would be in better hope, and the papists' daily expectation
vanquished."[215] And Walsingham, during his embassy at Paris, desires that "the queen should see how much they (the papists) built
upon the possibility of that dangerous woman's coming to the crown
of England, whose life was a step to her majesty's death;" adding that
"she was bound for her own safety and that of her subjects, to add to
God's providence her own policy, so far as might stand with
justice."[216]
Catholics more rigorously treated. —We cannot wonder to read that
these new statutes increased the dissatisfaction of the Roman
catholics, who perceived a systematic determination to extirpate their
religion. Governments ought always to remember that the intimidation
of a few disaffected persons is dearly bought by alienating any large
portion of the community.[217] Many retired to foreign countries, and receiving for their maintenance pensions from the court of Spain,
became unhappy instruments of its ambitious enterprises. Those who
remained at home could hardly think their oppression much mitigated
by the precarious indulgences which Elizabeth's caprice, or rather the
fluctuation of different parties in her councils, sometimes extended to
them. The queen indeed, so far as we can penetrate her
dissimulation, seems to have been really averse to extreme rigour
against her catholic subjects: and her greatest minister, as we shall
more fully see afterwards, was at this time in the same sentiments.
But such of her advisers as leaned towards the puritan faction, and
too many of the Anglican clergy, whether puritan or not, thought no
measure of charity or compassion should be extended to them. With
the divines they were idolaters; with the council they were a
dangerous and disaffected party; with the judges they were refractory
transgressors of statutes; on every side they were obnoxious and
oppressed. A few aged men having been set at liberty, Sampson, the
famous puritan, himself a sufferer for conscience sake, wrote a letter
of remonstrance to Lord Burleigh. He urged in this that they should be
compelled
135
to hear sermons, though he would not at first oblige them to
communicate.[218] A bill having been introduced in the session of 1571
imposing a penalty for not receiving the communion, it was objected
that consciences ought not to be forced. But Mr. Strickland entirely
denied this principle, and quoted authorities against it.[219] Even Parker, by no means tainted with puritan bigotry, and who had been
reckoned moderate in his proceedings towards catholics, complained
of what he called "a Machiavel government;" that is, of the queen's
lenity in not absolutely rooting them out.[220]
This indulgence, however, shown by Elizabeth, the topic of reproach
in those times, and sometimes of boast in our own, never extended to
any positive toleration, nor even to any general connivance at the
Romish worship in its most private exercise. She published a
declaration in 1570, that she did not intend to sift men's consciences,
provided they observed her laws by coming to church; which, as she
well knew, the greater part deemed inconsistent with their integrity.[221]
Nor did the government always abstain from an inquisition into men's
private thoughts. The inns of court were more than once purified of
popery by examining their members on articles of faith. Gentlemen of
good families in the country were harassed in the same manner.[222]
One Sir Richard Shelley, who had long acted as a sort of spy for
Cecil on the continent, and
136
given much useful information, requested only leave to enjoy his
religion without hindrance; but the queen did not accede to this
without much reluctance and delay.[223] She had indeed assigned no other ostensible pretext for breaking off her own treaty of marriage
with the Archduke Charles, and subsequently with the Dukes of Anjou
and Alençon, than her determination not to suffer the mass to be
celebrated even in her husband's private chapel. It is worthy to be
repeatedly inculcated on the reader, since so false a colour has been
often employed to disguise the ecclesiastical tyranny of this reign,
that the most clandestine exercise of the Romish worship was
severely punished. Thus we read in the life of Whitgift, that on
information given that some ladies and others heard mass in the
house of one Edwards by night, in the county of Denbigh, he being
then Bishop of Worcester and Vice-President of Wales, was directed
to make inquiry into the facts; and finally was instructed to commit
Edwards to close prison, and as for another person implicated,
named Morice, "if he remained obstinate, he might cause some kind
of torture to be used upon him, and the like order they prayed him to
use with the others."[224] But this is one of many instances, the events of every day, forgotten on the morrow, and of which no general
historian takes account. Nothing but the minute and patient diligence
of such a compiler as Strype, who thinks no fact below his regard,
could have preserved them from oblivion.[225]
137
It will not surprise those who have observed the effect of all
persecution for matters of opinion upon the human mind, that during
this period the Romish party continued such in numbers and in zeal
as to give the most lively alarm to Elizabeth's administration. One
cause of this was beyond doubt the connivance of justices of the
peace, a great many of whom were secretly attached to the same
interest, though it was not easy to exclude them from the
commission, on account of their wealth and respectability.[226] The facility with which catholic rites can be performed in secret, as before
observed, was a still more important circumstance. Nor did the
voluntary exiles established in Flanders remit their diligence in filling
the kingdom with emissaries. The object of many at least among
them, it cannot for a moment be doubted, from the æra of the bull of
Pius V.,
138
if not earlier, was nothing less than to subvert the queen's throne.
