullam in
potestate tua susceptionem aut aditum promerentur.-Eadmer, Hist.
Nov. 228.
2 Post modicum idem legatus peragrata Anglia celebravit concilium
apud Westmonasterium, et totam Angliam in non modicam commovit
indignationem.-Gerv. of Canterbury, 2, 381, R.S.
C 2
20
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
Day, on his first arrival in the country, he had celebrated the
office of that festival in the mother Church instead of the
archbishop, seated on high and using the insignia of an
archbishop, though he was no bishop but simply a cardinal
priest. This occurrence deeply wounded and scandalized the
minds of many, and clearly showed not only the novelty of
the thing, but also how much the liberty of the ancient
realm of England was now violated. For it was notorious
to the whole English nation and their neighbours that from
Augustine to the present archbishop,' all the successors of
Augustine were called and regarded as primates and patri-
archs, and were never subject to the jurisdiction of any
Roman legate." It may also be mentioned that though
the legate presided in this assembly, he was too wise a man
to call it either in his own name or in that of the Pope.
The summons to it ran in the names of the archbishops.
The form sent to the Bishop of Landaff is still preserved,
and contains a remarkable expression. It gives notice to
that prelate that the legate by "the ordering and allowance"
of the archbishop intended to hold a synod at London, and
requires the bishop to appear at the time specified.³
In 1176 Cardinal Vivian was despatched by the Pope as
legate to exercise his office in Scotland, Ireland, and Norway.
He landed in England, intending to proceed to Scotland.
¹ William of Corbeuil, 1123-1136.
2 Toti enim regno Anglorum et circumjacentibus regionibus cunctis
notissimum est, eatenus a primo Cantuariensi metropolitano sanctissimo,
videlicet Augustino, usque ad istum Willelmum, omnes ipsius Augus-
tini successores, monachos, primates et patriarchas nominatos et habitos,
nec ullius unquam Romani legati ditioni addictos.-Ib. 382.
3 Willelmus Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus Urbano Landavensi episcopo
salutem. Literis istis tibi notum facere volumus quod Johannes,
Ecclesiæ Romanæ presbyter cardinalis atque legatus, ordinatione
nostraque conniventia consilium celebrare disposuit Lundoniæ in nativi-
tate Beatæ semper Virginis Mariæ. Propterea præcipimus, &c.-1 Collier,
App. 715.
SEC. II
21
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
The King, Henry II., immediately sent the bishops of Win-
chester and Ely to the legate, to demand by whose authority
he had dared to enter the kingdom without his permission.
The Cardinal was greatly alarmed, and, to satisfy the King,
made oath that he would attempt nothing against the King's
will. He was then allowed to pursue his journey to the
northern kingdom.¹
In 1189 Cardinal John of Anagni, who had been sent by
the Pope as legate to put an end to the disputes between the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the monks of Christ Church,
landed at Dover. He was forbidden to proceed any further
without the King's (Richard I.) permission. After a settlement
of the Canterbury disputes had been arrived at by the English
prelates in the presence of the King, it was discussed whether
the legate should be driven from the country or courteously
received. It was finally determined that he should be
solemnly received, but that immediately after his reception
he should be conducted to the sea-coast there to embark.2
Even in the degenerate days of Henry III. it was not
forgotten that by the law of England and the ancient cus-
toms of the realm no legate could enter the kingdom without
the permission of the sovereign. "Inasmuch as," says
Robert Grossetete, Bishop of Lincoln, "a legate cannot be
sent into England unless asked for by the King, the Pope
¹ Qui [Vivianus] cum in Angliam veniret, dominus rex Angliæ
misit ad eum Ricardum Wintoniensem et Gaufridum Eliensem episcopos,
et interrogavit eum cujus auctoritate ausus erat intrare regnum suum
sine licentia illius. His igitur interrogationibus prædictus cardinalis
plurimum territus, de satisfactione juravit regi, quod ipse nihil ageret
in legatione sua contra voluntatem illius, et sic data est ei licentia
transeundi usque in Scotiam.-Rog. de Hov. 2, 99.
2 Sed citissime remitteretur ad mare transfretaturus.-Gerv. of
Canterbury, 1, 481. See post p. 40, where the ignominious treat-
ment of this legate and his exclusion from all share in the settlement
of the disputes between the archbishop and the monks are fully
given.
22
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
•
sends false and disguised legates, who, though not clad in
scarlet garments, are yet armed with great powers."1
We may continue the examination of this point beyond
the period of which we are now speaking.
2
No rule of law or custom of the kingdom was ever
observed more strictly or more continuously than this, which
prevented a Papal legate from setting his foot in England
until he had obtained the license of the king. In the reign
of Henry V., Chichely, Archbishop of Canterbury, would
not accept the office of legate before obtaining the King's
permission. In his letter to the same King this prelate
warns him against receiving a Papal legate a latere, and
tells him that it appeared from the inspection of ancient laws
and records that no legates had ever been admitted into
England before they had been brought under articles and
limited in the exercise of their office.³ In the following
reign, in 1428, Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, was
appointed legate by the Pope. Thereupon, Humphrey,
Duke of Gloucester, as "Protector of the realm and of the
English Church," together with the Council of the kingdom,
publicly protested, on behalf of the infant King and all his
subjects against this appointment. They declared that they
would not recognise or receive him as legate, "in derogation
¹ Et quia non debet mitti in Angliam legatus, nisi a rege postulatus,
mittit Papa legatos sophisticos et transformatos, sed non rubeis vestibus
redimitos, magnis armatos potestatibus.-Matt. Par., Chron. Mag. 5, 406,
R.S.
2 Tierney's Dodd, Church Hist. 1, 162.
3"Be inspection of lawes and chronicles was there never no legat a
latere sent into no lond, and specially in to your rengme of Yngland
withoute grete and notable cause. And thei whan thei came, after thei
had done ther legacie abiden but litul wyle, not over a yer, and summe
a quarter or 2 monethes as the nedes requeryd. And yet over that he
was tretyd with or he cam into the lond when he schold have exercise of
his power and how myche schold bee put in execution."-Twysden,
Vindication, 57: Collier, 1, 655.
SEC. II
23
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
of the laws, rights, customs, liberties, and privileges of the king-
dom,” or in any way consent to the exercise of the legatine
authority. After protesting against his appearance in England
as legate,¹ they go on to draw the right distinction between
a legate and a mere envoy from their spiritual father. For
they say that if the bishop has anything to propose, not as
legate, but as one of the cardinals sent by the Pope for the
exaltation of the Catholic faith or the suppression of heresy,
he might freely expound it before the King and the council.²
In the reign of Edward IV. a legate came to Calais intending
to come on to England. The King and his council would not
suffer him to land in the country until he had taken an oath
not to attempt anything against the King or his crown. The
same was done to another legate later in the same reign.³ In
the reign of Henry VIII., Wolsey, before he accepted the
office of legate a latere, was careful to apply to the King for
his permission to do so. The 28th article of his parliamentary
accusation states, "Where the said lord cardinal did first sue
unto your Grace to have your assent to be legate a latere, he
promised and solemnly protested before your Majesty, and
before the lords both spiritual and temporal, that he would
nothing do or attempt by virtue of his legacy, that should be
contrary to your gracious prerogative or regality, or to the
damage or prejudice of the jurisdiction of any ordinary, and
that by his legacy no man should be hurt or offended, and
upon that condition and no other he was admitted by your
¹ Quod nullus apostolicæ sedis legatus venire debeat in regnum suum
Angliæ aut alia suas terras et dominia nisi ad regis Angliæ, pro tempore
existentis, vocationem, petitionem, requisitionem.-Fasciculus Rerum
Expetend. et Fugiend. 2, 618.
2 Quin si dictus Reverendissimus Pater. . . non ut legatus sed tan-
quam unus de Cardinalibus a sanctissimo domino nostro papa trans-
missus ... quicquam habeat dicendum . . . illud . . . dicere . . . libere
possit; et præsertim ea quæ ad exaltationem fidei catholicæ, et hæretico-
rum perfidiam deprimendam vergere queant, &c.-16.
³ Coke's Reports, part 5, 27.
24
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
Grace to be legate within this your realm."
Finally, when
Father Peto was appointed legate for England in place of
Cardinal Pole, Queen Mary availed herself of the old-estab-
lished custom, and would not allow him to be received in that
character. She caused all the seaports to be watched, ordered
all letters, briefs, and bulls from the Pope to be intercepted
and brought to her, and declared that she would bring Peto
and all who owned his authority under the penalties of a
Præmunire. Mary acted as if a Papal legate was so trammelled
by the English law, as indeed he was, that he could not take
a step without her permission. For, in 1554, she issued her
letters patent allowing Pole to execute his legatine commis-
sion. But this general license was not sufficient, for the
following year she again issued her letters patent authorizing
Pole to summon a convocation, and permitting the clergy to
attend it without danger to themselves.¹
II. Except in testamentary and matrimonial matters no
Appeals to Rome were permitted, but all questions con-
cerning the management of the Church were settled in
England, unless the king allowed the matter to be referred
to the Papal Court.
The word appeal, like the term legate, has a double
import. It may mean either an application to an eminent
person, such as the Pope, to use his moral influence without
jurisdiction on behalf of the applicant, or to give his approval
to a line of action; or it may mean a recourse to the adjudi-
cation of a Papal Court. It is in the latter sense that the
word is here used.
The only precedent for an appeal to Rome from England,
¹ Lord Herbert's History under Henry VIII.
2 Burnet, Hist. of the Reformation, 2, 567, Oxford, 1865; Lingard's
History of England, v. 517, ed. 1849.
3 Wilkins, Concilia, 4, 109.
4 Strype, Eccles. Mem. part 3, 1, 248, 446; Wilkins, Conc. 4, 130.
SEC. II
25
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
:
for a thousand years after Christ, is that of Wilfrid of York,
about the year 670. But on examination we find that this
was no appeal in the sense afterwards given to that word,
for the adverse parties were not summoned to Rome.
Whether this was an appeal or not, the success of it was
so small that no attempt was made to refer an ecclesiastical
cause to Rome for upwards of four hundred years. The
facts of Wilfrid's case are as follows:
1
2
Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the English
Church, thinking that the diocese of York was too large
for the administration of a single prelate-for Wilfrid was
not only bishop of York but also abbot of Hexham, Ripon,
and Holy Island-resolved to establish new bishoprics within
his see.
This was done, and Wilfrid was indignant. In
the first instance he applied to Egfrid, King of Northumbria,
for the restitution of his former extensive jurisdiction. On
the King's refusing to reinstate him, Wilfrid declared that
he would appeal to Rome; a threat which only moved the
laughter of the Court, as an appeal to the Papal Court was
a thing unheard of in England. Wilfrid proceeded to Rome,
and upon his representation it was there decreed that he
should be restored to his see and that the intruders should
be removed. Wilfrid returned to Northumbria with the
¹ It was under Theodore that the Anglican Church first became a
united body. The unity of the Church preceded, and, what was an
inestimable service to the country, stimulated the political unity of the
kingdom. During the time of the Heptarchy Englishmen might be the
subjects of different Kings, but in relation to the Church they felt that
they were fellow-countrymen. A provincial feeling must have been
almost impossible among a clergy who were eligible to fill the highest
ecclesiastical offices throughout England though born in a different
principality from that in which they were promoted.
2 Three new bishoprics, Lindisfarne, Hexham, and Ripon, were created
in Wilfrid's diocese.-Malmesbury, Gesta Pont. 220.
3 Subsannatoribus qui propter regem astarent in risum crepanti-
bus.-Ib.
26
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
Roman determination and showed it to the King, who
thereupon summoned a council to examine it. The bishops
refused to acquiesce in the Roman decree, and Wilfrid was
thrown into prison.¹
After an imprisonment of a year Wilfrid was released.
He then proceeded to other parts of England, where this
eminent prelate distinguished himself by founding religious
houses and also by his missionary labours among the South
Saxons, who were still heathens. After a period of eight
years spent in exile² Wilfrid became reconciled to Theodore,
who gave him letters to Alfred, the successor of Egfrid,
entreating him to recall Wilfrid and to suffer him to live in
his dominions. Accordingly Alfred recalled Wilfrid, giving
him the abbey of Hexham and the monastery of Ripon, and
also permitted him to return to the see of York as limited by
the institution of Theodore. But Wilfrid sighed after his
old extensive jurisdiction, for on his restoration to York he
endeavoured to avail himself of the Roman decree. The
King and the bishops charged him with disobedience to the
arrangement of Theodore. After four years of contest
Wilfrid was expelled from his diocese and again proceeded
to Rome. This time he was followed by messengers from
Archbishop Berthwald, the successor of Theodore, who stated
to the Pope that Wilfrid had committed a "capital offence ”
in refusing to be bound by the decree of an English synod.³
The Council at Rome was so puzzled what to do—it being
evident that the English Church would not admit Wilfrid on
¹ Ille [rex] cum ea [the Roman decree] episcopis contubernalibus suæ
factionis legi fecisset, tantum a reverentia Romanæ sedis abfuit, ut
spoliatum suis omnibus ... beatum pontificem . . . in ergastulum tru-
dendum committeret.—Ib. 230.
2 Ric. Haggalstandensis, 294; Twysden, Scriptores, x.
3 Esse crimen et capitale, quod in concilio in Britannia congregato
decretis Berhtwaldi archiepiscopi se non obediturum Wilfridus contuma-
citer dixisset.—Malmes., Gesta Pont. 237.
SEC. II
27
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD 1
1
any terms but her own-that seventy meetings were held on
the subject in four months. At last it was resolved that the
Pope, John VI., should write advising Berthwald to convene
a synod where all parties, both Wilfrid and the new bishops,
might be heard.
Wilfrid coming home with Papal legates sent them on to
Alfred. But the King, while asserting that he had every
respect for these legates as being men of grave life and
venerable aspect, refused to assent to their proposal. He
declared that it was contrary to reason to hold communi-
cation, on account of any Papal letters, with a man who had
already been condemned by two English Councils.*
Shortly after King Alfred died. In the reign of his son,
Osfrid, a child, Berthwald convened a council at Nidd for
the purpose of settling Wilfrid's case. At this Council
Berthwald read out the letter of Pope John VI., giving the
bishops, under a threat of excommunication, their choice,
either to replace Wilfrid in the ancient jurisdiction of his
diocese, or to make a journey to Rome and have the case
tried in a more numerous assembly. To this proposal the
bishops replied that they could see no reason for reversing
the decision arrived at by Theodore with the consent of
King Egfrid, and afterwards confirmed by a synod at which
Archbishop Berthwald, King Alfred, and most of the
English prelates were present. At last, at the instance of
Elfleda, a sister of the late King and Abbess of Streneshalh,
a middle course was adopted, though the bishops opposed it,*
3
1 Factum est ut iiiior mensibus lxxta conciliabula coacta vel propter
hoc solum vel propter hoc precipuum.—Ib. 238.
2 Se quidem legatorum personis, quod essent et vita graves et aspectu
honorabiles, honorem ut parentibus deferre; ceterum assensum legationi
omnino abnuere, quod esset contra rationem homini jam bis a toto
Anglorum concilio dampnato, propter quælibet apostolica scripta, com-
municare.-Ib. 239.
³ Collier, 1, 119.
4 Episcopis suo more obnitentibus.-Malmes., Gesta Pont. 242.
28
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
and a compromise was effected. John of Beverley, one of
the intruded bishops, Bosa, the other, having died, was pro-
moted to the see of York, and Wilfrid obtained Hexham
and the monastery of Ripon, both of which he had himself
founded.¹
It is impossible to read Wilfrid's case without seeing the
sturdy determination of the English bishops to manage the
internal affairs of their own Church free from any foreign
interference. They yielded so far to the intercession of their
spiritual father as to give back to Wilfrid the two religious
houses which he had himself founded, but they declined to
restore him to his former diocese. Two things are very
remarkable in this matter; the length of time it occupied,
and the characters of the famous Church personages that
were engaged in it. Wilfrid stated in one of the English
councils that its members had openly opposed the authority
of Rome for twenty-two years. Among those who resisted
Wilfrid's claims and sided with the national Church were
Theodore, Cuthbert, Berthwald, John of Beverley, Bosa, and
the Abbess Hilda, all of whom the veneration of posterity
enrolled in the calendar of English saints."
Appeals to Rome were unknown in the reign of William
I. and in that of William Rufus. But in the time of the
latter King an attempt was made by Anselm, an Italian, not
to appeal, but to refer matters within the cognizance of the
English Church to Rome for the purpose of obtaining the
support and authority of the Holy See. The attempt was
defeated by the King and the prelates who acted in strict
1 Ego tantum monasteria duo in ea provincia posita, Ripis et Hagus-
taldeie quæ fundavi non amittam.-Letter of Wilfrid to the Pope, Ib.
237.
2 Ut palam sit quanta miseria involvat mortales, quod illi viri quos
sanctissimos celebrat antiquitas, Theodorus, Berthwaldus, Johannes,
Bosa, necnon et Hilda abbatissa, digladiabili odio impetierint Wilfredum
Deo . . . acceptissimum.—Ib. 240.
SEC. II
29
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
concurrence with him. There was no Pope recognized by
the English Church from the death of Gregory VII., in
1085, until the year 1095, there being during that period two
rivals, each claiming to be the spiritual head of Christendom.¹
Before the recognition of either in England as Pope, Anselm
asked leave to go to Rome to receive the pall from Urban II.,
whom he had acknowledged while Abbot of Bec in Normandy.
The King told him that it was neither his father's custom²
nor his own to allow any of his subjects to recognize a Pope
without his leave, and that if any one presumed to invade
this prerogative he should look upon it as an attempt against
his crown. Anselm proposed that the question should be
examined by all the prelates and nobility of the realm. A
council was convened at Rockingham. The bishops and
peers advised Anselm to yield to the King and to renounce
his intention of going to Rome and recognizing Urban.
"The whole kingdom," they said, "is complaining that you
are endeavouring to rob the crown of its principal jewel.
Cast away your obedience and subservience to Urban"-they
would not acknowledge Urban as Pope until he had been
recognized according to the customs of the kingdom—“ and,
as becomes an Archbishop of Canterbury, act as a freeman,
submit your will to that of the King, and obey his com-
mands." Anselm declined to follow their advice, whereupon
the bishops renounced their canonical obedience to him as
¹ Quæ res [the rivalry of the Popes] . . . per plures annos ecclesiam
Angliæ in tantum occupavit, ut ex quo venerandæ memoriæ Gregorius,
qui antea vocabatur Hildebrandus, defunctus fuit, nulli loco papæ usque
ad hoc tempus [1095] subdi vel obedire voluerit.--Eadmer, Hist. Nov.
52.
2 Non ergo pati volebat [William I.] quemquam in omni dominatione
sua constitutum Romanæ urbis pontificem pro apostolico nisi se jubente
recipere.—Ib. 10. Consuetudo regni mei est a patre meo instituta, ut
nullus præter licentiam regis appelletur papa.—Malmes., Gesta Pont. 87.
³ Sed recogita, rogamus te, et Urbani illius . . . obedientiam abjice,
30
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
archbishop, and refused all friendship with him.¹ Anselm
then asked for an adjournment, which was granted by the
King, though he was advised by the council to pass judgment
at once upon the archbishop for his contumacy. Shortly
after the council the King sent two of his chaplains to Rome
to inquire into the claims of the rival Popes and to discover
which of the two had been canonically elected. These
agents, when they had found that the right lay with Urban,
recognized him as Pope on behalf of the King. After this
dispute was thus settled, Anselm, being desirous to take the
opinion of the Pope on the state of the country and of
religion in England, and to receive Papal authority in
dealing with these subjects, sent some of his friends to
inform the King that he felt obliged to proceed to Rome.
He was told that the King declined to give him leave. In
August of the same year he renewed his request, and again
in the October following. On this last occasion Anselm
threatened to leave the kingdom in spite of the King. Before
executing this project he took the advice of some bishops,
whom he selected as he thought that they being ecclesiastics
would favour his design. The bishops declined to give him.
any assistance. "Your flights are too high for us; if you
3
2
subjectionis jugum excute, et liber, ut archiepiscopum Cantuariensem
decet, in cunctis actibus tuis voluntatem domini regis et jussionem
expecta.—Ib. 59.
¹ Ib. 63. In his exsequendis omnes episcopi Angliæ primati suo
suffragium negarunt, partes agentes mercenarii et libertatis profugi.
Et quasi parum id esset, omnem ei obedientiam et subjectionem abnega-
verunt.—Will. of Malmes., Gesta Pont. 87.
2 Videns [Anselmus] ecclesias et monasteria solito intus et extra
suis rebus spoliari, omnem in eis religionem exterminari, quosque
sæcularium, tam majores quam minores, corruptæ vitæ semitas tenere,
multa mala ubique fieri... Visum itaque sibi, auctoritatem et sen-
tentiam apostolicæ sedis super his oportere requiri.—Eadmer, 79.
3 Occurrit animo episcopos æquius esse debere in suo, quod erat Dei,
quam in consilio regis terreni.-Ib. 82.
SEC. II
31
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
will descend to our level we will consult for your interests as
we should for our own, but in nothing will we depart from
the allegiance which we owe to the King." At Anselm's
request they went to the King, and returned attended by
some of the barons with William's ultimatum: "Since it is
unheard of in the kingdom, and altogether contrary to its
customs that any of the nobility, and especially you, should
proceed to Rome without the royal consent, I offer you one
of two alternatives. Either swear never to refer to the Papal
Court for any cause whatsoever, or leave the kingdom at
once.”1
Anselm chose to depart, and remained in exile
until he was recalled by William's successor. It is note-
worthy that both the people and the prelates sided with the
King in this dispute. On his arrival at Rome Anselm told
the Pope: "All, both the flock and the bishops who had
professed their obedience to me, endeavoured together to
induce me to renounce my obedience to the Blessed Peter,
lest I should violate the allegiance I owed to an earthly
monarch." Anselm was splendidly received at Rome, but
the Pope could not or would not effect anything in his
favour. William of Malmesbury attributes this to the bribes
of the English King. "It was shameful," says the monk,
"that in the breast of so great a man-I mean Urban-there
was no place for a love of fame or respect for God, and that
money should pervert justice. When Anselm saw that he
¹ Inauditum quippe in regno suo est, et usibus ejus omnino con-
trarium, quemlibet de suis principibus, et præcipue te, quid tale præsu-
aut jurejurando promittas quod numquam amplius sedem
Sancti Petri vel ejus vicarium pro quavis quæ tibi queat ingeri causa
appelles, aut sub omni celeritate de terra sua recedas.—Ib. 84.
mere.
2
Ipsi quos oves, et episcopi quos adjutores habere debebam, et qui
mihi obedientiam professi erant, omnes in commune ad hoc me ducere
conabantur, quatinus sub obtentu justitiæ contra justitiam facerem, id
est obedientiæ Beati Petri abrenunciarem, ne fidem quam debebam regi
terreno violarem.-Ib. 104.
32
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
had nothing to expect from so venal a man he resolved to
leave Rome for Lyons."
2
There were no appeals to Rome in the reign of Henry I.
We have this on an authority which cannot be questioned,
viz. that of Pope Paschal II. In a letter to Henry that Pope
complains that no Papal nuncios or letters were received into
England without the King's permission, and that there was
no application, no appeal, or recourse for justice, made
from his kingdom to the Papal Court. In another letter
the same Pope accuses the King and the English bishops of
preventing all appeals to him in spite of the decrees of holy
councils declaring that all persons aggrieved should have
the privilege of appealing to the Roman See. Our early
ecclesiastical historians expressly affirm that until the con-
fused times of Stephen appeals to Rome were unknown in
England, and that they were first introduced by Henry of
Winchester, brother of the King, who was appointed legate
in 1139. Gervase of Canterbury informs us that the
members of the General Council of London, in 1151, were
indignant at the number of appeals, which, up to that time,
were unknown in England. The contemporary, Henry of
4
Indignum factum, ut pectori tanti viri, Urbani dico, vilesceret famæ
cura, Dei respectus cederet, et pecunia justitiam præverteret. Visum est
ergo Anselmo circa tam venalem hominem expectationem non perdere,
sed Lugdunum remeare.-Gesta Pont. 102.
2 Sedis enim apostolicæ nuncii vel literæ præter jussum regiæ
majestatis nullam in potestate tua susceptionem aut aditum promeren-
tur. Nullus inde clamor, nullum inde judicium, ad sedem apostolicam
destinatur.-Letter of Paschal to the King, Eadmer, 228.
3 Vos oppressis apostolicæ sedis appellationem subtrahitis, cum
sanctorum patrum conciliis decretisque sancitum sit ab omnibus
oppressis ad Romanam ecclesiam appellandum.-Letter of Paschal to the
King and Bishops of England, Ib. 232.
4 Totum autem concilium novis et inusitatis infrenduit appella-
tionibus. Inusitatæ enim in Anglia appellationes erant usque quo
Henricus Wintoniensis episcopus extitit legatus.-Gerv. of Cant. 1,
147.
SEC. II
33
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
Huntingdon, declares that till the date of this Council
appeals to Rome were not in use, and that they were
“cruelly intruded" on the nation by the same bishop.¹
When the civil war was ended and peace restored under
Henry II., the old order of things was re-established,
and
appeals to Rome were held to be illegal. We have a
remarkable instance of this in an ecclesiastical cause which
was tried in 1157, and in which Becket, as Chancellor, was
one of the judges. The parties were Hilary, Bishop of
Chichester, and the Abbot of Battel Abbey. Hilary made a
claim over the abbot which the latter denied. To support
his case Hilary had applied to Rome, and had obtained a
bull from the Pope in his own favour.
On the pro-
duction of this bull by Hilary, Becket drew the attention of
the King to the fact that the bishop had appealed to Rome,
and declared that it was in contempt of the royal authority.
The King's anger was inflamed, and Hilary saved himself
by boldly swearing that it was the abbot who had obtained
the bull, while Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, crossed
himself at the audacious perjury. The matter ended by
Hilary withdrawing his claim, as he said, of his own free
will, and induced thereto by considerations of justice."
In 1164 it was enacted that appeals in ecclesiastical
causes should proceed regularly from the archdeacon to the
bishop, and from the bishop to the archbishop; if the arch-
bishop failed to do justice, the final resort should be to the
¹ In Anglia namque appellationes in usu non erant, donec eas
Henricus Wintoniensis episcopus, dum legatus esset, malo suo crudeliter
intrusit.—Hen. Hunt. 282, R.S. It is evident that the chronicler was
speaking of appeals to Rome, for he goes on to say that in this Council
three such appeals were entered against the Bishop himself. Hence the
expression "malo suo.”
2 Chronicle of Battel Abbey. A summary of the trial is given by
Mrs. Green in her Henry II.
D
·
34
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
.
1
2
King. To this enactment, one of the Constitutions of Claren-
don, and there recited to be according to the ancient customs
and liberties of the kingdom, the archbishops, bishops,
abbots, priors, and clergy of England, including Becket
himself, swore, and promised "in the words of truth” that
it should be observed for ever. Here we have a solemn
recognition and declaration assented to by all classes in the
realm that it was the ancient custom, and one of the liberties
of England, that all appeals in ecclesiastical matters should
be decided before a domestic tribunal, and that none should
be allowed to proceed farther without the permission of the
King. It is true that Becket afterwards withdrew his assent
to some of these constitutions; but of what importance is
this? How can the action of one man weaken the testimony
of a whole nation ?
3
At the same time and place and under similar solemnities
it was also enacted that no archbishop, bishop, or dignified
ecclesiastic should leave the kingdom without the King's
license, and that before they went abroad the King might
demand security from them for their conduct while absent.
It would be difficult to devise more effectual provisions than
¹ Et si archiepiscopus defecerit in justitia exhibenda, ad dominum
regem perveniendum est postremo, ut præcepto ipsius in curia archi-
episcopi controversia terminetur, ita quod non debet ulterius procedere
absque assensu domini regis.-Bishop Stubbs, Select Charters, 139.
2 Hanc recognitionem sive recordationem de consuetudinibus et
libertatibus, Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, Priores, Clerus, cum
Comitibus et Baronibus et Proceribus cunctis, juraverunt et firmiter in
verbo veritatis promiserunt, &c.-Spelman's Codex; Wilkins' Leges
Ang. Sax. 322. Et easdem consuetudines recognitas per archiepiscopos
et episcopos et comites et barones et per nobiliores et antiquiores regni,
Thomas Cantuariensis archiepiscopus &c. concesserunt, et in verbo
veritatis viva voce firmiter promiserunt tenendas et observandas domino
regi et hæredibus suis, bona fide et absque malo ingenio.-Stubbs, Select
Charters, 137.
3 Ten only of the Constitutions of Clarendon were condemned by
Alexander III. Six were allowed as tolerable.
SEC. II
35
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
these enactments against appeals to a foreign tribunal. If
we remember that no Papal legate could enter the kingdom
without the royal license; that no bull or rescript of the
Pope could be received in England before it was shown to
the King, and approved by him; and that the sovereign was
entitled to call back to the country those subjects who were
in Rome, and to forbid them to remain longer than he
desired,' we shall begin to understand how the English
Church was at this time hedged in from external inter-
ference, and how large and wide the protection and authority
of the State over it were.
Though Henry II., on his reconciliation with the Pope
in 1172, after the murder of Becket, promised that he would
not for the future offer any opposition to appeals to Rome,
yet he attached to the promise a condition which showed the
concession was a favour proceeding from himself, and which in
reality nullified the agreement, viz. that if he had any reason
to suspect the intention of the person proposing to go to Rome,
he might take security from him for his conduct.2
render the condition efficient, two writs were framed, either
on this occasion or after the enactment of the Constitutions
of Clarendon, one to the sheriff of the county, requiring him
to take security from any person proposing to depart the
realm not to proceed without the special license of the King;
To
¹ See a proclamation of Edward III.—“ Quod omnes Angli, tam
Romæ quam alio loco ultra mare existentes, repedare festinarent quan-
tocius sub pœna forisfacturæ corporis et omnium bonorum" [Hen. de
Knighton, 260; Twysden, Scriptores, x.] In 1301 Richard II. ordered
all the sheriffs in England and the Irish justiciary to make proclamation
that all his subjects then at the Papal Court should return on pain of
forfeiture of life, limb, and all their property, before a certain date, and
that no one of whatever rank should bring into the country any bulls,
Papal letters, or other instruments contrary to the laws and customs of
the realm.-Rymer, vii. 698.
2 Sic tamen ut, si ei suspecti fuerint aliqui, securitatem faciant quod
malum suum vel regni non quærerent.-Gerv. of Canterbury, 1, 238.
D 2
36
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
the other to the party himself, enjoining him not to go, also
without the special leave of the King.¹
2
That, by this agreement with the Pope, Henry did not
intend to renounce his jurisdiction over appeals is shown
by his subsequent conduct in the Hackington case, which
occurred in the pontificate of Baldwin, who was Archbishop
of Canterbury from 1185 to 1190. In 1186 Baldwin pro-
posed to build a rival church of secular canons at Hackington,
about half-a-mile from Canterbury, and to endow it with
certain advowsons to which the monks of Christ Church laid
claim. The monks were alarmed, and appealed to Rome.
The Archbishop, despising the appeal, suspended the prior,
and confined the monks to their convent. The Pope,
Urban III., by his bull directed to the archbishop, ordered
him to declare the sentence of suspension invalid within ten
days after notice of the bull, and to undo everything he had
done since the appeal. In case of disobedience he appointed
a commission consisting of the abbots of Battel, of Feversham,
and of St. Augustine's, to relax the suspension, and to serve a
mandate on the archbishop to appear at Rome on a given
• • •
• •
1 The writ to the Sheriff ran, “Quia datum est nobis intelligi quod
A. B. clericus versus partes exteras transire proponit, nos tibi
præcipimus ut ... in brevi de securitate pacis quod ipse versus
aliquas partes exteras sine licentia nostra speciali se non divertet . . .
compellas ?" That to the individual himself ran, "Quia datum est nobis
intelligi quod tu versus partes exteras absque licentia nostra clandestine
divertere. . . intendis, in nostri contemptum et præjudicium ac contra
proclamationem et inhibitionem nostras sæpius inde factas, nos tibi
districte sub periculo quod incumbit prohibemus, ne versus dictas partes
exteras absque licentia nostra speciali aliqualiter te divertas.”—Gibson's
Codex, 1, 88; see also Rymer, vii. 592, ix. 77.
2 In this agreement Henry conveyed to the Pope a remarkable threat.
He promised not to disown the Pope and his successors as long as he
himself was treated by them as a Catholic King. "Juravit etiam quod
ab Alexandro summo pontifice et ab catholicis ejus successoribus non
recederet, quam diu ipsum sicut regem Catholicum habuerint.”—Gerv.
of Canterbury, 1, 238.
SEC. II
37
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
day. Baldwin was contumacious, and continued the building
of his new church. The Pope wrote to him again, ordering
him to replace the monks in their rights, and to stay his
buildings. At the same time he commanded his commis-
sioners to enforce his mandate. The answer of the arch-
bishop to the order to stop his building was that he commenced
to build in stone what had hitherto been compacted in wood.
When the Papal commissioners, whom the Pope had chided
for their remissness, attempted to execute their commission,
they were met by a prohibition from Ranulf de Glanville,
the justiciary of England :-"I command you, on behalf of
our lord the King, by the allegiance you owe him and the
oath you have sworn to him, that you in no way proceed in
a suit between the monks of Canterbury and the archbishop
of that see, until you shall have conferred with me thereupon,
and that you, all delay and excuses being laid aside, appear
before me in London on Saturday next after the feast of St.
Margaret the Virgin, there to make answer in the premises."¹
Another prohibition was directed to the sub-prior and the
convent :—“I command you, on behalf of our lord the King,
that you in no way make use of any mandates you may have
obtained against the Archbishop of Canterbury, until you
shall have conferred with me; and that you, the sub-prior
and the council of your convent, without delay or excuse,
attend in London on the festival of St. James, there to hear
and do what shall be commanded you on behalf of the King;
and that you have there with you all mandates which you
have obtained against the archbishop." Accordingly, two
monks attended the justiciary on behalf of the convent, the
sub-prior being ill. To these the justiciary repeated his
prohibition :-" Our lord the King has heard that you have
received certain mandates from Rome against him and his
kingdom, by which you propose to diminish the rights of the
1 lb. 376.
2 Ib.
38
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
2
99 1
realm and to alter his prerogative. Therefore the King com-
mands you, and I on his behalf enjoin you, not to make use
of the mandates until you have spoken with him. Further,
I order you to send to the King within fifteen days messengers
from your community, with copies of your privileges, in order
that they may be approved by him, or totally rejected.
The three abbots were also prohibited from executing on any
occasion the Papal mandates, and thus all proceedings on
their part were put an end to. This was the state of affairs
at Urban's death. Clement III., on his accession, wrote to
Baldwin,' expressing his astonishment at his treatment of
Urban's mandates, and repeating the command that all
things done since the appeal should be undone. The arch-
bishop took no notice of the letter. Clement then issued an
order to the prior of Feversham and another ecclesiastic to
excommunicate all who had been guilty of violence to the
monks. The order was obeyed, but the sentence of ex-
communication was disregarded by the secular clergy of
Canterbury, who, in the name of the King and of the
archbishop, exhorted their parishioners in their sermons
not to avoid the society of those who were excommunicated
by the Pope, and publicly declared that the Pope's sentence
had no force in the diocese of the archbishop. Those who
refused to hold communication with the excommunicated
were imprisoned by order of the King. Clement again
4
¹ Unde præcipio ut infra xv dies ad dominum regem cum vestris
privilegiis monachos mittatis, ut ejus arbitrio vel approbentur vel penitus
projiciantur.-Ib. 377.
2 Abbatibus quoque tribus minaciter ex imperio regis inhibitum est
ne occasione aliqua domini papæ exequerentur mandatum.—Ib.
³ Between Urban III. and Clement, Gregory VIII. occupied the
Papal throne for a short time. Gregory confirmed the letters issued by
Urban during the last three months of his reign, but excepted from the
confirmation those relating to Canterbury.-Ib. 302.
♦ Presbiteri etiam Cantuariæ a prophanis canonicis instructi, paro-
SEC. II
39
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
1
wrote to Baldwin, repeating his commands, but without
effect. In the next year he renewed his orders to the
archbishop. About the same time certain of the monks
were sent to the King to implore his assistance. As their
convent had lately refused to transfer the cause from the
Papal court they obtained an unfavourable reception. On
their saying to the King that their community regarded him
as their lord, Henry replied, "I have been, am, and will be
your lord; away with ye, ye traitors, I will consult with my
faithful counsellors." These were the last words of Henry
on the matter, as he died a short time after this. Finally,
the disputes between the archbishop and the monks were
settled before Richard I. and an assembly of English bishops
and abbots, on the terms that the monks, being satisfied
about the suspension of the prior and the demolition of the
new church, should submit wholly to the archbishop. The
Papal legate, John of Anagni, who had been sent from Rome
to compose these differences, was detained at Dover until after
the settlement, by order of the Queen, Richard having gone
to Edmundsbury. After the compromise had been effected
by the King and the prelates, it was debated whether the
legate should be received or driven from the country. Some
of the bishops proposed that he should be honourably received,
but that he should not be allowed to remain in the kingdom.
Others were of opinion that he should be at once dismissed
the realm. Ultimately, it was agreed that he should be
2
chianis suis prædicantes prohibebant ex parte regis et archiepiscopi, ne
quemquam ex his quos auctoritate apostolica excommunicatos audierant,
aliquatenus vitarent, dicentes in diocesi archiepiscopi apostolicam non
tenere sententiam.-Ib. 425.
¹ Dominus eorum fui, sum, et ero, mali proditores. Sed abite velocius,
cum meis enim loquar fidelibus.-Ib. 449.
2 Applicuit interea apud Dovoriam Johannes Anagninus, apostolicæ
sedis legatus, sed continuo ex mandato reginæ ne procederet prohibitus
est.—Ib. 474.
i
40
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
3
4
solemnly received, and that immediately after his reception
he should be sent to the coast, there to embark.' His
reception took place at Canterbury, but during his stay there
no one was allowed to visit him without the permission of the
archbishop. He managed, however, to hold a private con-
versation with the monks, and told them that he could not
help them, "for," said he, "since my arrival in this country
I have been so carefully guarded, that I have not been able
to speak freely to you or any one, hardly even to leave my
chamber for the most necessary purposes. The monks asked
him what they were to do as to those who had been excom-
municated by the Pope, with whom they were obliged to
communicate. The legate told them to do the best they
could: "If I take any action I shall incur danger myself,
and you will be treated with greater severity. I leave you
now, for I am obliged to follow the King to the sea-coast,
to-morrow or next day, without any consideration being
shown to me. 995
This Hackington case is a good illustration
of the manner in which the concerns of the national Church
were managed by the King and his prelates a hundred and
¹ Hoc igitur prædicto modo miseræ Cantuariensis ecclesiæ expleto
negotio, de vocando vel repellendo legato in præsentia regis et episcoporum
sermo consertus est, qui hucusque ad vocem fæminæ apud Dovoriam
tremulus subsistebat. Asserebant igitur quidam ex episcopis eum
honorifice esse vocandum, sed ne procederet retinendum. Dicebant alii
eum ab Anglia citius repellendum. Tandem ex consilio eorum qui regis
et archiepiscopi per omnia favebant voluntati, decretum est, ut solemniter
cum insigniis suscipereter, sed citissime remitteretur ad mare transfreta-
turus.-Ib. 481.
2 Ministris archiepiscopalibus undique septus, ne præter eorum.
licentiam cuiquam ad eum pateret ingressus.-Ib. 482.
³ Conventui tamen seorsum quasi furtim vocato dicebat.—Ib.
4 Nam postquam venimus in hanc terram, ita custoditi sumus quod
nec vobis nec alteri libere loqui valemus, sed nec nostram egredi cameram
ut ea quæ natura requirit libere possimus expedire.-Ib.
5 Nunc autem vado et crastino vel perendie regem ad mare festinan-
tem inhonorus sequi compellor.-Ib. 483.
SEC. II
41
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
twenty years after the Norman Conquest. The Papal legate
was not allowed to move a finger in the matter, though he
had been specially deputed by the Pope to settle it. The
whole story throws light upon the complaint of Paschal II.,
made seventy years before, viz. that all matters relating to
the English Church were settled at home without so much as
consulting the Papal See.¹
In the latter end of John's reign and during the unhappy
administration of Henry III., appeals to Rome became
numerous, though it was never forgotten by the nation
that they were illegal. In 1223 when Henry III. was still
under the influence of Hubert de Burgh, and before he had
delivered himself up as a bondsman to the Pope, he prohibited
a reference to Rome. One Nicholas de la Feld sought to
recover some lands from the Abbot of St. Thomas's Abbey
in Dublin, in the King's Bench, Ireland. The abbot
contested his claim on the ground of his illegitimacy. The
question of illegitimacy was referred to the ecclesiastical
court. The Archbishop of Dublin, then justiciary for
Ireland, entered upon the examination of this question,
and a third party intervening in the suit, referred the
whole case to the Papal Court at Rome. A royal letter was
thereupon sent to the archbishop, expressing the King's
indignation at the archbishop's conduct, and declaring that
he had erred in transferring to "a foreign dignitary" a
matter which ought to have been determined before a
domestic tribunal. Further, the King commanded the arch-
bishop to give sentence on the question of illegitimacy,
notwithstanding the reference to Rome, and to remit his
decision to the justices of the King's Bench. In the list
of the grievances suffered by the English people at the
¹ See post p. 60.
2
2 Sweetman's Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, 1, 175;
Stokes, Ireland and the Ang. Nor. Church, 268.
1
42
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
2
1
hands of the Pope, and presented on their behalf at the
Council of Lyons in 1246, one of the complaints was, that
the English were drawn out of their country in appeals and
by the Papal authority "contrary to the customs of the
kingdom and against its written laws." In the same year
the suffragan bishops of Canterbury in their letter to the
Pope declared that the summoning of English subjects before
a foreign tribunal was contrary to the privileges of the
kingdom. As soon as Edward I. came to the throne appeals
to Rome were forbidden. Early in his reign he informed
the Pope that it was a privilege of the realm that no
Englishman should be summoned out of the kingdom by
Papal letters; that this had been done of late, and that he
had been often and earnestly implored by his subjects to
provide a remedy for the evil. He also committed to prison
one John of Ibstocke for having a suit at Rome for the
rectory of New Church. In 1290 William of Nottingham,
an ecclesiastic, petitioned the King in parliament that he
might be allowed to prosecute his appeal to Rome, which
was refused as being against the King's rights." In the same
year Nicholas IV. wrote to Edward complaining that appeals
to Rome were prevented, and that ecclesiastics were not
allowed to be summoned out of the kingdom by Papal
authority. "We have learned," says the Pope, "that it is
a frequent occurrence in your kingdom that when Papal
letters referring to matters purely ecclesiastical are sent
thither, they are not allowed to be presented to your judges,
4
3
¹ Quod Anglici extra regnum in causis auctoritate apostolica tra-
huntur, contra regni consuetudines, contra jura scripta, eo quod inter
inimicos conveniri non debent.-Matt. Paris, Chron. Mag. 4, 528.
2 Ib. 530. 3 Rymer, ii. 130.
5 Wills de Notyngham, clericus,
4 King James's Works, 300.
•
petit quod causam suam
ecclesiasticam possit prosequi in curia Romana, non-obstante prohibitione
de privilegio R. Rex non concessit, quod privilegium suum infringa-
tur.-Rotuli Parl. 1, 50.
SEC. II
43
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
and that if they are presented a royal writ, to use the
English expression, is at once issued, prohibiting any use
being made of them under threats and even execution of
those threats if the mandate be disobeyed. For those who
make use of the Papal letters are arrested even though they
be ecclesiastics. For small offences persons of this kind are
seized, and, without any consideration for their dignity or
rank, are thrown into prison at your will or that of your
ministers. No ecclesiastic is allowed to be summoned out of
your kingdom by Papal authority, and your courts, scorning
the sacred canons, interfere in causes which are undoubtedly
clerical, though that should not be done by lay judges.'
2
99 1
Edward II. issued letters for the apprehension of the
Abbot of Waldon for citing the Abbot of St. Alban's and
others to appear in the Court of Rome. In the same reign
letters of caption were directed against a prebendary of
Banbury for drawing another out of the kingdom by a plea
at Rome. Edward on more than one occasion told the Pope
that the citation of his subjects out of the realm was to the
disherison of his crown and against the royal dignity, and
that if he himself were to pass over such a thing, the magnates
3
1 Intelleximus .. quod frequenter, cum in regno prædicto super
negotiis ad ecclesiasticum forum spectantibus literas contingit apostolicas
emanare, . . . illas judicibus impune præsentare non licet; et si forsitan
præsententur, currit statim breve regium-ut patriæ verbis utamur—
et usum illarum, sub poenæ comminatione, immo et executione si fiat
contrarium, interdicit. Sæpe namque capiuntur illis utentes, etiam si
ecclesiasticæ sint persona. Pro levibus insuper offensis personas hujus
modi, absque dignitatis statusque delectu, pro regali et regalium minis-
trorum libito, regius carcer includit, nec personæ ecclesiasticæ permit-
tuntur extra regnum ipsum auctoritate apostolica evocari; regiaque
curia se de nonnullis causis ad ecclesiasticum forum indubitanter
pertinentibus, quarum cognitio non cadit in laicum, spretis sacris canoni-
bus intromittit.-Raynaldus, Annales Eccles.; vol. 14, sub ann. 1290.
The title of the section is—“In causarum controversiis provocantes ad
sedem apostolicam vexari.”
2 King James's Works, 300.
3. Ib.
44
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
3
1
and noblemen of the kingdom would not allow it. There were
many cases in this reign in which the King forbade citations
to Rome being obeyed or appeals instituted in the Papal
Court. We also have a long letter from Clement V. to the
Bishop of Worcester. In this the Pope complains that the
ministers and officers of the King would not allow citations to
the Roman Court to be published or served, and, if they were
served, would not permit those summoned to obey them or to
leave the kingdom. In 1325 by his writ, directed to all
the bishops of England and thirty-one abbots and priors,
the King commanded them not to execute any Papal letters
prejudicial to himself, his people, or his crown without
consulting him. Edward III. maintained his rights as
strictly as his predecessor.5 So carefully was the law,
which prevented Papal communications being brought to or
published in England, carried out, that the Papal collector
himself was obliged to make oath that he would not execute,
or permit another to execute, letters or mandates of the Pope
to the prejudice of the royal authority, and that he would
show all such documents to the King's council before
1
4
¹ Rymer, iii. 38, 185.
:
2 Pro Ricardo de Cornubia contra citationes papales.-Ib. iii.
277.
Pro eodem Ricardo, de illis arestandis qui citationes faciunt.-Ib.
Ad Papam contra citationes personales.—Ib. 216.
De arestando impugnatores jurium coronæ regis.—Ib. 466.
De jure regni.-Ib. 500.
Contra usurpationes papales.—Ib. 784.
Ne quis trahatur in placitum extra regnum.-Ib. 795.
De juribus regiis conservandis.-7b. 886, 916.
3 Ib. iii. 187.
4 Vobis mandamus . firmiter injungentes quod, si aliquæ literæ
papales seu aliæ quæcunque in quibus aliqua nobis, seu juri coronæ
nostræ, aut populo nostro præjudicialia sint contenta, vobis delatæ sint
seu ex nunc deferri contigerit exequendæ, eas nobis inconsultis execu-
tioni nullatenus demandetis.-1b. iv. 184.
5 Ib. 388, 749.
SEC. II
45
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
publishing them or delivering them to any person.¹ But
the statutes of Provisors and Præmunire operated powerfully
in checking appeals or even the most ordinary applications to
Rome. After the passing of these enactments it was illegal
for any Englishman, whether a layman or an ecclesiastic, to
sue for, bring into the country, accept, publish, or execute,
any bull, Papal letter, mandate, or rescript whatsoever, with-
out the previous license of the King. No one could apply to
the Papal Court for any document, not even when it became
necessary to obtain fresh copies of those which had become
rotten from time or neglect, without the royal permission
granted on petition of the applicant. In every reign-
those only of Edward V. and Richard III. excepted-from
Richard II. to the early part of that of Henry VIII., we find
petitions to the King for leave to sue at Rome, to make use
of Papal bulls, letters, and processes, to proceed in appeals, to
remain at the Papal Court for the purpose of prosecuting
causes, &c., and also for pardons for applying for, or receiving,
or acting on, or bringing into the country, or publishing
there, bulls, Papal letters, Papal appointments, or Papal
2
¹ Nullam executionem literarum vel mandatorum Domini Papæ per
me vel alium faciam nec fieri permittam, quæ poterit esse præjudicialis
regiæ majestati dicti domini nostri regis, aut regaliæ, legibus vel
juribus suis, vel eidem regno. Nullas literas papales nec alias recipiam,
nisi eas citius quo potero deliberavero concilio dicti domini nostri regis
antequam publicentur seu deliberentur alicui personæ viventi.-Rymer,
vii. 603. The early form in Norman French to the same effect is given
in vol. vi. 709.
2 See the permission given to the Master and Brethren of the
Monastery of Burton in 1439:-Quæ quidem Bullæ Papales, per negli-
gentiam et malam gubernationem custodum earundem, putrifactæ, vas-
tatæ, et destructæ existunt. . . . Nos præmissa considerantes, de gratia
nostra speciali, et de avisamento et assensu concilii nostri concessimus
præfato Galfrido et confratribus suis .. licentiam nostram regiam
quod ipsi a prædicta sede bullas papales perquirere possint . . . quodque
ipsi dictas bullas sic perquirendas acceptare et eas in executionem ponere
.. aliquo statuto vel ordinatione in contrarium factis non obstantibus.
-Ib. x. 739.
16
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
processes.¹ The only exception to this rule of exclusion was
the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts in testamentary
and matrimonial business. In these matters appeals to Rome
were allowed until 1532, when they also were abolished.
Testamentary causes were then trifling, as no devise of lands
was allowed until the reign of Henry VIII., and the chattel
wealth of individuals was small. It is clear that if lands
had been alienable by will, the English people would not
have permitted the title to them to be decided in a foreign.
court. Even the parliament of Mary that passed the Act
for the reconciliation of the kingdom to Rome declared "that
the title of all lands, possessions, and hereditaments in this
your [the Queen's] realm is grounded on the laws, statutes,
and customs of the same. . . and in your courts only to be
impleaded, ordered, tried, and judged, and none otherwise."
Appeals in matrimonial suits were permitted, partly on the
ground of the sacramental character attributed to the con-
tract of marriage, and partly because they referred to strictly
private and personal concerns.
We are not to be astonished if in spite of the most
jealous precautions some appeals to Rome-other than in
testamentary and matrimonial matters-occurred up to the
1 For the reign of Richard II. see Rymer, vii. 644, 689, 698, 701,
702; viii. 33. For that of Henry IV. viii, 107, 155, 244, 291, 426, 654,
756. For that of Henry V. ix, 77, 190. For that of Henry VI. x. 739;
xi. 14, 19, 48, 54, 212, 226, 256, 259, 468. For that of Edward IV.
xi. 638. For that of Henry VII. xii. 648; xiii. 243. For that of
Henry VIII. xiii. 340, 383, 469. The last quoted in the times of Henry
VIII. is in the 8th of his reign, when he was still devoted to the Pope.
Later on there is a pardon to Cranmer for the acceptance and publication
of Papal bulls on his appointment to Canterbury. This was in 1533,
xiv. 458.
2 Edward II. would not allow, as being prejudicial to his crown and
dignity, the transference of the personal or real property of the Templars
to the Knights of St. John, though a Papal bull had so directed.—
Rymer, iii. 337.
3 1 & 2 P. & M. c. 8, 5, 34.
SEC. II
47
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
time when they were finally abolished. Many circumstances
favoured their occasional allowance. Several of our Kings
were on the best terms with the Pope, and did either tacitly
permit appeals or did expressly consent to them. Others
had but doubtful titles to the crown and desired the support
of the Church. Hence they were unwilling to quarrel with
its head until the abuse of appeals compelled them to inter-
fere. At other times their attention was called away by our
civil wars or by foreign contests, as in the case of Edward
III. and Henry V. It is manifest that under such circum-
stances examples of appeals taking place are but of little
weight to establish a right. One instance of opposition,
when a stand is made and the right denied, is worth a
hundred precedents which arose from the neglect, the per-
mission, the connivance, or the devotion, of some of our
Kings.
III. Until the alliance of King John with the Papacy,
the English Church was, and had been from time imme-
morial, a thoroughly independent and self-managed institu-
tion. After the death of Henry III. who continued the
alliance, a contest arose between England and the Papacy
which ended in the enactment of the statutes of Provisors
and Præmunire, by which all foreign interference with the
Church was forbidden, except by leave of the King, and the
ancient supremacy of our sovereigns over its external adjuncts
was, once for all, re-established.
Before the Conquest perfect concord prevailed between
the Church and the State. Ecclesiastical and temporal
causes were heard, and ecclesiastical and temporal decrees
were made in the same assemblies, local and national.'
"Wise were also in former days," say the laws of King
Ethelred, "those secular witan who first added secular laws
¹ Freeman, Norm. Conq. 4, 392.
1
A
་
48
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
to the just divine laws for bishops and consecrated bodies."¹
"Thrice a year," a law of Canute enacts, "let there be a
burh-gemot, and twice a shire-gemot under penalty of the
wite as is right unless there be need oftener. And let there
be present the bishop of the shire and the ealdorman, and
there let both expound as well the law of God as the secular
law." From the time of Augustine to the Norman Conquest
it was the custom for English Kings with their prelates and
temporal nobility to make ecclesiastical laws and to regulate
the discipline of the Church within their dominions. The
enactments of these mixed assemblies, in which the King
usually presided, and which were always called by his
authority, extended to many things which were spiritual in
their nature. For example it was enacted that children
should be baptized within thirty days from their birth;³
that priests who had neglected to fetch chrism at the due
time, or who had improperly denied baptism, should be
punished; that all persons should receive the communion at
least three times in each year;5 that all persons should learn
the Lord's Prayer and the Creed, and that no person who
was not acquainted with them should receive another to
baptism or confirmation; that marriages within certain
degrees and with certain persons should not be contracted;"
that widows should not remarry within twelve months of the
death of the husband. These assemblies also denounced the
punishment of him who marketed or worked, or compelled
1
8
6
Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, 143. Freeman
regards this as a solemn condemnation by the national gemot of the
practice of separating ecclesiastical and temporal legislation.-N. C. 1,
405, 4, 392.
2 Thorpe, 165.
Ib. 45. The penalty on the priest who neglected this duty was
very heavy thirty shillings if the child lived; if it died without
baptism, forfeiture of all his property.
4 Ib. 72. 5 Ib. 159. 6 lb. 160, 397. 7 Ib. 135, 156. 8 Ib. 131, 178.
SEC. II
49
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
6
5
4
3
his servant to work, on Sundays or festival days; and of him
who broke a fast day;' appointed times to be observed as
festivals, and directed how they should be observed;2 made
rules for the payment of tithes and their allocation, and for
the rendering of alms and the dues of the Church ;³ exhorted
the subject to go frequently to confession and ordained
how confessions were to be made; enjoined and rewarded
chastity in priests ; declared in what cases excommunications
should be issued; divided old and created new dioceses, as
mentioned before in Wilfrid's case; gave bishoprics in
commendam ; and appointed the saying of masses and other
services for the King and his people in churches and monas-
teries.Ⓡ 8
In addition to these assemblies which legislated
both on secular and religious matters, there were others
during this period which were called for purely ecclesiastical
affairs. Over these the King presided or they were called by
his authority, and were also attended by the lay nobility.
77
9
The system of regulating the national Church in a mixed
assembly of clerics and laymen continued for some of the
reigns after the Conquest. This appears from the summon-
ing of many such assemblies, and also from the words of the
Charter of William I. which separated the ecclesiastical
from the civil courts. "Know ye that I have determined
that the episcopal laws which have been in force until my
time in the kingdom of England, being not well constituted
or according to the precepts of the holy canons, should be
1 Thorpe, 74, 173.
4 Tb. 132, 402.
2 Tb. 131, 136.
5 Ib. 134.
7 Diceto, 456. Twysden's Scriptores, x.
8 Thorpe, 144.
3 Ib. 111, 146.
6 Ib. 16, 27, 149, 407.
9 "For some of the first reigns after the Conquest, as well as before,
State Councils and Synods were so much alike, that some of those which
I have called State Councils and Parliaments and given already an
account of as such, may as well be reputed ecclesiastical conventions or
synods."-Hody, Convocations, pt. 3, 1.
E
50
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
2
3
amended in the council of the realm, and with the advice of
my archbishops, bishops, abbots, and all the nobility of my
kingdom." William, influenced by his personal regard to
Lanfranc, allowed him to hold councils or synods which were
composed of ecclesiastics exclusively. This was the first
appearance of such assemblies in England. But though
William permitted these councils to be called, he maintained
strictly his prerogative of annulling or confirming their
decrees. Eadmer tells us that he would not allow the
archbishop in a general council of the bishops "to enact or
prohibit anything that was not agreeable to his will, or had
not previously been ordained by himself."
The same
policy was followed by his Norman successors. William
Rufus would not allow a synod to be called during his
reign. In that of Henry I. the ecclesiastical councils were
either called by the King himself," or by his authority," or
1 Thorpe, 213.
2 Porro Willelmus rex in omnibus ei [Lanfranco] assurgebat aggau-
debatque et ei et aliis quos in bono fervere audisset, permisitque ei
concilia congregare.—Will. of Malmes., Gesta Pont. 66.
3 For the truth of this observation, examine the enumeration and
description of the Anglo-Saxon Councils and Synods given by Hody in
his history of Convocations. Freeman says:-“ The series of ecclesias-
tical councils held by him [Lanfranc] get more and more distinguished
from those common assemblies of the whole realm, which men of old had
looked on as failing in their duty if they did not take order in all
causes and over all persons, ecclesiastical and civil, within the English
realm."-Norman Conquest, 4, 360.
4 Primatem quoque regni sui, archiepiscopum dico Cantuariensem
seu Dorobernensem, si coacto generali episcoporum concilio præsideret,
non sinebat quicquam statuere aut prohibere, nisi quæ suæ voluntati
accommoda et a se primo essent ordinata.-Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 10.
Concilia non sinebat [Willelmus] cogi nec quicquam ibidem statui nisi
de voluntate sua omnia procederent.-Gerv. of Canterbury, 2, 63.
5 As the Council of London, 1108, was, which made provisions
respecting the marriage of those in orders.-Eadmer, 193.
6"Rege annuente," says Anselm, in the acts of the Council of
1102, which he himself drew up.—Ib. 193.
SEC. II
51
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
""
2
their decrees were confirmed by him.' But the tendencies
of the time were in favour of a distinction between secular
and ecclesiastical councils. In 1127 we have the first instance
of an ecclesiastical council being held at the same time, but
in a different place from the council of the State. In the
reign of Henry III. the word "parliament" was first applied
to State councils, and "convocation to synods. In the
reign of Edward I. the distinction between the secular
parliament and the clerical assembly was fully established.
It is from this reign that convocations, used in a specific and
not a general sense, and as we now understand the word,
date. The origin of convocation and the manner in which
it
grew and overshadowed all other ecclesiastical conventions
in England are curious and interesting.
It has been shown that William I. from his personal
regard to Lanfranc permitted the archbishop to call purely
ecclesiastical councils. These conventions were known by the
name of Provincial assemblies, and at first consisted of
bishops only, though in process of time others of the clergy
were added for counsel or advice. William Rufus would not
allow such assemblies to be called during his reign, but
in that of Henry I. they were again summoned by the
archbishop for the time being. The King, however, reserved
and exercised the right of allowing and confirming their
decrees. Provincial assemblies were exclusively ecclesiastical
conventions summoned by the archbishop for ecclesiastical
purposes only, and in them canons and constitutions were
made for the faith and discipline of the Church, and
¹ Sciatis quod auctoritate regia et potestate concedo et confirmo
statuta concilii a Willelmo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et sancto Romanæ
ecclesiæ legato apud Westmonasterium celebrati, et interdicta interdico.
Carta Confirmationis Henrici I.-Rymer, i. 8, ed. 1816.
2 Super his igitur Rex angiaratus concilium tenuit ad Rogationes
apud Londiniam; et Willelmus archiepiscopus similiter in eadem villa
apud Westminster.-Hen. of Hunt. 247.
E 2
52
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
remedies were provided for any disorders which had crept
into it. They were summoned only occasionally and at
irregular intervals, just as it seemed good to the archbishop,
and, as long as they were confined to the affairs of the
Church, they were not interfered with by the King. They
seem soon to have gone out of use, for John de Athon, or
Acton, who died in 1350, says that provincial assemblies had
been discontinued for a hundred years before his time.¹ At
these meetings subsidies and benevolences were granted by
the clergy to the King above and beyond what was voted in
parliament by the bishops and prelates. But as the clergy
increased in number and wealth it was thought reasonable
that they should contribute a larger and more regular share
to the revenue of the State, and that for this purpose they
should be convened as the necessities of the kingdom
required. With this view Edward I. made an attempt to
incorporate the whole body of the clergy with the parliament
by the well-known Præmunientes clause. The clergy were
reluctant to attend parliament, and preferred to continue to
vote their supplies at their own meetings. Our Kings were
content to indulge them in this, as all they wanted was to
carry their point of obtaining grants. Accordingly they
began to request the archbishops, at first without issuing a
specific writ for that purpose, but afterwards commanded
them by writ, to convene the clergy of their province in
convocation for the purpose of voting supplies, and to these
meetings the King sent his commissioners to exhort them to
a ready and liberal supply. Convocation, we thus see, was a
convention of the clergy summoned under the authority of
the royal writ, and called entirely for a civil purpose, whereas
Provincial assemblies were convened by the authority of the
archbishop for the spiritual needs and affairs of the Church.
¹ Archbishop Wake, State of the Church, 91. Atterbury, Convo-
cation, 7.
SEC. II
53
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
But in a very short time the convocations took the place
of the provincial assemblies even as to spiritual concerns.
Frequent meetings were burdensome to the clergy, and,
when they met under the King's writ, it was convenient that
they should before separating consider other matters. They
took advantage of their grants of aids and taxes, just as the
parliament did, to state their grievances to the King and to
petition for redress. They laid hold of the opportunity of
giving their money to obtain an enlargement of their pri-
vileges, and drew ecclesiastical affairs in which the polity
and government of the Church were concerned under the
cognizance of the convocations. After they had passed their
votes of supply and drawn up their statements and petitions,
they entered upon the consideration of spiritual matters.
This they did under the authority of conciliary letters of the
archbishop or by his mere consent, so that they were at the
same meeting a convocation called by the King's writ for a
purely civil purpose, and a provincial assembly deciding on
Church affairs under the authority of the archbishop. Very
soon after the establishment of these civil convocations,
provincial assemblies as such were but seldom called, and
both temporal and spiritual matters were treated in the
former. Archbishop Wake informs us that provincial
assemblies had been but rarely convened for a hundred years
before the submission of the clergy in 1533.¹ Heylyn and
Fuller were so struck with the disuse of provincial assemblies
that they wrongfully attributed it to the effect of the statutes
of Præmunire. The fact was that convocation had swallowed
up provincial assemblies. Two circumstances, over and
above the dislike of the clergy to be called from their homes
to frequent meetings, contributed to this. Though convo-
cation was provincially summoned and met in different
provinces, yet, being convened about the same time and by
1 State of the Church, 81.
54
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
66
2
the same authority, it came to be regarded as a national
assembly of the whole clergy of England in two con-
ventions.¹ As convocation was called to grant supplies to
the King, it consisted of a much larger number than had
been called to provincial assemblies, as the whole body of the
clergy was represented in it. It would seem as if the very
name of provincial assemblies had been forgotten in the time
of Henry VIII. For the clergy in their submission speak as
if convocation were the only place in which they could make
canons, constitutions, ordinance provincial or other or by
whatsoever name they shall be called," and promise that they
will make no new canons "in their convocations in time
coming" without the assent of the King. If provincial
assemblies had not fallen into complete desuetude and
oblivion, it is inconceivable that neither the King, who
desired to deprive the clergy of all power of making canons
or constitutions without his consent, or the clergy themselves,
should have made no mention of such assemblies in the Act
of Submission. From the first and during its whole existence,
the convocation of each province has been convened by the
King's writ, nor could it be summoned by any other
authority, and if its decrees were to the prejudice of the
sovereign, his crown, or dignity, the clergy were required to
revoke them.* In 1279, before provincial assemblies had
3
1 State of the Church, 25.
2 The earliest writ we have in the 9th of Edward II. runs :-
"Requirimus et rogamus quatenus omnes prælatos, tam religiosos quam
alios, ceterosque de clero provinciæ vestræ. .. Convocari faciatis.”
3" Where the king's humble and obedient subjects, the clergy of this
realm of England, have not only knowledged according to the truth, that
the convocations of the same clergy is, always hath been, and ought to be
assembled only by the King's writ, but, &c. &c."—Preamble to the Sub-
mission of the Clergy, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19.
4 "If in anything they [the clergy] had exceeded their proper bounds
and determined in such cases as did not belong to them to the prejudice
SEC. II
55
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
become merged in convocation, Archbishop Peckham called
such an assembly at Reading in which certain constitutions
infringing on the rights of the Crown were made. Edward I.
brought the archbishop before parliament, and compelled
him to make a solemn and public renunciation of his
constitutions.¹
Of legatine councils, that is, councils presided over by a
Papal legate, and in which the two archbishops and the
whole clergy of both provinces appeared, but little need be
said. Such councils could be assembled only by the King's
permission, as a Papal legate could not set his foot in the
kingdom without the royal consent. In addition to this
safeguard the clergy, after the enactment of the last statute
of Præmunire, could not attend a legatine council without
the license of the Crown. This is shown by the action of
Queen Mary in 1555. In this year the Queen issued her
letters patent allowing Cardinal Pole, as legate, to summon a
council, and permitting the clergy to attend it. In earlier
times, when a legatine council did meet, the King sent his
commissioners to it, and by them forbade the legate to
attempt the enactment of anything prejudicial to his royal
crown or dignity."
Of the independence and self-government of the English
Church, and of its free action uninfluenced by external pres-
sure, we have many examples both before and after the
*
of the King, his crown, or dignity, in that case their constitutions were
not only accounted void of all force by the laity, but they were
sometimes required themselves to repeal them."-Wake, State of the
Church, 19.
¹ The recantation of Peckham is in Prynne, Records, 3, 235.
2 Concilio jam incæpto, missi sunt ex parte domini regis Comes
Lincolniensis Johannes et Johannes filius Galfridi et Willelmus de
Ræle canonicus Sancti Pauli, ut dicto legato ex parte regis et regni
inhiberent, ne ibi contra regiam coronam et dignitatem aliquid statuere
attemptaret.-Matt. Par., Chron. Mag. 3, 417, sub ann. 1237.
56
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
Conquest. The case of Wilfrid has been already mentioned,
in which an English council charged him with contumacy for
preferring the judgment of a foreign see to that of a synod
of his own country. At the subsequent council of Nidd,
when the letters of the Pope in favour of Wilfrid were
produced and read, and obedience was enjoined under the
penalty of excommunication, the council took no notice of
the menace, and pronounced the decrees of the former council
to be unalterable. Archbishop Stigand, though he lay under
the censures of Rome, was always recognised as Metropolitan
by the English Church, until he was removed, at William's
request, for political reasons. In 1070 Agelric, Bishop of
Selsey, was deposed in the Synod of Winchester. The Pope
ordered him to be restored and his case to be reviewed. No
attention was paid to the Papal order, and Agelric continued
deprived.¹ Archbishop Anselm proposed to introduce into
England the Vatican decree that no ecclesiastic should receive
investiture from the King's hands, or do him homage, and
that no one should presume to consecrate any one who
violated this decree. The whole kingdom, the nobility, the
bishops, and others of an inferior rank declared that they
would rather drive Anselm from the country, and separate
from the Roman Church than accept such a decree. And
when Anselm did actually refuse to do homage to Henry,
¹ Collier, 1, 243.
2
3
2 Postquam revocatus ad episcopatum redii in Angliam, ostendi
decreta apostolica quæ in Romano concilio præsens audivi; ne scilicet
aliquis de manu regis aut alicujus laici ecclesiarum investituras acciperet,
ut pro hoc ejus homo fieret, nec aliquis hæc transgredientem consecrare
præsumeret.-Letter of Anselm to Paschal II., quoted by Twysden,
Vindication, 16.
3 Quod audientes rex et principes ejus, ipsi etiam episcopi et alii
minoris ordinis, tam graviter acceperunt ut assererent se nullo modo
huic rei assensum præbituros, et me de regno potius quam hoc servarent
expulsuros et a Romana Ecclesia se discessuros.—Ib.
SEC. II
57
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
".
and to consecrate those to whom the King had given investi-
ture of their sees, the bishops united with the secular nobility
in advising that no obedience should be shown to the Roman
Pontiff.¹
1
2
The English prelates, who lived upon the spot, and were
acquainted with the nature of the errors complained of,
relaxed the rigour of Papal canons as they considered
equitable. Thus they dispensed with the vows of those
nuns who had taken the veil to preserve their chastity at
the time of the Conquest. In 1076, at the Council of
Winchester, the decree of a council of Rome was modified.
The Roman council had absolutely disqualified all married
clergymen, Gregory VII. having declared that no saving
grace could be bestowed by the ministration of married
priests. The English bishops declined to carry out this
decree, and permitted married priests who lived in castles
or in country villages to exercise their functions.³ In 1108
Henry I., wishing to secure the celibacy of the clergy,
summoned an assembly of his nobles, and of the archbishops
and bishops of England. There the King and his prelates,
"with the assent of all his barons," settled the question of
the marriage of those in orders. The prelates and dignified
1
4
Episcopis regnique proceribus ut sub alio rege solebant verba hinc
inde ferentibus et in singulis regiæ voluntati parere certantibus, immo,
ne Romani pontificis obedientiæ subderetur summopere insistentibus.—
Eadmer, 131.
2 Ib. 124.
³ Collier, 1, 249. At this time the larger and better portion of the
English clergy were the sons of priests. We learn this from a letter of
Pope Paschal to Anselm in 1107. "De presbyterorum filiis quid in
Romana ecclesia constitutum sit fraternitatem tuam nescire non credi-
mus. Cæterum quia in Anglorum regno tanta hujusmodi plenitudo est,
ut major pene et melior clericorum pars in hac specie censeatur, nos
dispensationem hanc sollicitudini tuæ committimus.”—Ib. 185.
• •
4 Anselmus ... et Thomas electus
et Thomas electus... Eboracensis . et omnes
alii Angliæ episcopi statuerunt in præsentia ejusdem gloriosi regis
58
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
clergy of England ever continued to do homage to their
sovereign, though by so doing they incurred the danger
of excommunication. When, upon their appointment, they
applied to the King for the restoration of their temporalities,
they renounced everything in the Papal bulls prejudicial to
the prerogative of the Crown or to the laws of the land.
These renunciations are to be found in every reign, from
the first year of Edward II. "Forasmuch as," says
Henry VII., on the occasion of his granting the bishopric
of Bath and Wells to Cardinal Adrian, in 1504, "all and
singular the archbishops and bishops of this our kingdom-
whose nominations and promotions to the highest dignities
appertain unto us-are bound by a certain peculiar pre-
rogative, and by the laws and customs of the land hitherto
undisturbed and inviolably observed, immediately and with-
out delay upon their promotion not only to renounce publicly
and expressly all clauses and words in the Papal bulls, which
are or may be prejudicial to us, our heirs, our crown, our
kingdom, or to the laws and customs of the realm, and to
place themselves wholly at our pardon and grace in this
respect, but also to take their corporal oath of homage and
fidelity." After this recital the King proceeds to appoint
Henrici, assensu omnium baronum suorum, ut presbyteri, diaconi, sub-
diaconi, caste viverent, et feminas in domibus suis non haberent.—
Eadmer, 193.
¹ Cum omnes et singuli archiepiscopi et episcopi hujus nostri incliti
regni, quorum omnium nominationes et promotiones ad ipsas supremas
dignitates Nobis attinent, ex regali et peculiari quadam prærogativa
jureque municipali ac inveterata consuetudine, hactenus in hoc regno
nostro inconcusse et inviolabiliter observata, teneantur et astringantur
statim et indilate post impetratas bullas apostolicas super eorumdem
promotione, ad ipsam nostram nominationem ... non solum palam
publice et expresse totaliter cedere et in manus nostras renunciare
omnibus et quibuscumque verbis, clausulis et sententiis in ipsis bullis
apostolicis contentis et descriptis quæ sunt vel quovismodo in futurum
esse poterunt præjudicialia sive dampnosa nobis, hæredibus . . . coronæ
aut regno nostro juribusve consuetudinibus aut prærogativis ejusdem
SEC. II
59
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
:
three commissioners to take the renunciation and oath of the
cardinal, who was then abroad.¹
1
3
The independence shown by the English bishops when
acting in a body was, on several occasions, equalled by
that of individuals of their order. Dunstan, Archbishop
of Canterbury, refused to absolve a nobleman whom he had
excommunicated, though ordered by the Pope to do so.²
Lanfranc was commanded by the same authority, under
the penalty of suspension from all the functions of his office,
to proceed to Rome. Though he survived this order eight
years, he neither went to Rome, nor, so far as it appears,
sent an excuse for his disobedience. On another occasion
Lanfranc, discovering that Baldwin, Abbot of St. Edmund's,
had obtained a bull of exemption from Pope Alexander II.,
took the bull from the abbot and could not be induced to
return it until about the end of his life." In 1150 Walter,
Prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, and his convent, appealed
to Rome-this was in the disturbed times of Stephen-in a
dispute which he and his monks had with Theobald the
archbishop. Theobald, "despising the appellant and him
to whom the appeal was made," deposed Walter, and impri-
soned him in the abbey of Gloucester as long as the arch-
bishop lived. In 1186 Archbishop Baldwin disregarded the
5
4
regni nostri, et quoad hoc totaliter seipsos submittere et ponere in nostra
bona venia et gratia, sed etiam juramentum fidelitatis et homagii, ad
sancta Dei evangelia per eosdem respective corporaliter tacta, Nobis facere
et præstare.-Rymer, xiii. 108.
¹ The form both of the renunciation and of the oath is set out in full
in Rymer, and also by Burnet. The oath is well worth reading and
considering.
2 Collier, 1, 197.
³ Ib. 1, 263.
4 Quod factum Lanfrancus archiepiscopus moleste accipiens ipsum
privilegium abbati abstulit, nec illud ei nisi circa finem vitæ suæ multo-
rum precibus motus reddere voluit.-Eadmer, 133.
5 Sed archiepiscopus, suo excandescens impetu, adeo contempsit
appellantem et eum ad quem appellatum est, ut conventum canibus
60
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
successive bulls of Urban III. and Clement III., respecting
his disputes with the monks of Christ Church, and directed
his secular clergy to teach in their sermons that Papal
excommunications were of no effect in the diocese of
Canterbury.¹ A few years later, when these disputes were
settled by King Richard and his prelates, the authority of
Rome, in the person of its legate, who had been deputed to
arrange the quarrel, was carefully excluded. In 1195
Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, deposed Robert, Abbot
of Thornly, and imprisoned him for a year and a-half in
irons, notwithstanding his appeal to Rome." In 1253,
Boniface, Archbishop of Canterbury, received a Papal bull
forbidding him to disturb the convent of St. Augustine by
visiting, suspending, or excommunicating the conventual
brethren. The archbishop glanced over the bull, and ordered
it to be thrown into the fire.³
But the clearest and best evidence of the domestic and
exclusive management of the English Church in the twelfth
century is to be found in two letters of Pope Paschal II.
These letters show beyond all doubt that, at the time when
the Papal power was at its zenith, our national Church was
a thoroughly self-governing body, possessed of its own system
of ecclesiastical law and administration, and also that the
Pope's power of visitatorial interference had no existence.
The first letter is addressed to the King, and complains,
as we have seen before, that no Papal nuncios or bulls were
admitted into England without the permission of the sove-
compararet, et equos prioris violenter raperet, januas curiæ monachorum
clauderet, et armatos custodes apponeret, divinum in ecclesia servitium
per manum clerici interdiceret, monachos duos appellationem prose-
quentes interciperet, captos incarceraret, scripta et privilegia et expensas
eisdem auferret.-Gerv. of Canterbury, 1, 145, 146.
¹ See ante, pp. 36-39.
2 Roger de Hov. 3, 299.
3 Quas literas vix perlectas jussit ignibus præsentari.-Matt. Par.,
Chron. Mag. 5, 415.
SEC. II
61
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
reign, and that there were no appeals or applications to the
jurisdiction of the Roman See. The second letter is directed
to the King and bishops, for the Pope was well aware how
close the connexion between the State and the Church was in
England. In this, Paschal says, "How the Church of Christ
was founded at first it is not at present necessary to examine.
But the maintenance and preservation of that Church ought
to be referred to our consideration and action. St. Paul
commands us to lay hands suddenly on no man, nor to be
partakers of other men's sins, which precept of the apostle is
thus explained by St. Leo: What is the meaning of sudden
laying on of hands? It means, says that doctor of the
Church, the giving of the sacerdotal character to those who
are not of age for the honour, or who have not passed a
proper examination, or who possess no merit or any experience
to qualify them. How, then, can we impart the confirmation
of the sacerdotal office to English bishops, when we have no
knowledge either of their lives or learning? Our Saviour,
when he gave over the charge of the Church to the apostle
St. Peter, said to him, feed my sheep, feed my lambs. Now,
by the sheep are meant the governors of the Church who, by
the grace of God, are enabled to beget a spiritual issue. But
how can we feed either the lambs or the sheep when we
neither are acquainted with them or see them? when we
have never heard of them nor they of us? From the apostles
St. Peter and St. Paul the custom has been handed down to
us, that the more weighty affairs of the Church should be
managed or reviewed by our see. But you, in despite of
this long-established custom, settle among yourselves the
business relating to bishops, without even consulting us,
notwithstanding that Victor, Pope and Martyr, declared
that, though provincial bishops might examine an accusation
against one of their order, they were not allowed to come
to a decision without application to the Bishop of Rome.
62
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
Zepherinus, also Pope and Martyr, says the trials of bishops
and other affairs of great consequence ought to be decided
by the Papal Court. You will not allow the oppressed to
make their appeal to the Apostolic See, though it has been
decreed by the holy fathers in council that all persons
aggrieved should have the privilege of appealing to the
Papal Court. You venture, without our knowledge, to
celebrate councils and synods, though Athanasius told the
Church at Alexandria that in the great council of three
hundred and eighteen bishops at Nice it was unanimously
decided that no councils ought to be held without the know-
ledge of the Bishop of Rome. You see, therefore, that you
have encroached greatly on the authority of the Papal See,
and lessened its dignity. You even presume, without our
sanction and knowledge, to make translations of bishops,
an unwarrantable liberty, as such affairs ought not to be
attempted except by our authority. If, for the future, you
are willing to pay a due respect to the apostolic see, we shall
treat you as brothers and sons; but if you persist in your
obstinacy we shall shake off the dust of our feet against you,
and deliver you up to the vengeance of God, as backsliders
from the Catholic Church."1
We may sum up the contents of these letters in the words
of a learned and conscientious Church historian2 :-"Hence
it appears that the English prelates held councils and
managed the discipline and government of the Church within
themselves. And in case of contest they looked upon a
national synod as the last resort of justice. The matter was
determined at home; there was no appeal in such cases, nor
any recourse to a foreign authority. The suffragans, at their
consecration, made only a profession of canonical obedience
to their primate, without any reservation of submission to
the Pope. Neither does it appear that any sees, excepting
¹ Paschal's letters are in Eadmer, 228, 232. 2 Collier, 1, 306.
ད
SEC. II
63
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
those of York and Canterbury, made any acknowledgment
to his Holiness. Neither was any English prelate obliged to
attendance at Rome, unless the two archbishops, who were to
go thither for their pall."
2
It is certain that the decrees of the Pope or of Papal
councils never had any force in England without their
acceptance and confirmation in this country. The right
of examining all external ecclesiastical legislation was always
claimed and exercised by our early sovereigns, and until it
was approved here, it was of no effect in the kingdom.
Eadmer tells us that in the time of the Conqueror no letters
from the Pope were permitted to be received by anyone
in England until they had been shown to the King. Later
on in the twelfth century Pope Paschal states the same
thing, and deplores the fact that no communication be-
tween the Roman See and England was allowed by the
King and the English bishops. When it was proposed in
1235 to receive the canon for the legitimation of children
born before the marriage of their parents, it was rejected.
The King and parliament made a legislative interpreta-
tion of the canon of the Council of Lyons concerning
bigamists. Many decrees of the fourth Lateran Council
never had the smallest authority in England. By that
council it was amongst other things enacted that the goods
of clergymen convicted of heresy should be forfeited to the
3
1 The first ecclesiastic in England, under the degree of an archbishop,
who took an oath to the Pope on his admission to office, was John,
Abbot of St. Albans, in 1235, during the affliction of the English Church
in the reign of Henry III. This oath, one of the conditions of which
was that the taker should visit Rome every three years, was at first only
required from archbishops when they received their pall. About 1230
it had been imposed also on bishops and abbots by Gregory IX. The oath
taken by the abbot of St. Albans is in Matt. Par., Chron. Mag. 3, 318.
2 Non ergo pati volebat quemquam . ejus [apostolici] literas si
primitus sibi ostensæ non fuissent ullo pacto suscipere.-Hist. Nov. 10.
3 4 Edward I. c. 5.
64
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
:
a
Church; that all officers, secular and ecclesiastical, should
swear at their admission to office to purge their districts of
heresy; that temporal lords neglecting to perform the same
duty should be excommunicated, and that in case of con-
tumacy for a year, the Pope should absolve their subjects
from their allegiance; that metropolitans should not fail to
hold provincial councils every year; that cathedral and
regular churches should not be vacant more than three
months, and that then a lapse should take place; that no
election should be valid that was made by a secular hand;
that no one should have two benefices with cure; that, if
patron killed or maimed a clergyman, he should lose his
right of patronage; that ecclesiastical persons should be free
from taxes; all these were directly contrary to the laws and
customs of England, and being such never obtained among
us. Ecclesiastics in this country always paid taxes and
joined in subsidies. In 1296 Boniface VIII. by his bull,
"Clericis laicos," absolutely forbade under the penalty of
excommunication the payment by the clergy of any tax
whatever on the revenues of their churches. The clergy at
a meeting in Canterbury in the following year, pretending
obedience to this bull, refused to make a grant to the King.
Edward I., anticipating the general punishment of that body
in the reign of Henry VIII. for their violation of the
statutes of Provisors and Præmunire, outlawed their whole
community, and confiscated the estates of the See of Canter-
bury.
1V. Previous to the betrayal of the Church by King
John, English bishops, abbots, and priors, were nominated,
translated, and deposed at home, without any interference
on the part of the Papal Court.
Before the Norman Conquest the Anglo-Saxon Kings
1 The bull is given in the Chronicle of William Rishanger, 462,
Rolls Series.
:
SEC. II
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
5
3
65
2
appointed bishops and prelates as a matter of course and by
their sole authority.' Ethelred gave Lichfield to Wilfrid.
Alfred made Asser Bishop of Sherborne, and Deneulphus
Bishop of Winchester. Edward the Confessor made Robert
first Bishop of London, and afterwards Archbishop of Canter-
bury. Edward also gave the bishopric of London to Robert's
successor.* Herman was appointed bishop of Sherborne by
the same king. The legend of Wulstan, Bishop of Worces-
ter, shows us the belief of our earliest ecclesiastical historians
that the Anglo-Saxon Kings appointed their bishops by the
delivery of the ring and pastoral staff. This prelate was
charged by Lanfranc at the Synod of Westminster in 1076
with want of learning, and he was ordered to give up the
ensigns of his authority. To this order Wulstan replied, “I
know my own insufficiency, and in deference to the sentence
of this holy synod I will give up my pastoral staff, not to
you, however, but to him who gave it to me." With these
words he rose, and, approaching the monument in which the
remains of the Confessor reposed, he struck his crozier into
the marble.
The Norman Kings from the first claimed and exercised
the right of appointing archbishops and bishops after taking
1 "In the earlier ages of Anglo-Saxon history, it has been remarked
by a learned antiquarian, that if the people were occasionally allowed
to concur in the choice of their chief pastor, the instances of such elections
are far less numerous than those which might be adduced to show that
the nomination was vested in the sovereign. This power indicated in
the earliest age of Saxon Christianity was fully established after the
Danish invasion. When Edward the Confessor . . . notified the pro-
motion of a prelate, it was by the promulgation of a charter which stated
that he had given and granted the bishopric and all that thereto belonged
without any reference to an election.”—Hook, Archbishops of Canter-
bury, 1, 480.
2 Will. of Malmes., Gesta Pont. 235.
3 Ib. 162.
4 Tb. 145.
5 Ib. 183.
• Matt. Par., Chron. Mag. 2, 42,
F
M
66
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
counsel with the prelates and nobles of the kingdom. Thus
the Conqueror appointed Lanfranc to the archbishopric of
Canterbury by the bestowal of the ring and pastoral staff.
Anselm was appointed in the same way by William Rufus.
This mode of appointment prevailed during the reigns of
William I. and William II., and also, with the exception of
a short interval, during the reign of Henry I.¹ During these
reigns, with the exception just mentioned, all the bishops
and abbots of England, save the Bishop of Rochester, who
held his barony of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and was
selected by him,² were appointed in the same way. Eadmer
tells us: "The very cause of the difference between the King
[William Rufus] and Anselm seemed a new thing to this
our age, and unheard of by the English from the time that
the Normans began to reign, that I say not sooner. For
from the time that William conquered the land, no bishop or
abbot was made before Anselm, who did not first do homage
to the King, and from his hand by the gift of the pastoral
staff receive the investiture to his bishopric or abbacy, except
two bishops of Rochester." Our early ecclesiastical historians
are full of instances of appointments to archbishoprics and
bishoprics by the sole authority of these Kings. John de
Bromton mentions three in one page, those of Canterbury,
York, and Winchester. The "Flores Historiarum " affords
evidence to the same effect,5 and Matthew Paris records
no fewer than eleven such appointments in the reign of
Henry I.
1 Tunc rex [Henricus] ... exultans et hilaris per dationem virgæ
pastoralis illico duos de clericis suis duobus episcopatibus investivit.—
Eadmer, 141.
2 A charter of John's recognising this right in the Archbishops of
Canterbury is in Spelman's Codex.
3 Eadmer, 2.
Bromton, 968; Twysden, Scriptores, x.
Rex quoque Henricus dedit Symoni clerico regina Wygorniensem,
SEC. II
67
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
Until the reign of John the Popes never pretended
any right or laid any claim to the patronage of the English
Church, nor had they any part to act in the appointment of
English bishops either in collating, or consenting, or insti-
tuting, or inducting, or ordaining.¹ Of all which we have
the best evidence, namely, that of Pope Paschal II. in his
letters to the King and bishops quoted before. In these the
Pope declares that he knew nothing of the English bishops,
nor they of him, and that he had never so much as even
heard of them; that all matters relating to the Church were
settled in England without consulting him, and that bishops
were translated without any reference to his authority.
In the reign of Henry I. a dispute arose between the
King and Anselm respecting the investiture of prelates. An
attempt or first step was made towards the disposal of
English bishoprics by the Popes, which was frustrated by
the firmness of the King. Anselm, acting under the late
decree of the Vatican Council of 1099, which forbade
ecclesiastics to do homage or receive investiture from lay
persons, refused to consecrate bishops who had been invested
by the King and who had done homage to him. We have
seen the ill-success which attended Anselm's endeavours to
carry out this decree, and that the English bishops and
nobility threatened to separate from the Roman Church
rather than receive it. The King, however, who had been
greatly indebted to Anselm for his support against his
brother Robert, was willing to yield something to the
archbishop. Accordingly the dispute respecting investitures
Johanni archidiacono Cantuarensi Rofensem, Sefrido abbati Glostoni-
ensi Cicestriæ præsulatum.-Flores Historiarum, 2, 51, R. S.
¹ In the last years of Stephen's reign Hugh Pusar, Elect of Durham,
went to Rome for his consecration, not being able to obtain it from
Henry, Archbishop of York, "Romam igitur electus una cum elegentium
præcipuis aliquot profectus est, consecrationem ibi quam domi non
poterat impetraturus."-Godwin, De Præsulibus Angliæ, 735.
F 2
68
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
was settled by a compromise at the Council of London in
1107, the King relinquishing the investiture by the ring and
pastoral staff, but insisting on the homage, to which Anselm
assented. Some of the bishops urged the King to stand firm
on his ancient rights and to continue the old form of grant.¹
The King soon after, hearing that investiture by the ring
and staff was practised by other sovereigns, resumed the old
form, and on the death of Anselm conferred the arch-
bishopric of Canterbury on Ralph, Bishop of London, by the
gift of the ring and crozier.²
The custom that the King should confer archbishoprics,
bishoprics, and abbacies by the gift of the ring and crozier
appears to have gone out of use in the troubled times of
Stephen. From this reign we find bishops elected by their
chapters, and abbots by their monks, the royal assent being
necessary for the meeting of the electors, and after the
election for the purpose of confirming their choice. By the
Constitutions of Clarendon in 1164 it was enacted that, when
an archbishopric, bishopric, abbacy, or priory became vacant,
the King should call together the principal dignitaries of
the vacant church, and the election should be made in the
royal chapel with the assent of the King and with the advice
of such distinguished persons as he might convoke. The
manner in which the ceremony took place was, a deputation
from the chapter or convent of the vacant church was sum-
moned to court, and there the choice was made under the
3
1 Quibusdam [episcoporum] ad hoc nitentibus, ut rex eas [investi-
turas] faceret more patris et fratris sui, non juxta præceptum et obedi-
entiam apostolici.—Rog. de Hoveden, 1, 164.
2 Anno domini MCXIII. Rex Henricus dedit archiepiscopatum Cantuar-
iensem Radulfo Londoniensi episcopo et illum per anulum et pastoralem
baculum investivit.—Matt. Paris, Chron. Mag. 2, 140. Rex Henricus
dedit archiepiscopatum Cantuariæ Radulpho et illum per anulum et
baculum investivit.-Flores Hist. 2, 43.
³ Et consilio personarum regni quas ad hoc faciendum vocaverit.
SEC. II
69
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
direction of the King. After the assent of the King was
given, the elect paid his homage and did fealty to him as to
his liege lord.¹ It is evident that this system threw the real
nomination and selection of the successor into the King's
hands. In this way all the bishops, including Becket him-
self, were appointed during the reign of Henry II. It is
also to be remarked that when, after the murder of Becket,
Henry was reconciled to the Pope at Avranches in 1172,
no objection was made by the legates of the Pontiff to this
mode of election, nor did they suggest any innovation or
change in it.²
3
The first commencement of the quarrel between John
and the Papacy arose from an election to the archbishopric
of Canterbury. At the request of the King the Bishop of
Norwich was elected by the monks of Christ Church. At
a previous secret meeting the convent had chosen their sub-
prior Reginald as archbishop. Both the elected appealed
to Rome. Innocent III. pronounced the elections void and
commanded the proctors of the convent who appeared before
him to elect in his presence Stephen Langton. The proctors
remonstrated with Innocent and told him that they could not
proceed to an election without the consent of the King and
of their community. At length they yielded, though unwil-
lingly, and gave their assent to the election of Langton.*
¹ See Bishop Stubbs' preface to Roger de Hoveden, xix., and the
twelfth chapter of the Constitutions of Clarendon.
2 The conditions on which Henry made his peace are given by
Gervase of Canterbury, 1, 238.
3 The monks of Christ Church had, up to a recent period, exercised
the right of electing the primate of all England. On occasion of the
three last vacancies the suffragan bishops of the province had claimed a
consultative vote in the election. It was to defeat this claim that the
monks elected their sub-prior.
* Monachi vero ad hæc [Papæ verba] respondentes asserebant sibi non
licere, præter consensum regium et sui conventus, canonicam electionem
in persona qualibet consentire vel sine illis electionem celebrare.
70
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
John at once objected to these proceedings and wrote a
strong letter to the Pope.' He told Innocent that he had
acted improperly in having chosen one who was unknown to
him, and who had long lived in close association with his
avowed enemies; that, contrary to the liberties of England,
his consent had not been asked; that he would stand
up for
the rights of his crown even unto the death; that the Pope
had forgotten how important his support was to his See;
that the Papal Court had received richer returns and
advantages from England than from all other kingdoms on
this side the Alps; and that, as there was in England and
the rest of his dominions an abundance of learned and
sufficient prelates, he should in future be contented with
their services, and not beg for justice or judgment from
foreigners. John refused to admit Langton, and for six
years held out against interdict, excommunication, and
attempted deposition. The long duration of John's oppo-
sition to the Pope, his march towards Scotland, his successes.
in Wales, and his departure for Ireland during this interval,
all assure us that the King was supported by English opinion
and that he felt himself secure. The country was by no
means during this period the scene of pious horror that some
writers have described. All things proceeded pretty much
as usual, and the people conducted themselves with their
2
Monachi quoque excommunicationis sententiam incurrere metuentes,
licet inviti et cum murmuratione, assensum tamen præbuerunt.—Matt.
Par., Chron. Mag. 2, 515.
1 Ib. 517.
2
* Compare with these words of John the lofty language of the Act of
Henry VIII. in restraint of Appeals. "The English Church .
always hath been reputed and also found of that sort, that both for
knowledge, integrity, and sufficiency of number, it hath been always
thought, and is also at this hour, sufficient and meet of itself, without
the intermeddling of any exterior person or persons, to declare and
determine all such doubts, and to administer all such offices and duties
as to their rooms spiritual doth appertain."
SEC. II
71
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
2
3
usual loyalty. Notwithstanding his excommunication John
observed his wonted religious observances, and distributed
his accustomed charities and doles to convents in distress
and to the poor; nor is there any mention of these gifts
from an unholy hand being refused.' He certainly met
with but little opposition from the bishops and clergy. He
held a convention of all the prelates of England, says the
chronicler, in 1210, to which abbots, priors, abbesses,
Templars, Hospitallers, &c., repaired. The Cistercian
Monks throughout the country continued to celebrate
divine service notwithstanding the interdict. Elections to
bishoprics and the consecration of the elect took place as
usual. Five of that order left the country, but when three
of these five by command of the Pope ordered those bishops
who remained at home and the other prelates of the kingdom
to publish the excommunication against the King, the order
was not attended to." The hostility of the Papacy had in no
way weakened John's prestige or diminished his resources,
for he collected on Barham Downs the noblest army which
had been seen in England since the Norman invasion. His
fleet, too, was far more powerful than that of France, from
4
¹ See an interesting note of Lingard in the appendix of his second
volume.
2 Deinde Londonias cum festinatione properans, fecit omnes Angliæ
prælatos in sua præsentia convenire. Venerunt autem ad hanc generalem
vocationem abbates, priores, abbatissæ, Templarii, Hospitalarii, custodes
villarum ordinis Cluniacensis, et aliarum regionum transmarinarum
cujuscunque dignitatis et ordinis.-Matt. Par., Chron. Mag. 2, 530.
