Grace, which commanded the mouth of the Seine, and was, on that account, esteemed and denominated the key of France. In the same manner, while England was at peace with Spain, Elizabeth fomented the revolt of the protestant Flemings, entered into a similar treaty with them, sent them similar supplies, encouraged her subjects to outrage Philip in the European, West Indian, and South American seas and shores, and readily accepted the offer of the states of Holland, that her ambassador should be admitted into their council *.

On the other hand,-notwithstanding the illegitimacy, or, at most, the dubious legitimacy of Elizabeth, notwithstanding her proscription of the catholic religion and her persecution of the catholics, notwithstanding the plausible pretension of the Scottish queen to the throne of England, and notwithstanding the sentence of deposition fulminated by the pope against Elizabeth, the practical allegiance of her catholic subjects was unshaken :-we shall afterwards have occasion to mention the exemplary loyalty of the universal body to their queen in the hour of her danger.

It may be admitted, that, while the catholics were placed under these trying circumstances, and were so unjustly and so cruelly treated, it was natural to fear their disaffection, and that state

* These instances of Elizabeth's interference with the rebellious subjects of France and Spain, are candidly mentioned by Hume; and eloquently brought forward in the Responsio ad edictum Elizabethæ, noticed in a future part of this work.

policy would, therefore, both require and justify precaution. Still, before guilt was committed, or the meditation of it discovered, however just it might be to hold out the terrors of persecution and punishment, the infliction of them was unjustifiable. On the other hand, prudence required from the catholics, that they should avoid every thing that could provoke suspicion, and embrace every lawful measure, which was likely to conciliate either the sovereign or the people; that they should limit their intercourse with the see of Rome, as much as the principles of their religion allowed; that they should have no political relations with Spain, or any other foreign power, and no intercourse with the queen of Scots; that they should abstain from all state concerns, particularly those, which regarded the royal succession; that they should avail themselves of every opportunity of testifying their absolute and unqualified allegiance to her majesty; and that even in spiritual matters they should adopt, as far as the true doctrines of their religion admitted, all arrangements that would please, and avoid all that would be offensive to government. This, good sense and duty prescribed to the flock: this, their pastors, and this, in a particular manner, the supreme pontiff of their church should have preached to them, and confirmed by words and example.

To this conduct also the government of Elizabeth should have invited her catholic subjects. They should have reflected that, while catholics peaceably obeyed the processes of her courts, cheerfully served in her fleets and armies, and did no act inconsistent

with true allegiance, they filled the full measure of a subject's duty: they should have considered, that nothing wounds the feelings, either of the informed or the uninformed, so much, as violence to their religious principles; they should have recollected, how the catholic mind must have been lacerated by what had recently taken place; they should therefore have been ready to excuse some intemperance, some hasty ebullitions of inconsiderate zeal; they should not have been eager to find out what was reprehensible; when guilt appeared, they should not have punished it on the innocent; and, above all, they should have kept steadily in view, that crime and misdemeanor are the only just objects of penal infliction; and that, in mere creed or mere worship, there is not, in respect to the state, either crime or misdemeanor.

Such, at the time to which our subject has now led us, ought to have been the conduct of the English catholics and protestants towards each other: how far they pursued it, will appear in the following pages.

CHAP. XXIX.

PENAL ACTS OF THE FIRST AND FIFTH YEARS OF THE REIGN OF QUEEN ELIZABETH, FOR THE DENIAL OF THE QUEEN'S ECCLESIASTICAL SUPREMACY; AND FOR NOT CONFORMING TO THE LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS FOR THE

MITY OF THE COMMON PRAYER.

1558-1563.

UNIFOR

IN the history of religious persecution, the penal and sanguinary laws passed by the parliaments of queen Elizabeth, and the numerous instances, in which they were carried into execution, fill a considerable space: we shall endeavour to bring them properly before the view of the reader, so far as they directly or indirectly affected the English catholics.

1. Two such acts, each extremely penal, were passed in the first year of the queen: the first, for abolishing papal jurisdiction and establishing the queen's supremacy; the other, for effecting uniformity of common prayer.

By the first of these statutes, archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical officers or ministers, and all temporal officers and ministers, and generally all persons receiving the queen's fee, who refused to take the oath of supremacy prescribed by that act, and mentioned in a former page of this work, were incapacitated from holding any office; and all, who

denied the supremacy, were, for the first offence, punishable by forfeiture of goods and chattels; for the second, subjected to the penalties of a præmunire; and for the third, rendered guilty of high

treason.

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. Thus, the operation of this act, though severe, was limited.

2. The second of the acts, which we have mentioned, enjoined all ministers to use the book of common prayer, and none other, in the celebration of divine service; and provided that every minister refusing to use it, or using any other, or speaking in degradation of the common prayer, should, if not beneficed, be, for the first offence, imprisoned one year; for the second, imprisoned for life; and if beneficed, should, for the first offence, be imprisoned during six months, and forfeit a year's value of his benefice; for the second, deprived of his benefice, and suffer one year's imprisonment;-and for the third, in addition to deprivation, be imprisoned for life. It further provided, that, if any person should speak in derogation of the book of common prayer, or prevent the reading of it, or cause any other service to be read, he should forfeit, for the first offence, one hundred marks; for the second, four hundred; and for the third, all his good and chattels, and be imprisoned for life.

The operation of this statute was also limited : it