They were closely united with the court of Spain, which had passed
from the character of an ally and pretended friend, to that of a cold
and jealous neighbour, and at length of an implacable adversary.
Though no war had been declared between Elizabeth and Philip,
neither party had scrupled to enter into leagues with the disaffected
subjects of the other. Such sworn vassals of Rome and Spain as an
Allen or a Persons, were just objects of the English government's
distrust: it is the extension of that jealousy to the peaceful and loyal
which we stigmatise as oppressive, and even as impolitic.[227]
Fresh laws against the catholic worship. —In concert with the directing
powers of the Vatican and Escurial, the refugees redoubled their
exertions about the year 1580. Mary was now wearing out her years
in hopeless captivity; her son, though they did not lose hope of him,
had received a strictly protestant education; while a new generation
had grown up in England, rather inclined to diverge more widely from
the ancient religion than to suffer its restoration. Such were they who
formed the House of Commons that met in 1581, discontented with
the severities used against the puritans, but ready to go beyond any
measures that the court might propose to subdue and extirpate
popery. Here an act was passed, which, after repeating the former
provisions that had made it high treason to reconcile
139
any of her majesty's subjects, or to be reconciled to the church of
Rome, imposes a penalty of £20 a month on all persons absenting
themselves from church, unless they shall hear the English service at
home: such as could not pay the same within three months after
judgment were to be imprisoned until they should conform. The
queen, by a subsequent act, had the power of seizing two-thirds of
the party's land, and all his goods, for default of payment.[228] These grievous penalties on recusancy, as the wilful absence of catholics
from church came now to be denominated, were doubtless founded
on the extreme difficulty of proving an actual celebration of their own
rites. But they established a persecution which fell not at all short in
principle of that for which the inquisition had become so odious. Nor
were the statutes merely designed for terror's sake, to keep a check
over the disaffected, as some would pretend. They were executed in
the most sweeping and indiscriminating manner, unless perhaps a
few families of high rank might enjoy a connivance.[229]
Execution of Campian and others. —It had certainly been the desire of
Elizabeth to abstain from capital punishments on the score of religion.
The first instance of a priest suffering death by her statutes was in
1577, when one Mayne was hanged at Launceston, without any
charge against him except his religion, and a gentleman who had
harboured him was sentenced to imprisonment for life.[230] In the next year, if we may trust the zealous catholic writers, Thomas Sherwood,
a boy of fourteen years, was executed for refusing to deny the
temporal power of the pope, when urged by his judges.[231] But in 1581 several seminary priests from Flanders having been arrested,
whose projects were supposed (perhaps not wholly without
foundation) to be very inconsistent with their allegiance, it was
unhappily deemed necessary to hold out some more conspicuous
examples of rigour. Of those brought to trial the most eminent was
140
Campian, formerly a protestant, but long known as the boast of
Douay for his learning and virtues.[232] This man, so justly respected, was put to the rack, and revealed through torture the names of some
catholic gentlemen with whom he had conversed.[233] He appears to have been indicted along with several other priests, not on the recent
statutes, but on that of 25 Edw. III. for compassing and imagining the
queen's death. Nothing that I have read affords the slightest proof of
Campian's concern in treasonable practices, though his connections,
and profession as a jesuit, render it by no means unlikely. If we may
confide in the published trial, the prosecution was as unfairly
conducted, and supported by as slender evidence, as any perhaps
which can be found in our books.[234] But as this account, wherein Campian's language is full of a dignified eloquence, rather seems to
have been compiled by a partial hand, its faithfulness may not be
above suspicion. For the same reason I hesitate to admit his alleged
declarations at the place of execution, where, as well as at his trial,
he is represented to have expressly acknowledged Elizabeth, and to
have prayed for her as his queen de facto and de jure. For this was
one of the questions propounded to him before his trial, which he
refused to answer, in such a manner as betrayed his way of thinking.