3 Ib. 524.
4 Hugh to Lincoln, Walter to Lichfield, Henry to Exeter.—Ib. 526,
531. Godwin, in his De Præsulibus Angliæ, page 504, mentions a fourth,
Nicholas de Aquila, who was consecrated in 1209. It is manifest that if
the interdict had been observed, no bishop could have been elected or
consecrated.
5 Sed cum episcopi jam dicti confratribus suis qui in Anglia reman-
serant episcopis aliisque ecclesiarum prælatis publicationem sententiæ
auctoritate apostolica commisissent, effecti sunt universi metu regis vel
:
72
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
which an attack was feared, and which he destroyed. But
unhappily John irritated his own subjects, and his cruelty
and vices drove his barons into a conspiracy against him.
To save himself from domestic danger John suddenly altered
his policy, contracted a shameless alliance with the Papacy,
and betrayed the independence of the English Church.
Immediately on the conclusion of this alliance the Pope
sent a general bull to his legate in England authorizing him
to fill up at his pleasure all the vacant bishoprics and abbacies
in the kingdom, and enjoining him to quell such as might be
contumacious by the censures of the Church, all right of
appeal being taken away.¹ The legate abused his authority.
Acting on this bull, he rejected the advice of the prelates of
England, and bestowed the highest offices of the Church upon
indigent and ignorant persons. When some appealed to
Rome, he suspended them from their benefices, not even
allowing them a penny of their own money to pay the
expenses of the journey. The parochial churches he dis-
tributed among his own followers without regard to the
rights of patrons. For which, says the old chronicler, he
deserved the malediction of many, inasmuch as he changed
justice into injury, and judgment into favouritism.³
2
The proceedings of the legate were so outrageous that
Stephen Langton-who had by this time obtained possession
of his archbishopric-called a meeting of his suffragans at
Dunstable to consider the alarming state of the Church.
These prelates were indignant at seeing unworthy and
illiterate persons intruded "more by force than by canonical
favore canes muti non audentes latrare. Unde injunctum sibi officium
exequi dissimulantes, in mandatis apostolicis secundum juris ordinem
minime processerunt.—Matt. Par., Chron. Mag. 526.
¹ Si qui vero contradictores fuerint vel rebelles, tu eos per censuram
ecclesiasticam, appellatione remota, compellas.-Ib. 2, 570.
2 Tb. 571.
3 Ib.
SEC. II
73
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
election" into the bishoprics and abbacies of England.¹
After consideration the archbishop sent two clerics to pro-
hibit the legate from further appointing to the vacancies
and to interpose an appeal to Rome. The legate paid no
attention to the appeal beyond sending Pandolph to Romes shares
to counteract the efforts of the English prelates. The to which
subsequent proceedings at Rome illustrate the nature of the
eytuch
alliance between John and the Pope. Pandolph vilified the pope
character of Langton and the English bishops, while he acted on
declared that he had never before seen so humble and
feudal
the
modest a King as John. Simon Langton, a brother of the tere of
archbishop, could not obtain a hearing, and the legate was
triumphant.
The alliance between the Crown of England and the
Papacy continued during the remainder of John's reign and
the whole of that of his son, Henry III., a period of more
than fifty years. This interval may be described as the
captivity of the Anglo-Catholic Church. An attempt was
made to govern our national Church from a distant country
and by strangers, and the experiment failed lamentably.
We have a full account of the afflictions of the English
clergy during this disastrous period in the pages of the
Chronicles of St. Alban's. Appeals to Rome were multiplied,
and beggared the bishops, prelates, and inferior orders.
Shameless simony and extortions of every kind prevailed in
the Church. The rights of patrons, both ecclesiastical and
lay, were disregarded. The authority of ordinaries was
rendered insignificant by the constant interference of Rome,
by exemptions, appeals, suspensions, and non-obstantes,” so that
illis incon-
¹ Moleste enim supra modum ferebant quod legatus
sultis in ecclesiis vacantibus prælatos minus sufficientes posuerat,
intrusione magis quam electione canonica.—Ib. 571.
•
2 Item gravatur [regnum] ex multiplici adventu illius infamis nuntii,
non obstante, per quem juramenti religio, consuetudines antiquæ, scrip-
turarum vigor, concessionum auctoritas, statuta, jura, et privilegia,
ང་ཅན་པའི་ཚ་ཚ་ག་ག་ན་
74
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
a bishop who attempted the pastoral administration of his
diocese was cramped at every step and was in perpetual
danger of excommunication. The parochial system was
crippled by the innumerable privileges showered on the
mendicant orders, by the loss of the lucrative functions of
the priesthood, and by the impropriation of benefices to
monkish institutions. Inferior Papal agents, who did not
dare, owing to the rule of law, to take the name of legate,
suspended the prelates of England until they had satisfied
their exactions. On one occasion Papal warrants were sent
to three bishops to provide benefices for three hundred
Italians, and till they had done so, these prelates were
suspended from the bestowal of livings.' The bishops,
abbots, dignitaries, and rectors of England were oppressed,
and the wealth of the Church extorted by procurations,
interdicts, excommunications, suspensions, provisions, forced
loans, and compulsory pensions. Ignorant and unworthy
foreigners who did not speak the English language, and who
did not reside in the country, were intruded into benefices
without even consulting the diocesans. Bishops were created
without the consent of the King or State. Nay, anyone
who obtained that favour from the Pope was allowed to hold
a bishopric and enjoy its emoluments, though not a bishop,
but only a perpetual elect. In a letter of remonstrance
addressed to the Pope in 1245 by "the community of
England," it was stated that the Italians carried from the
2
debilitantur et evanescunt.-Complaint of the English people to the
Pope at the Council of Lyons, 1246, Ib. 4, 528.
¹ Misit dominus Papa sacra præcepta sua domino Cantuariensi archi-
episcopo Edmundo, et Lincolniensi et Sariberiensi episcopis, ut trecentis
Romanis in primis beneficiis vacantibus providerent, scientes se sus-
pensos a beneficiorum collatione, donec tot competenter provideretur.-
Ib. 4, 31.
2 Cæterum quod videre non consuevi, concedit Papa ob favorem sæcu-
larem, ut aliquis episcopatum obtineat, nec tamen episcopus existat, sed
electus sempiternus.-Words of Bishop Grossetete, Ib. 5, 406. Aymer
SEC. II
75
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
kingdom annually more than 60,000 marks, a sum greater
than the revenue of the country. In the words of a monk
devoted to the Papacy: "England became a spoil and a
desolation to strangers, like a vineyard without a wall,
common to every wayfarer and to be rooted out by wild
boars; illiterate persons of the lowest class, armed with the
bulls of the Roman Church and bursting with threats, daily
presumed, despite of the sacred privileges we enjoy from our
holy ancestors, to plunder the revenues left by pious men for
the maintenance of religion, for the support of the poor, and
for hospitality to pilgrims, and by thundering forth sentences
of excommunication obtained at once what they demanded.
Woe to England which, once the chief of provinces, the
mistress of nations, the mirror of the Church and the pattern
of religion, is now become tributary; ignoble persons have
trampled her under foot, and she has fallen a prey to
degenerate men."1 Edmund, Archbishop of Canterbury,
who was afterwards canonized, in despair went into voluntary
exile rather than look upon the oppression of the Church,
and there he was wont to exclaim: "It were better to die
than witness the sufferings of one's people and of the saints
upon earth.”2
A single instance will bring home to us, more clearly than
pages of narration, the state to which the English Church was
reduced, and the manner in which her rights were violated
without a hope of remedy either from the Pope or from his
ally the King. One day, in 1256, three strangers from
Rome entered the Cathedral of York while its officials were
3
de Valence was bishop elect of Winchester, and long enjoyed its revenues,
though not consecrated.
¹ Ib. 3, 389, 390; 4, 10.
20 quam melius esset mori quam videre mala gentis suæ et sanc-
torum super terram.-Ib. 4, 72.
³ Quibus talia persuadentibus ait [rex] "nec volo nec audeo domino
76
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST
2
29
engaged at dinner. They inquired from a person who
happened to be praying there which was the Dean's stall.
On receiving a reply two of them conducted the third to the
stall, and said to him: "Brother, by the Pope's authority
we install you.
Thereupon the intruder took possession.
When the outrage was reported to the Archbishop, Sewal,
and the canons, they were indignant that such a noble
prebend and office should be taken possession of by an
unknown and despicable person.¹ Sewal at once appealed to
the Pope, but the only answer he got was a sentence of
suspension. The intruder was neither punished nor removed,
for he was supported by Papal favour and protection. At
last, after much controversy, he consented to receive an
annual pension of a hundred marks-a very large sum in
those days³-until he was better provided for. As for the
good archbishop, the Pope laid a heavy hand upon him, and
ordered him to be ignominiously excommunicated throughout
England with tapers lighted and bells ringing in order to
weaken his determination to support the rights of his Church.
Sewal was oppressed, we are told, because he would not
bestow the revenues of his cathedral upon unknown and
unworthy persons from beyond the Alps, nor would he bend
to the will of the Pope, or abandon the rules of justice. On
which account, adds the chronicler, the more he was cursed
Papæ in aliquibus contradicere." Et facta est in populis desperatio nimis
deploranda. Ib. 4, 10.
¹ Absurdum namque et omni rationi dissonum, immo detestabile, eis
merito videbatur, tam nobilem præbendam, tam arduum officium despi-
cabili et ignoto sic intruso conferri permittere.-Ib. 5, 586.
2 Fraudulenti tamen Romanam curiam de qua venerant adeuntes illum
bonum verum et modestum, archiepiscopum videlicet, interdici fece-
runt.-Ib. 586.
³ Of the value of this pension we may judge if we remember that the
salary of Walter de Merton, Chancellor of England in 1260, was 400
marks.
SEC. II
77
TO THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD I
by the Pope, the more was he blessed by the people, though
secretly for fear of the Romans.¹
2
The manifold oppressions and exactions of the Papacy
during this period were not without their fatal effects on the
people. The general indignation vented itself in a wide-
spread conspiracy. Letters from "the whole community of
those who would rather die than be put to confusion by the
Romans" were sent to the bishops and chapters throughout
the kingdom. All persons were forbidden, under threats of
having their property burned, to pay to the Italians the
revenues of churches or the rent of land held from them.
The barns of the Roman clergy were pillaged, and the corn
collected for their tithes was sold throughout the country by
masked armed men for the good of the district or distributed
to the poor. An investigation which was ordered on the
remonstrance of the Pope revealed the national character of
the outbreak. It was discovered that among the principals
and abettors of these acts of violence there were bishops,
deans, and archdeacons, besides many knights and laymen.
Some of the sheriffs and their officers were implicated and
imprisoned, or fled to avoid punishment.³
But the effects of the mismanagement of the Church were
not limited to an explosion of popular excitement. A deep
impression was made on the minds of the people and the
foundations of doubt were laid. It was in the nature of
¹ Matt. Par., Chron. Mag. 5, 658.
2 The letter of the nobles, clergy, and people of England to the Pope
in 1246 contains a remarkable expression. They declare that unless the
King and kingdom be quickly freed from the grievances mentioned in
their complaint “ we must make a wall of defence for the house of the
Lord and the liberty of the kingdom, which we have hitherto forborne to
do out of our respect for the Apostolic See." Nisi de gravaminibus
domino regi et regno illatis rex et regnum citius liberenter, oportebit
nos ponere murum pro domo Domini et libertate regni. Quod quidem
ob apostolicæ sedis reverentiam hucusque facere distulimus.—Ib. 4, 534.
³ Ib. 3, 208–18.
78
CHAP. I
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST, ETC.
things that dissatisfaction with the discipline and external
economy of the Church should precede questionings as to its
teaching.¹ But the interval between discontent with an
institution, and doubt of the principles on which it rests, is
short indeed. To use the words of the monkish chronicler :
"The devotion of the English clergy and people to their
mother, the Church of Rome, and to their father and pastor,
the Pope, was fast expiring, and the small fire of the true
faith was almost reduced to ashes hardly able to emit a
single spark. This feeling however, which was largely due
to despair, lasted only till the State, under the first Edward
and his successors, again assumed its ancient supremacy over
the temporal adjuncts of the national Church, rescued that
Church from the domination of foreign ecclesiastics, restored
to it order and decency, and thereby increasing its moral
and spiritual influence, revived the devotional sentiment
which is engrained in an earnest and enthusiastic people
such as the English are.
2
¹ Et quod gravissimum est, diatim inter ecclesiam et populum odium
venenosum suscipit incrementum.-Ib. 5, 357.
2 Ib. 5, 535.
CHAPTER II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I TO THE
END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
SECTION I
THERE never was a more gradual or more natural progress
than that of the Papacy to the eminent position and authority
which it so long enjoyed. Much stress has been laid on the
False Decretals, and some writers have ascribed this progress
to their publication; but it may be asserted with certainty
that if these fabrications had never appeared, the result
would have been the same. The immediate and universal
acceptance of these Decretals was a sign and accompaniment
of the growth of the Papal influence, not the cause of it.
Doubtless they rendered more determinate and supplied the
legal titles for the steps of the Papal advance, but beyond
this they effected but little. It is difficult to see how falsifi-
cations, not written exclusively in the interests of the Papacy,'
were followed by such important consequences as have been
attributed to them, if there had not been other and far
deeper causes at work. It was not by skilfully devised
claims and lofty assumptions, but by real deserts, that the
early Popes took captive the affection and veneration of
Europe, and that a distant bishop imposed a willing and
grateful obedience on the Western world. From an early
period, and long before the appearance of the False Decretals,
all things portended and led up to the rise of a theocracy
situated at Rome, and lodged in the hands of a single person.
¹ They were designed to serve the bishops against metropolitans and
sovereigns. The bishops everywhere eagerly adopted them.
G
82
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
?
Confining ourselves to merely human considerations, we can
discern many of the causes which contributed to this result.
The majestic unity of the Roman Empire had left an
impression which was still fresh in the minds of all. So
strong was this feeling for the first four centuries after the
fall of the Imperial government that separate nationalities
were hardly conceivable, and the notion of distinct kingdoms
had not as yet overcome the idea of a universal monarchy.¹
The general belief that the Pope was the heir and successor
of St. Peter, and that the superintendence of the Church had
been bequeathed by its divine Founder to that apostle; the
dignity of the imperial city, and the fact that it was the
single apostolic Church, and the seat of the only patriarchate
in the West; the filiation of the Western Churches to that
of Rome, which had planted the majority of them; the
eminent position which the Popes enjoyed as the represen-
tatives of the Roman republic and the delegates of the
Eastern Emperors, and the exercise by them of political
power long before the donation of Pepin; the necessity
of a spiritual centre to maintain unity of doctrine; the
separation of the clergy into a distinct class dispersed
throughout all lands requiring their having a common head;
the acquisition of an independent temporal sovereignty;
the confusion and anarchy consequent on the fall, first of
the Roman Empire and afterwards of the Carolingian
dynasty; and the universal conviction that there was nothing
to control the disorders of the times save the influence of
religion:-all these causes tended towards the growth of
the Papal authority. At the moment when political unity
¹ As late as the beginning of the fourteenth century Dante believed that
the only cure for the calamities of the time was a universal monarchy.-
See his treatise De Monarchia.
2 The part which Pope Leo the Great played in saving Rome from
Attila in 452, and again in 455 in mitigating the ferocity of Genseric,
illustrates what is stated in the text.
3
SEC. I
83
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
.
expired, religious unity arose, and when the nations of
Europe banded themselves as one people for a holy war
against the religion of Mahomet, the movement found its
head and centre in Rome.
The theocracy which thus grew up at Rome was gladly
accepted by the Western nations; and as in an early stage of
society no division between religion and law is recognized,
and the priest is the supreme ruler and legislator, the Popes
exercised a general superintendence over European nations.
This state of affairs continued till the feeling arose—a feeling
which is sure to arise sooner or later in all communities-
that there is a real distinction between the temporal and
spiritual power. Of the growth of such a feeling we have
an example even in the Jewish theocracy when the Israelites
rejected their judges and asked for a king. As early as the
eleventh century this sentiment had acquired force, particularly
in England, as we see by the resistance offered by our Norman
Kings to the Papal encroachments. But the Popes shut their
eyes to the growing change of opinion, and made the mistake
of attempting to maintain their theocratic claims long after
their maintenance was possible. In the presence of a rising
sentiment which was to weaken, if not destroy, their influence
in temporal matters, they insisted that all worldly power
depended immediately on them, and aimed at absorbing
everything, sacred or secular, within their jurisdiction. As
the opposing force gathered strength, their claims rose
higher, and they refused to learn the lesson which temporal
sovereigns were pressing on them, viz. that the subjection
due to the spiritual power by secular governments is a moral
and not a material subjection. Instead of taking this lesson
to heart, the Popes deliberately set themselves to depreciate
the kingly office,' and asserted a temporal authority which
1"Quis nesciat reges et duces ab iis habuisse principium, qui Deum
ignorantes superbia, rapinis, perfidia, homicidiis, postremo universis pene
G 2
84
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
menaced every monarch in Europe.¹ Corrupted by the
possession of an earthly sovereignty, they mixed up spiritual
and temporal jurisdiction, so that in many cases it was
impossible to say whether they were acting as secular rulers
or as pontiffs. They confounded the affairs of their own
principality with religious matters, and diverted their aims
from the moral government of Europe to mere schemes of
temporal aggrandizement. They aspired to make the kingdoms
of Europe feudally dependent on the See of Rome. They
claimed the prerogative of trying, condemning, and deposing
sovereign princes, and of interfering civilly with the social
economy of every nation in the West. The natural conse-
quences of this conduct on the part of the Popes followed.
The necessity of separating the spiritual from the temporal
power became evident to all. The supreme priest was lost in
the secular prince, and the Roman Pontiffs came to be
regarded by sovereigns and States rather as political antago-
nists than as spiritual fathers and guides. The governments
of Europe in self-defence were obliged to take precautions as
against the common aggressor, and to vindicate their own
temporal authority.
France was the first Continental nation which made a
decisive stand against the continuance of the exercise by the
Popes of a temporal authority, and proclaimed the indepen-
dence of her monarchs in secular affairs. Louis IX. took
the first step in 1268 when he issued the earliest Pragmatic
sceleribus, mundi principe diabolo videlicet agitante, super pares licet
homines dominari, cæca cupiditate et intolerabili præsumptione affecta-
verunt ?—Quoted by Bossuet from the Epistles of Gregory VII.
¹ Nos imperia, regna, principatus, et quicquid habere mortales possunt,
auferre et dare posse.-Words of Gregory VII. Platina in Vita Gre-
yorii VII.
2 At the commencement of the fourteenth century the Papacy claimed
direct feudal sovereignty over eight kingdoms of Europe, viz. Naples
and Sicily, Castile, Aragon and Valentia, Portugal, England, Scotland,
Poland, Hungary.-Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, 6, 318.
SEC. I
85
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
Sanction, which laid the foundations of the self-management
of the French Church, and of what have since been called
the Gallican liberties. This ordinance secured to the prelates
and other patrons their rights of patronage, and freedom of
election to the several churches. It also forbade any tax or
pecuniary exaction being levied by the Popes without the
consent of the King and the French clergy.¹ In 1294
Boniface VIII. ascended the Papal throne. In a bull,
Ausculta fili, directed to the King of France, Philip le
Bel, in 1301, this Pontiff declared in general and figu-
rative language that the King was subject to him, as the
sovereign Pontiff of the ecclesiastical order. In the same
year a shorter bull, Deum time, dated the same day as the
longer one, was circulated throughout France, and it was
alleged by the King and his chancellor that Boniface was its
author. In this shorter bull it was asserted curtly and
distinctly that the King was subject to the Pope both in
temporal and spiritual matters. Though some French
historians assert that the latter bull was the production of
Boniface, it is impossible to believe that this was the case,
and the Pope and the Roman Curia always denied it.³ But
whether the short bull was the popular version of the longer
one, or the official abstract of it, or was a mere forgery, the
belief that the Pope had made such claims was sufficient
to set France on fire. Philip immediately summoned the
States General to take into consideration the pretensions of
1 Traitez des Droits et Libertez de l'Eglise Gallicane, 1, 46, 1731.
2" Deum time et mandata ejus observa. Scire te volumus quod in
spiritualibus et temporalibus nobis subes; beneficiorum et præbendarum
ad te collatio nulla spectat, et si aliquorum vacantium custodiam habes,
fructus eorum successoribus reserves; et si quæ contulisti, collationem
hujusmodi irritam decernimus, et quantum de facto processerit, revo-
camus; aliud autem credentes hæreticos reputamus." This is the whole
alleged bull.
³ Sismondi in his History, and Drumann in his Geschichte der
Bonifacius have examined this question. They are of opinion that the
•
86
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
the Pope. The nation was unanimous,¹ and declared that
the Pope was not possessed of any temporal jurisdiction or
authority in France, and that the King was in secular matters
subject to God alone. In 1302 Boniface issued his well-
known bull, Unam Sanctam, in which it was asserted that
both the temporal and spiritual sword were at the command
of the Church, and that the subjection of every human being
to the Roman Pontiff was an article of faith necessary to
salvation." In the following year the States General of
France denounced Boniface as an usurper of the pontifical
throne, and appealed to a general council of the Church
against him. The principal effect of these proceedings was
to disclose the decline of the papal authority, and to unite
the French people as one man in their opposition to the
claims of the Pope.
For the times were changed, and a new epoch had arrived;
an epoch which refused to the priest the administration of
the commonwealth, and demanded the complete transference
of the temporal authority to secular sovereigns. It was felt
that a Papal universal monarchy, superintending the King-
doms of Europe, was no longer possible, and that the Popes
short bull was not the production of the Pope. Bossuet, in his Defen-
sio, speaks guardedly. At first he implies that Boniface issued the bull,
then admits that it has been doubted. Non desunt qui dubitent, verane
an falsa sit parva ea epistola Bonifacii VIII., quam an. 1301 toto regno
divulgatam, eodemque tempore confutatam a tot gravibus viris, regia
quoque autoritate combustam vidimus. Verum id nihil nostra interest,
dummodo apud nos constet, omnibus curæ fuisse, ne apud Francos doce-
retur, regem in spiritualibus ac temporalibus papæ subesse.—Pars 1,
lib. 3, cc. 23, 24.
""
1 "Quod ergo regia potestas alteri quam Deo in temporalibus subjici
diceretur, id non modo regi, sed etiam universæ genti adeo intolerabile
visum, ut nulla unquam in re fuerit omnium ordinum tanta consensio.'
Defensio &c. 1, lib. 3, c. 23. Philip obtained upwards of 700 acts of
adhesion from the prelates, nobility, religious houses, and towns of
France.
2 Porro subesse Romano pontifici omnem creaturam, declaramus, dici-
mus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate fidei.
SEC. I
87
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
1
should henceforth be limited to the exercise of their spiritual
authority. Mankind had begun to recognize that there were
two governments in the world, each of them supreme in its
own sphere, and independent of one another. Between the
era of Gregory VII. and the reign of Philip le Bel a profound
revolution in opinion had silently accomplished itself. How
great that revolution was, and what a change had come over
the general conception respecting the relation of temporal
governments to the spiritual power, will clearly appear if we
recall and compare two historical scenes. The one is that of
Canossa, where an Emperor, the acknowledged supreme tem-
poral ruler in Europe, with naked feet and in a woollen shirt
waited for three days in frost and snow on the good pleasure
of a Pope. The other is that of Philip le Bel, persecuting
and hounding to death an able and imperious Pope, without
a voice in Europe being raised to protest against the iniquitous
conduct of the French King. How are we to account for
such dissimilar events? The fact was that the Papacy had,
to a certain extent, lost its hold on public opinion, and Kings
and States had awakened to the perception that there were
important interests which lay outside the spiritual domain.
The time had come when a theocracy no longer satisfied the
wants of society, and the inevitable contest which accompanies
had
the separation of the temporal from the spiritual power
commenced. Sovereigns were resolved to take into their own
hands the management of their secular concerns without
reference to the judgment of any earthly authority. At the
commencement of the fourteenth century the idea of sepa-
rating the two domains had become general, and had ripened
¹ Platina, in Vita Gregorii VII.
2
2 Even our ecclesiastical chroniclers have not a word of pity for
Boniface. Walsingham and Rishanger say that his death was the
fulfilment of the prophecy of his predecessor, Celestine V., that he would
"die like a dog." Ascendisti ut vulpes, regnabis ut leo, morieris ut
canis.
88
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
into practical working, as was shown by the almost strictly con-
temporaneous movements in France, England, and Germany.
In 1301 France proclaimed that the Pope possessed no tem-
poral jurisdiction in that country. In the same year a letter
was sent to the Pope, Boniface VIII., in the name of the
English people, declaring that their King was not bound to
submit his rights over Scotland, or in other temporal affairs,
to the Pope, and that, if the King were willing to do it, his
subjects would not permit him even to attempt it.¹ In
Germany, at the diet of Frankfort in 1338, it was laid down
as a principle of public law that the imperial dignity was
dependent on God alone, and that the election of an Emperor
¡did not require the confirmation of the Pope.²
The insular position of England and the national character
of its inhabitants had, no doubt, their effects in determining
the relation of their Church to the Papacy. But there was
another circumstance which more than any other contri-
buted to its independence and self-government. At the time
when the Popes, beginning with Gregory VII., commenced
their attacks on temporal sovereigns, England was the only
strong central government in Europe. France, Italy, and
Spain, as united kingdoms, had no existence except on maps;
and in Germany the great vassals in alliance with the Pope
were undermining the imperial authority. In these countries
the local Churches-for the term national can hardly be applied
to them-could not expect any support from the civil power,
¹ Nec etiam permittimus aut aliqualiter permittemus, sicut nec
possumus, nec debemus, præmissa tam insolita, indebita, præjudicialia,
et alias inaudita, prælibatum Dominum, nostrum Regem, etiamsi vellet,
facere seu modo quolibet attemptare.-Walsingham, Hist. Ang., 1, 96;
Rymer, ii. 873. The letter was signed by a hundred and four earls and
barons, and it declares that they had authority to represent the whole
nation.
2 The statutes of Frankfort were confirmed at the subsequent Diet of
Metz, in 1347, and the encroachments of the Papacy on the liberties of
the empire were finally repudiated.
SEC. I
89
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
i
nor was there any authority under the protection of which
they could resist the claims of the Popes to monopolize the
entire administration of ecclesiastical matters. It was wholly
different in England. In this kingdom there was a powerful
and compact monarchy, able and willing to repel the encroach-
ments of the Papal Court,' and by the side of the monarchy
there stood a real national Church, completely organized, with
a regular hierarchy appointed by the sovereign, having its
representatives in the councils or synods of the kingdom,
possessing a large influence in ecclesiastical legislation,
and owning the supremacy of the King over its civil
establishment. In addition, the visitatorial jurisdiction of
Papal legates was jealously excluded, and, as we have seen,
no Papal bulls or excommunications could be received into
the kingdom until they were examined and approved by the
sovereign. It would be hardly possible to find an institution
so carefully guarded and hedged round with precautions
against external interference. We see, in consequence, that
the connexion between the English Church and State and
the Papacy was never so close-except during one unhappy
period-as that of Continental Churches and kingdoms.
There was always a marked tendency in the English policy
to confine the Roman Pontiffs to their spiritual authority.
We have already considered the supremacy of the Saxon
Kings over the Church, and their claims to govern and regu-
late it. William I. maintained his supremacy over the
1 The curt and decisive answer of William I. to the request of
Gregory VII. that he should do homage for his kingdom is highly
illustrative. Gregory had asked for a more regular payment of Peter's
pence, and that William should profess himself his man:-"Hubertus
legatus tuus, Religiose Pater, ad me veniens ex tua parte me admonuit
quatinus tibi et successoribus tuis fidelitatem facerem, et de pecunia
quam antecessores mei ad Romanam ecclesiam mittere solebant melius
cogitarem. Unum admisi, alterum non admisi. Fidelitatem facere
nolui nec volo. Quia nec ego promisi, nec antecessores meos anteces-
soribus tuis id fecisse comperio. Pecunia, tribus ferme annis in Gallia
90
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
external regimen of the establishment intact,' and understood
perfectly the distinction between that supremacy and spiritual
authority. On one occasion, the Abbot of St. Evroul fled
from his abbey, and afterwards returned with Papal legates
to regain it. William declared that he would gladly receive
the Pope's legates as messengers from the common father
respecting faith and religion, but that he would hang any
monk who questioned his authority. William Rufus followed
in his father's footsteps. Henry I. told Paschal II. that, if
he attempted to lessen "the dignities and customs of the
kingdom of England," he would withdraw his obedience to
the Roman See. In the reign of the same King all ranks,
including the bishops and the inferior orders of the clergy,
asserted that if Anselm persevered in his attempts to intro-
duce into England the Vatican decrees respecting investiture
and homage, they would drive him from the kingdom and
separate from the Roman Church. Such were the sentiments
of our sovereigns and people at a period when the authority
of the Papacy overshadowed the world. The lapse of time
only strengthened the national jealousy of any external
interference with our ecclesiastical and political institutions.
In 1216, when Innocent III. excommunicated the barons
who opposed King John, the citizens of London would not
allow the bishops to publish the sentence in the city. "The
me agente, negligenter collecta est. Nunc vero, divina misericordia me
in regnum meum reverso, quod collectum est per præfatum legatum
mittitur, et quod reliquum est per legatos Lanfranci archiepiscopi fidelis
nostri cum opportunum fuerit transmittetur. Orate pro nobis, &c.”-
Collier, i., App. 713
¹ As Eadmer has it, "cuncta divina simul et humana ejus nutum
expectabant.”
2 Notumque habeat Sanctitas Vestra quod me vivente, Deo auxiliante,
dignitates et usus regni Angliæ non minuentur. Et si ego, quod absit,
in tanta me dejectione ponerem, optimates mei, immo totius Angliæ
populus, id nullo modo pateretur. Habita igitur, carissime pater,
utiliori deliberatione, ita se erga nos moderetur benignitas vestra,
SEC. I
91
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
2
3
ordinance of secular matters," they said, "appertaineth not to
the Pope."
991 When Boniface III. tendered his mediation
between Edward I. and Philip le Bel, it was accepted on the
distinct understanding that Boniface should determine, not
as Pope, but in his private and individual capacity. In
1301 the whole kingdom disclaimed the Papal jurisdiction in
temporal matters. When Edward III. referred his quarrel
with the French King to the arbitration of Clement VI. in
1343, he was careful to tell his parliament that the Pope was
chosen not as a judge but as a friend and private person.
The King also published a proclamation to the same effect.
In 1343 the Commons requested the King and nobles to find
a remedy for the oppression of the English Church and
realm by Papal provisions and reservations, or else to help
them to expel the Pope's power from the kingdom. The
archbishops, bishops, and prelates of England declared in
parliament in 1392 that Papal excommunications, issued
against such bishops as executed the judgments of the
King's Court, were in open disherison of the Crown, and that
they were resolved to stand by the King and support his
rights to the utmost of their power. Accordingly, in the
same parliament they voted unanimously for an Act, the
last statute of Præmunire, the effect of which was to exclude
all communications of whatever kind with Rome without
the previous license of the king. In 1399 the parliament
5
ne, quod invitus faciam, a vestra me cogatis recedere obedientia.-
Rymer, i. 8, Ed. 1816.
¹ Matt. Par., Chron. Mag. 2, 645.
3 Rotuli Parl. 2, 136.
2 Rymer, ii. 819.
4 In this proclamation Edward states that he had commissioned
certain persons “ad tractandum coram dicto domino summo pontifice, non
ut judice sed ut privata persona et tractatore et mediatore communi, non
in forma nec figura judicii sed extrajudicialiter et amicabiliter."-Rymer,
v. 366.
5 Cotton's Abridgment of Records, by Prynne, 41; Hume 2, 226, ed.
1830.
92
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
ܕ܃
2
3
proclaimed that the crown and kingdom of England had been
in all past time so free that neither the Pope, nor any other
outside the realm, had a right to meddle therein, and made
it one of the charges against the King, whom they deposed,
that he had asked the Pope to confirm English statutes.¹ In
1428 the Council of the kingdom would not allow the Papal
legate to open his mouth save on purely spiritual matters."
We need not pursue the subject any further, for in the
fifteenth century the civil governments throughout Europe
began to possess themselves of a large share of ecclesiastical
privileges and to free their Churches from Papal manage-
ment. The danger of the Pope's interference was daily
lessening, henceforth the Papacy was to be on the defensive
to preserve what it had already acquired.
Universal history is an important portion of national
history, and in considering the latter we must always keep in
mind the concurrent events in Europe. During the interval
we are now speaking of, that is, from the reign of Edward I.
to the end of that of Henry VII.—a period of about two
hundred years-three circumstances contributed especially to
weaken the Papal authority and to generate a contemptuous
distrust of it. These were the seventy years' residence of
the Popes at Avignon and their subservience during these
¹ Rotuli Parl. 3, 419.
2 Henry of Winchester. He was made a member of the King's Council
in 1429, but on the condition that when any matter relating to the Pope
or See of Rome was discussed, he should absent himself. -Cotton, Abridg.,
by Prynne, 529.
3 That this opinion [that the Church had power only over spiritual
things] was deeply rooted in the English laity of the day is clear from
what we read in Hall's Chronicle about the general fast ordered by
Wolsey on the occasion of the sack of Rome by the Constable Bourbon in
1527, that the clergy in general neglected it; while the laity, to show
their grudge against the spirituality, not only refused to observe it, but
said that the Pope was worthily served for being such a "'ruffian' as to
exceed his powers in meddling with temporal dominion."-Simpson, Life
of Campion, 57.
SEC. I
93
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
.
years to the French Kings; the forty years' schism, when
the Church had two or even three heads, and it depended on
the accident of a man's birth in a particular country what
claimant he was to recognize as the divinely appointed head
of the Church and the open adoption of an exclusively
worldly policy by the Popes, in the interests of their
temporal principality. These three circumstances had the
most fatal effects in destroying the moral influence of the
Papacy. If to these we add the venality and corruption of
the Roman Court, which had become a by-word in Europe;
the innumerable exactions and extortions of the Roman See,
which occasioned universal discontent both among the laity
and clergy; and the degradation of the episcopal office by
appeals, dispensations, exemptions, and non-obstantes, we
shall cease to wonder that national Churches, such as those of
England and France, aimed at complete self-management
without breaking their spiritual communion with the head of
Catholicism, and that sovereigns claimed to exercise an
independent supremacy over the temporalities of their
establishments. But in making this claim civil govern-
ments were willing to limit their supremacy to the temporal
concerns of their Churches. "Leave us free," was their cry
to the spiritual power, "to manage the domain which lies
outside your jurisdiction, and in return we will let you direct
the conscience of mankind." If they failed occasionally and
in some matters overstepped the limits which divide the
temporal from the spiritual province, a large allowance must
be made for them. For unquestionably in this respect they
made infinitely fewer mistakes than the Popes. The Popes
recognized no distinction between secular and spiritual
things, and attempted to draw all matters, sacred and
¹ In the reign of Edward III. there was a proverb current in England
which alluded to the partiality of the Popes to the French, and to our
victories, "Ore est le Pape Franceys et Jesus devenu Engleys.”
94
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
profane, within their jurisdiction. Above all they sinned
in their deliberate endeavours to depreciate and weaken the
temporal power, and to teach the revolutionary doctrine that
the bond between the subject and the sovereign might be
loosed, whereas the civil government recognized clearly the
importance to themselves of a great religious institution
which had so long regulated the opinions upon which their
own authority was largely based. They felt that to weaken
it was to attack the foundations of the existing social system.
If this consideration stood alone, it would account for the
slow and tentative process by which the English Kings
recovered their ecclesiastical supremacy which had been
seriously affected by the encroachments of the Popes
during the reigns of John and his son. It took them
upwards of a hundred years to restore the relationship
which existed between the Church and State before the
alliance which John contracted with the Papacy. This
restoration was fully accomplished, as we shall see, by the
enactment of the statutes of Provisors and Præmunire, though
the Popes were allowed by our Kings occasionally to appoint
to bishoprics and abbacies for about sixty years after the
passing of the last of these Acts. It must, however, be
understood that this allowance was purely of grace and from
respect to the spiritual head of the Church; for, after the
passing of these statutes, no one could receive a dignity or
benefice in the English Church from the hands of the Pope
under the penalties of outlawry and forfeiture of all his
goods, unless he had obtained the previous permission of the
King. If any person acted without due consideration and
accepted such an appointment, it was absolutely necessary
for him-as he had incurred an outlawry which at any mo-
ment might he objected to him—to apply at once to the King
for a pardon of his acceptance and for a confirmation of the
appointment, the Papal nomination being in itself of no effect.
*་
SEC. II
95
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
SECTION II
THE accession of Edward I. put an end to the alliance
between the Crown of England and the Papacy, and to the
grinding of the English Church between, as Matthew Paris
expresses it, the two millstones of the Pope and the King.
Under this sovereign began the long contest between the
State and the Pope, which ended in the enactment of the
statutes of Provisors and Præmunire, by which the English
Church was freed from external control, and the supremacy
of our Kings in ecclesiastical affairs was fully re-established.
The issues in this conflict were largely political and chiefly
referred to two points, the patronage of the Church, and the
finality of the judgments of the civil courts in matters
relating to the rights of presentation, and to the temporal
possessions of the establishment. At a time when the
clerical lords formed the majority of our Upper House, and
when our public policy was chiefly directed by that Chamber,
it was clearly impossible to allow the nomination of bishops
and abbots to rest with a foreign authority. To have
permitted the judgments of our civil courts to be questioned
or impeached before an external tribunal would have been to
abdicate our national life and independence. The object of
the statutes of Provisors was to secure to domestic hands the
patronage of the Church, and to prevent the intrusion of
96
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
:
hated and unqualified strangers into it. The original aim of
the statutes of Præmunire was to preserve the integrity of
our civil courts, but by the last of them their scope was so
far extended as to forbid all communication with Rome
except by permission of the King. Though throughout this
long struggle there was no question of faith or dogma
involved in it, yet the intolerable exactions of the Papacy,
its "
tithing and tolling" of England, and its perpetual
encroachments on the laws and customs of the country,
aroused a feeling of universal indignation and profound
distrust, which united the bishops, clergy, nobles, and
commonalty, in a determination to limit the Pope to his
spiritual province, and to subject all correspondence between
him and Englishmen respecting the patronage, the possessions,
or the administration of the national Church, to the per-
mission and supervision of the secular sovereign.
We have seen how the patronage of the English Church
was abused during the long reign of Henry III., and how
the Pope filled up the benefices in the kingdom with ignorant
and indigent aliens, who were not even acquainted with the
language of the people over whom they were placed. The
first to resist these abuses were the great English prelates,
among whom may be numbered Grossetete of Lincoln, St.
Edmund of Canterbury, and Sewal of York, whose hearts
were broken-the expression is not too strong-by the Papal
oppressions and exactions. About the commencement of the
thirteenth century the Popes took another step, and claimed
the direct and general nomination to English bishoprics,
abbacies, and benefices.¹ This innovation led to abuses
similar in their nature to those which arose from the sub-
servience of John and his son to the Popes. The Roman
((
¹ In 1268 Clement IV. announced to the world that the Holy See
was entitled by virtue of the canons, notwithstanding any antecedent
right, to present to all Churches, and that even before vacancy.”
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
97
i
Pontiffs had favoured the chapters and monasteries in
obtaining the privilege of the free elections of bishops and
regular prelates, but no sooner had this been effected, than
they began to interfere with the system and to claim the
right of appointing these prelates. This they effected by
what are known in our legislation under the names of pro-
visions and reservations. As these are technical terms an
explanation of them may be desirable.
At first the Popes were content to claim the presentation
to all vacancies caused by the death of the incumbent while
attending the Court of Rome, or in his journey to or return
from it, and also to such as arose from his translation to
another church. From this they proceeded to reserve to
themselves by way of anticipation the nomination to bishop-
rics and other benefices before they became void, and while
the incumbent was still alive,' or simply to direct the patrons
of livings to appoint individuals recommended in the Papal
instrument. The form of a bull of provision generally stated
that the Pope, being anxious to provide a fit person for the
particular church mentioned, had reserved the appointment
to himself, and that now that the vacancy had occurred, he
had applied himself to find a proper successor. The bull
went on to say that the fact of reservation was sufficient to
annul all attempts by others to fill up the vacancy, and ended
by naming the person appointed.
The statements in each bull varied according to the
circumstances of the case. Thus Anthony de Beck was
appointed Bishop of Norwich in 1337 by the Pope. His
¹ The reservation in the bull of provision appointing William
Edendon to the Bishopric of Winchester in succession to Adam de
Orlton runs thus:-Dudum siquidem bonæ memoriæ Adam episcopo
Wintoniensi regimini Wintoniensis ecclesiæ præsidente, Nos, inten-
dentes eidem ecclesiæ cum vacaret, per apostolicæ sedis providentiam,
idoneam præesse personam, provisionem ipsius ecclesiæ Wintoniensis dis-
positioni nostræ duximus specialiter reservandam.-Rymer, v. 484.
H
98
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
bull of provision recites, that on the late vacancy the chapter
had elected Thomas de Hemhale; that the Pope on hearing
of the vacancy, and being ignorant of the election, had
reserved to himself the appointment, at the same time
declaring void all attempts to fill the vacancy; that the said
Thomas, on this reservation being brought to his notice, had
given up his claims to the Pope, who thereupon began to
consider diligently respecting the providing a fit person to
the church of Norwich; and that after careful inquiry he
had directed his eyes to the aforesaid Anthony. We see
from this example that provisions and reservations were
identical, being merely separate clauses in the same instru-
ment. These were the provisions so often mentioned in the
petitions of parliament and in our anti-Papal legislation;
the persons who obtained them were called provisors.
1
The indignation caused by the abuse of these provisions
soon spread from the prelates to the inferior clergy and the
people. In 1306 a letter² was sent from "the clergy and
people of England" to the Pope, remonstrating with him
on the numerous evils arising from Papal patronage and
exactions. In the letter complaint was made, that by the
"extravagant multitude" of provisions which issued from
the Roman See, ordinaries were deprived of their rights of
collation, and the noble and learned men of England were
entirely excluded from Church preferment; that the Pope
pretended a right to apply the rents and profits of religious
houses which had been founded by English noblemen to the
maintenance of cardinals and other non-resident aliens ;
that he claimed to reserve for his own use the first fruits of
vacant benefices, a thing never heard of before, and very
¹ Rymer, iv. 732.
2 The letter was one of congratulation to Clement V. on his accession.
It is given in Rotuli Parl. 1, 207.
3 Effrenatam multitudinem provisionum.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
99
prejudicial to the King, nation, and the support of the poor,
&c. They conclude by saying that such things could no
longer be borne, as they tended to the ruin of the Anglican
Church, the disherison of the King, the enormous loss of the
kingdom, the destruction of the faithful and the scandal of
the nation; and that as they were bound to defend the laws
of England they were resolved no longer to put up with such
“novelties and intolerable oppressions."
In the following year the first of our anti-Papal statutes
was passed in the parliament of Carlisle. The object of it
was to protect English religious houses from the exactions of
their foreign superiors. The heads of several orders, as the
Cistercians, Benedictines, and others, were in the habit of
visiting and drawing contributions from their branches in
England. The Act forbade abbots and other religious
persons in the King's dominions to pay a tax or impost to
their superiors out of the kingdom, and prohibited the
laying of any payments or burthens on houses in Eng-
land by their foreign heads on pain of forfeiting all their
estates.
Before the parliament separated, a strong remonstrance
was adopted by the lay Lords and Commons and presented to
the King, in which they petitioned for a legislative remedy
against the vast number of provisions and the other exactions
of the Roman See. They declared that the oppressions of the
Pope, which they set out in full detail, led to the weakening
of faith, the destruction of holy Church, the disherison
of the Crown, the subversion of the laws, and the great
damage and impoverishment of the people. They end their
remonstrance with these striking words: "That unless God
arise and scatter His enemies, unless the mischief be put an
end to by the secular prince and his parliament, the
¹ Novitates et oppressiones intolerabiles.
H 2
WorM
100
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
exhaustion of the commonwealth and the ruin of the Church
were sure to ensue.
991
The demand for legislation against provisions and the
other exactions of the Papacy ceased for a while in conse-
quence of the death of the King in the same year.
Edward II. would not allow his rights to present to
English benefices to be interfered with by bulls, provisos,
citations, or appeals to Rome, and told the Pope that if he
were to show himself remiss in defending the rights of his
crown, his nobles would not allow them to be lessened.³ In
1319 he directed his writ to the archbishops, bishops, abbots,
and all other ecclesiastical persons, declaring that it was
contrary to the customs of England to cite anyone out of the
kingdom for things the cognizance of which pertained to
himself. Under the vigorous administration of Edward III.*
the legislative opposition to provisions was resumed.
4
In 1342 Clement VI. attempted to confer English
benefices on some of his cardinals. The King quashed the
appointments, and forbade the introduction of Papal provi-
sions into the country under penalty of capital punishment.5
Notwithstanding this repulse, the Pope again in the same
year conferred some benefices by provisions on two of his
cardinals, but when the grantees or provisors sent their
1
¹ A nostre Seigneur le Roy prient Contes, Barons, et tote la commu-
naute de la terre aide et remedie des oppressions southescrites que
l'apostoille fait faire en ceste roialme, en abbessement de la foi Dieu, et
anyntissement de l'estat de seinte eglise en roialme, &c.—Rotuli Parl. 1,
219.
2 Rymer, iii. 38, 185, 277, 466, 500, 784, 795, 914.
³ Profecto, etsi nos vellemus tepescere in præmissis, vel ea permittere
sub dissimulationis umbra transire, magnates tamen et proceres nostri,
qui ad defensionem coronæ Angliæ juramenti vinculo sunt astricti, jus
nostrum hujusmodi taliter deperire minime sustinerent.—Ib. 185.
4 It was in this reign that the tribute to the Pope agreed to be paid by
John was finally refused.
Qua de rapsa Rex Angliæ offensus, provisiones per dominum papam
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
101
2
agents to England to avail themselves of the gifts, the
agents were arrested and driven "with contumely " out of
the kingdom.¹ In the following year the Commons peti-
tioned the King to write to the Pope against the promotion
of aliens by his provisions and reservations. Thereupon
the King wrote what Walsingham calls his "famous letter
in defence of the liberty of the Anglican Church." In
this letter Edward complains that English benefices were
bestowed by provisions on ignorant and mercenary foreigners
who did not reside and who were not acquainted with the
English language; that his native subjects, persons of great
learning and probity, were thus discouraged in their studies,
as they despaired of obtaining reasonable promotion in the
Church; that the mischiefs growing out of the practice had
become intolerable; that he had been requested by his
subjects in parliament to apply a speedy and effectual
remedy to the evils; and that the Pope should remember
that it was his duty to feed, not to shear the sheep. Not
content with this remonstrance to the Pope, the Baronage
and Commons proceeded to legislate on the subject. An
ordinance was drawn up with their and the King's assent, by
which it was ordered that no one, either alien or denizen,
should bring into the realm Papal letters, bulls, processes,
reservations, or other instruments; that no one should by
virtue of provisions or reservations accept a benefice, or
receive, or make execution of such instruments; and further,
factas cassavit. Et ne quis deinceps tales provisiones afferret, sub pœna
carceris atque capitis interdixit.-Walsingham, 1, 254, R. S.
¹ Per gentes et officiales regios non solum impediti super eis, quin
immo captivati, et tandem de regno prædicto expulsi cum ignominia.
Letter of the Pope to the King. Ib. 259.
2 Rotuli Parl. 2, 144.
³ Illam famosam epistolam pro libertate ecclesiæ Anglicanæ contuenda.
The letter is in Walsingham, and a translation in Collier, 1, 546.
102
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
that all those who should be found in possession of such
documents, or making use of them by citations or processes
against patrons of livings, should be arrested.' To carry out
this ordinance, writs were despatched to all the sheriffs and
to the bailiffs of ports ordering them to make diligent
inquiry, and to arrest and imprison all who contravened it.²
In the next parliament the Commons petitioned that the
ordinance should be affirmed in a perpetual statute.³
The Commons returned to this subject in 1346 and 1347.
In the former year we have several petitions against the
foreigners who had been intruded on the Church. The
Commons pray that all alien monks should be expelled the
kingdom by Michaelmas, and that their livings should be
disposed of to young English scholars; that the abbeys and
priories in which such aliens resided should be seised into
the hands of the King; that the benefices of other aliens,
including those given to cardinals, should be taken pos-
session of, and their profits given to the King; that aliens
buying provisions should be banished and be declared out of
the law; that the pensions granted by the Pope to certain
cardinals out of the provinces of Canterbury and York
should be sequestrated, and such as made suit for them
should be outlawed; that no Englishman should take a
church or benefice in farm from an alien on pain of
perpetual imprisonment; that no money should be sent out
of England to the Pope or any other alien; that no person
should bring into the realm any bull or Papal letters
touching the affairs of aliens, and that those so doing should
be outlawed. In 1347 the Commons again petitioned
against provisions. After reminding the King of what had
formerly been done against these instruments and the evils
resulting from them, they prayed the King that punishments
4
¹ Rotuli Parl. 2, 145.
3 Rotuli Parl. 2, 153.
2 Rymer, v. 371.
4 Rotuli Parl. 2, 162.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
103
might be enacted against provisors, their agents, promoters,
and notaries in a statute "perpetually to indure."¹
In 1350 was passed the first general statute of Provisors.²
The wording of this Act is remarkable. Borrowing its lan-
guage from the remonstrance presented in the parliament of
Carlisle in 1307, it recites, "That whereas the holy Church of
England had been founded in the estate of Prelacy within
the realm, by the Kings of England and their earls, barons,
and nobles, to inform the people of the law of God, to make
hospitalities and alms, and to perform other works of charity;
and for this purpose the Kings and their nobles had endowed
it with lands, rents, and advowsons of great value, of which
the said kings and their nobles, as lords and avowees, had
and ought to have the presentments and collations on
vacancies, yet the Pope of Rome, accroaching to himself the
seigniories of such possessions and benefices, did give and
grant them to aliens and cardinals as if he had been patron
of them, as he was not by the law of England." After
this recital it enacted that if the Pope collated to any arch-
bishopric, bishopric, dignity, or other benefice, in disturbance
of free election, and the rights of clerical or lay patrons, the
King should present; and that if any person collated by the
King or lawful patron should be disturbed or impeached by
holders of Papal provisions, such holders should be arrested,
and on conviction imprisoned, without bail, until they had
paid fines and ransoms to the King, and made satisfaction to
the parties aggrieved. Further, they were not to be released
until they had made a full renunciation, and found security
never to attempt such things in future, or to sue in the Court
1 Ib. 172.
2 25 Ed. III., st. 6. In this same year there had previously been
passed a short Act providing that every person purchasing provisions in
the Court of Rome, of abbeys or priories, should be out of the King's
protection, and that a man "might do with them as of enemies of our
sovereign lord the King."
104
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
of Rome, or elsewhere, in respect of such renunciation or
imprisonment. This statute was confirmed by another in
1364, which repeated the prohibitions and penalties against
provisors.
1
2
From the year 1350 to that in which the final Act against
provisors was passed, the Rolls of Parliament teem with
petitions against Papal provisions. Notwithstanding these
petitions, and the earnest language of the first statute of
Provisors, it would be a mistake to suppose that the King
and English people desired at this time to put a complete
stop to the Pope's power of appointing by provisions. What
they objected to was the vast number of these bulls by which
non-resident and unqualified strangers were intruded on the
best benefices of the Church, and the wealth of the kingdom
drained to purchase provisions or to remit the revenues of
the churches to their foreign occupants. The latter was a
serious evil at a time when the commerce of the country was
trifling, and the coin exported could be replaced only after a
long interval. In 1376, more than twenty-five years after
the first statute of Provisors, the Commons complained that
the sums paid to the Pope for ecclesiastical dignities amounted
to five times as much as the annual tax of all profits which
accrued to the King from the whole realm, and that the
bishops were so indebted to the Court of Rome for the
burthens imposed on them that they were obliged to cut
down and sell the timber on their estates.3 They asserted
that there was no King in Christendom so rich as to possess
the fourth part of the treasure which was exported from
England to Rome.
They also complained of the simony of
1 38 Edw. III. st. 2.
2 Petitions were presented by the Commons against provisions in
1351, 1353, 1364, 1373, 1376, 1377. In the reign of Richard II., in
1377, 1379-80, 1381, 1383, 1386, 1389.
3 Rotuli Parl. 2, 337.
SEC. II.
105
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
""
"the sinful city of Avignon," and that its "brokers
promoted many "caitiffs, who knew nothing and were worth
nothing, to livings of a thousand marks a year, while learned
doctors and masters in divinity could hardly obtain one of
twenty marks, whereby clerks lost all hope of advancement,
youths were not sent to school, and thus the clergy, who were
the substance of holy Church and of the holy Faith, were
gradually perishing." If the Popes had shown the slightest
moderation, or if they had endeavoured to understand the
character of the English people, they might have retained
much longer than they did a considerable portion of the
patronage of the Church. The veneration for the Papacy was
great, and it was felt to be reasonable that the spiritual head of
the Church should share in the disposal of its dignities and
benefices. But the shameless rapacity of the French Popes
defeated itself and exhausted the patience of the people. In
1383 it was enacted that no alien should purchase or occupy
any benefice or dignity of holy Church in England without
the special license of the King. In 1888 an Act forbade
any subject, great or small, to pass over the sea without the
special leave of the King, for the purpose of purchasing or
obtaining by provision a benefice within the realm. Finally,
in the following year, the last and trenchant statute of
Provisors was passed. This Act,5 after rehearsing and con-
firming the prior one of Edward III., provided that every
one who should in future accept a benefice in England by way
of provision, should be banished for ever, and his lands and
goods forfeited to the King. No further legislation was
required. The interference of the Pope with the patronage
of the English Church was excluded for ever.
¹ La pecherouse cite d'Avenon.-Ib.
2 Ib. 338.
4 12 Ric. II. c. 15.
Henceforth
3 7 Ric. II. c. 12.
5 13 Ric. II. st. 2, c. 2.
106
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
everything depended on the character and temper of the
King.
The statutes of Præmunire-so called from the writ by
which they were enforced-were contemporaneous with those
of Provisors, and were at first intended merely to guard
against encroachments by the Papal Court on our civil
tribunals. The patronage of parish churches, the title to
tithes, and generally speaking the rights to the temporal
possessions of the Church, were matters which were decided
in the civil courts. It was found that suitors who had been
unsuccessful at home had recourse to the Court of Rome for
the purpose of qualifying, impeaching, or reversing judg-
ments given in such matters. This abuse was speedily taken
up by the Commons. In 1344 they stated in a petition to
the King that certain persons sued in the Court of Rome to
weaken or annul judgments rendered after due process of
English law respecting presentations to churches, prebends,
and other benefices; and they prayed that persons so suing
in the Court of Rome, "in enervation or destruction of
judgments given in the King's Court, or of their effect or
execution," should be punished with imprisonment for life
or be compelled to abjure the kingdom.¹
In 1347 the Commons again petitioned the King and
drew his attention to the fact that notwithstanding the
illegality of such proceedings, and the late efforts made to
prevent them, certain persons pursued processes in the Court
of Rome for the purpose of impugning or annulling judg-
ments delivered in the King's Court, in prejudice and to
the disherison of the King and of the whole community, and
they requested that an enactment should be made ordaining
penalties against all such offenders.2
3
In 1353 the first statute of Præmunire was passed. "On
the grievous and clamorous complaint of the Lords and
3 27 Edw. III. c. 1.
¹ Rotuli Parl. 2, 153.
2 Ib. 172.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
107
Commons that divers of the people were drawn out of the
realm to answer things whereof the cognisance pertained to
the King's Court, and also that the judgments of the same
courts were impeached in another court to the disherison of
the King and his Crown and of all the people of the realm,
and to the undoing and destruction of the common law of
the said realm," it was enacted that whosoever should draw
any out of the realm in pleas the cognisance of which belonged
to the King's Court, should, if he did not appear and conform
to the sentence of the civil court, forfeit all his lands and goods
and be outlawed and imprisoned.
In 1364 the statute¹ which was passed to confirm the act
of Provisors also contained a clause against all such as should
procure citations from the Court of Rome in causes "whose
cognisance and final discussing pertained to the King and his
royal court." It was ordained that such offenders should be
arrested and, if convicted, should suffer the pains and penalties
incurred by those who contravened the statute of Provisors.
The history of the last statute of Præmunire is contained
in its preamble. Its introduction was the occasion of an
extraordinary outburst of enthusiasm and national feeling.
Shortly before the year in which it was passed, 1392, the
Pope had ventured to excommunicate some English bishops
for executing the judgments of the civil courts in suits
connected with the presentation to benefices. He had also
translated some prelates to sees against their will and without
the King's consent. When the Parliament met, all ranks
were unanimous in their resolution to resist these acts of the
Pope as encroachments on the Crown of England, which
they declared "to have been so free at all times that it hath
been in no earthly subjection, but immediately subject to
God in all things touching the regality of the same Crown
and to none other, and that the same should not be submitted
2 16 Ric. II. c. 5.
1 38 Edw. III. st. 2.
108
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
E
to the Pope, nor the laws and statutes of the realm be by
him defeated or avoided at his will, in perpetual destruction
of the sovereignty of the King, his crown, and regality, and
of all his realm, which God defend." The three estates
made separate declarations. The Commons declared that
these attempts of the Pope were clearly against the King's
crown and his regality used and approved in the time of all
his progenitors, and that they would stand by the King to
live and die with him. The temporal peers asserted, "every
one by himself,” that such proceedings of the Pope were in
derogation of the King's crown and of his regality, and that
they would support the King "with all their power." The
prelates adopted the language of the Commons, and promised
the King to stand by him "in lawfully maintaining his
crown and in all other cases touching his crown and regality
as they were bound by their ligeance." Accordingly it was
enacted that all persons who purchased or procured in the
Court of Rome any such translations, processes, sentences
of excommunication, bulls, instruments, or any other thing,
which touched the King, his crown, regality, or realm, and
all who brought them into the kingdom, or received them,
or made notification or execution of them, should be put out
of the King's protection, their lands and goods forfeited, and
themselves attached, or that process be made against them
by way of Præmunire.
The wide sweep of the enacting clause deserves attention,
for it subsequently received the largest interpretation. It
includes all Papal instruments, or "other things" which
touched the King, his crown, or realm, and all those who
brought them into the kingdom or published or executed
them. All persons dealing in any way with such instru-
ments were to be outlawed, their property confiscated, and
their persons imprisoned. In other words, the act was
capable of being applied to every document which issued
•
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
109
from Rome. It covered all Papal decisions respecting the
external economy of the Church and all rescripts or ecclesias-
tical appeals. We have seen that in the eleventh century
our Norman Kings would not allow a Papal bull or letter to
enter the kingdom unless it were first shown to and approved
by them. In the reign of Edward I. a subject brought into
England a bull of excommunication against another subject
and published it. It was held to be treason for which the
offender deserved to be hanged, but at the entreaty of the
Chancellor and Treasurer of the kingdom he was let off on
condition of abjuring the realm.¹ In 1376 Edward III. sent
his mandate to Simon Sudely, Archbishop of Canterbury,
informing him that many bulls, letters, and other writings
had lately been imported into the country "from foreign
parts," and ordered him to send all such documents as
should be brought to him to the royal council to be there
examined and considered. The archbishop wrote back to
say that he would reverently obey the King's commands."
At the end of this century nearly sixty English prelates,
representatives both of the secular and regular clergy, voted
unanimously for a statute which, if strictly enforced-and its
enforcement depended entirely upon the temporal prince—
tended to put a stop to every attempt on the part of the
Pope to regulate the smallest ecclesiastical matter in the
English Church without the King's consent. It may be
asked what difference can be descried between the conduct
¹ Coke's Reports, part 5, 12.
2 Wilkins' Concilia, 3, 107, 108. Half a century later, when Martin
V. sent bulls of censure to Chichely, Archbishop of Canterbury, the
King commanded the archbishop to keep the bulls "without notification,
publication, or execution," and to send them on to the council for
examination. The archbishop wrote to the Pope that he had not even
opened the bulls," bullas super præmissis transmissas nunquam
perlegerim, nec aperire, obstantibus mandatis regiis, ausus eram
sed in archivis regiis . . . remanent custoditæ."-Ib, 3, 474.
• •
110
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
of these prelates and that of those who in the reign of
Henry VIII. voted as unanimously for the royal supremacy,
and afterwards, three years later, renounced the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the Pope.
The operation of the statutes of Provisors and Præmunire
was immediate and effectual. All communication with
Rome, except the small stream of testamentary and matri-
monial causes, was at once closed unless by permission of the
King. From the year 1389 we have a long series of royal
licenses allowing applications to be made to the Papal Court,
and of pardons for having done so without the King's previous
leave. From this year we may say of our sovereigns what
Eadmer said of the Conqueror, "that all things ecclesiastical
depended on their nod"; or we may adopt the language of
Convocation, of the universities, and of all the religious
houses in 1534, "that the Pope of Rome was possessed of no
greater jurisdiction in England than any other foreign
bishop." Whatever influence the Pope henceforward exer-
cised in this country was a purely moral, one, due to the
respect felt for him as spiritual head of the Church. He
might appoint bishops and prelates by provisions, as Martin
V. did in the reign of Henry V., and as Clement VII.
appointed Cranmer to the Archbishopric of Canterbury;¹ but
these appointments were subject to the good pleasure of the
King. What could Roman provisions avail against English
laws with their dreadful negative of outlawry, banishment,
and forfeiture? The English prelates at least were perfectly
alive to the nature of Papal appointments, for on their
¹ Cum Dominus Summus Pontifex, nuper vacante ecclesia cathedrali
Cantuarensi per mortem bonæ memoria Willelmi nuper archiepiscopi
ejusdem ecclesiæ, personam dilecti et fidelis conciliarii nostri Thomæ
Cranmer dictæ ecclesiæ nuper electi, in ipsius ecclesiæ archiepiscopum
præfecerit et pastorem, sicut per literas bullatas ipsius Domini Summi
Pontificis nobis inde directas, nobis constat.-Words of the Privy Seal
restoring his temporalities to the new archbishop. Rymer, xiv. 456.
SEC. II
111
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
#
promotion they at once renounced everything in their bulls
which was opposed to the laws and customs of their country,
and hastened to sue out the royal pardon for having received
or published them. The best tests of the effects of statutes
are contemporary records and contemporary accounts of
their working. For this purpose a few of our records are
here quoted, and their testimony will be afterwards confirmed
by extracts from Papal letters. It would encumber these
pages too much to give a long enumeration of the letters
patent granted for licenses to apply to the Roman Court, or
for pardons for having done so. Some only will be given to
show the effects of these statutes on laymen, monks, secular
priests, regular prelates, bishops, cardinals, Papal nuncios,
and Papal legates. In 1448 a license was granted to Andrew
Ogard, lay patron of a priory, to apply to the Pope for bulls,
and when the bulls should be given, to receive, read, pro-
nounce, declare, and execute them without danger to himself.¹
In 1399 certain of the Carmelites in England, who were
chaplains to the Pope, and prided themselves on their office,
had shown disobedience to their superiors. Thereupon the
Pope issued bulls commanding their obedience. To support
the Pope, the King directed his writ to the provincial and all
the priors of the order in the kingdom. "We knowing,'
says the writ, "that you cannot or ought not in any way to
execute the said bulls or anything contained in them within
our kingdom without our license and authority, do of our
special favour grant unto you authority, license, and power
to correct your brethren according to the form, force, and
effect of the Papal bulls." Henry Chichely, afterwards
Archbishop of Canterbury, had accepted Papal appointments
in the diocese and cathedral of Salisbury; Henry IV. granted
him a pardon for his "transgressions and misprisions in so
doing,” and confirmed the appointments. The Prior of
1
¹ Rymer, xi. 212.
2 Ib. viii. 113.
3
3 Ib. 244.
112
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
1
-1
•
Letham asked and obtained a bull from the Pope securing
him in the priory for life. The prior petitioned the King for
pardon. The King granted him a pardon for his contempt,
transgressions, and misprisions in asking for or accepting
the bull.' In 1449 the Bishop of Hereford had obtained
bulls from the Pope respecting the resignation of his see and
the payment of an annuity by his successor. The bishop
petitioned for his pardon. The King pardoned him "all
contempts, transgressions, misprisions, provisions, and for-
feitures incurred by reason of applying for, accepting,
reading, or proclaiming the said bulls," and permitted the
bishop to make use of them.2 The Pope by his bulls
appointed Thomas Kemp to the Bishopric of London. The
King granted his license to Kemp "to receive, admit, accept,
read and pronounce" the bulls, and to make use of them.³
In 1410 a license was granted to Cardinal Francisco to
accept from the Pope nominations to four benefices in
England, not beyond a certain value, and to obtain posses-
sion of them, "notwithstanding the Act of Provisors of the
thirteenth of Richard II. or any other Act." In 1390
license was granted to James Dardain, chamberlain to the
Pope and nuncio in England, on his petition to the King in
parliament, to make use of a Papal bull appointing him to
the Archdeaconry of Norwich, " notwithstanding any statutes
or ordinances respecting provisors." In 1460 a license was
granted to the Papal legate, Francesco, Bishop of Terni, to
receive from the Pope an appointment to an English bishop-
ric, certain sees excepted, and to cause the same to be read
and published, "notwithstanding any statutes of parliament
or restrictions of the King's predecessors."
1 Tb. xi. 48.
2 Ib. 256.
s Ib. 259.
¹ Ib. viii. 654. For other cardinals see viii. 291, and xi. 195.
5 lb. vii. 689.
6 lb. xi. 468.
SEC. II
113
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
In all these and similar cases the licenses and pardons
were granted by letters patent or privy seals, and invariably
purported to proceed from the special favour of the King and
to protect the recipients from the effects of the statutes of
Provisors and Præmunire. If to these we add permissions to
bishops to keep their proctors at Rome;¹ proclamations order-
ing all English ecclesiastics seeking bulls at the Court of Rome
to return by an early date under penalty "of life and limb,
and all that they possessed," and forbidding anyone of
whatever rank to bring into the country bulls, Papal letters,
processes, instruments, or other things contrary to its laws
and customs; prohibitions to such powerful bodies as the
Knights of St. John not to depart the realm without the
special leave of the King, or to send any of their brethren to
Rome there to institute proceedings against the laws and
customs of England or to the disquiet of the subject;³ general
orders to arrest all persons found in possession of appeals,
citations, inhibitions, and processes against ecclesiastical
appointments by the King; and commissions to examine,
either by a jury or in some other way, the contents of a Papal
bull, when its arrival became known to the King; the
universal and absolute power of our sovereigns in ecclesiastical
matters, a hundred years before Henry VIII. was born, will
clearly appear.
4
5
These statutes, particularly the last of the Præmunire
acts, made a profound impression on the mind of the English
people. The bishops and prelates, ever until the time of
Cardinal Wolsey, himself a candidate for the Papal throne,
walked in fear of them. For more than a hundred and fifty
years the ordinary Englishman believed that a person con-
victed of a præmunire might be slain with impunity. This
was in consequence of the words in them respecting outlawry.
¹ Ïb. vii. 701, 702.
¹ Ib. ix. 190.
2 Ib. 698.
5 Tb. xii. 269.
3 Ib. viii. 155.
I
114
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
This belief was so general that it became necessary to extir-
pate it by a legislative declaration. "Forasmuch as it is
doubtful," says an enactment of Elizabeth, "whether by the
laws of this realm there be any punishment for such as kill
or slay any person or persons attainted in or upon a præ-
munire; be it therefore enacted that it shall not be
lawful to any person or persons to slay or kill any person or
persons in any manner attainted or hereafter to be attainted
of, in, or upon any præmunire
•
•
•
any law, statute, or
opinion or exposition of any law or statute to the contrary in
any wise notwithstanding."
From the first the Popes perceived the effects which the
statutes of Provisors and Præmunire were likely to have in
checking their interference with the patronage and adminis-
tration of the English Church. In 1391 Boniface IX. sent
a special nuncio to England, and offered to satisfy the King
and nation if these Acts were repealed." Seven years later
the same Pope sent a bishop, Peter de Bosco, to the King,
requesting him to allow his subjects to receive provisions
from Rome, and to repeal the Act of Provisors and "many
similar Acts." But the requests of the Popes were made in
vain. The policy of these Acts was adopted and strengthened
15 Eliz. c. 1, s. 21.
2 In this year proclamation was made in London, that all the English
clergy then in Rome should return home, the beneficed on pain of losing
their livings, the unbeneficed on pain of forfeiture. "Papa vero, tanto
sonitu conturbatus, mittit nuncium sub celeritate, quemdam abbatem
videlicet, qui causas exploret harum rerum omnium, simul et statuti
parliamentalis nuper editi de provisoribus contra consuetudinem ecclesiæ
Romanæ
per quem exhortatur, rogat, et requirit, quod rex statuta
illa tolli et de capitularibus faciat aboleri, maxime statuta 'quare
impedit' et 'præmunire facias' et hiis similia. Et Papa offert, quod si
statutarii velint conqueri de aliquo, si mittant ad Papam ambassiatores,
erit promptus quantum cum Deo poterit, regi et regno complacere.".
Walsingham, 2, 200.
•
³ Ib. 228.
SEC. II
115
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
ン
​by the legislation of Henry IV. and Henry V.¹ Martin V.,
who after the healing of the schism in the Church was firmly
seated on the Papal throne, directed all his efforts to obtain a
repeal of the Act of Provisors. In 1426 he wrote to Chichely,
Archbishop of Canterbury, severely reflecting on his remiss-
ness in not having opposed that statute, and urging him
under the penalty of excommunication to use all his influence
to effect its revocation. The archbishop was also required
under the same penalty to enjoin on his clergy the duty of
preaching against it. In addition the Pope wrote to the
King, the parliament, and the Duke of Bedford, then regent
of France, exhorting and admonishing them to repeal the
statute. In his letter to the parliament he told its members,
that no one could be saved who was in favour of its observa-
tion, required them under pain of damnation to recall it, and
offered to secure them in future from any abuses which might
formerly have crept in with provisions. But these efforts
had no effect. The statutes of Provisors and Præmunire were
never repealed, not even in the days of Queen Mary. It is
noteworthy that in the Concordat made by Martin V. at the
Council of Constance with the English nation there is no
mention made of provisions, reservations, or the other
encroachments of the Popes, our ancestors wisely preferring
the protection of their own laws to Papal promises which
might afterwards be eluded."
3
¹ By the statutes, 1 Hen. IV. c. 3; 7 Hen. IV. c. 8; 9 Hen. IV. c. 8;
3 Hen. V. c. 4.
2 "Sub simili pœna mandes et præcipias omnibus rectoribus ecclesia-
rum quam aliis officium prædicationis obtinentibus, sæcularibus et re-
ligiosis, ut frequenter in sermonibus suis populos de prædicta materia
instruere non omittant."
3 The letters to the King, the parliament, and the archbishop are to
be found in Burnet's Collection of Records and in Wilkins' Concilia;
that to the Duke of Bedford in Fuller, 148.
4 This Concordat referred to matters comparatively unimportant,
such as the appropriation of churches, the consolidation of vicarages,
1 2
116
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
The statutes of Provisors and Præmunire restored to the
English Church its domestic management, re-established the
royal supremacy over it, and excluded Papal interference
with its patronage, though for about sixty years subsequently
the Popes were permitted by our Kings to exercise an
occasional authority. After the passing of these Acts every
one who accepted a preferment in England from the Papal
See without the consent of the King was liable to banishment
and forfeiture of his lands and goods. It lay therefore
entirely in the discretion of the temporal sovereign to
determine whether any and what share in disposing of
ecclesiastical dignities and benefices should be left to the
Popes. Of the way in which these statutes were regarded
by English prelates and of their drastic effects, an incident
in our history and a Papal letter inform us. In 1432, Henry
Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, great uncle to the King, and
a cardinal, perhaps the most powerful man in England,¹
applied to parliament and was secured by a legislative enact-
ment against any pains and penalties under these statutes
which he might have incurred whilst acting as Papal legate,
and also "for any receipt, acceptance, admission, or execution
of Papal bulls." In the letter which Pope Martin V. wrote
to Archbishop Chichely respecting the Act of Provisors, he
thus speaks of it: "In the first place," says the Pope, "by
means of this execrable statute the King of England disposes
of the Church with his provisions and appointments as if he
were the Vicar of Christ. He makes laws for the churches,
dispensations for non-residence, &c. The Concordat is given in Wilkins'
Concilia, 3, 391, and the principal heads of it in Collier, Preface to
second vol.
1
"Yet let us watch the haughty cardinal,
His insolence is more intolerable
Than all the princes of the land beside.
If Gloster be displaced, he'll be protector."
2 Rotuli Parl. 4, 392.
Second Part, Henry VI.
SEC. II
117
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
1
benefices, clerics, and the ecclesiastical order, draws the
cognisance of ecclesiastical causes into his temporal courts,
and in a word arranges about clerks, benefices, and the
concerns of the hierarchy, as if the care of the Church had
been entrusted to him and not to St. Peter. Besides this
hideous law, he has enacted several terrible penalties against
the clergy,' the like of which were never directed against
Jews or Saracens. People of every kind may freely resort
to England; it is only those who have accepted benefices from
the supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, that are
banished, seized, imprisoned, and stripped of all their fortunes.
The executors of Papal bulls, and proctors and notaries
carrying censures or processes from the Apostolic See, are
exposed to the most severe punishment, and, being thrown
out of the King's protection, are given up as a prey to all.
Can that be called a Catholic country where such profane
laws are enacted and observed? where application to the
Vicar of God is prohibited, and where St. Peter's successor
is not allowed to execute our Saviour's commission ? Christ
said to St. Peter and to his successors, feed my sheep,
but this statute will not suffer him to feed them, but
transfers that office to the King and pretends to give him
apostolic authority in several cases. Our Saviour ordained
that whatsoever the supreme Pontiff should bind on earth,
the same should be bound or loosed in heaven; but this
statute overrules the divine precept, for if the Vicar of Christ
deputes any priests to bind and loose contrary to the intend-
ment of the law, this statute not only forbids their entrance
into the kingdom, but exiles them, seizes their effects, and
makes them liable to further penalties, so that any one
carrying an apostolic censure or process into the kingdom is
punished as for a capital offence. You cannot wonder that
the Church complains of your conduct. Proceed therefore to
1 This portion of the letter refers to the Acts of Pramunire.
118
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
instruct the laity and to point out to them the truth. Show
them what a snare the said statute is. We command you
under the penalty of excommunication to approach the King
and his councillors, and to exhort them to repeal the said Act
in the next parliament, as it is contrary to the precepts of
Scripture and of holy councils, and cannot be observed with-
out the loss of eternal salvation. When the next parliament
shall be convened, we command you under the same penalty
to use your influence with all who shall have a voice in it.
In addition we order you, also under the penalty of excom-
munication, to enjoin on all rectors and preachers, secular
and regular, to preach frequently on this matter, that every
precaution may be taken to secure the honour of God and the
safety of souls."
One very remarkable circumstance connected with the
passing of the statutes of Provisors and Præmunire was the
conduct of the English prelates. No body of men is so
homogeneous and compact as an ecclesiastical body. Its
members have the same interests and are swayed by the same
motives, and in consequence their action is almost always
united. In the parliament which passed the last statute of Præ-
munire in 1392 there were "almost sixty ecclesiastical barons";"
that is to say, the large majority of the Upper House, then
by far the more powerful of the two legislative chambers,
consisted of prelates. No statute could have been passed
against the opposition of such a body. A learned author²
has asserted that the prelates protested against the Act of
1365, and also against the Act which was passed in the
parliament of the 13th of Richard II. This statement is not
quite correct. What the prelates did on these two occasions
was this. In 1365 they said that they would assent to
nothing which was likely to turn to the prejudice of their
1 ¹ Fuller, Ch. Hist. 148.
2 Bishop Stubbs.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
119
estate and dignity;' a very different thing from protesting
against an Act. In the parliament of the 13th of Richard II.
they made a general declaration that they in no wise meant
or would assent to any law, so far as such law operated in
restraint of the Pope's authority, or in subversion of eccle-
siastical liberty. But there is no mention of any protest
against a particular Act. Their hesitation, if they did
hesitate, between the King and the Pope, did not last long,
for only four years later, when the last Act of Præmunire
was introduced in 1392, the prelates voted unanimously for
it. It is true that in 1427 the two archbishops and five
other bishops, a third of their number, and two abbots-
there were then twenty-six mitred abbots and priors who sat
in Parliament-exhorted the Commons to repeal the Act of
Provisors; but this was done after the archbishop had been
reprimanded and suspended from his legatine functions by
the Pope, for having allowed the Act to pass without opposi-
tion. In 1441 a motion was made in Convocation to petition
the King that the last statute of Præmunire might be
explained in a sense more favourable, not to the Pope but
to the clergy. This motion was made in consequence of the
pedantry of the lawyers, who strained these Acts to the
disadvantage of the ecclesiastical judges. In the statute of
Præmunire it was enacted that if any person purchased bulls
or instruments in the Court of Rome, or elsewhere, he should
be liable to the penalties mentioned therein. The word
"elsewhere" was inserted to meet the case of the Pope
residing at other places than Rome, as Avignon, Lyons, or
Pisa. The common-law lawyers insisted that the word
applied to all Courts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether
2
¹ Les prelats tout dis fesantz lour protestation de rien assenter ne
faire q purra estre ou turner en prejudice de lour estat ou dignite.-
Rotuli Parl. 2, 285.
2 Wilkins, Concilia, 3, 483.
120
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
native or foreign, and not merely to that of Rome. Accord-
ingly a petition was drawn up, praying the King that the
statute of Præmunire" and the punishments contained in it,
should have relation and be extended only to such processes,
sentences, excommunications, bulls, instruments, made and
prosecuted in the Court of Rome or elsewhere, outside the
kingdom, and not to suits, processes, sentences, bulls, or
instruments, made or prosecuted in Courts within the realm,
inasmuch as there was a remedy already provided against
the errors of the latter Courts by writs of prohibition and
attachment.”¹ In 1447 the prelates returned to this
grievance, and again petitioned the King, for the purpose
of restraining this "strange and bitter interpretation" of
the Act, as they termed it, "to declare, and make to be
declared, by authority of this your present Parliament, that
the said statute, made at Winchester the 16th year of King
Richard aforesaid, and the pains and punishments contained
in the same, have relation only to suits, processes, sentences
of cursing, bulls, and instruments made or pursued, or to be
made or pursued in the Court of Rome, or in any other
places without the realm of England." This was all the
action ever taken by the English prelates and clergy re-
specting these statutes. So far were they from objecting to
the Act of Præmunire that they assert in their last-mentioned
petition that it was passed " in favour of the said archbishops
and bishops within the land," and again, that it was
"made
in favour of the said prelates and spiritual judges in the
land." 2
2
¹ Que le dit estatut du dit roy Richard et les punishementz contenuz
en ycell, eient soulement relacion et entendement as sutez, processez, &c.,
faitz, pursues, ou a fair et pursuer, en le Court de Rome, et aylours hors
du royalme d' Engleterre... et nemy as sutez, &c., en nul courtes
spirituelz ne temporelz deinz le royalme d'Engleterre.-Ib. 3, 534.
2 The Clergie's petition concerning the statute of Præmunire.—
Ib. 3, 555.
SEC. II
121
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
·
How are we to account for the absence of active opposi-
tion to these laws on the part of the English prelates and
clergy? In truth, they deserted the Pope and clung to the
King. They were weary of the exactions of the Court of
Rome, and preferred that the patronage of the Church should
be distributed by the secular Sovereign. Their idea of what
the Church of England should be, was the same as that
of their successors in the reign of Henry VIII., that is,
an independent, self-governed, and self-organized national
Church, in communion with that of Rome, recognizing the
Pope as the spiritual head and primate of the Catholic unity,
but regarding him as subject to the decrees of General
Councils. They were sick of the constant pillaging which
they had suffered at the hands of the Roman Pontiffs, and
desired that their Church should be free from external
control in concerns connected with its civil establishment.
And their desire was fulfilled; for such was the condition
of the English Church after the enactment of the statutes of
Provisors and Præmunire. Here is the time and place to
ask-What ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as distinguished from
his purely spiritual authority by monition and advice, did
the Pope possess in England at the accession of Henry VII.,
that is, forty years before the Reformation was dreamt of?
The answer to this question is, the Pope was possessed of
none. A general statement like this may be contradicted as
generally as it is made. It will, therefore, be better to
consider the subject in detail:-
1. The Pope could not appoint, translate, suspend, or
depose a bishop, or regular prelate, in England.¹
2. He could not appoint to an English prebend or
¹ Statutes of Provisors and Præmunire. See also 9 Hen. IV. c. 9,
forbidding any Papal or Royal interference with the election of arch-
bishops, bishops, abbots, priors, or deans, but reserving to the King his
prerogatives therein.
*
122
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
benefice, and every Englishman who accepted a preferment
at home from the Pope, without the King's leave, was liable
to banishment and forfeiture of all his property.¹
2
3. A Papal excommunication, of itself, had not the
slightest effect in England. No one could receive, read, or
publish, such a document, or any other Papal sentence, or
process, without leave of the King.
4. It follows from these three heads that the Pope could
neither reward nor punish a single English ecclesiastic.
5. No Englishman, lay or cleric, could make any appli-
cation or reference respecting the patronage, possessions, or
administration of the Church to the Pope, or receive from
him any bull, Papal letter, or other instrument, without the
license of the King. If he did so, he incurred, ipso facto,
outlawry and forfeiture of all his goods, and it depended
wholly on the King's good pleasure whether or not these
penalties should be exacted.
6. No one could proceed to Rome without the special
license of the King.
7. No Papal legate could set his foot in the kingdom
without the King's consent and under strict conditions. If
a native was appointed to that office, he could not accept the
commission without the King's license, nor could he execute
the smallest item in it without royal letters authorizing
him to do so, as is shown by the cases of Henry Beaufort,
Archbishop Chichely, Cardinal Wolsey, and Cardinal Pole.
1 "If any do accept of a benefice of Holy Church, contrary to this
statute, and that duly proved, and be beyond the sea, he shall abide
exiled and banished out of the realm for ever, his lands and tenements,
goods and chattels, shall be forfeit to the King. And if he be within
the realm, he shall be also exiled and banished, as afore is said, and
shall incur the same forfeiture, and take his way so that he be out of
the realm within six weeks next after such acceptation": 13 Ric. II.
st. 2. c. 2, the last Act of Provisors.
2 Coke's Reports, pt. 5, 23.
SEC. II
123
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
8. The Pope could not convene an English synod or
convocation, or do any synodical act, without the King's
permission.
9. No canons or decrees of the Pope had any force or
effect in England until, and so far only as, they were
accepted in the kingdom.
10. The Pope could not exempt any ecclesiastic from his
obedience, regular or ordinary;¹ or discharge any one from
the payment of tithes ; or found an ecclesiastical corpora-
tion;³ or grant the right of sanctuary.*
11. The Pope could not summon any English ecclesiastic
to Rome without the King's license; and the King could at
any moment recall home all his subjects attending the Papal
Court.
If we compare with this absence of ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion the plenary and abounding authority of the Kings of
England in all that related to the external regimen of the
Church and to those things which were not of divine institu-
tion, we shall see that they always-one interval excepted-
challenged and enjoyed the political headship of the national
Church, and no other was after the Conquest ever claimed by
them. If there is one thing clearly brought out by an exami-
nation of our Church history, it is this, that whatever eccle-
siastical jurisdiction was exercised by the Popes in England
was exercised by the allowance and permission of our Kings,
and by way of favour, and through respect to the Papacy.
None knew this better than the Popes themselves. "If the
King of England," said Clement VI., "were to ask for an
ass to be made bishop, he must not be denied." "It is not
the Pope," said Martin V., "but the King of England that
governs the Church in his dominions. With his provisions
1 2 Hen. IV. c. 3.
3 Caudrey's Case, Coke's Reports, pt. 5.
2 2 Hen. IV. c. 4.
4 Ib.
5 Godwin's Catalogue of the Bishops of England, 526.
124
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
and appointments he regulates it as if he were the Vicar of
Christ. He makes laws for the churches, benefices, clerics,
the ecclesiastical orders, and the concerns of the hierarchy, as
if the care of the Church had been entrusted to him and not
to us. When we send our notaries and proctors into England
carrying our censures and processes, the bearers are seized,
imprisoned, and stripped of their all; nor is any application
to the Apostolic See allowed by the English laws to be
made." And when the Roman Pontiffs appointed bishops or
regular prelates by provisions, each bull of provision was
directed to the King, and ended with a request to him to
receive and support by his authority the person appointed,
for which favour the Pope promised his hearty gratitude.
Let us now see what the King's ecclesiastical supremacy
meant:
1. Though the King could not directly appoint to
bishoprics and abbacies, his recommendation to the chapters.
and conventual brethren, and his subsequent approval of the
election, were virtually equivalent to an appointment.¹
2. It lay with him, and with him alone, to convene
English convocations. When the canons of these assemblies
infringed his prerogative or the customs of the realm, they
had to be retracted, as was done in the case of decrees
passed in the Synod of Reading in 1279 under Archbishop
Peckham.
3. The King determined the extent of the jurisdiction
of the ecclesiastical courts, and by his writs of prohibition
restrained them to such matters as the English law allowed.
1 "Henry VII. possessed the undisputed right of nominating
candidates to the episcopal sees. He was not satisfied with bestowing
all clerical promotions, he also appropriated to himself the half of the
annates."-Ranke, Popes of Rome, 1, 27. "Under Henry VII. and
Henry VIII. the royal nominees were invariably chosen."—Stubbs,
Const. Hist. 3, 317.
...
327
SEC. II
125
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
4. Decided in what cases bishops should appear in his
court to give an account why they excommunicated the
subject,¹ and ordered them to recall their sentences.2
5. Forbade his bishops to seek confirmation at Rome
during a schism, and ordered his archbishops to bestow it on
those elected by the chapters.3
6. The last appeal in ecclesiastical cases lay to the King,
unless he allowed the matter to be brought before the Court
of Rome.
7. The King might exempt any ecclesiastic or religious
body from the jurisdiction of the ordinary; or grant the
privilege of sanctuary; or create an eeclesiastical corporation.
8. Commanded his clergy to reside.*
9. If a patron did not present in due time, the presen-
tation lapsed to the bishop, and from him, in default of
presenting, to the King, with whom it rested, as universal
advowee and patron paramount of the English Church.
10. The revenues of archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbacies,
and priories, in the vacancy belonged to the King in the
same right; to whom also it pertained to fill up all benefices
during the vacancies of the respective dignities.
11. Archbishops and bishops on their appointment were
obliged to renounce every clause in their bulls prejudicial to
the prerogative of the Crown or to the law of the land."
19 Edw. II. c. 7.
2 Prynne's Records, 3, 244.
3 Rotuli Parl. 4, 71. Rymer, ix. 337.
4 Rymer, x. 84.
5 Even in the reign of Mary this renunciation was required from
Cardinal Pole on his appointment to Canterbury. "Nos, pro eo quod
idem Electus, omnibus et singulis verbis nobis et coronæ nostræ præ-
judicialibus in dictis literis bullatis contentis, coram nobis palam et
expresse renunciavit, et gratiæ nostræ humiliter se submisit, volentes
126
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
+
After the last Act of Præmunire they sued out their pardons
for having received such bulls, and for having published or
acted upon them.
It was to the King that the whole nation looked for
the protection of the Church and the preservation of the
Catholic faith. In 1307 the earls, barons, and "the whole
community of the realm" petitioned the King to afford
them his aid and protection against the oppressions of the
Papal See, which, they declared, tended to the abasement of
the faith of God, the destruction of holy Church, the dis-
herison of the Crown, and the impoverishment of the people.¹
It was the same with the bishops and clergy. They held
it to be a part of the kingly office to provide that no
dissensions, scandals, or divisions should arise in the Church
and that the Catholic faith should be preserved. In their
supplication to Henry IV. in 1400, the prelates and clergy
of the whole kingdom implored the King to remember the
glorious actions of his illustrious predecessors, and, in order
to save the Catholic faith, sustain divine worship, and
preserve the existence, laws, and liberties of the Anglican
Church, to provide an opportune remedy for the dissen-
sions, scandals, and dangers to religion which had lately
arisen.2
The condition and circumstances of the English Church at
the accession of Henry VII., and up to that of Henry VIII.
may be shortly summed up. It was a national Church com-
pletely self-organized and managed at home; with a regular
hierarchy practically appointed by the King; possessing the
right of canonically legislating for itself, recognizing the
cum eo in hac parte agere et gratiose, fidelitatem ipsius Electi cepimus,
et temporalia archiepiscopatus illius prout moris est restituimus eidem.".
Rymer, xv. 432.
¹ Rotuli Parl. 1, 219.
2 Supplicatur ex parte vestrorum humilium oratorum, Prelatorum et
Cleri regni.—Ib. 3, 466.
SEC. II
127
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
1
supremacy of the King over its civil establishment, having
its own representative assemblies, and perfectly guarded and
hedged-in from external interference with its patronage and
temporal possessions. Its bishops held that they derived
their spiritual authority, not from the Pope, but from Christ
Himself, a doctrine which lies at the very foundation of the
idea of a national Church. They believed that a general
council was above the Pope, and had authority to depose
him. They acknowledged him as their spiritual head and
primate, and as the centre and source of Catholic unity,
but they rejected his interference with the patronage of
their Church, or with its external regimen. Besides this
acknowledgment of his spiritual supremacy, certain pay-
ments were made to the Pope by the State, and by the
clerical order or individuals of it. Ethelwolf's pension, often
confounded with Peter's Pence, was a fixed sum amounting
to about three hundred marks, and was paid by the kingdom
at large. So also was Peter's Pence, which was "a penny
for every chimney which smoked in England," and which
Fuller estimated at £7,500 a year. Tenths, or the Tithe of
Tithes, was an annual tax contributed by the clergy.
Annates or first fruits was the payment of a year's revenue
imposed on archbishoprics and bishoprics. Both tenths and
annates had been condemned by the Councils of Constance
and Basle, but notwithstanding these decrees were still
collected. The amount paid as annates by each bishop on
his election or translation was formerly very large. The
Archbishops of Canterbury paid on their entrance to that see
1 This was also the belief of Sir Thomas More. "For in the next
general council it may well happen that this Pope may be deposed and
another substituted in his room, with whom the K. H. may be very well
content. For albeit that I have for mine own part such opinion of the
Pope's primacy as I have showed you, yet never thought I the Pope
above the general council."-More's letter to Cromwell; Strype, Eccl.
Mem. 1, pt. 2, 202.
128
CHAP. II
FROM THE REIGN OF EDWARD I
for annates and their pall fifteen thousand florins.¹ Cranmer
was the last English prelate, except those who did so in the
reign of Queen Mary, who received Papal Bulls on his
promotion. In his case they were eleven in number, for
which the Archbishop paid a sum of nine hundred ducats.
The smallness of this sum may be accounted for by the
late Act which provided that five per cent. only on the first
year's revenue should be paid as annates. Besides these
fixed payments the Popes also derived considerable sums
from appeals, in those cases in which they were allowed,
dispensations, mortuaries on the death of prelates, legatine
levies, indulgences, and pardons.
It is to be observed that the relation of the French State
and Church to the Papacy was almost identical with that of
England and her Church, as may be seen from the laws and
rules which prevailed in that country. No Papal legate was
admitted into France but at the request of the sovereign,
and before he had taken an oath not to execute his office
longer than it should please the King. The sovereign had
power at all times to assemble national and provincial synods,
and therein to treat of all things concerning ecclesiastical
order and discipline. Papal bulls, citations, and sentences of
excommunication were not to be executed without the King's
permission, and, after permission granted, only by the autho-
rity of the King and not of the Pope. Papal provisions,
reservations, and expectatives were illegal. The Pope could
not exempt any Church, monastery, or religious body from
the jurisdiction of the ordinary. General Councils were held
to be superior to the Pope, and to possess the power of
deposing him. Ecclesiastics might be summoned and con-
victed before secular judges for the first grievous offence, or
for a lesser one after a relapse. Neither the kingdom, the
King, nor his officers could be interdicted or excommunicated
1 ¹ A florin was four shillings and sixpence.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF HENRY VII
129
by the Pope. The Papal authority was limited by the Canons
of the ancient councils received in France. The prelates were
not allowed for any cause whatever to leave the country
without the King's license. Annates and tenths had been
abolished.¹ Elections to dignities were free. Like their
English brethren, the bishops held that they derived their
authority immediately from Christ and not from the
Pope.2
¹ Annates were restored to the Pope by the Concordat of 1517.
2 For these positions and many others see Traitez des Droits et
Libertez de l'Eglise Gallicane, particularly the commentary of Pierre
Pithou.
K
CHAPTER III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
}
Г
SECTION I
It is impossible to understand the events which occurred in
the reign of Henry VIII. without an accurate knowledge of
the nature of the supremacy to which the King succeeded,
and which had been exercised by his predecessors in ecclesias-
tical matters from time immemorial. The historians who
start with the idea that the royal supremacy was an invention
of Henry, and an innovation in our Church, misconceive,
and therefore misrepresent, the occurrences of this reign. To
them each step is a new institution or a fresh departure, instead
of being a confirmation of the state of affairs which pre-
vailed at the King's accession, and which had been handed
down to him from the earliest times. When, in addition,
these writers decline to recognize the distinction between a
spiritual supremacy and an ecclesiastical one, which latter is,
in its essence, of a civil nature, their guidance deserves to
be set aside. They neglect the real causes of the English
Reformation, and are in possession of but one key to explain
its events. Everything is referred to the anger of the
King against the Pope; all else is ignored. The tendency
of contemporaneous thought, and the effects of the new
learning; the indignation at the general mismanagement
of the Church; the irritation caused by the Papal exactions,
and the venality of the Roman Curia, which had passed into a
proverb; the growth of doubt respecting the whole system of
134
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
mediation between God and man as then taught; the recogni-
tion of the sovereignty of the individual conscience; the univer-
sal resentment at the political ambition of the Popes; the abuses
in converting the sentences of the Church into instruments of
extortion; the encroachments on Episcopal rights and dis-
cipline by appeals, exemptions, and dispensations purchas-
able at Rome, and the consequent crippling of the pastoral
administration of dioceses: all these are forgotten or passed
over in silence. Nor is there any mention of two important
considerations which specially influenced the English move-
ment, and without which its history can hardly be under-
stood (1) that the foundations of the English Reformation
were laid by Churchmen who were not Reformers in the
popular sense; and (2) that there was behind the King a
nation, represented in the House of Commons, urging him
to proceed much faster than he himself was inclined to go.
The student of our Church history, and particularly of that
part of it which occupies this reign, must expect but little
aid from our lay historians, from Hallam, inclusive, down-
wards. If he wishes to comprehend the subject thoroughly,
and from the beginning, he must betake himself to our
statutes, to the rolls of parliament, to contemporaneous
authorities, and to our ecclesiastical writers.
When we are told that the English Reformation was the
work of Henry, we are listening to the guesses of children.
