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,
