Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/677

 PENAL

613

PENAL

passed the "Act for the due execution of the statutes against Jesuits, seminary priests, etc" (I Jac. I, iv), by which all Elizabeth's statutes were confirmed with additional aggravations. Thus persons going beyond seas to any Jesuit seminary were rendered incapable of purchasing or retaining any lands or goods in England ; the penalty of £100 on everyone sending a child or ward out of the realm, which had been enacted only for Ehzabeth's reign, was now made perpetual; and Catholic schoolmasters not holding a licence from the Anglican bishop of the diocese were fined forty shillings a day, as were their employers. One slight re- lief was obtained in the exemption of one-third of the estate of a convicted recusant from liabilities to penal- ties; but against this must be set the provision that re- tained the remaining two-thirds after the owner's death till all his previous fines had been paid. Even then these two-thirds were only to be restored to the heir provided he was not himself a recusant.

The carefully arranged "discovery" of the Gun- powder Plot in 1605 was followed by two statutes of particularly savage character. These were "An Act for the better discovering and repressing of Popish Re- cusants" (3 Jac. I, iv) and "An Act to prevent and avoid dangers which may grow by Popish Recusants" (3 Jac. I, v). The first of these two wicked laws en- acted that all convicted recusants should communi- cate once a year in the Anglican church under penal- ties of £20 for the first omission, £40 for the second, and £60 for the third. Moreover the king was to be allowed to refuse the penalty of £20 per month for non-attendance at the Anglican church, and to take in its place all the personal property and two-thirds of the real property of the oiTencler. But the main point of this Act was the new Oath of Allegiance which it prescribed, and which was subsequently condemned by the Holy See. Yet all who refused it were to be sub- jected to the penalties of Pra?munire, except married women, who were to be imprisoned in the common jail. Finally, every householder of whatever religion was liable to a fine of £10 a month for each guest or servant who failed to attend the Anglican church.

The second Act was even worse, and the Catholic historian Tierney justly says of it that it "exceeded in cruelty all that had hitherto been devised for the op- pression of the devoted Catholics". It prohibited recusants from remaining within ten miles of the city of London, a provision which it was impossible to carry out; or to remove more than five miles from their usual place of residence till they had obtained licence from four magistrates and the bishop of the diocese or lii'Utenant of the county. They were disabled from jirai-tising as lawyers, physicians, apothecaries; from holding office in any court or corporation; from hold- ing commissions in the army or navy, or any office of emolument under the State; from discharging the du- ties of executors, administrators, or guardians. Any married woman who had not received the sacrament in the Anglican church for a year before her hu.sband's death forfeited two-thirds of her dower, two-thirds of her jointure, and was debarred from acting as execu- trix to her husband or claiming any part of his goods. Husbands and wives, if married otherwise than by a Protestant minister in a Protestant church, were each deprived of all interest in the lands or property of the other. They were fined £100 for omitting to have each of their childern baptized by the Protestant min- ister within a month of birth. All Catholics going or being sent beyond the seas without a special licence from king or Privy Council were incapable of benefit- ting by gift, descent, or devise, till they returned and took the oath of allegiance; and in the meantime the property was to be held by the nearest Protestant heir. And, lastly, every convicted recusant was ex- communicated from the Established Church, with the" result that they were debarred from maintaining or defending any personal action or suit in the civil

courts. Their houses were liable to be searched at any time, their arms and ammunition to be seized, and any books or furniture which were deemed superstitious to be destroyed.

The two remaining statutes of James I were "An Act to cause persons to be naturalized or restored in blood to conform and take the oath of allegiance and supremacy" (7 Jac. I, ii) and "An Act for the ref- ormation of married recusant women, and admin- istration of the oath of allegiance to all civil, military, ecclesia.stical and professional persons" (7 Jac. I, vi). The chief effect of this latter act was to cause the oath to be offered to all persons over eighteen, and to em- power the committal to prison of any recusant married woman, unless her husband paid £10 a month for her liberty.

During the reign of Charles I the only penal statute was a short "Act to restrain the passing or sending of any to be Popishly bred beyond the Seas" (3 Car. I, iii), which re-enacted the provisions in 3 Jac. I, c. 5, adding that offenders should be disabled from prose- cuting any civil actions in law or equity; from acting as guardian, executor, or administrator; receiving any legacy or deed of gift, or bearing any office within the realm. Moreover, such offender was to forfeit all his lands and personal property.

After the Restoration in 1660 an attempt was made by Charles II, not unmindful of the sacrifices Catho- lics had made in the Stuart cause, to obtain a repeal of the Penal Laws, and a committee of the House of Lords was appointed to examine and report on the question. The matter, however, was allowed to drop; and in the following year both Houses of Parliament joined in petitioning the king to issue a proclamation against the Catholics. Further efforts on the part of the king came to nothing, and matters remained on the same footing till the latter part of his reign, when new statutes of a harassing nature were passed. With the exception of the Corporation Act (13 Car. II, St. 2, c. 1), which was not aimed against Catholics di- rectly, but which provided that no person could hold any municipal office without taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and receiving the sacrament in the Protestant church, no new measures were intro- duced till 1673, when Parliament passed the Test Act (25 Car. II, ii). This required all officers, civil and military, to take the same oaths and to make the Dec- laration against Transubstantiation. Five years later another Act was passed (30 Car. II, St. 2), which ex- cluded all Catholics from sitting or voting in Parlia- ment, by requiring every member of either House to take the two oaths and to make the blasphemous Dec- laration against Popery. From this statute, which was entitled "An Act for the more effectual preserving the King's person and government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament", a special exception was made in favour of the Duke of York, afterwards James II.

With the Revolution of 1688 began a new era of persecution. The "Act for further preventing the growth of Popery" (11 & 12 Gul. Ill, 4), passed in 1699, introduced a fresh hardship into the lives of the clergy by offering a reward of £100 for the apprehen- sion of any priest, with the result that Catholics were placed at the mercy of common informers who harassed them for the sake of gain, even when the Government would have left them in peace. It was further enacted that any bishop or priest exercising episcopal or sacerdotal functions, or any Catholic keeping a school, should be imprisoned for life; that any Catholic over eighteen not taking the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, or making the Declaration against Popery, should be incapable of inheriting or purchasing any lands; and any lands devised to a Catholic who refused to take the oaths should pass to the next of kin who happened to be a Protestant. A reward of £100 was also offered for the conviction of