A sovereign surrounded, as the Turkish Sultans once were,
with a celibate and homeless host of Janissaries, could not
by his authority alone effect a change in the religious belief
of a pious and earnest nation, such as the English; much
less could a King make the attempt who did not possess a
standing army, and who was supported only by a few
yeomen of the guard, in a kingdom where every man was
armed. If ever there was a European movement, it was the
Reformation, of which the English was but a chapter. It
SEC. I
135
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
was the swell of the ocean, not a flood in a river. From
every corner of the Western world there came a cry for the
reform of the Church in its head and members, and the cry
found an echo in the palace of the Popes. "We are well
aware," wrote Pope Adrian VI. to his legate, Chieregato,
whom he sent to the Diet at Nuremberg, in 1522,¹ “that for
a long time many abominations have existed in this sacred
seat;² abuses of spiritual things, excesses in the exercise of
its authority; everything has been turned to evil. Nor is
it to be marvelled at if the sickness has descended from the
head to the members, from the supreme Pontiffs to the
inferior bishops. We, the prelates of the Church, have all
gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, there
is none of us that has done good, no, not one.
Wherein, for so much as concerns us, you shall promise that
we will do our utmost endeavour that in the first place this
court, from whence peradventure the evil has proceeded, may
be reformed; that as the corruption flowed from thence to
all inferiors, so likewise the health and reformation of all
may proceed from the same source. To effect which we
consider ourselves the more closely bound, as we perceive
that the whole world ardently desires a reformation of this
¹ It was to this legate that the German princes presented their
“Centum gravamina" or hundred-fold complaint. These may be found
in Fasciculus Rerum Expetend. et Fugiend. Lord Herbert gives an
abridged translation of them in his history.
.. Qua in re,
2 Scimus in hac sancta sede aliquot jam annis multa abominanda
fuisse, abusus in spiritualibus, excessus in mandatis, et omnia denique in
perversum mutata. Nec mirum si ægritudo a capite in membra, a summis
pontificibus in alios inferiores prælatos descenderit. Omnes nos, id est
prælati ecclesiastici, declinavimus, unusquisque in vias suas, nec fuit
jam diu qui faceret bonum, non fuit usque ad unum.
quod ad nos attinet, polliceberis nos omnem operam adhibituros, ut
primum curia hæc, unde forte omne hoc malum processit, reformetur, ut
sicut inde corruptio in omnes inferiores emanavit, ita etiam ab eadem
sanitas et reformatio omnium emanet.-Fasciculus Rerum Expetend. et
Fugiend. 1, 345.
136
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
kind.
Let no one be astonished if we do not at once
reform all errors and abuses. Inasmuch as the disease is
inveterate, not simple but complicated and multiform, we
must proceed carefully and step by step.'
99 1
3
Fourteen years later Paul III. issued instructions to
nine eminent ecclesiastics to inquire into the state of the
Church and to draw up a scheme for its reform. The
commission consisted of four cardinals, two archbishops, one
bishop, an abbot, and a master of the Papal palace. Among
the cardinals were John Peter Caraffa, afterwards Pope
Paul IV., and Reginald Pole. These nine drew up a scheme
of reform and presented it to the Pope signed by them all."
In the opening of this remarkable document, after describing
the Church as not merely tottering, but actually fallen in ruin,³
they accused some of the former Popes of having chosen their
ministers, not with a view to learn from them what their duty
required, but in order to have cunning advocates to prove that
it was lawful for Popes to do what they pleased. "Hence,
as flattery attends princes as the shadow does the body,
doctors began to teach that, as the Popes were the lords of
all benefices, they could not be guilty of simony, inasmuch
as they rightfully sold what was their own property. From
which source, as from the Trojan horse, so many abuses and
such grievous diseases have broken into the Church of God
that we now see it labouring almost without a hope of
salvation, and the name of Christ blasphemed by the
¹ Ad quod procurandum nos tanto arctius obligatos reputamus,
quanto universum mundum hujusmodi reformationem avidius desiderare
videmus. . . . Quanquam nemo mirari debebit, si non statim omnia
errata et abusus omnes per nos emendatos viderit. ... Inveteratus
nimium morbus est, nec simplex, sed varius et multiplex; pedetentim in
ejus cura procedendum est.—Ib.
2 Consilium Delectorum Cardinalium, &c., de emendanda ecclesia
Romana jussu Pauli III. Papæ conscriptum.-Fasciculus Expetend. et
Fugiend. 2, 231.
³ Labantem, imo vero collapsam in præceps ecclesiam Christi.
·
SEC. I
137
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
unbelieving through our fault; we say it again, through our
fault."
From this introduction they proceed to enumerate the
abuses which prevailed in the Church.
Abuses in dispensing with its laws.
In ordaining ignorant youths of the vilest birth and of
the worst morals. "Hence arise innumerable scandals,
contempt for the ecclesiastical order, and the veneration for
divine service is not only lessened, but now nearly extinct."
In the bestowal of benefices, and above all, of bishoprics,
on non-residents.
In the imposition of pensions on benefices in favour of
wealthy ecclesiastics, and the consequent withdrawal of what
was intended for the support of divine service and of the
incumbents.
Exchanges of livings by agreements, "which are all
simoniacal, and in which nothing is regarded but money.'
""
The bequest of benefices and bishoprics by dispensations,
nullifying the law that children of priests should not inherit
the benefices of their fathers.
Abuses in expectations and reservations.
In conferring several incompatible benefices and even
bishoprics on the same person.
In granting, not one, but several bishoprics to cardinals.
“We think this matter is of the greatest importance to the
Church of God; for the offices of cardinals and bishops are
inconsistent. A cardinal assists the Pope in governing the
whole Church, whereas the duty of a bishop is to feed his
sheep, which he cannot do unless he dwells among them."
¹ Ex hoc fonte tanquam ex equo Trojano irrupere in ecclesiam Dei tot
abusus et tam gravissimi morbi, quibus nunc conspicimus eam ad despera-
tionem fere salutis laborare, vel manasse earum rerum famam ad infide-
les usque, qui ob hanc præcipue causam christianam religionem derident,
adeo ut per nos, per nos inquimus, nomen Christi blasphemetur inter
gentes.
138
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
Non-residence of bishops and beneficed clergymen.
"For, in the name of God,' what sight can be more afflicting
to a Christian man than to see the solitude of the churches.
Almost all the pastors have deserted their flocks, and the
faithful are given over to mere mercenaries."
Neglect of their duties by the cardinals.
Abuses in the impediments thrown in the way of bishops
attempting to govern their dioceses and to punish the
guilty. "For bad men obtain exemption from the authority
of their bishops, or if they cannot obtain an exemption, they
immediately betake themselves to the office of the Datary and
there secure impunity for money."
In the religious orders. "We are of opinion that all
conventual orders should be abolished, but in order to
prevent injury to anyone, it will be sufficient to decree that
no new members be admitted.”
Public sacrilege in many monasteries.
Impious and irreverent treatment of sacred subjects in
the public schools, especially in Italy; "nay, in the very
churches."
Abuses in the deception of country and simple folk by
the innumerable superstitions introduced by the quæstuarii
of the Holy Ghost, of St. Anthony, and others of this sort.
"We think that these quæstuarii should be abolished."
Abuses in absolution for simony. "To what a height, in
the name of decency, has this pestilent vice come to in the
Church of God, so that some are not ashamed to commit
simony and then to seek, nay buy, absolution for the offence,
while retaining the benefices they purchased."
In bequeathing the goods of the Church as private
1 Per Deum immortalem.
2 Hawkers of indulgences, known in England as "pardoners."
3 Proh pudor.
SEC. I
139
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
property, in indulgences, and in the transfer of legacies
given for pious uses to the surviving relatives for money.
The scandal given to all foreigners by the corrupt
manners of the city of Rome, and by the open exhibition of
shameless immorality by ecclesiastics in its streets.
The scheme of reform ends with these words: "If we
have not done justice to the magnitude of the trust reposed
in us, we have at least satisfied our conscience, not without
hope that in your reign we shall see the Church of God
purged, fair as a dove, at peace with herself, and united
into one body. You have taken the name of Paul: we trust
you will imitate his charity. As he was chosen to spread
the knowledge of the name of Christ among the heathen, we
hope that you were elected to restore, in our hearts and in
our works, that holy name which is now forgotten by the
nations and by us ecclesiastics, to cure our sickness, to collect
the flock into one fold, and to save us from the wrath of God
and from the punishment which we have deserved and which
is now ready to fall upon us."
Such was the condition of the Church throughout Europe
as depicted by Popes and cardinals when Henry VIII.
came to the throne,-unsoundness in its head and members;
the whole world, as Pope Adrian said, longing ardently for
its reform. Revolutions which shake the deepest foundations
of society, and destroy old forms of belief; reformations,
for which a world is anxiously looking, do not take their rise
from the will of a single individual. They are the slow
growth of time, the outcome and final result of centuries of
forgetfulness of duty, and of infinite and wide-spread mis-
management. It is as great a folly to attribute the English
Reformation to the will of Henry as to ascribe the gradual
¹ This scheme of reform was put on the Index by Pope Paul IV.,
though he himself had been a member of the commission which drew it
up. This is the only instance of a Pope putting himself on the Index.
140
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
}
?
The
and necessary progress of the Papacy to the False Decretals,
or to assert that the French Revolution sprang from a single
cause. At the time of Henry's accession the Reformation
was already in existence, silently working and fermenting
in the minds of all men, Popes, cardinals, and laymen. Any
occasion might give it birth; at any moment, any individual
-a monk in Germany or a King in England-might call it
forth and clothe it with a shape and a name. Henry's part
in the English movement has been greatly overrated.
hatred of ultramontane writers, his conspicuous position, and
the long drama of the divorce, have given him an undue
position in its history. We shall find on examining his
reign that what Fuller and our other ecclesiastical historians
assert is strictly true, "that there was nothing done in the
Reformation save what was acted by the clergy in their
Convocation, or grounded on some act of theirs precedent to
it." Henry's principal achievement was, that he carried
the country safely, without massacres, and without a general
civil war, through the most tremendous crisis that ever
existed in England.
SECTION II
WE have seen the nature and extent of the ecclesiastical
supremacy to which Henry succeeded. Two incidents in
the early part of his reign, while he was yet recognized
as a devoted son of the Church, show us that he was well
acquainted with this supremacy, and was resolved to main-
tain it. There still exists a copy of his coronation oath,
altered and interlined with his own hand. The old form
runs thus: "The King shall swear at his coronation that
he shall keep and maintain the rights and liberties of Holy
Church, of old time granted by the righteous Christian
Kings of England." The oath as altered stands: "The
King shall then swear that he shall keep and maintain the
lawful right and the liberties of old time granted by the
righteous Christian Kings of England to the Holy Church
of England, not prejudicial to his jurisdiction and dignity
royal." The second incident took place in the sixth year of
his reign. By a statute² passed three years before, which
was only to endure till the next Parliament, it had been
enacted that the benefit of clergy should be taken from those
who were in minor orders, who had been guilty of murder or
highway robbery.³ In 1515 the Abbot of Winchcomb
1
¹ Ellis, Original Letters, second series, 1, 176.
24 Henry VIII. c. 2.
³ There were five minor orders: subdeacons, acolyths, exorcists,
readers, ostiaries.-Gibson's Codex, 1, 99.
142
CHAF. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
declared in a sermon at Paul's Cross that the Act was against
the laws of God and the liberties of Holy Church; that all
who were concerned in making it had incurred the censures
of the Church; and that, although only the greater orders
were excepted in the Act, all clerks, who had received
orders of any kind, were exempt from punishment for
criminal causes before a temporal judge. On the other
hand it was affirmed by Dr. Standish, before a council of
divines and temporal lords, summoned by the King to
examine an assertion so derogatory to the laws of the land,
that the convening of the clergy before a temporal judge in
criminal causes was not contrary to the law of God or the
liberties of the Church. For which opinion, among others,
he was brought before Convocation and articles there exhibited
against him.
Standish appealed for protection to the King,
who summoned a meeting of the Lords, many of the Commons,
the Judges, and the Privy Council, to hear the matter debated.
A further and full examination of the question took place,
and Wolsey entreated the King, in the name of the clergy,
to refer the decision of the matter to the Pope and the Con-
clave. To this the King replied that he thought Dr. Standish,
and others of his council, had given a sufficient answer to the
clergy. Warham then urged that divers holy fathers of the
Church had opposed the convening of ecclesiastics before a
temporal judge, and even suffered martyrdom in defence of
that opinion. Fineux, the Chief Justice, then asked by what
law bishops could judge clerks for felony, it being a thing
determinable only in the temporal court. "Either a clerk,"
he continued, "must be prosecuted in the temporal court, or
escape the punishment due to his crime." The prelates
making no answer to this dilemma, the King said, “By the
providence and permission of God we are King of England,
and the Kings of England in times past had never any
superior but God only. Therefore, know you well that we
SEC. II
143
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
will maintain the rights of our Crown and of our temporal
jurisdiction as well in this as in all other points, in as ample
a manner as any of our progenitors have done before our
time. And as for your decrees, we are well assured that
you of the spirituality go expressly against the words of
divers of them, as hath been shown you by some of our
council; and you interpret your decrees at your pleasure,
but we will not agree to them more than our progenitors
have done in former times.'
""
No occurrence in this reign has been so much misunder-
stood as the acknowledgment of the King's supremacy by
the Convocation, in 1531. What the King meant when he
demanded this acknowledgment, and what the clergy intended
by making it, have been equally misrepresented. Though the
King expressed himself clearly on the subject, and though
bishops preached, and wrote books, "by the advice and
consent of Convocation," in favour of the royal supremacy,
we still affect to be in doubt as to the wishes and intentions
of the King and of his clergy. Some writers even appear to
think that, in requiring to be recognised as head of the
English Church, Henry laid claim to a spiritual supremacy.
The bishops, five of whom wrote in favour of the King's
claim,² had no such idea, either at the time they voted
unanimously for it, or six years after. In 1537 a treatise,
known as the Bishops' Book, or the "Institution of a Christian
Man," appeared, in which both the bishops and the King bore
a part, the former in compiling it and the latter in publishing
it with his authority. It was addressed to the King, as
supreme head in earth, immediately under Christ, of the
Church of England," and was signed by all the archbishops
and bishops of England, and by twenty-five others, as repre-
66
1
Strype, Mem. Eccles. 1, 263.
2 Fox of Hereford; Gardiner of Winchester; Stokesly of London;
Tunstall of Durham; Bonner, afterwards of London.
144
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
sentatives of both Houses of Convocation. In this treatise
the nature of the spiritual commission claimed by the Church,
and that of the temporal authority of the State, are accurately
distinguished, and the line between them carefully drawn.
"We think it convenient that all bishops and preachers shall
instruct and teach the people, committed unto their spiritual
charge, that the jurisdiction committed unto priests and
bishops by the authority of God's law, consisteth in three
special points. The first is, to rebuke and reprehend sin,
and to excommunicate the manifest and obstinate sinners,
that is to say, to separate, exclude, and repel from the
communion and perception of the sacraments, and to reject
and cast out of the congregation and company of Christ's
people, such persons as have manifestly committed mortal sin
and do obstinately persevere in the same: and to absolve
and receive them again whensoever they shall return unto
the Church by condign penance, &c. . . .
The second point
is to approve and admit such persons as [being nomi-
nated, elected, and presented unto them, to exercise the office
and room of preaching the Gospel, and of ministering the
sacraments, and to have the cure of jurisdiction over these
certain people within this parish or within this diocese] shall
be thought unto them meet and worthy to exercise the same;
and to reject and repel from the said room such as they shall
judge to be unmeet therefor. The third point is
to make and ordain certain rules or canons concerning
holidays, fasting-days, the manner and ceremonies to be used
in the ministration of the sacraments, the manner of singing
the psalms and spiritual hymns, as St. Paul calleth them, the
diversity of degrees among the ministers, and the form and
manner of their ornaments, and, finally, concerning such
other rites, ceremonies, and observances as do tend and
conduce to the preservation of quietness and decent order to
be had and used among the people when they shall be
+
SEC. II
145
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
assembled together in the temple. And forasmuch also as
great trouble, unquietness, and tumult might arise among
the multitude so assembled, in case there were no certain
rules, ordinances, and ceremonies prescribed unto them,
whereby they should be contained in quietness, and not
suffered to do every man after his own fashion or appetite;
it belongeth unto the jurisdiction of priests and bishops to
make certain rules or canons concerning all these things and
for the causes aforesaid," &c.
The ecclesiastical supremacy of the sovereign is thus
described and qualified :-" God constituted and ordained
the authority of Christian kings and princes to be the most
high and supreme above all other powers and offices in the
regiment and governance of his people; and committed unto
them, as unto the chief heads of their commonwealths, the care
and oversight of all the people which be within their realms.
and dominions without any exception. And unto them of
right and by God's commandment belongeth, not only to
prohibit unlawful violence, and correct offenders by corporal
death or other punishment, to conserve moral honesty among
their subjects, according to the laws of their realms, to
defend justice, and to procure the public weal, and the
common peace and tranquillity in outward and earthly
things; but specially and principally to defend the faith
of Christ and his religion, to conserve and maintain the true
doctrine of Christ, and all such as be true preachers and
setters forth thereof, and to abolish all abuses, heresies, and
idolatries, which be brought in by heretics and evil preachers,
and to punish with corporal pains such as of malice be
occasioners of the same; and finally to oversee and cause
that the said priests and bishops do execute their said power,
office, and jurisdiction truly, faithfully, and according in all
points as it was given and committed unto them by Christ
and his apostles; which notwithstanding, we may not think
L
146
CHAP. II
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
that it doth appertain unto the office of kings and princes to
preach and teach, to administer the sacraments, to absolve,
to excommunicate, and such other things belonging to the
office and administration of bishops and priests; but we
must think and believe that God has constituted and made
Christian kings and princes to be as the chief heads and
overlookers over the said priests and bishops to cause them
to administer their office and power committed unto them
purely and sincerely.
And God hath also commanded
the said priests and bishops to obey, with all humbleness
and reverence, all the laws made by the said princes, being
not contrary to the laws of God, whatsoever they be; and
that not only propter iram, but also propter conscientiam."
This treatise was again published in 1543 and 1545 with
some additions, under the title of "The necessary doctrine
and erudition for any Christian man." The King prefaced
it with a declaration, the last sentence of which is-"So
as, endeavouring ourselves to live quietly and charitably
together, each one in his vocation, we shall be so replenished
with manifold graces and gifts of God, that after this life we
shall reign in joy everlasting with the only head of the univer-
sal Catholic Church, our Saviour and Redeemer Jesus Christ."
Further on we shall see what the King meant by this claim to
be the head of the English Church at the time when the
matter was still in debate before the Convocation of York.
The immediate causes of the King's demand, that he
should be recognized as the head of the Church-or as he
himself explained it, the head of the English clergy regarded
as citizens and not as spiritual pastors¹-were the malpractices
of Wolsey and of that clergy, and the fact that the ecclesias-
tical order claimed to be a body exempted from and above
the law of the land.
¹ See the well-known letter of the King to the clergy of the Province
of York.-Cabala, 2, 1.
SEC. II
147
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
There never was a man more justly punished than
Wolsey. The first question to be determined in consider-
ing whether or not he was guilty of the offences laid to his
charge is, what authority he was possessed of under his
legatine commission? This question has been overlooked by
those historians with whom Wolsey's patronage of learning
has covered all his faults, and even his insatiable rapacity.
Hume has asserted that he was condemned for taking on
himself the character of a legate, and Atterbury and others
have repeated the groundless statement. Wolsey was pun-
ished, not for obtaining a commission as Papal legate, but
for having exercised, under colour of that commission, an
authority which was directly contrary to the laws of England.
At the time when he was appointed legate, the Pope,
who commissioned him, had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction in
England, nor could he appoint to the meanest office in the
English Church. The Pontiff might, and did, down to and
including the case of Cranmer, go through the form of
drawing up bulls providing bishops for English sees, and
regulating the concerns of the English Church; but these
bulls possessed no force until quickened into life by the
assent of the King, and the recipents of them sued out
their pardon for having accepted or read them. As has
been said, no Englishman, lay or cleric, could send to, or
receive from, Rome, any communication without the previous
license of the King, except in testamentary and matrimonial
appeals. If he did so, he incurred the penalties of outlawry
and imprisonment; and if he accepted, without the same
license, a dignity or benefice in England from the Pope, he
was liable to banishment for ever, and forfeiture of all his
property, real and personal. What the Pope had not, he
could not convey to a deputy.
every document which emanated from Rome was waste
paper, unless the King, of his special favour, and by his
In the face of English laws
L2
148
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
letters patent, ratified and confirmed each particular act and
instrument. No one knew better than Wolsey that a Papal
bull or letter had not of itself the slightest effect in England,
and that it was illegal to act upon or even to receive such
instruments without the special license of the King. In
1524, six years after he was appointed legate, he obtained a
bull from the Pope authorizing him to suppress the monas-
tery of St. Frideswide, and to convert its revenues to the use
of his college at Oxford. "We have inspected," says the
King in his letters patent issued on this occasion, “the bull
granted to Thomas, Archbishop of York, and legate of the
Apostolic See, by Clement, seventh of that name, and believ-
ing that it was issued for no other purpose than to convert
the revenues of the college to a better use, we, of our special
favour, approve and ratify the suing out of the said bull, its
presentation, exhibition, acceptance, or reception, and its
execution; our intention being that none of our justices or
ministers should, under colour of our prerogative or the
rights of our Crown, presume to question or institute pro-
ceedings by reason of any application for it, or the exhibition,
acceptance, execution, or use of the same." In addition to
the impotency of Wolsey's commission, and of him who
granted it, there is another important fact to be taken into
consideration. During the whole period of Wolsey's lega-
tion, there was another legate in England, namely, Archbishop
Warham, who, in virtue of his archbishopric, was clothed
with that office, as all his predecessors had been since the
time of William de Corbeuil. Warham was
Warham was "legatus sedis
apostolica" when Wolsey was appointed "legatus a latere."
The expression a latere or missus a latere meant simply any
one coming from the immediate presence of a prince with a
¹ Kymer, xiv. 15. The bull is set out at length in the Letters
Patent.
2 Archbishop of Canterbury, 1122–1136.
SEC. II
149
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
1
special commission. Thus, when Becket returned to England
in 1170, the young King ordered him, by the mouth of two
knights, sent a latere ejus, to reside at Canterbury. Wolsey
never had a special commission from the Pope such as was
granted to legates a latere, except when, at the end of his
career and by the desire of the King, he was appointed con-
jointly with Campeggio, to hear and determine in England the
case of Henry's marriage. We know too that the first Papal
commission to Wolsey did not contain any of the faculties
conceded to legates a latere. The omission was insisted on
by the King. In 1518, the year of Wolsey's appointment,
and before it was made, the Pope proposed to send into
England a legate a latere to urge the King to join a confede-
ration against the Turks. Campeggio was selected at Rome
for this mission. When Pace showed the King the letters
in which Campeggio's mission was announced, the latter at
once remarked, "it was not the rule of this realm to admit
legates de latere; if, however, he had nothing else except to
treat against the Turks he would admit him." Accordingly,
Wolsey wrote to the Bishop of Worcester, the English
ambassador at Rome, that the King would consent to the
coming of Campeggio, on the condition that all the faculties
which were usually granted to legates a latere should be
omitted or suspended in this case, and that his own name,
Wolsey's, should be included in the commission, "otherwise
the King will in no wise allow Campeggio to enter England."
It is clear that the King's conditions were accepted, for the
Papal commission to Wolsey merely states that the Pope
had sent Campeggio to England to further a confederation
against the Turks, and that the Pope, in consideration of
¹ Per duos milites qui a latere regis missi fuerant.-Gerv. of Canter-
bury, 1, 223.
2 Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII. vol. 2, pt. 2, 1247.
3 Ib. 1263.
150
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
Wolsey's influence with the King, had created him legate
along with Campeggio.¹ So that it appears that Wolsey's
commission as legate, to which the King assented, did not
affect to grant him any authority to interfere in Church
matters at home,' and was a mere honorary distinction which
conferred no power or even privilege on him except, perhaps,
the fanciful one of having two crosses borne before him in
the province of another Archbishop."
4
It is certain that Wolsey, before he accepted the office of
legate a latere, obtained the King's permission authorizing
him to do so, and that in accepting it with the King's
license, he committed no offence against the English law.
If Wolsey had not attempted under cover of this office to
contravene the statutes of the realm, and if he had kept the
solemn promise which he made when he first aspired to the
office, he might have safely enjoyed it."
What he was
1 Tb. 1291.
2 Yet in the first year of his legateship Wolsey ventured to forbid
Warham to hold a council of his suffragans for the reformation of
matters in the province of Canterbury. In this prohibition Wolsey
writes to the archbishop:-"Being legate a latere, to me chiefly it
appertaineth to see the reformation of the premises, though hitherto nor
in time coming I have nor will execute any jurisdiction as legate a latere
but only as shall stand with the King's pleasure."—Archbishop Wake,
State of the Church, App. 208.
3 The carriage of a cross, or bajulatio crucis as it was called, before
an archbishop, was an old and fruitful cause of quarrels between the two
metropolitans of England. Each considered it an insult to his dignity
if the other had his cross carried before him out of his own province.
In 1279 the Archbishop of York, coming to the King, had his cross
borne before him in the province of Canterbury. Thereupon Peckham
prohibited, under the penalty of excommunication, any one from furnish-
ing to the archbishop or his attendants, food, drink, or other necessaries.—
Prynne, Records, 3, 230.
4 The 28th of the Articles exhibited against Wolsey in parliament.
Wolsey in testimony of his confession subscribed all these Articles.—
Wake, 472.
5" Had Wolsey kept his word and attempted nothing contrary to
.
SEC. II
151
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
accused of was, that he abused his authority and acted
directly contrary to the Acts of Provisors and Præmunire;
that by means of Papal bulls he deprived lay and ecclesias-
tical patrons of their rights of presentation in favour of his
own creatures; that by the same means he appointed to
benefices by provision; that he drew into his legatine court
all matters cognizable in the ecclesiastical courts belonging
either to archbishops or bishops; that by means of the same
court he assumed a power of intermeddling with wills and
testaments, as Archbishop Warham told him, "not so much
as claimed by the Pope himself."
An indictment under the last statute of Præmunire was
brought against Wolsey, to which the cardinal pleaded guilty,
and threw himself on the King's mercy. He also executed
a deed to the King by which he acknowledged that on the
authority of bulls from Rome he had unlawfully vexed “the
greater number of the prelates of the realm, and other of the
King's subjects, thereby incurring the penalties of præ-
munire, for which he deserved to suffer perpetual im-
prisonment, and forfeit all his lands and goods." As some
atonement for his offence he prayed the King to take all
his temporal possessions, pensions, and benefices, of which he
offered to make further assurance when it should be required."
the King's prerogative or to the laws of the realm in virtue of it, he
might as safely have enjoyed that character without any damage to
himself or detriment to the clergy as Cardinal Pole afterwards did or
might have done. But he abused it grossly in the exercise of it.”—Ib.
482.
¹ Two cases of this kind were proved against him to support the
indictment; that he had bestowed the church of Stoke-Guilford on
James Gorton, though its patronage belonged to the Prior of St. Pancras,
and that he had given the church of Galby to Dr. Allen, the true patrons
of which were the master and fellows of the hospital of St. Lazarus in
Burton-Lazar.-Herbert's Henry VIII.
2 Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII. vol. 4, part 3,
p. 2678.
152
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
:
We also have a letter from him to the King at this time asking
for mercy, in which these words occur:-"The remembrance
of my folly, with the sharp sword of your Highness' dis-
pleasure hath so penetrated my heart that I cannot but lament-
ably cry, sufficit; nunc contine, pissime rex, manum tuam."
The general body of the clergy was punished, not for
having submitted to the legatine authority of Wolsey, but
for having offended against the laws of Provisors and
Præmunire. Wolsey, by granting faculties and instruments
by which benefices were given by provisions, and the rights
of lay and ecclesiastical patrons were set aside, had violated
these statutes, and the clergy, by purchasing and receiving
such instruments and accepting benefices under them, had
complied with and favoured his illegal and criminal pro-
cedure. That this is an accurate account of the matter,
and of the position in which they stood, is proved by the
language of the clergy on two occasions; by the words of
the pardons which were subsequently granted to them;
by the facts that they themselves did not restrain their
offence to a mere submission to the legate's authority; and
that they never denied their guilt or questioned the justice.
of their punishment. On the 7th of February, 1531, the
clergy of the province of Canterbury debated in Convocation
as to the nature of the pardon which should be asked from
the King. They described it as a general pardon and
remission of their transgressions against the penal laws and
statutes of the realm, and also against the statutes of Pre-
munire.³ And in their petition or grant to the King in the
¹ Brewer's Reign of Henry VIII. 2, 379.
2 "But notwithstanding these laws the Pope still proceeded in his
own way, and the clergy were always willing to assist him in it. And
by these means there were but very few of any note among them who
had not upon some account or other incurred the penalty before men-
tioned.”—Archbishop Wake, State of the Church, 481.
3 Wilkins' Concilia, 3, 725.
SEC. II
153
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
same year they recite as one of their reasons for making the
grant, that the King should extend to all prelates, clerks,
religious orders, abbesses, prioresses, and also to all judges,
advocates, registrars, scribes, proctors, and apparitors, who
had exercised ecclesiastical jurisdiction, his general pardon
and remission of all their transgressions both against the
penal laws and statutes of the realm, and also those against
the Acts of Provisors and Præmunire.¹ The words of the
King's pardon run thus:-"The King
"The King... calling to his
remembrance that... the Archbishop of Canterbury and
other bishops, suffragans, prelates, and other spiritual persons
of the province ... have fallen and incurred into divers
dangers of his laws by things done . . . contrary to the
order of his laws, and specially contrary to the statutes of
Provisors, Provisions, and Præmunire. . . is fully and
resolutely contented and pleased that the said archbishop,
&c., shall be by authority of this present parliament acquitted
and discharged all and all manner of offences, contempts,
and trespasses committed or done against all and singular
statute and statutes of Provisors, Provisions, and Præmunire,
and of all forfeitures and titles which may grow to the King
by reason of the same statutes.”
The pardon granted to the
clergy of the province of York is in the same terms.³
The trafficking with bulls from Rome and with provisions
appears to have been general, not only among the clergy but
even among the laity for the Commons besought the
.4
;*
¹ Generalem gratiam et pardonationem de omnibus eorum transgres-
sionibus pænalium legum et statutorum hujus regni, tum cæterorum, tum
etiam statutorum de provisoribus et præmunire.-Wilkins' Concilia, 3,
743.
2 22 Henry VIII. c. 15.-Statutes of the Realm, 3, 334.
³ 23 Henry VIII. c. 19.—7b. 383.
4 A pardon was also granted to the laity for their offences "contrary
to the statutes of Provisors and Præmunire," by the 22 Hen. VIII.
c. 16.
154
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
King to comprehend them also in the pardon granted to the
clergy.' It is hard to see, how in the face of the concurrent
testimony of the clergy and laity, the words of the King's
pardon, the confessions of Wolsey, and the parliamentary
accusation against him signed by no less a man than More,
historians have arrived at the conclusion that Wolsey was
punished for accepting a legatine commission, and that the
clergy were included in it for merely submitting to his
execution of the legation.²
So that what we find is this, that in spite of the statutes
of Provisors and Præmunire, there was a general dealing with
Papal bulls and provisions, and that the legislative Acts.
which protected the English Church from external control
were being undermined both by Wolsey and the body of the
clergy. To understand completely the reasons which induced
the King's demand to be formally recognized by the clergy
as their head, we must remember these facts and also two
other circumstances. The first is, there were then two³
parliaments in England; an Imperial parliament in which
1" Accordingly Sir Thomas Audley, Speaker of the Commons, with a
number of members along with him, waited on His Majesty, and declared
to him that his faithful Commons sore lamented and bewailed their
chance in having occasion to think or imagine themselves out of his
favour because he had granted his most gracious pardon to his
spiritual subjects on the Præmunire and not to them."-Parl. Hist.
1, 514.
2 On no occasion did the clergy deny their offence as a body, or question
the justice of the King. Shortly after the pardon, a meeting of the London
clergy was held at St. Paul's to settle the proportions of the fine to be
paid by each. The bishop told them that "through frailty and want of
wisdom they had misdemeaned themselves to the King, and had fallen
in a præmunire." The poorer incumbents refused to contribute, on
the ground that they had never meddled with the cardinal's faculties.
"Since the bishops and abbots only were guilty, and had good prefer-
ments, they ought only to be punished."-Burnet's Reform. 1, 114.
³ Or three, if we count the Convocation of York, but York generally
followed the lead of Canterbury.
SEC. II
155
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
J
both the clergy and laity were represented, and a clerical
parliament entirely confined to ecclesiastics and representing
them alone. Of these two, the clerical parliament exercised
a far more general legislative power than the Imperial
assembly, and one which affected the lives of the citizens
more frequently and more intimately. There was not an
Englishman whose every act, from his birth to his death,
was not regulated by the laws of the clerical parliament, in
which no layman sat. The Acts passed in Convocation
bound the laity,' and were administered by the Ecclesiastical
Courts. In these courts every man might, on mere suspicion
or from the malice of an informer, be summoned, and an
oath offered to him binding him to discover whatever he
knew to want amendment in rebus et personis. He was liable
to be called in question for every trifling sin and for every
offence against the moral law. It is almost impossible for
us at the present day to realize the manner in which the
enactments of this clerical parliament penetrated into the
life of the citizen, or the influence it exercised over the
arrangements of his home and family. A hasty word, a
profane ejaculation, a remark on the character of a neigh-
bour, absence from church, a loan of money at interest, a
suspicion of heresy, or the expression of a doubt, were all
sufficient to consign the victim to the tender mercies of
courts, the costs of which were enormous and which had long
ceased to exercise a true spiritual jurisdiction. Besides these
causes all questions concerning testaments, administration,
"The prelates and spiritual ordinaries . . . and the clergy have in
their Convocations heretofore made and also daily do make many and
divers fashions of law ... unto the which laws your said lay subjects
have not only heretofore been and daily be constrained to obey in their
bodies, goods, and possessions, but have also been compelled to incur
daily the censures of the same, and been continually put to impor-
table charges and expences against all equity, right, and good con-
science.”—Supplication of the Commons, 1529.
156
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
marriage, divorce, adultery, &c., were regulated by the
legislation of this clerical parliament.¹
The second circumstance is, that the clergy then formed
an estate apart from the body of the people. They were
exempted in general from the jurisdiction of the temporal
courts, and were subject only to such punishments as were
awarded by the laws of the Church and by their own enacted
in Convocation. On a late occasion, when those in minor
orders were for the first time made liable to the ordinary
criminal law, Wolsey, who as cardinal was the chief of the
English clergy, told the King in a public assembly that “in
the opinion of the clergy the convening of ecclesiastics before
temporal judges was directly contrary to the laws of God,
and that he himself and the rest of the prelates were bound
by their oath to maintain this exemption." The clergy
were in fact but half the King's subjects, and in possession
of a parliament of their own, to the legislation of which
they paid far more regard than to that of the Imperial
Parliament, which hardly touched them. The Acts of
Convocation did not require the assent of the King as was
required in the case of the statutes of the realm. Heylyn
thus describes the powers exercised by this clerical assembly.
"Before this time [25th of Henry VIII.] they acted
absolutely in their convocations of their own authority, the
King's assent neither concurring nor required; and by the
1
¹ In 1532 the body of Richard Tracy, a gentleman of position, was,
by order of Convocation, taken up and burned two years after his death,
because in his will he had bequeathed his soul to God through the
mercies of Christ only, and had left no money for masses.
2 Collier, 2, 7.
3 In Blunt's Reformation of the Church of England, vol. 1, 236,
note, it is stated that the assent of the King was given to the Acts of
Convocation in gross, and not separately, as he assented to Acts of
Parliament. Archbishop Wake and Heylyn are of opinion that the
assent of the King was not required. The Supplication of the Commons
in 1529 states positively that "the prelates and spritual ordinaries of
SEC. II
157
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
sole authority which they had in themselves, they did not
only make canons, declare heresy, convict and censure
persons suspected of heresy, in which the subjects of all
sorts, whose votes were tacitly included in the suffrages of
their pastors and spiritual fathers, were concerned alike.”
It was the existence in England of an imperium in
imperio, of a class which claimed to be above the ordinary
law of the land by the ordinance of God, and Henry's
knowledge that this class, behind his back and in the face of
stringent statutes, had been availing themselves of Papal
bulls and faculties to mismanage the English Church, and to
restore the old system of external control over it, which those
statutes had been intended to abolish for ever, that deter-
mined the King to exact from his clergy an acknowledgment
of his supremacy. He meant, as he told them, to be King
over both ecclesiastics and laymen, and to maintain his
temporal jurisdiction over them. Nor did he value their
decrees to the contrary or their interpretation of them. It
has been suggested that Henry's reason for making this
demand was his desire to put pressure on the Pope in the
matter of the divorce, but this surmise will not bear exami-
nation. The King had resolved to punish the clergy as
early as 1529, for in the Act of General Pardon of that year
the clergy were specially excepted from it.
"Also excepted
and forprised out of his pardon all offences and contempts
committed and done against the statute or statutes of
this your most excellent realm of England and the clergy of the same,
have in their Convocations heretofore made or caused to be made and
also do make many and divers fashions of laws, constitutions, and
ordinances, without your knowledge or most royal assent, and without
the assent and consent of any of your lay subjects." The answer of the
bishops to this Supplication puts the matter beyond doubt.-Answer
of the Ordinaries to the Supplication of the worshipful Commons,
Wilkins' Concilia, 3, 750; see also A Declaration of the Clergy, Ib.
753.
1 Heylyn's Tracts, 4.
158
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
Provisors and Præmunire, or any of them, and all forfeitures
and titles that may grow to the King's Highness by reason
of any of the same statutes." The divorce in 1529 was
only in the second year of its prosecution, and four years of
it had still to run. It would have been madness on the part
of the King to have alarmed the Pope at this stage. Henry
was on good terms with Clement and his Court in 1529, and
for a long time later, for in 1532 he wrote to the conclave
for a cardinal's hat for the Bishop of Worcester, and in
1533 he sent to the Pope for the bulls and pall for Cranmer
on his promotion. It is a mistake to suppose that there was
anything anti-Papal in Henry's requiring from his clergy a
recognition of his headship, or that he intended to touch the
spiritual supremacy of the Pope. So scrupulous was he
about this, that even after he had assumed the title of head
of the Church, Cranmer "was obliged at his consecration to
take the usual oath of canonical obedience to the See of
Rome." Henry himself had no idea, either at this time or
afterwards, that he was encroaching on the Pope's spiritual
supremacy. For on the 20th of May, 1533, Henry wrote
to the Pope assuring him that, after consultation with the
French King, he would do all that he could for the preser-
vation of the faith. The letter is addressed to "
holy and most clement Lord the Pope." It commences:
Beatissime pater, post humilliman commendationem, et devo-
tissima pedum oscula beatorum; speaks of the Pope's burning
zeal in propagating and preserving the Christian faith, and
describes him as the best of pastors. The letter is signed by
¹ 21 Henry VIII. c. 1; Stat. of the Realm, 3, 282.
our most
2 Dodd's Church Hist. 1, 173. His editor, Tierney, adds this note :—
"Nor was this a singular instance of the same feeling. Lee and
Gardiner, when appointed in 1531 to the Sees of York and Winchester,
were compelled to address the Pope for institution, and it was not until
the Papal bulls had arrived, that Henry invested them with their
temporalities."
SEC. II
159
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
the King as "your most devoted and most obedient son." Nor
was Clement of opinion that the proceeding was directed
against himself, for he never remonstrated with Henry for
making this demand. He and the Roman Court were well
aware, as we have seen from the letter of Pope Martin V.,
of the nature and extent of the supremacy which the Kings
of England exercised over the national Church, and knew
that in making this claim Henry did not transcend his
temporal rights.
3
In 1531 the clergy in the Convocation of Canterbury,
after long deliberation, recognized the King as the only and
singular protector of the English Church, and as its supreme
head so far as the law of Christ allowed. The question
was put by Archbishop Warham, and was unanimously
adopted, and subscribed by Warham himself, and the eight
bishops, and sixty-two abbots and priors, who formed the
Upper House, and by eighty-four members of the Lower
House, forty-eight being proxies. What meaning did the
clergy and the King attach to this new title, for the term
was new, though the fact which it represented was as old as
the monarchy ? It is clear that the former intended only to
acknowledge the temporal authority of the King over the
4
¹ Sanctissimo Clementissimoque Domino nostro Papæ. Beatissime
pater, post humillimam commendationem, et devotissima pedum oscula
beatorum ... non potuimus Sanctitatis Vestræ ... flagrans studium,
sollicitamque mentem non summopere laudare, optimique pastoris
pectore dignam existimare. . . . Ejusdem Vestræ Sanctitatis devotissimus
atque obsequentissimus filius.-Pocock, Records of the Reformation, 2,
673.
2 Tandem post longum tractatum inter nos, et confratres nostros,
prælatosque, decanos, archidiaconos et cleri nostræ Cantuariensis provin-
ciæ procuratores.
3 Ecclesiæ et cleri Anglicani, cujus singularem protectorem unicum
et supremum dominum, et quantum per Christi legem licet, etiam
supremum caput ipsius majestatem recognoscimus.-Wilkins' Concilia, 3,
742.
4 Lewis, Reformation Settlement, 22.
160
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
1.
civil establishment of the Church, and over themselves as
citizens, and did not mean to attribute spiritual jurisdiction
to him. It is also clear that the King limited the acknowledg-
ment to his jurisdiction over the persons of his clergy in
criminal matters. This appears from a letter which he
wrote in answer to one from Tunstall, Bishop of Durham,
and the Convocation of York in 1531, while the question.
was still pending before that assembly. "It were" says the
King, "nimis absurdum for us to be called caput ecclesiæ
representans corpus Christi mysticum, et ecclesiæ quæ sine ruga
est et macula quam Christus sibi sponsam elegit, illius partem
vel oblatam accipere vel arrogare. And therefore albeit
ecclesia is spoken of in these words, touched in the proem,
yet there is added et Cleri Anglicani: which words conjoined
restraineth by way of interpretation the word ecclesiam, and
is as much as to say as the Church, that is to say, the clergy
of England. . . . After that ye intend to prove, what no man
will deny, the ministration of spiritual things to have been
by Christ committed to priests to preach and minister the
sacraments, them to be as physicians to men's souls; but in
these scriptures neither by spiritual things so far extended, as
under colour of that vocabule be now-a-days, nor it proveth
not that, their office being never so excellent, yet their
persons, acts, and deeds, should not be under the power of
their prince... other crimes we leave to be ordered by the
clergy, not because we may not intermeddle with them, for
there is no doubt but as well might we punish adultery and
insolence in priests as Emperors have done, and other princes
at this day do, which ye know well enough; so as in all
those articles concerning the persons of priests, their laws,
their acts, and order of living, forasmuch as they be indeed
all temporal and concerning this present life only, in those
we be indeed in this realm caput, and because there is no
man above us here, be indeed supremum caput. As to
SEC. II
161
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
spiritual things
forasmuch as they be no worldly nor
temporal things, they have no worldly nor temporal head
but only Christ that did institute them, by whose ordinance
they be ministered here by mortal men, elect, chosen, and
ordered, as God hath willed for that purpose, who be the
clergy; who for the time they do that, and in that respect,
tanquam ministri versantur in his quæ hominum potestati non
subjiciuntur, in quibus, si male versantur sine scandalo Deum
ultorem habent, si cum scandalo hominum cognitio et vindicta
est." Here is the pith of the whole matter. As long, says
the King, as the clergy minister unfaithfully, yet without
committing an open offence against the law, they are
answerable to God alone; if they offend the law, the law is
there to punish them.'
It
The only objection made at the time to the recognition
of the King's supremacy, after its terms had been settled, by
any man in England, was an objection to the words in
which it was expressed. Tunstall thought that it should
have been drawn so as to point wholly to the civil and
secular jurisdiction. "With this explanation," he wrote to
the King, “the English clergy, and particularly myself, are
willing to go the utmost length in the recognition."
was a wise suggestion, but unhappily its acceptance was
hardly possible. The word "spiritual" was then generally
supposed to include everything ecclesiastical. As the King
himself said, "that vocabule had been too far extended."
Tunstall had proposed that to the recognition should be
added the words in temporalibus. Henry objected that
these words were unnecessary.
"Whereunto," he wrote
back, "in us to be called ecclesiæ Anglicana [caput] ye at
the last agree, so that there were added in temporalibus;
which addition were superfluous, considering that men,
being here themselves earthly and temporal, cannot be head
¹ The King's letter is in the Cabala, 2, 1.
2 Collier, 2, 63.
M
162
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
and governor to things eternal, nor yet spiritual, taking that
word spiritual not as the common speech abuseth it, but as it
signifieth indeed." Had Tunstall's suggestion been accepted,
it would have helped to remove doubt on the subject, and
might have saved the lives of some men of tender conscience,
who believed that the recognition included a spiritual
supremacy. If we are to judge of the opinions of indi-
viduals by their acts and omissions, we must conclude that
the acknowledgment of the King's supremacy was approved
by two men whose deaths have been always justly deplored.
Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, was present at the Convocation
which voted it, and himself subscribed its decree. More
than two years later he advised his brother bishops to swear
obedience to the King "in causes ecclesiastical and spiritual."
More was Chancellor of England at the time when it passed,
and continued to be so twelve months after the decree was
made.
The Act of 1532 in restraint, not for the abolition, of
annates or first fruits, has also been attributed to the
anti-Papal feeling of the King. There is not the slightest
ground for this opinion. The Act sprang entirely from
Convocation, and from the opposition of the English prelates
to the payment of this tax to the Pope. Annates were "the
entire revenue of one year "³ of their sees, which the arch-
bishops and bishops paid on their promotion. Their payment
"His inquam aliisque multis rationibus inductus ac deceptus,
Roffensis [de quo postea sæpissime gravissimeque doluit] necessitati
presenti cedendum ratus, persuasit reliquis qui firmiores adhuc erant in
clero, nam plerique jam archiepiscopis Cranmero et Leio, huic Ebora-
censi, illi Cantuarensi, qui ambo Regis negotium promovebant, adhæse-
rant, ut saltem cum exceptione illa prædicta (quantum per Dei verbum
liceret) obedientiam Regi in causis ecclesiasticis ac spiritualibus jura-
rent.”—Sander, De Origine ac Progressu Schismatis Anglicani, p. 97;
Cologne ed. 1610.
2 23 Henry VIII. c. 20; Stat. of the Realm, 3, 385.
3 Fuller's Church Hist. 196.
SEC. II
163
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
•
had been forbidden by the Councils of Constance and Basle
in 1414 and 1431, and this decree was adopted by the
French Council of Bourges in 1438. In other countries
they were exacted in the case of all benefices, but in England
only in that of archbishoprics and bishoprics.¹ In this
kingdom, where they had always been paid with reluctance,
they were a comparatively new imposition. They have been
ascribed to Pope John XXII., 1316-1334, and also to
Boniface IX., 1389-1404. But as long ago as 1306 the
clergy and people of England remonstrated with the Pope
on his claim to first fruits as being one "never heard of
before and very prejudicial to the King, nation, and support
of the poor." An Act in restraint of annates was passed
more than a hundred years before the accession of Henry
VIII. By the 6th of Henry IV. c. 1, in 1404, reciting
that "a horrible and damnable custom had been lately
introduced into the Court of Rome, that no ecclesiastic
should have provision for an archbishopric or bishopric until
he had compounded with that Court to pay great and
excessive sums of money for the first fruits," it was
enacted that no person in future should pay greater sums
than had been customary in old times. In 1528 Henry's
ambassadors to the Pope were in friendly treaty with the
Pontiff concerning the freeing of the English Church from
this exaction. "Another business of the ambassadors now
was, to treat with the Pope concerning taking away the
burden of first fruits from the clergy of England. The
first moving thereof to the Pope happened seasonably upon
2
¹ Hanc autem consuetudinem omnes admisere præter Anglos, qui id
de solis episcopatibus concessere; in cæteris beneficiis non adeo.-Platina,
in Vita Bonifaciï 1X.
2 In the reign of Queen Mary, the Lower House of Convocation
presented an address to the Upper, in which it was prayed that the
clergy might be delivered from the "importable burden of the first
fruits, tenths, and subsidies."-Burnet, Collection of Records, 5, 402.
M 2
164
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
In
the Pope's communication with them concerning the bishops
of England, and the great age of some of them, and particu-
larly Norwich, who was then about eighty years old. Of
him they told the Pope, that he had a motion to the King
and cardinal for the taking away these first fruits in his
diocese. The Pope asked how and after what manner it
might be done. They answered, by redemption, and then
showed him a device of the King and cardinal which he
liked very well, and so did the cardinals then present."¹
Shortly before the passing of the statute, a petition was
presented by Convocation to the King praying for "an Act
to take away annates exacted by the Court of Rome."
this petition the Convocation made use of the very same
arguments which were afterwards inserted in the Act itself.
They set forth how the Papal Court exacted first fruits
before the bishops could obtain their bulls out of the said
court; the mischief their payment caused to the nation;
the decay of the land, and the great impoverishment of the
bishops; that owing to these exactions the bishops were not
able to repair their churches, houses, and manors, and that
this was the cause of their decay; and that they could not
bestow the goods of the Church in hospitality and charity,
as they were bound to do by the law, and the intentions of
1
¹ Strype, Memor. Eccles. 1, 168.
2 It has been lately asserted that this petition against annutes
proceeded from parliament and not from Convocation, on the ground
that a similar petition has been found in our records entitled "from
parliament."
But to this it may be answered:-(1) there is no account
in any of our histories of such a petition being presented by parliament :
(2) there is no mention of a petition from parliament in this reign;
mention is made of petitions from one of the Houses, but a petition from
parliament, if assented to by the King, would be a legislative act:
(3) what settles the matter is, the Commons were at first opposed to the
Act [Stubbs' Lectures, 280-1]. The mistake has probably arisen from
the words recording a petition, which ran thus :-Quædam petitio exhibita
est domino regi in parliamento.
SEC. II
165
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
the donors of their endowments. The Convocation ends
their petition with this prayer:-"First to cause the said
unjust exactions of annates to cease and to be foredone for
ever by Act of this his Grace's high court of parliament.
And in case the Pope will make any process against this
realm for the attaining those annates, or else will retain
bishop's bulls till the annates be paid; forasmuch as the
exaction of the said annates is against the law of God, and
the Pope's own laws forbidding the buying or selling of
spiritual gifts and promotions; and forasmuch as all good
Christian men be more bound to obey God than any man,
and forasmuch as St. Paul willeth us to withdraw ourselves
from all such as walk inordinately; it may please the King's
most noble grace to ordain in this present parliament, that
then the obedience of him and the people be withdrawn from
the See of Rome, as in like case the French King withdrew
the obedience of him and his subjects from Pope Benedict,
the XIIIth of that name, and arrested by authority of his
parliament all such annates, as it appeareth by good writing
ready to be showed.'
991
This petition of Convocation is well worth our attention.
It was a revival of the old English policy to limit the Pope
to his spiritual authority, and to prevent the impoverishment
of the English Church. The assembly which governed that
Church called upon the secular prince and his parliament to
come to their aid, and in defence of the bishops to ordain
that, should the Pope not cease to impoverish them by his
exactions, the obedience of the kingdom should be withdrawn
from the Pope so far as concerned his aggressions on the
temporal possessions of the Church. The members of
Convocation were willing to pay, as they express it, the
competent charges for the writing and sealing of bulls, and
1
¹ Strype, Memor. Eccles. 1, 222, Appendix, 158; Wilkins' Concilia,
3, 760.
166
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
to remunerate the labour of the Papal officers, but they
required that the amount of their payments should be
determined, not by the Roman Curia, but by the laws of
their country. If the Pope did not agree to their terms,
they were prepared to face the consequences, and content
that their bishops should perform the functions of their
sacred office without the Pope's confirmation.
This was
not by any means the first occasion on which the English
Church manifested its hostility to Papal pressure. There is
a wonderful continuity in our ecclesiastical history. In the
reign of Henry I., as we have seen, all ranks, including the
greater and lesser clergy, declared that if Anselm persevered
in his attempts to introduce the decrees of the Vatican
Council respecting the investiture and homage of English
bishops, they would drive him from the kingdom and
separate from the Roman Church. In 1392 the archbishops
and bishops adopted the language of the Commons, and
asserted that Papal excommunications, issued against those
prelates who carried out the English law respecting presen-
tations to benefices, were in open disherison of the Crown,
and subversive of the laws of the realm, and that they, for
their part, would stand by the King. In the sixteenth
century, four hundred years after the national declaration in
the reign of Henry I., the English Convocation, representing
all ranks and orders of the Anglo-Catholic Church, both
secular and regular, petitioned the King that, in case the
Pope should continue to exact the annates, and to put
pressure for their payment on the bishops by delaying their
bulls, he would ordain that the obedience of him and his
people should be withdrawn from the Roman See.
We must not, however, push the thing too far, and
attribute to the members of this Convocation wishes and
intentions which they did not entertain. Such expressions
as "separating from the Roman Church," and "withdrawing
SEC. II
167
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
their obedience from the See of Rome," had a very different
meaning in the reign of Henry I., or in that of Henry VIII.,
from that which would be attached to them if used at the
present day. Those who then used such terms had no inten-
tion of separating themselves from Catholic unity, or of
denying the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. To the
members of the Convocation which drew up the petition
to take away annates, the payment of them was a mere
secular matter, wholly unconnected with the spiritual autho-
rity of the Pope. And because they looked upon it in this
light, they called upon the State to protect them, and to
provide for the continuation of the episcopal functions, in
case the Pope should withhold his confirmation of those
prelates who were appointed by the King. The Convocation
of this reign meant only the same thing which the clergy
meant in that of Henry I., viz. to refuse obedience to the
Pope when he exceeded his true spiritual authority, and
attempted to regulate such matters as lay without it.
The Act in restraint of annates was eminently fair. It
did not abolish them at once, but only if the Pope did not
accept the compromise offered in it. "To the intent our said
holy father the Pope and the Court of Rome shall not think
that the pains and labours
about the writing, sealing
of any bulls
•
shall be irremunerated or shall not
be sufficiently and condignly recompensed, it is enacted . . .
that every spiritual person of this realm named and presented
to any archbishopric or bishopric . . . shall and may lawfully
pay for the writing and obtaining of his bulls . . .
. . five
pounds sterling for and after the rate of the clear and whole
yearly value of every hundred pounds sterling above all
charges of any such archbishopric or bishopric." The final
confirmation of the Act was suspended until Easter, 1533, or
the next meeting of parliament. If the Pope should in the
meantime “amicably, charitably, and reasonably compound,
168
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
""
or else by some friendly, loving, and tolerable composition
moderate the annates, the agreement respecting them between
him and the King was to have the effect of a law "inviolably
to be observed." To allow time for the proposed arrange-
ment and to enable the King to carry it out when accepted,
a power was given to him to declare by his letters patent, at
any time before the expiration of the period limited, how
much of the Act should have effect. The Roman Court was
"informed and certified "1 of the contents of the Act and of
the proposal in it, "to the intent that by some gentle ways
the said exactions might have been redressed and reformed."
But the Pope made no proposals. Accordingly, in 1533, a
second Act was passed confirming the former, and also con-
taining provisions for the consecration of prelates in England
-provisions which had been suggested in the petition of
Convocation.
The first Act originated in the Lords, and was thence
sent down to the Commons, and being agreed to there,
received the royal assent, though it had not its final con-
firmation till July, 1533. At this time there sat in our
Upper House twenty-one archbishops and bishops, and
thirty abbots and priors."
The enactments against appeals to Rome-first for their
restraint,³ and afterwards for the abolition of all such appeals¹
-have also been ascribed to the King's wish to put pressure
on the Pope. This is a result of the theory which attributes
everything to the King and nothing to the nation, though
¹ 25 Henry VIII. c. 20, s. 2.
2 There is a lacuna in the Lords' Journals between the parliament of
1515, and that of 1533, the one in which the second Act against annates
passed. On the first day of the latter parliament the names of nineteen
archbishops and bishops, and thirty abbots and priors, are given as being
present in person or by proxies. The number of lay lords present on the
same day is fifty-one.-Lords' Journal, 1, 58.
3 24 Henry VIII. c. 12. 1533.
4 25 Henry VIII. c. 19. 1534.
SEC. II
169
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
•
the French ambassador about this time informed his master
that "the whole country was in a blaze against the Pope."
A historian' even tells us that the Act-he is referring to the
first" had a special as well as a national bearing, and here
it is less easy to arrive at a just conclusion. It destroyed the
validity of Queen Catherine's appeal; it placed a legal power
in the hands of the English judges to proceed to pass sentence
upon the divorce; and it is open to the censure which we
ever feel entitled to pass upon a measure enacted to meet
the particular position of a particular person." All this is
a mistake. The Act had not, and could not have, any effect
on Catherine's cause, nor did it give power to English judges
to pass sentence upon the divorce. The Act referred only
to causes which were depending, or thereafter to be com-
menced, in English Courts. Catherine's cause had never
been before such a Court, nor was her application to evoke
the cause to Rome, an appeal in the sense intended by the
Act, namely, an application to a foreign Court to review,
and finally decide, a cause already decided in an English
Court. Catherine's motion, so often spoken of as an appeal,
was merely an application or petition to the same Court in
which the cause had commenced, to hear the cause itself,
and not by commissioners or deputies appointed by it. It
was an appeal in no sense of that word, either under the Act,
or as generally understood when we are speaking of matters
of jurisdiction. Even in the section which refers to the
special appeal given in causes in which the King was con-
cerned, the words restrain the effect of the Act to causes
now depending or that shall come in contention in any
the foresaid courts," that is, English courts.
66
of
Surely, we may leave conjectures aside when the history
of the English Church, and the Act itself, supply us with
sufficient reasons for these enactments. These provisions
1 Mr. Froude.
170
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
against appeals to Rome were but the confirmation of the
ancient law of the land. It was enacted by the Constitutions
of Clarendon, which had never been repealed, that appeals in
ecclesiastical causes should proceed from the archdeacon to
the bishop, and from the latter to the archbishop; if the
archbishop failed to do justice, the last resource was to the
King. Appeals to Rome were always disliked by the bishops
and prelates, and for the reasons given in the Act-the
enormous costs, the long delay, and the great difficulty of
forwarding the proofs and witnesses to a distant city. In
the reign of William Rufus all the English bishops sided
with the King against Anselm, who proposed to refer
matters relating to the English Church to Rome. Pope
Paschal II. tells us, in 1115, that the bishops of England
prevented persons from appealing to Rome. At the Council
of Lyons, in 1246, the suffragan bishops of Canterbury told
the Pope that the summoning of English subjects before a.
foreign tribunal was contrary to the privileges of the
kingdom. Though the law against appeals to Rome was
constantly violated in the reign of John and his son, yet
that arose from the alliance between the Pope and the King,
in whose power it lay at any moment to prevent this. But
on the accession of Edward I. they were again regarded as
illegal, and as such forbidden. From the time of this
monarch, and especially from the passing of the last Præ-
munire Act up to the period we are now considering, appeals
to Rome depended entirely upon the temper of our Kings.
We are so accustomed to hear every occurrence of Henry's
reign referred to his irritation about the divorce, that we are
tempted to ask why it was, that this particular juncture was
selected to forbid absolutely appeals to Rome, when up to
this period they had been occasionally allowed? It must be
remembered that the clergy had been lately punished for
their offences against the laws of Provisors and Præmunire,
SEC. II
171
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
and for accepting benefices by provisions from Wolsey, who
being himself a candidate for the Papal throne, was not
likely to weaken the influence of the Papacy, or to restrain
the number of instruments issuing from it. We may be
certain that with the increase of Papal bulls, faculties, and
provisions, during Wolsey's tenure of the legatine office,
appeals to Rome were multiplied in proportion. The Act
may have been a consequence of the misbehaviour of the
clergy, and it may have been necessary to make a legislative
declaration against the custom of appealing to Rome. It is
remarkable that the final prohibition of appeals is contained
in the Act which forbade the Convocation to meet or consult
without the express sanction of the King. To us, at this
distance of time, there appears to be no connexion between
the legislative power of Convocation and appeals to Rome.
But the parliament may have taken a different view of the
matter. This association of the restraint of the clerical legis-
lation with the custom of appealing to Rome, looks as if the
parliament not only remembered the recent transgressions
of the clergy, but also considered that appealing to Rome
was a part and parcel of the special and exclusive status to
which the clergy then laid claim. However this may be,
it appears that the clergy heartily concurred in the abolition
of appeals, for, if the Acts did not meet their approbation,
how did it come to pass that, although fifty-one of their
prelates sat in Parliament, there is no mention in our
histories of any one of them speaking or protesting against
them ?
The Act¹ abolishing Peter's Pence and payments to Rome
for dispensations of "human laws made and used within this
realm," is noteworthy for the memorable declaration made
by the King and parliament, that they were acting politically,
and not meddling with things in their nature spiritual. The
¹ 25 Henry VIII. c. 21. 1534.
172
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
(6
Act recited that as the King was the head of the Church of
England, and had been recognized as such by the clergy in
their synods, it lay within his power, with the assent of the
Lords spiritual and temporal and the Commons, to ordain,
upon all such laws as have been made and used in this
realm," that no person should in future pay any pensions,
censes, portions, Peter's Pence, or any other impositions,
to the See of Rome. Lest their proceedings should be
misinterpreted, and it should be thought that they intended
to touch or weaken the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, they
thus explain themselves: "Provided always that this Act,
nor any thing or things therein contained, shall be hereafter
interpreted or expounded, that your Grace, your nobles, and
subjects, intend by the same to decline or vary from the
congregation of Christ's church in any things concerning the
very articles of the Catholic faith of Christendom, or in any
other things declared by Holy Scripture and the Word of
God necessary for your and their salvation; but only to
make an ordinance by policies necessary and convenient to
repress vice, and for good conservation of this realm in peace,
unity and tranquillity, from ravin and spoil, insuing much
the old ancient customs of this realm in that behalf; not
minding to seek for any relief, succours, or remedies for any
worldly things and human laws in any cause of necessity,
but within this realm at the hands of your Highness, your
heirs and successors, Kings of this realm, which have and
ought to have an Imperial power and authority in the same,
and not obliged in any worldly causes to any other superior."
Though this declaration of the King and parliament is
limited in words to the present Act, it can hardly be doubted
that it was intended to be an explanation of the policy they
were then carrying out. That is, that their ordinances were
temporal, and referred only, as they say, to worldly things
and human laws, and that they did not mean to assume a
SEC. II
173
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
spiritual jurisdiction or to claim an interference in matters
connected with the faith of Christendom. They professed
that they were making no change, but only "insuing" the
ancient customs of the realm, to which an abolition or trans-
lation of a spiritual power was unknown, in order to guard it
from ravin and spoil which are material. They acknow-
ledged that they were bound by the Holy Scriptures, yet
they knew that in these the power of the Keys was given,
not to sovereign princes or secular assemblies, but to the
Apostles and their successors. If we compare this solemn
announcement with the previous statement of the King, that
he claimed only a supremacy over the persons of ecclesiastics
for their crimes, and with the expressions in the "Bishops'
Book" published three years after this Act, we are forced to
conclude that the King made no claim to a spiritual juris-
diction in the Church, and that the bishops and English
Convocation were satisfied that he did not.
Almost contemporaneously with this Act-for there was
only a week between the two events-Clement, on the 23rd of
March, 1534, gave a definitive sentence in Henry's divorce.
By this judgment the marriage with Catherine was pro-
nounced to be valid, and the King was commanded to
accept her as his wife. In case of his refusal to obey,
excommunication was denounced against him,' and the
Emperor was made the executor of the sentence.2
The Emperor was perfectly willing to undertake the
execution of the Papal sentence, if his numerous other
engagements and the threatening aspect of affairs in
Germany had not prevented him and saved England from
1
¹ In this bull, as given by Sander, the issue of Henry and Anne were
declared bastards, and the King was pronounced to have fallen to his
own damnation under the censure of the greater excommunication, but
time for repentance was granted until the end of the following September.
-Sander, De Origine Schismatis Anglicani, p. 101.
2 Lord Herbert.
174
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
1
the danger of an invasion. Among the kingdoms and
nations which owned Charles as lord, were the Netherlands,
a country with which Englishmen were familiar, for the
trade between England and the Low Countries was very
great, and there were fifteen thousand Flemings resident in
London. In these provinces Charles had, for twelve or
fourteen years, been busy in burning, beheading, hanging,
and burying alive, thousands of dissentients from the faith of
Rome. The number of these unhappy victims of persecution
has been placed as high as a hundred thousand by Grotius,
and has seldom been put at a lower mark than fifty
thousand. These proceedings must have been perfectly well
known in England, and must have taught its inhabitants
what the execution by a foreign sovereign of a Papal
sentence against their King meant. But Henry and his
people were not daunted. The beacons throughout the realm
were repaired; the fortresses near the coast were put in
order; the artillery and munitions of war were cleaned and
made ready; orders were sent to veteran seamen to see the
ships thoroughly overhauled, and preparations were made to
repel an invasion.³
The fear of an excommunication and of its consequences
drove the King to take the next step he did. Henry knew
what the results of such a sentence were; that the Roman
Canonists held that excommunicated Kings ought not to be
obeyed, that an interdict on his kingdom would follow, and
that his own deposition would be proclaimed. He was
therefore desirous of knowing the opinion of the English
Church respecting a sentence which, if approved by the
clergy, would have plunged the country into the miseries
1 The Emperor always declared that "he would not fail in what was
necessary for the execution of the sentence."-Minutes of a Consultation
at Toledo, 12th April, 1534, Letters and Papers of Henry VIII., 7, 195.
2 Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic.
3 Letters, &c., of Henry VIII., 7, 177.
SEC. II
175
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
of a civil war. Accordingly he consulted the univer-
sities, "the greatest and most famous monasteries in the
kingdom," the prelates, and the two Convocations on the
question: "Whether the Roman Pontiff had a greater
jurisdiction within the Kingdom of England, conferred on
him by God in Holy Scripture, than any other foreign
bishop." On the 2nd of May, 1534, the University of
Cambridge resolved the question in the negative. On the
5th of May the Convocation of York passed a decree to the
same effect. On the 7th of June the University of Oxford
followed with a similar declaration, and in November
following the Convocation of Canterbury adopted the same
proposition. The general agreement was remarkable. The
answer was unanimous in the case of the University of
Oxford and the Convocation of York. The words of the
Cambridge declaration are, illis igitur persuasi, in unam
opinionem convenientes decrevimus. In the Convocation
of Canterbury four voices affirmed the question, one
doubted, and thirty-four decided in the negative. Wharton
tells us that he had in his possession a hundred and seventy-
five such instruments transcribed from the records in the
Exchequer; that these transcripts contained the subscriptions
of all the bishops, chapters, monasteries, colleges, hospitals,
&c., of thirteen dioceses, and that to his certain knowledge
the original subscriptions of the remaining dioceses were
lodged elsewhere. All these instruments answered the
1
3
¹ Heylyn's Tracts, 7.
2 An Romanus Pontifex habeat aliquam majorem jurisdictionem,
collatam sibi a Deo in Sancta Scriptura, quam alius quivis externus
episcopus.
³ The date of the Canterbury declaration is generally given as of
March, but from a careful consideration of the report [Wilkins' Concilia,
3, 769] I think it took place in November following. November is the
date fixed in the Appendix of Lewis's translation of Sander's De Origine
Schismatis Anglicani.
176
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
question in the negative, and also acknowledged the ecclesi-
astical supremacy of the King. This statement of Wharton
has since been more than corroborated, for we find upwards
of five hundred of these documents noted in a recent volume
of our records.¹
Notwithstanding the many assertions which have been
made on this subject, it is clear that neither the question nor
the answers to it referred to the spiritual supremacy of the
Pope, but to his claims of temporal power. The answers
were a renunciation of his pretensions to interfere with the
external regimen of the English Church and with the civil
duties of the subject. Henry himself never questioned the
Pope's spiritual supremacy, but he denied, as his prede-
cessors had done, that it invested the Pontiff with a right to
dispose at his will of the temporal possessions of the Church,
or to regulate the allegiance of the people. There can be no
doubt that the belief of the individuals and bodies to whom
the question was propounded was the same as the King's,
viz. that the Pope, as spiritual head and primate of the
Catholic Church, was the bond and principle or source
of unity, which kept its members within one communion,
irrespective of the diversity of nations which composed it.
If this be so, the question and answers must refer to some-
thing else than the Pope's spiritual supremacy. The word
used is "jurisdiction," and the answers limit themselves to
this term. "Jurisdiction" is a word of art, and a technical
expression, and was well understood to be such by the learned
persons and bodies to whom the question was put. Two
extracts from the "Bishop's Book," published three years
later, will illustrate what is here said :-"Forasmuch as after
the mind of certain doctors of the Church, this whole power
and authority belonging unto priests and bishops is divided
in two parts, whereof the one is called potestas ordinis and
¹ Letters and Papers of Henry VIII., vol. 7.
SEC. II
177
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
the other is called potestas jurisdictionis;¹ and forasmuch
also as good consent and agreement hath always been in the
Church concerning the said first part, and contrary much
controversy for this other part of jurisdiction.
Christ
did by express words prohibit that none of his apostles, or
any of their successors, should, under the pretence of the
authority given unto them by Christ, take upon them the
authority of the sword, that is to say, the authority of Kings
or of any civil power in this world .. if any bishop, of
what estate or dignity soever he be, be he Bishop of Rome or
of any other city, province, or diocese, do presume, or take
upon him authority or jurisdiction in causes or matters
which appertain unto Kings and the civil powers and their
courts, and will maintain or think that he may do so by the
authority of Christ and His Gospel, although the Kings and
princes would not permit and suffer him so to do; no doubt
that bishop is not worthy to be called a bishop, but rather a
tyrant and an usurper of other men's rights
and, there-
fore, sith Christ did never seek nor exercise any worldly
kingdom or dominion in this world, but rather . . . did
leave the said worldly governance of kingdoms, realms, and
nations to be governed by princes and potentates . . . and
commanded also His apostles and disciples to do the semblable
whatsoever priest or bishop will arrogate or presume
6
C
1 "But I am sure the noble Duke knows enough of our ecclesiastical
matters to be apprised of the distinction between the power of order'
and the 'power of jurisdiction.' The power of order' these Roman
Catholic prelates [of Ireland] possess. But the 'power of jurisdiction'
does not of necessity attach upon the 'power of order.' A man may
be a bishop, and yet it follows not of necessity that he is bishop of a
diocese. The two powers, that of order and that of jurisdiction, are
quite distinct and of distinct origin. The power of order is properly a
capacity of exercising the power of jurisdiction conferred by a competent
authority. And this power of order is conveyed through the hierarchy
itself, and no other authority but that of the hierarchy can give it.”
Bishop of St. Asaph, Debate in the Lords on the Catholic Petition, 1805.
N
178
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
""
upon him any such authority, and will pretend the authority
of the Gospel for his defence therein, he doth nothing else
but crowneth Christ again with a crown of thorns," &c. It
was not the power of order, but that of jurisdiction, which
the English Church denied to the Pope. By the word
jurisdiction in the question and answers was meant, not
the spiritual authority which is exercised over the conscience
and manifests itself in the interior court by absolving, cen-
suring, and excommunicating, but the material ecclesiastical
power of the external court, which is in truth rather political
than spiritual and is followed by civil consequences. The
meaning of the answers is this-" Although the Pope is
spiritually supreme, yet he has no power of issuing edicts
which entail a civil effect or political consequences.
We
must remember, too, that only a month previously the King
and parliament had made a solemn declaration that they
did not intend to decline or vary from the congregation of
Christ's Church in any things concerning the articles of the
Catholic faith of Christendom. The English bishops who
answered the question of the King in the negative, and who
wrote and preached in favour of his supremacy, were uncon-
scious that they were touching the spiritual supremacy of
the Pope, or breaking the bonds of Catholic unity. Some
months after this question was propounded, and before the
final breach with Rome, Archbishop Lee, one of the anti-
reformers, wrote to Cromwell inclosing his profession to
that minister.¹ In his letter, as abstracted, we find the
following words:" Is ready in this and all other things, as
his conscience and learning will suffer, to follow the King's
pleasure and commandment, so that our Lord be not offended,
and the unity of the Faith and the Catholic Church saved;
for saving whereof he perceives the King's Christian and
¹ Letters and Papers, Henry VIII. vol. 8, 114.
SEC. II
179
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
Two
Catholic mind in a statute, 25 Henry VIII. c. 21."
years later Tunstall wrote to Reginald Pole a letter in which
these expressions occur-"Ye presuppose for a ground, the
King's grace to be swerved from the unity of Christ's Church,
and that in taking upon him the title of supreme head of the
Church of England, he intendeth to separate his Church of
England from the unity of the whole body of Christendom;
taking upon him the office belonging to spiritual men,
grounded in the Scripture, of the immediate cure of souls,
and attribute to himself that belongeth to priesthood, as to
preach and teach the Word of God and to minister the sacra-
ments ; and that he doth not know what longeth to a
Christian King's office and what unto priesthood: wherein
surely both you and all other so thinking of him do err too
far. ... For his full purpose and intent is, to see the laws
of Almighty God purely and sincerely preached and taught,
and Christ's faith without blot kept and observed in his
realm; and not to separate himself or his realm any wise
from the unity of Christ's Catholic Church, but inviolably at
all times to keep and observe the same.
""
To unite the laity and clergy a civil sanction was, at the
end of this year 1534, given to the acknowledgment of the
King's ecclesiastical supremacy, which had been made by the
two Convocations and by the whole kingdom. By a statute,
which declares that it was passed "in corroboration and
confirmation" of the recognition of the clergy, it was
enacted that the King should be accepted and reputed the
only supreme head on earth of the English Church. This
was the last Act, to which an anti-Papal colour can be given
before the breach with Rome. On the 30th August, 1535,
3
¹ This was the statute containing the declaration of not declining or
varying from the faith of Christendom.
2 Collection of Records, Burnet, 6, 179.
3 26 Henry VIII. c. 1.
-
N 2
180
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
Paul III. drew up his bull against Henry and the kingdom
at large.¹ By this extraordinary document the Pope deprived
Henry of his crown; dissolved all leagues of princes with
him; gave away his kingdom to any invader; interdicted
his dominions; required all clerical and monastic bodies to
retire out of his territories; commanded his nobility to take
up arms against him; freed his subjects from all oaths of
allegiance; cut off their commerce with foreign states; and
declared it lawful for any one to seize them, to make slaves
of their persons, and to convert their effects to his own
use.
Up to the moment when Paul III., abusing and exceed-
ing the office of a judge in a matrimonial cause, declared
what was virtually war against England, and issued his
invitation to foreign princes to invade her soil, and to
enslave her inhabitants, not a word had been spoken, or a
thing done, against the spiritual supremacy of the Pope.
Without a crime and without an accusation, the whole
kingdom was involved in the offence-if there was an
offence of one; and the English Church, which had never
varied a tittle from the Catholic faith, was driven out of
the unity of Christendom. Every change which had been
hitherto made related to secular matters, or to what lay
within the authority of a national Church to alter or
regulate. Even the confirmation of bishops at home, the
only thing which wears a spiritual aspect, was first suggested
by an English Convocation, and was but a return to the
state of affairs which prevailed at an earlier period. For in
the twelfth century Pope Paschal II. declared that he knew
nothing and had never even heard of the English bishops.
Nor could the Papal Court complain of the nomination by
the King of his bishops. The nomination of bishops by
1
¹ Though not formally published until 1538, it was known immediately
in England.--Dodd's Church Hist. 1, 225, note by the Editor.
SEC. II
181
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
a sovereign is exactly similar to the institution by secular
patrons to parish churches, a matter which has never been
questioned in the Latin Church. These incumbents on
their institution receive the secret and divine influence, which
capacitates them for the performance of their sacred functions,
not from the patron, but from the episcopal ordination. It
was the same with the bishops appointed by the King.
They received their benefices and temporal possessions from
the King, but their office from Christ. The King nominated,
but bishops ordained them. The custom of royal appointment
to bishoprics had existed in England from the Saxon times to
the reign of John, and for the forty years before this period
had been exercised absolutely without an objection from the
Pope. The nomination of bishops by the secular prince was
not peculiar to England. A similar right had always been
exercised by the Kings of Castile, and afterwards by those of
Spain. By the late Concordat with Francis I. the same
privilege had been conceded by the Popes themselves to the
French Kings. The mere enumeration of the subjects of
the English enactments prior to the bull of Paul III. shows
us that they were secular, and that there was not one of
them which concerned spiritual authority. Annates, appeals
to Rome, Peter's Pence, plurality of benefices, tenths,
dispensations "of the human laws of this realm," licenses,
faculties, &c.-they all referred to the external regimen of
the Church, and to mere pecuniary payments which had
been forbidden by the decrees of General Councils. The
Council of Constance declared that it was not lawful for the
Bishop of Rome to impose any indictions or exactions upon
the Church, or upon ecclesiastical persons in the nature of a
tenth, or in any other way. The Council of Basle passed
a like decree. England had committed no fault beyond
declining to continue the payment of exactions which she
believed to be of human institution, and to concede to the
182
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
Pope a supreme jurisdiction over the temporal possessions of
her Church and the allegiance of her citizens. There was
no dispute on any matter of faith, such as in earlier times
had been the cause of division. The movement in England
was commenced and carried out by men "who were sound,
according to Roman doctrines, in all other points." The
sole question at this time between the Papacy and the
English Church was, whether the innumerable direct and
indirect payments to the Pope were of divine right, and
therefore could not be subtracted, or whether they were of
human ordination, and might be refused. The Roman
Court was not ignorant of the consequences that would
follow a sentence which, either by express words, or necessary
implication, declared the issue of Henry and Anne to be
bastards, defeated the national hopes of a tranquil succession,
and subjected England to the horrors of a religious war.
Wolsey had warned the Pope that he might lose the English
realm if he delayed giving a just decision. Henry himself
had told Clement that there "never was any prince so
handled by a Pope as your Holiness hath entreated us," and
that though the Pontiff had sent him a written promise not
to revoke the commission, he had yet in violation of his word
unjustly revoked it. In 1530 the nobles of England, among
whom were the two archbishops, four bishops, and twenty-
2
¹ See note, next page.
•
•
2 Clement's promise to the King ran as follows:-" Promittimus et in
verbo Romani pontificis pollicemur, quod ad nullius preces, requisitionem,
seu instantiam, merove motu aut aliter, ullas unquam literas, brevia,
bullas, aut rescripta quæ materiam emissarum antehac in causa
prædicta commissionum inhibitoria, revocatoria, aut quovis modo
prejudicialia quacunque ratione contineant, atque ut dictarum commis-
sionum plenam perfectam finalem et effectualem executionem
remorentur, impediant, aut in aliquo contrarientur, illave aut eorum
aliqua revocent, aut eisdem vel eorum aliquibus in toto vel in aliqua
parte eorundem præjudicent, concedemus."-Lord Herbert, History;
Burnet, Records, 6, 26.
SEC. II
183
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
two abbots, had remonstrated with the Pope against his
delay in granting what was desired by the whole kingdom,
and had threatened, if his Holiness should refuse to grant
their demand, "to find relief some other way." The
members of the Roman conclave knew what the excommuni-
cation of a King meant; that it entailed the deposition of
the sovereign, and the withdrawal of the allegiance of his
subjects. They were aware that entrusting the execution of
that excommunication to a foreign prince against whom
England had lately declared war,' and with whom she was
then in a state of armed neutrality, was a declaration of
hostilities against the country, and that a high-spirited
people would resent the management of their affairs being
delivered over to the hands of a stranger. Yet in the face
of all these things, and though the Church of England had
never departed even by a hair's-breadth from the Catholic
truth, and though not one word had been uttered, or a thing
effected, against the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, the
Pontiff and the Roman Court took a step which necessarily
led to the separation of England from the unity of Christen-
dom. If it be schism, as it undoubtedly is, to drive from
the universal fold, without a just and necessary cause, a
faithful Church which had ever kept the Catholic verity,
the Pope in issuing this bull, and the imperial cardinals who
urged him to do it, were guilty of this offence.³
1 Rymer, xiv. 405..
2 November, 1527.
3 Cardinal Manning was once of opinion that the schism did not
proceed from the English King and Church, but from Rome, and as logical
deductions from historical facts do not vary with a change in religion,
his words are here quoted "The Crown and Church of England with
a steady opposition resisted the entrance and encroachment of the
secularized ecclesiastical power of the Pope in England. The last
rejection of it was no more than a successful effort after many a failure
in struggles of the like kind. And it was an act taken by men who
were sound, according to the Roman doctrines, in all other points. . .
There is no one point in which the British Churches can be attainted of
184
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
It was not the English King or the English Church, but
the Popes themselves, who put an end to their spiritual
supremacy. By their interdicts and invitations to foreign
sovereigns to invade England and enslave her inhabitants,
they practically declared war against the kingdom and lost
their dominion over the hearts of its people. The English
were unable to distinguish between the Catholic Pontiff and
the Italian prince, who, mixing up things divine and secular,
endeavoured as far as in him lay to excite a crusade against
their country, and to extend to its soil the bloody work which
the Emperor was carrying on in the Low Countries. Silent
resentment took the place of filial obedience, and the remem-
brance of the spiritual father faded from the minds of the
people. Without a word against the Pope's spiritual
supremacy in our statutes, or a reference to it in the decrees
of our Convocations, it died away spontaneously and without
external impulse.
What was the Church of England, thus driven out of
Catholic unity, to do but what she did? It was then the
almost universal opinion of churchmen out of Italy, that the
Pope was subject to a General Council; that he could not of
himself alter the articles of religion; and that he was placed
in his seat to govern the Church, and not to introduce new
creeds. The essentials of the Christian faith, "once for all
delivered unto the saints,"" had been cleared from doubt in
those General Councils which had been held before the
Popes, corrupted by the possession of an earthly principality,
either heresy or schism. She [the Anglican Church] has rejected—what
the Eastern Churches rejected before the arrogant pretence of a
universal pontificate rashly alleged to be of divine right, imposed in
open breach of apostolical traditions and the canons of many councils.
The Churches of the East are not schismatical for their rejection of this
usurpation; neither are the Churches of Britain. But they are guilty
of the schism that obtrude this novelty as the condition of Christian
communion.”—Unity of the Church, 361-3.
1 Τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθεισῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει.
SEC. II
185
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
arrogated to themselves a temporal authority and a right
to monopolize the management of national Churches. The
Church of England naturally recurred to those times when
the universal Church was a real spiritual congregation, and
to the traditions of an institution which was a true Church
of God, undisturbed by dreams of worldly ambition and
unentangled in European politics. In the opinion of all
men, including Popes and Cardinals, a reformation was
necessary, and it was the duty of the Church of England to
set about it.¹ Left to her own guidance and deserted by her
pastor, she necessarily took into her own hands those matters
of discipline which every national Church has a power and a
right to reform, such as the marriage of the clergy, com-
munion in one or two kinds, prayers in an unknown tongue,
and the regulation of public worship.
It was inevitable that in carrying out this necessary
reformation a large share of influence should fall to the lot
of the secular prince. The Kings of England had from time
immemorial exercised a pre-eminent authority in ecclesiastical
matters, and it was to them that the clergy had, for hundreds
of years, looked as to their protectors against the oppressions
and exactions of the Papacy. The great position of the King
in the commonwealth furnished a point of union without
which at this juncture the English Church might have
dissolved away into separate and hostile bodies of sectaries.
Our lay writers have in general asserted that the share which
fell to the King was too large, and that he overrode the
Church and took into his own hands the exclusive manage-
¹ Cardinal Bellarmine thus speaks of the state of the Church before
the Reformation. "Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and
Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then
living, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in the
ecclesiastical judgments, in morals no discipline, in sacred literature no
erudition, in divine things no reverence; religion was almost extinct."
Quoted by Blunt, Reform. of the Church of England.
1
186
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
ment of religion. Our ecclesiastical historians have always
denied this, and declared that the changes were not forced
upon the Church, but that they sprang from the bosom of
the Convocation. Thus Fuller states: "Upon serious con-
sideration it will appear that there was nothing done in the
reformation of religion save what was acted by the clergy in
their Convocations, or grounded on some act of theirs
precedent to it, with the advice, counsel, and consent of the
bishops and most eminent churchmen; confirmed upon the
post-fact, and not otherwise, by the civil sanction according to
the usage of the best and happiest times of Christianity."
Heylyn tells us: "Nor was there anything done here in that
reformation, but either by the clergy in their Convocations,
and in their Convocations rightly called and canonically
constituted, or with the counsel and advice of the heads
thereof in more private conferences, the parliaments of these
times contributing very little towards it, but acquiescing in
the wisdom of the sovereign prince and in the piety and zeal
of the ghostly fathers." Sir Robert Cotton says: "If any
shall object that many laws in Henry the Eighth's time had
first the ground in parliament, it is manifested by the dates
of their acts in Convocation that they all had in that place
their first original." And Atterbury complains that Burnet
adopted such an order of narration as shut out this truth.
"That history," says he, "is by its very method apt to
mislead an unwary reader in inquiries of this nature; the
way of it being, to set down first the proceedings of
parliament in every case, and then those of Convocation;
which makes it look oftentimes as if the parliament led the
way to the Convocations in their debates, when the contrary
to that is most certainly true, and would have appeared so to
be, had his Lordship thought fit to follow the pattern set by
¹ Fuller, Church Hist. 188.
3 Quoted in Rights of an English Convocation, 179.
2 Tracts, 5.
SEC. II
187
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
Antiquitates Britannica, and given the precedence always to
the Acts of Convocation, when the business was first agitated
there, and afterwards brought into parliament."
Did, then, Henry VIII. assume greater powers in
managing and directing the Church during his reign than
his predecessors, or did he merely follow the steps which
the earlier kings of England had marked out for him ?²
Before considering this question it is necessary to recall to
our remembrance how those Kings acted and what powers
they exercised over the National Church from the beginning
of our history. "First for the King's right to make laws,"
says Archbishop Bramhall, "not only concerning the out-
ward regiment of the Church, but even concerning the keys
of order and jurisdiction, so far as to oblige those who are
trusted with that power by the Church to do their duties, it
is so evident to everyone who hath but cast his eyes upon
our English laws, that to bestow labour on proving it were
to bring owls to Athens. Their laws are extant, made in
all ages, concerning faith and good manners, heresy, holy
orders, the Word, the Sacraments, bishops, priests, monks,
the privileges and revenues of Holy Church, marriages,
divorces, simony, the Pope, his sentences, his oppressions
and usurpations, prohibitions, appeals from ecclesiastical
judges, and generally all things which are of ecclesiastical
cognizance; and this in those times which are acknowledged
by the Romanists themselves to have been Catholic."
993
If we examine the subject calmly and impartially, un-
deterred by Ultramontane clamour or religious rancour, we
1 Ib. 181.
2 Henry VIII. never assumed any authority at all approaching to the
power exercised by Charles V. in the Interim or Declaration of Religion
of 1543. By this declaration Charles prescribed what was to be believed
throughout Germany on all matters of religion until the 'meeting of a
General Council. The Interim comprised twenty-five heads or articles.
3 Bramhall's Works, 2, 430.
188
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
shall find that Henry's part in the settlement of doctrine
was of the smallest, and that he limited himself to lending
his authority, and giving a civil sanction, to the determina-
tions of the spirituality,' a part which everyone then believed
to belong to the office of a sovereign, and which was required
by the Act for the Submission of the Clergy. There were in
this reign four attempts made to secure uniformity in belief
and also in rites and ceremonies. Three of these were formu-
laries of faith, and the fourth was the well-known Act
of the Six Articles. All of these had their first inception
and approval in Convocation. The first is, as its title tells us,
"Articles about Religion set out by the Convocation, and
published by the King's authority." This appeared in 1536.
At the commencement of these Articles, we are informed by
the King that he, "being credibly advertised of much
diversity of opinions in such things as doth concern our
religion, caused our bishops, and other the most discreet and
best learned of our clergy of this our whole realm, to be
assembled in our Convocation for the full debatement and
quiet determination of the same: Where, after long and
mature deliberation and disputations had of and upon the
premises, finally they concluded and agreed upon the said
matters, as well those which be commanded of God and are
necessary to our salvation, as also the other touching the
honest ceremonies and good and politic order. . . . And for
because we would the said articles and every of them to be
taken and understanden of you after such sort, order, and
degree as appertaineth accordingly, we have caused by the
like assent and agreement of our said bishops and other
learned men the said articles to be divided into two sorts,
that is to say, such as are commanded expressly by God, and
are necessary to our salvation, and such other as, although
"It is also worthy of remark that this settlement of Doctrine was
entirely the work of the clergy.”—Blunt's Reformation, 1, 480.
SEC. II
189
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
they be not expressly commanded of God, nor necessary to
our salvation, yet being of a long continuance, for a decent
order and honest policy prudently instituted, are for that
same purpose and end to be observed." These Articles are
signed by Cromwell on behalf of the King, by the two
archbishops, sixteen bishops, and forty abbots and priors of
the Upper House of Convocation, and by fifty-one deans,
archdeacons and proctors of the clergy in the Lower House.
The second is "The Institution of a Christian Man,"
published in 1537, and also known as the "Bishops' Book."
This treatise is dedicated to the King, as "supreme head in
earth, immediately under Christ, of the Church of England,"
by the two archbishops, and "all other the bishops, prelates,
and archdeacons of this your realm." The preface tells us
that "your Highness comman led us now of late to assemble
ourselves together, and upon the diligent search and perusing
of Holy Scripture, to set forth a plain and sincere doctrine
concerning the whole sum of all those things which appertain
unto the profession of a Christian man, that by the same all
errors, doubts, superstitions, and abuses might be suppressed,
removed, and utterly taken away, to the honour of Almighty
God, and to the perfect establishing of your said subjects in
good unity and concord, and perfect quietness both in their
souls and bodies.... And, therefore, calling to our remem-
brance how the whole pith and sum of all those things
which be at great length contained in the whole canon of the
Bible, and be of necessity required to the attaining of ever-
lasting life, was sufficiently, exactly, and therewith shortly
and compendiously, comprehended in the twelve Articles of
the common Creed, called the Apostles' Creed, in the seven
Sacraments of the Church, in the Ten Commandments, and
in the prayer of our Lord called the Paternoster,
we
¹ Formularies of Faith in the Reign of Henry VIII. Oxford, 1825.
By Bishop Lloyd.
•
190
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
have, after long and mature consultation had amongst us,
compiled a certain treatise, wherein we have employed our
whole study, and have therein truly and purely set forth and
declared in our mother tongue the very sense and meaning,
and the very right use, virtue, and efficiency of all the said
four parts." This dedication is signed by all the archbishops
and bishops, by eight archdeacons, and seventeen doctors of
divinity. It was signed by the bishops, and by the arch-
deacons and doctors, as Committees of both Houses of
Convocation.¹ It was not even read by the King before its
publication, for "he sent it back with the order to have it
printed, saying that he had not time to read it, but trusted to
them for its being according to Scripture.
3
192
In 1539 there was an Act of Uniformity passed, the Act
known as that of the Six Articles. This also commenced in
Convocation, and the doctrines set forth in the statute were
considered and determined there before they were submitted
to Parliament. The Bill was not brought in until the 7th of
June. The articles had been debated and settled on the
previous 2nd of the same month.* Indeed the Act itself
informs us of this. It recites that the King "commanded
that the said articles should deliberately and advisedly, by
his said archbishops, bishops, and other learned men of his
clergy, be debated, argued, and reasoned, and their opinions
therein to be understood, declared, and known. . . . Where-
upon, after a great and long deliberate and advised disputa-
tion and consultation had and made concerning the said
articles, as well by the consent of the King's Highness as
by the assent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and other
learned men of his clergy, in their Convocation, and by the
¹ Heylyn's Tracts, 11 and 549.
2 Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England, 1, 465.
3 31 Henry VIII. c. 14, "An Act abolishing Diversity of Opinions."
4 Wilkins' Concilia, 3, 845.
SEC.. II
191
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
consent of the Commons in this present parliament assembled,
it was and is finally resolved, accorded, and agreed in manner
and form following."
6
The fourth was "A necessary
Doctrine and Erudition for
any Christian Man," first published in 1543. This treatise
was "nothing more than the Institution' in a varied
form, with some additional articles on the subjects of Free
Will, Good Works," &c.' It was the last attempt in this
reign to secure the much-desired uniformity. In 1540 a
committee of divines had been appointed to frame a declara-
tion of belief, and an order of the rites and ceremonies to be
observed in churches. The committee consisted of the arch-
bishops, sundry bishops of both provinces, and also of a great
number of "the best learned, honestest, and most virtuous sort
of the doctors of divinity." A short Act was passed in this
year declaring that the decrees and determinations set forth
by this committee, or else by the whole clergy of England,
if approved by the King, should be binding on the people."
Great care was taken and much labour expended to make
the attempt as perfect as possible. Three years were
employed in the new work. Questions respecting different
points were circulated, and individuals separately consulted,
and the answers were collated and laid before the King.
Henry himself had also suggested some corrections in the
"Institution," and had sent it so corrected to Cranmer, who
laid it before Convocation to be examined and reviewed by
that body. The new Formulary was the result of these
varied labours. The original treatise, of which it was but
an enlarged edition, was the work of Convocation. It is
certain, says Atterbury, that all the alterations and additions
¹ Bishop Lloyd, in Preface to Formularies of Faith.
2 32 Henry VIII. c. 26, "Concerning Christ's Religion.”
3 Lingard, 5, 161.
4 Heylyn's Tracts, 549. Atterbury, 188.
192
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
which appeared in this edition, were debated and approved
in the same body.¹
2
Not only were these four attempts at uniformity the
work of the Convocation, but many of the King's injunc-
tions and proclamations respecting religious matters proceeded
in the first instance from the same source. Thus the order
for a new translation of the Bible was the consequence of a
petition from Convocation. That from the Upper House is
still extant, in which the bishops, abbots, and priors requested
the archbishop to press upon the King that he would decree
that the Holy Scriptures should be translated into the English
tongue. The proclamation for the setting up of large Bibles
was the result of this petition. The injunction to bring in
erroneous and suspected books, printed beyond or within the
seas, was founded on a petition from Convocation to this
effect.³ The proclamation concerning the rites and cere-
monies to be observed in churches was the result of the
action taken by a committee of bishops and divines who sat to
consider this matter by the authority of Convocation. The
proclamation respecting the abrogation of a number of holi-
days was previously settled in the same body." The injunc-
tion respecting the service in the English tongue arose from
the revision, by a committee of Convocation, of the ancient
service books, which revision received the final sanction of
the whole body in March, 1544. Two sets of injunctions were
published by the King, or Cromwell, as his representative,
enforcing on the clergy the "Articles about Religion," which
had been set out by Convocation. It will be found that the
injunctions and proclamations, which have been considered
to be the work of Henry himself, were either based on acts
188.
1
6
¹ Heylyn's Tracts, 549, 569. Wilkins' Concilia, 3, 868. Atterbury,
2 Atterbury, 183.
* Atterbury, 188, 9.
