Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/51

 [REASON

27

TREASON

were, the Catholics would take no steps in defence of their rights till the pope declared that Elizabeth's misgovernment had so infringed the spiritual liberty of her subjects as to absolve them from their alle- giance. Once this declaration was made a number of Catholics acted on it, and there was a certain section who under the influence of Mendoza and others were implicated in plots against Ehzabeth which were undoubtedly treasonable from the Government's point of view. Rut they might well have urged that in so assailing the ro\-ul power they were doing no more against Elizabeth than Bolingbroke had done against Richard II, or Richmond against Richard III. Yet neither Henry IV nor Henry VII are usually branded as "traitors".

The subsequent cases of Pym and Hampden, not to mention the successful revolutionaries of 16SS, show that success or failure is often made the real test between treason and rebellion. That a certain party of English Catholics was in rebellion against Elizabeth is not disputed, but justified rebellion ceases to be treason and may be the noblest jjatriotism. Thus .\llen with many of the exiles of Douai and Louvain, and Persons with many of the .Jesuits, saw in the rule of Elizabeth a greater danger to the high- est interests of England than had jireviously been threatened in cases where history had justified the deposition of kings. And the supreme authority had sanctioned this view. Moreover, such exercise of papal prerogative was one of the recognized princi- ples of the Middle Ages — throughout which it hafl served to protect the rights of the people. This became evident later, when, after the decline of papal power, the autocratic power of the European sover- eigns was greatly increased and always at the expense of the people. Nevertheless, it remains true that in the eyes of Elizabeth and her ministers such oppo- sition was nothing less than high treason. But a large number of English Catholics refused to go so far as rebellion. The historian already quoted admits that the opposition which relied on avowedly treason- able methods was "limited to extremists" (ibid., 297). Elsewhere he says of the rank and file of English Catholics: "They tried to ignore their painful dilem- ma between two forms of allegiance, for both of which they had deep respect" (p. 370). As Lingard writes: "among the English Catholics (the bull) served only to breed doubts, dissensions, and dismay. Many contended that it had been issued by an in- competent authority; others that it could not bind the natives till it should be carried into actual execution b ' some foreign power; all agreed that it was in their regard an imprudent and cruel expedient, which rendered them liable to the sus- picion of disloyalty, and afforded their enemies a pretence to brand them with the name of traitors" (ibid., 225).

The terrible strain of this dilemma was relieved by the next pope, Gregory XIII, who on 14 .April, 1.580, i.ssued a declaration that though Elizabeth and her abettors remained subject to the excommuni- cation, it was not to bind Catholics to their detri- ment. The large majority of English Catholics were relieved in conscience by this dispensation, and never gave the Government the least ground for suspecting their loyalty; but they persisted in the practice of their religion, which was made pos- sible only by the coming of the .seminary priests. With regard to these priests, who entered England at the risk of their lives to preserve the Catholic religion and to give facilities for Ma-ss and the sacraments, there could be no presumption of treason by the ancient laws of England. But in the panic which followed the Northern Rising. Parliament had pas.sed a statute n.'i Eliz. c. 2) declaring it to be high treason to put into effect any papal Bull of ab.solution, to absolve or reconcile any person to the Catholic

Church, to be absolved or reconciled, or to procure or publish any papal Bull or writing whatsoever. Thus for the first time purely religious acts were declared bv Parliament to be treasonable, a position which no Catholic could admit. It is clear that persons suffering under such a law as this suffered for religion and not for treason. Elizabeth's Government, how- ever, for its own purposes refused to make any dis- tinction between Catholics who had been engaged in open opposition to the queen and those who were forced by conscience to ignore the provisions of this statute of 1571. These two classes, really distinct, were purposely identified by the Government and treated as one for controversial purposes. For when the reports of so many bloody executions for religion began to horrify Europe, the queen's ministers adopted the defence that their severity was not exercised against Catholics ;is such, but as traitors guilty of treason against their sovereign.

This view was put forward officially in a pamphlet by Lord Burghley, which was not only published in English but translated into Latin and other lan- guages for foreign circulation. The very title of this work indicates its scope: "The Execution of Justice in England for maintenance of public and Christian I)cace, against certain stirrers of sedition and adher- ents to the traitors and enemies of the realm without any persecution of them for questions of religion, as is falsely reported, and published by the fautors and fosterers of their treasons." This pamphlet, which was issued on 17 December, 15S3, may briefly be summarized. Attention is first drawn to late rebellions in England and Ireland which had been suppressed by the queen's power. \A'hereupon .some of the defeated rebels had fled into foreign countries and there alleged that they were suffering for religion. Great stress is laid upon the Bull of excommunication; and all Catholics living abroad are represented as engaged in seditious practices with a view to carrying the Bull into effect. The seminaries are exhibited merely as foundations established to assist in this disloyal object. Thej' have been "erected to nurse seditious fugitives". The priests who came forth at the risk of their lives are not given credit for any religious purpose, but "the seminary fugitives come secretly into the realm to induce the people to obey the Pope's bull". This view is important as it shows the pretext put forth by the Government to defend the Act of 1.585 by which it became high treason for any seminary priest simply to come to England. The pamphlet proceeds to declare that some of these "sowers of .sedition" have been taken, convicted, and executed "not being dealt withal upon questions of religion, but justly condemned as traitors . They were so condemned "by the ancient laws of the realm made 200 years past". Moreover, if they retracted their treasonable opinions their lives were spared. As "the foreign traitors continue sending of persons to move sedition in the realm" who cloak their real object of enforcing the Bulls imder the pretext of religion and who "labour to bring the realm into a war external and domestical", it becomes the duty of the queen and her ministers to repel such rebellious practices. Burghley insists that before the excommunication no one had been charged with capital crimes on the ground of religion, and brings everything back to the question of the Btdl. ".\nd if then it be inquired for what cause thc.^c others have of late suffered death it is truely to be answered as afore is often remembered that none at all are impeached for treason to the danger of their life but such as do obstinately maintain the contents of the Pope's Bull aforementioned, which do import that her Majisty is not the lawful Queen of England, the first and highest point of treason, and that all her subjects are discharged of their oaths and obedi- ence, another high point of treason, and all warranted