Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 13.djvu/154

 ROMAN

124

ROMAN

son, from practising the law or physic, and from holding office civil or military. He was likewise subject to the penalties attaching to excommunication, was not permitted to travel five miles from his house without licence, under pain of forfeiting all his goods, and might not come to Court under a penalty of one hundred pounds. Other provisions extended similar penalties to married women. Popish re- cusants con^•ict were, within three months of con- viction, either to submit and renounce their papistry, or, if required by four justices, to abjure the realm. If they did not "depart, or returned without licence, they were guilty of a capital felony. At the outset of Elizabeth's reign, an oath of supremacy containing a denial of the pope's spiritual jurisdiction, which therefore could not be taken by Catholics, was im- posed on all officials, civil and ecclesiastical. The "Oath of allegiance and obedience" enacted under James I, in 1605, in consequence of the excitement of the Gunpowder Plot, confirmed the same. By the Corporation Act of 16G1, no one could legally be elected to any municipal office unless he had within the vear received the Sacrament according to the rite of the Church of England, and likewise, taken the Oath of Supremacy. The first provision excluded all non-conformists; the second Catholics only. The Test Act (1672) imposed on all officers, civil and mihtarj', a "Declaration against Transubstantia- tion", whereby Catholics were debarred from such emploj-ment. "in 1677 it was enacted that all mem- bers of either House of Parliament should, before taking their seats, make a "Declaration against Popery", denouncing Transubstantiation, the Mass and the invocation of saints, as idolatrous.

With the Resolution of 1688 came a new crop of penal laws, less atrocious in character than those of previous times, but on that very account more likely to be enforced, and so to become effective, the sanguinary' penalties of the sixteenth century, having in great measure defeated their own end, and being now generally left on the statute book in terrorem. In 1689 (1 William and Mary, i, c. 9) a shorter form of the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy was sub- stituted, the clause aimed against Catholics being carefully retained. It was likewise ordered that all Papists and reputed Papists should be "amoved" ten miles from the cities of London and Westminster. In 1700 (11 and 12 William III, c. 4.) a reward of one hundred poun<ls was promised to anyone who should give information leading to the conviction of a Popish priest or bishop, who was made punish- able by imprisonment for life. Moreover, any Papist who within six months of attaining the age of eighteen failed to take the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy and subscribe to the Declaration against Popery, wae disabled in respect to himself (but not of his heirs or posterity) from acquiring or holding land, and until he submitted, his next of kin who was a Prot(«tant might enjoy his lands, without being obligcnl to account for the profits. The recusant was also incapable of purchasing, and all trusts on his behalf were void. In 1714 (Oeorge I, c. 13) a new elemc^nt was introducerl, namely Constnictive Re- cusancy. The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy miglit be tendered to any susfx-cted person by any two Juki ices of the Peace, and jjcrsons refusing it were to be a'ljudged I'opish rernisants convict, and to forfeit, and br; proffcded against accordingly. Thus the refusal of the (Jath was j)laced on the same fofjting as a legal conviction, and the person so con- victe<l was renderwl liable to all penalt ifis under those Btatutes. At the same time an obligation was im- posed on Catholics requiring them to register their names and e8tat<;8, and to enroll their deeds and wills.

Thr«e penal laws remained on the statute book unmitigated till late in the eighteenth century, and

although there was less and less disposition to put them in force, there was ever the danger, which upon occasion grew more acute. In 1767 a priest named Malony was tried at Croydon for his priesthood, and condemned to perpetual imprisonment, which, at the end of two or tlu-ee years, was commuted, "by the mercy of the Government" to banishment. In 1768 the Reverend James Webb was tried in the Court of King's Bench for saying Mass, but was acquitted, the Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield, ruling that there was no evidence sufficient to convict. In 1769 and on other occasions, seemingly as late as 1771, Dr. James Talbot, coadjutor to Bishop Challoner, was tried for his life at the Old Bailej', on the charge of his priesthood and of saying Mass, but was acquitted on similar grounds. Such instances were not solitary. In 1870, Air. Charles Butler found that one firm of lawyers had defended more than twenty priests under prosecutions of this nature. In 1778 a Catholic committee was formed to promote the cause of relief for their co-religionists, and though several times elected afresh, continued to exist until 1791, with a short interval after the Gordon Riots. It was always uniformly aristocratic in composition, and until 1787 included no representation of the hierarchy and then but three co-opted members. In the same year, 1778, was passed the first Act for Catholic Relief (18 George III, c. 60). By this, an oath was imposed, which besides a declaration of loyalty to the reigning sovereign, contained an abjuration of the Pretender, and of certain doctrines attributed to Catholics, as that excommunicated princes may lawfully be murdered, that no faith should be kept with heretics, and that the pope has temporal as well as spiritual jurisdiction in this realm. Those taking this oath were exempted from some of the most galling provisions of the Act of William III passed in 1700. The section as to taking and prosecuting priests were repealed, as also the penalty of perpetual imprisonment for keeping a school. Catholics were also enabled to inlterit and purchase land, nor was a Protestant heir any longer empowered to enter and enjoy the estate of his Catholic kinsman. The passing of this act was the occasion of the Gordon Riots (1780) in which the violence of the mob was especially directed against Lord Mansfield who had balked various prosecutions under the statutes now repealed.

In 1791 there followed another Act (31 George III, c. 32) far more extensive and far-reaching. By it there was again an oath to be taken, in character much like that of 1778, but including an engagement to support the Protestant Succession under the Act of Settlement (12 and V.i Williiini III). No Catholic taking the oath was henceforward to be pros(>cuted for being a Papist, or for being educated in the Popish religion, or for hearing Mass or saying it, or for being a priest or deacon, or for entering into, or belonging to, any ecclesiastical order or commimity in the Church of Rome, or for assisting at, or per- forming any Catholic rites or ceremonies. Catholics were no longer to be surruiioned to take the Oath of Supremacy, or to be removed from London; the legislation of George I, requiring them to register their estates and wills, was ab.sohitcly re])ealed; while the professions of couns(!llor and barrister at law, attorney, solicitor, and notary were ojiened to them. It was however providecl that all their as- semblies for religious worship should be certified at Quarter Sessions; that no person should officiate at such assembly until his nanu! had been recorded by the Clerk of the Peace;: that no such place of as- sembly should l)e locked or barred during the meeting; and that the building in which it was held, should not have a steeple or bell. The Relief Act of 1791 un- doubtedly marked a great step in the removal of Catholic grievances, but the English statesmen felt,