6 Blunt, 1, 494–8.
3 Wilkins' Concilia, 3, 776.
5 Strype, Eccles. Memor. 1. 494.
SEC. II
193
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
of the Convocation, or on books set forth by them, such as
the "Articles about Religion," "Institution," &c.; and that
the King merely lent his name to them to prevent a contra-
vention of the late statute which enacted that no canons, con-
stitutions, or ordinances of Convocation should be binding
unless they were assented to by the King, and published by
his authority.¹
Nothing is more remarkable in this reign than the perfect
concord which prevailed between the King and his clergy
after Rome had cast them off. Some writers, as Sander,
who cannot deny the existence of this concord, ascribe it to
the cowardice and servility of the prelates and Convocation.
General indictments against communities or large bodies are
easily made and hardly deserve an answer. We know that
the members of Convocation were invincibly constant in their
refusal to acknowledge the King as head of the Church,
though they were then entangled in the meshes of a præ-
munire, until their scruples had been removed by the acceptance
of the qualifying words; that the bishops resolutely declined,
whatever might be the consequences, to consent to the King's
terms respecting a revision of the old canons; and that there
were at this time many in Convocation who have since been
regarded by both parties as martyrs, and who afterwards
gave up all for their convictions, or sealed with their blood
the faith that was in them. The real reason of this accord
was, that the King, while guarding his ecclesiastical supre-
macy, left the settlement of doctrine and the regulation of
divine service to the spiritual body in the national Church,
2
·
1 "Be it, therefore, enacted that they [the clergy] shall not promulge
or execute any such canons, constitutions, or ordinances provincial, by
whatever name or names they may be called, in their Convocations
unless the same clergy may have the King's most royal assent and license
to make, promulge, and execute such canons."-25 Henry VIII. c. 19,
s. 1, 1533.
2 Hook, Archbishops of Canterbury, 6, 413. Blunt, 1, 227.
་
194
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
the prelates and clergy in their Convocations, who, after the
abdication by the Pope of his true supremacy, necessarily
took the management of religion into their own hands. But
it was not only the clergy who were in accord with the
King-the whole country was with him. There is no evidence
of coercion on the part of the King, or of reluctance or
hesitation on the part of all the learned individuals and
bodies in England when, in 1534, the Papal jurisdiction was
denied. Gardiner, a witness of no ordinary weight, tells us
in 1536—“ All who have been born and reared in England,
learned and unlearned, men and women, are agreed upon this
point, that they have nought to do with Rome. All with
one consent embracing the truth, acknowledge, reverence,
and venerate the King as supreme head of the Church on
earth." In the same year Tunstall wrote to Reginald Pole:
"One thing yet resteth that I thought convenient to adver-
tise you of, wherein I do perceive ye be ignorant, which is
this. Ye write in one part of your book, that ye think the
hearts of the subjects of this realm greatly offended with
abolishing of the Bishop of Rome's usurped authority in this
realm, as if all the people or most part of them took the
matter as ye do. Wherein I do assure you ye be deceived.
For the people perceive right well what profit cometh to the
realm thereby, and that all such money as before issued that
way now is kept within the realm; whereas before, all that
went that way, which was no small share but great and
excessive, and daily the said issue increased more and more,
never returned again hither any part thereof, which was to
the great impoverishing of this realm. So that, if at this
¹ Omnes plane constantissimo consensu in hoc convenerunt, docti
pariter atque indocti, tum viri tum fæminæ, nihil ei cum Roma esse
negotii, quem Anglia genuit et educavit; omnes summo consensu
veritatem amplexantes atque exosculantes principem, supremum in
terris ecclesiæ caput agnoscunt, colunt, et venerantur."-De Vera
Obedientia, Fasciculus Rerum Expetend, et Fugiend. 2, 817.
SEC. II
195
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
1
day the King's grace would go about to renew in his realm
the said abolished authority of the Bishop of Rome, granting
him like profits as he had before through this his realm, I
think he should find much more difficulty to bring it about
in his parliament, and to induce his people to agree thereunto,
than anything that ever he proposed in his parliament since
his first reign." It is even absurd to speak of the existence
of coercion at a time when the King, the two Universities,
the two Convocations, all the monasteries, colleges, chapters,
hospitals, &c., in the kingdom, and the two Houses of Parlia-
ment, were of the same mind. And that, too, when the
prelates, owing to the absence of some of the temporal lords
in the wars, had almost invariably a majority in the Upper
House.
It is not the fact that the bishops of England ever
admitted by word or deed that they derived their spiritual
authority from the secular sovereign. The Commission which
they accepted in this and the following reign has been cited
to prove this, but on examination it establishes the direct
contrary. In this commission the ecclesiastical power which
the bishops derived from the King, as judges or as lords
of parliament, is accurately distinguished from the spiritual
authority which they obtained by ordination. "Forasmuch
as the King," thus it runs, "is the fountain of all authority,
both ecclesiastical and secular, and the head and source of all
the magistracies in the kingdom." The Commission then
proceeds to confer certain powers upon the bishop, "over and
above those powers which the Holy Scriptures do testify are
given to you by God." The Commission does not assume to
grant these things, but only the civil powers and privileges
¹ Burnet, Collection of Records, 6, 181.
2" Ac alia quæcunque autoritatem et jurisdictionem episcopalem
quovis modo respicientia et concernentia, præter et ultra ea quæ tibi ex
sacris literis divinitus commissa esse dinoscuntur."
02
196
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
which were by the laws of the land annexed to the sacred
office. As these were the gifts of the State, they might by
the State be recalled or modified.¹ The Church of England
has always and from the first denied, as all other Christian
denominations have done, that the spiritual authority of the
Church proceeded from the sovereign. We have in this
reign "a declaration made of the functions and divine
institution of bishops and priests" signed by Cromwell, then
vicegerent of the King in ecclesiastical matters, the two
archbishops, eleven bishops and twenty-four divines and
canonists, which declares, that the power of the Keys and
other Church functions were distinct from the civil power.
"Christ and His apostles did institute and ordain in the
New Testament, that beside the civil powers and governance
of kings and princes, which is called in Scripture potestas
gladii, the power of the sword, there should also be con-
tinually in the Church militant, certain other ministers or
officers, which should have special power, authority and
commission under Christ to preach and teach the Word of
God unto His people, to dispense and administer the
sacraments of God unto them; and by the same to confer
and give the grace of the Holy Ghost, to consecrate the
blessed body of Christ in the sacrament of the Altar, to loose
and absoile from sin all persons which be truly penitent and
sorry for the same; to bind and excommunicate such as be
guilty in manifest crimes and sins and will not amend their
defaults, to order and consecrate others in the same room,
order, and office whereunto they be called and admitted
1 "And therefore it was and shall be always lawful unto the said
kings and princes and their successors, with the consent of their parlia-
ments, to revoke and call again into their own hands, or otherwise to
restrain all the power and jurisdiction which was given and assigned
unto priests and bishops by the license, consent, sufferance, and autho-
rity of the said kings and princes, and not by the authority of God and
His Gospel."-Institution, or Bishops' Book, 1536.
SEC. II
197
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
themselves; and finally to feed Christ's people like good
pastors and rectors, as the apostles calleth them, with their
wholesome doctrine, and by their continual exhortations and
monitions to reduce them from sin and iniquity, so much as
in them lieth, and to bring them unto the perfect knowledge,
the perfect love and dread of God, and unto the perfect
charity of their neighbours... This office, this power
and authority was committed and given by Christ and His
apostles unto certain persons only, that is to say, unto priests
or bishops, whom they did elect, call, and admit thereunto
by their prayer and imposition of their hands." There is
also the judgment of eight bishops including Cranmer,
concerning the King's supremacy, which asserts that the
commission which Christ gave His Church had "no respect
to a king's or prince's power," and that the Church had it
by the Word of God, to which Christian princes acknowledge
themselves subject.¹ The 37th of our Articles of religion,
drawn up in 1562, is to the same effect.
"Where we
attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, by
which titles we understand the minds of some dangerous
folks to be offended; we give not our princes the ministering
either of God's Word or of the Sacraments, the which thing
the Injunctions also set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do
most plainly testify; but that only prerogative which we see
to have been given always to all godly princes in Holy
Scripture by God Himself, that is, that they should rule
all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God,
whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with
the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers."
From what has been said in the preceding pages certain
conclusions may be drawn. These are:
1. That the supremacy of our Kings in ecclesiastical
1 Both these documents are in the collection of Records in Pocock's
Burnet, 4, 335-340.
}
198
CHAP. III
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII
matters was not an invention of Henry VIII. or an
innovation in our Church, but that it existed from time
immemorial.
2. That Henry VIII. did not override the English
Church, but that he left the settlement of doctrine and the
regulation of divine worship to the clergy; he himself
doing nothing more than lending his authorization to the
publication and promulgation of the canons and decrees of
Convocation, as was required by the statute made on the
Submission of the Clergy.¹
3. That inasmuch as the King made no claim to a
spiritual headship, the oath of supremacy was a political
test, and was understood to be such by the vast majority of
English Churchmen, as was shown by the fact that it was
taken almost universally in this reign, in that of Edward VI.,
and in the commencement of the reign of Mary,
¹ 25 Henry VIII. c. 19.
CHAPTER IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
SECTION I
Two distinct stages in the English Reformation which ought
to be kept separate are sometimes confused by our historians.
These stages are (1) the revolt of the Anglo-Catholic Church
against the ecclesiastical exactions and oppressions of the
Popes, and (2) a modification of the doctrines of that
Church. The first, though completed in the reign of
Henry VIII., had commenced as far back as the time of
Edward I., and was in no way connected with faith or
dogma. We have traced the long struggle between the
Papacy and the English State and Church, which ended in
the restoration of their old ecclesiastical supremacy to our
Kings by the statutes of Provisors and Præmunire, and in
the freeing of the national Church from external control.
Though the Pope's patronage was legally abolished by these
statutes, occasional appointments by him were for some time
allowed by our Kings, but even these died away with the
reign of Edward IV. This first stage was initiated and
carried out by men whom at the present day we should call
Roman Catholics. Though some writers have branded
Henry VIII. and his bishops as schismatics, no one has
ventured to say that they were unorthodox.¹ The final
King Henry contended only with the See of Rome about the
article of the supremacy, being orthodox in all other points."-Tierney's
Dodd, 2, 64. Cardinal Allen asserted the same thing.
202
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
acknowledgment of the royal supremacy was made by bishops
and by a clergy who had no idea that in so doing they were
departing from the unity of the Catholic Church. The
names of Warham, Lee, Tunstall, Gardiner, and Fisher, are
our guarantees for this. Not only did Fisher subscribe the
decree of Convocation recognising the royal supremacy, but
nearly three years later, as Sander informs us, he advised
his brother prelates to take the oath of succession, which, as
modified by Henry himself, when required from the clergy,
declared that the King was the supreme head of the Church
of England, and that the Bishop of Rome had no more juris-
diction within the realm than any other foreign bishop.'
It
With respect to a modification in doctrine, nothing in
this direction was effected until after the death of Henry,
and long after the final accomplishment of the first stage.
The commencement of the English Reformation, properly so
called, therefore dates from the accession of Edward VI.
Henry left his people united among themselves and satisfied
with the alterations which had been made in his reign.
was the duty of the succeeding Government to see that the
changes in religion, which it proposed, should be gradual
and should carry the people with them. At such a time
above all others the strong hand of repression was required,
rather than the indiscreet fervour of the enthusiast.
Administration had abundance of warning in the very
beginning of Edward's reign. The fanatics outran the
discretion of the State, and ventured on reforms without
public authority. It was necessary, in the first parliament, to
denounce penalties against such as spoke irreverently of the
Sacraments, and to issue a proclamation against those who
1
The
Lingard, 5, 33, edit. 1849. See also the form when required from
the clergy in Rymer, xiv. 487-527. The acceptance of Henry's supremacy
and the renunciation of the Pope's jurisdiction made by a hundred and
seventy heads of religious houses are there given.
SEC. I
203
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
of
altered or omitted of their own will any rite or ceremony
the Church. Gardiner, a real statesman, was of opinion that
there was but one way to preserve peace, namely, to follow
"such laws and orders in religion" as the late King had
left. He advised Somerset to make no changes until Edward
had attained his full age. Gardiner's advice was neglected,
and the Reformation was hurried forward with a precipitancy
which for the time was fatal to it. Yet, in spite of the
prevailing spirit of reckless innovation, the alterations made
in the first years of the boy-King were moderate, and referred
principally to those matters of discipline which lie in the
discretion of every national Church, such as the marriage of
the clergy, service in the mother-tongue, and Communion in
both kinds. In the Injunctions of 1547, and in the Office
for the Communion, 1548, prayers for the dead were admitted,
auricular confession was left to the choice of the individual,
the sign of the cross and the rite of unction were retained,
while the question of the corporal presence in the Sacrament
was expressed in such general terms that each might believe
that they represented his own opinion. The changes made
so far were approved by Gardiner. The order for the Com-
munion was published with a royal proclamation on the 8th
of March, 1548. On the 29th of the following June, Gardiner
preached before the King at Paul's Cross. In his sermon he
renewed his adhesion to the abolition of the Pope's supremacy,
commended the young King's proceedings, thought that
images might have been inoffensively used, yet that their
removal was justifiable, was of opinion that the receiving the
Sacrament in both kinds by the laity and the taking away
a great number of masses were satisfactory, and expressed
himself pleased with the new order for the Communion.
This new order was inserted in the Liturgy which was drawn
up in the following year, and received the sanction of parlia-
ment under the name of the Book of Common Prayer, in
204
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
the first Act of Uniformity, 1549. Immediately after the
passing of this Act the reins were drawn tighter, and a hard
and fast line was laid down. The hand and counsel of the
foreign reformer became more and more visible, and the
reasonableness of the native character, at once reforming and
conservative, was laid aside. In the Injunctions issued later
in the same year, 1549, harmless and non-essential ceremonies,
such as kissing the altar, breathing on the bread or chalice,
ringing or sacrying bells, &c., were forbidden as "abuses and
superstitions." A violent Act was also passed in this year
"for the abolishing and putting away of divers books and
images." It provided that the old service books should be
called in and burnt, and that "all images of stone, timber,
alabaster, or earth, graven, carved, or painted, which hereto-
fore have been taken out of any church or chapel, or yet
stand in any church or chapel," should be defaced and
destroyed. In 1552 the forty-two articles were published.
In these, purgatory was declared to be "a fond thing, vainly
invented," and transubstantiation was explicitly denied, as
"repugnant to the plain words of Scripture." These changes,
hasty as they were, inasmuch as they were made within a
period of five years, might have been acquiesced in if they
had stood alone, and if any attempt had been made to render
the transition insensible. Reasonings on abstract theolo-
gical doctrines have very little immediate effect on the
majority of a nation. But unhappily no care was taken to
conciliate the affections of the people, and innovations
were pressed forward without the slightest regard to the
feelings or prejudices of those who were affected by them.
Everything was done to outrage the devotional sentiments
of a grave and conservative nation. The whole outward
aspect of religion was altered, as it were, in a moment,
and the ancient practices, however innocent and inoffensive,
were banned as superstitious. Customs and ceremonies,
SEC. I
205
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
consecrated by immemorial antiquity, and endeared by a
thousand associations, were scornfully "reformed ”—such
was the expression. Contemporaneously with the changes
in discipline and doctrine, England presented a scene of
havoc and desecration never before witnessed in a Christian
country. Churches were demolished for their materials,
their lead was stripped off for exportation, their bells were
taken down and sold. The sacred utensils, ornaments, and
plate were purloined by private persons, encouraged by the
example of the Government, or were seized by the State.
Shrines, altars, and images were ruthlessly destroyed, monu-
mental brasses were torn from tombs, horses were watered
in stone or marble coffins from which the bodies had been
ejected, altar cloths and copes were displayed in the houses
of the gentry as carpets or coverings, chalices were used as
carousing cups, and libraries were scattered to the winds.
No English Protestant can read the first chapter of our
religious reformation, as distinguished from the politico-
ecclesiastical movement, without pain and indignation. The
civil outlook at this period was equally forlorn. The king-
dom was full of misery. The value of money had fallen
in consequence of the Spanish importations from the mines
of South America, and the currency had been debased by
frequent issues of impure coin, so that it was hardly possible
to effect the common processes of buying and selling. Great
and general distress had arisen from the rise in prices and
rents, the inclosure system, the increase of pasturage to the
exclusion of tillage, and the new relations between landlord
and tenant following on the weakening of the feudal principle.
The
yeomanry were starving, and the country was held down
by foreign mercenaries. The moral deterioration of the king-
dom kept pace with its material decline, for the external
disorder was but the sign and consequence of the relaxation
¹ The Bildersturm of the Netherlands did not take place till 1566.
206
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
of belief and the disturbance of customs which had hitherto
regulated conduct. Irreligion and open profligacy prevailed,
blasphemous ribaldry was common, duty was forgotten, the
laws were unexecuted, the courts were venal, the patronage
of the Church was scandalously abused, and the clergy were
reduced to destitution by the nobility and gentry appropriating
the profits of the benefices of which they had in law only the
presentation. The upper classes hastened to increase their
possessions, while the mass of the people saw all the institu-
tions intended for their benefit disappearing. Grammar
schools were closed, alms-houses, founded by the piety of
former generations for the relief of the poor, were in decay,
and the endowments of hospitals and other charities were
fraudulently made away with. England was not merely
disorganized, she was rapidly falling to pieces, or as Camden
expresses it, she seemed to be "in a downright phrensy,
miserably languishing at the very heart by reason of rebel-
lions, tumults, factions, embasing of her money, and all the
mischiefs and maladies which are wont to happen under an
infant-King." Nothing similar to her condition had been
seen since the reign of Henry III. The kingdom had been
so mismanaged during the short reign of Edward, by the
two adventurers, Somerset and Northumberland, and by the
rash policy of the reforming bishops, who wished to break at
once and for ever with the past, that at the close of his reign
universal discontent prevailed. The eloquence of facts which
appeal to the eye is convincing, and the state of the country
appeared to be the result of the Reformation. A considera-
tion of the moral and material anarchy, to which England
had been reduced during the minority of the King, may
explain the apparent levity with which the people agreed to
the alterations in religion made in the reign of Mary, and
may account for the reaction which then took place.
During the reign of Edward the Popes did not inter-
SEC. I
207
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
meddle with the internal affairs of England. At the
accession of the young King, Paul III. urged the Emperor
to assert by arms the title of his sister Mary to the crown,
on the ground that Edward, having been born when the
kingdom lay under an interdict, could not be considered as
legitimate. The Papal request was not attended to. The
Oath of Supremacy, recognizing the sovereign as the head of
the Church, was taken by all without scruple, even by those
who afterwards as bishops refused to take that of Elizabeth."
It may be remarked here that the terms "Protestant" and
"Roman Catholic" have been improperly used to distinguish
the parties in England during this reign. There were no
Protestants and no Roman Catholics: all were members of
the Anglo-Catholic Church. The unity which had been
bequeathed by Henry VIII. was still unbroken. In
Edward's time a rigid line between those who were after-
wards known as Protestants and Roman Catholics was not
established. There were differences of opinion, one party
meditating a further advance, the other desiring to remain
as it was, but two sects did not stand out clear and distinct
from each other, and the nation was not divided into two
hostile communions. That division was effected in the
following reign by the fires in which the martyrs were
consumed.
The alterations in religion made by Mary may be classed
under two heads,-those concerning the relations of England
to the Papacy, and those referring to the administration of
religious matters at home. The extent and importance of
the former have been greatly exaggerated. Mary repealed
all the Acts against the authority of the Papal See made
¹ If we remember how short the reign of Mary was, and the mature
age at which men are promoted to bishoprics, it will be evident that the
prelates, who refused to take the oath of supremacy in Elizabeth's reign,
must have taken the stricter oath of Henry and Edward over and over
again.
208
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
subsequently to the twentieth year of Henry VIII., but
farther back she did not go. We have seen that long before
that date the Popes had ceased to exercise any authority
save a spiritual one, over the English Church, and that they
could not directly or legally appoint to a benefice or dignity
in England. The legislation of Mary made no alteration in
this respect. Though she renounced the title of head of
the Church-but not until her marriage with Philip-she
maintained resolutely her ecclesiastical supremacy in spite of
her devotion to the Pope as spiritual father of the Church,
and her desire to secure his approbation. The statutes of
Provisors and Præmunire were preserved untouched, and in
one instance at least she called in their aid against the Pope
himself. Paul IV. disliked Cardinal Pole. In 1557 he
appointed Peto, the Queen's confessor, a cardinal, and
revoking Pole's legatine authority, transferred it to Peto.
Mary at once issued orders that every messenger from
abroad should be detained and searched. The bearer of the
Papal bulls was arrested at Calais, and the bulls themselves
were forwarded to the Queen, who quietly laid them past or
destroyed them. She also declared that she would prosecute
under the statutes of Præmunire any who would recognise
Peto's authority. Further, the statute by which England
was reconciled to the Papacy was by no means the general
surrender it is commonly represented to be. Important
rights of the nation and of the Crown were declared in it and
were secured anew. The 35th section, relating to the assur-
ance of ecclesiastical property to the new possessors, while it
recites that the Pope by his dispensation had removed all
impeachment arising from the canon law, asserts "that the
title of all lands, possessions, and hereditaments in this your
Majesty's realm and dominions is grounded in the laws,
statutes, and customs of the same, and by your high
jurisdiction, authority royal, and crown imperial, and in
SEC. I
209
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
your courts only to be impleaded, ordered, tried, and judged
and none otherwise." The admission of Papal bulls,
dispensations, and privileges was strictly guarded,
"all
bulls, dispensations and privileges obtained before the said
twentieth year [of Henry VIII.] or at any time since, or
which shall hereafter be obtained from the See of Rome, not
containing matter contrary or prejudicial to the authority,
dignity, or pre-eminence royal and imperial of these realms,
or to the laws of this realm now being in force and not in
this parliament repealed, may be put in execution." The
statute also provided that nothing in it should diminish the
liberties, privileges, pre-eminences, authorities, or jurisdic-
tions of the Crown, and carefully restricted the authority
and jurisdiction of the Popes to what they had exercised
before the twentieth year of Henry, when, as we have seen,
the Roman Pontiffs could not have directly appointed a
sexton to an English parish church. It would appear that
the reconciliation with Rome was limited to a formal and
public acknowledgment of the Pope as the spiritual head of
the English Church, and the restoration of certain payments
formerly made to him as fees on the confirmation of bishops,
annates, Peter's Pence, &c. Of one thing we may be certain,
viz. that Queen Mary exercised to the full the ecclesiastical
supremacy which her predecessors had enjoyed. She autho-
rized her bishops to grant licenses to clergymen to preach in
3
1 46th section, 1 & 2 Phil. and Mary.
2
2 "The Pope's Holiness and See Apostolick to be restored, and to have
and enjoy such authority, pre-eminence, and jurisdiction, as his Holiness
used and exercised, or might lawfully have used and exercised by
authority of his supremacy, the said twentieth year of the reign of
the King your father, within this your realm of England and other
your dominions, without diminution or enlargement of the same, and
none other."_53rd sec.
3 It is very doubtful whether Peter's Pence was collected in England
during Mary's reign.-Twysden, Historical Vind. c. 4, s. 5; Sarpi,
Hist. of Council of Trent, sub ann. 1555.
P
210
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
5
192
6
.4
any cathedral or parochial church throughout England;'
restored bishops of her own authority to their "spiritual
and temporal rights; presented more than two hundred
and fifty incumbents to rectories and vicarages in the first
year of her reign; commanded chapters to elect to bishoprics
learned, devout, useful and loyal persons ; deprived of her
own motion bishops and other ecclesiastics for being married,
though the law of the land permitted them to contract
matrimony; published her license to elect, and signified her
assent to the election of prelates; received an oath of alle-
giance from her archbishops and bishops, and compelled them
to renounce everything in their Papal bulls prejudicial to
her prerogative or crown; issued an edict that all foreign
heretics should depart the realm within twenty-four days;*
promulgated proclamations "about religion" and ordered
that no one should keep heretical books in his possession;
directed her justices of the peace "to have one or more
honest men secretly instructed in every parish to give
information of the behaviour of its inhabitants;" would not
allow a Papal legate sent against her will to be recognized,
and set aside the bull appointing him; adopted the Acts of
Provisors and Præmunire; put forth injunctions that none of
her subjects should preach or expound scripture, or print
Rymer, xv. 337.
7
2 Ib. 340.
8
³ Ib. 342-350. In the year 1556 she also presented a hundred and
ninety-eight to livings.-16. 442-448.
↑ "Mandantes quod talem vobis eligatis in episcopum et pastorem qui
sacrarum literarum cognitione ad id munus aptus, Deo devotus, nobis et
regno nostro utilis et fidelis, ecclesiæque nostræ prædictæ necessarius
existat.”—Ib. 369, 374, 375, 403.
5 Ib. 370.
6 Ib. 375, 376.
7 Ib. 425, 426, 427, 428, 432.
8 "Dicuntur autem ex hoc decreto abiisse, supra triginta millia
hæreticorum, variarum nationum et sectarum."-Sander, De Schismate
Ang. 291.
SEC. I
211
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
any books, without her special license;¹ and directed the
bishops how they were to proceed in the pastoral adminis-
tration of their dioceses.2 Her conduct in Ireland was
similar. In that country she did not abate by one jot the
authority in ecclesiastical matters which her father and
brother had exercised before her. She created bishops by
letters-patent, refused to admit the Papal power of appoint-
ing by provision, and granted away the property of the
Church as freely as Henry VIII. or Edward VI.³
The really important alterations made by Mary, and
which affected the life of the people, consisted in the repeal
of her brother's religious enactments, the revival of the
old Acts against heretics, and the restoration to the bishops
and their courts of their former independence of the civil
government.
Some canonists, as Bellarmine, contended that the exemp-
tion of the clergy from appearing before temporal courts was
a rule of the Divine law; others held that the Pope had the
power to command it. In England this exemption was
always more or less limited, and never extended to treason.
Before the time of Henry VIII. we find many instances of
ecclesiastics being executed for this offence, and Henry IV.
put to death Scrope, Archbishop of York, on the charge of
having levied war against him. Henry VIII., in his well-
known letter to Tunstall, declared that the State punished in
its secular courts some crimes committed by the clergy, while
it left others to the ecclesiastical tribunals. "And as for the
living of the clergy, some notable offences we reserve to our
corrections, some we remit by our sufferance to the judges of
the clergy; as murder, felony, and treason, and such like
enormities we reserve to our examination, other crimes we
¹ Burnet, 2, 395.
& Ib.; Collection of Records, 5, 381.
3 Richey, Hist. of the Irish People, 425-7, edit. 1887.
P 2
212
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
leave to be ordered by the clergy." In the sixth year of
Henry's reign, the question, whether clerks were exempt
from the cognizance of temporal courts in criminal matters,
was solemnly debated before the King and Council, all the
judges being present. Dr. Standish, counsel for the King,
asserted in this assembly that the prosecution of clerks before
temporal judges was customary practice, and conformable to
the laws of the kingdom. It would, therefore, seem that
in some cases there was no clerical exemption. The law at
this time appears to have been that ecclesiastics enjoyed no
privilege whatever in treason, or in certain grave crimes.
In the case of other offences committed by a clerk, the rule
was, that the accused should be first arraigned, and might
then claim his privilege either by way of plea to the jurisdic-
tion, or after conviction by way of arresting judgment. The
accused was then discharged from the sentence of the law
in the King's Court, and was delivered over to the bishop to
be dealt with according to the canons. The clergy, however,
were by no means satisfied with this state of the law, and
claimed a total immunity from secular jurisdiction, as a right
inherent in their order by divine law.¹ Wolsey told the
King himself, on the occasion before alluded to, that "in
the opinion of the clergy the convening of clerks before
temporal judges was directly contrary to the law of God,
and that he himself and the rest of the prelates were bound
by their oath to maintain the exemption." It was this claim
of the clergy that principally determined Henry to exact
from them a recognition of his supremacy in all matters
civil and criminal. The result was the recognition in
Convocation, and the subsequent sanction given to this
recognition by the Legislature. This enactment put an
¹ Bellarmine denied that secular princes were princes in the case of
the clergy:-"Principes seculares respectu clericorum non sunt prin-
cipes."
SEC. I
213
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
end to the claims of the clergy to be exempt in all cases from
the criminal law administered in the royal courts, while for
some offences they were still left, by the consent of the King,
to the jurisdiction of the ordinary. The Supremacy Act of
Henry was repealed by Mary, together with that for the
“Submission of the Clergy," renouncing their power of
legislating without the approbation of the Sovereign. The
effect of this repeal was to revive all the old pretensions of
the clergy to a complete exemption, and to establish a class
claiming to live wholly under their own peculiar laws.'
Elizabeth, like her father, was resolved to maintain her tem-
poral jurisdiction over all her subjects, lay and clerical, and
to restore the regal supremacy as settled by the decree of
Convocation and the subsequent Act of Parliament. With
this object her Supremacy statute and the oath contained in
it were framed.
The title of this statute is "An Act to restore to the
Crown the ancient jurisdiction over the Estate, ecclesiastical
and spiritual, and abolishing all foreign powers repugnant
to the same." It differs in some important particulars from
the Act of Supremacy in the reign of Henry VIII. By
that Act the oath of supremacy might have been offered to
any one at the pleasure of the King's Commissioners, and the
refusal to take it was treason. By the Act of Elizabeth, the
oath could be administered only to ecclesiastics, temporal
judges and ministers, those receiving the Queen's fee or
wages, persons suing out livery of their lands, and those
taking degrees in the universities. The penalty of refusing
the oath was deprivation or incapacity merely. In the Acts
of Henry and Edward, the sovereign was described as
Supreme head in earth of the Church of England and
Ireland." Elizabeth disliked the expression "head of the
((
1 ¹ Mary ordered her bishops not to make use of the clause, “regia
auctoritate fulcitus."
214
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
1
Church," as she believed such a title was to be given to
Christ only. Accordingly, instead of these words the
following were substituted: "Supreme governor of this
realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or
causes as temporal." Charles Butler explains the general
scope of the Act: "None, however, except persons holding
ecclesiastical or civil offices could be required to take the
oath; and none but those who voluntarily denied the
Queen's supremacy were subjected to other penalties."
The oath at length is: "I do utterly testify and declare
in my conscience, that the Queen's Highness is the only
supreme governor of this realm and of all other her
Highness' dominions and countries as well in all spiritual or
ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal;//and that no
foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath or
ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-
eminence, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this
realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all
foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities,
and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and
true allegiance to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and
lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend
all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges, and authorities
granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and
successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of
this realm." It will be observed that the oath does not call
upon the taker to declare that Elizabeth was the head of the
Church.
To clear away all doubts as to the nature of the claim
she made, and as to the obligation imposed by the oath, the
166
Regina non vult appellari aut scribi caput ecclesiæ Anglicanæ ;
graviter enim respondit, illam dignitatem soli attributam esse Christo,
nemini autem mortali convenire."-Jewel to Bullinger, 22 May, 1559.
2 Butler, Hist. Memoirs of the English Catholics, 3rd ed. 1, 346.
SEC. I
215
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
Queen published, contemporaneously with the statute, an
Admonition to her people explaining the sense in which the
oath was to be understood. In this she renounced all
spiritual authority and declared that she claimed jurisdiction
only over the persons of all born within her dominions.
"And further, her Majesty forbiddeth all manner her
subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse or malicious
persons which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to
notify to her loving subjects, how by the words of the said
oath it may be collected, that the Kings or Queens of this
realm, possessors of the crown, may challenge authority and
power of ministry of divine offices in the Church, wherein
her said subjects be much abused by such evil disposed
persons. For certainly Her Majesty neither doth or ever
will challenge any other authority than that was challenged
and lately used by the said noble Kings of famous memory,
King Henry VIII. and Edward VI., which is and was of
ancient time due to the imperial crown of this realm; that is,
under God to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of
persons born within these her realms and dominions and countries
so as no foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over
them. And if any person that hath conceived any other sense
of the form of the said oath shall accept the said oath with
this interpretation, sense, or meaning, Her Majesty is well
pleased to accept every such in that behalf as her good and
obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of all manner of
penalties contained in the said Act against such as shall
peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same oath.”
The greatest care was taken to make this interpretation
generally known. The explanation was repeated in the
Declaration enjoined to be read in churches before the
Thirty-nine Articles were drawn up. The fifth paragraph
¹ Admonition annexed to the Queen's injunctions, 1559, Sparrow's
Collection of Articles, Injunctions, &c.; Wilkins' Concilia, 4, 188.
216
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
of this declaration is: "I do acknowledge the Queen's
Majesty's prerogative and superiority of government of all
states and in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as temporal,
within this realm and other her dominions and countries, to
be agreeable to God's Word, and of right to appertain to
her Highness in such sort as is in the late Act of Parliament,
and sithence by her Majesty's injunctions declared and
expounded." Two years later, in 1562, the explanation was
again repeated by Convocation in the 37th article: "We
give not to our princes the ministering either of God's Word
or of the Sacraments, the which thing the injunctions lately
set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify;
but that only prerogative which we see to have been given
always to all godly princes in Holy Scripture by God
Himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and
degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be
ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword
the stubborn and evildoers." Lastly, in the same year the
explanation received the sanction of the Legislature,
(6 pro-
vided also that the oath, expressed in the said Act made in
the said first year, shall be taken and expounded in such
form as is set forth in an admonition annexed to the Queen's
Majesty's injunctions passed in the first year of Her
Majesty's reign; that is to say, to confess and acknowledge
in Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, none other
authority than that was challenged and lately used by the
noble King Henry VIII., and King Edward VI., as in the
said admonition more plainly may appear."
The Puritans were satisfied with the Queen's explanation
and took the oath "as only restoring Her Majesty to the
ancient and natural rights of sovereign princes over their
subjects." So did the vast majority of the clergy, as they
had done in the reign of Henry and Edward, less than two
1 5 Eliz. c. 1. s. 14. 2 Neal, Hist. of the Puritans, 1, 124, ed. 1
SEC. I
217
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
hundred out of nine thousand four hundred declining to take
the oath of supremacy. After the first refusal of the bishops
and a small minority of the clergy to acknowledge the
supremacy of Elizabeth, her oath was taken generally by
her Roman Catholic subjects during the first twelve years of
her reign, as is shown by the silence as to any prosecutions
against them on this matter. In truth, they had taken a
much stricter oath without a word of complaint throughout
the latter years of Henry, the whole reign of Edward, and
at the accession of Mary.' There was no disposition on
their part to refuse the oath until Pius V. issued his bull
of excommunication and deposition, a bull, says a Roman
Catholic author, "ever to be condemned and ever to be
lamented." As this bull cut off from the Church all who
recognized Elizabeth as Queen or obeyed her laws, tender
consciences began to doubt whether they could acknowledge
her as their sovereign. This hesitation was greatly increased
by the arrival of the Jesuits and seminary priests, who,
educated in foreign schools and deeply imbued with ultra-
montane doctrines respecting the temporal authority of the
Pope, objected to every oath which denied him the possession
of the deposing power.
2
Many eminent Roman Catholics, historians and others, have
recognized the truth, namely, that Elizabeth's oath of supremacy
had no reference to spirituals, but was merely a political test.
Feckenham, the last Abbot of Westminster, was satisfied
("
¹ In her first parliament Mary is described as
supreme head of the
Church of England and of Ireland."-See Statute Book.
2 “Such was this celebrated bull, ever to be condemned and ever to
be lamented. It is most clear-that the Pope assumed by it a right, the
exercise of which Christ had explicitly disclaimed for himself—that it
tended to produce a civil war between the Queen's Protestant and
Catholic subjects, with all the horrors of a disputed succession; and that
it necessarily involved a multitude of respectable and conscientious
individuals in the bitterest and most complicated distress."-Butler,
English Catholics, 1, 349.
218
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
991
with the Queen's explanation, and declared himself willing
to take the oath in the sense of her admonition. "It will,
I believe, be readily admitted," says Sir John Throckmorton,
"that the words of the oath, interpreted in this manner [by
the Queen's admonition], affect not any part of that authority
which Christ delivered to his Church, and which the pastors
of it exercise independently on any civil power.
"By
the oath of supremacy," writes Father Walsh, "no other
authority or power is attributed to the King save only civil
or that of the sword; nor is any spiritual or ecclesiastical
power denied therein to the Pope, save only that which the
General Council of Ephesus under Theodosius the younger
in the case of the Cyprian bishops; and the next Ecumenical
synod of Chalcedon, under the good Emperor Martianus, in
the case of Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople; and the
two hundred and seventeen bishops of Africa, whereof St.
Augustine was one, both in their canons and letters too, in
the case of Apiarius, all denied unto the Roman bishops of
their time." Dr. O'Conor says: "The Act of Supremacy
was really nothing more as to its intent than the Act of
Præmunire. Its object was to restrain the exercise of illegal
jurisdiction, and to confine within due limits the arbitrary
proceedings of men who, under pretence of religion, claimed
a power of exclusively deciding on all matters, whether
mixed or unmixed, relating to the Church; men who claimed
exemption from the law courts, pretending that they could
be judged only by the Pope; who frequently made the very
sacraments subservient to their passions, forbidding divine
service, and interdicting the benefits of Christianity to all
those who refused to comply with their arbitrary injunctions
and decrees." The Rev. Joseph Berington, in 1793, ad-
1 Throckmorton, Letters to the Catholic Clergy of England, 88.
2 Hist. of the Irish Remonstrance, Introd. 18.
3 O'Conor's Historical Address, 2, 272.
SEC. 1
219
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
1
vised the Roman Catholics of England to take the oath of
supremacy, and thus qualify themselves for the exercise of
their full rights of citizenship. "Why should we," he asks,
"importune Government for the further redress of grievances,
or complain that we are aggrieved, if the remedy be in our
own hands? One bold man, by taking the oath, may dissi-
pate the whole charm of prejudice, and restore us to the most
valuable privilege of British citizens."2
After the conspiracy of the Poles in 1562, it was enacted
that the oath of supremacy should be tendered to classes of
persons not included in the original Act, and the penalties
for refusing it were rendered more severe, but no change
was made in the wording of it. It was this Acts which
gave a legislative sanction to the interpretation of the oath
by Elizabeth.
The next Act is that of Uniformity, a revival of similar
laws in the reign of Edward, which during his life were
obeyed by all without reluctance.
Though we are unwilling to confess the truth to ourselves,
toleration is not the child of reason, but the result of expe-
rience or indifference. The principle of toleration was not
admitted in the times of which we are speaking. In the
language of Scripture, zeal for what our fathers considered
the house of God had eaten them up. All men, both
reformed and unreformed, believed that uniformity was
desirable and attainable. They were for one religion,
¹ Memoirs of Panzani, Introd.
•
2" James II., though a Catholic, was head of the Church of England
in the same sense as Queen Elizabeth, and exercised all the powers
annexed to the Crown by the Act of the first of Elizabeth. These
powers then cannot be of a spiritual nature, nor can the acknowledgment
of them in the King infringe any article of Catholic belief, unless we
suppose that a Catholic sovereign may conscientiously exercise powers
which a Catholic subject cannot conscientiously acknowledge."-Sir
John Throckmorton, 92.
3 5 Eliz. c. 1,
220
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
one uniform manner of worship, one mode of Church
discipline for the whole nation, with which all must com-
ply. Freedom of conscience, as we understand it, was
unintelligible and hateful to all, as it was the universal
conviction that it was the duty of the State to enforce what
it believed to be the truth.¹ It is important to remember
that Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity was not directed against
any class in particular, but against all non-conformists, and
that it was as rigidly executed against the reformed as
against those who adhered to unreformed Catholicism."
The Act of Uniformity enjoined all beneficed clergymen
-under penalties ascending from imprisonment for six
months, and forfeiture of a year's value of their benefice,
to imprisonment for life and deprivation-to use the Book
of Common Prayer. Unbeneficed offenders were to be im-
prisoned for the first offence during twelve months, and for
the second during life. Persons speaking in derogation of
the established Service were to suffer forfeiture for the first
and second offence, and for the third, imprisonment for life.³
Besides these regulations for ministers of the established reli-
gion, it was enacted that any person omitting, without rea-
sonable cause, to attend his parish church on Sundays and
holidays, should be subjected to a fine of twelve pence.
The legal enforcement of a uniformity in religion is
undoubtedly opposed to our modern ideas. But there can
¹ In Germany the "Recess" of Augsburgh proclaimed the principle
of "cujus regio ejus religio." This was in 1555.
2 "The independent spirit of the Puritans... both disgusted and
alarmed Elizabeth; she perceived that their dislike to any ecclesiastical
restraint was accompanied by strong sentiments of political liberty.
One object of the statute of Uniformity certainly was to guard the
Church and State against these religionists."-Butler, English Catholics,
1, 290.
3 "The operation of this statute was also limited: it affected only
the Protestant clergy, and persons in general who should speak against
the Common Prayer-book."-1b. 1, 346.
SEC. I TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
221
be no greater mistake than to judge the actors in the past
by a standard framed on the experience of ages which were
to them future. To blame the Act of Uniformity because it
is not consonant to our feelings, is to ignore the slow growth
of opinion which has made us what we are, and the convictions
of the times at which it was passed. To condemn Elizabeth
and her government for not adopting a toleration which was
then inconceivable, and was regarded by all as a sin against
God, is as unreasonable and contrary to the historical spirit,
as it would be to blame them for not making use of inventions
then unknown. Both were impossible, the one in the moral,
the other in the material world. The conduct of the English
administration at this juncture should be compared, not with
modern practice, but with that of the neighbouring govern-
ments of Europe, in every one of which uniformity was
enforced by the stake, burying alive, the wheel, the gibbet,
or by drowning. Let us for a moment cast our eyes on
those nations. In Italy the Inquisition, on the advice of
Cardinal Caraffa, afterwards Paul IV., had been lately
re-established by Paul III. on the model of that of Spain.
Commissioners, of whom Caraffa was one, were at once
appointed as general inquisitors in matters of faith with
power to imprison the suspected, and to punish the guilty
with death and confiscation of goods. A reign of terror
broke out in every part of Italy. Many fled, while those
who could not escape fell victims to the terrific persecution
which ensued. In Venice, where the inquisitors were not
wholly emancipated from civil control, the unhappy sufferers
were drowned. At Rome they were burnt alive in front of
the Church of Santa Maria alla Minerva.' In Spain, the
possession of a forbidden book, or mere suspicion, was
sufficient to consign the victim to torture and the stake.
Even death did not put an end to the vengeance of the
¹ Ranke's Popes, 1, 140–6.
222
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
Inquisition. If subsequent evidence was forthcoming, the
memory of the dead was declared to be infamous, his house
was razed to the ground, his property was confiscated, and
his bones were dug up and committed to the flames. In
France, similar means of compelling uniformity, the short
and ill-kept truces with the Huguenots excepted, were
adopted.' In 1568 the Inquisition condemned to death as
heretics all the inhabitants of the Low Countries, with
the exception of a few specified individuals, and ten
days later Philip II. confirmed the sentence by a royal
proclamation from Madrid.² At the moment when the
Uniformity Act of Elizabeth was passed, four months had
not elapsed since even in England the slightest divergence
from the religion of the State was punished by Mary with
the stake, and the magistracy of the country was hounded on
by her council to search out for heretics, and to employ
secret informers to help them in the discovery. In her
reign bishops, gentlemen, artisans, servants, women, and
boys were burned for opinions in speculative matters,
without the least pretext of the violation of any civil duty,
while in the reign of her successor all classes of the laity
were corrected for non-conformity by a fine of twelve pence.
If we remember that Elizabeth made no examination into
conscience, but at the most required an outward conformity,
and if we compare her conduct with that of contemporaneous
sovereigns, we are constrained to acknowledge, that the
"It was believed that the severity exercised during the last few
months, in Paris and many other French cities, against persons condemned
for their religion, of whom very great numbers were burnt alive, would
have so terrified the survivors, &c."-Venetian Ambassador to the
Doge, 6 March, 1560. State Papers, Venetian, 7, 153.
2 The sentence of the Inquisition is dated 16th February, 1568. It
and its confirmation by Philip are given in Meteren, folio 54. On one
occasion Philip II. told the Papal Nuncio that "all his subjects must
either believe what he believed or be utterly destroyed."-Cal. of State
Papers, Venetian, 7, 428.
SEC. I
223
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
compulsory uniformity of the reformed government of
England was the most wonderful and most sudden advance
in humanity recorded in history. It was the mildest form
of religious coercion which had ever been shown up to that
period since the time when religion first became incorporated
with the State. Surely it is inconsistent, and very like a
concealment of the truth, for Roman Catholic writers to cry
out against the milder form of coercion adopted by the
English government, and at the same time to withhold all
condemnation, or even mention, of the savage persecutions
of the Popes, who ransacked the consciences, and burnt the
bodies of their non-conformists. These writers should reason
concerning religious penalties, enforced in Roman Catholic
countries, as they reason concerning them when imposed by
the government of Elizabeth. If they did so, we should
hear from them nothing but praise of the gentleness of her
administration.¹
The statutes of Supremacy and Uniformity were the
only ones relating to religion which affected in any way
the Roman Catholics during the first twelve years of
Elizabeth's reign; that is, up to two years subsequent to
1569, the fatal date when the Popes entered upon their
¹ Compare the English Act with the remorseless severity of the rules
which secured uniformity in the Papal dominions :-
'(1) In affairs of faith there must not be a moment's delay, but on
the slightest suspicion proceedings must be taken with the utmost
diligence.
"(2) No regard must be paid to any potentate or prelate, whatever be
his power or dignity.
(3) On the contrary, the greatest severity must be shown to those
who seek to shelter themselves under the protection of a ruler; only
when confession is made, are leniency and fatherly compassion to be
shown.
66
(4) To heretics, and especially Calvinists, no toleration must be
granted."
Rules drawn up by Cardinal Caraffa, afterwards Pope Paul IV., for
the Roman Inquisition.-Ranke, Popes, 1, 142.
224
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
machinations against England and English institutions.
During this period, there were no penal laws against any
particular class of the Queen's subjects, for the oath of
Supremacy, as explained by the Queen's admonition, was
considered by all to be a political test, and the Act of
Uniformity was as strictly enforced against the reformed as
against those who adhered to the unreformed religion. The
bloody statutes' against heretics which had been revived by
Mary, and which might have been strained against Roman
Catholics as they had been strained against the Protestants,
were repealed by Elizabeth. There was no difference made
between any of her subjects, and equal laws were adminis-
tered to all. Roman Catholics and the rising sect of the
Puritans were treated alike. By those among both who
were liable to it, the oath of supremacy was willingly
taken, and offences against uniformity were impartially
punished. It may be asserted with certainty, that if the
Popes had not fomented rebellions, abetted treason, invaded
English territory, attempted to loosen the social bonds which
kept the nation together, and, when these projects failed, or-
ganised crusades against England; if an active party among
the Roman Catholics at home, which the government was
unable to distinguish from the general body, had not lent
itself to schemes of invasion, treason, and assassination;
above all, if those emissaries of sedition, the Jesuits and
seminary priests, had not been despatched to England and
Ireland to stir up insurrections, and to teach the doctrine of
the deposing power, no penal laws would ever have been
enacted against English Roman Catholics.2
That body
15 Ric. II. st. 2, c. 5. [Sheriffs to apprehend preachers of heresy].
2 Hen. IV. c. 15. [For the repression of heresy and burning of heretics].
2 Hen. V. c. 7. [Magistrates to assist ordinaries in extirpating heresies
and punishing heretics].
2❝ Had these men [the Roman Catholic clergy who retired to foreign
schools] remained at home, patient of present evils and submissive as
·
SEC. I
225
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
would have continued to occupy at least as favourable a
position as other dissenters. We may even go farther and
say that it would soon have been placed in a much better
situation. For Elizabeth and her government recognized its
Church as a true Church, whereas the Puritans and other
dissidents were looked upon as recusants, who for small and
trifling differences had deserted the pale of the reformed
establishment, and by their bickerings had brought discredit
upon the Reformation itself.
We have seen that the Roman Catholics were, during the
first twelve years of Elizabeth's reign, in exactly the same
position as other non-conformists. All the evidence which
has come down to us, including their own, shows us that their
condition during these quiet and peaceful years was not only
comfortable but even happy. Though the Marian persecution
had for ever divided the people of England into Protestants
and Roman Catholics, no thought of retaliation on the latter
was ever entertained. Their bishops after their deprivation
were treated with leniency and forbearance. A very different
fate had overtaken the reformed bishops in the late reign,
five of them having been burned in Mary's time. Archbishop
Heath lived in his own house at Chobham, where he was often
visited by the Queen. Tunstall, of Durham, and Thirlby, of
Ely, lived in the palace of Lambeth; and Bourne, of Wells,
with his old friend Carew, Dean of Exeter. White, of
Winchester, after a short imprisonment-he had threatened
to excommunicate the Queen, an offence little short of
far as might be to the laws; had they continued the practice of their
religion in retirement and distributed without clamour instruction to
those who claimed it, the rigour of the Legislature would soon have
relaxed; no jealousy would have been excited, and no penal statutes,
we may now pronounce, would have entailed misfortunes upon them and
their successors."-Rev. Joseph Berington. "Had these seminaries
never existed, we had not heard of the seditious doctrines which I have
mentioned, nor should we have been oppressed by the subsequent cruel
laws enacted against our religion."-Sir John Throckmorton.y
•
ક
"
226
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
treason—was allowed to live among his friends, as was
Turberville, of Exeter. Poole, of Peterborough, also
resided with his friends, and died on one of his own farms.
Christopherson, of Chichester, experienced a like indulgence.
Watson, of Lincoln, who had also threatened to excommu-
nicate the Queen, after a short restraint spent his time with
the Bishops of Rochester and Ely, but being accused of
practices against the State he was finally committed, after
nearly twenty years of liberty, to Wisbeach Castle in 1580.
Pates, of Worcester; Goodwell, of St. Asaph's; and Scot, of
Chester, left the country. Oglethorpe, of Carlisle; Bayne, of
Lichfield; and Morgan, of St. David's, died soon after their
deprivation, “but all of them in their beds and in perfect
liberty."
Bonner alone was imprisoned for life, as many
thought, to save him from the indignation of the populace.
Of the many hundred priests who during these twelve years
ministered to the religious wants of the Roman Catholics,
few or none, after the refusal of a small minority to take the
oath of supremacy and their consequent deprivation, were
disturbed by the Government so long as they were contented
to exercise their functions in private. In 1601, towards the
end of Elizabeth's reign, there was published a treatise or
circular letter in the name of the secular priests of England.³
In this we find the following statement:-"It cannot be
denied but that for the first ten years of Her Majesty's reign
the state of Catholics in England was tolerable, and after a
sort in some good quietness. Such as for their consciences
¹ Berington, Panzani, 12.
2 Charles Butler states that in a manuscript perused by him the
number is given at a thousand.—Memoirs of the English Catholics, 1,
308.
3 Its title is "Important Considerations which ought to move all
true and sound Catholics, who are not wholly Jesuited, to acknowledge,
without all equivocation, ambiguities, or shiftings, that the proceedings
of her Majesty and the State with them, since the beginning of her
Highness' reign, have been both mild and merciful.”
SEC. I
227
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
He
were imprisoned in the beginning of her coming to the
crown, were very kindly and mercifully used, the state of
things then considered. Some of them were appointed to
remain with such of their friends as they themselves made
choice of. Others were placed, some with bishops, some with
deans, and had their diet at their tables, with such convenient
lodgings and walks for their recreation as did well content
them." In 1602 William Watson, a seminary priest,
published "Questions Concerning State and Church.”
says: "How great quiet the State and Court was in for
twelve years! No talk of treasons or conspiracies, no
jealousies nor suspicions, no envy nor supplantations, no fear
of murderings nor massacrings, no question of conscience
or religion. All lived in great content, and right good
fellowship was amongst them." In 1593 Robert Parsons
issued his Responsio ad edictum Regina Elizabethæ. In this
he addresses the Queen in the following words:"In the
beginning of thy reign thou didst deal more gently with the
Catholics. None were then urged by thee or pressed either
to join thy religion or to deny the ancient faith. All things
indeed did seem to proceed in a far milder course; no great
complaints were heard, no unusual dissensions or repugnance
was observed." In another of his books, the same author
introduces among his characters a lady of the court, and puts
these words into her mouth: "I do well remember the first
dozen years of Her Highness' reign; how happy, pleasant,
and quiet they were, with all manner of comfort and con-
1 Dechacordon of Ten Quodlibetical Questions concerning State and
Church, p. 266. Watson was executed for his share in a conspiracy
against James I.
2 Dum enim initio regni tui mitius aliquantum cum catholicis ageres,
dum nullum adhuc vehementissime urgeres; nullum admodum premeres
vel ad sectæ tuæ participationem vel fidei antiquæ abnegationem.
Omnia sane tranquilliori longe cursu incedere videbantur, nec audie-
bantur magnæ querelæ, nec insignis aliqua dissentio aut repugnantia
cernebatur.-p. 81, ed. 1593.
.
Q 2
228
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
solation. There was no mention then of factions in religion,
neither was any man much noted or rejected for that cause,
so otherwise his conversation were civil and courteous. No
suspicion of treason, no talk of bloodshed, no complaint
of troubles, miseries, or vexations. All was peace, all was
love, all was joy, all was delight." On the accession of
James I. a petition was presented to him by the Roman
Catholic laity in 1604 for toleration of their religion. In
this we find it stated: "And that [the result of mild and
tolerant measures] appeareth most evidently by the first
twelve years of the late Queen's reign, which, as they were
free from blood and persecution, so were they fraught with
all kind of worldly prosperity. No prince was for that
space better beloved at home or more honoured or respected
abroad, no subjects ever lived with greater security or con-
tentment; never was the realm more opulent or abundant,
never was both in court and country such a general time of
triumph, joy, and exultation." We shall see in the sequel
why it was that these happy and prosperous years did not
continue, and how it came to pass that the tranquil scene of
peace, love, joy, and delight, as described by Parsons, the
irreconcilable enemy of Elizabeth and her government, was
so soon overclouded.
In 1560, in the commencement of Elizabeth's reign,
Pius IV. had sent Vincentio Parpalia, Abbot of St. Saviour,
to Flanders as his nuncio, with orders to pass over into
England and exhort the Queen to return back into the
bosom of the Church. Heylin, Burnet, and Sir Roger
Twysden, have asserted that Parpalia was commissioned by
¹ Leicester's Commonwealth, p. 162, ed. 1641.
2 An Apology or Petition of the lay Catholics, p. 14. This is
commonly known as the Petition Apologetical. Charles Butler says, that
the same expressions regarding the lenity of Elizabeth at the beginning
of her reign, are to be found in another petition of the Catholic clergy
presented to James at the same time.-English Catholics, 3, 189.
SEC. I
229
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
the Pope to offer a confirmation of the English Prayer-book,
an allowance of communion in both kinds, and a declaration
of the Queen's legitimacy. But this is uncertain. Camden
merely says that he did not believe that Parpalia's instruc-
tions were put into writing, and declines to guess what they
may have been. All that is certain is, that in the Papal
letter to the Queen of which Parpalia was the bearer, the
Pope entreated her to give the same credit to his agent which
she would do to himself, a clause which suggests that the
abbot had secret instructions not mentioned in his letter of
recommendation. Parpalia was not admitted. In the follow-
ing year, Pius invited the Queen to send ambassadors or
representatives to the Council of Trent, and despatched the
abbot Martinengo to Brussels, who from thence requested
that he might be allowed to present letters from the Pope
and other princes to the Queen. The English Council was
summoned, and it was debated whether the nuncio should be
admitted. Among the reasons given for not allowing the
Papal messenger to enter England was one which was
unanswerable; "the Pope hath, even at this instant time,
in Ireland a legate, who is publicly joined already with
certain traitors and is occupied in stirring a rebellion, having
already by open acts deprived the Queen's Majesty of her
right and title there as much as in him lieth."
We are now about to enter upon the consideration of
a series of aggressions which, for its long continuance, its
iniquity, and the evil consequences which flowed from
it, is unexampled in history; aggressions, too, not upon
a religious sect but upon a whole nation. For upwards
of thirty years the Popes of Rome directed all the moral
and material resources at their disposal towards the de-
struction of England and the conquest of the country by
¹ Note of the Consultation held at Greenwich, May 1, 1561, Tierney's
Dodd, 2, Append. 322.
230
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
the King of Spain. There is hardly an offence known
to international law, and which one State can commit
against another, which was not committed by the Roman
Pontiffs during this period against the Sovereign of England
and her people. They attempted to exclude Elizabeth from
the comity of European nations,' invaded her territories,
instigated civil wars amongst her subjects, organised combi-
nations of the Catholic powers to attack her, and preached
religious crusades against her. The Popes have been for
more than a thousand years mixed personages, com-
pounded of a secular prince and of a supreme priest. In
whichever character we consider those who sat upon the
Papal throne during this reign, their conduct to Elizabeth
and the English nation is equally indefensible. If we regard
them merely as Italian princes, no excuse can be offered for
their behaviour to an independent sovereign, against whom
they had not declared war, and who had never intermeddled
in their quarrels. If we view them as supreme priests and
vicars of the Prince of Peace, their proceedings are even
more blameable. What has the preaching of the Gospel to
do with the Sword, or the restoration of religion with
subornation of treason and rebellion, instigation of civil war,
and actual invasions? The four Popes, Pius V., Gregory
XIII., Sixtus V., and Clement VIII., deliberately put aside
their spiritual duties, and neglecting the divine precepts of
which they claimed to be the supreme expounders, took into
their hands the weapons of the flesh. By their plots and
intrigues against England, by continual attempts against
her and her institutions they harassed her people, drove
them to madness by perpetual threats of revolution, rendered
1 "The unceasing representations which the nuncio of the Pope is
constantly making to his Majesty [of France] and also to the King of
Spain to recall the ambassadors who represent them in England."
Venetian Ambassador to his Signiory, State Papers, Venet. 7, 467.
SEC. I
231
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
:
their own adherents the objects of the hatred of their fellow-
citizens, destroyed their communion in the kingdom, and
from a multitude reduced it to a remnant. It was these
Popes that brought down upon the English Roman Catholics
the afflictions under which they laboured so long, and
sacrificed their Church to the maintenance of the dogma of
the deposing power. Well might Urban VIII. declare, in
1641, that he bewailed with "tears of blood" the conduct of
his predecessors of the sixteenth century towards England
and her people.¹
¹ Cardinal Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, p. 34; Simpson,
Life of Campion, App. 371,
232
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
SECTION II
1
For the first eleven years of Elizabeth's reign the Popes
did not interfere in the internal affairs of England. They
did not even make an attempt to create bishops, or to pro-
vide any ecclesiastical organization for the English Roman
Catholics. This abstention lasted up to 1569, when Pius V.¹
suddenly, and without any immediate cause, became the
aggressor. This was the year in which the Northern
rebellion broke out under the Earls of Northumberland
and Westmoreland. The Pope had drawn up his bull of
excommunication against Elizabeth in the February of this
year, though it was not promulgated till 1570. In the
summer of 1569 he despatched Dr. Morton to the north of
England, with the ostensible purpose of imparting spiritual
faculties to the Roman Catholic clergy, "to declare by
apostolic authority that Elizabeth was a heretic, and there-
fore had lost all right to the dominion and power which she
exercised over Catholics, and might be treated by them as a
heathen and publican, and that thenceforth they owed no
obedience to her laws or commands." Pius also sent a letter
1 "Pius V. was beatified by Clement X. in 1672, and canonized by
Clement XI. in 1712. His festival holds its place in the Roman
Calendar on the 5th of May; but, in canonizing a saint, the Church is
far from canonizing all his actions.”—Butler, English Catholics, 1, 350.
2 Sander, in his De visibili Monarchia, states that Morton was sent
by the Pope "ut certis illustribus et catholicis viris authoritate apostolica
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
233
་་
ས
66
to the insurgent earls assuring them of his zealous support
in their holy and religious endeavour to free themselves
and their country from the shameful slavery of female lewd-
ness.". The Earls had evidently informed the Pope of their
intended rebellion, for the Papal letter ends with these words,
“which, that it may succeed, we will not only assist you in
performing those good offices with the Christian princes
which you desire, but we will also contribute as large a sum
of money as is in our power at present to supply, of which
you shall be more clearly and fully informed by our beloved
son, Robert Ridolfi.”¹ The Pope also wrote to Alva on the
3rd of November, eleven days before the rebellion broke out,
exhorting him to invade England and restore the Catholic
religion in that country. The rebellion was a complete
failure. The Earls sent letters to the Roman Catholics
throughout the kingdom, entreating them to join their
standard. So far were the persons addressed from asso-
ciating themselves with the enterprise, that the majority of
them sent on the letters to the Queen. Everyone, says
Camden, from all parts of the country, strove to be foremost
to offer his person and his purse to resist the rebellion—a
testimony to the mild government of Elizabeth and its
popularity, which ought not to be forgotten.
Sander, the future Papal legate, and instigator of
rebellion in Ireland, informed the Pope that the failure
of the Northern insurrection was to be attributed to the
denunciaret, Elizabetham, quæ tunc rerum potiebatur, hæreticam esse,
ob eamque causam omni dominio et potestate quam in catholicos usurpabat
jure ipso excidisse, impuneque ab illis velut ethnicam et publicanam
haberi posse, nec eos illius legibus aut mandatis deinceps obedire cogi.”
-Quoted by Tierney. Camden, Strype, and Simpson [Life of Campion],
assert the same thing.
¹ The letter is given by Sir John Throckmorton in his Letters to the
Catholic Clergy, p. 100; and also by Blackerby in his History of the
Penal Laws.
2 Mignet, Marie Stuart.
A
234
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
!
ignorance of the English Roman Catholics that he had
excommunicated the Queen, and to their feeling that they
were bound by their oath of allegiance until the Pontiff had
absolved them from it. To remove all doubt on this head,
Pius in February, 1570, launched his bull Regnans in Excelsis
against Elizabeth. In this bull the Papal claims to supreme
temporal jurisdiction were asserted in the strongest language.
After declaring that the Pope alone is appointed "prince
over all nations and all kingdoms, to destroy, to scatter, to
crush, to plant, and to build," it terms Elizabeth "the
pretended Queen of England, and the servant of wickedness.”
It proceeds: "We do out of the fulness of our apostolic
power declare the aforesaid Elizabeth, as being a heretic and
a favourer of heretics, and her adherents, to have incurred
the sentence of excommunication, and to be cut off from the
unity of the body of Christ. And, moreover, we declare her
to be deprived of her pretended title to the kingdom, and of
. all dominion, dignity, and privilege, whatsoever; and also
the nobility, subjects, and peoples of the said kingdom, and
all others who have in any way sworn unto her, to be for
ever absolved from any such oath, and all manner of duty,
allegiance, and obedience. And we do also by authority of
these presents absolve them, and deprive the said Elizabeth
of her pretended title to the kingdom, and all other things
before named. And we command and charge all and every
the noblemen, subjects, peoples, and others aforesaid, that
they presume not to obey her, or her orders, mandates, and
laws, and those that shall do the contrary we include also in
this sentence of anathema."
912
¹ These words, usual in Papal depositions, were borrowed from
Jeremiah, 1, 10: "See, I have this day set thee over the nations and
over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to
throw down, to build, and to plant."
2 Anathema is the most dreadful form of excommunication, and
SEC. II
235
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
This bull deserves a more careful consideration than it
receives in our general histories; for it was the source, and to
those who adopted it, the justification, of all the subsequent
plots, conspiracies, and invasions, which distracted the
remainder of Elizabeth's reign. It entailed the most disas-
trous effects on the Roman Catholics of England,¹ whom it
divided into two parties, the Patriotic and the Papal party,
between which the Government, as it could not pry into
conscience, was unable to discriminate. The bull of Paul
III. against Henry VIII. had fallen harmless principally
for two reasons. The first was, that Henry and his subjects
were practically agreed on matters of religion, and there was
no party in the kingdom that desired to give effect to the
bull. The second was, that divergence of opinion had not
then become inveterate, and hopes were entertained of u
re-union. But all this was changed in the time of Elizabeth.
The separation was now complete, and had been greatly
embittered by the Marian persecution. The Reformed and
the Roman Catholics of England were severed for ever by
the fires in which the Protestant martyrs had perished.
There was now a large body in the country to which the
bull of Pius appealed. Roman Catholic authors are fond of
magnifying the number of their communion in the beginning
of Elizabeth's reign, and tell us that it amounted to half or
even two-thirds of the population. To every one of these
the bull was directed, and called upon him, under the awful
sanction of an anathema, to offer a perpetual hostility to
Elizabeth and her government.
Coming as it did from their head, who claimed as the
separates the offender, “a societate omnium Christianorum et a liminibus
sanctæ matris ecclesiæ in cælo et in terris."
1 "The claim of the Popes to temporal power by divine right has
been one of the most calamitous events in the history of the Church.
Its effects since the Reformation on the English, Irish, and Scottish
Catholics have been dreadful."-Charles Butler, 1, 347.
236
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
Vicar of God, supreme temporal power, and who was then
busy in planning invasions to restore religion by violence,
the bull of Pius was a command, under the penalty of being
cut off from the unity of Christ, to the Roman Catholics of
England to prepare for a war of religion, and a contest for
the succession to the crown, with their Protestant fellow-
subjects. It proclaimed that there was no Queen, no
magistrates, no laws, or lawful authority in England. It
exalted rebellion into a religious duty, and sedition into a
proof of faith, while it declared that thenceforward no
Englishman could be a sincere Roman Catholic without
being a traitor. It was a solemn pronouncement by the
Pontiff himself that the Roman Catholic form of belief was
1 inconsistent with the safety of the country, and the obedience
of the subject. Like her father, Elizabeth had no choice
but either to abdicate with the hope of receiving back her
crown as John did from a Papal legate, or to hold her own
in spite of the Popes, and in direct and avowed hostility to
them.¹ Till this bull was recalled, or publicly repudiated by
the class to which it was addressed, it was not possible to
consider Roman Catholics as mere non-conforming subjects.
It justified Elizabeth in regarding everyone who did not
disown the bull as a soldier of the Pope and of the Spanish
King, for it was well known in England that Pius was
urging Philip to invade the kingdom. "What King in the
world," ask the secular priests, "being in doubt to be invaded
by his enemies, and fearing that some of his own subjects
were by indirect means drawn rather to adhere unto them
than to himself, would not make the best trial of them he
could, for his better satisfaction whom he could trust to?
In which trial, if he found any that either should make
doubtful answers, or peremptorily affirm that they would
leave him their prince and take part with them, might he not
1
¹ Simpson, Life of Campion, 63.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
237
justly repute them for traitors, and deal with them accord-
ingly? Sure we are that no King or prince in Christendom
would like or tolerate any such subjects within their dominions
if possibly they could get rid of them." We may illustrate
the position of Elizabeth after the publication of this bull by
a reference to modern times. The head of the Muhammedan
religion claims to be the vicegerent of the Almighty, and is
venerated as such by every Mussulman. If he were to
proclaim that the English government in India was against
the law of God and ought to be overthrown, those who now
take such different views of the conduct of Elizabeth in
similar circumstances, would unite in declaring that the
preachers of such a gospel should be restrained by the
sword.
After Pius had issued his bull the Queen endeavoured
by means of powerful intermediaries to obtain its revocation."
But the Pope refused to recall it unless Elizabeth would
return to the obedience of the Roman See. Finding that
her efforts to obtain a revocation of the bull were fruitless,
she resolved to put an end to all communications between
her subjects and the Papal Court. The publication of the
bull in London by Felton, and the fear that the introduction
of similar instruments in future might lead to mischief, was
the occasion of the Act of 1571. Its title is, "An Act
against the bringing in and putting in execution of bulls,
writings, or instruments, and other superstitious things from
the See of Rome." It provided that it should be treason to
1 Important Considerations, 1601.
2 This is asserted by Sander and Tierney, though denied by Fuller.
The question appears to be settled in the affirmative by a letter from the
Pope to the Emperor Maximilian, quoted from Theiner by Simpson in
the appendix to his Life of Campion :-"Why she [Elizabeth] makes
“Why
such a stir about this sentence," says the Pope, "we cannot quite under-
stand, for if she thinks so much of our sentence and excommunication,
why does she not return to the bosom of holy mother Church ? ”
238
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
1
put in use any bull, &c., the effect of which was "to absolve
and reconcile those who will be content to forsake their due
obedience to our lady the Queen, and to yield and subject
themselves to the feigned, unlawful, and usurped authority
of the Bishop of Rome." The introduction of Agnus Dei,
crosses, and beads from Rome was also forbidden under the
lesser penalty of a præmunire. Some of our historians have
negligently asserted¹ that this Act was directed against
conversions to the Church of Rome. This is a mistake.
Conversions are not effected by the instantaneous exhibition
of declamatory documents but by teaching and holy example.
Pius had included in his anathema all who obeyed the laws
of Elizabeth, or recognized in any way her government.
It was found that some persons procured bulls and other
documents absolving them for disobedience to the Pontiff's
commands, that is, from the religious penalties imposed by
the bull for obedience to the Queen, and the consequent
disobedience to the orders of the Pope. It was against such
instruments as these that the Act was directed, and not
against conversions to the religion of Rome. No one living
in those times considered that the statute was enacted against
religious conversions. Bacon did not, nor did Walsingham.
The secular priests speak of it as having been made only
against the importation of bulls, &c. They say: "Her
Majesty called a parliament in the thirteenth year of her
reign, 1571, wherein a law was made containing many
branches against the bringing into this land after that time
of any bulls from Rome, any Agnus Dei, crosses, or pardons,
and against all manner of persons that should procure them
¹ As Hallam. Charles Butler, a lawyer of great eminence, and well
qualified to interpret an Act of Parliament, is careful to avoid such a
misreading. He says:-"In the construction of this Act it appears to
have been understood that the absolutions which it mentions did not
denote absolutions given in sacramental confession, but those absolutions
only which were granted by special faculties.”—English Catholics, 1, 352.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
239
to be so brought hither, with many other particularities
thereunto appertaining."
1
2
This Act has been described as the first of the penal laws
against Roman Catholics. This description requires to be
largely qualified. The statute consists of two parts. The
first, that against the introduction of Papal bulls was general,
and a declaration only of the old law which had prevailed in
England from the Norman conquest, but more particularly
from the passing of the Præmunire Act of Richard II.,
enacted more than a hundred and fifty years before
Elizabeth's accession. It is undoubted that during this
interval it was illegal for any English subject to bring into
the kingdom, or accept, or even sue for, a Papal bull, letter,
or rescript without the license of the sovereign first asked
and obtained. We have in our records, as we have seen,
many letters-patent granting permission to persons to sue
for or to receive such instruments, and also examples of
pardons for having accepted them without a previous license.
The only portion of the statute which was new, was that
against bringing in tokens and remembrances from Rome.
The English Government had endeavoured to obtain a
revocation of the bull deposing the sovereign, and had failed
to do so in consequence of the obstinacy of the Pope. Its
offer of peace had been rejected. The Pontiff by his bull
had denied it the name and rights of a lawful government,
and was now corrupting the fidelity of its subjects. For
these reasons the Administration considered it incumbent to
cut off all communication between those subjects and the
Papal Court. It feared, as the secular priests say, that the
Roman Catholics of England might be "by indirect means
1 ¹ Simpson's Campion, App. 370.
2 Edward I. was with difficulty persuaded to spare the life of one who
had brought a Papal bull into the kingdom. Edward III. put to death
several persons for this offence. See Walsingham. Historia Anglicana,
1, 286. Sub ann. 1358.
240
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
drawn to adhere to their enemies," or, as Bacon and
Walsingham put it, that by such "love tokens as are well
known not to be any essential part of the Romish religion,
the affections of the people might be enchanted from their
allegiance to their natural sovereign." The Roman Catholics.
themselves did not consider this Act as one of the penal laws,
and dated the first of these laws ten years later, viz. in 1581.
In a book which was addressed to Clement VIII. in the
name of the English Roman Catholic clergy in 1601, the
following paragraph occurs:-"Father Parsons was the
principal author, the incentor, and the mover of all our
garboils at home and abroad. During the short space of
nearly two years that he spent in England [from June,
1580, to the end of 1581] so much did he irritate by his
actions the mind of the Queen and her ministers, that on
that occasion the first severe laws were enacted against the
ministers of our religion and those who should harbour
them." This Act against the introduction of Papal bulls was
allowed to sleep harmlessly on the statute book for six years.
One of the consequences of the bull of Pius was, as has
been said, to divide the Roman Catholics of England into
two parties; Roman Catholics, properly so called, who, true
to the traditions of the old national Church, knew how to
reconcile their belief with loyalty to their sovereign, and
Papists, who added to their faith two new articles, that the
3
¹ Observations on a Libel. Bacon's expressions in this are borrowed
by him from a letter written by Walsingham in defence of Elizabeth's
administration. Walsingham's letter is given in Collier, 2, 607.
(2) Declaratio Motuum, &c., written by John Mush, a seminary priest.
Berington's Memoirs of Panzani, 28.
3To the appellation of Papistic Party some persons may object. . . .
It is not new; it has always been used to distinguish those who by their
obsequiousness and too great adherence to the Papal power, have supported
and given strength to the exorbitant pretensions of the Court of Rome."
Throckmorton, Letters to the Catholic Clergy of England, preface.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
241
Pope was invested by divine right with the power of
deposing Kings, and that to obey a heretical prince was to
betray the cause of religion. This division made its
appearance immediately after the publication of the bull of
Pius. The English Government was alarmed at the
doctrine of the deposing power set forth in that document.
Accordingly in 1570 it convened a meeting of the deprived
bishops, and of "many abbots and deans" of their per-
suasion. To this assembly the following questions were
submitted:-
"Whether the Queen was divested of the kingdom by
the deposing bull of Pius? or by any other sentence passed,
or to be passed? or whether her subjects were discharged
from their allegiance?" To these questions a unanimous
answer was given: "Notwithstanding this bull, or any other
declaration or sentence of the Pope, passed or to be passed, we
hold Queen Elizabeth to be the lawful Queen of England and
Ireland, and that obedience and fealty are due to her as such
by all her English and Irish subjects." In process of time
the rift between the parties became wider. In 1587, when
Cardinal Allen published his disgraceful letter to the officers
of Stanley's regiment, praising them for having betrayed
Deventer and for having deserted to the Spanish King, the
"chiefest" of the English Roman Catholics drew up an
answer to it. In this reply they repudiated the opinion
expressed by Allen, that the "rendering of such towns of the
1 "Utrum per bullam illam Pontificis depositoriam, aliamve declara-
tionem vel sententiam latam vel ferendam, sentirent Reginam Elizabetham
jure regnorum suorum devestitam esse ? aut subditos ab illius obedientia
et fidelitate exemptos ?"-Caron, Remonstrantia Hibernorum, pars. 1,
c. 5, s. 4.
2 The answer was signed by Watson of Lincoln; Feckenham, Abbot
of Westminster; Cole, Dean of St. Paul's; Harpsfield, Dean of Canterbury,
and N. Harpsfield, Archdeacon of the same. Of this opinion also were
Archbishop Heath, Bishops Poole, Tunstall, White, Oglethorpe, Thirlby,
Turberville, pluresque abbates ac decani.—Ib.
R
242
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
Low Countries as be in any English custody was necessary
to be done under pain of mortal sin and damnation," and
"declared to the whole world that they utterly defied the
seditious doctrine of his resolution." Some years later, in
1601, when the designs of the Jesuits and the seminary
priests had become better known, the secular priests asserted
that they were ready to receive any person from the Pope on
a purely spiritual mission, "but if he [the Pope] come or
send hither an army, under pretence to establish the Catholic
religion by force and with the sword, we will ever be most
ready, as native-born and true subjects to Her Highness,
with the hazard of our lives, and with all our might, to
withstand and oppose ourselves against him, and to spend
the best blood in our bodies in defence of our Queen and
our country." Further on they say to their flocks: "We
desire you, by the mercies of God, to take heed of novelties
and Jesuitism, for it is nothing but treachery, dissimulation,
ambition, and a very vizard of most deep hypocrisy..
Never give ear to any private whisperers or Jesuitical
persuasions that shall tend to allure you from your duties
and allegiance unto her Majesty or your native country.
All arguments that can be brought to corrupt you in either,
assure yourselves are false and unlearned sophistications.
Unfortunately for England and the English Roman Catholics
the Papists were by far the more active and enterprising
party. They were supported by all the influence of the
Papal Court, by Philip in Spain, and by his Viceroys in
Flanders. Their leaders were William Allen and Robert
Parsons, the respective heads of the two missionary bodies,
the seminary priests and the Jesuits, who preached and
792
1 "The Answer of divers Catholic English gentlemen to a certain
seditious book, veiled with the name of Dr. Allen."-Letters and Memo-
rials of Card. Allen, 299.
2 Important Considerations.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
243
taught that Elizabeth should be deposed and religion restored
in England by rebellion or by invasion. To these two, of all
men, after the Popes of Rome, the subsequent misfortunes of
the English Roman Catholics were principally due.
In 1568 Allen founded at Douay the first foreign
seminary for the education of English priests. Dodd and
other authors tell us that he did so to preserve the succession.
of Roman Catholic priests, who otherwise might have died
out. It is only too certain that Allen's real intention was,
to establish schools from which he might despatch apostles to
spread his seditious doctrines. There was not then the
slightest necessity for establishing colleges abroad, for in
1568 Roman Catholic schools might have been founded at
home. "I cannot admit," says Throckmorton, "that we
are under any obligation to these men [Allen and Parsons]
for procuring the foundation of foreign seminaries. At the
time they did it, the universities were, indeed, shut against
the Catholics,¹ as they now [1792] are, but it was not there-
fore necessary to fly to a strange land for education. No
law then existed to debar the Catholics from educating their
children in England. Had these seminaries never existed,
we had not heard of the seditious doctrines which I have
mentioned, nor should we have been oppressed by the subse-
quent cruel laws enacted against our religion."
"Our
ancestors were unwise," says the Rev. Joseph Berrington,
"in founding foreign houses of education, not only because
they took the place of better establishments, which in the
course of a few years we might have formed at home, but also
because, from their views, some real and some imputed by
their enemies, on the ground of their foreign connexions and
1 Sir John Throckmorton means by the Oath of Supremacy. As a
matter of fact, this oath was then considered by Roman Catholics as a
political test, and was freely taken by them. The stricter Oaths of
Henry and Edward did not prevent them flocking to the Universities.
R 2
244
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
their avowed designs against the religion of the country,
they soon excited in the breasts of our governors a suspectful
jealousy... It will not be denied that... our foreign
houses soon imbibed an Ultramontane spirit which, as it
flattered, and by flattering secured the favour of Rome, so
did it offend... the government. The doctrine of deposing
princes and disposing of their crowns, with other concurrent
maxims of a like tendency, were the pabulum on which that
Ultramontane spirit fed." Not only might English schools
and colleges have been established for Roman Catholics, but
the succession of their bishops, and therefore of their priests,
might have been secured in the regular way. Many of their
deprived prelates, after a short imprisonment, or none at all,
were practically left at liberty. Archbishop Heath dwelt in
his own house, and died there in 1579, twenty years after the
accession of Elizabeth. Poole, of Peterborough, was at first
merely restricted to within three miles of London, and died
on one of his own farms. White of Winchester and Tur-
berville of Exeter lived with their relations, and Bourne of
Wales with an old friend. Watson of Lincoln, after a short
restraint, was at liberty among his friends for nearly twenty
years, and acted as a kind of Pope's legate in England,³
until he was suspected of political intrigues, and sent to
Wisbeach in 1580. There was nothing to prevent these
bishops from meeting and consecrating successors as vacan-
cies occurred. No danger was to be apprehended from the
Government, at least the Pope and the Roman Catholic
clergy believed so. In 1580 the Pope sent Goldwell,
formerly of St. Asaph's, to take upon himself the charge of
religion in England, though the bishop did not get farther
than Rheims. In the same year Parsons himself wrote to
Berington, Panzani, Introd. 23.
2
2 Cal. of State Papers, Elizabeth, Addenda, 1547–65, p. 52.
Berington, Panzani, p. 37.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
245
192
Agazzarius, rector of the English College at Rome, describing
the spiritual wants of the Roman Catholics, and expressing
a hope that a bishop would speedily be nominated. Gold-
well also at this time wrote to the Pope, remonstrating with
him for not appointing bishops for England: "I cannot
but marvel how it is. . . you make so many difficulties about
creating three or four titular bishops to preserve and propa-
gate the Catholic faith." In 1596 the clergy in England
resolved to supplicate the Pope to restore their hierarchy and
to appoint bishops, "being now sensible when it was too
late how culpable had been their remissness in not having
induced the old bishops to leave successors behind them.'
When Blackwell was appointed by the Pope Arch-priest in
1598, with jurisdiction over England and Scotland, he
exercised his office without molestation from the Government.
In Ireland the succession of both bishops and priests was
kept up.
What was possible in Ireland was surely not
impossible in England. If this had been done, and if the
spiritual care of the Roman Catholics of England had been
entrusted to clergymen educated at home, instead of being
committed to a large extent to seminary priests and Jesuits
nourished on the foreign doctrine of the deposing power,
the whole history of that communion would have been
different.
Charles Butler denies that the English government was
opposed to the appointment of bishops by the Pope as
vacancies occurred, and points out the advantages that would
have resulted from such institution. "After bishops are
installed in their Sees, they are only removable for a cano-
nical crime and by a canonical proceeding. Such bishops
therefore, might disregard, and even resist with impunity,
¹ Letter quoted from Theiner by Simpson in his Life of Campion,
106.
2 Berington, Panzani, 42.
•
246
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
such illaudable bulls as those of Paul the Third, of St. Pius
the Fifth, Gregory, and of Sixtus Quintus, which had so
greatly injured the Catholic cause, and guard their flocks.
against them. In fact so generally was it understood that
the appointment of bishops would be acceptable to Elizabeth
and her ministers, that the Catholic opposers of the measure
used this very circumstance as an objection to it, observing
that it was impossible to suppose that any plan could be
acceptable to their adversaries if they did not foresee that it
would essentially prejudice the Catholic religion." Another
Roman Catholic author, Charles Plowden, tells us that the
Pope refused to appoint bishops for England because the
measure was patronised by Elizabeth."
The foundation of the English seminary at Douay³ was
succeeded by that of others at Rome, Valladolid, Seville,
Louvain, and St. Omer, under the protection of the Pope
and the Spanish King, who contributed largely to their
support. All these were established by the labours of Allen.
and Parsons. From these centres of sedition, books and
treatises were poured into England teaching that every Act
of Elizabeth since her excommunication was void, and that
her subjects were bound to depose her under the pain of
damnation. A few extracts from the writings of Allen and
Parsons, who were the heads of the two missionary bodies,
the seminary priests and the Jesuits, will show us what the
teaching in these colleges must have been, and the absolute
necessity of preventing the entrance of its apostles into
England. During the war in the Low Countries, Sir
William Stanley was in command of the town of Deventer,
which he betrayed into the hands of the Spaniards, and
¹ Memoirs of the English Catholics, 2, 252.
2 Ib. 253, note.
3 The establishment at Douay was removed to Rheims in 1578, where
it flourished for fifteen years under the patronage of the Guises, the
inveterate enemies of England, and then returned to Douay.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
247
deserted with his regiment to the service of Philip. This
act of treachery excited the indignation of all honest men;
but Allen hastened to address a letter to the officers of
Stanley's regiment in which he justified the betrayal, and
exhorted the Roman Catholics in all other regiments to do
the same.
"To come then to your purpose, though I have
already by my letters to Sir William given my own opinion,
I will yet, for better clearing the cause, set here down my
mind more largely and distinctly. Therefore, first, I say
that, the rendering up of such towns and places of the Low
Countries as be in any Englishmen's custody, is not only
lawful but necessary to be done, under pain of mortal sin
and damnation.² ... Yea, I say more to you, gentlemen,
seeing your desire to know my meaning fully on this point,
that as all acts of justice within the realm done by the
Queen's authority ever since she was by public sentence of
the Church and See Apostolic declared a heretic and an
enemy of God's Church, and for the same by name ex-
communicated and deposed from all royal dignity; as, I say,
ever since the publication thereof all is void by the law of
God and man; so likewise no war can be lawfully denounced
or waged by her though otherwise in itself it were most just.
Because that is the first condition, that it be denounced by
one that hath lawful and supreme power to do the same,
as no excommunicate person hath, especially if he be withall
deposed from his regal dignity by Christ's own Vicar, which
1 "The copy of a letter written by M. Doctor Allen, concerning the
yielding up of the citie of Daventrie unto his Catholic Majesty. Wherein
is shown both how lawful, honourable, and necessary that action was
and also that all others, especially those of the English nation, that
detain any towns or other places in the Low Countries from the King
Catholic, are bound upon pain of damnation to do the like."-Reprinted
by the Chetham Society, 1851.
2 Sir William Stanley's conduct was also justified by Parsons in his
“Manifestation."-Butler's English Catholics, 2, 20.
248
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
is the supreme power on earth. And all subjects are not
only absolved and discharged of their service, oath, homage,
and obedience, but specially forbidden to serve or obey any
such canonically condemned person."
In 1587 Allen was created a cardinal, and in the same
year he drew up an admonition or manifesto,' which was
dispersed among the Roman Catholics of England before
the arrival of the Armada. The tone of this publication
is almost inconceivable. If copies did not still exist, it
would be incredible that such a document was ever issued by
a minister of religion. Here are some paragraphs: "She
[Elizabeth] is indeed taken and known for an incestuous
bastard, begotten and born in sin of an infamous courtesan,
Anne Boleyn, afterwards executed for advoutery, treason,
heresy, and incest, amongst others with her own natural
brother; which Anne Boleyn, her said supposed father kept
by pretended marriage in the life of his lawful wife, as he
did before unnaturally know and keep both the said Anne's
mother and sister." After describing the Queen as a
perjurer, persecutor, a destroyer of the ancient nobility, an
oppressor of her subjects "with manifold exactions not only
by ordinary means, but also by sundry shameful guiles of
lotteries, laws, decrees, and by falls of money and such
like deceits," and a "seller of laws, licenses, dispensations,
pardons, and permissions to the enriching of herself and
servants," it accuses her of the most shameful licentiousness.
"With the aforesaid person [Leicester] and divers others, she
hath abused her body against God's laws, to the disgrace
1" An Admonition to the nobility and people of England and Ireland
concerning the present wars made for the execution of his Holiness's
sentence by the high and mighty King Catholic of Spain." The sub-
stance of this address was also compressed into a smaller compass and
printed as a broadside, with the title “A Declaration of the sentence
of deposition of Elizabeth, the usurper and pretended Queen of Eng-
land.”
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
249
!
of princely majesty and the whole nation's reproach, by
unspeakable and incredible variety of lust, which modesty
suffereth it not to be remembered, neither were it to chaste
ears to be uttered how shamefully she hath defiled and infamed
her person and country, and made her court a trap by this
damnable and detestable art to entangle in sin and overthrow
the younger sort of the nobility and gentlemen of the land;
whereby she is become notorious to the world and in other
countries a common fable for her turpitude, which in so
high degree, namely, in a woman and a Queen, deserveth not
only deposition, but all vengeance both of God and man."
"She could never be restrained from this incontinence,
though the principal peers of the realm and others of high
authority, as deputies from the whole parliament and estates,
made humble suit and supplication to her, that for pity and
compassion of their desolate case and of the danger that the
whole realm and specially the nobility should be in if she
deceased without lawful issue. she would therefore
. lawful heirs of her body
marry and procure
to whom sometimes she merely and mockingly answered that
she would die a maiden Queen, but afterwards in contempt
and rebuke of all the states of the realm and to the con-
demnation of chaste and lawful matrimony whereunto
as to a bridle of her licentiousness she is an enemy, she forced
the very parliament itself to give consent and to provide by a
pretended law .. that none should so much as be named
•
""
"Now
for her successor during her life saving the natural, that is to
say, bastard born child of her own body.'
therefore my lords and dear countrymen, if you list, follow
this God's ordinance and happy provision that He hath of
His great mercy made for your honours, liberty and sal-
vation. If you without delay join yourselves, as God,
conscience, and nature bindeth you; if you take part one
with another in so goodly and honourable a quarrel, you
250
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
shall attain your purpose without all bloodshed, where
otherwise if you should either sit still or refuse to help, or
sever yourselves one from another, or any of you seek to
uphold-which God forbid—the usurper or her complices,
being thus cursed by the Church and forsaken of God and
of all good men, you that do so shall first incur the Angel's
curse and malediction upon the inhabitants of the land of
Meros,' who sat still and would not help God nor venture
their lives in His quarrel, and secondly be as deeply
excommunicated as she is, and so you shall be guilty of
your own ruin and the blood of the people, and yet shall not
prevail. You shall fight against God and against His
anointed, against your next lawful King, against truth,
faith, religion, conscience, and your dear country. You
shall bootless defend, yea to your own present destruction
and eternal shame, a most unjust usurper and open injurer
of all nations, an infamous, depraved, accursed, excom-
municate heretic, the very shame of her sex and princely
name, the chief spectacle of sin and abomination in this our
age, and the only poison, calamity, and destruction of our
noble Church and country. Fight not for God's love, fight
not in that quarrel in which if you die you are sure to be
damned.'
""
The writings of Parsons were equally dangerous and
subversive of all secular sovereignty In one of his works he
says: "The whole of divines and canonists do hold that it is
certain and of faith," that any Christian prince whatsoever, if
he shall manifestly deflect from the Catholic religion and
1 "Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the
inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the Lord, to
the help of the Lord against the mighty."-Judges v. 23.
2 "Et est certum et de fide, quemcunque principem christianum, si a
religione catholica manifeste deflexerit, et alios avocare voluerit, excidere
statim omni potestate et dignitate, ex ipsa vi juris tum divini tum
humani."
SEC. II
251
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
endeavour to draw others from the same, does immediately
fall from all power and dignity by the very force of human
and divine law, and that also before any sentence of the
supreme pastor or judge denounced against him, and that his
subjects whatsoever are free from all obligation of that oath
which they had taken for their allegiance to him as their
lawful prince; and that they may, and ought, if they have
forces, drive out such a man as an apostate or heretic and a
backslider from the Lord and Christ, and an enemy to the
commonwealth, from all dominion over Christians, lest he
infect others, or by his example or command turn others from
the faith, and that this certain, definite, and undoubted
opinion of the best learned men is wholly agreeable and
consonant to the apostolical doctrine."
Similar tenets were upheld in their books by Stapleton,
first professor of divinity at Douay, and afterwards at Louvain;
by Bristowe, prefect of studies, and occasionally regent, at
Douay; by Sander, and many others. It is certain that
these opinions were inculcated in the colleges founded by
Allen and Parsons, and presided over by their friends.
There is no room for the least doubt. For, as Parsons
informs us, they were held by all divines and canonists as
of faith, that is, as truths necessary for salvation. Such
doctrines were universally maintained by the doctors and
canonists of Italy and the Spanish dominions, where these
colleges were situated, so that it was impossible that these
opinions should not be taught in the seminaries. It is
trifling with our intelligence to say that the laws, which
prevented the apostles of such doctrines from corrupting the
allegiance of the English people, were not necessary, or that
Elizabeth was not bound first to warn them not to enter the
kingdom, and if they persisted, to draw the sword against
them. Such laws were then necessary when every art and
' Throckmorton's Letters to the Catholic Clergy, 129.
252
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
every menace were unremittingly employed to stimulate
the English Roman Catholics to abandon their loyalty, and
to disturb the government of the land. Similar laws may
be necessary again. A modern Roman Catholic government'
has found it requisite to direct penal enactments against
those ministers of religion who abuse their sacred functions
for the purpose of spreading political views, and, under the
pretence of exercising their office, enjoin opinions hostile to
the State.
The celebrated Cardinal D'Ossat,² writing in 1601 to the
King of France from Rome, where he had resided for more
than twenty years, thus describes these seminaries:-" For
this purpose [to support the claims of Philip II. and his
successors to the English crown] colleges and seminaries
have been expressly established for English youths by the
Spaniards at Douay and St. Omer. Young gentlemen of
good families are received into these institutions in order
that they may influence their relations and friends in
England. The principal aim of these schools has been to
catechise, educate, and rear young English gentlemen in the
belief and firm faith that the late King of Spain had, and
that his family now has, the true right to the crown of
England, and that the furtherance of this claim would be
advantageous to the Catholic religion not only in England
but throughout Christendom. When these young men have
finished their secular studies in the Low Countries, they are
removed to Spain, where there are other colleges for them, in
order that they may be made thorough Spaniards. There,
they are instructed in philosophy and theology, and con-
firmed in the holy faith that the kingdom of England
1 The Italian Government.
2 "He [Cardinal D'Ossat] was one of those extraordinary personages
who have united every voice in their praise."-Butler, English Catholics,
2, 49.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
253
belonged to Philip II. and now belongs to his family.
When the young men have gone through these studies,
those of them who are considered to be the most hispaniolated,
and the firmest believers in the "credo Espagnol," are sent
to England to spread that faith, to gain converts to it, to
act as spies in the country, and to give information to the
Spaniards of the readiest means of subjecting the kingdom
to Spain; and also, if necessary, to undergo martyrdom as
much or more for the said Spanish faith as for the Catholic
religion." In the following year, 1602, Thomas Bluet, a
seminary priest, wrote to the Cardinals Borghese and
Aragon :-"In the Spanish seminaries he [Parsons] forced
English students to subscribe to the Infanta as their lawful
Queen, that on their return they might persuade their
relatives to accept no other. Can it be wondered at that the
Queen should rage against priests so educated? and when
they slay and torment us, they declare that it is not for
religion but for treason. Parsons himself acknowledges
that the Queen is forced to these proceedings.'
972
Undeterred by the failure of the insurrection of 1569,
the Pope immediately recommenced his intrigues against
England, and in 1570 and 1571 endeavoured to stir up
another civil war, and to bring about an invasion by the
Spaniards. Ridolfi, as we have seen from the Papal letter
to the insurgent earls, was the secret agent and corre-
spondent of the Pope in England. He was a banker, and
director of the company of Italian merchants in London.
1 Lettres du Cardinal D' Ossat, 5, 50, ed. 1708.
2 Cal. State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth, 1601-3, p. 170. The
secular priests also assert that Parsons urged the English students in
the Spanish seminaries to acknowledge the Infanta as their Queen.
"To which purpose he [Parsons] framed and afterwards published a
book, wherewith he acquainted the students in those seminaries in
Spain, and laboured nothing more than to have their subscriptions to
the said Infanta's title, therein promising unto her their present allegiance
as unto their lawful sovereign."-Important Considerations.
:
254
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
He had been justly suspected of a connexion with the
northern rebellion, and had been imprisoned for some
months, but his professed occupation enabled him to give
explanations which satisfied the English Government. This
person was sent with full powers from the Pontiff to Mary
Stuart, and was also well furnished with money and credit.'
He, Norfolk, and the Queen of Scots, arranged among
themselves the plan of a rebellion for the purpose of restoring
religion and delivering Mary. If this conspiracy had
succeeded, Elizabeth would infallibly have been deposed.