Most of those interrogated at the same time, on being pressed
whether the queen was their lawful sovereign whom they were bound
to obey, notwithstanding any sentence of deprivation that the pope
might pronounce, endeavoured, like Campian, to evade the snare. A
few, who unequivocally disclaimed the deposing power of the Roman
see, were pardoned.[235] It is more honourable to Campian's memory that we should reject these pretended declarations,
141
than imagine him to have made them at the expense of his
consistency and integrity. For the pope's right to deprive kings of their
crowns was in that age the common creed of the jesuits, to whose
order Campian belonged; and the continent was full of writings
published by the English exiles, by Sanders, Bristow, Persons, and
Allen, against Elizabeth's unlawful usurpation of the throne. But many
availed themselves of what was called an explanation of the bull of
Pius V., given by his successor Gregory XIII.; namely, that the bull
should be considered as always in force against Elizabeth and the
heretics, but should only be binding on catholics when due execution
of it could be had.[236] This was designed to satisfy the consciences of some papists in submitting to her government, and taking the oath of
allegiance. But in thus granting a permission to dissemble, in hope of
better opportunity for revolt, this interpretation was not likely to
tranquillise her council, or conciliate them towards the Romish party.
The distinction, however, between a king by possession and one by
right, was neither heard for the first, nor for the last time, in the reign
of Elizabeth. It is the lot of every government that is not founded on
the popular opinion of legitimacy, to receive only a precarious
allegiance. Subject to this reservation, which was
142
pretty generally known, it does not appear that the priests or other
Roman catholics, examined at various times during this reign, are
more chargeable with insincerity or dissimulation than accused
persons generally are.
The public executions, numerous as they were, scarcely form the
most odious part of this persecution. The common law of England
has always abhorred the accursed mysteries of a prison-house; and
neither admits of torture to extort confession, nor of any penal
infliction not warranted by a judicial sentence. But this law, though still
sacred in the courts of justice, was set aside by the privy council
under the Tudor line. The rack seldom stood idle in the Tower for all
the latter part of Elizabeth's reign.[237] To those who remember the annals of their country, that dark and gloomy pile affords associations
not quite so numerous and recent as the Bastile, yet enough to excite
our hatred and horror. But standing as it does in such striking contrast
to the fresh and flourishing constructions of modern wealth, the
proofs and the rewards of civil and religious liberty, it seems like a
captive tyrant, reserved to grace the triumph of a victorious republic,
and should teach us to reflect in thankfulness, how highly we have
been elevated in virtue and happiness above our forefathers.
Such excessive severities under the pretext of treason, but sustained
by very little evidence of any other offence than the exercise of the
catholic ministry, excited indignation throughout a great part of
Europe. The queen was held forth in pamphlets, dispersed
everywhere from Rome and Douay, not only as a usurper and
heretic, but a tyrant more ferocious than any heathen persecutor, for
inadequate parallels to whom they ransacked all former history.[238]
These exaggerations, coming
143
from the very precincts of the inquisition, required the unblushing
forehead of bigotry; but the charge of cruelty stood on too many facts
to be passed over, and it was thought expedient to repel it by two
remarkable pamphlets, both ascribed to the pen of Lord Burleigh.