Ridolfi proposed that Elizabeth's person should be seized
by the Roman Catholic lords attending parliament, but
Norfolk was of opinion that nothing should be done until
answers had been received from abroad from those princes
who favoured the enterprise."
Accordingly, Ridolfi was despatched to the Pope and
King of Spain, with full instructions from Mary and the
Duke of Norfolk. In her instructions, Mary expressed her
resolution to have recourse to all Christian princes, and
especially to the Pope and King of Spain, for the purpose of
restoring the Catholic religion. She mentioned that the
nobles of England had determined to take up arms under the
leadership of Norfolk to uphold her rights, and to oppose by
force the projected marriage between Elizabeth and the Duke
1 "From his [the Pope's] nuncio there were letters also of the good
disposition of the Pope to help the Queen of Scots, and that, any time
that she could make a party here in England, he would bestow 100,000
crowns beside any other aid and help he could procure."—Evidence of
Barker, Murdin, State Papers, 126. The secular priests in their Impor-
tant Considerations say :—“ Had not the Pope and King of Spain assigned
the Duke of Norfolk to be the head of this rebellion? Did not the Pope
give orders to Ridolfi to take 150,000 crowns to set forward this
attempt ?" Catena in his Life of Pius V. also states that Ridolfi was
sent from the Pope with 150,000 crowns.-See Camden, sub anno
2 "Barker did report to me that the duke did no wise like of such
1572.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
255
of Anjou; assured the Pope of the devotion of Norfolk to
the Catholic religion; and requested him to use all his
influence with the King of Spain, and to urge that monarch
to support an enterprise so advantageous to Christendom and
to himself personally; proposed to marry her son to one of the
infantas, and to place him in the meantime in the hands of
Philip as a guarantee of her good intentions; and offered,
in case an expedition should be sent, the Castle of Dumbarton
or Edinburgh, in order to secure the success of the landing.'
The instructions of the Duke of Norfolk were fuller and
more specific than those of Mary: "So great is the confidence
which the Queen of Scots, I, and other nobles of the realm
repose in you, that we have resolved to entrust to you a
matter of the greatest importance not only to the safety of
our persons but to the greater number of the inhabitants of
these two kingdoms, and to the whole of Christendom. We
authorize you to hasten to Rome to our lord the Pope, and
from him to Spain, to explain the calamitous state of this
island, and to propose a certain means of freeing its inha-
bitants from their miseries. You have received instructions
from the Queen of Scotland what you should propose on her
behalf. I also, in my own name and in that of the majority
of the English nobles, a list of whom you take with you,"
hereby declare our intentions. You will represent to our
2
Italian devices, and could attempt nothing before he should get answer
from these princes beyond the seas that were reputed to be friends.".
Exam. of the Bishop of Ross, Murdin, 44.
1 The instructions of Mary and the duke are in Prince Labanoff's
Lettres, Instructions, et Memoirs de Marie Stuart, extracted from the
Vatican archives, and attested by the pontifical prefect of the library.
They are undated, but must have been drawn up before the 24th of
March, 1571, on which day Ridolfi set out for Brussels on his way to
Rome.
2 This list contained the names of sixty-three English noblemen,
forty as favourable to the enterprise, seventeen as neutral, and six only
as hostile. No Scotch noblemen were mentioned.
256
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
lord the Pope and the Catholic King the miserable condition
of this island, and the probability of its becoming worse,
unless they intervene to restore the Catholic religion and to
support the rights of the Queen of Scotland to the English
crown. You will make known to our lord and the Catholic
King the good and prompt disposition of the English
Catholics-who form the larger and more powerful party
in the realm—and the opportunity now offered to restore the
whole country to the Catholic faith, and to advance the just
title of the Scotch Queen, inasmuch as the Protestants will
assist the enterprise, moved thereto by their hatred to her
competitors, and the question of the succession to the Crown.
And since our lord the Pope and his Catholic Majesty have
up to this time entertained doubts of me as professing Pro-
testantism, you will explain to them that I have done so, not
from any disaffection to the Holy See, but to be able on a
fitting opportunity like the present to do service to the
country and the whole of Christendom. You will kiss the
feet of our lord in my name and that of all the Catholic
noblemen, and assure him that if this enterprise suceeed I
shall be satisfied to do anything that he, the Catholic King,
and the Queen of Scotland, shall order me to do." After
further assurances of his devotion to the Spanish King, the
duke explained what succours he would require. He asked
for six thousand musketeers, four thousand muskets to arm
volunteers, two thousand cuirasses, twenty-five pieces of
artillery, a supply of ammunition and money, and an
experienced commander. He desired, if possible, that the
force might be increased to ten thousand men, in order that
diversions in Scotland and Ireland might be effected. He
promised on his side to furnish twenty thousand infantry
1
1 Yet on the scaffold the duke made use of these words :-"God is
my judge before whom I stand; I thank God I was never a Papist since
I knew what religion meant. "-State Trials, 1, 1034.
w
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
257
A
and three thousand cavalry, and suggested Harwich or
Portsmouth as convenient places for landing.¹
Furnished with these credentials Ridolfi left London on
the 24th of March, 1571. On his way to Rome he had an
interview with Alva at Brussels and explained to him the
plan, the resources, and the requirements of the conspirators
who had despatched him. Alva at once took the measure of
Ridolfi, whom he described as a babbler. Regarding the
enterprise itself, Alva wrote on the 7th of May a long letter
to Philip II., in which he expressed a strong opinion that it
ought not to be commenced with the open assistance of that
King. The first step in the matter should be taken by the
English confederates. If however, he added, the Queen of
England should die a natural or any other death, or if her
person should be seized, there would be no difficulty in the
affair. The proposal of a marriage between her and Anjou
would then drop of itself, the French would no longer fear
that Philip intended to make himself master of England,
and the Germans would not distrust him, as his only object
would be to sustain the Queen of Scots against the rival
claimants to the crown. Should any one of the three cases
happen, that is, the natural death, the assassination, or the
capture of Elizabeth, "your Majesty may then promise to
assist them with six thousand men from the Netherlands.
For myself I look upon this as so convenient, so honourable,
and so easy for your Majesty, that, if one of the three cases
¹ Dr. Lingard has attempted to throw doubts on these instructions of
Norfolk. It is certain that they were authorized by the duke. (1) Copies
of them exist in the Vatican and Simancas archives. (2) Alva, on learn-
ing that the conspiracy was discovered, wrote to the Spanish Ambassador
in London to keep carefully the instructions of Mary and the duke, which
had been deposited with him. (3) Mary, in her correspondence with
Alva and Norfolk, often refers to these instructions. (4) The Bishop of
Ross affirmed that they were authorized by Norfolk [Murdin, 25].
(5) In her instructions, Mary mentions those given by the Duke: "Io
S
258
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
happens, I shall not hesitate to act without fresh instructions,
and I shall do so unless you order to the contrary."
From Brussels Ridolfi proceeded to Rome, where he
received a warm welcome from the Pope. In the preceding
January, Pius had remonstrated with the Spanish ambassador
on the neglect of his master to effect anything for the
deposition of Elizabeth and the restoration of the Catholic
religion in England. On the present occasion the Pope at
once adopted the plans of Ridolfi, and placed at his disposal a
sum of money to advance them. In addition he gave him a
letter to Philip, imploring that King to furnish Ridolfi with
the means of carrying them into execution. The letter is as
follows:-"Our dear son, Robert Ridolfi, by the help of
God, will lay before your Majesty certain things which affect
not a little the honour of Almighty God and the advantage
of the Christian commonwealth. We require and beseech
your Majesty to grant him, on this account and without
hesitation, your most entire confidence, and we conjure you
especially by your fervent piety towards God to take to heart
the matter on which he will treat with your Majesty, and to
furnish him with all the means which you may judge most
suitable for the execution of his plans. Meanwhile we
beseech your Majesty to do this, submitting the affair to the
judgment and prudence of your Majesty, and from the
bottom of our heart praying our Redeemer in His mercy to
mi remetto alla particulare instructione che il Ridolfi portera del duca di
Norfolk." Lastly, about the same time Norfolk wrote to Philip that he
had determined to put himself at the head of the English and Scotch
nobility, in order to restore the Catholic religion in both countries.—
Labanoff, 3, 247, 254.
¹ The letter is given in Mignet's Marie Stuart. In it Alva mentions
the instructions of Mary Stuart and the Duke of Norfolk:-"Despues
vino el dicho Ridolfi secreto con cartas de creencias de la dicha Reina y
del duque."
2 Lingard, 6, 260, Ed. 1849.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
259
grant success to that which is projected for His honour and
glory."
In June Ridolfi arrived in Madrid, and on the 7th of
July he was questioned regarding the enterprise by the
Duke of Feria, who had been deputed to examine him. On
the same day, the Council of State met and discussed the
projects for the assassination or capture of Elizabeth and
the invasion of England. All its members agreed as to the
necessity of interfering at once in English affairs, but
differed as to the manner of so doing and the feasibility of
the plans offered for their consideration. The Papal nuncio
alone was sanguine as to the success of the enterprise, and
mentioned that Cipiano Vitelli, one of Alva's officers, had
offered to go in person, with a dozen or fifteen resolute men,
and seize the Queen of England at one of her country
houses. He was also of opinion that Alva possessed sufficient
means for securing the success of an invasion, and advised
that he should. proceed under the authority of the bull
deposing Elizabeth, and act in the Pope's name. But the
Duke of Feria opposed this, and maintained that they should
found their intervention on the claims of the Scottish Queen.
Finally the Council was of the same opinion as Alva, viz.
that the English conspirators should first show their
strength and do something for themselves. On the 14th of
September Philip wrote to Alva: "Perceiving that you are
firmly persuaded that it is not advisable to proceed in this
matter unless the confederates show themselves in force, and
considering the careful attention you have given to the
subject, I am led to leave it in your hands, in order that,
3
¹ The Pope to the Catholic King, Rome, 5 May, 1571. The letter, in
Latin, is in Mignet, from the Simancas archives.
2 Marquis of Cetona, Campmaster-General to Alva.
The rough notes of this discussion still survive and are given by
Mignet from the Simancas records.
S 2
260
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
""
after examining into all points, you may act as you may
consider advantageous to the service of God and of ourselves,
and I feel assured that you will direct this great enterprise
with all the zeal, solicitude, and prudence which it requires.
In the meantime the conspiracy had been discovered in
England and Norfolk sent to the Tower. In the following
January he was put on his trial and convicted of treason,
though he was not executed for some months later.
1
In 1572, the whole reformed world was horrorstruck by
the news of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. For upwards
of forty years, the Protestants of England had been hearing
of the burning, beheading, and burying alive of tens of
thousands of dissidents from the Roman faith in the
Netherlands by the Spaniards. The memory of their own
persecution in the time of Mary was still fresh, and its
revival was an ever present terror before their eyes. They
were well aware that the Pope and the King of Spain were
plotting the invasion of their country, and the destruction
of their institutions. They believed that the success of these
plans would entail a persecution upon them as severe as
those in the Netherlands and in Spain. While they were in
this state of mind, the news suddenly arrived that fifty
thousand French Protestants had been shot, stabbed, or
hacked to pieces at their own firesides by their countrymen,
and that the homes of the victims had been polluted by
every crime which attends the taking of a city by storm.
But this was not all. It was known that the Pope had
adopted the massacre; that, on receiving information of it
from the Cardinal of Lorrain, he had set apart a day of
¹ In 1535 an imperial edict was issued at Brussels condemning all
heretics to death-repentant males to be executed by the sword;
repentant females to be buried alive; the obstinate of both sexes to be
burned alive. The bloody work had commenced as early as 1522.
2 "The number of the victims was fifty thousand."-Ranke, 1, 404.
་
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
261
1
1
public thanksgiving to God the just avenger, and had
published a bull of extraordinary indulgence to such as
should pray for the heavenly assistance to the King and
kingdom of France; and that he and his cardinals had
walked in procession from sanctuary to sanctuary to celebrate
the great event. One thought flashed through the minds of
all Protestants. Was there then a universal plot among the
Roman Catholics of Europe for the general murder and
extermination of the reformed? Nothing is more wonderful
in this remarkable reign than the fact that, threatened,
harassed, and tortured with apprehensions of invasion and
persecution as the English Protestants were, there was no
retaliatory outbreak. The extraordinary woman who was
then at the head of our affairs was incapable of panic. She
and her minister Burghley calmed the natural fears of her
subjects, and took precautions against any act of violence.
Not a single Roman Catholic lost his life on this occasion,
nor was there any restrictive law passed against that
body.
Gregory XIII. had succeeded Pius V. in 1572, for it
was this Pope who adopted the French massacre. Gregory,
says Ranke, "did not conceal that he wished to bring
about a general combination against England. Year after
year, his nuncios endeavoured to negotiate this matter with
Philip II. and the Guises. It would be an interesting
labour to collect and arrange all these negotiations and
projects which were often unknown to those whose ruin
they were designed to accomplish, and which at length led
to the grand enterprise of the Armada." In 1574 this
Pope urged Philip to restore Catholicism in England by
sending thither an expedition under the command of Don
John of Austria. He proposed that Mary Stuart should
marry this young prince, to whom, said the Pope, the zealous
3
³ Strada, Book 7.
262
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
1
Catholics of England had turned their attention.¹ Gregory
asserted that the hero of Lepanto and Tunis "would
marvellously serve this enterprise by his valour and by the
success which constantly attended his arms." A debate
took place in the Spanish council on this double proposal of
invasion and marriage, and the project was rejected.
In the following year, 1575, Gregory urged Philip to
send Don John into the Netherlands as governor, that he
might have an opportunity of invading England with a
Spanish army from that country. The Pope despatched
Ormanetti, Bishop of Padua, to Philip with this proposal,
and again pressed that Mary, Queen of Scots, should be
married to Don John, with the kingdom of England for her
dowry.2 Philip promised the nuncio to send his brother into
the Netherlands as governor, which was done on the death of
Requesens in March, 1576. In 1577 it was arranged between
the Pope and Don John, then in the Netherlands, that the
latter, after he had pacified that country, should undertake
the invasion of England, and place Mary Stuart on the
throne. To aid the proposed expedition, Gregory sent his
nuncio, Sega, to Don John with 50,000 crowns.³ A few
months later in the same year he sent Sega on to Madrid,
expressly with the view of gaining Philip over to this design,
and offered on his own part to supply an auxiliary force of
4000 or 5000 men. Owing to the suspicions which Philip
4
1 Letter of the Pope's nuncio to Philip, 10th January, 1574, quoted
by Mignet from the Simancas records.
2 Strada, Book 8.
3" Au commencement de janvier [1578] le nonce Philippe Sega vint
en Flandre, muni d'une somme de cinquante mille écus que le pape avait
destinée pour les frais de l'expédition progetée contre l'Angleterre.
Mais le nonce à son arrivée trouva toute la Frandre en armes, et il fut
obligé d' employer l'argent . . . a soutenir don Juan contre ses ennemis."
—Labanoff, 5, 16.
▲ Letters and Memorials of Card. Allen, Introd. 29.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
263
entertained of the ambitious designs of his brother, or to his
fear of awakening the jealousy of his rivals, or more probably
to the fact that his hands were then full, this scheme was
also rejected by the Spanish King.
991
On the 6th of November, 1577, Sander, the future Papal
legate to Ireland, wrote from Madrid to Allen a letter in
which the following occurs: "I beseech you take hold of
A [the Pope], for the X [Philip] is as fearful of war as a
child of fire, and all his endeavour is to avoid all such
occasions. The A will give two thousand [men], when you
shall be contented with them. If they do not serve to go
to England, at least they will serve to go into Ireland. The
state of Christendom dependeth upon the stout assailing of
England. A copy of this letter fell into the hands of the
English Government and was read at the trial of Campion."
At the date when this letter was written, nineteen years of the
reign of Elizabeth had elapsed, during which period not a
single Roman Catholic, priest or layman, had been put to
death for any matter touching religion. Even the 13th of
Elizabeth, passed in 1571, against the introduction of Papal
bulls into England, had been allowed to sleep for six years.
Gregory now entered upon a course of actual war and inva-
sion against England; a policy which had the most fatal
effects upon the Roman Catholics of the country, and which
necessarily transformed, in the eyes of the English govern-
ment, every seminary priest into a recruiting officer for the
Papal army. Throwing aside the character of a spiritual
3
1 Ib. 38. The italics are not in the original.
2 It is described wrongly in the report of Campion's trial as being
from Allen to Sander.-State Trials, 1, 1058. In the subsequent pro-
ceedings on the death of the Earl of Northumberland it is referred to its
true author.—Ib. 1116.
3 The first mentioned by Bishop Challoner in his Catholic Martyrology
is Cuthbert Maine, who was executed on the 29th of November, 1577, for
publishing a Roman bull.
264
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
!
father, and neglecting the true arms of the Church, prayers,
tears, and persuasion, Gregory, who never abandoned the
idea of restoring by force the British Isles to his obedience,
stood forth as a secular prince and organized invasions of his
own. With this view, he, in the early part of 1578, equipped
at his expense an expedition into Ireland, and gave the
command of it to Thomas Stukely, an English adventurer,
whom he created Marquis of Leinster, Earl of Wexford and
Carlow, Viscount Morrogh, and Baron of Ross.
The expe-
dition consisted of Italian soldiers, well found and armed, to
the number of 800 men, and cost the Pope 40,000 crowns.¹
It set sail from Civita Vecchia, and on its way from the
Mediterranean to Ireland put in at Lisbon. Sebastian, the
young King of Portugal, was then on the point of leaving
for Africa to conduct a war against the sovereign of Morocco.
Sebastian induced Stukely to suspend his enterprise against
Ireland and to accompany him to Africa, with the promise
that on their return from Morocco he would either join
him in his invasion of Ireland, or furnish him with large
resources. Stukely complied, and added his forces to those
of Sebastian, and with him fell at the battle on the plain of
Tamita, or, as it is called by some, the Battle of the Three
Kings, on the 4th of August, 1578.
3
In the following year, 1579, Gregory was again busy in
organizing another Papal invasion of Ireland. An Irish
rebel, James Fitzmaurice, who had been pardoned for a
former insurrection, addressed himself to the Pope and
offered him the kingdom of Ireland. Fitzmaurice had made
the same offer to Henry III. of France and to Philip II.,
¹ Ranke, 1, 418.
2 Rex a Stucklio, ut in Mauritaniam secum transmittat, petit, pollicitus
post reditum vel seipsum cum Stucklio in Hiberniam trajecturum, vel
certe copias uberiores daturum ad asserendam illam insulam in liber-
tatem. O'Sullivan, Hist. Cathol. Hib. Compendium, 113, ed. 1850.
3 So called from the death of Sebastian and of the two Moorish rivals.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
265
but had received scanty encouragement from either King.
He betook himself to the Pope, who ardently entered into
the plan of assailing England from the side of Ireland.
Fitzmaurice obtained money from Gregory, and a commission
in the Pope's name to raise troops for the proposed enter-
prise. Sander was appointed Papal legate to accompany
him, with a consecrated banner, and a bull addressed to the
nobility, clergy, and people of Ireland. The bull granted a
plenary indulgence and remission of all sins, "such as was
given to those warring against the Turks, or for the recovery
of the Holy Land," to those who should aid Fitzmaurice
"with counsel, favour, supplies, arms, or in any other way
against the English heretics. Fitzmaurice and Sander set
out for Ireland, where they landed in July, 1579,² and raised
a fort at Smerwick. After a short time Fitzmaurice was
killed in a quarrel by one of the Burkes. In the meantime
the Pope was getting ready at an immense expenditure an
expedition on a large scale, which was to take with it
money, ammunition, and arms for 5000 men. Corrado, the
Venetian ambassador at Rome, reported to his government
that Gregory had spent 230,000 crowns upon its preparation.
Gregory had learned that James Fitzmaurice was slain; he
therefore renewed his bull, and granted the same indulgence
and remission of sins which he had given to the followers of
Fitzmaurice to all those who should aid his cousins John
and James Geraldine, who had joined Fitzmaurice in his
rebellion. The Papal expedition consisted of "five ships of
5
3
¹ A copy of the bull is given in Ellis, Original Letters, second series,
3, 93; and a translation of it in Phelan's Remains, 2, 204.
2 Camden says they landed about the 1st of July. Froude makes it
the 17th.
3
³ Cox, 367.
4 Simpson's Campion, 102.
5 This second bull is in O'Sullivan's Compendium, p. 121. It refers
to the former bull.
266
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
1
the largest class, full of soldiers and munitions of war," as
an Irish agent of the Vatican described it in a letter to the
Papal nuncio at Paris. It landed in September, 1580, and
its commander San Josepho, who had been appointed by the
Pope, took possession of the fort which had been erected at
Smerwick by James Fitzmaurice. Sander was in Smerwick
when the invaders arrived,' and remained with them until
news was brought that Lord Grey was advancing to invest
the fort. Grey on his arrival summoned the garrison and
asked them who they were, and who sent them to erect
fortifications in the Queen's dominions. They answered
that they were sent, some from the Holy Father, and some
from the King of Spain to whom the Pope had given Ireland,
as Queen Elizabeth had justly forfeited her title by heresy."
The defence was contemptible, and the fort was surrendered
at discretion. On being asked to show his commission, its
commander confessed he had none. As Grey had but a
small force with him, and it would have been dangerous to
convey a numerous body of prisoners through the disturbed
districts, the strict laws of war were enforced against them.
With the exception of their officers, they were put to death
as filibusters, that is, as persons who invade a country on
their own private account without a commission from a
sovereign prince. As for Sander, after wandering about
for some months exposed to all the rigours of an Irish
winter, he perished according to Camden of starvation, but
O'Sullivan says that he died unexpectedly of dysentery."
4
1“Quinque naves grandissimas, armatis militibus et munitionibus
bellicis onustas." The agent adds:-"idcirco tremit miserabiliter
flagitiorum serva Angla et tota suorum hæreticorum caterva."-Theiner,
Ann. 3, 217.
2 Ib.
3 Camden, sub ann. 1580.
4
• Spenser's View of the State of Ireland in Thom's Collection of
Tracts and Treatises, vol. 1, p. 529.
5 Morbo fluentis ventris occupatus.-O'Sullivan, p. 121.
SEC. II
267
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
The Papal invasion of Ireland was but a part of a
larger scheme which had been hatched at Rome, and which
embraced not only that country but also England and
Scotland. Contemporaneously with the despatch of troops
into Ireland, two Jesuits, Parsons and Campion, with a
number of seminary priests, were sent into England to see
how the land lay and to prepare the minds of the Roman
Catholics for a triple invasion. Dates are here of importance.
The second bull intended to be published in Ireland and
which accompanied the expedition under San Josepho, is
dated the 18th of May, 1580. On the 18th of the preceding
month, April, Parsons and his party left Rome for England.¹
Nine months before their departure, in the early part of
July, 1579, Sander had landed at Smerwick with a com-
mission as Papal legate, and had published circular letters,
announcing that his coming was to be followed by a Papal
army. Parsons and Campion arrived in England separately
in June, 1580, Parsons disguised in the uniform of a captain,
and Campion passing himself off as a jeweller under the
name of Edmunds or Hastings. The English Government
was well served by its spies, and was perfectly acquainted
with what had taken place between the Pope and these two
Jesuits before their departure from Rome. Parsons and
Campion had applied to Gregory to modify, in a manner
suggested by them, the bull of deposition which had been
1
2
Simpson's Campion, 108.
3
2" What will ye answer to the Pope's lieutenant, when he, bringing
us the Pope's and other Catholic princes' aid, as shortly he will, shall
charge you with the crime and pain of heretics for maintaining an
heretical prætensed Queen against the public sentence of Christ's Vicar."
Letter of Sander "To the right honourable and Catholic lords and
worshipful gentlemen of Ireland.”—Ellis, Original Letters, second
series, 3, 94.
³ Mr. Simpson says that Campion's assumed name was Edmunds. At
his trial Campion was asked by the Queen's counsel why he had taken
the name of Hastings.
268
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
issued by Pius V. against Elizabeth. The Pope consented,
and these two were commissioned to tell the English Roman
Catholics that they might profess themselves loyal subjects
until circumstances allowed the original sentence to be
executed. The bull of Pius cut off from the unity of Christ's
body all the subjects of Elizabeth who observed her laws,
recognized her government, or obeyed her commands.
Parsons and Campion asked, that the bull might be miti-
gated so far as not to bind the Roman Catholics, while it
remained in full force against Elizabeth and those who
adhered to her. In other words, they petitioned the Pope to
grant a general absolution from the pains and penalties of
the bull to those Roman Catholics who should temporarily
obey the laws of their country and observe their allegiance
to their sovereign. This was a direct violation of the late
Act which forbade the introduction of such absolutions for
the performance of civil duties in opposition to the commands
of the bull. In addition, it is manifest that, as the mitigation
of the bull left untouched the sentence of deposition against
Elizabeth contained in it, Parsons and Campion accepted.
that sentence as being still in force against the Queen and
her adherents. Consequently, it was an act of treason on
their part to communicate or publish the bull, thus altered
in an immaterial point, while the substance of it was left
unimpaired, to any English subject. The effect of the bull,
as altered by this modification, is well put by the latest
biographer of Campion. "The famous mitigation, obtained
by Campion and Parsons, did not in the least affect the
substance of the bull, whereby the Queen still remained
excommunicated and deposed, but merely allowed the
English Catholics to exhibit to her a temporary and con-
ditional fealty and obedience, rebus sic stantibus, as long as
they could not help themselves; but the moment they could,
or thought they could, or were told by the Pope that the
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
269
time was come, then their obedience and fealty were to end;
the censures were to resume their full force, and the Queen
was to be violently assailed. The mitigation would thus be
made to appear like a truce obtained upon false pretences by
one belligerent party only, in order to gain time to recruit
his forces for a new attack."A reprieve was to be granted
to the Queen of England until the instruments of death
were got ready, and in the meantime the victim was to
remain decorated with the trappings of royalty. It was at
least natural that her ministry should not be satisfied with
these ominous honours, and should demand an unequivocal
recognition of her title.²
The petition of Parsons and Campion to the Pope for a
modification of the bull of Pius, and the answer to it are as
follows:-"Let there be asked of our most holy lord an
explanation of the declaratory bull made by Pius V. against
Elizabeth and her adherents; which bull the Catholics
desire to be understood in this manner, that the bull shall
always bind her and the heretics, but the Catholics it shall
by no means bind as matters now stand, but only hereafter
when the public execution of that bull may be made."
"The supreme Pontiff has granted these aforesaid graces to
Father Robert Parsons and Edmund Campion, who are now
about to set out for England, the 14th day of April, 1580.”
A consideration of these graces or indulgences will enable us
to estimate at their true value the declarations of allegiance
to the Queen made by Campion and by the others who
1
¹ Simpson's Campion, 130.
2 Phelan's Remains, 2, 187.
³ Petatur a summo domino nostro explicatio bullæ declaratoriæ per
Pium Quintum contra Elizabetham et ei adhærentes, quam Catholici
cupiunt intelligi hoc modo, ut obliget semper illam et hæreticos,
Catholicos vero nullo modo obliget rebus sic stantibus, sed tum demum
quando publica ejusdem bullæ executio fieri poterit, &c. Has prædictas
gratias concessit summus pontifex patri Roberto Parsonio et Edmundo
Campiano in Angliam profecturis, die 14 Aprilis, 1580.-Somers'
Tracts, 1. 197.
270
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
را
i
suffered with him. Doubtless they considered Elizabeth to
be their Queen, as they said, but only provisionally, and
until the Pope had otherwise ordered. Even Roman Catholic
authors have given up affecting to attach any value to these
protestations. "Nothing, certainly," says the Rev. M. A.
Tierney, "can be more unsatisfactory than the declarations
in question. When Parsons and Campion were about to
proceed to England they applied to Pope Gregory XIII.
and obtained from him a modification of the bull, to the
effect that, although it must still continue to be binding on
Elizabeth and her adherents, the Catholics might be relieved
from its operation, in other words, might continue to acknow-
ledge her authority, but only until an opportunity should
offer of carrying the sentence into full effect. It is clear
that, with this dispensation in their possession, no protestation
however explicit, either from Campion or his associates,
could possibly be received as an indication of their real
opinion on the subject of the deposing power claimed by the
Pope." With this indulgence or mitigation in their
possession, Parsons and Campion set out for England and
arrived there, Parsons on the 12th, and Campion on the
25th of June, 1580.
The advent of the Jesuits was far from being desired by
the secular priests of England. Some prudent men, also,
among the Roman Catholic laity, suspected that their coming
was connected with the contemporaneous invasion of Ireland,
or with other political combinations then rumoured abroad.
It became necessary to conciliate the resident clergy and to
1 Tierney's Dodd, 3, 12.
2“These good fathers... came into England and intruded themselves
into our harvest, being the men, in our consciences, we mean both them and
others of that society with some of their adherents, who have been the chief
instruments of all the mischiefs that have been intended against her Majesty
since the beginning of her reign, and of the miseries which we or any other
Catholics have upon these occasions sustained."-Important Considera-
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
271
Parsons and Campion con-
allay these patriotic suspicions.
vened a synod or meeting at Southwark, in July, 1580.
There the fathers exhibited their instructions, and took a
solemn oath before God—(1) that they had never heard of
Sander's expedition to Ireland until they were at Rheims,
on their way to England, and (2) that their mission was
purely spiritual, without political pretence, or knowledge of
State matters. The first assertion is simply incredible.
Parsons and Campion left Rome on the 18th of April, and
occupied nearly six weeks on the journey to Rheims, which
they reached on the last day of May. During the whole of
this time, Campion was in the company of Parsons, who was
perfectly acquainted with the secret designs of the Papacy,
and was steeped to the lips in every intrigue against England.
Nine months before the pair left Rome, Sander, as has been
said, had publicly landed at Smerwick as Papal legate, and
Fitzmaurice, the Pope's general, had been killed shortly after.
The news of these transactions reached London in July, 1579,
and yet Parsons and Campion declared in July, 1580, that
they were ignorant of matters which must have been publicly
known and discussed at Rome for months before they left
that city. Their other assertion is equally incredible; for, in
the first place, they brought with them a politico-religious
manifesto, granting a Papal indulgence to English Roman
Catholics for the fulfilment of their civil duties; and, secondly,
Campion, within a few months of his arrival, published a
✔challenge to, amongst others, the lawyers, to a "discourse of
religion so far as it toucheth the commonwealth and your
tions. "A very grave and ancient priest, named Mr. Wilson, not so
much in his own name as of others by whom he was sent, proposed
to Parsons, that the fathers should leave England again until a calmer
time."-Letters, &c. of Cardinal Allen, 303, note.
1
¹ Simpson's Campion, 117.
2 The challenge was triple-to the Council, to the Doctors and Masters
of the Universities, and to the Lawyers.
272
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
Х
nobilities," a proceeding entirely inconsistent with his pro-
fession of not meddling in matters of State. Further, the
latter assertion is also disproved by the subsequent conduct
of Parsons, the superior of the mission, who, during the
eighteen months that he remained in England, spent his
time in spreading his treasonable doctrines under the vizard
of religion, and in stirring up rebellion under the seal of the
confessional. Of this we have the best evidence. Two years
later, in May, 1582, Parsons paid a visit to Tassis, the agent
of Philip II., at Paris, and assured him that the English
Roman Catholics were prepared to take up arms and to join
a Spanish expedition then spoken of. Tassis asked him what
authority he had for making this assertion: Parsons replied
that "he knew all this from what many of the Catholics had
Ideclared when he had treated with them of their consciences.'
The secular priests, in their circular letter of 1601, thus describe
Parsons' conduct during his stay in England: "Upon their
arrival, Master Parsons presently fell to his Jesuitical courses,
and so belaboured both himself and others in matters of State,
how he might set her Majesty's Crown upon another head
that the Catholics themselves threatened to deliver him
into the hands of the civil magistrate except he desisted from
such kind of practices." Camden asserts the same thing :
"Parsons tampered so far with the Papists about deposing the
Queen, that some of them, I speak upon their own credit,
thought to have delivered him into the magistrate's hands."
991
It is therefore impossible to believe that the mission of
Parsons and Campion was intended at Rome to be a spiritual
one.* A belief to this effect is untenable if we put all the
3
¹ Letters, &c., of Card. Allen, Introd. 39.
Important Considerations.
3 Sub ann. 1580.
4 "The mission of 1580 into England was ultimately a spiritual
failure because it was not purely a spiritual mission. The intention of
its chiefs was not single. They doubtless had the intention to save souls;
SEC. II
273
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
contemporaneous facts together and reflect on them. Jesuits
and seminary priests were sent into England, where there
was a powerful party consisting of Protestants and the loyal
Roman Catholics, to deceive the Government by smooth and
deceptive professions of allegiance, while at the same time
Sander and Allen' were despatched to Ireland, where dis-
simulation was only an incumbrance, to stir up, with the
stimulant of a plenary indulgence, its excitable people to
rebellion and a war of religion. When Parsons and Campion
arrived in England in June, 1580, a Papal fleet and army
were actually on their way to Ireland, where they landed in
the following September. This was by no means all. Two
months before Parsons and Campion left Rome, the Pope
had entered into a league for the invasion of England,
Scotland, and Ireland. It cannot be doubted that, as the
Papal invasion of Ireland in 1580 had been heralded by the
advent of Sander as Papal legate in 1579, so the Jesuits
were sent into England to feel the dispositions of the Roman
Catholics, and to prepare them for the reception of the
simultaneous invasion of the three kingdoms, which the
Pope, the King of Spain, and the Grand Duke of Tuscany
were preparing at the very moment when Parsons and
Campion left Rome for England. This plan of invasion,
which had been agreed to by the Pope and the ambassadors
of Philip and of the Grand Duke, included the conquest of
Scotland in order that a descent from the north might be
made into England; a Spanish fleet was to arrive from the
south; the Prince of Parma was to lead an attack from the
east; while a diversion was to be effected on the west in
but they took a perspective view of all these souls, and looked on them
also as the moving forces of bodies that might be useful soldiers in the
coming struggle."-Simpson's Campion, 334.
1
¹ Not the future cardinal. This Allen was a Jesuit, and was killed at
the battle of Monaster Neva, near Limerick, where he displayed the
Papal standard.-Leland, 2, 274.
T
274
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD V1
?
!
Ireland in order to distract the counsels and forces of
Elizabeth.¹ Early in 1580 the English Government had
obtained information of the league which had been con-
cluded between the aforesaid powers on the 18th of
February of that year, that is exactly two months before
Parsons and Campion left Rome for England. The treaty
consisted of ten articles, of which the following were the
principal²
1. The Pope was to furnish ten thousand infantry and
one thousand cavalry; the King of Spain fifteen thousand
infantry and fifteen hundred cavalry; the duke eight thou-
sand infantry and one hundred cavalry; to these were to be
added the Germans who had gone to Spain, and who were to
be paid pro rata by the aforesaid princes.
2. The Pope, as sovereign lord of England, was to grant
power to the Catholic nobles of the kingdom to elect a
Catholic King, who should render obedience and fealty to
the Roman See, as the former Kings had done before the
time of the last Henry.
3. Elizabeth was to be declared an usurper and incapable
of reigning, because she was born of an illegitimate marriage
and because she was a heretic.
4. Mary Stuart was to be liberated and restored to her
own kingdom.
5. The Pope was to use all his influence with the French
King to prevent him or his brother from giving assistance to
Elizabeth.3
6. The bull of excommunication issued by Pius was to be
published in the courts of all Christian princes.
In addition to the forces to be contributed by the Pope,
1 ¹ Simpson's Campion, 230.
* Cal. of State Papers, Venetian, 7, 650.
3 A marriage between Elizabeth and the Duke of Alençon was then
projected.
SEC. II
275
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
the King of Spain, and the Duke of Tuscany, the Knights of
Malta and their vessels were to be employed in the invasion,
to which the Pope had given the name of the "sacred expe-
dition."
To afford further encouragement to it, Gregory
renewed the bull which Pius had issued against Elizabeth
excommunicating and deposing her." The danger to England
was great and imminent. Fortunately for her, at this juncture
the Cardinal King of Portugal died without direct heirs,
leaving a more tempting field for the ambition of the
Spanish King. Philip without losing a moment seized the
opportunity, and poured the forces which had been intended
for England into Portugal. The alarm of the English
government had been great, and the relief afforded by the
information that Philip had turned aside to Portugal was
proportionate to the fears which it had entertained. The
Venetian ambassador in Paris, writing to his Signory at this
time, says: "This morning, early, the English ambassador
called upon me to learn what news I had concerning the
death of the King of Portugal . . . and he said to me with
most cheerful countenance, God be praised that my Queen is
now free from a great anxiety. We were advised that the
Spanish fleet was to sail for England, and we knew exactly
¹ Labanoff, 7, 152-161.
3
2 It has been doubted whether Gregory XIII. ever renewed the bull
of Pius. Contemporaneous authorities remove this doubt.
"While
these practices were in hand in Ireland, Gregory XIII. renewed the said
bull of Pius Quintus, and denounceth her Majesty to be excommunicate,
with intimation of all other particulars in the former bull mentioned.".
Important Considerations. Cardinal Allen in his admonition, 1587,
says:-"She [Elizabeth] hath been in person justly deposed by the
sentences of three sundry Popes, whereunto if we add the two former
censures condemning her incestuous nativity and generation, we shall
find that she hath been condemned by five declaratory sentences of
God's Church."
3"And its fears were not chimerical. Statesmen, who knew the
circumstances of the case, were nearly unanimous in attributing the
salvation of Elizabeth's government to the death of the old King of
Portugal."-Simpson's Campion, 231.
T2
276
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
the course the galleys were to take, and where they were to
land forces in England and Ireland. We also knew that
the Pope had made fresh denunciations against England,
besides those which Pius V. had pronounced, to liberate all
our people from their oaths of allegiance. We also knew
that certain priests had been sent to England to negotiate
secretly, and I have given the Queen information of their
proceedings, and by this time I hope that they are in her
hands. . . . He added, that his Queen was well aware that
the Grand Duke of Tuscany had taken part in the combina-
tion formed against her by the Pope and King of Spain,
and that although he and his states were situate at a great
distance from England, still the Queen would not fail to
retaliate."1
Campion and thirteen seminary priests were arrested,
Campion himself in July, 1581.2 Up to this date the
English government had been singularly lenient, in spite of
the bull of Pius and its renewal by Gregory, and though the
administration was well aware that it was in constant danger
from foreign invasions and domestic treason. Till this month,
but three Roman Catholics had been executed for politico-
religious reasons,³ namely, for the introduction of Papal bulls,
an offence which Lord Coke declares was punishable capitally
even in the days of Edward I. When the English Roman
Catholics were told by him whom they regarded as the Vicar
of God, that it was a duty to rebel, and a sin to obey their
Queen, her Executive had merely replied by introducing an
¹ State Papers, Venetian, 7, 630.
2 Parsons escaped from England.
4
3 The first execution under this Act [13 Elizabeth, c. 2, against the
introduction of Papal bulls] was that of Cuthbert Mayne in 1577; the
second that of Nelson and Sherwood, who suffered at the beginning of
the following year."-Tierney's Dodd, 3, 15. Bishop Challoner claims
only three martyrs before July, 1581.
♦ Coke's Reports, pt. 5, 12.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
277
Act against the importation into the kingdom of Papal bulls.
For six years this Act was allowed to remain as a threat
rather than as an effective weapon. This was the only
penal enactment against Roman Catholics until January,
1581, if indeed a statute which had been necessitated by the
mad conduct of Felton, who set up the bull of Pius on the
gate of the Bishop of London, can be considered as directed
against any particular class. But the Papal invasions of Ire-
land, and the Confederation of Catholic Powers with Gregory
at its head, opened the eyes of the English Government to
its danger, and showed that the Pope had entered the lists
against it and the kingdom as a secular prince and the leader
of armies. All the moral and material resources which he
could command, his money, his blessings and cursings, his
soldiers, and missionary priests, were directed by him against
England. He was labouring, in order to effect what he
called the restoration of the faith, to excite a war of religion
among Englishmen, to subvert their institutions, to break up
their homes, to slay their young men, and to subject their
wives and daughters to the outrages of a foreign and fana-
tical soldiery. A word from the Pope would have induced
Elizabeth-who alone among the sovereigns of Europe
extended to her non-conforming subjects a toleration up to
that time unknown-to establish a modus vivendi between
herself and the members of a communion which she respected.'
But he disdained the paths of peace, and the ancient ways of
spreading the faith by preaching, prayers, instruction, holy
example, and the exercise of the priestly functions. He
1 "The Queen also at my request freed or mitigated the captivity of
many other priests if I, a mere worm and a captive, have obtained
so much of the Queen, what might the Pope, the most Christian King
helping him, do towards relieving the afflictions of the Catholics?
What have wars, invasions, and books done these 20 years ?"
Letter of Thomas Bluet, a seminary priest, to Cardinals Borghese
and Aragon, State Papers, Domestic, 1601-3, 167.
278
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
declared for open war and the weapons of the flesh. His
taking the field as a secular prince, and his recourse to
physical force, effected a sudden and profound change in the
attitude of the English government to its Roman Catholic
subjects. Up to the time of Gregory, when the Roman
Pontiffs pronounced the deposition of an English King,
they left the execution of their sentence to temporal princes,
and confined themselves to exhortations. Seated aloft and
unstained with the dust of the arena, they pronounced
judgment, and called upon the neighbouring sovereigns to
obey the voice of the Church and to carry its sentence into
effect. But Gregory abdicated the position of a supreme
judge for that of a military commander, and in so doing he
clothed the English government with new rights against
those who favoured his temporal claims, and justified it in
treating them as mere secular soldiers. His bulls and
admonitions were no longer the voice of the Church, but
the orders of a captain in command of an army, and those
who obeyed him were rebels against their country. Obedience
to his directions was a desertion of the English citizen to the
ranks of an enemy who threatened the conquest of his
country and challenged its government to a mortal combat
with temporal arms. Elizabeth was obliged to take up the
challenge, and to enact most rigorous laws against those who
identified religion with treason, and preached, at the same
time, allegiance to a belligerent Pope and disloyalty to
England.
The only question is, were these laws necessary for the
safety of the commonwealth? Parsons himself acknowledged
that Elizabeth was forced to take the steps she did against
the seminary priests. William Watson, one of them, asserted
in 1602 that it was a matter of wonder, considering the
provocation that had been given to her government, that
a single Roman Catholic had been left alive in England.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
279
"The affliction of Catholics in England," says Watson,
"hath been in very deed extraordinary . . . so also hath the
cause thereof been extraordinary, and so far beyond the
accustomed occasions of persecutions given to any prince in
Christendom or monarchy that is or ever was in the world,
. as rather it is to be wondered at, all things duly consi-
dered, that any one Catholic is left in life in England, than
that our persecution hath been so great; for name one nation.
-I know none can-under heaven, where the subjects,
especially if they were Catholics, ever sought the death of
their sovereign though of a different religion from them,
the conquest of their native land, the subversion of the
State, the depopulation of the weal public, the alteration
and change of all laws, customs, and orders, and, in few,
the utter devastation, desolation, and destruction of all the
ancient inhabitants of their land in so unnatural, unchristian,
uncatholic a manner as the Spanish faction have sought it
in our own flesh and blood against this realm." In 1601
the secular priests declared that the burdens under which
they laboured were "far less than any prince living in her
Majesty's case would have inflicted upon us." "Yea," they
continue, there have been amongst us of our own calling
who have likewise said, that they themselves, knowing what
they do know, how under pretence of religion the life of her
Majesty and the subversion of the kingdom is aimed at, if
they had been of her Highness' Council, they would have given
their consent for the making of very strait and rigorous laws
to the better suppressing and preventing all such Jesuitical
and wicked designments." If, then, these laws were necessary,
the subsequent afflictions of the English Roman Catholics
must be ascribed to the Popes, and the death of every Jesuit
and seminary priest, who was executed under them in the
reign of Elizabeth, lies at the door of the Roman Pontiffs.
66
1 Dechacordon, p. 276.
280
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
"For," say the secular priests, "if the Popes from time to
time had sought her Majesty by kind offices and gentle
persuasions, never ceasing the prosecution of those and such
like courses of humanity and gentleness; if the Catholics and
priests beyond the seas had laboured continually the fur-
therance of those most priest-like and divine allurements. . .
if we at home ... had possessed our souls in meekness and
humility, honoured her Majesty . . . and dealt as true
Catholic priests
most assuredly the State would have
loved us or at least borne with us .. there had been no
speeches amongst us of racks and torments, nor any cause to
have used them, for none were ever vexed that way simply
for that he was either priest or Catholic, but because they
were suspected to have had their hands in some of the said
most traitorous designments."1
3
It is important to observe that Campion and the twelve²
seminary priests, who were convicted with him, were arraigned
under the old statute of treasons which had been passed in
the reign of Edward III., two hundred years before, when
England was still Papal. So anxious was the English
government to save these men, and to avoid the obloquy of
their execution, that it drew up six questions in their nature
wholly civil and entirely unconnected with faith or discipline.
Speaking of these questions, a Roman Catholic author said,
in 1822: "Among the six questions, there is not one which
the Catholics of the present time have not fully and unex-
ceptionably answered in the oaths which they have taken in
compliance with the Acts of the 18th, 31st, and 33rd years
of his late Majesty's reign." An answer to the effect that
1
Important Considerations.
2 Thirteen were put upon their trial, but John Colleton was acquitted.
3 It is stated in the Letters and Memorials of Cardinal Allen, p. 112,
that the Judge who presided at Campion's trial, Sir Christopher Wray,
was his uncle.
• Charles Butler, English Catholics, 1, 429.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
281
Elizabeth was their lawful Queen, and that her subjects
were not dispensed from their allegiance by the bull of Pius,
would have saved them all, as it did actually save three of
them, even after their conviction.¹ Cardinal Allen himself
admitted that those who were put to death after their answers
to the six queries suffered for maintaining the deposing
> power.❜
х
The questions were:
1. Whether the bull of Pius Quintus against the Queen's
Majesty be a lawful sentence and ought to be obeyed by the
subjects of England?
2. Whether the Queen's Majesty be a lawful Queen, and
ought to be obeyed by the subjects of England notwith-
standing the bull of Pius Quintus, or any bull or sentence
that the Pope hath pronounced or may pronounce against
her ?
3. Whether the Pope have or had power to authorize the
Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland and others her
Majesty's subjects to rebel or take arms against her, or to
authorize Dr. Sander or others to invade Ireland or any
other her dominions and to bear arms against her, and
whether they did therein lawfully or no?
4. Whether the Pope have power to discharge any of
her Highness' subjects, or the subjects of any Christian
prince, from their allegiance or oath of obedience to her
Majesty or to their prince for any cause?
5. Whether the said Dr. Sander in his book of the
Visible Monarchy of the Church, and Dr. Bristowe in his
book of Motives, writing in allowance, commendation, and
¹ John Hart, James Bosgrave, Edward Rishton, the editor of Sander's
De Schismate Anglicano. Orton, a layman educated at Douay, also
saved himself.
Throckmorton, 114. Charles Butler, 1, 428.
V
►
282
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
1
confirmation of the said bull of Pius Quintus, have therein
taught, testified, or maintained a truth or falsehood?
6. If the Pope do by his bull or sentence pronounce
her Majesty to be deprived and no lawful Queen, and her
subjects to be discharged of their allegiance and obedience
unto her, and after the Pope or any other by his appointment
and authority do invade this realm, which part would you
take, or which part ought a good subject of England to
take?
When Campion was asked whether Elizabeth was a
lawful Queen or only a pretended and deprived one, he said
that depended upon the bull of Pius, whereof he was not to
judge, and refused to answer any further. Of the others, one
affirmed that the Queen was his sovereign lady, but could
not say she was so lawfully. One refused to answer any
questions. Three merely said they believed what the
Church taught, and would not answer further.³
•
2
1
Four were
of opinion that the Pope could depose princes and discharge
their subjects from their allegiance, and that Papal sentences
ought to be obeyed. John Hart saved himself by an ambi-
guous answer, viz. that the Queen was a lawful sovereign
notwithstanding the bull of Pius, but whether she ought to
be obeyed and taken for a lawful Queen notwithstanding
any bull or Papal sentence he could not say. James Bosgrave,
a Jesuit, and Edward Rushton acknowledged that the Queen
was their lawful sovereign, and that the Pope had no
authority to discharge subjects from their allegiance. These
two with Orton were afterwards deported. Campion and the
rest had all pursued their studies or had been employed as
teachers in the Seminary of Douay.
In 1569 Dr. Morton had been despatched by the Pope to
1 Alexander Briant.
2 Ralph Sherwin.
³ Thomas Cotton, Laurence Richardson, John Short.
* Luke Kirby, Thomas Ford, Robert Johnson, William Feltie.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
283
quite
the north of England to declare by apostolic authority that
Elizabeth was a heretic and usurper, who might be treated by
her subjects as a heathen and publican. In 1579 Sander was
sent into Ireland as Papal legate to teach that Elizabeth was
"an enemy to God and man," and that she ought to be
deposed. And now Campion," who had come direct from
Rome, declared that the fact of Elizabeth being a lawful
Queen, or a pretended and deprived one, depended on the
bull of Pius. In addition, out of twelve priests and Jesuits
educated or pursuing their theological studies at Douay, ten
asserted positively or implied by their silence that the Pope
could depose the Queen and discharge her subjects from
their oath of allegiance. There was no longer room for
doubt as to the sentiments of the Seminarists who were pour-
ing into England. They seemed to consider themselves as
the subjects of a foreign master whose sovereignty was
paramount, and would give no assurance that they regarded
Elizabeth in any other light than as an usurper and a fit
object of punishment by the Pope. They maintained the
validity of the bull of Pius declaring that Elizabeth was
not a lawful Queen. They held that the laws of Eng-
land constituting her Queen were of no effect unless
approved by the Pope, and that her title was to drop when-
ever he declared that the time was come. Such doctrines were
directly opposed to the traditions and teachings of the old
unreformed Church of England, and had been expressly
1
¹ “Quæ, Deo pariter et hominibus infesta, in Anglia et ista Hiberniæ
insula superbe et impie dominatur." The words of the bull which
Sander took into Ireland.
2
Campion was by no means the mild and gentle character he is repre-
sented to have been by his biographers. He applies to Bishop Jewel
such terms as craft, ignorance, roguery, and impudence. Of the
Protestant martyrs he thus expresses himself: "for a few apostates and
cobblers of theirs burnt, we have bishops, lords, knights, the old nobility,"
This unchristian language resembles too closely that of Bristowe,
who calls the Protestant confessors "stinking martyrs."
&c.
284
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
>
repudiated as late as 1570 by the deprived bishops and
doctors of that communion. Principles subversive of the
rights of an English sovereign and of the English nation
could never have originated in a native school. They were
the fruits of foreign seminaries planted in the dominions of
Philip or in Rome, in which the supreme authority of the
. Pope in temporal matters was maintained. It is evident
that wherever this doctrine was taught, a corresponding
hostility to the secular prince who controverted it, and held
her own in opposition to the Papal bull enunciating it, must
have been inculcated, either directly or indirectly, inten-
tionally or unintentionally. The idea, that Elizabeth was
an obstruction to the spread of the truth, must have been
ever present in the thoughts of those who were educated
in these institutions. To the tender mind of the student,
or the exaltation of the convert, the mere teaching, that
the Queen of England was resisting the efforts of the Vicar
of God to exercise a power vested in him by divine ap-
pointment, must have engendered feelings of hatred and
disaffection.
England, ever slow in self-defence, was at last thoroughly
alarmed by a propaganda of treason which walked in darkness.
Menaced with crusades, and harassed with the ever-present
fear of a persecution which a successful attack would most
certainly have entailed, she had borne with the invasions of
her territories by Papal forces, and the deposition of her sove-
reign by Papal bulls. Her strength lay in a people bound
together in the ties of a common allegiance. Of help from
abroad there was no hope. There was not even a European
public opinion to which she could appeal, for the world was
against her. As long as she could rely on the united
affection of her inhabitants, open force did not daunt her.
Of the arrow which flieth by day she was not afraid, but the
terror by night appalled her. A gospel of treachery preached
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
285
within her own borders, and which threatened the dissolution
Sef every social tie, roused her to fury. When more than one
half of her people were bidden by "their most holy lord " to
disarm her by a pretence of devotion, while they cherished
smothered treason in their hearts; and when an army of
Jesuits and seminary priests was let loose upon her shores to
teach doctrines subversive of all authority and of all political
morality, it was time to think of her own preservation. It
is not to be wondered at that her government, taking the
same views which the Pope and the King of Spain did,
regarded every convert as a future soldier against her, and
adopted rigorous measures to prevent the introduction of
a new faith, which was not the Catholic faith, but an impure
compound of religion and treason.
Before the advent of the Jesuits and seminary priests
in 1580, intelligence had been received in London of the
landing of Sander in Ireland as Papal legate, and of his
seeking to enforce a new bull of deposition in that country.
After the arrival of the Jesuits and their associates, and
before their arrest, further information had come in of the
Papal invasion in September, 1580. The English government,
rightly connecting the arrival of Campion and the others
with the proceedings in Ireland,' issued in January, 1581, a
proclamation denouncing the principles inculcated in the
foreign seminaries, commanding all persons whose children
were receiving their education abroad, to recall them within.
four months, and forbidding anyone to harbour or conceal a
Jesuit or seminary priest When parliament assembled
about the same time, a statute³ was passed enacting that all
1 "That the Pope intended the great mission of priests into England
to subserve the purpose of this invasion [of Ireland] there can be little
doubt."-Simpson's Campion, 310.
Strype, Annals, 3, 57. Sander, De Schismate Anglicano, 382.
® 23 Eliz. c. 1. An Act to restrain the Queen's Majesty's subjects in
> their obedience.
286
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
persons possessing or pretending to possess, or exercising,
the power of absolving or withdrawing others from the
obedience of the Queen, or withdrawing them for that intent
from the Established "to the Romish religion," or suffering
themselves to be so absolved and withdrawn, should suffer
the penalties of treason; that every person saying mass
should forfeit two hundred marks and be imprisoned for
one year, and everyone hearing mass should pay one hundred
marks and be imprisoned for the same time; and that
absence from church should be punished by a fine of £20
a-month for all persons above the age of sixteen. In the
following year, after the trial of Campion and his asso-
ciates, another proclamation was issued against Jesuits and
seminary priests. In this it was declared that all such per-
sons "coming into these dominions in such secret manner"
were and ought to be considered as traitors. Further, it
ordered all English subjects then residing in the foreign
seminaries to return within three months, or in default to be
taken and reputed as traitors.'
1
Respecting the last-mentioned statute it is to be observed
that no priest was ever punished for merely converting persons
to the Roman Catholic faith, and that none of the old Marian
clergy were disturbed under its provisions. The statute was
directed not against the Roman Catholic religion, but against
the new creed which declared that it was necessary to salvation
to believe that the Pope was possessed of supreme temporal
power, and which introduced a political immorality leading
to numerous plots, and finally to the Gunpowder conspiracy.2
This is shown by the facts: that it was passed immediately
¹
> Strype, Ann. 3, 120.
Sander, 386.
2 "He [Parsons] might have told how he had planted, at Lapworth
Park and other places round Stratford-on-Avon, the seeds of a political
Popery that was destined in some twenty-five years to bring forth the
Gunpowd Ph
Simpson's Campion, 178.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
287
after the Government had learned that the Pope had sent
Jesuits to preach a corrupt doctrine, and to sow, under the
cover of that doctrine, the seeds of sedition; that twenty-two
years of Elizabeth's reign had elapsed without any special
Act against Roman Catholics save that against the importa-
tion of Papal bulls; and by the wording of the statute itself.
It included only those who withdrew persons from the estab-
lished religion with the intent "to absolve, persuade, or
withdraw any of the Queen's subjects, or any within her
Highness' realms and dominions, from their natural obedience
to her Majesty." It is obvious that mere conversion would
not have sufficed to satisfy this clause, and could not have led
to a conviction. In addition to the circumstance that this is
the only possible construction of the statute, we have strong
evidence that its interpretation was not strained.
King
James asserted, in 1607, that Queen Elizabeth" had never
punished any Papist for religion." The secular priests,
twenty years after the passing of this Act, declared that no
one had ever been vexed simply for that he was either priest
or Catholic, but "because they were suspected to have had
their hands in some of the said most traitorous designments."
They could not have made this assertion if even one priest
had been condemned for merely doing his duty. Secondly,
the provision respecting the fine of £20 a-month for non-
attendance at Church applied to all dissenters, whether
Roman Catholic or Protestant. "Till the statute of 35
of Elizabeth," that is, till 1593, says Charles Butler, "Pro-
testants and Catholics were equally considered as recusants,
and equally subject to the penalties of recusancy." Recu-
sancy was the offence of non-attendance at church.
When Philip II. had secured possession of Portugal, the
plan of a triple invasion of the British islands was revived by
the Pope and the Spanish King, who adopted the Duke of
¹ Memoirs of English Catholics, 1, 292.
288
CHAP. IV.
LAP.
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
Guise as a partner in the enterprise. The years 1582, 1583,
and a portion of 1584, were spent in the development of this
project.
In 1579, Esme Stuart, a Roman Catholic, had arrived in
Scotland from France. King James, whose cousin he was,
received him with favour, appointed him his chamberlain,
and finally created him Earl and Duke of Lennox. Lennox
soon acquired supreme influence, and the government of
Scotland passed into his hands. This unscrupulous adventurer
calmed the apprehensions of the Presbyterian ministers by
professing a Protestantism of the most extreme kind, and
flattered the young King¹ by ascribing his conversion to the
royal arguments. In March, 1582, Lennox sent to Tassis,
the Spanish agent in Paris, by the hand of a Jesuit,
Creighton, who had been despatched to Lennox by the
Pope and Philip, a letter in which he offered his services
for the restoration of religion, and the liberation of Mary
Stuart. Creighton, having conferred with Mary's ambassador³
and Dr. Allen in Paris, went to Parsons at Rouen, and then
with the latter proceeded to Eu, where he delivered the
letter to the Duke of Guise. The Duke of Guise and
Creighton returned to Paris, leaving Parsons ill of a fever
which detained him for a few days at Rouen. On the 8th
of May, the Papal nuncio at Paris wrote to the Pope that
Guise had made up his mind to invade England from certain
seaports of his, from which it was possible to cross over in
six or seven hours. That for this part of the undertaking
the Duke required no aid, "having a good understanding
with the Catholics of England." That little was required to
raise the Catholics of Scotland, but that Lennox thought it
2
¹ James was then thirteen years of age, having been born June 19th,
1566.
2 Letters and Memorials of Cardinal Allen, 35.
3 The French government recognised Mary's ambassador as the Scotch
envoy till her death, notwithstanding her imprisonment.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
289
to be desirable to stir up the Irish against Elizabeth, that
she might be obliged to send her ships and troops to that
country, and "thus leave the frontier towards France
unprovided." That to effect these diversions, the Duke of
Guise estimated it would be necessary to have for Scotland
and Ireland from six to eight thousand infantry, together
with corslets, pikes, and arquebuses, to arm such of the
English as would rebel. The letter proceeds :- "This is
what the duke desires me to signify to our lord for the
moment, as nothing further can be done at present owing to
the illness of Father Parsons, who has arrived from England,
where he has had this affair in hand for the last two years,
✔and has in his mind all that should be done.”¹
On his recovery, Parsons hastened to Paris, where he and
Creighton had an interview with the Spanish agent, who on
the 18th of May sent a report of it to Philip. The agent
informed his master that Lennox asked for 20,000 men,
consisting of Spaniards, Italians, Germans, and Swiss,
together with munitions of war, artillery, and money both
to raise troops and to fortify a number of strongholds.
When Creighton had explained at length the demands of
Lennox, Parsons assured Tassis that the Catholics of England
were extremely desirous that this scheme should be adopted,
and that they were ready to hasten to the camp to be formed
in Scotland. Tassis asked him what reason he had for
thinking that the English Catholics would join in the enter-
prise. Parsons answered "that he knew all this from
what many of them declared when he had treated with them)
of their consciences, and that, in regard to this, things had
gone so far that there could be no doubt about it, and that
most certainly England was very well disposed at the present
time for this movement being attempted there." Parsons
also informed Tassis that in a few days Guise, the Scotch
Letters, &c. of Cardinal Allen, 36.
1
U
290
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
ambassador, and Allen would meet again and come to a
decision about the affair, when Creighton would leave at
once for Rome, and he himself for Spain, to give an account
of the plan to the Pope and to Philip.
1
The remainder of the month of May was spent in dis-
cussing the design. Finally, at a meeting held at Paris
towards the end of the month, at which the Duke of Guise,
his confessor, the Scotch ambassador, Allen, and Parsons
were present, a draft scheme of invasion was proposed.
Creighton was despatched with it to the Pope, and Parsons
was deputed to carry it to Philip. Creighton took with him
to Rome a letter from Allen to the Pope, informing him that
Creighton had just returned from Scotland "with very full
mandates and instructions from the chief men of that
country for his Holiness and the King of Spain, but as the
matters also concerned the welfare of England, Creighton
had been ordered to communicate them fully to the Scotch
ambassador and to himself.”2
In the summer of this year, 1582, the progress of the
conspiracy was arrested by an occurrence which took place
in Scotland, and which had an important bearing on the
projected enterprise. The person of the King was seized by
the Earl of Gowrie and the confederate lords, and a few
months later, Lennox was compelled to leave the kingdom
and return to France, where he died in the following May.
The departure of Lennox made it desirable to reconsider the
whole state of affairs, and a delay took place. While the
plot stood thus suspended, a startling incident happened.
On the 2nd of May, 1583, the Papal nuncio at Paris
wrote to the Pope's secretary :-"The Duke of Guise and
the Duke of Mayenne have told me, that they have a plan
for killing the Queen of England by the hand of a Catholic,
though not one outwardly, who is near her person, and is ill-
1 Ib. 39.
2 Ib. 43.
7
SEC. II
291
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
*
affected towards her for having put to death some of his
Catholic relations. . . . They have agreed to give him if he
escapes, or else his sons, 100,000 francs. . . . The duke asks
for no assistance from our lord for this affair; but when the
time comes, he will go to a place of his near the sea to await
the event, and then cross over on a sudden to England. As
to putting to death that wicked woman, I told the duke that
I would not write about it to our lord the Pope, nor do I,
nor tell your lordship to inform him of it, because, though I
believe our lord the Pope would be glad that God should
punish in any way whatever that enemy of his, still it would
be unfitting that his Vicar should procure it by these means."
The nuncio proceeds to say that he had informed the Duke
of Guise of the agreement, which the Pope and Philip had
made, to further his plan of invasion, viz. that 80,000 crowns
were to be got ready, of which sum the Pope was to pay a
fourth and Philip three-fourths.'
The Papal secretary answered this despatch on the
23rd of May, 1583 :-"I have reported to our lord the
Pope what you have written to me in cipher about the affairs
of England, and since his Holiness cannot but think it good
that this kingdom should be, in some way or other, relieved
from oppression, and restored to God and our holy reli-
gion, his Holiness says that in the event of the matter
being effected, there is no doubt that the 80,000 crowns
will be very well employed. His Holiness will, therefore,
make no difficulty about paying his fourth." Referring to
the project of assassinating the Queen of England, the
editors of Allen's Correspondence, themselves Roman Catholic
priests, remark:-"Such is the history, now for the first
time published, of this remarkable incident, related in the
words of those who were personally cognisant of the facts....
What it comes to then is this: the Dukes of Guise and
2. Ib. 47.
1 Ib. 46.
U 2
292
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
Mayenne agreed to secure the payment of a large sum of
money to a person who engaged in return to kill Queen
Elizabeth. The Archbishop of Glasgow, the nuncio to the
French Court, himself a bishop, the Cardinal of Como, the
Spanish agent, J. B. Tassis, Philip II. of Spain, and perhaps
the Pope himself, when they were made aware of the project,
did not express the slightest disapprobation of it, but spoke
only of the manifest advantage it would be to religion, if in
some way or other the wicked woman were removed by
death."1
Another change in Scottish affairs, and the urgent
solicitations of Mary Stuart, revived the resolution of the
parties to proceed with their design of an invasion. On the
30th of May the Papal nuncio wrote to the Pope's secretary:
"I think four thousand footmen will suffice for Scotland,
and as to England, he [Guise] will act according to circum-
stances." In another letter of the same date, the nuncio
announces the return of Parsons with the opinion of Philip
that the invasion should be carried out in that year.
"When-
ever it is ready," continues the nuncio, "a report, explaining
how the invasion is to be conducted, will be sent to our lord
the Pope and the King of Spain, and then his Holiness and
the Catholic King will take whatever resolution God may
inspire them with.”2
After long consideration, a definite plan for the invasion
of the three kingdoms was forwarded by the nuncio to the
Papal secretary on the 20th of June. The principal points
in it were :-Three expeditions were to be got ready; one in
Spain to invade Scotland, or England near the frontiers of
Scotland. This expedition was to consist of ten thousand
or twelve thousand men, or more if possible, and was to be
victualled for twenty days after landing. It was to take
with it money, to raise twenty thousand native troops, and
1 lb. 49.
2 Ib. 52.
1
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
293
arms for these recruits, and was to be commanded by a
leader chosen by the Pope and the Spanish King. The
second expedition was to start from France under the
command of one of the Guise brothers. Further, two
thousand men were to be despatched to Ireland from Spain,
and, to strengthen this force, money was to be sent to the
Earl of Argyle and the Lord of the Isles, that they also
might despatch troops to Ireland against the English.
1
About this period of the conspiracy, a change in the plan
of invasion appears to have been suddenly adopted, and a
landing in Scotland given up. Unfavourable reports had
come in from that country, the Kirk was too strong, and
Protestantism had taken too firm a hold on its people."
Guise resolved to proceed with the enterprise without waiting
to commence operations in Scotland. In August, he sent
Parsons to Rome to give an account to the Pope of the
proposed alteration, and to inform him that the invading
army would embark from Flanders, and land upon the
northern coasts of England, where the Catholics would
receive it joyfully. "These," he said, "are so numerous,
that in a few days twenty thousand of them will join the
invading army on horseback." To facilitate the success of
the expedition, Parsons was instructed to request the Pope
to renew the bull of Pius against Elizabeth and all who
should aid or favour her, to grant indulgences to those who
should take part in the "holy work," and to declare that
the Spanish King and Guise had undertaken the enterprise
1 Ib. 53.
2 "The report brought by M. de Menainville is, that Scotland is not
at present in such a state as that our expedition can go thither and
begin the enterprise on that side . . . for the King is what he always has
been in matters of religion. . . . In fine, it is clear from de Menainville's
report that neither on the side of the King, nor by the help of any
particular party, nor by fortresses, or ports, is there any basis in
Scotland for attempting the enterprise."—From Tassis to Philip, 24
June, 1583, Ib. 55.
294
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
at his instigation.' The Pope entered with ardour into the
project as altered, though he himself had been of opinion
that the attack on England should commence from Scotland.
He wrote to Philip urging him to join the enterprise without
delay. Philip replied that he would like nothing better,
but that the expedition was not ready yet. Moreover, he
assured Gregory, that he intended immediately to transport
to Flanders the troops that had lately returned from
Terceira, in order to send four thousand of them into
England, when the necessary arrangements for a combined
attack had been completed. Whilst waiting for the Spanish
ships, without which nothing could be done, Guise sent
Charles Paget under an assumed name into England to
obtain information, to arrange the place of landing, and to
consult with the English confederates.
2
In the autumn of this year the project was discovered
by the English government. Walsingham found out that
Paget had come into the kingdom under a false name, that
he had had interviews with the leading Roman Catholics,
and that he had concerted plans with Francis Throckmorton.
Throckmorton was arrested in November, and on being put
to the rack revealed all. In the preceding September
Creighton had been captured in the Channel with the
full particulars of the scheme, as agreed upon when Lennox
was in power, in his possession. All was now known; the
confessions of Throckmorton and Creighton, and the document
found in the possession of the latter, disclosed plans which
were identical and removed all doubt.
Notwithstanding the arrest of Throckmorton and others,
Allen and Parsons persuaded themselves that the English
government was still unacquainted with the intended
invasion. Fearing that the Pope and Philip might be
deterred by the knowledge of what had taken place in
1 Ib. 57.
Mignet, Marie Stuart, from the Simancas records.
SEC. II
295
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
England from prosecuting the enterprise, they drew up in
January, 1584, a joint report on the state of affairs in that
country, copies of which they sent to the Pope and the
Spanish King. In this they give reasons for believing that
the "heretics" knew nothing of the "dealings between his
Holiness and his Catholic Majesty." They express them-
selves satisfied that their adversaries had not found out" any
detail of our affairs," and in conclusion they entreat the
Pope and the King "with all possible earnestness not to
defer the execution longer than is necessary, a prayer which
we have been commanded by the Duke of Guise to offer in
the duke's name.”¹
The project of a combined invasion of the three kingdoms
was not abandoned until the death of the Duke of Anjou,
formerly Alençon, in June, 1584. The death of this prince
left Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot, presumptive heir to the
French throne, and called off the attention of Guise from
plans of foreign expeditions to the affairs of his own country.
The League was formed, and in April, 1585, civil war broke
out in France.
The discovery of a fresh project of invasion, the conspiracy
of Throckmorton, and the plot of Somerville, in 1583, to
assassinate the Queen, renewed the apprehensions of the
nation. Notwithstanding the proclamations issued against
them, the disciples and missionaries of the arch-traitors,
Allen and Parsons, continued to flock into the country. On
the meeting of a new parliament in November, 1584, the
¹ Letters, &c., of Cardinal Allen, 61–3.
2 The secular priests, differing from Dr. Lingard, entertained no
doubt of the reality of Somerville's plot. "Anno 1583, Master Arden
and Master Somerville were convicted by the laws of the realm to have
purposed and contrived how they might have laid violent hands upon
her Majesty's sacred person. Master Somerville's confession therein
was so notorious as it may not be either qualified or denied. And Dr.
Parry the very same year was plotting beyond the seas how he might
have effected the like villainy.”—Important Considerations.
·
296
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
2
famous bond of association in defence of the Queen was
entered into by all classes, and its provisions were enacted in
the first statute of the session.¹ The second was an Act
against Jesuits and seminary priests, the principal provisions
of which were: that all Jesuits and seminary priests should
depart the realm within forty days after the end of the
session; that those who should remain in the kingdom
beyond that time, or return into it, should be guilty of high
treason; that they who should knowingly harbour or main-
tain such should be guilty of felony; and that all lay
students in the seminaries, neglecting to return and take the
oath of supremacy within six months after proclamation
made in that behalf, should be adjudged traitors, and suffer
as in cases of high treason. This was the second penal law,
if we except that against the importation of Papal bulls in
the thirteenth year of the Queen; it was also the last before
the year of the Armada. The Act of the twenty-ninth
of Elizabeth, 1587,3 is not a penal statute; it merely pro-
vided that conveyances of land, made for the purpose of
defeating the payment of the fines for non-attendance at
church, should be void, and applied to all dissenters, Roman
Catholic as well as Protestant.
Gregory XIII. died in April, 1585, and a fortnight later
was succeeded by Sixtus V., who ascended the Papal throne
full of vast designs. This Pontiff declared openly his inten-
tions of assisting the King of Spain in an attack on
England with far different zeal and efficiency from those
with which Charles V. had been supported by former Popes.*
¹ 27 Eliz. c. 1.—The Association bond was signed by men of all ranks,
and the engagement in it was to pursue to death all who should compass
or attempt anything against the Queen's person.
2 27 Eliz. c. 2.-An Act against Jesuits, seminary priests, and
other such like disobedient persons.
3 29 Eliz. c. 6.
4 Ranke, 1, 472.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
297
1
He complained loudly of the Spanish delays, and reminded
Philip of the advantages which would accrue to him from
a victory in England with a view to the reconquest of the
Netherlands. Philip was already busy with his vast prepara-
tions for the grand attempt of the Armada. Notwithstanding
the wealth of the Indies, Philip was always in want of
money, and the expenses of an invasion of England were
estimated to be enormous. Sixtus promised the King half a
million of crowns, to be paid as follows: 200,000 when the
Armada sailed; 100,000 when the troops disembarked;
100,000 at the end of six months; and 100,000 at the end of
six months more. Besides, he agreed to contribute 200,000
each year that the war should last. The Pope also renewed
the bull of Pius against Elizabeth, excommunicated and
deposed her afresh. In this new bull, he withdrew the
temporary indulgence granted by Gregory to her subjects
for obeying her, and did "straitly command under the
indignation of Almighty God and pain of excommunication
and the corporal punishment appointed by the laws, that
none, of whatsoever condition or estate, presume to yield unto
her obedience, favour, or other succurse; but that they and
every of them concur by all means possible to her chastise-
ment." In addition, he granted "a plenary indulgence and
pardon of all their sins" to all such as, being truly contrite
and confessed, should "assist, concur, or help in anywise" the
deposition of Elizabeth and the punishment of her adherents.
Allen was raised to the cardinalate, as it was proposed to make
him legate for England and Archbishop of Canterbury. He
and Olivares, the Spanish ambassador at Rome, agreed upon
a scheme for transferring the English bishoprics and the
principal offices of the state to creatures of their own, should
¹ Letters, &c., of Cardinal Allen, 78.
2
2 A Declaration of the sentence and deposition of Elizabeth, the
usurper, and pretended Queen of England.-Tierney's Dodd, 3, Appd. 45.
298
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
·
the invasion be successful. Allen was willing to accept the
Chancellorship too, " since," as a paper drawn up by himself
and Olivares tells us, "for the purpose of putting things in
order at the beginning, and promoting the service of God
and that of His Majesty, no one can be found better informed
and under greater obligations to His Majesty."
Allen, also
as "cardinal of England," drew up his disgraceful Admonition
to the Nobility and People of the Kingdom, from which some
extracts have been given in a former page.
The defeat of the Armada, and the wonderful deliverance
of England are known to all. Contrary to the expectations
of the Pope and the King of Spain, and of Philip's hirelings,
Parsons and Allen, the Roman Catholics of the Kingdom,
as distinguished from the Papists, behaved well in the great
emergency of their country. Two things contributed espe-
cially to this. The teaching of the Jesuits and seminary
priests had not obliterated the old national feeling against
the Papal claims to temporal power, or the patriotic hatred
of a foreign invader. The fear, that the Spaniards would
make no nice discrimination between English Protestants
and Roman Catholics, worked to the same effect. Of this
apprehension we have evidence from one of Allen's seminary
priests, and also from the circular letter of the Seculars.
The priest wrote a letter to Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador
in Paris, explaining the causes of the Armada's failure.
One of these was, he says, the general alarm caused by the
"foul, vile, irreverent, and violent speeches, such ireful
and bloody threatenings of a Queen, of a nobility, yea, of
the whole people of his own nation," in Allen's Admonition,
and the belief that the numerous adventurers in the Armada
2
¹ Letters, &c., of Cardinal Allen, 106.
2 "How each one of Dr. Allen's anticipations was falsified . . . is
shown by a letter of one of Allen's own priests to Mendoza; a translation of
which is printed in the Harleian Miscellany, 1, 142."-Simpson's
Campion, 341.
SEC. IT TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
299
.
were coming "to have possessed the rooms of all the noble-
men in England and Scotland." The secular priests inform
us: It is well known that the Duke of Medina Sidonia had
given it out directly that, if once he might land in England,
both Catholics and heretics that came in his way should be all
one to him, his sword could not discern them; so he might
make way for his master, all was one to him." Whether or
not the duke made this threat is nothing to the purpose; the
belief that he had done so was enough.
Although the conduct of the Roman Catholics was admi-
rable, there is no doubt that there was an active Papistic party
in the country, particularly among the priests, which favoured
the invasion and was ready to assist it. The seminary priest
already alluded to, addressing Mendoza, as the person who
"had the principal managing hitherto of all causes . .
betwixt the King Catholic assisted with the potentates of
the Holy League and all our countrymen which have
professed obedience to the Church of Rome," deplores the
failure of the Armada, and the despair into which that party
had fallen. "With the hope of the landing of these great
armies and our assistance in taking part, we here continued
all this year past in assured hope of a full victory until the
last month. But, alas, and with a deadly sorrow, we must
all at home and abroad lament our sudden fall from an
unmeasurable high joy to an unmeasurable deep despair.
Parsons and Allen, who had the best means of knowing the
sentiments of the Roman Catholic clergy, always relied upon
the priests to further their treasonable designs through their
spiritual influence. Parsons, in a memorandum to the Papal
secretary in 1582, advised the Pope to create Allen Bishop
of Durham for the purpose of helping the invasion, then
projected, by the prestige which that dignity would give
him.
"It will be necessary," he tells the Pope, "that
1 ¹ Important Considerations.
300
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
Mr. Allen be speedily apprised of the intention of his
Holiness, that he may dispose of certain persons so as to
have them in readiness against that time, and that he may
also write and print secretly certain books which we are
writing at this moment, with the view of satisfying the
people of England. Moreover, at the proper time the
principal Catholics of England will receive information of
the affair by means of the priests." In 1583 Allen
addressed to the Pope a report on the state of England,
entitled "A short note of the standing condition of affairs
in England to show the easiness and opportuneness of the
sacred expedition." "The Catholics," says Allen, "are now
much more numerous than they then [1569] were, and
better instructed by our men and priests' daily exhortations.
So much so, that of all the orthodox in the whole realm,
there is not one who any longer thinks himself bound in
conscience to obey the Queen, though fear leads them to
think that they may obey her, which fear will be removed
when they see the foreign force; and we have lately
published a book specially to prove that it is not only
lawful, but even our bounden duty, to take up arms at the
Pope's bidding, and to fight for the Catholic faith against
the Queen and other heretics. And as the book is greedily
read by all Catholics, it is impossible but that, when occasion
serves, they should enroll themselves in the Catholic army.
Because we still have, in spite of the numbers banished,
nearly three hundred priests in various noblemen's and
gentlemen's houses, and we are almost daily sending fresh
ones who, when it is necessary, will direct the Catholics'
consciences and actions in this matter." The secular priests
thirteen years later, after speaking of the numerous intrigues
and attempts against England, confess that "in all these
¹ Letters, &c., of Cardinal Allen, 41.
Simpson's Campion, 337.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
301
plots none were more forward than many of us that were
priests." At the very end of Elizabeth's reign we have
further proof of the strength of the Papistic party. On the
day she was seized with her last illness, a "Protestation of
allegiance" was signed and presented to her Council by
some priests, reciting that "for these many years past divers
conspiracies against her Majesty's person and estate, and
sundry forcible attempts for invading and conquering her
dominions had been made, under we know not what pre-
tences and inducements of restoring Catholic religion by
the sword, a course most strange in the world, and under-
taken peculiarly and solely against her Majesty by
reason of which violent enterprises her Majesty, otherwise
of singular clemency towards her subjects, hath been greatly
moved to ordain and execute severer laws against Catholics
... than perhaps had ever been enacted, or thought upon, if
such hostilities and wars had never been undertaken." It
then goes on to declare, that if "the Pope should excom-
municate every one born within her Majesty's dominions
that would not forsake the defence of her Majesty and
realms, and take part with such conspirators or invaders;
in these and all other such-like cases we do think ourselves
and all the lay Catholics. . . bound in conscience not to obey
this or any such censure, but will defend our prince and
country, accounting it our duty so to do, and, notwithstand-
ing any authority or any excommunication whatsoever,
either denounced or to be denounced as is aforesaid, to
yield unto her Majesty all obedience in temporal causes."
Of the many hundred priests then in England, only thirteen
could be induced to sign the protestation, "a lamentable
proof," says Sir John Throckmorton, "of the prevalence of
1
Important Considerations.
2 The protestation is given in Tierney's Dodd, 3, Appd. 188, and in
Butler's English Catholics, 1, 233.
302
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
the Papistic party." And Charles Butler writes, “Much
indeed is it to be lamented that it [the Protestation] was
not generally signed by all the Catholic clergy and laity
of England. But it was opposed by a powerful party.
972
With these facts before us, is there any room for doubting
that there was a strong party at home working for the
destruction of England, and her conquest by the Spanish
King? Parsons tells us that the priests were ready to give
immediate information of an invasion to the principal
Catholics, and Allen informs us that he was sending" almost
daily" seminary priests into the country to direct "the
consciences and actions" of the Roman Catholics in favour
of the easiness and opportuneness of the sacred expedition
which was to enslave England. When we remember the
untiring hostility of the Roman Pontiffs, who for a period of
thirty-three years never rested an instant from their intrigues;
the excommunication and deposition of Elizabeth, the attacks
on Ireland, and the confederacies of the Catholic powers,
can we affect surprise that the English government enacted
severe laws to prevent the entrance into the country of the
missionaries of treason despatched by Parsons and Allen, or
that it took the same view of affairs which these two took,
and that it acted upon that view? With the world against
England abroad, and internal treason, under the colour of
religion, sapping her foundations at home, the wonder is, not
that three or, at the most, four penal statutes, were passed in
this reign, but that more numerous and more severe laws
were not enacted; for the government had no means of
distinguishing between the loyal Roman Catholics and the
Papistic adherents of Philip. Such was the opinion of men
1 “But . . . it only affords a lamentable proof of the prevalence of the
Papistic party, when so few could be induced to sign it, and the
promoters of it were treated at Rome as rebels to the See Apostolic."-
Throckmorton, 131.
2 English Catholics, 2, 63.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
303
who themselves laboured under the rigours of these laws.
William Watson, a seminary priest, affirmed that it was a
marvel, considering the conduct of the Roman Catholics
to the State, that a single one of them had been left alive in
England. The Seculars, after enumerating the errors of
which many of their body had been guilty, say: "In which
case, the premises discreetly considered, there is no King or
Prince in the world. . . having either force or metal in him,
that would have endured us if possibly he could have been
revenged, but rather, as we think, have utterly rooted us out
of his territories as traitors and rebels both to him and his
country. And, therefore, we may rejoice unfeignedly that
God hath blessed this kingdom with so gracious and merciful
a sovereign, who hath not dealt in this sort with us." These
words were written in the forty-third year of Elizabeth's
reign, and eight years after the last penal statute enacted
during her life.
The defeat of the Armada did not put an end to Papal
intrigues against England, or to Papal encouragement given
to rebels against her government. A year before the sailing
of the Armada, Parsons and Allen had drawn up for Philip
II. a memorandum concerning the succession to the English
crown. In this they asserted that there was no one, either
in England or Scotland, entitled to succeed Elizabeth in
right of the house of Lancaster; that all who claimed through
the house of York were disqualified by heresy or other
defects; and that no one outside the kingdom claimed through
the house of Lancaster except the Spanish King. But as
his claim to succeed by descent alone might give rise to
opposition, they said that all difficulties would disappear if
the intended invasion were successful;-for in that case, as
the decree of the Lateran Council gives to Catholic princes
the kingdoms which they conquer from heretics, and as the
Catholics of England would gladly elect Philip for their
304
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
J
3
2
King, his title would then be assured.' In 1593 Parsons
published his Conference about the next succession to the Crown
of England, under the name of Doleman. This book, Cardinal
D'Ossat informs us, was written at the instigation of Philip,
and was circulated by the Spaniards throughout England,
the Low Countries, and wherever else they thought it would
further their designs. In this treatise, Parsons maintained
the right of the people to regulate the descent of the crown,
and asserted that the profession of a false religion was
sufficient to justify the exclusion of an heir entitled by
blood. After stating that there had been no lawful Kings
in England for many years on account of their illegitimacy,
heresy, or other disqualications, he excluded from the succes-
sion all who were in any way connected with the royal
family of England, including James of Scotland, and implied
that Isabella, daughter of Philip II., was entitled to the
crown on the death of Queen Elizabeth. The publication of
this book was followed by another attempt at invasion on
the part of the Spanish King in 1597, as Philip believed
that, if the enterprise were successful his daughter might be
placed upon the English throne. The expedition was a
disastrous failure. The Spanish fleet set sail from Ferrol,
with the design of seizing some strong post in the south of
England, which might be held till the following spring, the
season selected for the grand attempt. When the fleet was
off the Scilly Isles, a storm arose and scattered it. The
leader of the expedition, having collected his vessels, returned
¹ Letters, &c., of Cardinal Allen, 96.
2 Lettres du Cardinal D'Ossat, 5, 48.
3 On account of the principles contained in this book, portions of it
were reprinted in 1648 under the title of Speeches delivered at a
conference concerning the power of parliaments to proceed against their
Kings for misgovernment. The book itself was re-published in 1680,
when it was proposed to exclude the Duke of York from the succession
on account of his religion. See The Apostate Protestant, a pamphlet
published in 1682.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
305
to Spain, and on the passage home sixteen sail were lost in
a second storm.
Another scheme for giving a Roman Catholic successor
to Elizabeth was planned at Rome about the year 1600.
Clement VIII., who ascended the Papal throne in 1592,
undervalued the character of the English Queen and the
resources of her kingdom. At an audience granted by him
to Cardinal D'Ossat, in 1597, the Pope said, "England has
been conquered before, and may be again, especially now
that she is disunited in religion, and governed by an old
woman without a husband and without a certain successor.
Neither you nor I are so old but that we may yet see her
subdued."
Clement was resolved that no prince should
succeed Elizabeth but one that would undertake to live in
the bosom of his Church, and pay him the same obedience
which other Catholic princes paid. With this view, he cast
his eyes on the family of Parma, which made some pre-
tensions to the English Crown through the royal house of
Portugal. There were then two princes of this family living,
Ranuccio, the reigning Duke, and his brother, the Cardinal
Farnese. The Pope wished, in the first instance, to make
the Duke King of England, but if it turned out that there
was a strong party in that kingdom in favour of Arabella
Stuart, then, as the Duke was already married, his brother
the Cardinal was to be secularized, and to give her his hand.
Clement endeavoured to unite the Kings of Spain and of
France to effect this project of establishing a Roman Catholic
successor on the English throne. He also sent three briefs
to his nuncio in the Netherlands, to be published in England
as soon as that ecclesiastic should be informed of the death
of Elizabeth. One brief was addressed to the clergy, one to
2
¹ Lettres du Cardinal D'Ossat, 2, 364.
2 "S. S. a envoyé depuis peu de temps au Nonce qu'elle tient aux
Pais-bas, trois brefs, pour les guarder jusques à ce que le dit Nonce
X
1
306
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
the nobility, and the third to the people. By these briefs,
the three estates of the realm were admonished and exhorted
to bind themselves to receive as their King a Catholic named
by the Pope, and were forbidden to aid any competitor who
should not promise to restore the Roman Catholic religion,
and to pay due obedience to the Papal See. Two of these
briefs, those directed to the clergy and the nobility, together
with the Pope's letter to the nuncio, were actually sent to
Garnet, the Superior of the Jesuits in England. The Papal
letter ordered the nuncio, "whenever that miserable woman
should die," to spare no labour to certify the event to the
Pope, and "to divulge the briefs in England by his authority
and in the Pope's name, whose assistance should not want."
Garnet subsequently stated that he destroyed these briefs
after the peaceful accession of James; but not until he had
shown them to Catesby, Winter, Tresham, Percy, and Old-
corne or Hall, who afterwards became notorious for their
connexion with the Gunpowder Plot."
The transmission of these briefs or bulls to England, and
the desire of the Pope, expressed in them, to exclude a Protes-
tant successor,³ were followed by fatal consequences. The im-
mediate effect of them was to give rise to the last conspiracy in
the reign of Elizabeth, which was undertaken for the purpose
of securing the transfer of the succession to the Spanish
King, by an invasion and by an insurrection of the Roman
saura que la Reine d'Angleterre soit morte, et lors les envoyer en
Angleterre, l'un aux ecclesiastiques, le second à la noblesse, et le
troisième au tiers etat."-Ib. 5, 55.
¹ Quandocunque contingeret miseram illam fæminam ex hac vita
excedere.-Garnet's Confession, Jardine's Gunpowder Plot, Append.
2 Garnet's Confession.-Ib. Examination of Oldcorne and Garnet.—
State Papers, Domestic, 1603-10, p. 300.
The main point of the two Breves was for to exclude all successors
from the crown, quantumcunque propinquitate sanguinis niterentur, nisi
ejusmodi essent qui non modo fidem Catholicam tolerarent, sed eam etiam
omni ope ac studio promoverent, ac more majorum id se jurejurando
prestituros susciperent."-Garnet's Confession.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
307
+
; an
Catholics in England. The ultimate result of these bulls
was the Gunpowder Plot. The principal persons engaged in
the plan of invasion were Garnet, Greenway or Greenwell
also a Jesuit, Catesby, Tresham, Thomas Winter, and Guido
Faukes. About the latter end of 1601, the conspirators
resolved to send two of their number to induce Philip to
attempt another invasion of England. Winter and Green-
way were despatched to Spain, and Garnet gave them a letter
of recommendation to one Creswell, a Jesuit, who resided at
the Spanish Court. The envoys arranged with Philip the plan
of attack. Spain was to advance a sum of 100,000 crowns to
secure a party in England in favour of the invasion
army was to land in the spring of 1603, if numerous, on the
coast of Essex or Kent-if deficient in numbers, at Milford
Haven; while the English Roman Catholics were to be ready
to join the Spanish force, and to furnish horses for their
cavalry. On the return of Winter and Greenway to England,
the particulars of the negotiation were made known to
Garnet, and were carefully concealed by him within his
own breast, though the time for their execution was fast
approaching.¹ Prior to the departure of the envoys from
Spain, it had been agreed between them and Philip that
if Elizabeth should die before the time appointed for the
invasion, intelligence of the event should be at once given
to the Spanish King. Accordingly, on the Queen's decease
in March, 1603, Christopher Wright was sent to Spain
with instructions to ask Philip to renew the engagements
previously made with Winter and Greenway. Like his
predecessors, Wright was furnished with letters of recom-
mendation from Garnet to Creswell. Wright was followed in
June by Guido Faukes, who had been sent from Brussels to
aid the negotiations, and who also carried letters to Creswell
from Baldwin, a Jesuit residing in Flanders. Faukes was
1 Tierney's Dodd, 4, 8.
X 2
308
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
authorized by Baldwin to inform Creswell that "about two
thousand horses would be provided by the Catholics of Eng-
land to join with the Spanish forces, horses being, of all other
things, those necessaries that the Spanish force should stand
in greatest need." But the universal acquiescence in the
title of James, and the union of the two countries, put au
end to all hopes of an interference from abroad. That the
Papal bulls were instrumental in bringing about the Gun-
powder treason is shown by two circumstances: all who
were engaged in the conspiracy for a Spanish invasion
afterwards took part in the Gunpowder attempt. Catesby
was the first mover and designer of that treason. Whenever
an attempt was made to dissuade him from plots against
James, he replied, "he was sure they were lawful, and
used this argument-that it being lawful by the force of the
said briefs of the Pope to have kept the King out, it was as
lawful now to put him out."
The mischievous proposal of the Pope to prevent the
succession of James to the English crown received no support
from the French King. Henry considered the plan of the
Pope to be a mere chimera. In his answer to Cardinal
D'Ossat he says: "As for the party of Arabella it is very
weak.... I am afraid that the project of the Pope will be
attended with very different results from those which he
expects, and that it will render the condition of the Catholics
more miserable than ever by inducing them to take up
arms against the laws of the kingdom, and the legitimate
successor. .. The King of Scotland is the lawful heir, and
is on the spot to secure his rights. . . . His Holiness need not
think that his briefs will be sufficient to raise up a party
Examination of Guido Faukes.-Tierney's Dodd, 4 App. 54.
2 Examination of Henry Garnet.-Jardine, App. "The breves I
thought necessary to acknowledge for many causes, especially Mr.
Catesby having grounded himself thereon, and not on my advice.”
Letter of Garnet to Mrs. Anne Vaux.
SEC. II
309
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
strong enough to stand against that of the King. As for
myself, I desire as much as his Holiness that England
should fall to the lot of a Catholic prince, nor am I ignorant
of the reasons which should make me wish that the crown of
England should remain separate from that of Scotland. . . .
But it is an injustice to fight against what is just, and an
imprudence to engage in an enterprise which has no chance
of success, like the one proposed by the Pope." The good
sense of Henry was shown in these words. James succeeded
to the English throne as quietly as a son succeeds to the
private estate of his father. The only effects of the successive
intrigues of Parsons," of the Pope, and of the Papist faction,
were to intensify among the people of England their
suspicions of their Roman Catholic brethren, and to implant
in the mind of James a distrust of that communion.
At the very time the Pope was thus labouring secretly to
provide a Roman Catholic successor in England, he was
acting more openly in Ireland. In 1598 Hugh O'Neil,
Earl of Tyrone, broke out into a fresh rebellion. To
encourage him, Clement sent him by the hand of Oviedo,
a Spanish ecclesiastic whom he had created Archbishop of
Dublin, a plume hallowed by his own apostolical benediction,
and which, he gravely declared, was formed out of the feathers
of a genuine phoenix. To this gift, O'Neil replied by a
submissive letter in which "he prostrated himself before the
father of spirits on earth," and requested the Pope to renew
the excommunication of Elizabeth, which would enable the
Pontiff's faithful subjects to act with success in the defence
of his kingdom of Ireland." In answer to this request
Clement addressed a letter to O'Neil dated 20th January,
1601, in which he designated him "Captain-General of the
¹ Lettres du Cardinal D'Ossat, at the end of vol. 5.
2 Allen had died in October, 1594.
Regnum hoc vestrum a te solo post Deum dependens, nosque
humiles tuos subditos."-Pacata Hibernia, 1, 312.
7
310
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
=
Catholic army in Ireland.” "We have been informed by
your letter," writes the Pope, "and by the report of our dear
son, Peter Lombard,' that the holy alliance, which you and
many other princes and nobles of Ireland have formed, is by
the mercy of God maintained and strengthened; and that
by the aid of the same Lord of Hosts you have often
combatted successfully against the English, the apostates
from the Church and faith.... We commend, dear son, your
pious magnanimity, and also that of the princes and all
others who in league with you decline no danger for the
glory of God, and prove themselves worthy successors of
their ancestors, men renowned for martial exploits, and for
zeal in the Catholic cause. Preserve, children, this excellent
spirit, preserve your mutual concord, and the God of Peace
will be with you, and will prostrate your enemies before
your face... When opportunity offers, we shall write to
our children the Catholic Kings and princes that they give
you and your cause all possible assistance." The Pope also
sent a bull of indulgence in the form usually granted to Irish
insurgents. In this he reminds them how honourably they
had formerly engaged with James Fitzmaurice, afterwards
with John and James Geraldine, and lately with O'Neil.
He then bestows to such as will assist O'Neil with supplies,
arms, munitions, or in any other way, a plenary indulgence,
and remission of sins, such as were given to those warring
against the Turks or for the recovery of the Holy Land.³
Contemporaneously with these proceedings of the Pope,
¹ Lombard, afterwards titular Archbishop of Armagh, wrote a history
of Ireland in which he maintained that Ireland was an ancient fief
of the Papacy, and that, although the Kings of England were for the
present in possession, the island belonged to Rome by divine right; for
which he quoted the prophet Isaiah.-Phelan's Remains, 2, 237;
O'Conor's Hist. Address, 1, 91.
2 Pacata Hibernia, 2, 667.
3 lb. 2, 605; Wilkins' Concilia, 4, 362. The date of the bull is 18th
April, 1600.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
311
Philip III., who had succeeded his father in 1859, had pre-
pared an expedition against Ireland. In September, 1601,
his fleet, consisting of forty-five ships, arrived at Kinsale,
and Don Juan de Aquila, the commander, landed his army
of 4000 men, most of them veteran soldiers, and took
possession of the town. The Spanish general at once issued
a proclamation, calling on the Irish to rise in the name of
the Pope. He denied that he was anxious to withdraw the
Irish from the allegiance of their lawful prince, for Elizabeth
was not their sovereign. "Ye know well," he says, "that
for many years since Elizabeth was deprived of her kingdom,
and all her subjects absolved from their fidelity by the Pope,
unto whom He that reigneth in the heavens, the King of
Kings, hath committed all power that he should root up,
destroy, plant, and build in such sort that he may punish
temporal Kings if it shall be good for the spiritual edifice,
even to their deposing, which thing has been done in the
kingdoms of England and Ireland by many Popes, viz. by
Pius Quintus, Gregory XIII., and now by Clement VIII.,
as it is well known, whose bulls are extant among us.
I
speak to Catholics, not to froward heretics. . . . Therefore
it remaineth, that the Irish who adhere to us do work with us
nothing that is against God's laws or their due obedience,
nay, that which they do is according to God's word and the
obedience which they owe to the Pope. . I admonish,
exhort, and beseech you all, all I say unto whom these letters
shall come, that as soon as possibly you can, you come to us
with your friends and weapons; whoever shall do this shall
find us prepared, and we will communicate unto them those
things which we possess, and whoever shall, despising our
wholesome counsel, do otherwise and remain in obedience to
the English, we will persecute him as a heretic and a hateful
enemy of the Church even unto death.”1
¹ Pacata Hibernia, 2, 357.
•
312
CHAF. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
The English at once drew all their forces together, and
besieged Kinsale. O'Neil hastened to relieve the town, and
enclosed them between his army and Kinsale. He and
O'Donnell, Earl of Tyrconnell, with seven hundred Spaniards
who had landed at Castlehaven, advanced to within six miles
of the English camp. Leaving the President of Munster to
watch the town, the Lord Deputy marched with twelve
hundred foot and four hundred horse against the two Earls.
The battle of Kinsale and its results are best described in the
words of the Spanish commander when treating for the
surrender of the town. “The King, my master," said Don
Juan, "sent me to assist the Condes O'Neil and O'Donnell,
presuming on their promise that I should have joined with
them within a few days of the arrival of his forces. I
expected long in vain, sustained the Viceroy's arms, saw
them drawn to the greatest head they could possibly make,
lodged within two miles of Kinsale, reinforced with certain
companies of Spaniards, every hour promising to relieve us,
and being joined together to force your camp; saw them at
last broken with a handful of men, blown asunder into divers
parts of the world, O'Donnell into Spain, O'Neil to the
farthest parts of the North, so as I now find no such Condes
in Rerum Natura¹ as I came to join withall; and therefore
have moved this accord the rather to disengage the King, my
master, from assisting a people so unable in themselves that
the whole burden of the war must lie upon him, and so
perfidious as perhaps might be induced in requital of his
favour at last to betray him." This rebellion was ended by
the submission of O'Neil in the last month of Elizabeth's
reign.
The great Queen whom heaven vouchsafed to England at
a time when even the existence of the kingdom as an inde-
"Those were the very words he used," says the author of Pacata
Hibernia, 2, 436.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
313
pendent power was at stake, and when it was engaged in a
struggle of life and death, died as she had lived victorious.
At her accession she was met by dangers such as no English
sovereign had ever faced before. The finances were dis-
ordered. The exhausted kingdom was at war with France
and Scotland. Her title to the crown was contested by the
Dauphiness of France. Above all, her people were divided.
More than half of them believed that she was illegitimate,
and therefore not the true heir. But by her rare prudence
and courage she surmounted all her difficulties and left her
people prosperous and triumphant. During her life she
enjoyed not merely the love but the adoration of her
subjects, for they saw in her the embodiment of the hopes
and of the safety of England. When she appeared in public
whole crowds threw themselves upon their knees, imploring
blessings on her head and praying for her success against
her enemies. Those who wish to comprehend the passion of
loyalty and reverence which she was able to evoke from her
people may turn to the journals of D'Ewes or Townsend, and
read the scenes which took place in parliament when she put
an end to monopolies, or they may consult the letter which
one of Allen's seminary priests wrote in 1588 to the Spanish
ambassador in Paris.¹ She lived long enough to witness the
quarrels and dissensions which broke out between the secular
priests and the Papistic faction, and to see that a national
party, small indeed as yet, was growing up among the
• •
1 "There, she was generally saluted with cries, with shouts, with all
tokens of love, of obedience, of readiness and willingness to fight for her,
as seldom has been seen in a camp and army. and all tended to show
a marvellous concord in a mutual love betwixt a Queen and her subjects,
and of reverence and obedience of subjects to a sovereign; and all that
day, wandering from place to place, I never heard any word spoken of
her but in praising her for her stately person and princely behaviour,
and in praying for her life and safety, and cursing of all her enemies,
both traitors and all Papists, with earnest desire to venture their lives
for her safety."-Somers' Tracts, 1, 442.
314
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
Roman Catholic clergy of England. When she came to the
throne, by far the larger portion of the nation still clung to
the old unreformed faith; before the end of her reign
England was practically Protestant. But this was not her
doing. The conversion of a minority of the English people
into a Protestant majority was effected by the Popes of
Rome and their emissaries. The four Pontiffs Pius V.,
Gregory XIII., Sixtus V., and Clement VIII., by their
bulls of depositions, their instigations of rebellions, their
invasions and plans of crusades, wrought the change, and
sacrificed the Roman Catholic Church in England to the
maintenance of their supremacy in temporal matters.
Instead of the healing waters of the Gospel, they proffered an
impure mixture of religion and treason, and multitudes of
the Faithful turned from the cup with loathing. Though
these Popes identified sedition with faith, and rebellion with
religion, and though they by the last and most awful
sanction of the Church, cut off all the loyal Roman Catholics
of England from the unity of the body of Christ,¹ their
teaching was neglected. Patriotism, aided by the convic-
tion that the kingly office also was of God, and that a
reformation by blood and violence was contrary to the
injunctions of the Prince of Peace, gained the day. "Jesu-
itical plots," say the secular priests, "for the restoring of
religion in this land by treasons or invasions are not
sanctified or blessed by the hand of God . . the old
approved paths of our forefathers
will always prove
the best. The ancient manner of planting the Catholic faith
has been by preaching, prayers, private instructions, con-
fessions, absolutions, and by the exercising of other priestly
functions, given ad edificationem non ad destructionem, to teach
•
1 "Declaramus prædictam Elizabetham eique adherentes a
Christi corporis unitate præcisos."-The words of the bull of Pius,
renewed by Gregory and Sixtus.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
315
obedience, not rebellion, to fill men's hearts with joy and
peace by the inward working of the Holy Ghost, and not to
feed them with hopes of invasions and treacheries." Allen's
seminary priest declares: "I do find and know that many
good and wise men, which of long time have secretly
continued in most earnest devotion to the Pope's authority,
begin now to stagger in their minds, and to conceive that
this way of reformation intended by the Pope's Holiness is
not allowable in the sight of God, by leaving the ancient
course of the Church by excommunication, which was the
exercise of the spiritual sword, and in place thereof to take
the temporal sword and put it into a monarch's hand to
invade this realm with force and arms, yea to destroy the
Queen thereof and all her people addicted to her, which are
in very truth now seen by great proof this year to be in a
sort infinite and invincible, so as some begin to say that this
purpose by violence, by blood, by slaughter, and by conquest,
agreeth not with Christ's doctrine, nor the doctrine of St.
Peter or St. Paul." And in another part of their circular
letter the secular priests declare, that if the conspiracies,
invasions, depositions, &c., had never taken place, the
number of Roman Catholics in England would have been
ten times as great as it was then, that is in 1601.
2
Some learned Roman Catholics, historians and others,
have asserted that the penal laws were not the result of a
persecuting spirit, and that if the seditious doctrines connected
1 "When the Catholic found not only that the Protestant government,
but also that the Pope and the King of Spain, and the wiser and more
politic sort of his priests, considered that he, as Catholic, was a probable
rebel, he must have grown by degrees convinced that his religion was in
a manner rebellion, and so have become with time either a confirmed
conspirator or a wavering Catholic, and in either way have both weakened
if not lost his own faith, and become a scandal to those who might have
occasion to judge of Catholicism by his conduct."-Simpson's Campion,
336.
2 Rev. Joseph Berington, Father Walsh, Rev. Charles O'Conor, Sir
John Throckmorton. Even Dodd says: "They [the Roman Catholics]
316
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
with the Papal claims to depose monarchs, had never been
propagated in England, no such laws would ever have been
enacted against their communion. This opinion is certainly
correct. Modern England and her reformed government
were not ushered into existence with a religious persecution.
Two facts alone are sufficient to prove this: one is, that for
the first twenty-five years of that government-six years in
the reign of Edward VI. and nineteen in that of Elizabeth
-not a single Roman Catholic was put to death for any
matter relating to religion; the other is, that as the English
government recognized the Church of Rome to be a true
Church, it could not possibly have instituted a persecution
against its members. The opinion of these learned writers
is also borne out by a consideration of the course of events
in Elizabeth's reign; and of the occasions upon which the
penal laws were enacted. From the list of these laws we
may exclude all those passed in the first twelve years of her
reign. Further, if we consider, as we ought, the act against
the importation of Papal bulls as a general one and a revival
of the old law, we may extend this period to her twenty-third
year, that is, up to 1581.¹ The oath of supremacy, as explained
by Elizabeth, by Convocation, and by Parliament, was a
political test, and was freely taken by her Roman Catholic
subjects until the publication of the bull of Pius. A much
stricter one had been taken by all, without a murmur, during
the reigns of Henry and Edward, and at the accession of
Mary. Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity was the mildest form
of religious coercion which the world had ever seen, and
were entertained by her [Elizabeth] in the army, and now and then in
the cabinet, till such times as the misbehaviour of some particular
persons drew a persecution upon the whole body, and occasioned those
penal and sanguinary laws."-Tierney's Dodd, 3, 5.
This is the date fixed on by the Roman Catholic clergy in their
Declaratio Motuum, &c., addressed in their name to the Pope in 1601.—
Berington, Panzani, 28.
て
​KC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
317
pressed equally on all dissenters of whatever kind. Twelve
happy, quiet, and prosperous years followed her accession to
the throne, during which the condition of the Roman Catholics
was, according to their own testimony, one of peace and
security. This cannot be gainsaid, that their state was one
of perfect comfort, if we compare it with that of non-
conformists in the other kingdoms of Europe, and if we
think of the scenes of torture and death through which those
unfortunates were then passing. But the gleam of tran-
quillity was soon overclouded. The disturbance came from
the Pope. The spiritual father of the English Roman
Catholics, violating the duties of a supreme priest, and
neglecting the ancient ways of spreading the faith, sent,
in 1569, an apostolical penitentiary to teach Englishmen
that their Queen was a heretic and pagan, whose laws ought
not to be obeyed. In the following year, by his bull of
excommunication and deposition, he loosened, so far as he
could effect it, every bond between them and her, and
compelled her government to regard allegiance to himself
as disloyalty to the State. Yet such was the forbearance of
that government, that neither the rebellion in the north, nor
the Papal bull, was followed by any restrictive legislation
save that against the introduction of Papal bulls, which the
treason of Felton had extorted. For the ten years which
succeeded the publication of the bull of deposition, Rome
was the centre of attempted and actual invasions of English
territories, of confederacies against her, and of intrigues with
her rebels and external enemies. Notwithstanding these
provocations no fresh legislation ensued; even the Act against
the introduction of Papal bulls was allowed to sleep on the
statute book for six years. At last, in 1581, after three
Papal expeditions for the invasion of Ireland, and after the
kingdom had escaped a supreme crisis by the accident of the
Portuguese King's death, England awoke to a sense of her
318
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
peril. Rome, and the writings of Parsons and Allen, had
taught her that there was a great difference between the old
Roman Catholics and the converts to a new faith compounded
of religion and treason. She knew that the Pope had sent
his Jesuits and missionary priests to teach the new religion
secretly in England, while at the same time he had despatched
his legate to Ireland to declare open war. The consequence
was that the Acts of 1581 and 1585, against reconciliation
with the Roman Church, and against Jesuits and seminary
priests, were passed. Lord Burghley tells us that the reason
of the enactment of the former was, because the whole scope
of these conversions was to preach the temporal authority of
the Pope, and to discharge the English subjects from their
allegiance. We know now, from the writings of Parsons
and Allen, that Burghley was right; that Parsons lost no
opportunity, either personally or by his treatises, of spreading
the doctrine of the deposing power as of faith, that is, as
necessary to salvation, and that Allen, by his "three hundred
priests in noblemen's and gentlemen's houses," and by the
"fresh ones" whom he was
whom he was "almost daily" sending into
England, was "directing the Catholics' consciences and
actions" in favour of an invasion which he justified by the
same doctrine.¹ The Act against Jesuits and seminary
priests was passed, after repeated warnings, to prevent the
promulgation of the most demoralising gospel ever preached
to a people, viz. that they ought to disarm their sovereign
by a show of devotion, while they nourished treason in their
hearts. The last Act, that of 1593, to restrain Roman
2
1" Allen wished to make every Catholic a conspirator."—Simpson's
Campion, 342.
2 35 Eliz. c. 2.—An Act for restraining Popish Recusants to some
certain places of abode. Contemporaneously with this Act another was
passed [35 Eliz. c. 1], which Hallam says affected Roman Catholics as
well as other dissenters. It appears from the use of the word " con-
venticles" in it, and from the form of "submission," that it was directed
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
319
•
Catholic recusants to within five miles of their abode, was
passed in consequence of the numerous conspiracies, following
each other in rapid succession against the person of the
Queen. In judging these laws, it must be remembered that
they were enacted at a time when the very existence of
England was at stake. It may be argued that they were
too severe, or that they were the result of panic at a time
when the country was engaged in a life and death struggle
with the Papacy and the power of Spain; but to attribute
them to a persecuting spirit is against all the evidence. One
question perpetually suggests itself to the student of this
period, as he reads of the continued attempts of the Roman
Pontiffs to subjugate England to a foreign conqueror, and to
subvert her freedom. Are we to be for ever deafened with
complaints of the severity of these Acts, without an allusion
to the provocations which produced them, and without a
single word of censure for the crimes of the Popes, who, with
the temporal sword in their hands, and in violation of the
laws of God and man, plotted the destruction of a country
with which they were at peace, invaded its territories,
excited a war of religion among its inhabitants, and corrupted
the fidelity of its subjects?
Lord Burghley declared, in 1583, that the prosecutions of
Roman Catholics were in no way connected with religious
tenets. In 1607 James I. asserted that the late Queen had
"never punished any Papist for religion." By some this
against the Puritans. Sir W. Raleigh, speaking in parliament, evidently
thought it was aimed at the Brownists.-Townsend's Proceedings, 76.
The only mention of Roman Catholics in the Act is an exception in their
favour. Upon this exception the editor of Neal's Puritans observes :—
"It is remarkable that there is a proviso in this statute that no Popish
recusant shall be compelled or bound to abjure [the realm] by virtue of
this Act. Such was her Majesty's tenderness for the Papists while she
was crushing Protestant dissenters."-Neal's Puritans, 1, 427, ed.
1822.
1 Apology for the oath of allegiance.
1
-
320
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
testimony may be questioned as Protestant. We have, how-
ever, the evidence of men who lived throughout the reign of
Elizabeth, and were themselves sufferers from the restrictions
of the penal laws. In 1601 a circular letter or treatise was
addressed to the members of their communion by some
priests, who style themselves "we your ancient teachers and
spiritual fathers, the secular priests in England." This
letter or treatise is really a review of the treatment which
the Roman Catholics received from Elizabeth during her life,
and of their conduct to her and her government. These
priests are of opinion that the penal laws were brought upon
their community by the numerous attempts against England
from without, and by the support which was given to them
by Roman Catholics at home. Here is the conclusion at
which they arrive. It is long, but every word of it deserves
the careful attention of those who believe that the penal laws
were the result of a persecuting spirit and not of political
necessities. In reading it we should also remember that their
statements are amply corroborated by the extracts from the
letters and books of Parsons and Allen, which have been
already given. "We are fully persuaded in our consciences
and as men besides our learning who have some experience,
that if the Catholics had never sought by indirect means to
have vexed her Majesty with their designments against her
Crown: if the Pope and King of Spain had never plotted
with the Duke of Norfolk; if the rebels in the north had
never been heard of; if the bull of Pius Quintus had never
been known; if the said rebellion had never been justified;
if neither Stukely nor the Pope had attempted anything
against Ireland; if Gregory XIII. had not renewed the
said excommunication; if the Jesuits had never come into
England; if the Pope and King of Spain had not practised
with the Duke of Guise for his attempt against her Majesty;
if Parsons and the rest of the Jesuits, with other our
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
321
countrymen beyond the seas had never been agents in those
traitorous and bloody designments of Throckmorton, Parry,
Collen, York, Williams, Squire, and such like; if they had
not by their treatises and writings endeavoured to defame
their sovereign and their own country, labouring to have
many
of their books to be translated into divers languages,
thereby to show more their own disloyalty; if Cardinal Allen
and Parsons had not published the renovation of the said
bull by Sixtus Quintus; if thereunto they had not added
their scurrilous and unmanly admonition, or rather most
profane libel against her Majesty; if they had not sought by
false persuasions and unghostly arguments to have allured
the hearts of all Catholics from their allegiance; if the Pope
had never been urged by them to have thrust the King of
Spain into that barbarous action against the realm; if they
themselves, with all the rest of that generation, had not
laboured greatly with the said King for the conquest and
invasion of this land by the Spaniards. . . if in all their
whole proceedings they had not from time to time depraved,
irritated, and provoked both her Majesty and the State with
these and many other such like their most ungodly and
unchristian practices; but on the contrary, if the Popes from
time to time had sought her Majesty by kind offices and
gentle persuasions, never ceasing the prosecution of those
and such like courses of humanity and gentleness; if the
Catholics and priests beyond the seas had laboured continually
for the furtherance of those most priest-like and divine
allurements, and had framed their own proceedings in all
their works and writings accordingly; if we at home, all of
us, both priests and people, had possessed our souls in meek-
ness and humility, honoured her Majesty, borne with the
infirmities of the State, suffered all things and dealt as true
Catholic priests; if all of us, we say, had thus done, most
assuredly the State would have loved us or at least borne
Y
322
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
with us; where there is one Catholic, there would have been
ten; there had been no speeches amongst us of racks and
tortures, nor any cause to have used them, for none were
ever vexed that way simply for that he was either priest or
Catholic, but because they were suspected to have had their
hands in some of the said most traitorous designments.
and therefore let us all turn over the leaf and take another
course than hitherto we have done.'
991
Were the Jesuits and seminary priests who were executed
during the reign of Elizabeth martyrs for their religion?
Their title to this name has been denied by some of their own
communion on the ground that they died, not in defence of
their faith, but in support of the dogma of the deposing power.²
Gregory the Great declared that no one suffering for a
specious or unreasonable cause, or for one which was not a
part of the Catholic faith, was entitled to the denomination
of confessors. "Ye ought to know," writes that Pope to the
bishops of Hibernia or Iberia, who had complained of being
under a persecution, "that, as St. Cyprian has said, it is the
cause and not the punishment-non pœna sed causa-which
makes the martyr." It is certain that these men were put
to death, not for any religious tenet, but for the political
doctrine of the deposing power, and that that doctrine is not
one of the verities of religion for which men are bound if
necessary to suffer. "This then I infer," says the Rev.
Joseph Berington, "and I have ample grounds for the
inference, that as none of the old clergy suffered, and none
1 There is no doubt that these Important Considerations were published
in 1601. Camden quotes from them under the year 1602. Caron also
quotes from them in his Remonstrantia Hibernorum, and calls the
treatise Epistola generalis Cleri Anglicani. The Rev. Joseph Berington
and Sir John Throckmorton give extracts from them.
24
They were martyrs to the deposing power, not to their religion.".
Throckmorton. "It was not for any tenet of the Catholic faith that
they were exposed to persecution.”—Rev. Joseph Berington.
3 Walsh, Hist. of the Irish Remonstrance, introd. 21.
SEC. II TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
323
of the new who roundly renounced the assumed prerogative
of Papal despotism, it was not for any tenet of the Catholic
faith that they were exposed to persecution.¹ The illustrious
Bossuet asserted that the Catholics in England were not
punished as Catholics, but "as public enemies, as men ever
disposed, when the Pope should order, to revolt against the
King." Though the dogma for which these men suffered was
no part of the Catholic faith, and though it was directly
opposed to the teachings and traditions of the old Anglo-
Catholic Church, we should not lightly disturb the crown of
martyrdom which hangs above the graves of those who
sacrificed themselves to it. No one can read their story
without emotion. Their meek endurance, their heroic
constancy, and their obedience to commands which they
considered divine, are lessons to us all. Still, while we
lament their fate, we must ever keep in mind one truth;
that it is perfectly consistent to say that these men were
martyrs, and yet to hold that it was the duty of the English
government to put them to death. No plea of individual
conscience or obligation should be allowed to arrest the sword
which is drawn in defence of the State. An example which
has been given before may be again adduced. If he, whom
fifty millions of our fellow-subjects regard as the vice-gerent
of God, were to send his moulvies and priests to teach that the
1
¹ Berington, Panzani, 34.
2 "Interim id hæretici lucrifecerunt, id ecclesiæ Catholicæ detrimento
fuit, quod Catholici, non ut Catholici, pænas darent, sed ut publici
hostes, prompti scilicet in regem insurgere, ubi Romano pontifici
placuisset." See also a previous remark in the same chapter that "the
bull of Pius V., by exciting the English Catholics to revolt, had only the
effect of exposing them to a more certain death without a pretence on
any solid grounds to the glory of martyrdom, as they would have been
punished not as Catholics but as rebels." Neque quidquam aliud
pontifex consequutus, quam ut Anglos Catholicos certius perituros ad
arma impulisse videretur, nullo aut ambiguo martyrii titulo, quum ut
perduelles diris modis necarentur.-Defensio, pars 1, lib. 4, c. 23.
Y 2
324
CHAP. IV
FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI
Empress of India was an infidel, and ought to be deposed,
her government would be bound to prevent their entrance
into the country, and, if those missionaries violated the law
enacted against their teaching, to execute them. Such was
the course pursued by Elizabeth. By warning after warning
she forbade the Jesuits and seminary priests to remain in or
to return to England, and when these warnings were rejected,
a law was enacted to punish future transgressions.
Secured from external attack by union amongst them-
selves, Englishmen look back, almost with indifference, upon
the struggles and anxieties of their forefathers when their
country was assailed by him who wielded the moral
influence of Europe, in conjunction with the monarch, who,
in possession of the wealth of the Indies and master of the
finest infantry on earth, reigned at Naples, Milan, Brussels,
and Madrid. Yet what futurities for England, for the
kindred nation which was so soon to be united to her, and
through them for the world, then trembled in the balance, and
depended on the indomitable valour of the English people
and the romantic daring of their "sea-dogs." Possibilities
have no place in history. But as in those matters which lie
beyond and above human knowledge man is for ever peering
into the unknown, and asking questions which never can be
answered, so also the historical student is obliged by the law
of his nature to speculate on what might have been if the
course of events had been different from what it has been,-
if, for example, the Athenians had been defeated in the sea
fight at Salamis, or if the Cross had gone down before the
Crescent at the battle of Tours. If the Pope-for the
continuity of policy counterbalances the change in the
individual-and the King of Spain had succeeded in their
attempts against England, small indeed had been our
heritage in comparison with the wide and fair succession
which is now our birth-right. That which we, in the
SEC. II
325
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH
imperfection of our generalisations, call the "Elizabethan
Era" would never have existed. The awakening of England
to a consciousness of her infinite capacities, the wonderful
outburst of activity in every department of life, the spectacle
of "a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong
man after sleep and shaking her invincible locks" would
never have been witnessed. The tree of English literature,
under the branches of which the various peoples of the
Anglo-Saxon race shelter themselves, and on the fruits of
which they are nurtured, being sapped at its roots, would
never have blossomed into manifold luxuriance. The
farthest West would have felt the effects of the subju-
gation of England. No pilgrim fathers would have carried
to her shores the language, laws, institutions, and morals of
the mother country. The forty-four States of the American
Union might now be Spanish viceroyalties, inhabited by
tribes of wandering savages and oppressed to swell the
wealth of a distant court. In the East, the guiding hand of
Great Britain would be unknown, and swarms of adven-
turers, Hindoo, Mogul, and Sikh, might still be tearing at
the entrails of that India where now two hundred and fifty
millions of our fellow-subjects enjoy a universal peace. To
the genius of Elizabeth and the unconquerable will of her
people, we owe our present position among the nations and
our world-wide Empire.
r
་
CHAPTER V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
=
1
CHAPTER V
THE Thirty Years' War waged against England by the
Popes and their allies the Kings of Spain came to an end
with the accession of James I. to the English Crown. This
cessation was not the result of any change in the Papal
policy, for more than twenty years later, in 1627, we find
Urban VIII. urging the French and Spanish monarchs to
make a joint attack upon England, and bargaining with
them for a cession of Ireland to the Roman See should the
attack be successful. The suspension of hostilities was due
to two circumstances, the exhaustion of Spain and the new
strength which England had acquired in the eyes of Europe
by her union with Scotland. Elizabeth in the beginning of
her reign had extinguished for ever French influence in the
northern kingdom; the united power of the whole island
forbade for the present all hopes of any foreign interference
whatever. Far from desiring a continuance of the war with
England the King of Spain was only too glad to conclude a
peace with James, and without Spanish co-operation the
Popes could effect but little."
¹ See the commencement of the next chapter.
2 “I knew also the state of Spain well, his weakness, and poorness, and
humbleness. . . that six times we had repulsed his forces, thrice in
Ireland, thrice at sea, and once at Cadiz on his own coast. .. I knew
that where before time he was wont to have forty great sails at the least
in his ports, now he hath not past six or seven his pride so abated
•
•
•
330
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
2
For some time after the accession of James, though the
Pope had attempted to prevent it, a persuasion prevailed at
Rome that the King was inclined to the Roman Catholic
faith, and hopes of his conversion were entertained.¹ This
expectation led to some friendly advances on the side of the
Pope in the first year of James's reign. Dr. Gifford, Dean
of Lisle, arrived in England in August, 1603, with instruc-
tions from the Papal nuncio at Brussels to the effect that
the Pope desired to repress insurrections on the part of the
Roman Catholics, that there was nothing he wished more
than to see the King a member of his Church, and that he
was prepared to summon from England all such as his
Majesty should reasonably consider as disaffected to himself
and his government. About the same time, the Papal
nuncio at Paris informed the English ambassador that he
had received authority from the Pope to recall from England
all turbulent priests. A negotiation with the latter nuncio
followed. James proposed that power should be given by
the Pontiff to some person to excommunicate those Roman
Catholics who should disturb the peace of the country, and
also that a layman should be sent from Rome to England
with whom the King might informally communicate. The
former proposal was warmly supported by the nuncio at
Paris. The Pope, however, refused his assent to both the
proposals of the King. No doubt he had learned in the
interval that James was attached to the Protestant faith,
and had no intention of changing his religion. In truth,
there could be no lasting and friendly connexion between a
as, notwithstanding his former high terms, he was glad to congratulate
the King my master on his accession, and now cometh creeping unto him
for peace."-Raleigh's words at his trial; Jardine, Crim. Trials, 1, 413.
State Trials, 2, 11.
¹ Jardine, Gunpowder Plot, 17, note. King James's Works, 295.
2 Instructions from the nuncio at Brussels, Tierney's Dodd, 4,
Appendix, 60.
CHAP. V
331
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
•
Protestant sovereign and a foreign Pontiff who claimed a
right to interfere in the civil government of his kingdom.
As James himself said in a proclamation issued in the first
year of his reign: "Although we acknowledge ourselves so
much beholden to the now Bishop of Rome for his kind
offices and private temporal carriage towards us in many
things as Bishop of Rome, in state and condition of a
secular prince, yet, when we consider and observe the course
and claim of that see, we have no reason to imagine that
princes of our religion and profession can expect any
assurance long to continue, unless it might be assented, by
mediation of other princes Christian, that some good course
might be taken. . . to pluck up those roots of dangers and
jealousies which arise for cause of religion as well between
princes and princes as between them and their subjects,
and to make it manifest that no state or potentate either
hath or can challenge power to dispose of earthly things
or monarchies, or to dispense with subjects' obedience to their
natural sovereign."¹
It has been urged by some writers that the accession of
James offered a favourable opportunity for granting to the
Roman Catholics of England a repeal of the penal laws.
But, it may be asked, was such a course practicable? These
laws had been enacted from a belief that they were a political
necessity. Had any change taken place since the enactment
of the last of them to weaken that belief? Was there any
alteration either in the policy of the Popes, or in the
behaviour of the Papistic faction, which in the eyes of the
government and of the English people represented the whole
body of Roman Catholics? Until such a change was observ-
able, the remembrance of thirty-three years of aggression ou
the part of the Roman Pontiffs, and of the innumerable
treasons of the Papistic party at home for the same period,
¹ Proclamation of February 22, 1604.
332
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
could not be blotted out in a moment from the mind of a
nation. But no change whatever had taken place. The
Popes of Rome still claimed to be the suzerains of England,
and, in the exercise of their supreme temporal power, to be
entitled to set aside her lawful King, to dispose of her crown,
and to absolve her subjects from their allegiance. Shortly
before the accession of James, Clement VIII. had sent his
bulls to England, exhorting the Roman Catholics to oppose
his succession to the crown. Contemporaneously with these
documents, Clement had despatched to Ireland a bull of
indulgence to all such as should aid Tyrone in his rebellion
against the English Government, and promised, in a letter
admonishing him and his adherents to persevere in their
rebellion, that he would endeavour to obtain help for them
from the Catholic kings and princes. The Papistic party,
which was labouring for the exclusion of a Protestant suc-
cessor and for the forcible intervention of the Spanish King,
was unchanged, and was as busy as ever both at home and
abroad. Immediately after the accession of James, that party
had sent an agent to Philip III. to request him to fulfil the
engagement of invading England made by him in 1602.
The Papists were active and enterprising, and naturally
brought distrust upon the general body of Roman Catholics,
with whom they were confounded, as the government and the
English people had no means of distinguishing between them.
Further, on a late occasion even the Roman Catholics, in
contradistinction to the Papists, had appeared to favour the
doctrine of the temporal power of the Popes. On the day
when Elizabeth was seized with her last illness, certain priests,
as has been said, had drawn up and presented to her Council
a protestation of allegiance, in which they declared that in
case of invasion by any foreign prelate, prince, or potentate,
they would defend her Majesty and the realm, and that they
were bound in conscience not to obey any Papal excommuni-
CHAP. V
333
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
cation or censure issued against their prince. Unhappily
this protestation was signed by thirteen secular priests only.
If this document had been signed generally by the Roman
Catholic clergy and laity, the distrust of the government
and of the nation would at least have been greatly lessened,
and a few years of domestic quiet would have entirely dissi-
pated their suspicions and jealousies. "Had the Catholics,"
says the Rev. Joseph Berington, "in a body, on the accession
of King James, waited on him with the Protestation of
allegiance I have just stated, as containing their true and
loyal sentiments, we should probably have heard no more of
recusancy or penal prosecution." This was not done, and
their abstention was naturally interpreted as indicating that
all Roman Catholics accepted the doctrines, that Papal excom-
munication justified an invasion, and that the Pope could
dispense with the allegiance of English subjects. Until
these doctrines were repudiated, and an unconditional
allegiance towards the secular sovereign was professed, a
reconciliation between that body and the government was
impossible, as is shown by its subsequent history. No
relief was extended to its members until they had disclaimed
the doctrine of the deposing power and the belief “that
the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate,
state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any temporal or
civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly
or indirectly, within this realm.”½
There can be no doubt that James was well-disposed
towards the Roman Catholics, and sincerely desirous of
alleviating their condition. He arrived in the neighbour-
3
1 Berington, Memoirs of Panzani, 73.
2 The words of the oath imposed by 18 Geo. III., the first relief Act.
It was stated in the Memorial of the Roman Catholics, presented ten
years later to Pitt, "that the English Catholics have universally taken
this oath."-Butler, English Catholics, 4, 9.
3" His [James's] good will to the professors of that religion from the
334
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
2
·
hood of London in the early part of May, 1603. In the
preceding month, a petition had been presented to him by
that body asking for a toleration of their religion. The
petitioners assured him of their devoted allegiance, and
reminded him of their services in behalf of his mother's
cause and of his own, but there was no repudiation of the
deposing power, nor any renunciation of the Pope's temporal
claims.¹ An answer to this petition was given in the fol-
lowing July. Sir Thomas Tresham and a considerable
body of distinguished Roman Catholics were summoned to
Hampton Court to meet the Lords of the Privy Council.
The representatives were received with every mark of
respect, and were informed by the Lords that it was the
King's intention to exonerate thenceforth the Roman Catho-
lics from the fines of £20 a-month for recusancy, and that
they should enjoy this favour so long as "they kept them-
selves upright in all civil and true carriage towards his
Majesty and the State without contempt." The represen-
tatives objected that recusancy alone might be held to be an
act of contempt. To this objection it was answered by
the Lords that the King would not account recusancy as
contempt. In confirmation of this official assurance the fines
for recusancy were remitted for the first two years of James's
reign. Other demonstrations of favour to the Roman
Catholics were made at the same time. Titles of honour and
3
earliest impressions was deeply marked on his heart."-Berington's
Panzani, 73.
1 The Petition is to be found in Tierney's Dodd, 4, Appd. 72.
2 Petition Apologetical of the Lay Catholics, 1604, p. 8.
"It appears from some notes of Sir Julius Cæsar, who was Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer in 1607, that in the last year of Queen Elizabeth's
reign, the sums paid into the Exchequer . for recusants' fines and
forfeitures was £10,333 9s. 7d. In the next year little more than £300
In the following year, being the second
was paid on this account.
•
•
of James's reign, the sum hardly exceeded £200."-Jardine, Gunpowder
Plot, 19.
CHAP. V
335
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
lucrative employments were bestowed upon members of that
persuasion, and one of them, Lord Henry Howard, was
advanced to a seat in the Privy Council. The King himself,
speaking of his disposition at this time towards the Roman
Catholics, says: "How many did I honour with knighthood
of known and open recusants? How indifferently did I give
audience and access to both sides, bestowing equally all
favours and honours on both professions? How free and
continual access had all ranks and degrees of Papists in my
court and company? And above all, how frankly and freely
did I free recusants of their ordinary payments? Besides,
it is evident what strait order was given out of my own
mouth to the judges to spare the execution of all priests
notwithstanding their conviction, joining thereto a gracious
proclamation, whereby all priests, that were at liberty and
not taken, might go out of the country by such a day, my
general pardon having been extended to all convicted priests
in prison; whereupon they were set at liberty as good
subjects, and all priests that were taken after sent over and
set at liberty there." The interview between the deputies
of the Roman Catholics and the Lords of the Privy Council
took place before the King's coronation.
But the good intentions of the King were frustrated by
the conduct of the Papistic faction. At the very moment
when James was showing favour to the Roman Catholics there
were two conspiracies of members of that party in existence
against him—the one to dethrone him and support a Spanish
invasion, the other to seize his person and extort from him a
toleration for their body, and other concessions. Immediately
after the death of Elizabeth in March, 1603, Christopher
Wright was despatched to Madrid by Catesby, Francis
Tresham, Garnet, and others, to call on Philip III. to
invade England, according to his promise. Two months
1
¹ King James's Works, 253.
336
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
later, Guido Faukes followed Wright with instructions from
Baldwin, a Jesuit who lived in Brussels, to aid the negotia-
tions, and to offer two thousand horses, to be furnished by
the Roman Catholics of England, for the assistance of the
invading army. But the exhaustion of the Spanish monarchy
forbade Philip from undertaking the enterprise; and, though
he received the messengers kindly, he refused to adopt their
proposals. The other conspiracy is known in our histories
under the name of the "Surprise," or the "Bye.” The
intention of the conspirators in this plot was, to get posses-
sion of the person of the King, to convey him to the Tower,
or to Dover Castle, and, when James was in their power, to
keep him a close prisoner until he had granted a pardon to
the confederates, ensured them a toleration of their religion,
and agreed to remodel his ministry according to their advice.
The plot was conceived by two priests, Watson and Clarke,
and a Roman Catholic gentleman called Sir Griffin Markham.
The exclusively religious character of the conspiracy is shown
by the oath which was drawn up by its members :—" I, N. N.,
do here before God, our Blessed Lady, and all the holy
angels and saints, attest in the faith of a Catholic Christian
man, that from henceforth I will do my best endeavour by
word, writing, action, or any other lawful means, to restore
the Catholic faith in our country, to conserve the life of our
sovereign in safety, and to preserve the laws of our land from
all enemies of what sort, title, or condition soever they be, or
may be."
All but a few, to whom the real object was dis-
closed, were left under the impression that they were to join
only in the presentation of a petition to the King; and it
was hoped that, when the opportunity of action arrived, the
petitioners would follow the directions of their leaders. Lord
Grey of Wilton, a Puritan, and Brooke, the brother of Lord
Cobham, who were both discontented with the Government,
1 Tierney's Dodd, 4, Appd. 38.
I
CHAP. V
337
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
coquetted for some time with the conspirators-so far, at
least, as concerned the presentation of a petition; but they
appear to have drawn off as the period of executing the plan
approached, deterred by the religious complexion of the plot.
Watson and Clarke were arrested; and from the statements
and confessions of the conspirators the King learned that
other movements were on foot against him. Watson declared
that the Jesuits were engaged in a plan in favour of a Spanish
invasion; that they had collected large sums of money and
horses to aid the invaders; and that he himself had entered
into the project of the "Surprise" merely to defeat their
designs. These were not unfounded assertions. Catesby
and his associates were then making preparations to receive
a Spanish army if Philip should send a favourable answer
to their proposals; and Guido Faukes was offering him, on
behalf of the English Roman Catholics, two thousand horses
to join with the Spanish forces. What is strangest of all
about this conspiracy is, that it was revealed to the govern-
ment by the Jesuits. If we may believe Watson, this was
done "for clearing of themselves by laying their own treasons
and conspiracies to our charge." Watson and Markham had
opened a correspondence with two Jesuits, Darcy and Gerard,
for the purpose of a reconciliation between themselves and
the members of the Society. Gerard declined their advances,
and, having become acquainted with the conspiracy, wrote to
his superior Garnet, and requested him to inform the arch-
priest of the plot. After some delay, Garnet and the arch-
priest revealed the conspiracy to the Bishop of London and
other members of the Council. It is certain that Gerard was
at this time engaged with Garnet, the superior of the Jesuits
in England, in the other conspiracy for a Spanish invasion,
and that he afterwards fled the country, being accused of
participation in the Gunpowder Plot.
In consequence of these conspiracies, a proclamation was
Z
338
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
issued in February, 1604, commanding all Jesuits and
seminary priests to leave the kingdom before the 19th of the
following month, and warning them that all who should
remain in the country, or return to it, would be left to the
penalties of the law, without hope of favour or remission of
punishment. At the same time, a statute¹ was passed order-
ing the laws framed during the late reign against Jesuits,
seminary priests, and recusants, to be enforced. It also pro-
vided that no one should send a child or other person under
his obedience to a foreign seminary, under a penalty of a
hundred pounds: every person going to such a seminary to
be disabled from inheriting lands or goods; all those in
schools abroad to return home within a year, or to be equally
disabled; no person, unless licensed by the ordinary, to keep
a school or act as schoolmaster in the house of a recusant,
under a penalty of forty shillings a-day for the schoolmaster
himself, and also for his employer.
The next year, 1605, was the year of the Gunpowder
Plot, which, commencing with a few individuals, widened
into a formidable conspiracy. No event-not even the
St. Bartholomew massacre-ever made a stronger impression
upon the imagination of a people. The atrocity of the design,
and the extent of the mischief intended, produced a frenzy of
horror and dread among all Englishmen. The universal
horror was enhanced, if that were possible, by the fact that
no mercy was to have been shown by the conspirators, even
to those members of their own communion who sat in Parlia-
ment. There were then more than twenty Roman Catholic
peers entitled to seats in the upper house; yet all these,
together with the King and his family, the lords and the
commons, were to have been involved in a common destruc-
tion, and a general anarchy was to have been let loose.
We cannot understand the past without placing ourselves,
1 1 James I., c. 4.
CHAP. V
339
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
as it were, in it, and endeavouring to comprehend the feelings
with which contemporaries regarded what was passing around
them. The convictions and opinions of the times are the
real objects of history, for they are the only sources from
which policies and events arise. The former are causes, the
latter but their effects, since thought determines action.
Let us for a moment try to conceive what the sentiments of
the English people must have been on the discovery of the
Gunpowder Plot. At this period thirty-five years had
elapsed since Pius V. had issued his bull, declaring that
there was no lawful government in England, and com-
manding all English Roman Catholics to offer a perpetual
hostility to their native sovereign. For upwards of thirty-
three years, the Popes of Rome had directed all the moral
and material resources at their disposal to effect the destruction
of the country, and its conquest by a foreign invader.
During the whole of that long time, a powerful and active
party in the kingdom, calling itself Roman Catholic, had
played into the hands of the Popes and the Spanish Kings,
plotted rebellions, invited invasions, and conspired for the
subjugation of England in the name and for the advance-
ment of their religion. A new generation had arisen which
was well aware of the agony of distress and danger through
which the kingdom had passed. The manhood of England
had grown up surrounded by the gravest perils from the
machinations of the Popes, the hostility of Spain, and the
conspiracies of their domestic foes. The struggle of life or
death had ceased for a time, but there was no security that
it would not be renewed. The whole strength of the kingdom
might at any moment be called on to resist an attack.
While England was thus watching and waiting with her
hand on the sword, the general body of the Roman Catholics
declined to offer guarantees of their fidelity, and by so doing
gave just grounds for believing that their allegiance was
Z2
340
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
doubtful. A party among them, which it was impossible to
discriminate from the majority, had lately been guilty of
two fresh conspiracies, and now had crowned the long series
of its misdeeds by a crime which has been well described
as an attempt to murder the nation in its representatives.
What conclusion could the English people come to, but that
there were no terms to be kept with men who tolerated such
a party among them, and refused to separate themselves
from it by a proffer of thorough allegiance to their
sovereign, and of unconditional devotion to their country?
There is no reason to believe that the Gunpowder
conspiracy was known at Rome before it was officially made
public by the English government. The plot was not
openly adopted by the Papal Court as the St. Bartholomew
massacre had been, nor was it celebrated by religious
processions, or by medals struck in its remembrance. But
on the other hand, the Pope never issued any formal con-
demnation of it. No public censure of a crime so black
proceeded from the Papal See. It was left to Blackwell,
the arch-priest, to stigmatize the attempt as " an intolerable,
uncharitable, scandalous, and desperate fact." Blackwell
informed his flock that the Pope had written to him "in
general" prohibiting all such unlawful attempts, and that he
felt assured that his Holiness would, when notice should
come to him, "by his public instruments manifest and
declare to the world his utter dislike and detestation" of the
plot. But the Pope made no sign, nor did he ever declare
to the world his detestation of the attempt. An enormous
wickedness, which had shocked the conscience of Europe, and
which had been exclusively designed by Roman Catholics
for the promotion of their religion, was passed over in silence
by the head of that communion. The First Bishop of the
1 Blackwell's Letters to the Catholic Clergy and Laity of England;
Tierney's Dodd, 4, App. 111-113.
CHAP. V
341
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
Christian world manifested no public indignation for a crime
which aimed at the destruction of the King of England and
his family, the hierarchy, the whole nobility, and the knights
and burgesses of the realm. The Pontiff, who claimed to be
the Vicar of the Prince of Peace, uttered no denunciation
against an attempt to restore in England what he considered
the Church of God by wholesale murder. No priest or
Jesuit engaged in the conspiracy was ever punished by the
Pope for complicity in it. "Neither these that fled out of
the country for it," says King James, "nor yet Baldwin,
who, though he then remained in the Low Countries, was of
counsel in it, were ever called to account for it by the Pope,
much less punished, for meddling in so scandalous and
enormous business."
The arch-priest was not the only member of his com-
munion who wished the Pope to condemn publicly the
wickedness of the Gunpowder Plot. Twenty-five years later,
a Papal agent, then resident in England, expressed his regret
that the Pontiff had not declared his detestation of it. If he
had done so, said the latter, the English people would have
thought that the plot arose from the criminality of indi-
viduals, and not from the doctrines of Catholic teachers."
But these respectable ecclesiastics did not see that the Pope
could not condemn the principles which inspired the con-
spirators without also condemning those upon which the
Papacy had acted during the thirty years' war against
England, and that her people were right in concluding that
the principles were identical in both cases. These principles
were, that all means were lawful to effect the restoration of
the Roman Catholic Church, and that actions otherwise
criminal changed their moral character when done in
pursuance of this great object. To carry these into practice,
the gunpowder traitors chose the short and simple method of
1 King James's Works, 274.
2 See next chapter.
342
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
explosion; the Popes preferred the more lengthened processes
of invasions, conspiracies, and civil wars. But what difference
is there between blowing up a town, and after a storm putting
its inhabitants to the sword? The attempt against the houses
of parliament, and the long continued endeavour of the
Roman Pontiffs to restore their religion by blood and
violence, stood on precisely similar grounds, and were
equally opposed to the laws of God. We may, therefore,
neglect any difference in the means adopted to carry them
into execution. The Pope did not issue a condemnation of
the gunpowder conspiracy simply because it would have
been illogical and absurd for him to censure conduct which
sprang from the same motives and principles upon which the
Papacy itself had acted for upwards of a generation.
It was a consciousness of its own crimes against England
and that those crimes proceeded from the same principles
which actuated the powder conspirators, that prevented the
Papacy from denouncing the plot, and paralyzed it in the
performance of its moral duties. If we now turn to the
effects produced by these principles on the minds of those
Englishmen who accepted them, and whose conduct was
guided by them, we shall be amazed at the depraved
morality which prevailed among them. Of all the circum-
stances connected with the gunpowder conspiracy, nothing is
more shocking than the fact that all sense of right and wrong
appears to have been obscured in the consciences of the men
who planned it. Patriotism, pity, humanity, neighbourly
affection, all the social virtues, had disappeared before the
tenet that all means of restoring the Roman Catholic religion
were justifiable. The associates in the conspiracy were
gentlemen of rank and education, yet they believed that, in
undertaking the enterprise, they were promoting the cause of
God, and many of them maintained to the last that it was
meritorious in the sight of heaven. It is not often that we
CHAP. V
343
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
can look into the souls of criminals and discover the real
motives upon which they acted, but the latest sayings of the
gunpowder conspirators furnish us with such an opportunity.
In a letter to his wife, Sir Everard Digby expressed his
surprise that his conduct was disapproved of by some
members of his communion. "If I had thought there had
been the least sin in it, I would not have been of it for all
the world, and no other cause drew me to hazard my fortune
and life but zeal to God's religion. But when I heard that
Catholics and priests thought that it should be a great sin
that should be the cause of my end, it called my conscience in
doubt of my very best actions and intentions." "Nothing
grieves me," said Robert Winter to Faukes in the Tower,
“but that there is not an apology made by some to justify
our doings in this business; but our deaths will be a sufficient
justification of it, and it is for God's cause." He also
expressed his regret that "the business having been brought
within a day or two of its execution should be so unhappily
thwarted." John Grant, another of the conspirators, on the
day of his execution, was exhorted by the clergyman who
attended him to entertain a proper sense of his situation and
to ask pardon for his crime from heaven. Grant replied, with
a cheerful countenance: "I am convinced that our project
was so far from being sinful, that I entirely rely upon my
merits in bearing a part of that noble action, as an abundant
satisfaction and expiation for all sins committed by me
during the rest of my life." What a commentary do these
facts supply on the Act of Elizabeth which forbade con-
versions to the new edition of the Christian religion imported
into England by the Jesuits and seminary priests from
Italian and Spanish schools.
The parliament met immediately after the discovery of
the plot, and James addressed both houses in words of great
1
¹ Jardine, Gunpowder Plot, 152.
2 Ib. 153.
344
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
moderation. He told them that though religion had engaged
the conspirators in the late attempt, yet that they ought not
to involve all Roman Catholics in the same guilt or to
suppose that they were capable of similar crimes. He would
be sorry that any who were innocent should receive blame or
harm. That, though many Roman Catholics might remain
good and faithful subjects, none of those that truly knew and
believed the whole grounds and school conclusions of their
doctrine could prove either good Christians or faithful
subjects. For his part, they should see no alteration in his
conduct arising from this cause save caution and wariness in
discovering the mysteries of the wickedness, and severity in
punishing those that should be found guilty. This speech
was delivered on the 9th of November, and at its conclusion
James adjourned the parliament until the 21st of the follow-
ing January.
The King's moderation had but little effect amidst the
perturbation of the public mind. On the reassembling of
parliament, all men were thinking of the great deliverance
vouchsafed to them, and of the means of preventing similar
dangers in future. Two Acts, of great severity, were at once
passed against recusants.¹ They were forbidden to appear
at Court, or to remain within ten miles of London unless
engaged in trade or employment in the city, or unless their
only dwelling was in it or within ten miles of it. They
were made incapable of any public office or charge, of
practising medicine or the law, of acting as judges or officers
in any court or corporation, or of being executors, admini-
strators, or guardians. Pecuniary penalties were imposed if
they were married or suffered their children to be baptized
with any other rites than those of the Established Church,
and, if they were not buried in a Protestant cemetery, their
executors were liable to a penalty of twenty pounds. Every
1 3 James I. cc. 4 and 5.
CHAP. V
345
THE REIGN OF JAMES I ·
child sent abroad for education was disqualified from taking
any benefit by devise, descent, or gift, until he returned and
conformed. Power was given to the King to refuse the
penalty of £20 a-month, and in lieu thereof to take into his
hands two-thirds of the lands of recusants. Every person
retaining a recusant in his service was liable to a fine of £10
a-month.
But even at this juncture a way of safety was opened to
the Roman Catholics by the King, by which, if they had
availed themselves of it, they would soon have obtained peace
and security. An opportunity was afforded them of showing
that they were not disaffected to the government, and that,
"though their spiritual head claimed the right of allowing or
disallowing the performance of their civil duties, their religion
was not inconsistent with the safety of the State. Elizabeth's
oath of supremacy, as explained by her Admonition, declared
that the sovereign of England was the supreme governor of
the realm in all ecclesiastical and temporal matters, and
abolished all foreign powers repugnant to this right. James
now called upon his Roman Catholic subjects merely to
abjure the claim of the Pope to depose him, and to absolve
them from their natural obedience. He was anxious to
relieve the loyal portion from the burden of the penal laws,
but the first step was to separate them from the disloyal.
For this purpose he caused to be inserted in the first of the
two statutes just mentioned, an oath which has always been
known as the oath of allegiance, to distinguish it from that
of supremacy. The oath was intended, as James informs us,
"to make a separation between so many of my subjects, who,
although they were otherwise Popishly affected, yet retained
in their hearts the print of their natural duty to their
sovereign, and those who, being carried away with the
like fanatical zeal that the Powder traitors were, could
not contain themselves within the bounds of their natural
346
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
allegiance, but thought diversity of religion a safe pretext for
all kind of treasons and rebellions against their sovereign.”¹
In framing the oath of allegiance, the greatest care was taken
that it should contain nothing but matters of civil obedience
due by subjects to their Government. As a proof of this,
James mentions the following remarkable fact: "The lower
house of parliament, at the first framing of this oath, made
it to contain that the Pope had no power to excommunicate
me, which I caused them to reform, only making it to con-
clude, that no excommunication of the Pope can warrant my
subjects to practise against my person or State, denying the
deposition of Kings to be in the Pope's lawful powers, as,
indeed, I take any such temporal violence to be far without
the limits of such a spiritual censure as excommunication is.
So careful was I that nothing should be contained in this
oath except the profession of natural allegiance and civil
and temporal obedience, with a promise to resist to all
contrary uncivil violence." 2 It is now admitted by all
Roman Catholics that the oath of allegiance proposed by
James was perfectly free from any objection, and that it
contained nothing inconsistent with their religion or their
duty to the head of their Church. When James II. was
Duke of York, he himself took the oath of allegiance, and
intimated his intention of enforcing it when he should be
King. Every affirmative proposition in the oath respecting
the rights of an English sovereign, and every denial of
the Pope's deposing and absolving power have since been
accepted by Roman Catholics over and over again in their
oaths and petitions. The oath was as follows:-
3
1. I do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify,
and declare in my conscience before God and the world, that
3
¹ King James's Works, 248.
2 Premonition to all Christian Monarchs.—Ib. 292.
Butler, English Catholics, 2, 220; Lingard, 9, 245.
•
CHAP. V
347
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
P
our sovereign lord King James is lawful and rightful King
of this realm, and of all other his Majesty's dominions and
countries; and that the Pope, neither of himself nor by any
authority of the Church or See of Rome, or by any other
means with any other, hath any power or authority to depose
the King or to dispose any of his Majesty's kingdoms or
dominions, or to authorize any foreign prince to invade or
annoy him or his countries, or to discharge any of his subjects
of their allegiance and obedience to his Majesty, or to give
license or leave to any of them to bear arms, raise tumults,
or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesty's royal
person, state, or government, or to any of his Majesty's
subjects within his Majesty's dominions.
2. Also, I do swear from my heart, that notwithstanding
any declaration or sentence of excommunication or deprivation
made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or
his successors, or by any authority derived, or pretended to
be derived, from him or his See against the said King, his
heirs, or successors, or any absolution of the said subjects
from their obedience, I will bear faith and true allegiance to
his Majesty, his heirs and successors, and him and them will
defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies
and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or
their persons, their crowns and dignity, by reason or colour
of any such sentence or declaration, or otherwise, and will do
my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his
Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous
conspiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him
or any of them.
3. And I do further swear that I do from my heart
abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical, this
damnable doctrine, that princes, which be excommunicated or
deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their
subjects or any other whatsoever.
348
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
4. And I do believe and in my conscience am resolved,
that neither the Pope nor any other person whatsoever hath
power to absolve me of this oath or any part thereof, which
I acknowledge by good and full authority to be lawfully
ministered unto me, and do renounce all pardons and dispen-
sations to the contrary.
5. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely
acknowledge and swear according to these express words by
me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense
and understanding of the same words, without any equivo-
cation or mental evasion or secret reservation whatsoever.
And I do make this recognition and acknowledgment
heartily, willingly, and truly upon the true faith of a
Christian.
The general effect of the oath was: it demanded an
acknowledgment of the King's title, a renunciation of the
deposing power, a promise of true allegiance in spite of any
excommunication or Papal sentence of deposition, and a
denial of the doctrine that excommunicated princes might be
deposed or murdered by their subjects. It is plain that a
refusal to take the oath was equivalent to an acceptance of
the opinions which it called upon the deponent to disclaim,
and to a denial that James was the lawful King of England,
and as such entitled to true allegiance in case of his being
excommunicated or deposed by the Pope. The subject who
declined to take the oath must have believed all or some of
the following propositions: that James was not the lawful
King of England; that the Pope might depose him and give
his kingdom to another; that the same authority might
discharge his subjects from their allegiance; and that excom-
municated princes might be deposed or murdered by their
subjects. Each and all of these opinions were directly
opposed to the safety of the government and the tranquillity
of the nation. It is not too much to say-that the main-
CHAP. V
349
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
tenance of any of these opinions—at a time when a foreign
authority claimed the right by divine institution to depose
monarchs, and to discharge their subjects from their obedience,
unfitted those who held them for citizenship and justly
excluded them from the enjoyment of its full benefits. For
the subject who entertains opinions inconsistent with the
security of the State is justly suspected and justly condemned
to civil disabilities. It is the unquestionable duty of every
man when called upon by the supreme power in the State to
give such assurance of his loyalty as that power may require,
provided there is nothing required from him contrary to his
faith or conscience, and the Roman Catholics violated this
clear duty in refusing the oath of allegiance.¹ How far the
subject is bound to go in his obedience, and how far he
should even stretch his conscience in his endeavour to
give full satisfaction to his sovereign, is well shown by
the example of Pope Gregory the Great. The Emperor
Maurice made a law that no soldier should be allowed to
become a monk until he had accomplished his term of
military service, and directed Gregory to publish the
ordinance. To this order Gregory replied: "I, being
subject to your commands, have transmitted your law to be
published through divers parts of the world; and because the
law itself is not pleasing to Almighty God, I have represented
my opinion thereof to my lord. Wherefore I have performed
my duty on both sides, in yielding obedience to the Emperor
and not concealing what I thought for God." Here the
¹"The duty we owe to our sovereign doth not consist in taciturnity
or keeping close within ourselves such allegiance as we think sufficient to
afford them; but we are, especially when we are required thereunto, to
make open profession of it, that we may appear unto them to be such
subjects as we ought to be, and as they may rely upon, if either their
kingdoms or safeties be in hazard or danger.”—Important Considerations.
“There is nothing in it [James's oath] which every Catholic is not bound
in conscience to swear to, whenever it is proposed by the legitimate
authority of the State."-O'Conor, Hist. Address, 2, 202.
350
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
Pope submitted to the secular sovereign even in a matter
which he thought not pleasing to God, and subordinated his
own opinion to the duty of obedience. Gregory's successor,
in a purely indifferent matter which had nothing to do with
religion, forbade the Roman Catholics of England to obey
the laws of their country and to testify their submission to
their sovereign's will. In doing so, he contravened the clear
command of Scripture, and was therefore guilty of dis-
obedience to the divine injunctions.
2
1
When the statute was passed and the oath tendered, it
was eagerly taken by many Roman Catholics, both of the
clergy and laity. But the Papistic party was still strong.
A copy of the oath was conveyed to Robert Parsons, their
agent at Rome.
He and other Jesuits obtained a con-
demnation of it from the Pope. In September, 1606,
Paul V. issued a bull, directed to the English Catholics,
pronouncing the oath to be unlawful, and declaring that it
contained "many things clearly contrary to faith and sal-
vation." He also admonished the members of his communion
to refuse it, and advised them rather to suffer martyrdom.
This the Pope did without any reference to or consul-
tation with James, and without particularizing what was
objectionable in the oath. Though the Pontiff was at that
time in communication with James by means of secret
1“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers . . . the powers
that be are ordained of God."-Romans xiii. 1. "Submit yourselves to
every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the King, as
supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the
punishment of evil-doers."-1 Peter ii. 13, 14.
2 Of James's oath Bossuet said in 1730: "In the year 1606 King
James proposed to the Roman Catholics an oath which, if they had taken,
they might now be living in peace and security, under certain condi-
tions." An. vero 1606, Jacobus rex juramentum præstari jussit a
Romanis Catholicis, quod si præstitissent, libere ac tuto certis condi-
tionibus in sua religione viverent.—Defensio, pars 1, lib. 4, c. 23.
3 "Cum multa contineat quæ fidei atque saluti aperte adversantur."
CHAP. V
351
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
2
agents,¹ and though the King was prepared to make alte-
rations in the form of the oath, Paul, urged on by the
Jesuits, took a step which closed the door on a reconciliation
between the English Roman Catholics and the government
under which they lived, and necessitated a continuance of
the penal laws.
As has been said, the Papal bull declared that the oath of
allegiance contained many things clearly contrary to faith
and salvation. This statement was untrue. There was not
a word in it touching any point of religion. "As for the
Catholic faith," asks King James, "can there be one word
found in all that oath tending or sounding to matter of
religion? Doth he that taketh it promise there to believe or
not to believe any article of religion, or doth he so much as
name a true or false Church there?
Neither is there
any mention at all made therein, either disertis verbis or by
any other indirect means, either of the hierarchy of the
Church, of St. Peter's succession, of the See apostolic, or of
any such matter." That the Pope himself could not point
out a single expression in the oath to which objection could
be taken, is manifest from the way in which a petition of
certain English priests was shortly afterwards treated by
him. Thirteen priests were confined in Newgate for not
taking the oath. These unfortunate men forwarded a
supplication to Paul, entreating him to point out those
things in the oath which were contrary to faith and sal-
•
•
1“J'ai sçu depuis peu que le dit Baron de Magdaléne . . . a fait le
voyage par commandement du Pape dont il est camerier
pour
recommander au roi d'Angleterre les Catholiques au pays, l'assurer de
leur obéissance, comme de la bonne volonté de sa Sainteté, &c." 20 April,
1606.-Ambassades de M. de la Boderie, 1, 284.
2 King James's Works, 249.
3 Ib. 269.
4 The number is sometimes given as eight. But see Tierney's Dodd,
4, App. 205.
352
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
vation. In the most affecting terms they implored him, by
the blood of the martyrs and by the bowels of the divine
mercy, to take pity on them and on the afflicted Roman
Catholics of England, and to specify those parts of the oath
which rendered it unlawful to be taken.¹ To this touching
appeal no answer was returned. The Court of Rome was
well aware that the only objection to the oath, apparent on
its face, was its denial of the Pope's temporal jurisdiction,
and was afraid that any explanation would weaken its
claims. Forty years later, the Papal See itself avowed a
second objection to it, which will be mentioned in the next
chapter.
When the bull condemning the oath was conveyed to
England, the Roman Catholics were thrown into the utmost
confusion, for they wished and felt it to be their duty to
take the oath. Suspecting the agency of Parsons and the
Jesuits, they questioned the authenticity of the bull, or asserted
that it had been obtained on false pretences. To remove all
doubts on this head, a second bull was issued in the August
of the following year. "It has been reported unto us," says
the Pope, "that certain among you dare to affirm, that the
letter concerning the forbidding of the oath was not written
of our own accord or of our own proper will, but rather for
the respect and at the instigation of other men. And for that
cause, the same do go about to persuade you that our com-
mands in the said letter are not to be regarded. . . . Therefore
we have thought good to write the second time to you and to
signify unto you again, that our apostolic letter, dated the last
1 "Per horum te martyrum sanguinem, per labores et ærumnas, per
vincula, carceres, tormenta, cruciatus, per invictam patientiam. Si
minus ista movent, per viscera misericordiæ Dei nostri, partem solicitu-
dinis tuæ afflictissimis Angliæ rebus impende. . .. Saltem ut veritas
magis elucescat, altiusque omnium mentibus inseratur, dignetur sanctitas
tua palam omnibus facere, quænam illa sint in hoc religionis sacramento
quæ aperte fidei et saluti adversantur.”
CHAP. V
353
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
year on the tenth of the calends of October concerning a
prohibition of the oath, was written not only upon our proper
motion and of our certain knowledge, but also after long and
weighty deliberation concerning all those things which are
contained in it, and that for that cause you are bound fully
to observe them, rejecting all interpretations persuading to
the contrary." This second bull also omitted to specify the
passages which were contrary to faith and salvation.
On the publication of the oath of allegiance, Blackwell,
the arch-priest and apostolic delegate in England, took it
himself and advised the Roman Catholics to take it.
Cardinal Bellarmine hastened to remonstrate with him on
the grievousness of his backsliding, but the Cardinal's
exhortations were ineffectual. Blackwell replied that, in
taking the oath, he had denied, not the spiritual authority,
but the temporal pretensions of the Pope, and that he was
justified in so doing both by the opinions of divines and by
the necessity of alleviating the sufferings of his flock. For
this offence against the Papal claims Blackwell was deposed
from his office of arch-priest, and George Birkhead was
appointed in his stead. On the 1st of February, 1608, a
third bull was issued removing Blackwell, repeating the con-
demnation of the oath, and ordering all priests, who had
taken it and did not retract within a limited time, to be
deprived of their faculties. For this purpose, a period of two
months was prescribed by Birkhead, after which, all those
priests who persisted in their error were to be deprived.
Birkhead, however, shrank from taking a step which was
certain to aggravate the miseries of his communion. He
wrote to Rome requesting the Pope to pronounce the
sentence of deprivation in that city, as it was not safe to
pronounce it in England.' He also besought the Pontiff at
least to issue, for the satisfaction of the government and the
¹ Tierney's Dodd, 4, 77; App. 141.
1
2 A
354
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
country, a bull enjoining the Roman Catholics under cen-
sure of excommunication, to abstain from all treasonable
attempts against the King, and to act as good and
obedient subjects. "If such a breve would be procured
from his Holiness," he urges, "there is great hope, and
not ungrounded, conceived of much ease and mitigation
of pressures to follow to the body of Catholics thereby."
But a reconciliation between the English Roman Catholics
and their government was the last thing desired at Rome.
No notice was taken at the Papal Court of Birkhead's
requests. After three years' delay, Birkhead was at last
compelled to notify to his assistants and to the Roman
Catholic body, that those priests who had taken the oath and
had not retracted were deprived of their faculties. These
repeated denunciations of the Pope were effectual, and the
oath was rejected by his communion in England.
2
In 1626, a fourth condemnation of the oath was issued
by Urban VIII. "If violence should proceed so far," says
Urban, "as to compel you to take that pernicious and
unlawful oath of allegiance of England, remember that what
you utter is heard by all the assembly of angels who are
beholding you. And let your tongue cleave to your mouth
rather than diminish by this form of oath the authority of
St. Peter, for in it not only is allegiance given to the King,
but the sacred sceptre of the universal Church is wrested from
the Vicar of Almighty God. That which our predecessor
Paul V. of blessed memory decreed with such deliberation,
that ought ye altogether to observe as a decree of truth."³
Roman Catholic writers, unable to defend the conduct of
the Popes in this matter, and aware that the oath contained
nothing concerning faith or morals, have fallen back on an
1 Tb. and App. 167.
2 Ib.
3 Sir John Throckmorton, First Letter to the Catholic Clergy of Eng-
land, 136; Wilkins' Concilia, 4, 471.
CHAP. V
355
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
argument which will not bear a moment's examination. It
was not to the oath, say these apologists, that the Popes
objected, but to the terms made use of in it. They assert
that the oath was condemned at Rome because it applied the
word "heretical" to the doctrine of the deposing power.
The excuse is childish, and is really a terrible accusation
against the Popes, for it declares that they sacrificed the
welfare of the English Roman Catholics to an expression.
But the excuse is not even true. The word "heretical "
was not applied to the dogma of the deposing power but to
the position "that princes which be excommunicated by the
Pope may be deposed or murdered by their subjects." That
princes may be excommunicated or deposed by the Pope is
not denied or affirmed in the oath, for they are already so of
whom the proposition speaks. All that is abjured is, that
they may be, when excommunicated, deposed or murdered
by their subjects. This objection to the oath was not the one
taken by the Popes themselves, nor could a single expression
justify the declaration of Paul V. that it contained many
things contrary to faith and salvation, or the assertion of
Urban that it wrested the sacred sceptre from his hands.
Further, the excuse is contradicted by the uniform line of
argument adopted by those who combated the lawfulness
of the oath. Cardinal Bellarmine maintained that "the as-
sertion that the Pope, as Pope and by divine right, has no
temporal power, and cannot in any manner command secular
persons or deprive them of their kingdoms and sovereignty
though they deserve to be deprived of them, is not so much
an opinion as a heresy." Parsons, the active agent in
obtaining the condemnation of the oath, wrote about this
time from Rome: "About four or five months past a consul-
tation was held of seven or eight of the most learned divines
who could be chosen, to give their judgment on it [the oath].
1 Butler, Eng. Catholics, 2, 191.
2 A 2
356
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
Their reasons are many, but all reduced to this, that it is of
faith that the Pope hath authority to chastise princes on just
grounds, and consequently, when it is called in question, it.
cannot be denied without renouncing our faith." On another
occasion, Parsons also wrote two letters to the arch-priest,
Birkhead, respecting a similar matter. After the oath of James
had been condemned by Paul, the English Roman Catholics,
being desirous of giving to their government satisfactory
assurance of their fidelity, drew up three forms of an oath of
allegiance and sent them to Rome, hoping that one of them at
least would be approved by the Pope. All three were rejected.
The first of these letters is dated in August, 1608. In this
Parsons writes: "There is a form sent hither of a new oath
set down in divers fashions . . . a certain particular form
of oath which, as I have not had time to confer [respecting]
it with any learned men much less with his Holiness because
the post is presently to depart, so I do assure myself that it
will be misliked by many and most of all by his Holiness,
that any forwardness should be showed to such oaths wherein
either tacite or expresse his authority is impugned. And for
your own part I would give you this counsel, that you be
always the last in these matters and urge still his Holiness
for particular direction." In the second letter, dated in the
following September, he says: "His Holiness's answer to the
three forms of a new oath is, that he dislikes them all, or any
other whatsoever that directly or indirectly may concern the
authority of the See apostolic."
While Paul V. was interfering with the civil duties of
the subject in England, he was receiving a lesson respecting
the just limits between the spiritual and secular jurisdictions
from a minor European state. The Republic of Venice
knew how to vindicate its temporal authority, and to defend
1 Throckmorton, First Letter, 138.
2 Dodd, Church Hist. 2, 485.
3 Ib.
CHAP. V
357
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
The Pope had
its interests from Papal encroachments.
demanded that certain ecclesiastics imprisoned for civil
offences should be given up to him, and that two laws lately
renewed by the Venetians, forbidding the alienation of
immoveable property to the clergy, and rendering the
erection of new churches dependent on the consent of the
State, should be repealed. Both demands were refused by
the Republic. On the 17th of April, 1606, Paul pronounced
sentence of excommunication on the Doge, the senate, and
all the constituted authorities, and ordered the clergy to
publish the excommunication to their congregations, and to
affix it on the doors of their churches. The Doge immediately
announced to the clergy the determination of the government
to uphold its temporal authority, and exhorted them to
continue the performance of their sacred functions undeterred
by the excommunication. The clergy did not hesitate for
an instant, and not a single copy of the Papal sentence was
hung up. Divine service went on in its accustomed manner,
and the regular clergy acted in perfect unison with the
secular. The new orders, the Jesuits, the Theatines, and
the Capuchins, were the only exceptions to the general
obedience. For this act of disaffection to the State, the
Jesuits, who had left Venice on its rupture with the Pope,
were not allowed to return, and Paul had to acquiesce in the
exile of his faithful adherents. By the influence of the
French and Spanish Kings an understanding between the
Pope and the Republic was arrived at, both parties making
concessions. The imprisoned ecclesiastics were delivered up
to the Pope, and the laws of which he complained were
suspended. On the other hand, Paul was obliged to revoke
his excommunication, and offered to grant his absolution,
but the Venetians refused to accept it, and insisted that the
Papal censures were null and void from the beginning, and
that consequently they stood in no need of absolution. At
358
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
length it was agreed that the absolution should be pronounced
in private and without the customary publicity. In this
way a truce, which was more a show of reconciliation than a
settlement of the disputed questions, was patched up between
the parties. The quarrel had been observed with the greatest
interest by the whole of Europe, and the general opinion
was, that it had ended to the disadvantage of the Papal
claims, inasmuch as the national clergy had sided with the
secular government against the Pope, and Paul had been
compelled by the inflexible resolution of the Venetians to
abandon the Jesuits, whose only fault was implicit obedience
to his commands.¹
2
Of all the mistakes made by the English Roman
Catholics-and they were many-the rejection of the oath
proposed to them by James was the greatest. By refusing
it they acknowledged as an article of faith-for Paul had
condemned the oath as contrary to salvation-that the Pope
possessed the right of deposing princes, and of absolving
subjects from their allegiance. They confirmed the general
opinion that the profession of the Roman Catholic religion
was inconsistent with the safety of the State, for men whose
civil conduct was subject to the control of a foreign court
could not be regarded as citizens. To the charge that their
obedience was given to another than their native King, and
that their loyalty and duty were placed at the mercy of that
other, they could make no reply. When they were asked to
1 The Jesuits were allowed to return to Venice fifty years later, during
the pontificate of Alexander VII.
2"Of all the transactions which have taken place amongst the
Catholics of this kingdom none has been so fatal in its consequences as
the opposition made to the oath proposed to them by James.... The oath was
condemned; the condemnation was acceded to by a subservient clergy,
and the idea of an English Catholic has, from that time till within a few
years, been inseparably associated with that of an abettor of the most
dangerous of Ultramontane prejudices."-Throckmorton, Second Letter,
>
69.
CHAP. V
359
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
""
give assurances of their allegiance to the sovereign of England
and her constitution, their answer to their countrymen
virtually was, "We are amongst you but not of you; your
King is not our King, nor are your laws our laws; we
accept the principles of the Papistic party; we owe obedience
to the crowned priest at Rome, whose dictation as to our
civil duties we are bound to follow, and we decline to deny
his right to depose your King, to authorize the invasion of
your territories, and to break the ties between you and us.'
Their error was a lamentable one. They had wandered far
from the Catholicism of the old national Church, which, while
it listened to the spiritual teaching of the first Christian
bishop, knew how to give to Cæsar what was his due, and in
its stead had accepted Popery, the new religion-new and
strange to English ears-imported by the Jesuits and semi-
nary priests, which placed in the hands of the Roman
Pontiffs the temporal sword, and conferred on them supreme
temporal power. Still, grievous as was their transgression,
it is impossible wholly to withhold our commiseration from
them. They acted from a mistaken sense of duty, and under
the guidance of a misdirected conscience they preferred
obedience to their supreme pastor to worldly ease, and
sacrificed themselves to a tenet recommended by his authority.
They were deceived by him in whom they trusted, who,
under the false pretence that the oath of allegiance contained
things contrary to faith and salvation, commanded them to
disobey the laws of their country, and to stand aloof from
their fellow-citizens. The truth was concealed from them,
viz. that the Pope could make no claim upon his adherents
which impaired the integrity of their civil allegiance. This
1 "I answer, that neither in virtue of the Vatican decrees, nor of any
other decrees, nor of his supreme authority as head of the Christian
Church, can the Pope make any claim upon those who adhere to his
communion of such a nature as can impair the integrity of their civil
360
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
was the doctrine of the old Anglo-Catholic Church, of Lee,
of Tunstall, of Gardiner, of Fisher, and of More.¹ The
contrary doctrine would never have been received in England
if the government of the Roman Catholics had been entrusted
to native ordinaries and to a clergy educated at home; nor
would the truths of their religion have been made the vehicle
of opinions subversive of the authority of the State. But,
unfortunately, the Popes were opposed to the institution of
an English episcopacy, and by their emissaries, reared in
Italian or Spanish schools, taught their communion that
there was an uncontrolled temporal authority vested in them
by divine appointment. The direct ecclesiastical government
of the Roman Catholics was kept exclusively in the manage-
ment of the Papal Court, and care was taken that those only
should be appointed to its head who would best support
Ultramontane principles. Political expediency, and not regard
for the Church, determined the Popes to concentrate the whole
influence of the body in the hands of one man. Their object
was to secure a Roman Catholic successor to Elizabeth, whose
death could not be far off. For this purpose the office of
arch-priest was established in 1598, and the appointment of
bishops refused. In consequence of this policy, there was
3
allegiance.”—Cardinal Manning, The Vatican Decrees in their bearing
on Civil Allegiance, p. 41.
1 "Both More and Fisher were willing enough to bind themselves to
obedience to the law of succession defined by the statute which gave the
crown to the issue of the union of Henry with Anne Boleyn, though
they refused to swear that the marriage of Catherine had been null and
void. . . . That is to say, they recognized the right of the three estates
to give the Crown of England to whom they chose, legitimate or not, but
did not recognize the right to define the spiritual questions of the sacra-
ment of marriage and of the ecclesiastical supremacy. They must have
held the opinion that the Church had power only over spiritual things,
and not over civil and temporal matters."-Simpson's Campion, 56.
2 Lingard, 6, 640, ed. 1849; Tierney's Dodd, 3, 47; Law's Conflicts
between the Jesuits and Seculars, 60.
* The name of arch-priest, or rural dean, has been used in the Church
CHAP. V
361
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
51
no authority among the Roman Catholics of England to
resist the civil ascendency of Rome, no bishops, irremovable
except for a canonical crime, to guard their flocks against
Ultramontane doctrines and mischievous bulls, such as those
of Pius V., Gregory XIII., and Paul V. Their commu-
nion was governed by Roman dependants, appointed ad
nostrum et sedis apostolicæ beneplacitum, whose powers were
revocable at the pleasure of the Popes, and who, unlike
bishops ordained to govern the particular Church entrusted
to their care, possessed no authority beyond that contained
in their commission. If any one of these creatures of a
breath ventured to question the deposing power, he was
immediately removed, as Blackwell was, and a more sub-
servient instrument was appointed to his office;
or if
subordinate priests dared to remember their duty as English-
men, they were deprived of their faculties and reduced to
poverty and want. This condition of affairs accounts for the
slow movements of the English Roman Catholics in repu-
diating all civil dependence on the Papal Court, for those
who desired to testify their allegiance were obliged to act
in opposition to their ecclesiastical superiors and the admoni-
tions of the Popes. In taking the step of freeing themselves
from the temporal domination of Rome they were far behind
the clergy and laity of other countries in Europe. The
Venetians, as we have seen, adhered to the secular govern-
ment in its contest with the Roman See, and their theologians
condemned, as "seditious and sacrilegious," the maxims that
Kings and States were subordinate to the Pope in civil
matters, and that their subjects could be absolved from their
obedience.¹ In France, the people and the clergy, from the
from early times. It was a new and strange title for one to whom was
entrusted the government of the English and Scotch Roman Catholics.
1
"Theologi Venetiani has propositiones tanquam seditiosas ac
sacrilegas damnarunt; Reges Regnorumque leges Pontifici in civilibus
362
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
time of Boniface VIII. and Philip le Bel, never wavered in
the support of the sovereign against the temporal pretensions
of the Papal Court. In 1614, the Commons in the States
General urged and pressed that an oath of allegiance,
declaring that the King had no superior but God, and that
no power on earth had the right of dispensing with the
obedience of the subject, should be imposed on all classes.
In 1626, the sacred faculty of the University of Paris
censured a treatise of the Jesuit, Sanctarellus, in which it
was laid down that the Pope could inflict temporal punish-
ment on sovereigns, and free their subjects from their
obedience, and declared that these doctrines were "new,
false, erroneous, and contrary to the Word of God.”1 The
other faculties, and the Universities of Toulouse, Valence,
Bordeaux, Poitiers, Caen, Rhejms, and Bourges, concurred
in this censure. In 1680, sixty doctors of the same sacred
faculty at Paris gave it as their opinion that the English
oath of allegiance might be taken by English Catholics with
a safe conscience.2 In 1682, the Gallican clergy subscribed
unanimously the four articles of their celebrated Declaration.
The first article resolved "that the power which Jesus Christ
had given to St. Peter and his successors related only to
spiritual things, and to those which concern salvation, and
not to things civil and temporal. Kings and princes, there-
fore, are not, in temporals, subject to any ecclesiastical power,
subesse, vassallos Regum ab obedientia civili certis casibus eximi
posse, aut in suos principes concitari.”—Caron, Remonstrantia Hiber-
norum, pars 1, c. 6. s. 1.
1 "Facultas improbavit et damnavit doctrinam, his propositionibus...
contentam, tanquam novam, falsam, erroneam, verbo Dei contrariam,
Pontificiæ dignitati odium conciliantem, schismati occasionem præben-
tem, supremæ Regum authoritati, a Deo solo dependenti, derogantem,
&c."—Ib. 1, c. 6, s. 2.
2 Answer of the Sacred Faculty of Divinity at Paris to the Queries
proposed by the English Catholics, 1789. Butler, English Catholics,
1, Appd.
CHAP. V
363
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
.
either directly or indirectly, neither by the authority of the
Keys can they be deposed, or their subjects freed from their
faith, obedience, or oath of allegiance." This doctrine is
now universally received, and was solemnly recognized by
the Universities of Louvain, Douay, Paris, Alcala, Valladolid,
and Salamanca, in 1788 and 1789. A few years later, in
the beginning of the present century, the Pope himself,
Pius VII., in his negotiations with the first Napoleon,
expressed his willingness to acquiesce in the subscription
of this article by the French clergy.¹ The growth of opinion
abroad, unfavourable to the Papal pretensions, had an effect,
though late, on the English Roman Catholics. At last they
also awoke to a sense of independence, and cast off for ever
their temporal dependence on the Roman Court. They too
claimed the right of disclaiming the deposing power, a
disclaimer which the Popes had long tolerated in France,
in Venice, and many parts of Germany. In 1780, by an
oath which was universally taken by them, and which had
been approved by the four English Vicars Apostolic, they
solemnly renounced both the deposing and the absolving
power, "without even consulting Rome, or regarding its
former vain pretensions and unchristian condemnation."
The oath which the whole body then took, for the Papistic
party had long disappeared, contained in it the clause which
had been three times condemned by Paul V., by Urban VIII.,
and, as we shall see, by Innocent X.
The refusal of the Roman Catholics to profess their
adhesion to the established government of their country,
irrespective of external dictation, and their resolution to
stand apart from its constitution, drew the attention of the
English people to two anti-social tenets which were attributed
to them, and which increased the distrust which their political
1 Butler, English Catholics, 2, 223.
2 Ib. 3, 294, 5.
* Throckmorton, Second Letter, 71.
364
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
2
1
action had inspired. It was well known before the discovery
of the Gunpowder Plot that the Jesuits, and those who were
under their influence, constantly practised equivocation and
mental reservation when interrogated on charges of treason.
Robert Southwell, a Jesuit, at his trial during the late
Queen's reign, had justified equivocation even upon oath.
The practice was also acknowledged and justified by Gerard,
Strange, Andrews, and others who were examined expressly
on the subject. To guard against this doctrine, the oath of
allegiance contained in its concluding section a declaration
that the deponent took it "without any equivocation or
mental evasion or secret reservation whatsoever." Garnet,
the superior of the English Jesuits, before his trial for com-
plicity in the Gunpowder Plot, avowed his belief that, “in
cases where it becomes necessary to an individual, for his
defence, or for avoiding any injustice or loss, or for obtaining
any important advantage, without danger or mischief to any
other person, there equivocation is lawful." After his trial,
he declared: "that in all cases where simple equivocation was
allowable, it was lawful, if necessary, to confirm it by an oath.
This I acknowledge to be according to my opinion, and the
opinion of the schoolmen; and our reason is, for that in cases
of lawful equivocation, the speech by equivocation being
saved from a lie, the same speech may be, without perjury,
confirmed by an oath, or by any other usual way, though it
were by receiving the sacrament, if just necessity so requires.'
During the whole inquiry Garnet acted in strict consistency
1 The poet.
994
2 Jardine, in preface to A Treatise of Equivocation. Strange, in his
examination, said that he had never seen a work on equivocation, but
that he knew Catholics held it lawful. Andrews stated that equivocation
was lawful where the right of the questioner was denied.—State Papers,
Domestic, 1603-10, 270, 273.
3 Jardine, Gunpowder Plot, 233.
4 Ib. 234.
CHAP. V
365
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
2
with these principles, "never confessing any fact until it was
proved against him, and never hesitating to declare palpable
falsehoods respecting matters which tended to inculpate him-
self, and to affirm them by the most solemn oaths and pro-
testations." Another of the conspirators, Francis Tresham,
in whose desk was found a Treatise of Equivocation, with its
title altered, in Garnet's handwriting, to A Treatise against
Lying and Dissimulation, and with the imprimatur of the
arch-priest attached at the end,³ died with a lie in his mouth.
A few hours before his death, Tresham signed a paper de-
claring, among other things, upon his salvation, that he had
not seen Garnet for sixteen years; though Garnet himself
admitted that Tresham had been with him continually until
a few days before the discovery of the plot. At Garnet's
trial this document was produced; and he was asked, what
interpretation he put on Tresham's dying declaration?
Garnet answered:-"It may be, my lord, he meant to
1
¹ Ib. 237. Lingard says: "By seeking shelter under equivocation
he had deprived himself of the protection which the truth might have
afforded him."
2 This copy is now in the Bodleian Library. Its original title was:
"A Treatise of Equivocation; wherein is largely discussed the question
whether a Catholic or any other person, before a magistrate, being
demanded upon his oath whether a priest were in such a place, may,
notwithstanding his perfect knowledge to the contrary, without perjury
and securely in conscience, answer 'No'; with this secret meaning
reserved in his mind, that he was not there so that any man is bound
to detect it." The title was altered by Garnet into: "A Treatise against
Lying and Fraudulent Dissimulation; newly overseen by the author,
and published for the defence of Innocency and the Instruction of
Ignorants." The treatise was reprinted by Mr. Jardine in 1851, with
a preface and notes showing the interpolations and deletions of Garnet.
3 Tractatus iste valde doctus et vere pius et Catholicus est. Certe,
S. Scripturarum, patrum, doctorum, scholasticorum, canonistarum, et
optimarum rationum præsidiis plenissime firmat æquitatem æquivocationis.
Ideoque dignissimus est qui typis propagetur ad consolationem afflictorum
Catholicorum et omnium piorum instructionem. Ita censeo, Georgius
Blackwellus, archi-presbyter Angliæ et Protonotarius Apostolicus."
366
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
equivocate."
These occurrences generated the suspicion
that Roman Catholics approved the doctrine of equivocation
and mental reservation, and that no reliance could be placed
on their most solemn asseverations. This suspicion was con-
verted into belief by the innumerable treatises published
abroad by foreign Jesuits, who taught how to evade the
laws of God by a cunning use of words whilst conduct
remained unaltered, and, by their fantastic and flagitious
interpretations, strove to overthrow the code of Christian
ethics and to corrupt the morality of the world.²
The belief in the Papal power of deposing Kings was a
political danger, but the doctrine of equivocation and mental
reservation was more odious, and even more pernicious. It
struck at the very foundations of social intercourse, and
broke down and confounded the distinction between truth
and falsehood. Instead of fair and open dealing between
man and man, it instructed each to resort to a train of subtle
reasoning, for the purpose of deceiving and getting the better
of the other. Every individual was justified in violating
truth where, in his own fallible judgment, he was not bound
to speak it. No immutable standard of right and wrong
existed, but each might, at his own time, and for his own
benefit, invest the false with the colour of the true. On the
most solemn occasions, even if sanctified by the reception of
the sacrament, the speaker might give to his words an
arbitrary meaning, framed at his own will, and contrary to
that which the rest of the world attached to them. Among
all the perversions of a debased ingenuity, there was not one
more demoralizing or more mischievous, for it nullified the
1 State Trials, 2, 257.
2 "Lord, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle or who shall rest upon
thy holy hill? Even he that . . . speaketh the truth from his heart . .
that hath used no deceit in his tongue... he that sweareth unto his
neighbour and disappointeth him not, though it were to his own hin-
drance."-Psalm xv.
СНАР. У
367
THE REIGN OF JAMES 1
commandment of God, and destroyed the mutual confidence
upon which society rests, while at the same time it tended to
paralyze and circumvent by stratagem the justice of man.
The second anti-social tenet imputed to the Roman
Catholics was, that they held it to be lawful in itself, or,
by the dispensation of the Pope, to violate promises and
oaths made to heretics. We are informed by many writers
that such a doctrine was never sanctioned by the Roman
Catholic Church. But this statement, however true it may
be, is really not pertinent to the matter. The true question
is, whether the governors and ministers of that Church, who
represented it to outsiders, put forward and acted on this
maxim, and consequently, whether the English people had
sufficient grounds for believing that it was generally held by
Roman Catholics? The only answer to this question is, that
they had ample grounds. The Popes claimed, and exercised
continually, the right of absolving all persons, princes or
private individuals, from their obligations, and of dispensing
with vows, oaths, and promises. Gregory VII. released all
those who were bound by fealty or oath to excommunicated
princes. Innocent III. laid it down that the Apostolic See
must be always understood to be excepted in every kind of
oath. The same Pontiff asserted that "those are not to be
called oaths but perjuries, which are taken against the
advantage of the ecclesiastical body.” It is easy to see how
much such maxims might be abused, but direct facts and
words are not wanting. Urban VI. issued a solemn and
general declaration against keeping faith with heretics and
schismatics, and pronounced compacts made with them to be
null and void, although entered into with them before they
had lapsed into heresy or schism.¹ "We have lately heard,"
1 66
Ligas cum Hæreticis, quacunque firmitate roboratas, esse
nullas."-Rymer, 7, 352. "Papa ad Imperatorem contra ligas cum
Hæreticis."-Ib. 392.
368
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
writes that Pope, "that the King of Bohemia and his deceased
father the Emperor have, either together or successively, made
confederations, connexions, leagues, and conventions, with
divers kings, princes, dukes, nobles, and others, and that some
of these latter were at the time, or afterwards became, schis-
matics or heretics. Seeing that such confederations, con-
nexions, leagues, and conventions, are rash, illegal, and null
and void by the law, even though strengthened by an oath,
by pledged faith, by apostolical confirmation, or by any
other means whatsoever,' the said King and others who may
have joined with him in such compacts are absolutely dis-
charged from their performance, and are bound not to observe
them. Nay, the said King is obliged, by his imperial office,
and by his duty to the Church, to persecute to the utmost of
his
power such heretics and schismatics, since all communion
with them is dangerous, and there ought not to be any
participation of light with darkness, or of Christ with
Belial."2
In 1416 occurred the ever memorable case of John Huss.
In the Council of Constance, the safe conduct granted by the
Emperor Sigismund to Huss, was violated, on the ground
that he was a heretic. After his execution, a decree was
issued by the Council that no safe conduct should be available
against the jurisdiction of the Church in cases of heretical
pravity. The genuineness of this decree has been questioned,
but the Tridentine fathers entertained no doubt of its
existence. For they proclaimed, in their eighteenth session,
1562, a safe conduct to the Protestants, in which they promised
1 "Etiam si forent juramento vel fide data firmatæ, aut confirmatione
Apostolica vel quacunque firmitate alia roboratæ.”
2 "Quinimo ipse rex hujusmodi schismaticos et hæreticos, ratione
imperii ad quod electus et per nos approbatus existit, in favorem Sanctæ
Romanæ ac universalis ecclesiæ, cujus est advocatus, pro posse persequi
tenetur, quodque omnis communio cum talibus hæreticis seu schismaticis
nimis periculosa existit, cum nulla sit prorsus nec esse debeat partici-
patio lucis ad tenebras aut Christi ad Belial."
CHAP. V
369
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
:
3
not to avail themselves, for this time, of any law, statute, or
canon of any Council, especially Constance, or that of Sens,
for the violation of their pledge.¹ At the Diet of Worms, a
party, approving that which was done at the Council of
Constance in the case of John Huss, contended that faith
ought not to be kept with Luther, who attended that
assembly under the protection of the Emperor's safe con-
duct.2 Cardinal Allen taught, that the heresy of a master
dissolved the bonds of obedience on the part of a servant,
and that that of a father loosed the ties of nature, and put
an end to his authority over his children. In 1647, the
English Parliament proposed to repeal the penal laws and
to grant liberty of conscience to the Roman Catholics, pro-
vided they showed "that there was no inconsistency in their
religion with the civil government of the kingdom.” Accord-
ingly, a number of Roman Catholic noblemen and gentlemen,
with several of their clergy, signed the negative of a for-
mulary containing three propositions. One of these propo-
sitions was, "that it is lawful in itself, or by the dispensation
of the Pope, to violate a promise or oath made to a heretic."
The subscription to the formulary was condemned at Rome,
without specifying any particular article, so that it was
1 The words of the Tridentine safe-conduct are:-“Insuper, omni
fraude et dolo exclusis, vera et bona fide promittit [sancta synodus]
ipsam synodum nullam vel manifeste vel occulte occasionem quæsituram,
aut aliqua auctoritate, potentia, jure vel statuto, privilegio legum, vel
canonum, aut quorumcunque conciliorum, præsertim Constantiensis et
Senensis, quacunque forma verborum expressa, in aliquod hujus fidei
publicæ et plenissimæ assecurationis, ac publicæ et liberæ audientiæ,
ipsis per ipsam synodum concessæ, præjudicium quovis modo usuram
aut quemquam uti permissuram, quibus in hac parte pro hac vice
deroget." In a note is given a reference to "Concil. Constantien. sess.
19 in cap. Quod non obstantibus salvis conductibus." Canones et
Decreta Concilii Tridentini, Romæ, 1845.
2
-
Sarpi, Hist. of the Council of Trent, book 1, sub ann. 1521.
3 Throckmorton, First Letter, 113.
4 This transaction will be related at length in the next chapter.
2 B
370
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
naturally concluded that every proposition in the formulary
was affirmed, and that each was a point of the Roman
Catholic creed. It is a mistake to say that the belief, that
Roman Catholics held this tenet, was a prejudice confined to
the vulgar. It was entertained by the wisest men and the
coolest heads in the country. Ninety years after the time
we are now speaking of, the Apostle of Toleration excluded
Roman Catholics from its benefits on account of two opinions
attributed to them: one was, "that excommunicated princes
might be deposed by the Pope "-an opinion which their
communion had adopted by their rejection of the oath of
allegiance. The other was, "that faith was not to be kept
with heretics." Locke's words are: "We cannot find any
sect that teaches expressly and openly that men are not
obliged to keep their promise; that princes may be dethroned
by those that differ from them in religion; or that the domi-
nion of all things belongs only to themselves. For these
things, proposed thus nakedly and plainly, would soon draw
on them the eye and hand of the magistrate, and awaken all
the care of the commonwealth to a watchfulness against the
spreading of so dangerous an evil. But, nevertheless, we
find those that say the same things in other words. What
else do they mean who teach that 'faith is not to be kept
with heretics' ? Their meaning forsooth is, that the
privilege of breaking faith belongs unto themselves, for
they declare all that are not of their communion to be
heretics, or at least may declare them so whensoever they
think fit. What can be the meaning of their asserting
'that Kings excommunicated forfeit their crowns and
kingdoms'? It is evident that they thereby arrogate
unto themselves the power of Kings, because they chal-
lenge the power of excommunication as the peculiar
right of their hierarchy.
These, therefore, and
the like, who attribute unto the faithful, the religious,
CHAP. V
371
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto themselves.
any peculiar privilege or power above other mortals in
civil governments, or who, upon pretence of religion, do
challenge any manner of authority over such as are not
associated with them in their ecclesiastical communion; I
say, these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate,
as neither those that will not own and teach the duty of
tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For what do
all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may,
and are ready, upon any occasion, to seize the government
and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their
fellow-subjects, and they only ask leave to be tolerated by
the magistrate so long, until they find themselves strong
enough to effect it ?" By their oath of 1780, the Roman
Catholics repudiated this tenet also: "I do swear that I do
reject and detest . . . and also that unchristian and impious
principle that no faith is to be kept with heretics."
The original causes of the enactment of the penal laws
were three in number; the long and terrible struggle against
the Popes and the Kings of Spain, the introduction by the
Jesuits and seminary priests of a new faith which mixed up
the truths of religion with treasonable designs, and the
perpetual plots and conspiracies of the Papistic party at
home. In all these transactions the Popes were the pre-
dominant actors and disposers, for with a word they might
have restrained the Jesuits and seminarists from preaching
an impure mixture of religion and disaffection, and have put
an end to domestic conspiracies in favour of invasion and
assassination. Papal advocates have filled Europe with their
cries against the barbarity of the penal laws, while they have
maintained a judicious silence respecting the crimes of the
Roman Pontiffs against England. The case between the
Popes and the English Government has seldom been fairly
¹ Locke, First Letter on Toleration.