Defence of the queen, by Burleigh. —One of these, entitled "The
Execution of Justice in England for Maintenance of public and private
Peace," appears to have been published in 1583. It contains an
elaborate justification of the late prosecutions for treason, as no way
connected with religious tenets, but grounded on the ancient laws for
protection of the queen's person and government from conspiracy. It
is alleged that a vast number of catholics, whether of the laity or
priesthood, among whom the deprived bishops are particularly
enumerated, had lived unmolested on the score of their faith,
because they paid due temporal allegiance to their sovereign. Nor
were any indicted for treason, but such as obstinately maintained the
pope's bull depriving the queen of her crown. And even of these
offenders, as many as after condemnation would renounce their
traitorous principles, had been permitted to live; such was her
majesty's unwillingness, it is asserted, to have any blood spilled
without this just and urgent cause proceeding from themselves. But
that any matter of opinion, not proved to have ripened into an overt
act, and extorted only, or rather
144
conjectured, through a compulsive inquiry, could sustain in law or
justice a conviction for high treason, is what the author of this
pamphlet has not rendered manifest.[239]
A second and much shorter paper bears for title, "A Declaration of the
favourable dealing of her Majesty's Commissioners, appointed for the
examination of certain traitors, and of tortures unjustly reported to be
done upon them for matter of religion." Its scope was to palliate the
imputation of excessive cruelty with which Europe was then
resounding. Those who revere the memory of Lord Burleigh must
blush for this pitiful apology. "It is affirmed for truth," he says, "that the
forms of torture in their severity or rigour of execution have not been
such and in such manner performed, as the slanderers and seditious
libellers have published. And that even the principal offender,
Campian himself, who was sent and came from Rome, and continued
here in sundry corners of the realm, having secretly wandered in the
greater part of the shires of England in a disguised suit, to be intent to
make special preparation of treasons, was never so racked but that
he was perfectly able to walk and to write, and did presently write and
subscribe all his confessions. The queen's servants, the warders,
whose office and act it is to handle the rack, were ever by those that
attended the examinations specially charged to use it in so charitable
a manner as such a thing might be. None of those who were at any
time put to the rack," he proceeds to assert, "were asked, during their
torture, any question as to points of doctrine; but merely concerning
their plots and conspiracies, and the persons with whom they had
had dealings, and what was their own opinion as to the pope's right to
deprive the queen of her crown. Nor was any one so racked until it
was rendered evidently probable by former detections or confessions
that he was guilty; nor was the torture ever employed to wring out
confessions at random; nor unless the party had first refused to
declare the truth at the queen's commandment." Such miserable
excuses serve only to mingle contempt with our detestation.[240] But it is due to Elizabeth to observe, that she ordered the torture to be
disused; and upon a subsequent occasion, the quartering of
145
some concerned in Babington's conspiracy having been executed
with unusual cruelty, gave directions that the rest should not be taken
down from the gallows until they were dead.[241]
I should be reluctant, but for the consent of several authorities, to
ascribe this little tract to Lord Burleigh, for his honour's sake. But we
may quote with more satisfaction a memorial addressed by him to the
queen about the same year, 1583, full not only of sagacious, but just
and tolerant advice. "Considering," he says, "that the urging of the
oath of supremacy must needs, in some degree, beget despair, since
in the taking of it, he [the papist] must either think he doth an unlawful
act, as without the special grace of God he cannot think otherwise, or
else, by refusing it, must become a traitor, which before some hurt
done seemeth hard; I humbly submit this to your excellent
consideration, whether, with as much security of your majesty's
person and state, and more satisfaction for them, it were not better to
leave the oath to this sense, that whosoever would not bear arms
against all foreign princes, and namely the pope, that should any way
invade your majesty's dominions, he should be a traitor. For hereof
this commodity will ensue, that those papists, as I think most papists
would, that should take this oath, would be divided from the great
mutual confidence which is now between the pope and them, by
reason of their afflictions for him; and such priests as would refuse
that oath then, no tongue could say for shame that they suffer for
religion, if they did suffer.
"But here it may be objected, they would dissemble and equivocate
with this oath, and that the pope would dispense with them in that
case. Even so may they with the present oath both dissemble and
equivocate, and also have the pope's dispensation for the present
oath, as well as for the other. But this is certain, that whomsoever the
conscience, or fear of breaking an oath, both bind, him would that
oath bind. And that they make conscience of an oath, the trouble,
losses, and disgraces that they suffer for refusing the same do
sufficiently testify; and you know that the perjury of either oath is
equal."
These sentiments are not such as bigoted theologians were then, or
have been since, accustomed to entertain. "I account," he says
afterwards, "that putting to death does no ways lessen them; since
we find by experience, that it worketh no such effect, but, like hydra's
heads, upon cutting off one, seven grow up, persecution being
accounted as the badge of the church:
146
and therefore they should never have the honour to take any
pretence of martyrdom in England, where the fullness of blood and
greatness of heart is such that they will even for shameful things go
bravely for death; much more, when they think themselves to climb
heaven, and this vice of obstinacy seems to the common people a
divine constancy; so that for my part I wish no lessening of their
number, but by preaching and by education of the younger under
schoolmasters." And hence the means he recommends for keeping
down popery, after the encouragement of diligent preachers and
schoolmasters, are, "the taking order that, from the highest counsellor
to the lowest constable, none shall have any charge or office but such
as will really pray and communicate in their congregation according to
the doctrine received generally into this realm;" and next, the
protectio