2 B2
372
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
put. A simple statement will clear the ground and enable
us to form an impartial judgment on the action of both
parties. Let it be granted on the one hand-the admission
is difficult in the case of the Vicars of Him who declared
that His kingdom was not of this world-that the Popes
were justified in using every means for the restoration of
their religion in England; that for this purpose they were
bound to bring into play all the material resources at their
disposal, to draw the temporal sword, and to resort to
invasions, to the preaching of crusades, the encouragement of
conspiracies, and the fomentation of civil wars. On the
other hand let us consider the position of England and of her
government. It is almost impossible for us at the present
day to conceive the universal dread with which the gigantic
power of Philip II. was regarded by his contemporaries.
His hand was everywhere, in Germany, Italy, France,
Spain, Portugal, and the New World. The Popes still
exercised an immense influence in the councils of Europe,
and they were united with the Spanish King in an endea-
vour to extirpate the Protestant religion, to conquer
England and to subject her to foreign dictation. The
English people were under no mistake respecting the nature
of the contest which had been forced upon them. They
rightly regarded it as a struggle of life and death which
involved the very existence of their country as an inde-
pendent nation, and as a war in defence of their right to
worship God according to their conscience. If the Popes
were right all through the long series of their aggressions
undertaken for the restoration of their faith, surely the
English people were also right in preserving their own and in
repelling those attacks, and were justified in defending their
homes, their religion, and their freedom, by every means in
their power, even by statutes directed against conversions to
a political faith which was not the Catholic faith, and against
+
CHAP. V
373
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
the preaching by foreign emissaries of doctrines subversive of
their constitution.
The rejection of the oath of allegiance by the Roman
Catholics and their adoption of the politico-religious senti-
ments of the Papistic party, put the seal on the continuance
of the penal statutes. For, as Bishop Stillingfleet observes,
"laws originally made upon the account of acknowledged
treasonable practices, do continue just upon all those who do
not give sufficient security against the principles leading to
those practices."1 A hundred and seventy years were to
elapse before any relaxation of these statutes was obtained.
No details are required to teach us what the Roman
Catholics of England must have suffered during this long
interval from the severity of the laws themselves, the insolent
contumely of the underlings engaged in carrying them out,
and above all from the contemptuous dislike of their fellow-
citizens. For undoubtedly the general belief that Roman
Catholics held the two tenets-that equivocation and mental
reservation were lawful, and that faith was not to be kept
with heretics-aggravated greatly the miseries of their
condition. Men began to think that they were unfit for
human society and incapable of its duties, a judgment not
too harsh if, in addition to their political sentiments, they
had in reality entertained such opinions. During this period
of a hundred and seventy years, three opportunities offered
themselves to the Roman Catholics of obtaining a repeal of
the penal laws. One was defeated by the obstinacy of
Innocent X., who clung to the phantom of the deposing
power; one was wrecked by dissensions among themselves;
and the third was thrown away by the reckless folly of
James II. Though the sufferings of the Roman Catholics
during the long night of their depression were very great,
they were mild in comparison with the afflictions of the
1 Answer to Cressy, p. 344.
374
CHAP. V
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
1
Reformed in Roman Catholic countries. The comparison
of the treatment which the former experienced in Eng-
land with the fate of the Protestants abroad illustrates well
the difference between restrictions imposed from political
motives and the cruelties inflicted in the name of religion.
The penal laws in England had been enacted to guard
against real dangers, but no political crimes were urged
against the Protestants in many of those kingdoms where
they were persecuted with a ferocity which was aimed at
their destruction. The Roman Catholics of England were
not hunted and exterminated like wild beasts as the Pro-
testants were in Spain and Italy. They were not burned
and buried alive by thousands as the Reformed were in the
Netherlands. They were not driven from their country in
shoals as the Protestants were from many parts of Germany.
In 1627 the Emperor Ferdinand II. proclaimed that he
would tolerate no one of what rank soever in the kingdom
of Bohemia who did not agree with himself and the apostolic
Church in the true faith. In Bavaria all persons adhering
to the Reformed religion were compelled to sell their pro-
perty and to quit the country. As late as 1731, 30,000
Protestants-it is almost incredible that such an outrage on
humanity should have occurred in the eighteenth century—
were driven into exile from Salzburg.
Salzburg. There were no
massacres of Roman Catholics in England such as overtook
the Protestants in France and Savoy. Their community was
2
3
1 "For when we consider on the one side, what we know ourselves
concerning the laws made of later years with the occasions of them
as well against us that are priests, as also against other Catholics of the
laity, and do find on the other side, what practices, under the pretence of
religion, have been set on foot for the utter subversion both of the Queen
and of the kingdom, it may in our opinions be rather wondered, that so
many Catholics of both sorts are left alive in the realm to speak of the
Catholic faith, than that the State hath proceeded with us from time to
time as it hath done."-Important Considerations.
2 Ranke, 2, 110.
3 Ibid. 1, 385.
CHAP. V
375
THE REIGN OF JAMES I
not delivered up to a cold-blooded military execution, as the
Protestants were in France and Austria by the dragonnades,
nor were their homes made the scenes of torture, rape, and
death, as happened in the former country on the revocation
of the Edict of Nantes.¹ There were no such sights witnessed
in England as the long-continued butchery of Eperies in
Hungary in 1687, where for nine months thirty executioners
obeyed the orders of Antonio Caraffa, cousin of the Papal
nuncio, and put to death crowds of the Reformed with such
hideous atrocities that the historian, Michiels, is obliged to
apologise for mentioning them. If a comparison be insti-
tuted between the sufferings of the Roman Catholics in
England and the tortures inflicted upon the Protestants in
Roman Catholic kingdoms, the former, great as they were,
sink almost into insignificance.
2
1 "Tout était en fait permis aux soldats sauf le viol et le meurtre, et
encore cette restriction ne fut-elle toujours respectée; d'ailleurs beaucoup
de malheureux moururent ou demeurèrent estropiés des suites des traite-
ments qu'ils avaient subis, et les tortures obscenes infligées aux femmes
ne différaient guère du dernier outrage, que par une perversité plus
raffinée.”—Martin, Histoire de France. "Mais le viol était defendu;
quelle moquerie; on ne punit personne même quand il fut suivi de
meurtre."-Michelet.
2 “Grâce aux livres des exécuteurs, grâce aux lettres de Léopold, nous
savons les petits moyens qui operèrent ces œuvres pieux. Des ministres
brulés vif a feu lent, des femmes empalées au fer rouge, des troupeaux
d'hommes vendus aux galères turques et venetiennes, voila ce qui fit le
miracle. Les Hongrois trouvèrent ces arguments des Jesuites irre-
sistibles. Tout ce qui ne s'enfuit pas du pays fut touché et sentit la
grace."-Michelet, Louis XIV. et la Revocation de l'Edit de Nantes.
CHAPTER VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
P
I
CHAPTER VI
CHARLES succeeded to the throne in the early part of 1625.
A few months after his accession he was married to Henrietta
of France. By the treaty of marriage a large household of
French servants was to be allowed to the Queen. Dissensions
and domestic feuds arose between Charles and his wife which
were encouraged by the Queen's foreign attendants. From
the moment of her arrival in England, Henrietta had taken
a dislike to the country and her surroundings. She wrote
again and again to her mother, expressing her desire to
return to France, or at least to be able to communicate
personally to her circumstances which she did not dare to
commit to writing or to mention to a third person.' Charles
was persuaded that the discontent of his wife was fomented
by her French servants, and that they were endeavouring to
"steal away his wife," or secretly plotting with the dissatisfied
portion of his subjects. His patience was soon exhausted,
and in July, 1626, he dismissed the whole of the French
2
1 "La regina [Inglese] ogni dì scriveva di voler tornare in Francia,
o per lo meno vedersi con sua madre, per communicarle delle particolarità
non communicabili, nè alla penna nè a terza persona."-Extract from
the Life of Urban VIII., Barberini MS., given by Tierney in Appd.,
Dodd, 5.
2 "I writ to you by Ned Clarke that I thought I would have cause
enough in a short time to put away the Monsieurs, either by attempting
to steal away my wife or by making plots with my own subjects. . .
Yet seeing daily the maliciousness of the Monsieurs by making and
380
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES 1
attendants, both male and female. The dismissal was
resented by the King of France who sent over an ambassador
extraordinary to settle the matter. It was arranged that a
new establishment should be formed for Henrietta, consisting
partly of French and partly of English servants, and harmony
was restored between Charles and his Queen.
The mischievous activity of the Papal Court was imme-
diately awakened by this trifling dispute, and another
instance of its perpetual and implacable hostility to England
was exhibited. Urban VIII. thought that there was a
favourable opportunity for making an attack upon that
country. The occasion was well chosen. In March, 1626,
a peace had been suddenly proclaimed between France and
Spain. In Germany, the Protestants had just been defeated
at the battle of Lutter by the Imperialists under Tilly, and
the whole of that country lay at the mercy of the Emperor,
Ferdinand II. The very existence of Protestantism in
Germany was at stake, while the Emperor, the champion of
Catholicism, was freed from fear of the Turk by the dispute
of the latter with the King of Persia. Urban lost no time.
Taking advantage of the differences between the English
and French courts respecting the establishment of Henrietta,
he wrote to the Kings of France and Spain, exhorting them
to arm in defence of God, and to unite in chastising the
insolence of England whose impiety called to heaven for
vengeance.¹ He also wrote to the Queen Mother, Marie de
Medicis, to Richélieu, and others in France, and by his
nuncio, Spada, he opened communications with the Spanish
Court. In consequence of these exhortations, a negotiation
fomenting the discontentements in my wife, I could tarry no longer
from advertising of you that I mean to seek for no other grounds to
cashier my Monsieurs."-The King to the Duke of Buckingham,
Hardwicke State Papers, 2, 2.
i Tierney's Dodd, 5, 163.
CHAP. VI
381
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
for an offensive alliance between the two kingdoms was
secretly opened, and a treaty, drawn up by Richélieu and
approved by Olivares, was signed on the 20th of April,
1627. The Spaniards agreed to commence the attack in the
same year, while the French, having but few vessels ready,
engaged to begin their armaments at once, to open their
ports to Spanish war-ships, and to join the Spaniards in the
following spring. The Spanish ambassador also undertook,
that towards the end of July or beginning of August the
Spanish fleet should be ready to invest England and Ireland,
the Pope having asserted that he possessed a just title to the
latter country on the ground that it was under the direct
dominion of the Roman See. It was also proposed to put an
end to the naval superiority of England and Holland by
means of a general combination and the formation of an
armed company, under the protection of which a direct
communication between the Baltic, Flanders, France, Spain,
and Italy, might be maintained without the participation of
the Protestant maritime Powers. While France and Spain
were thus secretly devising an attack on England, they were
themselves surprised by an attack from that country. In
July, 1627, Buckingham appeared on the coast of France
with a powerful fleet, and occupied the Island of Rhé.¹
In the early part of the reign of Charles, the English
Roman Catholics were divided on two questions, the necessity
of having an episcopal government, and the lawfulness of
taking the oath of allegiance. Dissensions had arisen
respecting the former question between the secular and
regular clergy which almost amounted to a schism, and
many of the most learned of both the clergy and laity were
in favour of taking the oath of allegiance. For the purpose
¹ The history of this transaction is to be found in Ranke, 2, 113–118,
and in a long extract from the Life of Urban VIII., Tierney's Dodd,
Append. vol. 5.
382
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
of settling the disputes respecting an episcopacy, and
obtaining information as to the condition of the Roman
Catholics, Urban despatched an accredited agent, Father
Leander, into England in the latter end of 1633. This
ecclesiastic was an Englishman born, and, during his stay in
this country, passed under the name of Jones, that of his
family, and of Scudamore or Skidmore. He had been
educated at Oxford, and had obtained a fellowship at St.
John's College. Having been converted and entered the
Benedictine order, he was appointed Professor of Hebrew at
Douay, from which place he addressed a petition to the King
asking permission to visit England in order to see his friends
and kindred.' His request was granted, and he arrived in
London in the spring of 1634. His letters from England
to his superiors at Rome are full of good sense, moderation,
and real piety. If the measures of conciliation which he
recommended had been adopted by the Papal Court, the
condition of the English Roman Catholics would soon have
been changed for the better, at least he himself and the
leading men among them had no doubt that such would
have been the case. Father Leander's first letter is addressed
to Cardinal Bentivoglio, and is dated the 22nd of July, 1634.
After pointing out the advantages he enjoyed as being a
native of England and on the spot, he says, "Two matters.
are now much debated among the Catholics here, the oath of
allegiance, and the appointment of one or more English
bishops. Two books have lately been published by Catholics
on the oath, one printed by permission of the King, the
other in manuscript, but passed from hand to hand in
numerous copies. The latter, being against the oath, has
3
1 Clarendon, State Papers, 1, 72.
2
2 The title of this book was A Pattern of Christian Loyalty, by
William Howard.
3 By Edward Courteney, a Jesuit. This treatise supported the
CHAP. VI
383
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
given great dissatisfaction to the King from some repre-
hensible passages in it, and appears to me to be a poor
production.¹ It is to be feared that the appearance of these
books will renew the controversy respecting the oath to the
great injury of the Catholics. The King himself is most
kindly disposed to that body and to our lord the Pope, but
the powerful party of the Puritans is displeased with his
clemency and that of his government towards us. Hence
we may expect fresh tribulations from this dispute respecting
the oath. I have taken counsel with some wise, prudent,
and moderate noblemen of our persuasion, as to what should
be suggested to his Holiness, and what action he should take
to avert the tempest and confirm the King in his kind
treatment. Here is what they advise. The King declares
that the only demand he makes in the oath is a profession
of that civil and natural obedience which is due from
subjects, and that he does not wish the spiritual authority of
his Holiness to be abjured. He is willing to admit any
explanation of its words, however subtle, in order that its
taking might be rendered easier to the conscience of the
Catholics. All these considerations make it evident that the
oath, as set forth and declared by the Legislature, is very
different from what it was thought to be when the Pope
first condemned it. We expect, therefore, that his Holiness
will moderate in some respects the Papal prohibitions. This
is due both to the English Catholics, who have suffered more
in defence of the Papal authority than any other people, and
also to the King, who regards the Pope with veneration, and
deserves the first advances in kindness from him. The holy
Pontiff writes to pagan Kings in India and to schismatic
deposing power, and the authority of the Pope to make war, invade
countries, &c.-Clarendon, State Papers, 1, 258.
1 "Idem scriptor videtur mihi, nam totum ejus opusculum diligenter
expendi, causam imbecilliter pugnare."
384
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
sovereigns in Abyssinia, nor does he wait until they first
write to him; why should not his Holiness address equally
kind letters to our King? His Holiness tolerates the rejection
of his deposing power, which is the only matter in the oath
of allegiance, in the kingdom of France. For do not all the
Gallican bishops, noblemen, and the whole people, hold it as
an indisputable dogma, that their King cannot be deposed
for any cause by any power under heaven? If his Holiness
tolerates these things in France, why should he not tolerate
the same belief in England, a country which requires her
wounds to be touched with a very gentle hand? Why should
his Holiness not write a letter to our King to the following
effect:-That he thanked him for his benign treatment of the
Catholics, and exhorted him to continue it; that he considered
him, and should always consider him, as the true and
legitimate sovereign of his kingdoms, and treat him with
the same regard and affection with which he treated the
Kings of France and of Spain; that henceforth our King
should be as safe as those sovereigns from the censures and
denunciations of the Papal See? His Holiness might also
express his regret that certain books had been published
respecting the oath, and his determination to prohibit them
for the future. Finally, to show his wish for a reconciliation
with his Majesty, he might suspend his own decree and
those of his predecessors against the oath, leaving it as it
stood before any condemnation of it had emanated from
Rome. These are the suggestions of some of the wisest and
most intelligent Englishmen with whom I have consulted,
and I myself with great respect join in the suggestions, as
I believe that if they were attended to, they would be
followed by the happiest consequences."¹
In November of the same year, Father Leander addressed
¹ Clarendon, State Papers, 1, 129. The rest of the letter is taken up
with the appointment of an English episcopacy.
!
CHAP. VI
385
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
a letter to the Pope himself, in which he deprecated the
circulation of books in England which extolled immoderately
the authority of Rome, and contained seditious propositions.
He recommended the Pope to forbid under the heaviest
penalties the publication of such treatises before and until
they were examined and approved at Rome.¹
The next letter is in December, and is addressed to
Cardinal Barberini, the "protector of England" at the
Papal Court. In this Leander advises "the most eminent
fathers" to have recourse to measures of kindness and con-
ciliation. "Permit me to speak with all freedom. What
have you hitherto obtained by following the counsels of
those who have recommended violent proceedings, and have
extorted prohibitory decrees against the oath, to the great
exasperation of our Kings, who are lost in astonishment that
what is allowed in the Catholic kingdom of France is con-
demned here ? What conclusion can our governors here
come to, but that such decrees countenance crime, and justify
those who attempted, by the Gunpowder Plot, the destruction
of the King and of the whole nobility, inasmuch as they
prevent the condemnation of the principles upon which those
wicked men acted ? I know this is not a just inference, but
1 Ib. 169.
2
If
2 Charles Butler translates these sentences as follows:-" What else
have our nobility and leading men gained by these decrees, than its
being believed, that the doctrines, on which they are founded, countenanced
the wicked men engaged in the gunpowder conspiracy, and excuse their
attempt to destroy the sovereign and all the nobility, inasmuch as such
doctrines prohibit the condemnation of the principles on which those
men relied to justify their attempt? I know that this cannot be justly
inferred, but I also know that our countrymen make the inference.
they had seen, that the Pope had published any decree which condemned
both that detestable attempt and the principles on which it was
endeavoured to be justified, they would have passed a very different
judgment on that most unfortunate deed-they would have thought that
it proceeded wholly from the criminality of the persons engaged in it,
and not from the doctrines of the Catholic teachers."-English Catholics,
2, 318.
2 C
386
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
I also know that it is the inference which the English draw.
If his Holiness had issued a sentence condemning that
detestable wickedness and the principles which gave rise
to it, the opinion of Englishmen would have been very
different. They would have concluded that it proceeded
from the guilt of individuals and not from the doctrines of
Catholic teachers. Heretofore, you have put yourselves in
the hands of advisers who, unacquainted with the true spirit
of religion, have invoked the thunders of excommunication
and the lightnings of prohibitions against the kingdom of
England. The only result of this is, that calamity after
calamity has overwhelmed the Catholics. Give, at last,
some credence to those who counsel the paths of peace, and
who believe that the Lord manifests himself, not in the
storm but in the gentle breeze, not in wrath but in the spirit
of meekness. I am convinced that, if you do so, we shall
obtain from the King and his government much more within
the short space of a few months than the advocates of vio-
lence have obtained during many long years."¹
Father Leander enclosed in this letter an elaborate
examination of the oath of allegiance, and makes the
remark, that the oath was understood in England in a very
different sense from that which those who procured from the
Popes its condemnation, attached to it; that nothing was
required by it but a profession of that civil obedience which was
due to the sovereign by the Word of God, the law of nature,
and the ancient enactments of the realm. He concludes by
again recommending the suggestion of "the many prudent
and pious Catholics," viz. that the Pope should suspend the
condemnation of the oath, and gives instances of such
suspensions in other cases.
We have seen that it was the wish of the wisest and most
¹ Clarendon, State Papers, 185.
CHAP: VI
387
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
moderate of the English Roman Catholics that the Pope
should open a friendly communication with the King
respecting the oath of allegiance. Father Leander drew up
a draft of a letter from the Pope to Charles, and appears to
have sent it to Rome. Its effect was as follows: "Hearing
of your Majesty's clemency to your Catholic subjects, and
entertaining a fatherly regard for your safety and well-
being, we have resolved to send you a gracious and loving
letter, that you may be encouraged to proceed still farther
in the way of charity, and continue to extend to the Catholics
your royal protection. Inasmuch as we have heard that you
are well-disposed to our person, we regret that you have
received annoyance, in the matter of the oath of allegiance,
from the books written for and against the same. For the
future, we shall give strict orders that no such publications
be issued, and we shall make it manifest that those things
which justly displease you displease us also. Be not troubled
that our predecessors have condemned the oath. That was
not done through any disrespect to your royal authority, but
because learned men were persuaded that it contained many
things contrary to faith. Now that we know that your
Majesty understands it in a different sense, which sense it
may bear if its words be liberally interpreted, and that it
refers, not to a denial of our spiritual power, but to the
safety of your person and kingdom, we no longer condemn
the oath in the sense given to it by your Majesty. We
exhort you, in return for our indulgence, to declare by a
public edict the sense of the oath which we have been
informed you attach to it, in order that all men may under-
stand that there is nothing in it contrary to faith, nothing
disrespectful to ourselves or to our spiritual authority, and
that it concerns only your security and honour against
presumptuous or unfaithful subjects. We shall never cease
to secure your safety by every means in our power, and
2 C 2
388
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
whatever you require to that end we shall gladly perform.
May heaven long preserve you in peace and prosperity."
But the wise and conciliatory measures proposed by
Father Leander gave great offence at Rome, where a renun-
ciation of the deposing power would not be listened to.
From his apologetical letters to Cardinal Barberini, and from
communications addressed to himself from that city by Father
Welford, a Benedictine monk, we learn, that he was accused
of rejecting the deposing power, of advocating the oath of
allegiance, and of writing against those who defended the
Papal bulls condemning it. "Rome," wrote Father Welford,
"having stood for her rights so many ages in the cause of
deposing princes, will be very unwilling to permit the oath,
as the words lie, although glossed with another intention.
Look over the oath which usually is exhibited to Catholics
in Ireland; examine other forms of oath in Catholic countries;
add to them, augment them, and endeavour to form them in
that kind and those words which may secure and content
his Majesty, as is most just and reasonable to be done;
yet take heed of meddling with deponibility of princes, for
that article will never pass here." "How greatly is it to
be lamented," exclaims a Roman Catholic writer, "that this
chimerical claim of the Papal See stood in the way of so
many wise and promising exertions to relieve the English
Catholics from the dreadful persecutions under which they
groaned; of so many attempts to restore, if not a communion
of religious belief, at least a communion of peace and good-
will between Protestants and Catholics."3
As for Father Leander himself, he was afraid to return
to Rome and thus fall into the hands of his enemies. He
dreaded, in all probability, the fate of the unfortunate
Benedictine, John Barnes, who, having written against the
1 Ib. 205.
3 Butler's English Catholics, 2, 330.
2 Ib. 272.
CHAP. VI.
389
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
• · •
temporal power of the Pope, was decoyed abroad, and con-
veyed by force to Rome, where he was imprisoned in the
Inquisition till the confinement and ill-usage deprived him
of his senses.¹ In October, 1635, Leander wrote to Winde-
bank, the Secretary of State, asking that he might be allowed
to spend the remainder of his life in England; "By the
last letter of our Procurator from Rome
you may well
perceive the trouble I am like to fall into by my adversaries'
opposition, for no other cause than for joining the duty of a
loyal subject and a good Christian Catholic, which should in
no sort-nay, can in no sort-be separated. Out of which,
I humbly beseech your honour to intercede for me to his
Majesty, that he would vouchsafe to continue his favourable
protection to me, that I may subsist here under his royal
wings so long as I shall behave myself loyally and quietly,
which shall be, I hope, as long as I live upon earth."2
the time Father Leander wrote this letter he had been for a
long period suffering from an illness which caused his death
in 1636.
At
He died in London, and was buried in the chapel
of Somerset House.
The Pope, being dissatisfied with Father Leander, sent
another agent to England, Gregory Panzani, a secular
Italian priest, who arrived in London towards the end of
1634. In the following January, Panzani had an interview
with Windebank. He informed the secretary that the
occasion of his coming to England was to pay a compliment
to the Queen, to make himself acquainted with matters
relating to the appointment of a bishop, and "incidentally,
as occasion served, he was at liberty to regulate the concerns
of the oath of allegiance." He added, that the Pope was
disposed to give his Majesty all the content imaginable, and
1 Berington, Panzani, 141; Throckmorton, First Letter, 165.
2 Clarendon, State Papers, 1, 331.
3 Berington, Panzani, 143.
390
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
that if his Catholic subjects did not behave themselves with
the utmost respect to the King in all civil matters, it was
contrary to the knowledge and desire of the Pontiff. Win-
debank replied that the King had always signified the great
respect he had for Urban, and that both on his account, and
for other considerations, he had seldom pressed the execution
of the laws against Catholics to extremity, and only reminded
them occasionally of their condition by pecuniary fines, and
that, too, very sparingly. He added, that it would be pru-
dent on the part of the Pope either to recall or to moderate
the briefs that were in force against such as took the oath of
allegiance. Panzani replied that he had no specific commis-
sion on that subject, but it was his opinion that nothing
would be altered in the briefs unless the oath was framed in
a manner more agreeable to the Roman See. Windebank
insisted that many Roman Catholics admitted that the oath
might be taken with the King's comment restraining its
sense to civil allegiance. That, said Panzani, may be the
opinion of some of the party, but in things of this nature
men are to act in concert, and govern themselves by a
uniform practice. All I can say is, that I know it is the
Pope's pleasure that the Catholics should answer all the
demands of civil obedience. If that is the case, answered
Windebank, let the Pope draw up the form of an oath, and
send it hither. Panzani promised to write to Rome, and
hoped that the application would be followed by the framing
of an oath which would be at the same time palatable to the
most scrupulous conscience and satisfactory to the Papal
Court. The King had lately proposed a new oath to the
Irish Roman Catholics, but even this was objected to by the
Pope "as bearing still too hard on the Pope's spiritual
power." Panzani, however, sent this Irish oath to Rome
as a model for that of England.
¹ There was not a word in the Irish oath referring to the Pope's
CHAP. VI
391
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
But Panzani's expectations were doomed to be dis-
appointed. He received a letter from Cardinal Barberini
informing him that the Papal Court was very much displeased
with the liberty he had taken in declaring himself on the
subject of the oath. The cardinal acquainted him that
Rome ought to be very cautious and rather passive in
controversies respecting it, "for," said he, "should we
undertake to draw up forms of an oath, the English would
pretend to be judges of the qualities of them, whereas it is
our business to act as judges where faith is attacked or
endangered." He also advised him not to concern himself
with Courteney's book which Windebank had endeavoured
to have censured at Rome: "This was entering too far into
a thorny matter where he might prick his fingers. To
condemn Courteney was to appear too openly against the
authority of the See of Rome, and to approve of what he
had written was too disobliging on the other side." In the
conclusion of this long letter the cardinal remarks: "I wish
you had been cautious in relation to the oath. Father
Leander's example might have deterred you. His meddling
about the oath was very ill taken by all parties, but being a
person of no extraordinary reach he was not likely to do
much either way. . . . It might perhaps not have been amiss
to have mentioned in general terms something concerning
authority, either spiritual or temporal. "I do truly acknowledge, &c.,
before God and the world that our Sovereign Lord King Charles is
lawful and rightful King of this realm, and of all other his Majesty's
dominions and countries. And I will bear faith and true allegiance to
his Majesty, his heirs and successors, and him and them will defend to
the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts, what-
soever, which shall be made against his or their crown and dignity, and
do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty, &c.,
or to the Lord Deputy . . . for the time being, all treasons and traitorous
conspiracies which I shall know or hear to be intended against his
Majesty or any of them. And I do make this recognition and acknow-
ledgment heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a
Christian. So help me God."-Cox, History of Ireland, 2, 47.
392
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
the oath to Secretary Windebank, but you went too far in
making proposals. In things of that kind it is your business
to see, hear, and observe. It is a piece of necessary policy
to seem to be fully informed of matters. ... It is a comfort
to hear the Catholics are not persecuted. . . . The softening
of the Pope's brief which Windebank mentioned was a
dangerous subject. You entered unadvisedly on that subject,
yet were in the right to reply that not repealing but
softening was to be the thing insisted on. I wish, however,
you had never mentioned anything of sending hither about
the form of an oath, since you are not ignorant how much
his Holiness suffered on such another proposal concerning
the sovereignty of the Grisons over the Valaisins. Should
we form an oath here and send it to the King, they would
examine it and censure it in England. On the whole it is
my advice that you disengage yourself as well as you can
from this troublesome affair of the oath." It is evident
that Father Leander had not been, and that Panzani was
not, acquainted with the real policy of Rome. The Papal
Court had made up its mind not to recede from its claims,
nor to co-operate with the English government in framing
an oath of allegiance, and had come to the unalterable deter-
mination never to allow the Roman Catholics of England to
profess their loyalty and obedience to a Protestant or
heretical ruler. This will be proved subsequently by letters
and secret instructions from the Pope himself to his legate
or nuncio in Ireland.
Like Father Leander, Panzani thought that a friendly
correspondence between the English Court and the See of
Rome was desirable, and that it should begin with a letter
from the Pope to his Majesty, expressing in general terms
the respect of his Holiness for the King, his esteem for
the English people, and his wishes for their prosperity."
¹ Berington's Panzani, 157–9. 2 Butler, English Catholics, 2, 334.
CHAP. VI
393
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
Windebank proposed to Panzani that Urban should write an
obliging letter to the King. The same request was made by
several of the Roman Catholic nobility who were of opinion
that such a letter would be acceptable.¹ To this suggestion
the Court of Rome immediately and positively objected.
Cardinal Barberini informed Panzani of the Pope's resolution
to forbear any such advances, as it was the uniform custom
of the Papal See to expect the first step to be made to it.
"I commend," says the cardinal, "your reservedness in not
making any promises of the Pope's writing to the King.
Such things are never done but when princes have drawn a
letter from his Holiness by writing first. Besides, a letter
to the King must be by way of exhortation on the subject of
religion, of which perhaps his Majesty is not yet disposed to
hear."
Queen Henrietta was desirous of having a representative
of her own at the Papal Court. The King hoped to benefit
his nephew, the Palatine, through the mediation of Urban
with the Emperor and the Spanish sovereign. This con-
sideration induced Charles to consent to the establishment
of a reciprocal agency at Rome and in England. Captain
Arthur Brett, a Roman Catholic, was chosen as resident in
that city, and the King, in 1635, drew up instructions for his
guidance. Brett was directed not to meddle with affairs of
religion, to remember that he was sent to Rome "merely for
matters of state and intelligence," and to consider himself as
the Queen's servant only. The instructions referred to the
restoration of the Palatinate and the marriage of the King
of Poland, but the bulk of them was taken up with the
subject of the oath of allegiance, as the King hoped that
the Pope would co-operate with him in lightening the yoke
on the Roman Catholics. "You shall earnestly labour to
clear all misunderstandings concerning the oath of allegiance,
1 Berington, 146.
394
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
and endeavour to settle in them there a better opinion of it;
assuring them the only scope and intent thereof is civil, and
refers merely to government, and was made to distinguish
between loyal and disloyal Roman Catholics, and to secure
us of their faith and allegiance after so many treasonable
attempts upon the persons of our predecessors, especially that
horrible and damnable conspiracy of the gunpowder treason.
That, therefore, if the Pope expect the continuance of our
clemency to that party, he must revoke or suspend such
briefs and censures as he hath published against the oath
and those that take it; we being confident that most of the
Roman Catholic party in this our realm of England would
take it cheerfully were they not in fear of those briefs and
censures, many of them, and among those, some of the
clergy having not only taken it, but written in defence of
the lawfulness of it, which shows their good inclination were
they not terrified by an overawing power. And, therefore,
the Pope only must be guilty of torturing their consciences
and forcing this their disobedience, and of exposing them as
much as in them lies, to those punishments which our laws
do justly inflict upon them in this case, namely, the loss of
their estates. . . In the meantime we have wherewithal to
justify ourselves to God and to all the world, that we desire
nothing more than to be assured of that fidelity of our
subjects which is due to us by the laws of God and man, and,
without which, we can neither be sure of them, nor of the
safety of our person or state, but shall ever be in distrust
and jealousy of them. And, therefore, you are to labour
chiefly in this, to make them understand how the Roman
Catholic party groan under the calamity, and what a
happiness it would be for them to be eased of this grievous
burden laid upon them by the Pope. . . . And you are to use
your best diligencies not only in this, but you must likewise
mediate with the Pope to carry a gentle hand toward such
CHAP. VI
395
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
Roman Catholics as are moderate and peaceable, and well
affected to the oath, that they may not suffer for their
obedience and conformity, to the great disservice of us and
the discouragement of those that would follow their example
were they not in fear of censure. This we shall take very
well, whereas on the contrary, without satisfaction in this
business of the oath, you must assure them there can be
no good intelligence between us and that party." When
Charles signed and dated these instructions with his own
hand,' he little thought that all his efforts to ameliorate the
state of his Roman Catholic subjects were to be in vain, and
that the lamentable condition of that communion did not
weigh a feather in the councils of the Pope as against his
old-world claims to temporal jurisdiction. Two principles
of the Papal policy forbade any reconciliation between the
English Roman Catholics and their native government.
One was the fixed resolution of the Popes not to give up an
iota of their claim to the deposing power, the other was their
determination never to allow Roman Catholics to profess
allegiance to a Protestant sovereign. Rather than yield on
these two points, they were prepared to witness the sufferings
of the English Roman Catholics, and by their conduct to
justify the continuation of the penal laws. "With what
face can it be asserted," says a Roman Catholic historian
and clergyman, "that the Roman Bishop or his court have
constantly promoted the best interests of the English
Catholics, when, as we have just seen, their religion itself
was exposed to danger, and themselves and their posterity
involved in much misery, that an ambitious prerogative, for
such surely is the power of deposing princes, might not be
curtailed?" The reverend historian did not know or forgot
that the principal motive for the action of the Papal Court,
T
¹ Clarendon, State Papers, 1, 354.
3 Berington's Panzani, 78.
2 Ib. 357.
396
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
as avowed by itself, was its resolve not to allow its adherents
to profess their loyalty and obedience to a Protestant or
heretical King.
Shortly after his appointment Brett was seized with a
fever and died. Sir William Hamilton, brother to Lord
Abercorn, was appointed in his place, and instructions
similar to those given to Brett were delivered to him. Mr.
George Conn, a Scotch Roman Catholic clerygman, in high
esteem at Rome, was received in England as successor to
Panzani who had resided two years in this country. Conn
remained in England three years, and was succeeded by
Count Rosetti, a layman, who openly resided in London and
frequented the court as vested with a commission from the
Pope.¹ When Charles erected his standard at Nottingham
in August, 1642, and the civil war commenced, it was
considered advisable to discontinue altogether the intercourse
with Rome.
In 1641, the great Irish rebellion broke out. To the
eternal disgrace of their names, the vast majority of the
Roman Catholic nobility and gentry joined hands with the
blood-stained insurgents of the North. A general assembly,
regularly formed into Lords and Commons, was convened at
Kilkenny. The confederates raised armies and appointed
generals, drew up a new oath of allegiance, coined money,
and despatched envoys to foreign powers inviting their
assistance. The Pope, Innocent X., sent a legate, Rinuccini,
with money and arms, to aid the confederates. On one
occasion, Rinuccini, in a speech to the Council at Kilkenny,
professed his fidelity, "first to God and religion and next to
the King." He was at once reprimanded from Rome for
having used such an expression respecting the King. In
Mạy, 1646, Cardinal Pamphili, the Papal Secretary of State,
¹ Hume, 5, 25, ed. 1830. An account of these missions, at the end of
Nugent's Memorials of Hampden, states that Rosetti was a Cardinal.
CHAP. VI
397
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
wrote to him, finding fault with his words: "The Holy See
never can by any positive act approve of the civil allegiance
of Catholic subjects to a heretical prince. From this maxim
of the Holy See, have arisen the many difficulties and disputes
in England about the oath of allegiance. And his Holiness's
displeasure is the greater, because you have left the original
of your speech in the hands of the Catholic confederates,
which, if published, will furnish heretios with arguments
against the Pope's power over heretical princes, seeing that
his Minister exhorts the Catholics of Ireland to allegiance
to a heretical King. You must, therefore, withdraw the
original, and suppress all copies of the said speech, and
On another
never indulge in such sentiments again."¹
occasion, in the same year, the legate was the first to sign
a protestation of the clergy that they would never consent to
a peace unless secure conditions were made "for religion,
the King, and country." Cardinal Pamphili again reproved
Rinuccini for acting in violation of his instructions, and
informed him "that it had been the constant and uninter-
rupted practice of the Holy See never to allow its ministers
to make or to consent to any public declaration of Catholic
subjects for the defence of the Crown and person of a heretical
prince; that his conduct furnished pretences to the enemies
of the Holy See to reflect upon her as deviating from the
maxims of sound policy to which she had ever adhered; and
that the Pope desired that he would not, by any public act,
show that he knew or consented to any declaration of alle-
giance which the Irish Catholics might, for political reasons,
be compelled, or be willing to make to the King.
972
These statements of the Papal Secretary suggest some
painful reflections respecting previous declarations of the
¹ Carte's Ormond, 1, 578; O'Conor's Historical Address, 2, 415, and
the authorities there quoted.
2 Ib. and Hutton's Embassy of Rinuccini in Ireland, 580.
398
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
Popes. According to the bulls issued against the English
oath of allegiance, its condemnation was based on purely
religious considerations. Paul V. forbade its being taken,
on the ground that it contained "many things clearly
contrary to faith and salvation." Urban VIII. declared
that it wrested the sacred sceptre of the Universal Church
from the hands of the vicar of God. It will be remembered
that thirteen priests, confined in Newgate for not taking the
oath, implored Paul in the most moving terms to point out
the passages in it which were opposed to faith and salvation.
Why was this not done? Were the objections to the oath
really founded on religion, or was religion merely the pretext
for its condemnation? The Pope answers the latter question
in the affirmative. Here we have the Pontiff himself, by the
hand of his Cardinal-Secretary, declaring in a secret despatch
to his legate, that the true reason, which influenced the Popes
in their opposition to the oath, was their fixed resolution
never to allow a protestation of allegiance to be made by
Roman Catholics to a heretical prince, and that from the
observance of this maxim all the difficulties and disputes
about the English oath had arisen.
Some time in the year 1641 or 1642, the English Roman
Catholics ventured to speak the convictions of their souls,
and made an attempt to free themselves from the civil
ascendency of the Papal Court. They presented a petition
to Parliament in which they explained their political senti-
ments. After reciting that "whereas divers political reasons
1
¹ The petition is in Cressy's Exomologesis, 72, first ed. 1647. It was
removed from the subsequent edition. Hugh Cressy, an Englishman,
had been Dean of Leighlin in Ireland, and Prebendary of Windsor in
England. He became a convert to the Roman Catholic religion, and
entered the Benedictine order. In 1647 he published his Exomologesis
or Motives of his Conversion. The petition of the English Roman
Catholics given by him was the model from which Richard Belling drew
up the Loyal Remonstrance" of the Irish Roman Catholic clergy in
the reign of Charles II.
"
CHAP. VI
399
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
and now dead motives of State not unknown to your wisdom,
as also some rigorous proceedings of the Court of Rome, and
several seditious combinations, being spoken to the grief
of your petitioners, which heretofore some few unworthy
Catholics have practised both at home and abroad against
their late sovereign and this realm, have been the occasion of
many severe laws and too, too, penal statutes against all pro-
fessors of the Catholic faith in this kingdom," they made a
full declaration of their loyalty and attachment to their King
and country, disclaimed the deposing power, and repudiated
the opinion that faith was not to be kept with heretics.
"The Catholics of England do acknowledge and profess
King Charles now reigning to be their true and lawful
King, supreme lord and rightful sovereign of this realm and
of all other his Majesty's dominions. And therefore they
acknowledge themselves to be obliged under pain of sin to
obey his Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs as much as
any other of his Majesty's subjects and as the laws and rules
of government in this kingdom do require at their hands.
And that, notwithstanding any power or pretension of the
Pope or See of Rome, or any sentence or declaration of what
kind or quality soever, given or to be given by the Pope, his
predecessors or successors, or by any authority spiritual or
temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See, against
their said King and country, they will still acknowledge and
perform to the utmost of their abilities their faithful loyalty
and true allegiance to their said King and country. And
they do openly disclaim and renounce all foreign power, be
it either Papal or princely, spiritual or temporal, inasmuch
as it may seem able or shall pretend to free, discharge, or
absolve them from this obligation, or shall any way give
them leave or license to raise tumults, bear arms, or offer
any violence, to his Majesty's royal person, to the High
Court of Parliament, to the State, or Government. Being
400
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
Li
all of them ready, not only to discover and make known to
his Majesty and to the High Court of Parliament all the
treasons and conspiracies made against him or it which shall
come to their hearing, but also to lose their lives in the
defence of their King and country, and to resist with their
best endeavours all conspiracies and attempts made against
their said King or country, be they framed or sent under
what pretence or patronised by what foreign authority
soever. And further they profess that all absolute princes
and supreme governors, of what religion soever they be,
are God's lieutenants upon earth, and that obedience is due
unto them according to the laws of each commonwealth
respectively in all civil and temporal affairs, and therefore
they do protest against all doctrines and authority to the
contrary. And they do hold it impious and against the
Word of God to maintain, that any private subject may kill
and murder the Anointed of God his prince, though of a
different belief and religion from his. And they abhor and
detest the practice thereof as damnable and wicked. And,
lastly, they offer themselves most willingly to accept and
embrace the late Protestation of Union made by the High
Court of Parliament excepting only the clause of religion,¹
professing that they cannot without sin infringe or violate
any contract or break their words and promises made or
¹ In consequence of the discovery of a correspondence between the
court and the army, Pym, in May, 1641, proposed a Protestation of
union to be made by both houses. The clause objected to in the above
petition was the first clause in the Protestation. "I A. B. do in the
presence of Almighty God promise, vow, and protest to maintain and
defend, as far as lawfully I may, with my life, power, and estate, the
true reformed Protestant religion expressed in the doctrines of the
Church of England against all Popery and Popish innovations within this
realm, &c." The petition of the Roman Catholics was presented to
parliament some time between May, 1641, and the commencement of
hostilities in August, 1642. Cressy says the petition was offered to
parliament immediately before these commotions."
"C
CHAP. VI
401
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
given to any man, though of a different faith and belief from
the Church of Rome. All which they do freely and sincerely
acknowledge and protest as in the presence of God without
any equivocation or mental reservation whatsoever.'
""
The almost simultaneous breaking out of the Irish rebel-
lion of 1641 and of the great civil war in England prevented
any steps being taken on this loyal declaration; nevertheless
it appears to have had important consequences. In 1647,
hopes were entertained of composing the differences between
the King and the Parliament, and it was proposed to com-
prehend the Roman Catholics in the general settlement.
The first civil war was at an end, and Charles was with and
in the power of the army. This proposal may have been the
result of a real desire for toleration which many in the army
then professed, or it may have arisen from the wish of that
body to put pressure on the King to come to terms with it by
withdrawing the Roman Catholics from the side of Charles.
Whatever may have been the reasons, it was agreed, Sir
Thomas Fairfax, the commander-in-chief, being the proposer
of the measure,' that the penal statutes in force against the
Roman Catholics should be repealed and liberty of conscience
granted to them, on condition that they showed their religion
was not inconsistent with the safety of the civil government.
For this purpose they were required to sign in the negative
three propositions submitted to them to the following effect :
1. That the Pope or the Church hath power to absolve
any person or persons whatsoever from his or their obedience
to the civil government established in this nation.
2. That it is lawful by the Pope's or Church's command
or dispensation to kill, destroy, or otherwise injure, any
person or persons whatsoever, because he or they are accused,
condemned, censured, or excommunicated, for error, schism,
or heresy.
Walsh, Hist. of the Irish Remonstrance, 522-4.
2 D
402
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
3. That it is lawful in itself, or by the Pope's dispen-
sation, to break either word or oath with any persons
abovesaid under pretence of their being heretics.¹
3
2
Fifty Roman Catholic noblemen and gentlemen together
with several of their clergy subscribed these articles in the
negative as was desired. No sooner was it known at Rome
that this subscription had taken place than the disastrous
vigilance of the Vatican was awakened. Innocent X. called
a congregation for the special purpose of taking it into
consideration. It was condemned as heretical, and further
it was declared that the subscribers had incurred the penalties
denounced in the sacred canons and apostolical constitutions
against those who denied the power of the Pope in causes of
faith. It is also to be remarked, that the condemnation did
not specify any particular article to which the Pope and
congregation objected. All were condemned alike without
distinction, and the English people were left under the
impression, that the three propositions taken affirmatively
were articles of the Roman Catholic faith, namely, that the
Pope or his Church had power to absolve subjects from their
civil obedience to their government; that it was lawful at
the command or dispensation of the Pope or the Church to
kill and destroy persons accused, censured, or excommuni-
cated for error, schism, or heresy; and that it was lawful in
itself, or by the Pope's dispensation, to break faith pledged
to heretics.
Nothing more was heard of the abolition or relaxation of
1 Ib. nad Butler, Eng. Catholics, 2, 414.
2 Letter of Hieronymus de Vecchiis, Papal nuncio at Brussels.
Walsh, 16.
3 "Sacra Congregatio resolutionem illam negativam tanquam hæreticam
mox condemnat; subscriptoresque in pœnas, in sacris canonibus et con-
stitutionibus apostolicis contra negantes potestatem pontificiam in causis
fidei, incidisse declarat."-Caron, Remonstrantia Hibernorum, pars 1,
c. 4, s. 3.
CHAP. VI
403
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
1
the penal laws. The Roman Catholics of England were
cowed by the condemnation and by the civil tyranny of the
Papal Court. It is worth while to compare their submissive.
demeanour with the more generous spirit which prevailed
among their communion in France. A priest, who had sub-
scribed the three propositions, wrote to the well-known Dr.
Holden, an Englishman who had taken his degree of Doctor
in Divinity in the Sorbonne, desiring to have his opinion
respecting what he had done. Dr. Holden's answer contains
the following paragraphs :—“ Having seriously considered
the three articles you sent me . . . I cannot refuse, neither
in charity nor friendship, to give you my opinion concerning
your subscription thereunto. Yet, being unwilling you should
rely upon my private and particular judgment in a matter
of such moment, I have consulted with several great and
learned men of our nation, but especially some of the most
ancient and learned doctors of our faculty here, whose
constant sentiments are, that not only in their opinion your
act is lawful, just, and true, but that it is also the general
and universal belief of all the learned men in this kingdom.
So that I see not upon what grounds you need fear or
apprehend the censures which the decree of the congre-
gation in Rome pretends you have incurred. . . . In a word
I see nothing capable to beget a scruple, nor that ought to
hinder any Catholic from subscribing to the articles as you
have done. Nor shall I easily persuade myself that any
wise and experienced man will shrink from so just an act.
If your State, King, or Parliament will suffer and tolerate
you to live quietly under them, which I wonder such able
men should boggle at, I shall quickly provide and help you
with such advice from the most learned and most virtuous
divines of Europe, as will make your ecclesiastical govern-
ment an example to all other States and kingdoms, your
neighbours. And still conserving all due respect and spiritual
7
2 D2
404
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
•
obedience to the See of Rome, you shall free yourselves from
all unnecessary and unfit dependence of the Roman Court,
wherein I shall furnish you with the resolutions of such
questions as will open the eyes of all your unexperienced and
tender-conscienced countrymen who have not had, perhaps,
the means to discern and distinguish their due and necessary
obedience from a superfluous and unjust obsequiousness; and
which shall withal make appear to all the Christian world
the now well near fourscore years hard and unfatherly
dealing of the Court of Rome over the poor persecuted and
distressed Catholics of England. Let it therefore be your
constant endeavour to give to the King, State, or Parliament,
full satisfaction and assurance of your fidelity to the civil
and political government of your kingdom whatsoever it
shall be, which may most certainly stand with the integrity
of your religion and conscience. For the rest, fear nothing,
trust to the justice of your cause, which you may assuredly
believe will not want support.
991
Thus, to use the words of a pious and learned Roman
Catholic divine, by "the hard and unfatherly dealing" of
the Court of Rome on the one hand, and "the superfluous
and unjust obsequiousness" of the English Roman Catholics
on the other, was this design of restoring the latter to full
citizenship defeated. Miserable indeed was their condition.
They were between the hammer and the anvil; in danger
from the laws of their country if they disobeyed them, and
threatened with the fire of eternal perdition if they vindi-
cated the purity of their loyalty. From the Papal Court
there was no hope for them, for Rome was resolved not to
recede one step from her claim to the deposing power, and to
keep that claim alive as a whip for heretical or Protestant
princes. The only mitigation of their sufferings which they
1 Walsh, Irish Remonstrance, 524; Throckmorton, Second Letter,
Append., 99.
CHAP. VI.
405
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
could henceforth expect was from the merciful consideration
of their own government. Their single claim to compassion
was, that they were bound to obey the directions of their
supreme spiritual pastor, Da veniam, Imperator, tu carcerem,
ille gehennam minatur ;¹—pardon us our disobedience, for the
authority which keeps the keys of heaven and hell constrains
us to transgress your statutes."
2
How far Cromwell, if he had lived till more settled times,
would have granted toleration to the Roman Catholics, is not
quite certain. Indications, however, survive which lead to
the belief that he would have relaxed, if not repealed, the
laws against them. Up to the time of his return from his
Irish expedition, he was willing to concede to them only the
celebration of their worship in their houses though not in
public, but time and its lessons appear to have ripened and
widened his views. In 1649, when he offered terms to the
Governor of Ross in Ireland, he wrote to that officer: "As for
that which you mention concerning liberty of conscience, I
meddle not with any man's conscience. But if by liberty of
conscience you mean a liberty to exercise the Mass, I judge
it best to use plain dealing and to let you know, where the
1“Si aliud Imperator et aliud Deus, quid judicatis ? . . . Quis
prohibet? Major potestas. Da veniam, Imperator, tu carcerem, ille
gehennam minatur."-St. Augustine, De verbis Domini, Sermo 6.
2 Charles Butler thus speaks of the conduct of Innocent X.: "In the
dreadful state of persecution in which the English Catholics were then
placed, and in which an absolute and unequivocal disclaimer of the
Pope's deposing power might have served them so effectually—which
disclaimer the Popes actually tolerated in France, Venice, and in many
parts of Germany-and which disclaimer, we must add, the universal
Catholic world now publicly and unreservedly professes-was it quite
just or quite humane for any Pope to pronounce its formal condem-
nation? Did not the severe persecution under which the English
Catholics then groaned, point out to the common father of the faithful,
that duty called on him not only not to check, but even to facilitate and
to encourage every measure, which might either diminish the horrors, or
abridge the term of their sufferings?"-Eng. Catholics, 2, 417.
406
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
Parliament of England have power that will not be allowed."
In the following year he issued his Declaration in answer
to certain declarations and acts framed by the Irish Popish
prelates and clergy in a conventicle at Clonmacnoise. In this
he says: "I shall not, where I have power and the Lord is
pleased to bless me, suffer the exercise of the Mass where I
can take notice of it. . . . As for the people, what thoughts
they have in matters of religion in their own breasts I cannot
reach; but shall think it my duty, if they walk honestly and
peaceably, not to cause them in the least to suffer for the
same, and shall endeavour to walk patiently and in love
towards them, to see if at any time it shall please God to
give them another or a better mind. And all men under the
power of England within this dominion are hereby required
and enjoined strictly and religiously to do the same." In
1654, he declared in a speech to his first parliament, that
liberty of conscience was one of those "fundamentals" in
government which might not be examined or altered, but
were to be taken as the basis upon which the new adminis-
tration was founded. "Liberty of conscience," he exclaimed,
"is a natural right. This I say is a fundamental. It ought
to be so. It is for us and the generations to come." At the
dissolution of the same parliament in 1656 he made use of
the following words: "Those that were sound in the faith,
how proper was it for them to labour for liberty, for a just
liberty, that men might not be trampled upon for their
conscience! Had not they themselves laboured but lately
under the weight of persecution? And was it fit for them
to sit heavy upon others? Is it ingenuous to ask liberty
and not to give it ?" These expressions of the Protector are
general, without qualification or exclusion of any sect, and if
naturally interpreted would include Roman Catholics. The
Independents, to whose party Cromwell belonged and upon
whose support he relied against the Presbyterians and
CHAP. VI
407
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
2
Royalists, were in favour of toleration to all. We are
informed by Baxter that Cromwell and his friends declared
publicly that they could not understand what magistrates
had to do with matters of religion, and that all men should
be left to their consciences.¹ The same divine tells us that
in 1662 the Independents desired that liberty of worship
should be extended to Roman Catholics. Intolerance formed
no part of Cromwell's character. When it was discussed
whether the Jews should be allowed to return to England
and to have synagogues and cemeteries of their own, he
advocated a legal sanction being given to their re-admission
into the kingdom.3 It would seem that the Roman Catholics
themselves during his protectorate looked to Cromwell for
toleration, and that they were encouraged by his friends and
confidants in their expectation of obtaining it. A movement
towards a reconciliation with him took place in that body.
Thomas White, an eminent and learned secular priest,
published in 1655 his Obedience and Government. His
object was to show that when the sovereign was once
deposed, even unjustly, it was for the public good to
acquiesce in his removal rather than attempt his restoration.
This treatise was regarded by all at the time as an approval
of Cromwell's assumption of power and as an advice to
Roman Catholics to support his government. John Sergeant,
another secular priest of great celebrity, exhorted the members
¹ Baxter's Life, by Himself, part 2, 193.
2 lb. 429.
3 Cromwell's scheme for the admission of the Jews was defeated, but
when in 1656 a Portuguese Synagogue was opened in London, no objec-
tion was made by him. In the first year of Charles II., a remonstrance
addressed to the King stated, that the Jews had endeavoured to buy
St. Paul's for a synagogue in Cromwell's time.-State Papers, Domestic,
1660-1, p. 366.
*In 1660 twenty-six ecclesiastics of Douay College declared "from their
hearts they abominated and execrated the work written in the English
language by White during Cromwell's protectorate on Obedience and
Government."--Butler, English Catholics, 2, 431.
408
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
192
of his communion to acknowledge the Commonwealth and
the Protector, and further, he disclaimed the deposing power.'
Somewhat later, negotiations took place between some of
Cromwell's friends and the Roman Catholics. Several con-
sultations concerning "their lamentable condition and the
regal power which Cromwell meant to assume were held
amongst themselves. It was proposed to address the Pro-
tector and to inform him that they were prepared to tender
to him such an oath as would bind "not merely their
conscience but their affections; nay, that they would give
him a greater pledge of their fidelity in the person of one
man who shall be a bishop or superintendent over the clergy
of England, and consequently have power over the consciences
of the whole Catholic body; whose residence shall be in
London or where Cromwell shall appoint, and who will from
time to time impose the execution of his commands as a
matter of conscience on the Catholics." On the other hand,
that body received intimation from "a man in great credit
with Cromwell" that their proposal would be accepted.
This design alarmed the Royalists greatly, and Richard
Belling was authorized by Lord D'Aubigny to inform
Charles II. of it. Belling reported to that prince that the
proposal was ready to be made and that it was likely to be
accepted. He also advised Charles to strengthen the attach-
ment of the Roman Catholics by some extraordinary mark of
his favour to them, and recommended that, for this purpose,
he should permit his youngest brother, the Duke of Gloucester,
to be educated in their religion. Charles rejected this
suggestion of Belling, and gave it as his opinion that the
Roman Catholics were deceiving themselves in thinking that
the English Government was favourably disposed towards
1 Tb. 429.
2 These words fix the time about which these transactions took place,
as the question of the Kingship first emerged in the early part of 1657.
CHAP. VI
409
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
them.¹ The negotiations between that body and Cromwell
were interrupted by the death of the Protector in 1658.2
After the restoration of Charles II. opportunities of
obtaining a repeal, or at least an important relaxation, of
the penal laws, presented themselves to the Roman Catholics
both of England and Ireland. One opportunity, that
offered to the English body, was lost by the dissensions
which arose amongst its members; the other was deliberately
rejected at the command and under the direct instigation of
the Papal See. The King's Declaration from Breda
contained a promise of toleration to all, and the English
Roman Catholics naturally expected to be included in any
scheme to be adopted. "We do declare a liberty to tender
consciences; and that no man shall be disquieted or called in
question for differences of opinion in matters of religion.'
In the following year, petitions on their behalf were presented
""
1 The account of these negotiations is to be found in Thurloe, State
Papers, 1, 170-4. Charles Butler gives a short abstract of them, and
mentions that they had been preceded by similar negotiations between
the Roman Catholics and the Independent body. It is almost certain
that Sir Kenelm Digby, a leading Roman Catholic, expected to obtain
from Cromwell a full toleration for his religion, and that he freely
discussed the matter with him.-Dict. of National Biography, Sir
Kenelm Digby. See also a remarkable letter, dated March, 1656, from
Digby to Cromwell's Secretary, in which he professed his "passionate"
devotion to the "service, honour, and interests" of the Protector.-
Thurloe, State Papers, 4, 591.
2 Negotiations also took place during the protectorate between the
Irish Roman Catholics and Cromwell's Secretary. Edmund Reilly,
titular Archbishop of Armagh, was the principal agent in these trans-
actions. On one occasion, at a public dinner in London, he boasted that
he had never been a well-wisher of Charles or his brothers, and that to
the connivance of his party Cromwell owed his speedy conquest of Ireland.
He also issued orders to the clergy of Armagh to pray for the Protector's
prosperity. Shortly before the Restoration, the Spanish ambassador in
Holland wrote to Rome, that if Reilly did not make his escape he would
suffer death as a traitor, his practices with Thurloe and in Ireland being
well known.-Walsh, History of the Irish Remonstrance, 610; O'Connor,
Historical Address, 2, 172–190; Carte, Ormond, 2, 204.
410
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
1
to the House of Lords, and Colonel Tuke was allowed to
state their case at the bar of the house. In consequence of
these proceedings, a committee was appointed to examine
and report on those statutes which reached to the taking
away of life in affairs of religion, and the judges were
ordered to bring in a list of them. If the Roman Catholics
had manifested on this occasion ordinary discretion and
good sense, the appointment of this committee, the first
name on which was that of the Duke of York, would have
been the commencement of their complete relief. It was
known that the King was in favour of repealing those laws,
and during his exile he had often declared "that he would
do his best, if ever God restored him to his kingdom, that
those bloody laws might be repealed." The temper of the
peers was also favourable to their abolition, for Clarendon
informs us that there did not appear "one lord in the house
who seemed to be unwilling that those laws should be
repealed." The report was completed, and the lords
appointed a second committee to prepare a bill repealing
the following penal statutes or such parts of them as should
appear good to its members,-the fifth of Elizabeth, the
Acts which imposed death on seminary priests, or made those
receiving them guilty of felony, and also the clause in the
first of James I., c. 4, concerning putting former laws
against recusants, priests, and Jesuits, into execution. As
soon as this second committee was appointed, the Roman
Catholic peers and their friends were diligent in their
attendance for some days, and discussed the several Acts
from which they desired to be relieved. But on a sudden
their attendance relaxed, and the committee was discon-
tinued, no one showing any solicitude about it. The cause
¹ House of Lords' Journals, 11, 276, 286.
3
2 Clarendon, Life and Continuation of the History, 2, 107, Oxford,
3 Lords' Journal, 11, 310.
1827.
CHAP. VI
411
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
of this apathy was, that disputes and dissensions had broken
out in the body. Some meetings of a general assembly,
consisting of their principal lords and gentlemen, the
superiors of orders, and representatives of the secular clergy,
were held at Arundel House. The form of a subscrip-
tion was debated among them, and difficulties were started
respecting the oath which it was intended they should take
as a security for their fidelity to the King and for the peace
of the country. Some were of opinion that the oath should
contain a disclaimer of the Pope's temporal authority, others
objected to this.¹ A proposal was also made, that none but
secular priests, under a bishop and a settled form of govern-
ment, should be tolerated in England, and that all regulars,
particularly the Jesuits, should be forbidden the kingdom
under the severest penalties. There had long been grave
disputes and differences among the English Roman Catholics
respecting their internal government and the oath of alle-
giance; these were revived on this occasion, and the general
assembly was dissolved to meet no more.
2
¹ Clarendon says, that the Jesuits broke up the assembly by declaring
that Catholics could not deprive the Pope of his temporal authority.
Lingard remarks on this, "Clarendon as usual is incorrect," for, he
adds, the Jesuits since 1618 had been enjoined by their General, under
pain of damnation, not to teach the doctrine of the temporal power either
in word, writing, or print. Dr. Lingard should have known:—(1) that
Sanctarellus, a Jesuit, published his treatise upholding the temporal
power eight years after 1616, the true date of the injunction and not
1618; (2) that the injunction was revocable at the will of the General,
and that it must have been recalled, as the treatise of Sanctarellus was
published with the approbation and special license of Mutius Vitellescus,
General of the Jesuits, bearing date at Rome, May 25, 1624. In this
very reign, the Jesuits put forth a catechism teaching the unlawfulness
of the oath of allegiance, and issued a decree ordering absolution to be
refused to those who took the oath or taught it to be lawful; the decree
is dated Ghent, July 5th, 1681.—Throckmorton, First Letter to the
Catholic Clergy, 180. They also published in this reign three treatises
against it. See Stillingfleet's The Jesuits' Loyalty, 1677.
2 Clarendon, Life and Continuation, 2, 111; Berington's Panzani, 311.
&
412
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
The movement in England and the known partiality of
Charles encouraged the Irish Roman Catholic clergy to
petition the King for a mitigation of the laws which affected
them. They were advised by their friends to incorporate in
their petition a declaration of their sentiments respecting the
obedience due from them to the civil government. They
were especially recommended to avail themselves of the
opportunity to profess their unqualified allegiance to the
sovereign and their rejection of the deposing power, in order
to allay the suspicions raised against them by the proceedings
of the Papal nuncio and their adherence to him during the
rebellion of 1641. Some time was passed in discussing the
matter, and towards the end of 1661, the framing of the
petition was entrusted to Richard Belling, formerly secretary
to the Kilkenny Confederation. For the purpose of drawing
it up, Belling made use of the petition presented to parliament
by the English Roman Catholics about 1641 which has been
already referred to. From this document he extracted the
protestation of allegiance "word by word without any other
change but of the application to the King instead of the
Parliament, and of Ireland instead of England," and
inserted it in the Irish petition or Remonstrance as it came
to be called from its title." This Remonstrance acknowledged
the King to be the supreme lord and rightful sovereign of
Ireland; that the clergy were bound to obey him in all
civil and temporal affairs, and to pay him loyalty and
obedience notwithstanding any sentence or declaration of the
Pope; it disclaimed all foreign power, Papal or princely,
spiritual or temporal, that should pretend to free them from
this obligation, and declared that all princes, of what religion
soever they might be, were independent under God, and
1 Walsh, History of the Irish Remonstrance, p. 7.
2 The humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment, Protestation, and
Petition of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland.
CHAP. VI
413
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
that it was impious and against the Word of God to maintain
that any private subject might kill his prince, though of a
different religion.
112
During the remainder of the year 1661 and throughout
1662, the Remonstrance was discussed both in public and
private, and finally it was subscribed by seventy of the Irish
clergy, and by a hundred and sixty-four "of the chiefest
lay nobility, gentry, and proprietors." A copy of it was
sent to London, where many of the Irish nobility and gentry
were then assembled, the Act of Settlement being under
consideration. Several meetings were held by these laymen
in consultation with eminent members of the English Roman
Catholic nobility. Their English associates strongly advised
the Irish to sign the Remonstrance, and declared "that were
the case of the Irish theirs, they and all the rest of the
English nobility and gentry of the Roman communion
would willingly sign that Remonstrance in terminis, and
even sign it with their blood, were this necessary. After
many meetings and eight weeks' debates, the Remonstrance,
with a few trifling changes in its preamble and at its close,
to make it suitable to laymen, was adopted, and, having been
signed by ninety-seven Irish noblemen and gentlemen then
residing in London, was presented to the King, by whom it
was most graciously received. The effect of the presentation
was instantaneous. The Irish Roman Catholics were at
once allowed by the express directions of Charles to exercise
their religion in freedom and peace. "Is it not further,'
say eighteen Irish priests in their Expostulation to the
Dublin Synod in 1666, "as manifestly apparent how
graciously that instrument [the Remonstrance] after the
signature of it was received by his Majesty? how imme-
diately the persecution in this kingdom ceased by his
Majesty's express command. Nay, how ever since both
¹ Walsh, p. 2.
2 Ib. 697.
""
+
414
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
people and clergy of our communion have enjoyed the great
tranquillity and freedom in point of exercising our religion
and functions, which we have so gladly seen, and which we
so thankfully acknowledge to be still continued to us, yea in
a higher measure enjoyed by us at this present, than we
could almost have not long since either believed or hoped we
should live to see."
The Remonstrance was also approved by the English
Dean and Chapter, who represented the secular priests of
that country. In a letter, addressed to the Bishop of
Dromore, the Dean informed him that the Irish clergy had
done well in framing it. "To free the holy Catholic faith
on one side from obloquies and redeem yourselves from
calumnies, and on the other to relieve the laity under your
charge from heavy pressure, and further to open a door to
your liberty of religion, we must needs judge you have
performed the office of good pastors both in framing and
subscribing your allegiance to the prince; to hold forth to
the whole world your religion free and spotless, your alle-
giance built on a basis immoveable, and yourselves well
resolved subjects. For our parts, we would be glad to run
into those occasions even with the hazard of our lives or the
loss of our last drop of blood, to work out our freedom from
the severity of our penal laws; much more would we think it
happy to gain it with the renounce of an opinion which
justly brings a jealousy upon us from our prince and fellow-
subjects."
The Papal See, carrying out its fatal policy of main-
taining its fantastic claims to the deposing power and of
forbidding a protestation of allegiance to be made by Roman
¹ In 1666 eighteen priests addressed an Expostulatory Letter to the
Irish Synod exhorting its members to sign the Remonstrance. Of these,
fourteen were Franciscans, two Dominicans, and two secular priests.
2 Walsh, p. 55.
CHAP. VI
415
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
Catholics to a Protestant sovereign, at once interfered to
prevent the signature of the Remonstrance in Ireland.
Hieronymus de Vecchiis, the Papal nuncio at Brussels, to
whom the superintendence of the Irish clergy was entrusted,
wrote to several of them in 1662 against the Remonstrance,
and many copies of his letter were dispersed with much
diligence throughout the kingdom. "Your paternity hath
desired from me what hath been resolved at Rome concerning
the Declaration or Protestation beginning Your Majesty's
faithful subjects,' and ending 'prescribed by the law,"¹ pre-
sented to the most serene King of England and subscribed
by some Irish ecclesiastics. Wherefore I thought I should
very well satisfy your desires if I communicated to you what
hath been written thereupon by command of our most holy
Lord. To wit, that after diligent discussion in several
meetings of the most eminent cardinals and divines, that
protestation hath been found, like the returning Hydra, to
contain propositions agreeing with others heretofore con-
demned by the see apostolic, particularly by Paul V. of
happy memory by a constitution in form of a brief, and
lately in the year 1648 in a congregation purposely held to
that end by Innocent X. And hence it is, that the most holy
Lord hath thought no more necessary now but that this very
thing should be declared, and commanded us to testify unto
all this his mind, to the end it may appear publicly, that the
said protestation, and subscriptions added, have not only not
been approved by his Holiness, but not as much as permitted
or even by connivance tolerated: Yea, that he hath grie-
vously resented, that by the example of ecclesiastics the
secular nobles of the foresaid kingdom of Ireland have been
drawn into the same error, whose protestation and subscrip-
tions he doth in like manner condemn according to the above
form, and this to deliver the consciences of Catholics from
1 The first and last words of the Remonstrance.
416
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
;
In
the fraud and error wherewith they are circumvented."¹
another letter of the same year the nuncio writes: "The
Formulary of your profession was brought to Rome, maturely
there discussed, and utterly disallowed. His Holiness writes
it to displease himself most grievously, to be in itself
intolerable, and such as cannot in any manner be allowed.
And his pleasure is that this be made known to all. For it
agrees with that profession which heretofore hath so much
grieved and was condemned by Pope Paul V. and lately
again by Innocent X. . . . His Holiness very exceedingly
both resents and admires that from you, priests and regular
persons, the very first offspring should proceed whence also
the lay nobility and gentry have been induced to this
profession." About the same time, Cardinal Barberini wrote,
in the name of the whole congregation de propaganda fide,
to the noblemen of Ireland, condemning the Remonstrance
as a violation of faith. (6
They are made masters of error
who give themselves for disciples of truth, and to show their
fidelity to the King they destroy faith. In which procedure
of theirs, that is chiefly to be admired, that they published a
protestation in such terms whereby they may be said to have
violated the Catholic faith and gained nothing which they
might not have obtained, that very faith remaining entire.
What excuse can they pretend, who, to testify their allegiance
to their prince, have subscribed their names to some pro-
positions condemned heretofore by the apostolic see?
What shame is it to the ecclesiastical order to behold them
the leaders into error by whom others should have been
instructed.
Wherefore such as have kept themselves
free from subscriptions or from this kind of infectious
disease, let them by all means beware that they be not
drawn into the pit by their blind leaders."
As the prospect was held out to the Roman Catholics of
¹ Walsh, p. 16.
2 Ib. 514.
3 lb. 17.
CHAP. VI
417
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
Ireland of obtaining relief from the penal laws, it became
desirable to know whether the Remonstrance represented the
real opinions of their clergy on the question of allegiance to
the State. If it did not, all further discussion was at an end,
and the Government could only come to the conclusion that
the Roman Catholic clergy, and the laity, over whom they
exercised a dominant influence, were unfitted to be admitted
into the constitution. To give an opportunity for a free and
public debate on the subject of civil obedience, the Duke of
Ormond, then Lieutenant of Ireland, allowed a national
synod of that persuasion to be convened in Dublin. To the
meeting of this synod, the Court of Rome and its ministers
offered every opposition. In April, 1666, Cardinal Barberini
wrote to the "clergy and Catholics of Ireland": "Four
years now are almost passed since our most holy Lord, out of
his love to you, hath by my letters admonished you of
dangers to your salvation which are impending from false
brethren. And when he mightily desired to hear news of
the snare broken and you delivered, behold the sad tidings
come of your having agreed amongst yourselves that a
congregation shall be held at Dublin on the third of the Ides
of June for deliberating on the point of subscribing that
protestation, which, making show of the title of. fidelity,
asserts things contrary to the Catholic faith. . . . To those,
who having passed the bounds of modesty, after so many
vain endeavours, peradventure glory to have had this last
success of the designed assembly, his Holiness doth threaten
sore divine vengeance, if they turning from wicked thoughts
do not abstain from such enterprises." In May of the
same year, Rospigliosi, then the Papal nuncio at Brussels,
wrote to the "Bishops and clergy of Ireland" that their
nation was in danger of contaminating the Catholic faith.
“To that indeed tends the oath to the subscribing of which
1 Ib. 633.
2 E
418
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
Walsh and Caron by so many subtle arts labour to
persuade the churchmen, and so make them instruments
and causes of the damnation of others. That is the end for
which they use such great endeavours to promote the Dublin
assembly. . . . And if Walsh and Caron do attempt any-
thing besides, it looks not towards strengthening the fidelity
of the people to their prince, but towards exterminating the
purity of the Catholic religion whereof the foresaid oath is
destructive, and consequently towards forcing the faithful
Irish to deplorable and ever to be lamented ruin.”
""
91
The synod met on the 11th of June, 1666, and continued
its sittings till the 25th of the same month. Another
instance of what Dr. Holden calls the "hard and unfatherly
dealing" of the Papal See, and of the "superfluous and
unjust obsequiousness of its adherents was manifested.
The synod, overawed by the ascendency of Rome even in
purely civil matters, refused to sign the Remonstrance, and
drew up, on the 16th of June, what they called "a Remon-
strance and Protestation of their loyalty." This instrument
contained no denial of the deposing power, nor any mention
of the Pope, and when read by the light of the schoolmen's
mode of interpretation, and of the rule of the canonists that
the Pope is not referred to in any document in which he is
not named, was evasive and offered no guarantee of their
allegiance. The Duke of Ormond refused to receive any
protestation which did not include an explicit disclaimer of
the deposing power, and the synod was dissolved.
2
Before the synod met, and the Remonstrance had been
submitted to it for consideration, the Papal nuncio at Brussels
prevailed on the Theological Faculty of Louvain to condemn
1 Ib. 633.
2 Our lawyers have a similar rule, that the sovereign is not bound
by an Act of Parliament unless specially named in it.
3 Walsh in his second treatise shows how defective and evasive the
Protestation of the synod was.
CHAP. VI
419
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
it. Their condemnation was published in 1662, and ran as
follows: "Forasmuch as the aforesaid Form involves a
promise of a more ample obedience than secular princes can
exact from their Catholic subjects, or their subjects can make
unto them; and that, moreover, it contains some things.
repugnant to the sincere profession of the Catholic religion,
therefore it must be held to be wholly unlawful and
detestable."1 It was against this censure that Redmond
Caron, a pious and learned Franciscan, wrote his celebrated
Remonstrantia Hibernorum contra Lovanenses, which appeared
in 1665. It is amusing to contrast this judgment of the
Louvain Theological Faculty with the later opinion of that
body in 1788, when interrogated by the English Roman
Catholics respecting the nature of the allegiance due by them
to their government, and also respecting the power claimed
by the Popes of absolving subjects from their obedience :
"No man, nor any assembly of men, however eminent in
dignity or power, not even the whole body of the Catholic
Church, though assembled in General Council can, upon any
ground or pretence whatsoever, weaken the bond of union
between the sovereign and the people; still less can they
absolve or free the subjects from their oath of allegiance.
972
Father Walsh asserted, in 1673, that the Roman Catholic
1 "Quia tamen supradicta formula [Hibernorum] complectitur
amplioris obedientiæ promissionem quam possent Principes sæculares a
subditis suis sæcularibus exigere, aut subditi ipsis præstare; et nonnulla
insuper continet sinceræ professioni Catholicæ Religionis repugnantia ;
idcirco pro illicita prorsus ac detestabili habenda est. Quapropter
quicunque præfatam professionis formulam nondum signarunt, cohibere
se a signatura obligantur sub Sacrilegii reatu: Quicunque autem
signarunt, refigere signaturas suas obstringuntur sub consimili reatu
incauta namque definitio salubriter dissolvenda est, nec ea dissolutio
reputanda est prævaricatio, sed temeritatis emendatio."-Caron, Remon-
strantia Hibernorum, c. 5, s. 1.
2 Answer of the University of Louvain to Questions submitted to it
by the Roman Catholics of England.-Butler, English Catholics, 1,
Appendix.
2 E 2
420
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
clergy of Ireland, by their refusal to sign the Remonstrance,
lost "a fair opportunity of being not only eased of all their
pressure from the penal laws, but rendered as happy as they
could in reason desire or even wish."1 This statement of
Walsh does not point out the parties who really brought
about the failure. The Irish clergy and laity desired to
make a profession of their obedience and loyalty, but they
were restrained by the influence of Rome, which forbade a
reconciliation between them and their government. What
excuse can be offered for the abuses of ecclesiastical authority
of which the Roman Pontiffs were guilty, both in England
and Ireland? Where was the spirit of charity and wisdom
to be looked for, if not in the Councils of the Popes, who
were at the same time Kings and Spiritual Pastors, and had
their agents and overseers in every corner of Europe to report
on the necessities and afflictions of their flocks?
Yet, those
Pontiffs, forgetting the example of their saintly predecessor,
who subordinated his own opinion to the duty of obeying his
secular prince, interfered with the civil duties of the subject,
and entailed innumerable evils on their people in both
countries. In England, successive Popes, under the false
pretence that the oath of allegiance contained many things
contrary to faith and salvation, harassed the consciences of
their adherents, closed the gates of the constitution against
them, and involved them and their posterity in misery for
many generations. By making their faith the vehicle of
treasonable tenets, they rendered its toleration inconsistent
with the safety of the State, and sacrificed their Church to
the maintenance of their temporal claims. In Ireland the
same policy was pursued. Though the Papal See was per-
fectly aware that the Remonstrance was unexceptionable,
and did not contain one word referring to faith or morals,"
¹ Bishop Kennet's Register, Eccles. and Civil, 484.
2
2 "The instrument [the Remonstrance] is now acknowledged by
CHAP. VI
421
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
every art and every misrepresentation were made use of to
prevent its signature. It was denounced as a violation of
the Catholic faith, as destructive to religion, as dangerous to
salvation, and all the priests who signed it were persecuted
by monitories, citations, exclusion from promotion, and even
by excommunications. The consciences of the faithful were
alarmed, and the clergy were terrorized from giving such a
guarantee of their loyalty as would have secured relief to
themselves and to the laity. It is impossible to survey the
unrighteous conduct of the Popes to the sovereigns of Eng-
land from the commencement of the reign of Elizabeth, and
particularly their proceedings in the matter of the English
oath of allegiance and the Irish Remonstrance, without
being reminded of the saying of a statesman, who observed
character with a discriminating eye,-that of all men who
can read and write, ecclesiastics understand the least, and
take the worst measure of human affairs. Once they depart
from the sanctuary, and usurp the direction of civil duties
outside the pale of their spiritual charge, Providence appears
to strike them with a darkness more than Egyptian.
2
During the latter portion of the short and unhappy reign
of James II. the intercourse between the courts of England
and Rome was open and avowed. Immediately after his
accession, the King sent as his agent to Rome John Caryll,
who assumed no public character and avoided all display.
But this modest representation did not satisfy the extreme
party about James, and in December, 1686, Lord Castlemaine
Catholics to be perfectly free from objection."-Throckmorton, First
Letter, 155.
1“We are,” says Walsh, "for no other crime than this steady
loyalty, labouring now above twenty years under a sentence of excom-
munication which deprives us of the sacraments, of our characters, of
our promotion in the Church, of all our temporalities, of all benefits of
the Christian religion during life and of Christian burial after death.”-
Causa Vales., quoted by O'Conor, Hist. Address; 1,
2 Lord Clarendon.
112.
$
422
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
was despatched on a splendid embassy to the Pope. A more
unfortunate choice could not have been made. Castlemaine
was only known as the husband of a shameless woman, who
had been one of the late King's mistresses, and had been
created Duchess of Cleveland. To send such a man as
ambassador to the Papal Court was something very like an
affront to the Pontiff. Innocent XI. was well aware of the
indiscreet zeal of the King, and received Castlemaine with
the utmost coldness. Subsequently, the Pope complained to
James of the indecent vehemence of a memorial presented to
him by the ambassador. Castlemaine was so dissatisfied
with his position at Rome that he threatened to leave.
Thereupon he was politely dismissed by Innocent with the
advice not to travel in the heat of the day. Upon the return
of Castlemaine, Lord Thomas Howard was sent in his place,
and remained in Rome until shortly before the revolution.2
In return for the mission of Caryll, Monsignor d'Adda, a
sensible and moderate ecclesiastic, had arrived in England in
November, 1685, with the powers of a Papal nuncio, but
without any official character. Having been appointed
Archbishop of Amasia in 1687, James insisted on the
ceremony of his consecration being performed in the chapel
of St. James's Palace. In July of the same year, a public
and solemn reception was accorded to the nuncio at Windsor,
and a procession took place in his honour in which he
appeared in one of the royal carriages robed in his ecclesias-
tical dress.
Before James came to the throne, he had experienced a
remarkable change in public opinion in favour of himself.
At one time he was the most detested man in England. The
¹ Dodd, Church History, 3, 511.
2 Lord Thomas Howard was appointed, in 1688, Lord Lieutenant of
the West Riding of Yorkshire in the place of Lord Burlington, who had
resigned his commission.—Reresby's Memoirs, 391, 404.
CHAP. VI
423
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
well-founded belief that he and his brother were secretly
conspiring with Louis XIV. against the constitution and the
Church of the country, had driven the English people into
the frenzy of the Popish plot, and had suggested the bold and
premature expedient of excluding James from the throne.
But the folly and extravagance of the Whig party gave birth
to a reaction in favour of the court and, in particular, of
the prince. The countenance which that party lent to the
succession of the Duke of Monmouth, the illegal violence of
the House of Commons in 1680 and 1681, the schemes of
insurrection projected in 1682, and the Rye House conspiracy,
disgusted the nation, in whose memory the troubles of the
great civil war were still fresh. The old feeling respecting
the sacredness of the hereditary right revived, and James
was with general approbation restored to the office of Lord
High Admiral which he had resigned on the passing of the
Test Act.¹
At his accession James was undoubtedly popular.²
Strange to say, no alarm was felt on account of his religion.
His steady adherence to it under many difficulties and temp-
tations appears even to have gained the respect and confidence
of the nation. He was regarded as pre-eminently a man of
sincerity, whose word was his bond. A few hours after the
death of his brother he addressed the Council in a short and
unprepared speech. "I know," said he, "the principles of
the Church of England are for monarchy, and the members
of it have showed themselves good and loyal subjects; there-
fore I shall always take care to defend and support it." The
words were caught up, and ran like fire through town and
country. "We have now for our Church the word of a King
¹ Lingard, quoting Evelyn: "Every one was glad of this change, those
in the late commission being utterly ignorant of their duty, to the great
damage of the navy."
2 Fox, Mackintosh, Hallam, &c. testify to this.
424
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
and a word never broken," said a Protestant preacher,¹ and
the promise was regarded as a greater security than any laws.
could afford.2
The first and only Parliament of James's reign met on
the 19th of May, 1685, three months after his accession.
The King in his opening speech renewed the engagement he
had made to his Council. "What I said to my privy council
at my first coming there, I am desirous to renew to you,
wherein I fully declare my opinion concerning the principles
of the Church of England, whose members have showed
themselves so eminently loyal in the worst of times in
defence of my father and support of my brother of blessed
memory, that I will always take care to defend and support
it. I will make it my endeavour to preserve the Government
both in Church and State as it is now by law established."
The Parliament was perfectly satisfied, and granted the King
a permanent revenue of two millions, though a month before
its meeting James had discharged from prison some thousands
of Roman Catholics who were confined for refusing the oaths
of supremacy and allegiance. Nor was this the only example
of the perfect trust reposed in the King. The House of
Commons had resolved itself into a grand committee of
religion in order to provide for the security of the Established
Church. On the 27th of May two resolutions of this Committee
were reported to the House: the first expressed attachment
to the Church; the second called upon the King to execute
the laws against all "dissenters whatsoever." A few days
later, the decision of the Committee was unanimously
reversed, and it was resolved "that this House doth acquiesce,
¹ Dr. Sharp, afterwards Archbishop of York. He was the first of the
clergy who fell under the displeasure of the King.-Neal, History of the
Puritans, 5, 1, note.
2 Burnet, History of his own Times, 620.
3 Parliamentary History, 4, 1351.
►
CHAP. VI
425
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
entirely rely, and rest wholly satisfied, in His Majesty's
gracious word and repeated declaration to support and
defend the religion of the Church of England, as it is
now by law established, which is dearer to us than our
lives." The parliament was prorogued on the 2nd of July,
in consequence of Monmouth's invasion.
The two objects in favour of his own communion which
James had in view were, the repeal of the penal laws and
the removal of religious tests as qualifications for office.
These two objects have been confounded in the histories of
this reign, but they ought to be kept perfectly distinct, as
they were by the King and his contemporaries. The first
was feasible; the attempt to repeal the Test Act was
altogether premature. That Act was regarded as the bul-
wark of the Established Church, and it was felt to be
especially necessary during the reign of a Roman Catholic
King to prevent him filling all the offices of the State with
members of his own religion. There is not the slightest
reason to doubt that, with patience and wisdom, James
would have succeeded in obtaining a repeal of the penal
laws. The Pope and his nuncio were of opinion that he
should aim at the abolition of these laws and leave the tests
alone for the present. The moderate Roman Catholics were
also in favour of this policy, but James was hurried on by
the counsels of the small cabal about him, and by his own
headstrong rashness. To spread his religion and to tempt
converts to his own communion with the sweets of office was
his object, rather than to free that body from the laws under
which it laboured. He told the French ambassador that the
admissibility to office would make more converts than the
right of celebrating Mass in public. He, therefore, directed
his efforts principally to obtain a repeal of the tests, and
when he found that this was impossible, he had recourse to
dispensations both special and general. If James had kept
426
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
!
his promise to protect the national Church—that is, as Bos-
suet puts it, if he had maintained the existing laws, and, as
King, executed them¹-the Roman Catholics would have
obtained complete toleration, and that toleration would have
led, at no very distant time, to their admission to office.
Penal statutes would have gone first, those imposing civil
disabilities would have followed. With a King, who was
the chief Roman Catholic in the realm, performing the
duties of the highest office to the satisfaction of his subjects,
it would have been paradoxical to exclude from minor
employments those who were of that King's religion.
The second and last session of Parliament began on the
9th of November, 1685, and lasted only eleven days. A
great change in public opinion had taken place since the
prorogation in July. Instead of confidence in the King,
the Houses, particularly the Commons, manifested distrust
and a spirit of suspicion. This feeling was not caused by
the conduct of James during the recess, though it was
greatly increased by his declaration at the opening of the
session that he would not dismiss the unqualified officers
from the army. It was the result of an event which had
taken place abroad. Louis XIV. had often promised to
maintain the privileges of his reformed subjects, yet, on
the 17th of October in this year, he formally revoked
the great charter which, though too often violated,
was still a protection to the Protestants of France, and
delivered up a peaceable and industrious community to
the barbarities of a military execution. The effect on
English opinion was immediate. The old fears of perse-
cution were revived, and men asked what security was
there that a similar policy would not be adopted in Eng-
¹ Bossuet was of opinion that it was the duty of James "to protect
and defend the Church of England as by law established."—Mazure,
La Revolution de 1688, 3, Appendix.
CHAP. VI
j
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
427
land. James had increased, and was steadily increasing,
the army, and explicitly declared to parliament that he
would retain its Roman Catholic officers, in violation of the
law.¹ From this time commenced that general discontent
which ended in the Revolution. Yet, in spite of the distrust
with which the King began to be regarded, he might still
have obtained a repeal of the penal laws. In 1687, Stewart,
a Scotch lawyer, was authorized by James to write to Fagel,
the Grand Pensionary of Holland, to gain the concurrence
of the Prince and Princess of Orange to the abolition of the
penal laws and of the tests. After some delay an answer
was sent, in which the Pensionary declared that the Prince
and Princess were ready to concur in granting a full liberty
of conscience, and in repealing the penal laws, "provided
always that those laws remain still in their full vigour, by
which the Roman Catholics are shut out of both Houses of
Parliament, and out of all employments, ecclesiastical,
civil, and military." The King ordered Stewart to reply
that he would have all or nothing. It is clear that with the
support of the Prince of Orange, who was the natural head
of the English Opposition, and to whom the eyes of all were
then directed, James might easily have effected the repeal of
the penal laws. Though he was implored by the lay Roman
Catholics to accept the offer,³ and thus make them easy and
secure for the future, he neglected the opportunity, and left
them exposed to the severity of those laws.
This is not the place to recall the constitutional mistakes
1 "Let no man take exception that there are some officers in the
army not qualified according to the late Test for their employments.
I will deal plainly with you that, after having had the benefit of their
service in such a time of need and danger, I will neither expose them to
disgrace nor myself to the want of them, if there should be another
rebellion to make them necessary to me.”—Parl. Hist. 4, 1371.
2 State Tracts, 2, 334, where Fagel's answer is given in full.
3 Burnet, History of the Reign of James II. 246, Oxford, 1852.
428
CHAP. VI
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I
of a King who seemed to be bent on his own destruction.
It is only requisite to point out the fatal effects of James's
proceedings on the hopes of a communion which he might so
easily have benefited. A great experiment, as it were, was
made by the English people in the case of the most prominent
representative of that communion as to his trustworthiness,
and in the trial he was found wanting. A Roman Catholic
prince was saved from banishment and exclusion from the
throne by the Church of England. On his accession, he ac-
knowledged again and again the debt which he owed to that
Church, and swore at his coronation to defend and maintain its
rights and privileges. By the support of the same Church
he was rendered the most powerful of English sovereigns
since the reign of Elizabeth. If ever a man was bound to
protect and support the English Church, James was that
man. If he was false to his promises, what member of his
faith could be expected to be true? Yet, forgetful of the
ties of gratitude and honour, he attacked the great institution
to which his very existence as a King was due, and broke
engagements which he ought to have considered inviolable.
By his faithlessness and violence he strengthened every
prejudice and confirmed every suspicion against the members
of his religion. "There was then no doubt," so men
reasoned, "that to Roman Catholics nothing was sacred but
their own Church. Every rule of morality might be violated,
every claim of honour might be neglected, for its advance-
ment. No faith was to be kept with heretics, nor were oaths
and promises made to them to be observed. A persecution,
similar to that now raging in France, awaits us." A certain
conviction that Roman Catholics held the anti-social tenets
attributed to them, and that they could not be trusted in
any of the relations of life, was the result of James's
treachery, and this conviction delayed for more than a
hundred years the relief of that unfortunate body, which
+
CHAP. V
429
TO THE REVOLUTION OF 1688
during that further period continued to expiate its own
political errors and the sins and transgressions of its eccle-
siastical and secular leaders.
A few words may be added here respecting the sentiments
with which the Roman Catholics regarded the new govern-
ment established by the Revolution. With their usual ill-
luck or under bad guidance they refused to accede to it, and
continued to look upon the Stuarts as their legitimate
sovereigns. The disputes among them concerning the oath
of allegiance ceased, for why dispute about oaths, when the
right of him who demanded them was denied? Though the
oath of allegiance and that of supremacy were both altered,¹
the former being cleared of all objectionable expressions,
and the latter from the affirmative clause respecting the
supreme governorship in all spiritual and ecclesiastical
causes, they declined to take these tests of obedience to the
successors of James, and, like the Protestant non-jurors,
maintained their devotion to the abdicated family. Like
them, too, they became a branch of the great and dangerous
party of the Jacobites and were necessarily discountenanced
and repressed. At length, when time had shown them the
impossibility of a Stuart restoration, they transferred their
affections to the line of Brunswick. In 1778, they presented
an address to George III. in which they acknowledged his
title to the crown, and declared that "their dissent from the
1 The new oath of allegiance was:-"I do sincerely promise and
swear, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties
King William and Queen Mary." That of supremacy was:—"I do
swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and
heretical, that damnable doctrine and position that princes excommuni-
cated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome,
may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever.
And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or
potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority,
pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this
realm."
430
FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I., ETC. CHAP. VI
legal establishment¹ was purely conscientious, and that they
held no opinions adverse to his Majesty's government or
repugnant to the duties of good citizens." The mists of
prejudice and apprehension disappeared, and within fifty
years,—a short time to allay the fears and suspicions of a
nation,-they were admitted into the constitution.
1 Upon this expression, Sir John Throckmorton remarks, “After this
assertion by which the whole body of Catholics declare themselves
Dissenters from the establishment, it is wonderful that any offence
should have been taken at the appellation of Catholic dissenters. After
all, this is no new appellation; our ancestors were called Catholic
dissenters in the reign of James II. in publications which were printed
by authority. It gave no offence at the time."-First Letter, 195.
THE END.
Printed by PONSONBY AND WELDRICK, Dublin.
247
это
336
'
A
A CATALOGUE OF WORKS
IN
GENERAL LITERATURE
PUBLISHED BY
MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
t
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.
:
!
•
MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
Issue the undermentioned Lists of their Publications, which may be had post free on
application:-
I. MONTHLY LIST OF NEW WORKS AND
NEW EDITIONS.
2. QUARTERLY LIST OF ANNOUNCE-
MENTS AND NEW WORKS.
3. NOTES ON BOOKS; BEING AN ANALYSIS
OF THE WORKS PUBLISHED DURING
EACH QUARTER.
4. CATALOGUE OF SCIENTIFIC WORKs.
•5. CATALOGUE OF MEDICAL AND SURGICAL
WORKS.
6. CATALOGUE OF SCHOOL BOOKS AND
EDUCATIONAL WORKS.
7. CATALOGUE OF Books FOR ELE-
MENTARY SCHOOLS AND PUPIL
TEACHERS.
8. CATALOGUE OF THEOLOGICAL WORKS
BY DIVINEs and Members of tHE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
/
9. CATALOGUE OF WORKS IN GENERAL
LITERATURE.
1
ABBEY and OVERTON.-The Eng- | ACLAND and RANSOME.-AHand-
lish Church in the Eighteenth
Century. By CHARLES J. ABBEY
and JOHN H. OVERTON. Cr. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
ABBOTT (Evelyn, M.A., LL.D.)—
WORKS BY.
A Skeleton Outline of Greek
History. Chronologically Ar-
ranged. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
A History of Greece.
Part I. From the Earliest Times to the
Ionian Revolt. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Part II.-500-445 B.C. ・ 10s. 6d.
Hellenica. A Collection of Essays
- on Greek Poetry, Philosophy, History,
and Religion. Edited by EVELYN Abbott,
M.A., LL.D. 8vo. 16s.
book in Outline of the Politi-
cal History of England to
1890. Chronologically Arranged.
By A. H. DYKE ACLAND, M.P., and
CYRIL RANSOME, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.
ACTON.-Modern Cookery. By
With 150 Woodcuts.
ELIZA ACTON.
Fcp. 8vo. 4s. 6d.
A. K. H. B.—WORKS BY THE VERY
REVEREND A. K. H. BOYD, D.D.
Twenty-five Years of
1865-1890. 2 vols. 8vo.
[Ready]. Vol. II.
Autumn Holidays of a
St. Andrews.
Vol. I. 8vo. 12s.
[In Preparation.
Country Parson.
3s. 6d.
Changed Aspects of Unchanged Truths.
3s. 6d.
Commonplace Philosopher. 35. 6d.
[Continued on next page.
↑
+
2
-
A CATALOGUE of books in geNERAL LITERATURE
OF
A.K.H.B.—THE ESSAYS AND CON-
TRIBUTIONS OF-continued.
Counsel and Comfort from a City Pulpit.
3s. 6d.
Critical Essays of a Country Parson. 3s.6d.
East Coast Days and Memories. 3s. 6d.
Graver Thoughts of a Country Parson.
Three Series. 3s. 6d. each.
Landscapes, Churches, and Moralities.
3s. 6d.
Leisure Hours in Town.
35 6d.
Lessons of Middle Age. 3s. 6d.
Our Little Life. Two Series. 35. 6d. each.
Our Homely Comedy; and Tragedy. 3s.6d.
Present Day Thoughts. 3s. 6d.
Recreations of a Country Parson. Three
Series. 3s. 6d. each. Also ist series, 6d.
Seaside Musings. 35. 6d.
Sunday Afternoons in the Parish Church
of a Scottish University City. 3s. 6d.
'To Meet the Day' through the Christian
year being a Text of Scripture, with an
Original Meditation and a Short Selection
in Verse for Every Day. 4s. 6d.
AMOS.-A Primer of the English
Constitution and Government.
By SHELDON AMOS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Annual Register (The). A Review
of Public Events at Home and Abroad,
for the year 1891. 8vo. 18s.
*
ARMSTRONG (G. F. Savage-)———
WORKS BY.
Poems: Lyrical and Dramatic. Fcp.
8vo. 6s.
King Saul. (The Tragedy of Israel,
Part I.) Fcp. 8vo. 5s.
King David. (The Tragedy of
Israel, Part II.) Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
King Solomon. (The Tragedy of
Israel, Part III.) Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
Ugone: A Tragedy. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
A Garland from Greece; Poems.
Fcp. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Stories of Wicklow; Poems.
Fcp. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Mephistopheles in Broadcloth:
a Satire. Fcp. 8vo. 4s.
One in the Infinite; a Poem.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
The Life and Letters of Edmund
J. Armstrong. Fcp. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
ARMSTRONG (E. J.)— WORks by.
Poetical Works. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.
Essays and Sketches. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.
ARMSTRONG. Elizabeth Far-
nese: the Termagant of Spain.
By EDWARD ARMSTRONG, Queen's Col-
lege, Oxford. 8vo. 16s.
** Volumes of the Annual Register' for the ARNOLD (Sir Edwin, K.C.I.E.)—
years 1863-1890 can still be had.
ANSTEY (F.)— WORKS BY.
The Black Poodle, and other
Stories. Crown 8vo. 2s. bds.; 2s. 6d. cl.
Voces Populi. Reprinted from
Punch. Ist Series.
Ist Series. With 20 Illustrations
by J. BERNARD PARTRIDGE. Fcp. 4to. 5s.
2nd Series.
[In the Press.
The Travelling Companions.
Reprinted from Punch. With Illustrations
by J. BERNARD PARTRIDGE. Post 4to. 5s.
ARISTOTLE. THE Works of.
The Politics: G. Bekker's Greek
Text of Books I. III. IV. (VII.), with an
English Translation by W. E. BOLLAND,
M.A.; and short Introductory Essays by
A. LANG, M. A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
WORKS BY.
A Poem.
The Light of the World; or,
the Great Consummation.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. net.
Seas and Lands. Reprinted letters
from the Daily Telegraph'. With
71 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Potiphar's Wife, and other Poems.
Crown 8vo. 5s. net.
ARNOLD (Dr. T.)-WORKS by.
Introductory Lectures on Mo-
dern History. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
MiscellaneousWorks. 8vo. 7s.6d.
ASHLEY.—English Economic His-
tory and Theory. By W. J.
ASHLEY, M.A. Part I. The Middle
Ages. 5s.
The Politics: Introductory Essays. Atelier (The) du Lys; or, An Art
By ANDREW LANG. (From Bolland and
Lang's 'Politics'.) Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
The Ethics: Greek Text, Illustrated
with Essays and Notes. By Sir ALEXAN-
DER GRANT, Bart. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s.
The Nicomachean Ethics: Newly
Translated into English. By ROBERT
WILLIAMS. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Student in the Reign of Terror. By the
Author of Mademoiselle Mori'. Crown
8vo. 2s. 6d.
BY THE SAme Author.
Mademoiselle Mori: a Tale of
Modern Rome. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
That Child. Illustrated by GORDON
BROWNE. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
[Continued on next page.
质
​PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
Atelier (The) du Lys-WORKS BY | The BADMINTON LIBRARY-
THE AUTHOR OF-continued.
Under a Cloud. Cr. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
The Fiddler of Lugau.
Illustrations by W. RALSTON.
8vo. 2s. 6d.
With
Crown
A Child of the Revolution.
With Illustrations by C. J. STANILAND.
Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
Hester's Venture: a Novel. Cr.
8vo. 2s. 6d.
In the Olden Time: a Tale of the
Peasant War in Germany. Cr. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
The Younger Sister: a Tale.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
BACON.
OF.
THE WORKS AND LIFE
Complete Works. Edited by R.
L. ELLIS, J. SPEDDING, and D. D.
HEATH. 7 vols. 8vo. £3 13s. 6d.
Letters and Life, including all
his Occasional Works. Edited
by J. SPEDDING. 7 vols. 8vo. £4 45.
The Essays; with Annotations.
By RICHARD WHATELY, D.D., 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
The Essays; with Introduction,
Notes, and Index. By E. A. ABBOTT,
D.D. 2 vols. fcp. 8vo. price 6s. Text
and Index only, without Introduction.
and Notes, in 1 vol. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
The BADMINTON LIBRARY,
Edited by the DUKE OF BEAUFORT, K.G.,
assisted by ALFRED E. T. WATSON.
Hunting. By the DUKE OF BEAU-
-FORT, K.G., and MOWBRAY MORRIS.
With 53 Illus. by J. Sturgess, J. Charlton,
and A. M. Biddulph. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Fishing. By H. CHOLMONDELEY-
PENNELL.
Vol. I. Salmon, Trout, and Grayling.
With 158 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Vol. II. Pike and other Coarse Fish.
With 132 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Racing and Steeplechasing. By
the EARL OF SUFFOLK AND BERKSHIRE,
W. G. CRAVEN, &c. With 56 Illustra-
tions by J. Sturgess. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Shooting. By Lord WalsingHAM
and Sir RALPH PAYNE-GALLWEY, Bart.
Vol. I. Field and Covert. With 105
Illustrations. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Vol. II.
trations.
Moor and Marsh. With 65 Illus-
Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Cycling. BY VISCOUNT BURY
(Earl of Albemarle), K.C.M.G., and G.
LACY HILLIER. With 19 Plates and 70
Woodcuts, &c., by Viscount Bury, Joseph
Pennell, &c. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
continued.
Athletics and Football.
3
By
MONTAGUE SHEARMAN. With 6 full-
page Illustrations and 45 Woodcuts, &c., by
Stanley Berkeley, and from Photographs
by G. Mitchell. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Boating. By W. B. WOODGATE.
With 10 full-page Illustrations and 39 wood-
cuts, &c., in the Text. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Cricket. By A. G. STEEL and the
Hon. R. H. LYTTELTON, With II full-page
Illustrations and 52 Woodcuts, &c., in the
Text, by Lucien Davis. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Driving. By the DUKE OF BEAU-
FORT. With II Plates and 54 Woodcuts,
&c., by J. Sturgess and G. D. Giles.
Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Fencing, Boxing, and Wrest-
ling. By WALTER H. POLLOCK,
ling.
F. C. GROVE, C. PREVOST, E. B. MI-
CHELL, and WALTER ARMSTRONG. With
18 Plates and 24 Woodcuts, &c. Crown
8vo. Ios. 6d.
Golf. By HORACE HUTCHINSON, the
Rt. Hon. A. J. BALFOUR, M.P., Andrew
LANG, Sir W. G. SIMPSON, Bart., &c.
With 19 Plates and 69 Woodcuts, &c.
Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
✔
Tennis, Lawn Tennis, Rackets,
and Fives. By J. M. and C. G. -
HEATHCOTE, E. O. PLEYDELL-BOU-
VERIF, and A. C. AINGER. With 12
Plates and 67 Woodcuts, &c.
8vo. 10s. 6d.
Crown
Riding and Polo. By Captain
ROBERT WEIR, Riding Master, R.H.G.,
and J. MORAY BROWN, the DUKE OF
BEAUFORT, K.G., the EARL of SUFFOLK
and BERKSHIRE, &c. With 18 Plates and
41 Woodcuts, &c. Crown 8vo. Ios. 6d.
Skating, Curling, Tobogganing,
and other Ice Sports. By J. M.
HEATHCOTE, C. G. TEBBUTT, T. MAX-
WELL WITHAM, the Rev. JOHN KERR,
ORMOND HAKE, and Colonel BUCK.
With 12 Plates and 272 Woodcuts. Cr.
8vo. 10s. 6d.
Mountaineering. By C. T. Dent,
Sir F. POLLOCK, Bart., W. M. CONWAY,
Douglas FRESHFIELD, C. E. MATHEWS,
C. PILKINGTON, and other Writers.
With Illustrations by H. G. WILLINK.
BAGEHOT (Walter).—WORKS BY.
Biographical Studies. 8vo. 125.
Economic Studies. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Literary Studies. 2 vols. 8vo. 28s.
The Postulates of English Po-
litical Economy. Cr. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
i
!
¡ .
$
A CATALOGUE of books in GENERAL LITERATURE
BAGWELL.-Ireland under the
Tudors. By RICHARD BAG-
WELL. (3 vols.) Vols. I. and II.
From the first invasion of the Northmen
to the year 1578. 8vo. 32s.. Vol. III.
1578-1603. 8vo. 18s.
BAIN (Alexander).—WORKS BY.
Mental and Moral Science. Cr.
8vo. 10s. 6d.
Senses and the Intellect. 8vo. 15s.
Emotions and the Will. 8vo. 15s.
Logic, Deductive, and Inductive.
PART I., 45. PART II., 6s. 6d.
Practical Essays. Cr. 8vo. 25.
BAKER (Sir S. W.).—WORKS BY.
Eight Years in Ceylon. With 6
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
The Rifle and the Hound in Cey-
lon. 6 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
BALDWIN.-Where Town and
Country Meet; a Novel. By Mrs.
·
ALFRED BALDWIN. Crown 8vo. 6s.
BALL (The Rt. Hon. J. T.).—WORKS.
The Reformed Church of Ire-
}
land. (1537-1889). 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Historical Review of the Legis-
lative Systems Operative in
Ireland, from the Invasion of
Henry the Second to the Union (1172-
1800). 8vo. 6s.
BARING-GOULD (Rev. S.).-WORKS
BY.
Curious Myths of the Middle
Ages. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
Origin and Development of Re-
ligious Belief. 2 vols. 75.
BEACONSFIELD (The Earl of).-
WORKS BY.
Novels and Tales. The Hughen-
den Edition. With 2 Portraits and II
Vignettes.
II vols. Crown 8vo. 42s.
Endymion.
Lothiar.
Coningsby.
!
| Henrietta Temple.
Contarini, Fleming, &c.
Alroy, Ixion, &c.
Tancred. Sybil. The Young Duke, &c.
Venetia.
Vivian Grey.
Novels and Tales.
Cheap Edition.
Complete in II vols. Crown 8vo. Is.
each, boards; Is. 6d. each, cloth.
BECKER (Professor).—WORKS BY.
Gallus; or, Roman Scenes in the
Time of Augustus. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Charicles; or, Illustrations of the
Private Life of the Ancient Greeks. Post
8vo. 7s. 6d.
BELL (Mrs. Hugh).-WORKS BY.
Chamber Comedies: a Collection
of Plays and Monologues for the Drawing
Room. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Nursery Comedies: Twelve Tiny
Plays for Children. Fcap. 8vo. Is. 6d.
BLAKE.-Tables for the Conver-
sion of 5 per Cent. Interest
from to 7 per Cent. By J.
BLAKE, of the London Joint Stock Bank,
Limited. 8vo. 12s. 6d.
1
18
Book (The) of Wedding Days.
Arranged on the Plan of a Birthday Book.
With 96 Illustrated Borders, Frontispiece,
and Title-page by WALTER CRANE; and
Quotations for each Day. Compiled and
Arranged by K. E. J. REID, MAY Ross,
and MABEL BAMFIELD.
4to. 21s.
BRASSEY (Lady).— WORKS BY.
A Voyage in the 'Sunbeam,' our
Home on the Ocean for
Eleven Months.
Library Edition. With 8 Maps and
Charts, and 118 Illustrations, 8vo. 21s.
Cabinet Edition. With Map and 66
Illustrations, Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
'Silver Library' Edition. With 66
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Popular Edition. With 60 Illustrations,
4to. 6d. sewed, Is. cloth.
School Edition. With 37 Illustrations,
Fcp. 2s. cloth, or 3s. white parchment.
Sunshine and Storm in the East.
Library Edition. With 2 Maps and
114 Illustrations, 8vo. 21s.
Cabinet Edition. With 2 Maps and
114 Illustrations, Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Popular Edition. With 103 Illustra-
tions, 4to. 6d. sewed, Is. cloth.
In the Trades, the Tropics, and
the 'Roaring Forties'.
Cabinet Edition. With Map and 220
Illustrations, Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Popular Edition. With 183 Illustra-
tions, 4to. 6d. sewed, Is. cloth.
The Last Voyage to India and
Australia in the 'Sunbeam '.
With Charts and Maps, and 40 Illustrations
in Monotone (20 full-page), and nearly 200
Illustrations in the Text from Drawings
by R. T. PRITCHETT. 8vo. 21s.
Three Voyages in the 'Sun-
beam'. Popular Edition. With
346 Illustrations, 4to. 2s. 6d.
BRAY.-The Philosophy of Neces-
sity; or, Law in Mind as in Matter.
By CHARLES BRAY. Crown 8vo. 5s.
"
3
PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
BRIGHT. A History of England.
By the Rev. J. FRANCK BRIGHT, D.D.,
Master of University College, Oxford.
4 vols. Crown 8vo.
Period I.-Medieval Monarchy: The De-
parture of the Romans to Richard III.
From A.D. 449 to 1485. 4s. 6d.
Period II.-Personal Monarchy: Henry VII.
to James II. From 1485 to 1688. 5s.
Period III. Constitutional Monarchy:
William and Mary to William IV. From
1689 to 1837. 7s. 6d.
Period IV. -The Growth of Democracy:
Victoria. From 1837 to 1880. 6s.
|
!
BRYDEN.—Kloof and Karroo: CHETWYND.-Racing
Sport, Legend, and Natural History in
Cape Colony. By H. A. BRYDEN. With
17 Illustrations. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
BUCKLE.—History of Civilisation
in England and France,
Spain and Scotland. By HENRY
THOMAS BUCKLE. 3 vols. Cr. 8vo. 24s.
BULL (Thomas).- WORKS BY.
Hints to Mothers on
the
Management of their Health
during the Period of Pregnancy. Fcp. 8vo.
Is. 6d.
The Maternal Management of
Children in Health and Dis-
ease. Fcp. 8vo. 1s. 6d.
BUTLER (Samuel).-WORKS BY.
Op. 1. Erewhon. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Op. 2. The Fair Haven. A Work
in defence of the Miraculous Element in
our Lord's Ministry. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Op. 3. Life and Habit. An Essay
after a Completer View of Evolution.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Op. 4. Evolution, Old and New.
Crown 8vo. Ios. 6d.
Op. 5. Unconscious
Memory.
Crown Svo. 7s. 6d.
Op. 6. Alps and Sanctuaries of
Piedmont and Canton Ticino.
Illustrated. Pott 4to. Ios. 6d.
Op. 7. Selections from Ops. 1-6.
With Remarks on Mr. ROMANES''Mental
Evolution in Animals'. Cr. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Op. 8. Luck, or Cunning, as the
Main Means of
of Organic
Modification? Cr. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Op. 9. Ex Voto. An Account of
the Sacro Monte or New Jerusalem at
Varallo-Sesia.
IOS. 6d.
Holbein's 'La Danse'. A Note on
a Drawing called 'La Danse'. 35.
}
?
#5
CARLYLE.-Thomas Carlyle: a
History of His Life. By J. A. FROUDE.
1795-1835, 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 75.
1834-1881, 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 75.
Last Words of Thomas Carlyle
-Wotton Reinfred-Excursion (Futile
enough) to Paris-Letters to Varnhagen
von Ense, &c. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. net.
CASE.-Physical Realism: being
an Analytical Philosophy from the Physical
Objects of Science to the Physical Data
of Sense. By THOMAS CASE, M.A.,
Fellow and Senior Tutor, C.C.C. 8vo. 15s.
Remini-
scences and Experiences of
the Turf. By Sir GEORGE Chet-
WYND, Bart. 2 vols. 8vo. 21S.
CHETWYND-STAPYLTON.-Chet-
wynds of Ingestre (The):
being a History of that. Family from a
very early Date. By H. E. CHETWYND-
STAPYLTON. With numerous Portraits
and Illustrations. 8vo. 145.
CHILD.-Church and State under
the Tudors. By GILBERT W.
CHILD, M.A. 8vo. 15s.
CHILTON.-The History of a
Failure, and other Tales. By E.
CHILTON. Fcp. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
CHISHOLM.-Handbook of Com-
·
mercial Geography. By G. G.
CHISHOLM. New edition. With 29 Maps.
8vo. IOS. net.
CHURCH.-Sir Richard Church,
C.B., G.C.H. Commander-in-
Chief of the Greeks in the War of Inde-
pendence: a Memoir. BY STANLEY
LANE-POOLE. With 2 Plans. 8vo. 5s.
CLERKE.-Familiar Studies in
Homer. By AGNES M. CLERKE.
Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
CLODD.-The Story of Creation:
a Plain Account of Evolution. By ED-
WARD CLODD. With 77 Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
CLUTTERBUCK (W. J.).—WORKS
BY.
The Skipper in Arctic Seas.
With 39 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
About Ceylon and Borneo:
being an Account of Two Visits to Ceylon,
one to Borneo, and How we Fell Out on
our Homeward Journey. With 47 Illus-
trations. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
6
A CATALOGUE OF BOOKs in geneRAL LITERATURE
1
COLENSO.—The Pentateuch and
Book of Joshua Critically
Examined. By J. W. COLENSO,
D.D., late Bishop of Natal. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
COMYN.-Atherstone Priory: a
Tale. By L. N. COMYN. Cr. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
CONINGTON (John).—WORKS BY.
The Æneid of Virgil. Translated
into English Verse. Crown 8vo. 6s.
The Poems of Virgil. Translated
into English Prose. Crown 8vo. 6s.
COX. A General History of
—
Greece, from the Earliest Period
to the Death of Alexander the Great;
with a sketch of the subsequent History
to the Present Time. By the Rev. Sir
G. W. Cox, Bart., M.A. With II Maps
and Plans. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
CRAKE (Rev. A. D.).—WORKS BY.
Historical Tales. Crown 8vo. 5
vols. 2s. 6d. each.
Edwy the Fair; or, The First Chronicle
of Æscendune.
Alfgar the Dane; or, the Second
Chronicle of Æscendune.
The Rival Heirs: being the Third and
Last Chronicle of Æscendune.
The House of Walderne. A Tale of the
Cloister and the Forest in the Days of
the Barons' Wars.
Brian Fitz-Count. A Story of Walling-
ford Castle and Dorchester Abbey.
History of the Church under
the Roman Empire, A.D.
30-476. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
CREALOCK. Deer-Stalking in
the Highlands of Scotland. By
the late Lieutenant-General H. H. CREA-
LOCK. Edited by his brother, Major-
General JOHN NORTH CREALOCK. With
36 full-page Plates reproduced in autotype,
and numerous Illustrations in the Text.
Royal 4to. Six guineas net.
CREIGHTON.- History of the
Papacy during the Reforma-
tion. BY MANDELL CREIGHTON,
D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Peterborough.
8vo. Vols. I, and II., 1378-1464, 325.;
Vols. III. and IV., 1464-1518, 24s.
CRUMP (A.).—WORKS BY.
A Short Enquiry into the For-
mation of Political Opinion,
from the reign of the Great Families to
the Advent of Democracy. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
¡
CRUMP (A.).—WORKS BY.—cont.
An Investigation into the Causes
of the Great Fall in Prices
which took place coincidently with the
Demonetisation of Silver by Germany.
8vo. 6s.
CUDWORTH.—An
Introduction
to Cudworth's Treatise con-
cerning Eternal and Immu-
table Morality. By W. R.
SCOTT.
Crown 8vo. 35.
CURZON.-Persia and the Per-
sian Question. By the Hon.
GEORGE N. CURZON, M.P., late Fellow
of All Souls College, Oxford, Author of
'Russia in Central Asia'. With 9 Maps,
96 Illustrations, Appendices, and an Index.
2 vols. 8vo. 42s.
DANTE.—La Commedia di Dante.
A New Text, carefully Revised with
the aid of the most recent Editions and
Collations. Small 8vo. 6s.
DAVIDSON (W. L.).-WORKS BY.
The Logic of Definition Ex-
plained and Applied. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
Leading and Important English
Words Explained and Ex-
emplified. Fcp. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Dead Shot (The); or, Sportman's
Complete Guide. Being a Treatise on the
Use of the Gun, with Rudimentary and
Finishing Lessons on the Art of Shooting
Game of all kinds, also Game Driving,
Wild Fowl and Pigeon Shooting, Dog
Breaking, &c. By MARKSMAN. Sixth
Edition, Revised and Enlarged. Crown
8vo. 10s. 6d.
-
DELAND (Mrs.).—WORKs by.
John Ward, Preacher: a Story.
Crown 8vo. 2s. boards, 2s. 6d. cloth.
Sidney: a Novel. Crown 8vo. 6s.
The Old Garden, and other Verses.
Fcp. 8vo. 5s.
DE LA SAUSSAYE.-A Manual of
the Science of Religion. By
Professor CHANTEPIE DE LA SAUSSAYE.
Translated by Mrs. COLYER FERGUSSON
(née MAX MÜLLER). Revised by the
Author. Crown 8vo. 12s. 6d.
DE REDCLIFFE.-The Life of the
Right Hon. Stratford Can-
ning: Viscount Stratford De
Redcliffe. By STANLEY LANE-
POOLE. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
PUBLISHED by Messrs. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
DE SALIS (Mrs.).-WORKS by.
T
Cakes and Confections à la
Mode. Fcp. 8vo. 1s. 6d.
7
DRANE. The History of St.
Dominic. By AUGUSTA THEO-
DORA DRANE. 32 Illustrations. 8vo. 15s.
Dressed Game and Poultry à Dublin University Press Series
la Mode. Fcp. 8vo. 1s. 6d.
Dressed Vegetables à la Mode.
Fcp. 8vo. Is. 6d.
Drinks à la Mode. Fcp. 8vo. 1s.6d.
Entrées à la Mode. Fcp. 8vo.
Is. 6d.
Floral Decorations. Suggestions
and Descriptions. Fcap. 8vo. Is. 6d.
New-Laid Eggs: Hints for Ama-
teur Poultry Rearers. Fcp. 8vo. Is. 6d.
Oysters à la Mode. Fcp. 8vo. 1s. 6d.
Puddings and Pastry à la Mode.
Fcp. 8vo. Is. 6d.
Savouries à la Mode. Fcp. 8vo.
Is. 6d.
Soups and Dressed Fish à la
Mode. Fcp. 8vo. 1s. 6d.
Sweets and Supper Dishes à la
Mode. Fcp. 8vo. Is. 6d.
Tempting Dishes for Small
Incomes. Fcp. 8vo. 1s. 6d.
Wrinkles and Notions for every
Household. Crown 8vo. Is. 6d.
DE TOCQUEVILLE.-Democracy
in America. By ALEXIS DE
TOCQUEVILLF. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 16s.
Dorothy Wallis: an Autobiography.
With Preface by WALTER BESANT. Crown
8vo. 6s.
DOUGALL.-Beggars All: a Novel.
By L. DOUGALL. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
DOWELL.-A History of Taxa-
tion and Taxes in England
from the Earliest Times to the Year 1885.
By STEPHEN DOWELL. (4 vols. 8vo.)
Vols. I. and II. The History of Taxation,
2IS. Vols. III. and IV. The History of
Taxes, 215.
DOYLE (A. Conan).—WORKS by.
Micah Clarke. A tale of Mon-
mouth's Rebellion. With Frontispiece
and Vignette. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
The Captain of the Polestar;
and other Tales. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
(The): a Series of Works under-
taken by the Provost and Senior Fellows
of Trinity College, Dublin.
Abbott's (T. K.) Codex Rescriptus Dub-
linensis of St. Matthew. 4to. 21s.
Evangeliorum Versio Ante-
hieronymiana ex Codice Usseriano.
(Dublinensi). 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 21s.
Short Notes on St. Paul's
Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians.
Fcp. 8vo. 4s.
Allman's (G. J.) Greek Geometry from
Thales to Euclid. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Burnside (W. S.) and Panton's (A. W.)
Theory of Equations. 8vo. 12s. 6d.
Casey's (John) Sequel to Euclid's Ele-
ments. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Analytical Geometry of the
Conic Sections. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Davies' (J. F.) Eumenides of Æschylus.
With Metrical English Translation. 8vo.
75.
Dublin Translations into Greek and
Latin Verse. Edited by R. Y. Tyrrell.
8vo. 6s.
Graves' (R. P.) Life of Sir William
Hamilton. 3 vols. 15s. each.
Addendum to the Life of Sir
William Rowan Hamilton, LL.D.,
D.C.L. 8vo. 6d. sewed.
Griffin (R. W.) on Parabola, Ellipse,
and Hyperbola. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Hobart's (W. K.) Medical Language of
St. Luke. 8vo. 16s.
Leslie's (T. E. Cliffe) Essays in Politi-
cal Economy. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Macalister's (A.) Zoology and Mor-
phology of Vertebrata. 8vo. IOS. 6d.
MacCullagh's (James) Mathematical
and other Tracts. 8vo. 15s.
Maguire's (T.) Parmenides of Plato,
Text, with Introduction, Analysis, &c.
8vo. 7s. 6d.
Monck's (W. H. S.) Introduction to
Logic. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Roberts' (R. A.) Examples on the Ana-
lytic Geometry of Plane Conics. Cr.
8vo. 5s.
Southey's (R.) Correspondence with
Caroline Bowles. Edited by E. Dow-
den. 8vo. 14s.
[Continued on next page.
1
1

8
A CATALOGUE of books in GENERAL LITERATURE
Dublin University Press Series FALKENER. Games, Ancient
•
(The).-continued.
Stubbs' (J. W.) History of the University
of Dublin, from its Foundation to the End
of the Eighteenth Century. 8vo. 12s. 6d.
Thornhill's (W. J.) The Æneid of Virgil,
freely translated into English Blank
Verse. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Tyrrell's (R. Y.) Cicero's Correspon-
dence. Vols. I. II. III. 8vo. each 12s.
The Acharnians of Aristo-
phanes, translated into English Verse.
Crown 8vo. IS.
Webb's (T. E.) Goethe's Faust, Trans-
lation and Notes. 8vo. 12s. 6d.
The Veil of Isis: a Series of
Essays on Idealism. 8vo. Ios. 6d.
Wilkins' (G.) The Growth of the Ho-
meric Poems. 8vo. 6s.
Epochs of
Modern
History.
Edited by C. COLBECK, M.A. 19 vols.
Fcp. 8vo. with Maps, 2s. 6d. each.
* * List will be sent on application.
Epochs of Church History. Ed-
ited by MANDELL CREIGHTON, D.D.,
Bishop of Peterborough. 15 vols. Fcp.
8vo. 2s. 6d. each.
* List will be sent on application.
Epochs of Ancient History.
Edited by the Rev. Sir G. W. Cox,
Bart., M.A., and by C. SANKEY, M.A.
10 volumes, Fcp. 8vo. with Maps, 2s. 6d.
each.
* * List will be sent on application.
Epochs of American History.
Edited by Dr. ALBERT BUSHNELL HART,
Assistant Professor of History in Harvard
College.
THWAITES (R. G.).-The Colo-
nies (1492-1763). Fcp. 8vo. :
35. 6d.
** Others in preparation.
Epochs of English
of English History.
Complete in One Volume, with 27 Tables
and Pedigrees, and 23 Maps. Fcp. 8vo.
55.
*For details of Parts see Longmans & Co.'s
Catalogue of School Books.
EWALD (Heinrich).— WORKS BY.
The Antiquities of Israel. Trans-
lated from the German by H. S. SOLLY,
M.A. 8vo. 12s. 6d.
and Oriental, and how to play
them. Being the Games of the
Ancient Egyptians, the Hiera Gramme of
the Greeks, the Ludus Latrunculorum of
the Romans, and the Oriental Games of
Chess, Draughts, Backgammon, and Magic
Squares. By EDWARD FALKENER. With
numerous Photographs, Diagrams, &c. 8vo.
21S.
FARNELL.-Greek Lyric Poetry:
a Complete Collection of the Surviving
Passages from the Greek Song-Writers.
Arranged with Prefatory Articles, Intro-
ductory Matter, and Commentary. By
GEORGE S. FARNELL, M.A. With 5
Plates. 8vo. 16s.
FARRAR(Ven. Archdeacon).- WORKS
BY.
Darkness and Dawn; or, Scenes
in the Days of Nero. An Historic Tale.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Language and Languages. A
Revised Edition of Chapters on Language
and Families of Speech. Crown Svo. 6s.
FITZPATRICK.-Secret Service
under Pitt. By W. J. FITZPATRICK,
F.S.A., Author of 'Correspondence of
Daniel O'Connell'. 8vo. 14s.
FITZWYGRAM.
Horses and,
Stables. By Major-General Sir
F. FITZWYGRAM, Bart. With 19 pages
of Illustrations. 8vo. 5s.
FORD.-The Theory and Practice
of Archery. By the late HORACE
FORD. New Edition, thoroughly Re-
vised and Re-written by W. BUTT, M. A.
With a Preface by C. J. LONGMAN, M.A.,
F.S.A. 8vo. 14s.
FOUARD.-The Christ the Son of
God: a Life of our Lord and Sa-
viour Jesus Christ. By the Abbé Con-
STANT FOUARD. With an Introduction
by Cardinal Manning. 2 vols. Crown
8vo. 14s.
FOX.The Early History of
Charles James Fox. By the
Right Hon. Sir G. O. TREVELYAN, Bart.
Library Edition, 8vo. 18s.
Cabinet Edition, Crown 8vo. 6s.
The History of Israel. Trans- FRANCIS.—A Book on Angling;
lated from the German. 8 vols. 8vo.
Vols. I. and II. 24s. Vols. III. and IV.
215. Vol. V. 18s. Vol. VI. 16s. Vol.
VII. 21S.
Vol. VIII., with Index to the
Complete Work, 18s.
or, Treatise on the Art of Fishing in
every branch; including full Illustrated
List of Salmon Flies. By FRANCIS
FRANCIS. With Portrait and Coloured
Plates. Crown 8vo. 15s.
?
י
十
​}
PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
FREEMAN.—The Historical Geo- | GARDINER
graphy of Europe. By E. A
FREEMAN. With 65 Maps. 2 vols. 8vo.
31s. 6d.
FROUDE (James A.).— WORKS BY.
The History of England, from
the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the
Spanish Armada. 12 vols. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d. each.
The Divorce of Catherine of
Aragon; the Story as told by the
Imperial Ambassadors resident at the
Court of Henry VIII, In usum Lai-
corum. 8vo. 16s.
Short Studies on Great Sub-
jects. Cabinet Edition, 4 vols.
Crown 8vo. 24s. Cheap Edition, 4 vols.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
Cæsar: a Sketch. Crown 8vo. 3s.
6d.
صر
The English in Ireland in the
Eighteenth Century. 3 vols.
Crown 8vo. 18s.
Oceana; or, England and her
Colonies. With 9 Illustrations
Crown 8vo. 2s. boards, 2s. 6d. cloth.
The English in the West Indies;
or, the Bow of Ulysses. With 9 Illus-
trations. Crown 8vo. 2s. boards, 2s. 6d.
cloth.
(Samuel
Rawson).-
9
WORKS BY.—continued.
The Student's History of Eng-
land. Vol. I. B.C. 55—A.D. 1509,
with 173 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 4s.
Vol. II. 1509-1689, with 96 Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. 4s. Vol. III. (1689-1865).
With 109 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 45.
Complete in I vol. With 378 Illustra-
tions. Crown 8vo. 12s.
A School Atlas of English His-
tory. With 66 Maps and 22 Plans
of Battles, &c. Fcap. 4to. 5s.
GIBERNE.-Nigel Browning. By
Agnes GiberNE. Crown 8vo. 5s.
GOETHE.-Faust. A New Transla-
tion chiefly in Blank Verse; with Intro-
duction and Notes. By JAMES ADEY
BIRDS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Faust. The Second Part. A New
Translation in Verse. By JAMES ADEY
BIRDS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
GREEN.-The Works of Thomas
Hill Green. Edited by R. L.
NETTLESHIP. (3 vols.) Vols. I. and II.
-Philosophical Works. 8vo. 16s. each.
Vol. III.-Miscellanies. With Index to
the three Volumes and Memoir. 8vo. 21s.
The Witness of God and Faith:
Two Lay Sermons. By T. H. GREEN.
Fcp. 8vo. 2s.
The Two Chiefs of Dunboy; GREVILLE-A Journal of the
an Irish Romance of the Last Century.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Thomas Carlyle, a History of his
Life. 1795 to 1835. 2 vols. Crown 8vo.
7s. 1834 to 1881. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 75.
The Spanish Story of the Ar-
mada, and other Essays, Histo-
rical and Descriptive. Crown 8vo. 6s.
GALLWEY.-Letters to Young
Shooters. (First Series.) On
the Choice and Use of a Gun. By Sir
RALPH PAYNE-GALLWEY, Bart. With
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
GARDINER (Samuel Rawson). —
WORKS BY.
History of England, from the
Accession of James I. to the Outbreak
of the Civil War, 1603-1642. 10 vols.
Crown 8vo. price 6s. each.
A History of the Great Civil
War, 1642-1649. (3 vols.) Vol.
I. 1642-1644. With 24 Maps. 8vo.
(out of print). Vol. II. 1644-164%.
With 21 Maps. 8vo. 24s. Vol. III.
1647-1649. With 8 Maps. 8vo. 28s.
Reigns of King George IV.,
King William IV., and Queen
Victoria. By C. C. F. GREVILLE.
8 vols. Crown 8vo. 6s, each.
GWILT. An Encyclopædia of
Architecture. By JOSEPH GWILT,
F.S.A. Illustrated with more than 1700-
Engravings on Wood. 8vo. 52s. 6d.
HAGGARD.-Life and its Author:
an Essay in Verse. By ELLA HAGGARD.
With a Memoir by H. RIDER HAGGARD,
and Portrait. Fcp. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
HAGGARD (H. Rider).—WORKS BY.
She. With 32 Illustrations by M.
GREIFFENHAGEN and C. H. M. Kerr.
Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
Allan Quatermain. With 31 Illus
trations by C. H. M. KERR. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
Maiwa's Revenge; or, The War
of the Little Hand. Crown 8vo. IS.
boards; Is. 6d. cloth.
Colonel Quaritch, V.C. A Novel.
Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
[Continued on next page.
!
t
My
.!
ΙΟ
A CATALOGUE OF BOOKS IN GENERAL LITERATURE
HAGGARD (H. Rider.)-WORKS BY. | HEARN (W. Edward).- WORKS BY.
-continued.
Cleopatra.
With 29 Full-page
Illustrations by M. Greiffenhagen and
R. Caton Woodville. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Beatrice. A Novel. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Eric Brighteyes. With 17 Plates
and 34 Illustrations in the Text by
LANCELOT SPEED. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Nada the Lily. With 23 Illustra-
tions by C. H. M. KERR. Crown 8vo. 6s.
HAGGARD and LANG. — The
World's Desire. By H. Rider
RIDER
HAGGARD and Andrew LanG. Crown
Svo. 6s.
HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS.
A
Calendar of the Halliwell-
Phillipps' collection of Shake-
spearean Rarities. Enlarged
by ERNEST E. BAKER, F.S.A. 8vo.
10s. 6d
HARRISON.—Myths of the Odys-
sey in Art and Literature.
Illustrated with Outline Drawings. By
JANE E. HARRISON. 8vo. 18s.
HARRISON.-The Contemporary
History of the French Revo-
lution, compiled from the 'Annual
Register'. By F. BAYFORD HARRISON.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
HARRISON.-Cookery for Busy
Lives and Small Incomes. By
MARY HARRISON. Fcp. 8vo. Is.
HARTE (Bret).—WORKS BY.
In the Carquinez Woods. Fcp.
8vo. Is. boards; 1s. 6d. cloth.
On the Frontier.
16mo. IS.
By Shore and Sedge. 16mo. is.
HARTWIG (Dr.).—WORKS BY.
The Sea and its Living Wonders.
With 12 Plates and 303 Woodcuts. 8vo.
7s. net.
The Tropical World. With 8
Plates and 172 Woodcuts. 8vo. 7s. net.
The Polar World. With 3 Maps,
8 Plates and 85 Woodcuts. 8vo. 7s. net.
The Subterranean World. With
Maps and 80 Woodcuts. 8vo. 75. net.
The Aerial World. With Map,
8 Plates and 60 Woodcuts. 8vo. 7s. net.
HAVELOCK. - Memoirs of Sir
Henry Havelock, K.C.B. By
JOHN, CLARK MARSHMAN. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
The Government of England:
its Structure and its Development. 8vo.
16s.
The Aryan Household: its Struc-
ture and its Development. An Introduc-
tion to Comparative Jurisprudence. 8vo.
16s.
HISTORIC TOWNS. Edited by
E. A. FREEMAN, D.C.L., and Rev.
WILLIAM HUNT, M.A. With Maps and
Plans. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
Bristol. By Rev. W. HUNt.
Carlisle. By Rev. MANDELL CREIGH-
TON.
Cinque Ports. By MONTAGU
BURROWS.
Colchester. By Rev. E. L. CUTTS.
Exeter. By E. A. FREEMAN.
London. By Rev. W. J. Loftie.
Oxford. By Rev. C. W. Boase.
Winchester. By Rev. G. W. KIT-
CHIN, D.D.
New York. By THEODORE ROOSE-
VELT.
Boston (U.S.). By HENRY Cabot
LODGE.
York. By Rev. JAMES RAINE.
HODGSON (Shadworth H.).—WORKS
BY.
Time and Space: a Metaphysical
Essay. 8vo. 16s.
The Theory of Practice: an
Ethical Enquiry. 2 vols. 8vo. 24s.
The Philosophy of Reflection:
2 vols. 8vo. 21S.
Outcast Essays and Verse
Translations. Essays The
Genius of De Quincey-De Quincey as
Political Economist-The Supernatural
in English Poetry; with Note on the
True Symbol of Christian Union-Eng-
lish Verse. Verse Translations: Nineteen
Passages from Lucretius, Horace, Homer,
&c. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.
HOOPER.
Abraham
Fabert:
Governor of Sedan, Marshall of France.
His Life and Times, 1599 - 1662. By
GEORGE HOOPER. With a Portrait. 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
HOWITT.-Visits to Remarkable
Places, Old Halls, Battle-Fields,
Scenes, illustrative of Striking Passages
in English History and Poetry.
WILLIAM HOWITT. With 80 Illustra-
tions. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
By
.
1
!
PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. LONGMANs, green, & CO.
HULLAH (John).—WORKS BY,
Course of Lectures on the His-
tory of Modern Music. 8vo.
8s. 6d.
Course of Lectures on the Tran-
sition Period of Musical His-
tory. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
HUME.--The Philosophical Works
of David Hume. Edited by T.
H. GREEN and T. H. GROSE. 4 vols.
8vo. 56s. Or Separately, Essays, 2 vols.
28s. Treatise of Human Nature. 2 vols.
285.
HUTCHINSON. — Famous
Golf
Links. By HORACE G. HUTCHIN-
SON, ANDREW LANG, H. S. C. EVERARD,
T. RUTHERFORD CLARK, &c. With
numerous Illustrations by F. P. HOPKINS,
T. HODGES, H. S. KING, and from
Photographs. Crown 8vo. 6s.
HUTH.-The Marriage of Near
Kin, considered with respect_to
the Law of Nations, the Result of Ex-
perience, and the Teachings of Biology.
By ALFRED H. HUTH. Royal 8vo. 21s.
INGELOW (Jean).- WORKS BY.
Poetical Works. Vols. I. and II.
Fcp. 8vo. 12s. Vol. III. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.
Lyrical and other Poems. Se-
lected from the Writings of JEAN
INGELOW. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d. cloth plain;
3s. cloth gilt.
Very Young and Quite Another
Story: Two Stories. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
Investors' Review (The) (Quar-
terly). Edited by A. J. WILSON. Royal
8vo. 5s.
JAMESON (Mrs.).—WORKS BY.
Sacred and Legendary Art. With
19 Etchings and 187 Woodcuts. 2 vols.
8vo. 20s. net.
Legends of the Madonna. The
Virgin Mary as represented in Sacred
and Legendary Art. With 27 Etchings
and 165 Woodcuts. I vol. 8vo. Ios, net.
Legends of the Monastic Orders.
With 11 Etchings and 88 Woodcuts.
vol. 8vo. 10s. net.
I
History of Our Lord. His Types
and Precursors. Completed by Lady
EASTLAKE. With 31 Etchings and 281
Woodcuts. 2 vols. 8vo. 20s. net.
II
JEFFERIES (Richard),— WORKS BY.
Field and Hedgerow : last Essays.
With Portrait. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
The Story of My Heart: my
Autobiography. With Portrait and new
Preface by C. J. LONGMAN. Crown
8vo. 3s. 6d.
Red Deer.
With 17 Illustrations
by J. CHARLTON and H. TÚNALY.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Wiltshire Labourers. With auto-
type reproduction of bust of Richard
Jefferies. Crown 8vo.
JENNINGS.--Ecclesià Anglicana.
A History of the Church of Christ in
England, from the Earliest to the Present
Times. By the Rev. ARTHUR CHARLES
JENNINGS, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
JOHNSON.-The Patentee's Man-
ual; a Treatise on the Law and
Practice of Letters Patent. By J. JOHN-
SON and J. H. JOHNSON. 8vo. Ios. 6d.
JORDAN (William Leighton).—The
Standard of Value. By WILLIAM
LEIGHTON JORDAN. 8vo. 6s.
JUSTINIAN.—The Institutes of
Justinian; Latin Text, chiefly
that of Huschke, with English Introduc-
tion, Translation, Notes, and Summary.
BY THOMAS C. SANDARS, M.A. 8vo. 18s.
KALISCH (M. M.).—WORKs by.
Bible Studies. Part I. The Pro-
phecies of Balaam. 8vo. 10s. 6d. Part
II. The Book of Jonah. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Commentary on the Old Testa-
ment; with a New Translation.
Vol. I. Genesis, 8vo. 18s. or adapted for
the General Reader, 12s. Vol. II. Exodus,
15s. or adapted for the General Reader,
125. Vol. III. Leviticus, Part I. 15s, or
adapted for the General Reader, 8s.
Vol. IV. Leviticus, Part II. 15s. or
adapted for the General Reader, 8s.
KANT (Immanuel).-WORKS BY.
Critique of Practical Reason, and
other Works on the Theory of
Ethics. Translated by T. K. Ab-
bott, B.D. With Memoir. 8vo. 12s. 6d.
Introduction to Logic, and his
Essay on the Mistaken Sub-
tilty of the Four Figures.
Transla ed by T K. Abbott. Notes by
S. T. Coleridge. 8vo. 6s.
KILLICK.-Handbook to Mill's
System of Logic. By the Rev.
A. H. KILLICK, M.A. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.

F
12
A CATALOGUE of books in general literature
1
KNIGHT (E: F.).—WORKS BY.
The Cruise of the 'Alerte'; the
Narrative of a Search for Treasure on the
Desert Island of Trinidad. With 2 Maps
and 23 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Save Me from my Friends: a
Novel. Crown 8vo. 6s.
LADD (George T.).—WORKs by.
Elements of Physiological Psy-
chology. 8vo. 21S.
Outlines of Physiological Psy-
chology. A Text-book of Mental
Science for Academies and Colleges.
8vo. 12s.
LANG (Andrew).—WORKS BY.
Custom and Myth: Studies of
Early Usage and Belief. With 15 Illus-
trations. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Ballads of Books. Edited by
ANDREW LANG. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
Letters to Dead Authors.
8vo. 2s. 6d. net.
Books and Bookmen.
Fcp.
With 2
Coloured Plates and 17 Illustrations.
Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.
Old Friends. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.
Letters on Literature. Fcp. 8vo.
2s. 6d. net.
Grass of Parnassus.
2s. 6d. net.
Fcp. 8vo.
Angling Sketches. With 20 Illus-
trations by W. G. Brown Murdoch.
Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
The Blue Fairy Book. Edited by
ANDREW LANG. With 8 Plates and 130
Illustrations in the Text by H. J. Ford
and G. P. Jacomb Hood. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
The Red Fairy Book. Edited by
ANDREW LANG. With 4 Plates and 96
Illustrations in the Text by H. J. Ford
and Lancelot Speed. Crown 8vo. 6s.
The Blue Poetry Book. Edited
by ANDREW LANG. With 12 Plates and
88 Illustrations in the Text by H. J. Ford
and Lancelot Speed. Crown 8vo. 6s.
The Blue Poetry Book. School
LECKY (W. E. H.).—WORKS BY.
History of England in the
Eighteenth Century. Library
Edition. 8vo. vols. I. & II. 1700-1760.
36s. Vols. III. & IV. 1760-1784. 36s.
Vols. V. & VI. 1784-1793. 36s. Vols.
VII. & VIII. 1793-1800. 36s.
Cabinet Edition.
England. 7 vols. Crown
8vo. 6s. each. Ireland. 5 vols. Crown
8vo. 68. each. [In Monthly Volumes
from January, 1892.
The History of European Morals
from Augustus to Charle-
magne.
History of the Rise and Influ-
ence of the Spirit of Rational-
ism in Europe. 2 vols. Crown
2 vols. Crown 8vo. 16s.
8vo. 16s.
Poems. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.
LEES and CLUTTERBUCK.—B. C.
1887, A Ramble in British
Columbia. By J. A. LEES and
W. J. CLUTTerbuck. With Map and
75 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
LEGER.-A History of Austro-
Hungary. From the Earliest
Time to the year 1889. By LOUIS LEGER.
With a Preface by E. A. FREEMAN,
D.C.L. Crown 8vo. 10s. áð.
LEWES.-The History of Philo-
sophy, from Thales to Comte.
By GEORGE HENRY LEWES.
8vo. 32s.
2 vols.
LIDDELL.-The Memoirs of the
Tenth Royal Hussars (Prince
of Wales' Own): Historical and
Social. Collected and Arranged by
Colonel R. S. LIDDELL, late Command-
ing Tenth Royal Hussars. With Portraits
and Coloured Illustration. Imperial 8vo.
63s.
LLOYD.-The Science of Agricul-
ture. By F. J. LLOYD. 8vo. 12s.
Edition, without Illustrations. Fcp. 8vo. | LONGMAN (Frederick W.).— WORKS
2s. 6d.
The Green Fairy Book. Edited
by ANDREW LANG. With Illustrations by
H. J. Ford. Crown 8vo.
LA VISSE.-General View of the
Political History of Europe.
By ERNEST LAVISSE, Professor at the
Sorbonne. Translated by CHARLES
GROSS, Ph.D. Crown 8vo. 55.
BY.
Chess Openings. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
Frederick the Great and the
Seven Years' War. Fcp. 8vo.
2s. 6d.
Longman's Magazine.
Published
Monthly. Price Sixpence.
Vols, 1-19. 8vo. price 5s. each.
1
!
1
i
7.
PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. LONGMANS, green, & co.
13
Longmans' New Atlas. Political | MACAULAY (Lord).—WORKS OF.—
and Physical. For the Use of Schools
and Private Persons. Consisting of 40
Quarto and 16 Octavo Maps and Dia-
grams, and 16 Plates of Views. Edited
by GEO. G. CHISHOLM, M.A., B.Sc.
Imp. 4to. or Imp. 8vo. 12s. 6d.
LONGMORE.-Richard Wiseman,
Surgeon and Sergeant-Surgeon to Charles
II. :
a Biographical Study. By Surgeon
General Sir T. LONGMORE, C.B., F.R.Č.S.,
&c. With Portrait and Illustrations. 8vo.
IOS, 6d.
LOUDON (J. C.).-WORKS BY.
Encyclopædia of Gardening.
With 1000 Woodcuts. 8vo. 21s.
the
1
Encyclopædia of Agriculture;
Laying-out, Improvement, and
Management of Landed Property. With
1100 Woodcuts. 8vo, 21S.
Encyclopædia of Plants; the
Specific Character, &c., of all Plants found
in Great Britain. With 12,000 Wood-
cuts. 8vo. 42s.
LUBBOCK.-The Origin of Civil-
isation and the Primitive Condi-
tion of Man. By Sir J. LUBBOCK, Bart.,
M.P. With 5 Plates and 20 Illustrations
in the Text. 8vo. 18s.
LYALL. The Autobiography of a
Slander. By EDNA LYALL, Author
of 'Donovan,' &c. Fcp. 8vo. Is. sewed.
LYDEKKER.-Phases of Animal
Life, Past and Present.
By R.
LYDEKKER, B.A. With 82 Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
LYDE. An Introduction, to An-
cient History: being a Sketch of
the History of Egypt, Mesopotamia,
Greece, and Rome. With a Chapter on
the Development of the Roman Empire
into the Powers of Modern Europe. By
LIONEL W. LYDE, M.A.
With 3
Coloured Maps. Crown 8vo. 3s.
LYONS.-Christianity and Infalli-
bility-Both or Neither. By the
Rev. DANIEL LYONS. Crown 8vo. 5s.
LYTTON.—Marah. By OWEN ME-
REDITH (the late Earl of Lytton).
8vo. 6s. 6d.
Fcp.
MACAULAY (Lord).—WORKS OF.
Complete Works of Lord Ma-
caulay:
Library Edition, 8 vols. 8vo. £5 5s.
Cabinet Edition, 16 vols. Post 8vo. £4 16s.
continued.
History of England from the
Accession of James the
Second:
Popular Edition, 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Student's Edition, 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 12s.
People's Edition, 4 vols. Crown 8vo. 16s.
Cabinet Edition, 8 vols. Post 8vo. 48s.
Library Edition, 5 vols. 8vo. £4.
Critical and Historical Essays,
with Lays of Ancient Rome,
in r volume:
Popular Edition, Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
Authorised Edition, Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. or
3s. 6d. gilt edges.
Silver Library Edition, Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Critical and Historical Essays:
Student's Edition, I vol. Crown 8vo. 6s.
People's Edition, 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 8s.
Trevelyan Edition, 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 9s.
Cabinet Edition, 4 vols. Post 8vo. 24s.
Library Edition, 3 vols. 8vo. 36s.
Essays which may be had separately
price бd. each sewed, Is. each cloth :
Addison and Walpole.
Frederick the Great.
Croker's Boswell's Johnson.
Hallam's Constitutional History.
Warren Hastings. (3d. sewed, 6d cloth.)
The Earl of Chatham (Two Essays).
Ranke and Gladstone.
Milton and Machiavelli.
Lord Bacon.
Lord Clive.
Lord Byron, and The Comic Dramatists of
the Restoration.
The Essay on Warren Hastings annotated
by S. HALES, IS. 6d.
The Essay on Lord Clive annotated by H.
COURTHOPE Bowen, M.A., 2s. 6d.
Speeches:
!
People's Edition, Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Lays of Ancient Rome, &c.:
Illustrated by G. Scharf, Fcp. 4to. 10s. 6d.
2s. 6d. gilt top.
Bijou Edition, 18mo.
Popular
Edition,
Fcp. 4to. 6d. sewed, Is. cloth.
Illustrated by J. R. Weguelin, Crown 8vo.
35. 6d. cloth extra, gilt edges.
Cabinet Edition, Post 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Annotated Edition, Fcp. 8vo. Is. sewed,
IS. 6d. cloth.
Miscellaneous Writings:
People's Edition, I vol. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
Library Edition, 2 vols. 8vo. 21s.
[Continued on next page.
*
-u
:
„
14
A CATALOGUE OF BOOKS in geneRAL LITERATURE.
MACAULAY (Lord).—WORKS OF.- | MANNERING.
continued.
Miscellaneous Writings and
Speeches:
Popular Edition, I vol. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
Student's Edition, in 1 vol. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Cabinet Edition, including Indian Penal
Code, Lays of Ancient Rome, and Mis-
cellaneous Poems, 4 vols. Post 8vo. 24s.
Selections from the Writings
of Lord Macaulay. Edited,
with Occasional Notes, by the Right Hon.
Sir G. (). TREVELYAN, Bart. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
The Life and Letters of Lord
Macaulay. By the Right Hon.
Sir G. O. TREVELYAN, Bart.:
Popular Edition, 1 vol. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
Student's Edition, I vol. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Cabinet Edition, 2 vols. Post 8vo. 12s.
Library Edition, 2 vols. 8vo. 36s.
MACDONALD (Geo.).-WORKS BY.
Unspoken Sermons. Three
Series. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
The Miracles of Our Lord.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
A Book of Strife, in the Form
of the Diary of an Old Soul:
Poems.
12mo. 6s.
MACFARREN (Sir G. A.).—WORKS
DHE
BY.
Lectures on Harmony. 8yo. 125.
MACKAIL.-SelectEpigrams from
the Greek Anthology. Edited,
with a Revised Text, Introduction, Trans-
lation, and Notes, by J. W. MACKAIL,
M.A. 8vo. 16s.
MACLEOD (Henry D.).- WORKS BY.
The Elements of Banking.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
The Theory and Practice of
Banking. Vol. I. 8vo. I25.
Vol. II. 145.
The Theory of Credit.
}
8vo.
Vol. I. 7s. 6d.; Vol. II. Part I. 4s. 6d. ;
Vol. II. Part II. 10s. 6d.
McCULLOCH.-The Dictionary of
Commerce and Commercial Navi-
gation of the late J. R. MCCULLOCH.
8vo. with II Maps and 30 Charts, 63s.
MACVINE. — Sixty-Three Years'
Angling, from the Mountain
Streamlet to the Mighty Tay. By JOHN
MACVINE. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
MALMESBURY.-Memoirs of an
Ex-Minister. By the Earl of
MALMESBURY. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
With Axe and
Rope in the New Zealand
Alps. By GEORGE Edward Man-
NERING. With 18 Illustrations.
12s. 6d.
8vo.
MANUALS OF CATHOLIC
PHILOSOPHY (Stonyhurst
Series):
Logic. By RICHARD F. CLARKE,
S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
First Principles of Knowledge.
By JOHN RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Moral Philosophy (Ethics and
Natural Law). By JOSEPH Rick-
ABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
General Metaphysics. By JOHN
RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Psychology. By MICHAEL MAHER,
S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
Natural Theology. By BERNARD
BOEDDER, S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
Political Economy. By CHARLES
S. DEVAS. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
MARBOT.-The Memoirs of the
Baron de Marbot. Translated
from the French. 2 vols. 8vo. 325.
mons.
MARTINEAU (James).-WORKS BY.
Hours of Thought on Sacred
Things. Two Volumes of Ser-
2 vols. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. each.
Endeavours after the Christian
Life. Discourses. Cr. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
The Seat of Authority in Re-
ligion. 8vo. 145.
Essays, Reviews, and Ad-
dresses. 4 vols. Cr.8vo. 7s. 6d. each.
I. Personal: Poli- III. Theological:
tical.
II. Ecclesiastical:
Historical.
Philosophical.
IV. Academical:
Religious.
Home Prayers, with Two Services
for Public Worship. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
MATTHEWS (Brander).—WORKS BY.
A Family Tree, and other Stories.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
Pen and Ink: Papers on Subjects
of more or less Importance. Cr. 8vo. 5s.
With My Friends: Tales told in
Partnership. With an Introductory
Essay on the Art and Mystery of Colla-
boration. Crown 8vo. 6s.
{
}
{
j
$
4
PUBLISHED BY Messrs. Longmans, grEEN, & CO.
MAUNDER'S TREASURIES.
•
Biographical Treasury.
With
Supplement brought down to 1889, by
Rev. JAS. WOOD. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
Treasury of Natural History;
or, Popular Dictionary of Zoology. Fcp.
8vo. with 900 Woodcuts, 6s.
Treasury of Geography, Physical,
Historical, Descriptive, and Political.
With 7 Maps and 16 Plates. Fcp. 8vo. 9s.
Scientific and Literary Trea-
sury. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
Historical Treasury: Outlines of
Universal History, Separate Histories of
all Nations. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
Treasury of Knowledge and
Library of Reference. Com-
prising an English Dictionary and Gram-
mar, Universal Gazetteer, Classical
Dictionary, Chronology, Law Dictionary,
&c. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
The Treasury of Bible Know-
ledge. By the Rev. J. AYRE, M.A.
With 5 Maps, 15 Plates, and 300 Wood-
cuts. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
The
Treasury of Botany.
Edited by J. LINDLEY, F.R.S., and
T. MOORE, F.L.S. With 274 Woodcuts
and 20 Steel Plates. 2 vols. Fcp. 8vo. 12s.
MAX MULLER (F.).— WORKS by.
Selected Essays on Language,
Mythology and Religion.
2 vols. Crown 8vo. 16s.
The Science of Language,
Founded on Lectures delivered at the
Royal Institution in 1861 and 1863. 2
vols. Crown 8vo. 21s.
Three Lectures on the Science
of Language and its Place in
General Education, delivered
at the Oxford University Extension
Meeting, 1889. Crown 8vo. 3s.
Hibbert Lectures on the Origin
and Growth of Religion, as
illustrated by the Religions of India.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Introduction to the Science of
Religion; Four Lectures delivered
at the Royal Institution. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Natural Religion. The Gifford
Lectures, delivered before the University
of Glasgow in 1888. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Physical Religion. The Gifford
Lectures, delivered before the University
of Glasgow in 1890. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
15
MAX MÜLLER (F.).— WORKS BY.—
continued.
Anthropological Religion: The
Gifford Lectures delivered before the Uni-
versity of Glasgow in 1891. Cr.8vo. 10s.6d.
The Science of Thought. 8vo.
2IS.
Three Introductory Lectures on
the Science of Thought. 8vo.
2s. 6d.
Biographies of Words, and the
Home of the Aryas. Crown
8vo. 7s. 6d.
India, what can it teach us?
Crown Svo. 3s. 6d.
A Sanskrit Grammar for Be-
ginners. Abridged Edition. By
A. A. MACDONELL. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
MAY.-The Constitutional His-
tory of England since the
Accession of George III. 1760-1870.
By the Right Hon.
THOMAS
ERSKINE MAY, K.C.B. 3 vols. Crown
8vo. 18s.
Sir
MEADE (L. T.).—WORKs by.
Daddy's Boy. With Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
Deb and the Duchess.
With
Illustrations by M. E. EDWARDS. Crown
8vo. 3s. 6d.
The Beresford Prize. With Illus-
trations by M. E. EDWARDS. Crown
8vo. 5s.
MEATH (The Earl of).— WORKS BY.
Social Arrows: Reprinted Articles
on various Social Subjects. Cr. 8vo. 5s.
Prosperity or Pauperism?
Physical, Industrial, and Technical
Training. (Edited by the EARL OF
MEATH.) 8vo. 5s.
Holmby House.
Kate Coventry.
Digby Grand.
General Bounce.
MELVILLE (G. J. Whyte).—NOVELS
BY. Crown 8vo. Is. each, boards; IS.
6d. each, cloth.
The Gladiators.
The Interpreter.
Good for Nothing.
The Queen's Maries.
MENDELSSOHN.-The Letters of
Felix Mendelssohn. Translated
by Lady WALlace. 2 vols. Crown 8vo.
IOS.
+
L
16
A CATALOGUE OF BOOKS IN GENERAL LITERATURE
MERIVALE (The Very Rev. Chas.). MOORE.-Dante and his Early
WORKS BY.
History of the Romans under
the Empire. Cabinet Edition,
8 vols. Crown 8vo. 48s.
Popular Edition, 8 vols. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
The Fall of the Roman Republic:
a Short History of the Last Century of
the Commonwealth. 12mo. 7s. 6d.
General History of Rome from
B.C. 753 to A.D. 476. Cr. 8vo. 75. 6d.
The Roman Triumvirates. With
Maps. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
MILES.-The Correspondence of
William Augustus Miles on
the French Revolution, 1789-
1817. Edited by the Rev. CHARLES
POPHAM MILES, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s.
MILL. Analysis of the Pheno-
mena of the Human Mind.
By JAMES MIll. 2 vols. 8vo. 28s.
MILL (John Stuart).— WORKS BY.
Principles of Political Economy.
Library Edition, 2 vols. 8vo. 30s.
People's Edition, 1 vol. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
A System of Logic. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
On Liberty. Crown 8vo. IS. 4d.
On Representative Government.
Crown 8vo. 25.
Utilitarianism.
8vo. 5s.
Biographers. By EDWARD
MOORE, D.D., Principal of St. Edmund
Hall, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
MULHALL.—History of Prices
since the Year 1850. By
MICHAEL G. MULHALL. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
NANSEN.-The First Crossing of
Greenland. By Dr. FRIDTJOF
NANSEN. With 5 Maps, 12 Plates, and
150 Illustrations in the Text. 2 vols.
8vo. 36s. Cheaper Edition, abridged.
With numerous Illustrations and a Map.
In I vol. crown Svo. 7s. 6d.
NAPIER.-The Life of Sir Joseph
Napier, Bart., Ex-Lord Chan-
cellor of Ireland. By ALEX.
CHARLES EWALD, F.S.A. With Por-
trait. 8vo. 155.
NAPIER.-The Lectures, Essays,
and Letters of the Right Hon.
Sir Joseph Napier, Bart., late
Lord Chancellor of Ireland. 8vo. 12s. 6d.
NESBIT.-Leaves of Life: Verses.
By E. NESBIT. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Lays and Legends. By E. NESBIT
(Mrs. HUBERT BLAND). FIRST Series.
New and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
SECOND Series. With Portrait.
Crown 8vo. 5s.
Examination of Sir William | NEWMAN.-The Letters and Cor-
Hamilton's Philosophy. 8vo.
16s.
Nature, the Utility of Religion,
and Theism. Three Essays. 8vo.
55.
MOLESWORTH (Mrs.).— WORKS BY.
Marrying and Giving in Mar-
riage: a Novel. Illustrated. Fcp.
8vo. 2s. 6d.
Silverthorns. Illustrated.
Illustrated. Crown
8vo. 5s.
•
The Palace in the Garden. Illus-
trated. Crown 8vo. 5s.
The Third Miss St. Quentin.
Crown Svo. 6s.
Neighbours. Illustrated. Crown
8vo. 6s.
The Story of a Spring Morning,
&c. Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Stories of the Saints for Chil-
dren: the Black Letter Saints.
With Illustrations. Royal 16m0. 5s.
respondence of John Henry
Newman during his Life in the
English Church. With a brief Autobio-
graphical Memoir. Arranged and Edited
by ANNE MOZLEY. With Portraits.
vols. 8vo. 30s. net.
2
NEWMAN (Cardinal).—WORKS BY.
Apologia pro Vitâ Sua. Cabinet
Edition, Crown 8vo. 6s. Cheap Edition,
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Discourses to Mixed Congrega-
tions. Cabinet Edition, Crown
8vo. 6s. Cheap Edition, Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Sermons on Various Occasions.
Cabinet Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. Cheap
Edition.
3s. 6d.
The Idea of a University defined
and illustrated. Cabinet Edition,
Crown 8vo. 7s. Cheap Edition, Crown
8vo. 3s. 6d.
[Continued on next page.
!
PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
17
NEWMAN (Cardinal).— WORKS BY. | NEWMAN (Cardinal).—WORKS OF.—
—continued.
Historical Sketches.
3 vols.
Cabinet Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. each.
Cheap Edition, 3 vols. 3s. 6d. each.
The Arians of the Fourth Cen-
tury. Cabinet Edition, Crown
8vo. 6s. Cheap Edition, Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Select Treatises of St. Athan-
asius in Controversy with the
Arians. Freely Translated. 2 vols. Cr.
8vo. 15s.
Discussions and Arguments on
Various Subjects. Cabinet
Edition, Crown 8vo. 6s. Cheap Edition,
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
An Essay on the Development
of Christian Doctrine. Cabinet
Edition, Crown 8vo. 6s. Cheap Edition,
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Certain Difficulties felt by An-
glicans in Catholic Teaching
Considered. Cabinet Edition,
Vol. I., Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. ; Vol. II., Cr.
8vo. 5s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 2 vols. Cr.
8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
The Via Media of the Anglican
Church, illustrated in Lectures,
&c. 2 vols. Cabinet Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
each. Cheap Edition, 2 vols. 3s. 6d. each.
Essays, Critical and Historical.
Cabinet Edition, 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 12s.
Cheap Edition, 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 75.
Essays on Biblical and on Ec-
clesiastical Miracles. Cabinet
Edition, Crown 8vo. 6s. Cheap Edition,
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Tracts. 1. Dissertatiunculæ. 2. On
the Text of the Seven Epistles of St.
Ignatius. 3. Doctrinal Causes of Arian-
ism. 4. Apollinarianism. 5. St. Cyril's
Formula. 6. Ordo de Tempore.
Donay Version of Scripture. Crown 8vo.
8s.
7.
An Essay in Aid of a Grammar
of Assent. Cabinet Edition,
Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. Cheap Edition,
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Present Position of Catholics in
England. Cabinet Edition, Cr.
8vo. 7s. 6d. Cheap Edition, Cr. 8vo.
3s 6d.
Callista: a Tale of the Third Cen-
tury.. Cabinet Edition, Crown 8vo. 6s.
Cheap Edition, Crown 8vo. 3s. ád.
continued.
Loss and Gain: a Tale. Cabinet
Edition, Crown 8vo. 6s. Cheap Edition,
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
The Dream of Gerontius. 16m0.
6d. sewed, IS. cloth.
Verses on Various Occasions.
Cabinet Edition, Crown 8vo. 6s. Cheap
Edition, Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Fabulae Quaedam ex Terentio
et Plauto ad usum Puerorum
accommodatae. With English
*
Notes and Translations to assist the re-
presentation. Cardinal Newman's Edi-
tion, Crown 8vo. 6s.
** For Cardinal Newman's other Works
see Messrs. Longmans & Co.'s Catalogue
of Church of England Theological Works.
NORTON (Charles L.).— WORKS BY.
Political Americanisms: a Glos-
sary of Terms and Phrases Current at
Different Periods in American Politics.
Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
A Handbook of Florida. With
49 Maps and Plans. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.
O'BRIEN.-When we were Boys:
a Novel. By WILLIAM O'BRIEN, M.P.
Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
OLIPHANT (Mrs.).-NOVELS BY.
Madam. Cr. 8vo. 1s. bds.; 1s. 6d. cl.
In Trust. Cr. 8vo. 1s. bds.; 1s. 6ḍ. cl.
OMAN.-A History of Greece from
the Earliest Times to the
Macedonian Conquest. By C.
W. C. OMAN, M.A., F.S.A.
Maps and Plans. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
With
O'REILLY.-Hurstleigh Dene: a
Tale. By Mrs. O'REILLY. Illustrated
by M. ELLEN EDWARDS. Cr. 8vo. 5s.
PAUL.-Principles of the History
of Language. By HERMANN
PAUL. Translated by H. A. STRONG.
8vo. 10s. 6d.
PAYN (James).-NOVELS BY.
The Luck of the Darrells. Cr.
8vo. Is. boards; Is. 6d. cloth.
Thicker than Water. Crown 8vo.
Is. boards; Is. 6d. cloth.
#
i
18
A CATALOGUE of books in GENERAL LITERATURE
PERRING (Sir Philip).-WORKS BY., PROCTOR (R. A.).-WORKS BY.
Hard Knots in Shakespeare.
8vo. 7s. 6d.
The 'Works and Days' of Moses.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
PHILLIPPS-WOLLEY.-Snap: a
Legend of the Lone Mountain. By C.
PHILLIPPS-WOLLEY. With 13 Illustra-
tions by H. G. WILLINK. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
POLE. The Theory of the Mo-
dern Scientific Game of Whist.
By W. POLE, F.R.S. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
POLLOCK.—The Seal of Fate:
a Novel. By Lady POLLOCK and W.
H. POLLOCK. Crown 8vo. 6s.
POOLE.-Cookery for the Diabetic.
By W. H. and Mrs. POOLE. With Pre-
face by Dr. PAVY. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
PRAEGER.-Wagner as I knew
By FERDINAND PRAEGER.
him.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
PRATT.-To the Snows of Tibet
through China. By A. E.
PRATT, F.R.G.S. With 33 Illustrations
and a Map. 8vo. 18s.
PRENDERGAST.-Ireland, from
the Restoration to the Revolu-
tion, 1660-1690. By JOHN P. PREN-
DERGAST. 8vo. 5s.
I2
PROCTOR (R. A.).— WORKS BY.
Old and New Astronomy.
Parts, 2s. 6d. each. Supplementary Sec-
tion, Is. Complete in I vol. 4to. 36s.
[In course of publication.
The Orbs Around Us; a Series of
Essays on the Moon and Planets, Meteors
and Comets. With Chart and Diagrams.
Crown 8vo. 5s.
Other Worlds than Ours; The
Plurality of Worlds Studied under the
Light of Recent Scientific Researches.
With 14 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 5s.
The Moon; her Motions, Aspects
Scenery, and Physical Condition. With
Plates, Charts, Woodcuts, &c. Cr. 8vo. 5s.
Universe of Stars; Presenting
Researches into and New Views respect-
ing the Constitution of the Heavens.
With 22 Charts and 22 Diagrams. 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
-continued.
Larger Star Atlas for the Library,
in 12 Circular Maps, with Introduction
and 2 Index Pages. Folio, 15s. or Maps
only, 12s. 6d.
The Student's Atlas.
In Twelve
Circular Maps on a Uniform Projection
and one Scale. 8vo. 5s.
New Star Atlas for the Library,
the School, and the Observatory, in 12
Circular Maps. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Light Science for Leisure Hours.
Familiar Essays on Scientific Subjects.
3 vols. Crown 8vo. 5s. each.
Chance and Luck ; a Discussion of
the Laws of Luck, Coincidences, Wagers,
Lotteries, and the Fallacies of Gambling,
&c. Crown 8vo. 2s. boards; 2s. 6d. cloth.
Studies of Venus-Transits. With
7 Diagrams and 10 Plates. 8vo. 5s.
How to Play Whist: with the
Laws and Etiquette of Whist.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Home Whist: an Easy Guide to
Correct Play. 16mo. Is.
The Stars in their Seasons.
An Easy Guide to a Knowledge of the
Star Groups, in 12 Maps. Roy. 8vo. 5s.
Star Primer. Showing the Starry
Sky Week by Week, in 24 Hourly Maps.
Crown 4to. 2s. 6d.
The Seasons pictured in 48 Sun-
Views of the Earth, and 24
Zodiacal Maps, &c. Demy 4to. 5s.
Strength and Happiness. With
9 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Strength: How to get Strong and
keep Strong, with Chapters on Rowing
and Swimming, Fat, Age, and the Waist.
With 9 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 2s.
Rough Ways Made Smooth.
Familiar Essays on Scientific Subjects.
Crown 8vo. 5s.
Our Place Among Infinities. A
Series of Essays contrasting our Little
Abode in Space and Time with the Infi-
nities around us. Crown 8vo. 5s.
[Continued on next page.
¡
:
PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
19
1
PROCTOR (R. A.).—WORKS BY.- RIVERS.-The Miniature Fruit
continued.
The Expanse of Heaven. Essays
on the Wonders of the Firmament. Cr.
8vo. 5s.
The Great Pyramid, Observa-
tory, Tomb, and Temple.
With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Pleasant Ways in Science. Cr.
8vo. 5s.
Myths and Marvels of Astro-
nomy. Crown 8vo. 5s.
--
Nature Studies. By GRANT ALLEN,
A. WILSON, T. Foster, E. CLODD, and
R. A. PROCTOR. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Leisure Readings. By E. CLODD,
A. WILSON, T. FOSTER, A. C. RANYARD,
and R. A. PROCTOR. Crown 8vo. 5s.
PRYCE. - The Ancient British
Church: an Historical Essay.
By JOHN PRYCE, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.
RANSOME.-The Rise of Consti-
tutional Government in Eng-
land: being a Series of Twenty
Lectures on the History of the English
Constitution delivered to a Popular
Audience. By CYRIL RANSOME, M.A.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
RAWLINSON.-The History of
Phoenicia. By GEORGE RAWLIN-
SON, M.A., Canon of Canterbury, &c.
With numerous Illustrations. 8vo. 24s.
RIBOT.-The Psychology of At-
tention. By TH. RIBOT. Crown
8vo. 35.
RICH. A Dictionary of Roman
and Greek Antiquities. With
2000 Woodcuts. By A. RICH. Crown
8vo. 7s. 6d.
RICHARDSON.-National Health.
Abridged from 'The Health of Nations'.
A Review of the Works of Sir Edwin
Chadwick, K.C.B. By Dr. B. W.
RICHARDSON. Crown, 4s. 6d.
RILEY.—Athos; or, the Mountain
of the Monks. By ATHELSTAn Riley,
M.A., F.R.G.S. With Map and 29
Illustrations. 8vo. 21s.
RILEY-Old-Fashioned
Poems.
RILEY.
Roses:
By JAMES WHITCOMB
12mo. 5s.
Garden; or, The Culture of Pyra-
midal and Bush Fruit Trees. By THOMAS
and T. F. RIVERS. With 32 Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. 45.
RIVERS.—The Rose Amateur's
Guide. BY THOMAS RIVERS.
Fcp. 8vo. 4s. 6d.
ROBERTSON. The Kidnapped
Squatter, and other Australian
Tales. By A. ROBERTSON. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
ROCKHILL.-The Land of the
Lamas: Notes of a Journey
through China, Mangolia and Tibet.
With 2 Maps and 6 Illustrations. By
W. W. ROCKHILL. 8vo. 15s.
ROGET.-A History of the 'Old
Water-Colour' Society (now
the Royal Society of Painters in Water-
Colours). With Biographical Notices of
its Older and all its Deceased Members
and Associates. By JOHN LEwis Roget,
M.A. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 42s.
ROGET.-Thesaurus of English
Words and Phrases. Classified
and Arranged so as to facilitate the Ex-
pression of Ideas. By PETER M. ROGET.
Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
ROMANES.- Darwin, and after
Darwin: an Exposition of the
Darwinian Theory and a Discussion of
Post-Darwinian Questions. By GEORGE
JOHN ROMANES, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.,
Author of Mental Evolution in Man,'
&c. Part I.-The Darwinian Theory.
With Portrait of Darwin and 125 Illustra-
tions. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
RONALDS. The Fly-Fisher's
Entomology. By A. RONALDS.
With 20 Coloured Plates. 8vo. 14s.
ROSSETTI.—A Shadow of Dante:
being an Essay towards studying Himself,
his World, and his Pilgrimage. By MARIA
FRANCESCA ROSSETTI. With Illustra-
tions. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
:
ROUND. - Geoffrey de Mande-
ville: a Study of the Anarchy.
By J. H. ROUND, M.A., Author of 'The
Early Life of Anne Boleyn: a Critical
Essay'. 8vo. 16s.
RUSSELL.-A Life of Lord John
Russell (Earl Russell, K.G.).
By SPENCER WALPOLE. With 2 Por-
'traits. 2 vols. 8vo. 36s. Cabinet Edition,
2 vols. Crown 8vo. 12s.
f
i
1
20
A CATALOGUE of BOOKS IN GENERAL LITERATURE
SEEBOHM (Frederic).- WORKS BY. | SILVER LIBRARY (The).-
}
The Oxford Reformers-John
Colet, Erasmus, and Thomas
More; a History of their Fellow-
Work. 8vo. 14s.
The English Village Commu-
nity Examined in its Relations to
the Manorial and Tribal Systems, &c. 13
Maps and Plates. 8vo. 16s.
The Era of the Protestant
Revolution. With Map. Fcp.
8vo. 2s. 6d.
SEWELL.-Stories and Tales. By
ELIZABETH M. SEWEll. Crown 8vo.
Is. 6d. each, cloth plain; 2s. 6d. each,
cloth extra, gilt edges :-
Amy Herbert.
The Earl's Daughter.
Laneton Parsonage.
Ursula.
The Experience of Life. Gertrude.
AGlimpse of the World. | Ivors.
+
Cleve Hall.
Katharine Ashton.
Margaret Percival.
Home Life.
After Life.
Bowdler's
[ Vol.
SHAKESPEARE.
Family Shakespeare.
8vo. With 36 Woodcuts, 145. or in 6
vols. Fcp. 8vo. 215.
Outlines of the Life of Shake-
speare. By J. O. HALLIWELL-
PHILLIPPS. With numerous Illustrations
and Fac-similes. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. £1 Is.
A Calendar of the Halliwell-
Phillipps' Collection of Shake-
spearean Rarities Formerly
Preserved at Hollingbury Copse, Brighton.
Enlarged by ERNEST E. BAKER, F.S.A.
8vo. 10s. 6d.
Shakespeare's True Life. By
JAMES WALTER. With 500 Illustrations.
Imp. 8vo. 21s.
The
Shakespeare Birthday
Book. By MARY F. DUNBAR.
32mo. Is. 6d. cloth. With Photographs,
32mo. 5s. Drawing-Room Edition, with
Photographs, Fcp. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
SIDGWICK.—Distinction: and the
Criticism of Belief. By ALFRED SIDG-
WICK. Crown 8vo. 6s.
SILVER LIBRARY (The).
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each volume.
Baker's (Sir S. W.) Eight Years in
Ceylon. With 6 Illustrations. 3s. 6d.
Baker's (Sir S. W.) Rifle and Hound in
Ceylon. With 6 Illustrations. 3s. 6d.
Baring-Gould's Curious Myths of the
Middle Ages. 3s. 6d.
continued.
Baring-Gould's (Rev. S.) Origin and
Development of Religious Belief.
vols. 75..
2
Brassey's (Lady) A Voyage in the 'Sun-
beam'. With 66 Illustrations. 35. 6d.
Clodd's (E.) Story of Creation: a Plain
Account of Evolution. With 77 Illustra-
tions. 35. 6d.
Conybeare (Rev. W. J.) and Howson's
(Very Rev. J. S.) Life and Epistles of
St. Paul. 46 Illustrations. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
Dougall's (L.) Beggars All: a Novel.
Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
Doyle's (A. Conan) Micah Clarke.
A
Tale of Monmouth's Rebellion. 3s. 6d.
Doyle's (A. Conan) The Captain of the
Polestar, and other Tales. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
Froude's (J. A.) Short Studies on Great
Subjects. 4 vols. 35. 6d. each.
Froude's (J. A.) Cæsar: a Sketch. 3s. 6d.
Froude's (J. A.) Thomas Carlyle: a
History of his Life. 1795-1835. 2 vols.
1834-1881. 2 vols. 75. each.
Froude's (J. A.) The Two Chiefs of
Dunboy: an Irish Romance of the Last
Century. 35. 6d.
Gleig's (Rev. G. R.) Life of the Duke
of Wellington. With Portrait. 35. 6d.
Haggard's (H. R.) She: A History of
Adventure. 32 Illustrations. 3s. 6d.
Haggard's (H. R.) Allan Quatermain.
With 20 Illustrations. 35. 6d.
Haggard's (H. R.) Colonel Quaritch,
V.C.: a Tale of Country Life. 3s. 6d.
Haggard's (H. R.) Cleopatra. With 29
Full-page Illustrations. 3s. 6d.
Haggard's (H. R.) Beatrice. 3s. 6d.
Howitt's (W.) Visits to Remarkable
Places, 80 Illustrations. 3s. 6d.
Jefferies' (R.) The Story of My Heart:
My Autobiography. With Portrait. 35. 6d.
Jefferies' (R.) Field and Hedgerow. Last
Essays of. With Portrait. 3s. 6d.
Jefferies' (R.) Red Deer. With 17 Illus-
trations by J. CHARLTON and H.
TUNALY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Knight's (E. F.) The Cruise of the
Alerte' the Narrative of a Search for
Treasure on the Desert Island of Trinidad.
With 2 Maps and 23 Illustrations. Crown
8vo. 3s. 6d.
Lees (J. A.) and Clutterbuck's (W. J.),
B. C. 1887, A Ramble in British
Columbia. With Maps and 75 Illustra-
tions.
3s. 6d.
[Continued on next page.
!
PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. LONGMANS, green, & CO.
21
SILVER LIBRARY (The).— | SILVER
(The). SILVER LIBRARY (The).-
continued.
Macaulay's (Lord) Essays and Lays.
With Portrait and Illustration. -3s. 6d.
Macleod's (H. D.) The Elements of
Banking. 35. 6d.
Marshman's (J. C.) Memoirs of Sir
Henry Havelock. 35. 6d.
Max Müller's (F.) India, what can it
teach us? Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Merivale's (Dean) History of the
Romans under the Empire. 8 vols.
3.s. 6d. each.
Mill's (J. S.) Principles of Political
Economy. 3s. 6d.
Mill's (J. S.) System of Logic 35. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) Historical
Sketches. 3 vols. 3s. 6d. each.
Newman's (Cardinal) Apologia Pro
Vitâ Sua. 35. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) Callista :
of the Third Century. 3s. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) Loss and Gain:
a Tale. 35. 6d.
a Tale
Newman's (Cardinal) Essays, Critical
and Historical. 2 vols. 75.
Newman's (Cardinal) An Essay on the
Development of Christian Doctrine.
3s. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) The Arians of
the Fourth Century. 35. 6d.
continued.
Newman's (Cardinal) Lectures on the
Doctrine of Justification. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) Sermons
on
Various Occasions. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) The Via Media
of the Anglican Church, illustrated in
Lectures, &c. 2 vols. 35. 6d. each.
Newman's (Cardinal) Discourses to
Mixed Congregations. 3s. 6d.
Phillipps-Wolley's (C.) Snap: a Legend
of the Lone Mountain. With 13 Illustra-
tions. 35. 6d.
Stanley's (Bishop) Familiar History of
Birds. 160 Illustrations. 3s. 6d.
Stevenson (R. L.) and Osbourne's (LI.)
The Wrong Box. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Weyman's (Stanley J.) The House of
the Wolf: a Romance. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Wood's (Rev. J. G.) Petland Revisited.
With 33 Illustrations. 3s. 6d.
Wood's (Rev. J. G.) Strange Dwellings :
With 60 Illustrations. 3s. 6d.
Wood's (Rev. J. G.) Out of Doors.
II Illustrations. 3s. 6d.
SMITH (R. Bosworth).-Carthage
and the Carthagenians. By
R. BOSWORTH SMITH, M.A. Maps,
Plans, &c. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Newman's (Cardinal) Verses on Various Sophocles. Translated into English
Occasions. 3s. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) The Present Posi-
tion of Catholics in England. 3s. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) Parochial and
Plain Sermons. 8 vols. 35. 6d. each.
Newman's (Cardinal) Selection, adapted
to the Seasons of the Ecclesiastical Year,
from the Parochial and Plain Sermons'.
3s. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) Sermons bearing
upon Subjects of the Day. Edited
by the Rev. W. J. Copeland, B.D., late
Rector of Farnham, Essex. 3s. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) Difficulties felt by
Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Con-
sidered. 2 vols. 3s. 6d. each.
Newman's (Cardinal) The Idea of a
University Defined and Illustrated.
35. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) Biblical and
Ecclesiastical Miracles. 35. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) Discussions and
Arguments on Various Subjects.
3s. 6d.
Newman's (Cardinal) Grammar
Assent. 35. 6d.
of
Newman's (Cardinal) Fifteen Sermons
Preached before the University of
Oxford. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
1
Verse. By ROBERT WHITELAW, M.A.
Assistant-Master in Rugby School; late
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.
STEEL (J. H.).—— WORKS BY.
A Treatise on the Diseases of
the Dog; being a Manual of
Canine Pathology. 88 Illustrations.
8vo. 10s. 6d.
A Treatise on the Diseases of
the Ox; being a Manual of
Bovine Pathology. 2 Plates and 117
Woodcuts. 8vo. 15s.
A Treatise on the Diseases of
the Sheep; being a Manual of
Ovine Pathology. With Coloured Plate
and 99 Woodcuts. 8vo. 125.
STEPHEN.-Essays in Ecclesi-
astical Biography. By the
Right Hon. Sir J. STEPHEN. Crown
8vo. 7s. 6d.
STEPHENS.-A History of the
French Revolution. By H.
MORSE STEPHENS, Balliol College,
Oxford. 3 vols. 8vo. Vols. I. and II. 18s.
each.
4
1
1
22
A CATALOGUE of books in GENERAL LITERATURE
}
STEVENSON (Robt. Louis).—WORKS | SYMES (J. E.).—WORKS BY.
BY.
A Child's Garden of Verses.
Small Fcp. 8vo. 5s.
A Child's Garland of Songs,
Gathered from A Child's Garden of
Verses'. By ROBERT LOUIS STEVEN-
SON, and set to Music by C. VILLIERS
STANFORD, Mus. Doc.
4to. 2s. sewed,
3s. 6d. cloth gilt.
The Dynamiter. Fcp. 8vo. Is.
sewed; Is. 6d. cloth.
Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and
Mr. Hyde. Fcp. 8vo. Is. swd. ;
Is. 6d. cloth.
STEVENSON and
OSBOURNE.
The Wrong Box. By ROBERT
LOUIS STEVENSON and LLOYD OS-
BOURNE. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
STOCK.-Deductive Logic. By
ST. GEORGE STOCK. Fcp. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
'
· STONEHENGE'.-The Dog in
Health and Disease. By
'STONEHENGE '. With 84 Wood En-
gravings. Square Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
STRONG, LOGEMAN, and
WHEELER.-Introduction to
the Study of the History of
Language. By HERBERT A.
STRONG, M.A., LL.D.; WILLEM S.
LOGEMAN; and BENJAMIN IDE
WHEELER. 8vo. 1os. 6d.
SULLY (James).- WORKS BY.
The Human Mind: a Text-Book
of Psychology. 2 vols. 8vo. 21S.
Outlines of Psychology.
With
Prelude to Modern History:
being a Brief Sketch of the World's
History from the Third to the Ninth
Century. With 5 Maps. Crown 8vo.
2s. 6d.
A Companion to School His-
tories of England. Crown
8vo. 2s. 6d.
Political Economy. With Prob-
lems for Solution, and Hints for Sup-
plementary Reading. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
TAYLOR.-A Student's Manual of
the History of India. By
Colonel MEADOWS TAYLOR, C.S.I., &c.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6ď.
THOMPSON (D. Greenleuf).-WORKS
BY.
The Problem of Evil: an Intro-
duction to the Practical Sciences. 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
A System of Psychology. 2 vols.
8vo. 36s.
The Religious Sentiments of
the Human Mind. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Social Progress: an Essay. 8vo.
7s. 6d.
The Philosophy of Fiction in
Literature: an Essay. Cr. 8vo.6s.
Three in Norway.
By Two of
THEM. With a Map and 59 Illustrations.
Cr. 8vo. 2s. boards; 2s. 6d. cloth.
THOMSON. Outlines of
the
Necessary Laws of Thought:
a Treatise on Pure and Applied Logic.
By the Most Rev. WILLIAM THOMSON,
D.D., late Lord Archbishop of York.
Post 8vo. 6s.
Special Reference to the Theory of Edu- TIREBUCK.-Dorrie: a Novel. By
cation. 8vo. 10s.
The Teacher's Handbook of
Psychology, on the Basis of
'Outlines of Psychology'. Cr. Svo. 5s.
Supernatural Religion; an In-
quiry into the Reality of Divine Reve-
lation. 3 vols. 8vo. 36s.
Reply (A) to Dr. Lightfoot's
Essays. By the Author of 'Super-
natural Religion'. 8vo. 6s.
SWINBURNE.-Picture Logic; an
Attempt to Popularise the Science of
Reasoning. By A. J. SWINBURNne, B.A.
Post 8vo. 5s.
WILLIAM TIREBUCK. Crown 8vo. 6s.
TOYNBEE.-Lectures on the In-
dustrial Revolution of the
18th Century in England.
By ARNOLD TOYNBEE. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
TREVELYAN (Sir G. O., Bart.).—
WORKS BY.
The Life and Letters of Lord
Macaulay.
POPULAR EDITION, Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
STUDENT'S EDITION, Crown 8vo. 6s.
CABINET EDITION, 2 vols. Cr. 8vo. 12s.
LIBRARY EDITION, 2 vols. 8vo. 36s.
[Continued on next page.
i
3
PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. LONGMANS, green, & CO.
23
TREVELYAN (Sir G. O., Bart.).— | WALKER.-The Correct Card; or
WORKS BY.-continued.
The Early History of Charles
How to Play at Whist; a Whist Cate-
chism. By Major A. CAMPBELL-
WALKER, F.R.G.S. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
James Fox. Library Edition, WALPOLE.-History of England
8vo. 18s. Cabinet Edition, Cr. 8vo. 6s.
TROLLOPE(Anthony).-NOVELS BY.
The Warden. Crown 8vo. IS.
boards; Is. 6d. cloth.
from the Conclusion of the
Great War in 1815 to 1858.
By SPENCER WALPOLE. Library Edition.
5 vols. 8vo. £4 IOS. Cabinet Edition.
6 vols. Crown 8vo. 6s. each.
Barchester Towers. Crown 8vo. WELLINGTON.-Life of the Duke
Is. boards; Is. 6d. cloth.
VERNEY.—Memoirs of the Ver-
ney Family during the Civil
War. Compiled from the Letters
and Illustrated by the Portraits at Clay-
don House, Bucks. By FRANCES PAR-
THENOPE VERNEY. With a Preface by
S. R. GARDINER, M.A., LL.D. With
38 Portraits, Woodcuts and Facsimile.
2 vols. Royal 8vo. 42s.
VILLE.—The Perplexed Farmer:
How is he to meet Alien Competition?
By GEORGE VILLE. Translated from the |
French by WILLIAM CROOKES, F.R.S.,
V.P.C.S., &c. Crown 8vo. 5s.
VIRGIL.—Publi Vergili Maronis
ནོ॰
Bucolica, Georgica, Æneis;
The Works of VIRGIL, Latin Text, with
English Commentary and Index. By
B. H. KENNEDY, D.D. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
The Æneid of Virgil. Translated
into English Verse. By JOHN Coning-
TON, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.
The Poems of Virgil. Translated
into English Prose. By JOHN CONING-
TON, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.
The Eclogues and Georgics of
Virgil. Translated from the
Latin by J. W. MACKAIL, M. A., Fellow
of Balliol College, Oxford. Printed on
Dutch Hand-made Paper. Royal 16mo.
5s.
WAKEMAN and HASSALL.-
Essays Introductory to the
Study of English Constitu-
tional History. By Resident
Members of the University of Oxford.
Edited by HENRY OFFLEY WAKEMAN,
M.A., and ARTHUR HASSALL, M.A.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
Ag
WALFORD. The Mischief of
Monica: a Novel. By L. B.
WALFORD. Crown 8vo. 6s.
of Wellington. By the Rev. G.
R. GLEIG, M.A. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Economic
Changes and their Effect on the
WELLS.- Recent
Production and Distribution of Wealth
and the Well-being of Society. By
DAVID A. WELLS. Crown 8vo. 1os. 6d.
WENDT.-Papers on Maritime
Legislation, with a Translation
of the German Mercantile Laws relating
to Maritime Commerce. By ERNEST
EMIL WENDT. Royal 8vo. £1.11s. 6d.
WEST.-Half-hours with the Mil-
lionaires: Showing how much
harder it is to spend a million than to
make it. Edited by B. B. West..
WEST., Crown
8vo. 6s.
WEYMAN.-The House of the
Wolf: a Romance. By STANLEY
J. WEYMAN. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
WHATELY (E. Jane).-WORKS BY.
English Synonyms. Edited by
+
R. WHATELY, D.D. Fcp. 8vo. 3s.
Life and Correspondence of
Richard Whately, D.D., late
Archbishop of Dublin. With Portrait.
Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
WHATELY (Archbishop). — WORKS
BY.
Elements of Logic. Crown 8vo.
4s. 6d.
Elements of Rhetoric. Crown
8vo. 4s. 6d.
Lessons on Reasoning.
8vo. Is. 6d.
Fcp.
Bacon's Essays, with Annotations.
8vo. Ios. 6d.
Whist in Diagrams: a Supplement
to American Whist, Illustrated; being a
Series of Hands played through, Illus-
trating the American leads, the new play,
the forms of Finesse, and celebrated coups
of Masters. With Explanation and
Analysis. By G. W. P. Fcp. 8vo. 6s. 6d.
24
A CATALOGUE OF BOOKS IN GEneral literature.
WILCOCKS.—The Sea Fisherman, | WOOD (Rev. J G.).—Works by.-
Comprising the Chief Methods of Hook
and Line Fishing in the British and other
Seas, and Remarks on Nets, Boats, and
Boating. By J. C. WILCOCKS.
fusely Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Pro-
WILLICH.—Popular Tables for
giving Information for ascertaining the
value of Lifehold, Leasehold, and Church
Property, the Public Funds, &c.
By
CHARLES M. WILLICH. Edited by
H. BENCE JONES. Crown 8vo. Ios. 6d.
WILLOUGHBY.—East Africa and
its Big Game. By Capt. Sir
JOHN C. WILLOUGHBY, Bart. Illus-
trated by G. D. Giles and Mrs. Gordon
Hake. Royal 8vo. 21s.
WITT (Prof.).—WORKS BY. Trans-
lated by FRANCES YOUNGHUSBAND.
The Trojan War. Crown 8vo. 25.
Myths of Hellas; or, Greek Tales.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
The Wanderings of Ulysses.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
The Retreat of the Ten Thou-
sand; being the story of Xeno-
phon's 'Anabasis'. With Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
WOLFF (Henry W.).-WORKS BY.
Rambles in the Black Forest.
Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
The Watering Places of the
Vosges. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
The Country of the Vosges.
With a Map. 8vo. 12s.
WOOD (Rev. J. G.).—WORKS BY.
Homes Without Hands; a De-
scription of the Habitations of Animals,
classed according to the Principle of Con-
struction. With 140 Illustrations. 8vo.
7s. net.
Insects at Home; a Popular
Account of British Insects, their Struc-
ture, Habits, and Transformations. With
700 Illustrations. 8vo. 7s. net.
Insects Abroad; a Popular Account
of Foreign Insects, their Structure,
Habits, and Transformations. With
600 Illustrations. 8vo. 7s. net.
10,000/6/92.
continued.
Bible Animals; a Description of
every Living Creature mentioned in the
Scriptures. With 112 Illustrations. 8vo.
7s. net.
Strange Dwellings; a Description
of the Habitations of Animals, abridged
from 'Homes without Hands'. With
60 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Out of Doors; a Selection of
Original Articles on Practical Natural
History. With II Illustrations. Crown
8vo. 3s. 6d.
Petland Revisited. With 33
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
WORDSWORTH.-Annals of My
Early Life, 1806-46. By
CHARLES WORDSWORTH,
D.C.L.,
Bishop of St. Andrews. 8vo. 15s.
WYLIE.-History of
of England
under Henry IV. By JAMES
HAMILTON WYLIE. 2 vols. Vol. I.,
1399-1404. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. Vol. II.
[In the Press.
YOUATT (William).—WORKS BY.
The Horse. Revised and enlarged.
8vo. Woodcuts, 7s. 6d.
The Dog. Revised and enlarged.
8vo. Woodcuts, 6s.
ZELLER (Dr. E.).—WORKS BY.
History of Eclecticism in Greek
Philosophy. Translated by
SARAH F. ALLEYNE. Cr. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
The Stoics, Epicureans, and
Sceptics. Translated by the Rev.
O. J. REICHEL, M.A. Crown 8vo. 15s.
Socrates and the Socratic
Schools. Translated by the Rev.
O. J. REICHEL, M.A. Cr. 8vo. IOS. 6d.
Plato and the Older Academy.
Translated by SARAH F. ALLEYNE and
ALFRED GOODWIN, B.A. Crown 8vo.
18s.
The Pre-Socratic Schools: a
History of Greek Philosophy from the
Earliest Period to the time of Socrates.
Translated by SARAH F. ALLEYNE. 2
vols. Crown 8vo. 30s.
Outlines of the History of Greek
Philosophy. Translated by
SARAH F. ALLEYNE and EVELYN
ABBOTT. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 05840 2697
1
i
1
!