The responsibility of the intrigues in respect to the claims to the
English throne, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, rests to
some extent upon Queen Elizabeth herself. As Mr Gardiner puts it:--[57]
"She was determined that in her lifetime no one should be able to call
himself her heir." It was generally understood that James would succeed
to the throne; but, so long as there was the slightest uncertainty on
the question, it was but natural that the Catholics should be anxious
that a monarch should be crowned who would favour, or at least tolerate
them, and that they should make inquiries, and converse eagerly, about
every possible claimant to the throne. Fears of foreign invasion and
domestic plotting were seriously entertained in England during the
latter days of Elizabeth, as well as immediately after her death.
"Wealthy men had brought in their plate and treasure from the country,
and had put them in places of safety. Ships of war had been stationed in
the Straits of Dover to guard against a foreign invasion, and some of
the principal recusants had, as a matter of precaution, been committed
to safe custody."[58]
[57] _History of England_, from the Accession of James I. to the
outbreak of the Civil War, 1603-1642, Vol. i. p. 79.
[58] Gardiner's _History of England_, Vol. i. p. 85.
When James VI. of Scotland, the son of the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots,
ascended the throne, rendered vacant by the death of Elizabeth, as James
I. of England, no voice was raised in favour of any other claimant,
and[59] "the Catholics, flattered by the reports of their agents, hailed
with joy the succession of a prince who was said to have promised the
toleration of their worship, in return for the attachment which they had
so often displayed for the house of Stuart." King James owed toleration,
says Lingard, "to their sufferings in the cause of his unfortunate
mother;" and "he had bound himself to it, by promises to their envoys,
and to the princes of their communion."
[59] Lingard, Vol. vii. chap. i.
The opinion that the new king would upset and even reverse the
anti-Catholic legislation of Elizabeth was not confined to the Catholic
body: many Protestants had taken alarm on this very score, as may be
inferred from a contemporary tract, entitled[60]_Advertisements of a
loyal subject to his gracious Sovereign, drawn from the Observation of
the People's Speeches_, in which the following passage occurs:--"The
plebes, I wotte not what they call them, but some there bee who most
unnaturally and unreverentlie, by most egregious lies, wound the honour
of our deceased soveraigne, not onlie touching her government and good
fame, but her person with sundry untruthes," and after going on in this
strain for some lines it adds:--"Suerlie these slanders be the doings of
the papists, ayming thereby at the deformation of the gospell." [61] On
the other hand, there were both Catholics and Puritans who were
distrustful of James. Sir Everard cannot have been long a Catholic, when
a dangerous conspiracy was on foot. Sir Griffin Markham, a Catholic, and
George Brooke, a Protestant, and a brother of Lord Cobham's, hatched the
well-known plot which was denominated "the Bye," and, among many others
who joined it, were two priests, Watson and Clarke, both of whom were
eventually executed on that account. Its object appears to have been to
seize the king's person, and wring from him guarantees of toleration for
both Puritans and Catholics. Father Gerard acquired some knowledge of
this conspiracy, as also did Father Garnet, the Provincial of the
Jesuits, and Blackwell, the Archpriest; and they insisted upon the
information being laid instantly before the Government. Before they had
time to carry out their intention, however, it had already been
communicated, and the complete failure of the attempt is notorious. The
result was to injure the causes of both the Catholics and the Puritans,
and James never afterwards trusted the professions of either.
[60] Somers Tracts, Vol. ii. p. 147. From the Cotton Library,
Faustina, c. 11, 12, fol. 61.
[61] "James was an alien." "Supposing that on such principles King
James was rejected, who would come next? The Lady Arabella Stuart,
descended from Margaret, daughter of Henry VII. in the same manner
as King James, save that her father was a second son, and King
James's father was the eldest. But she had the fact of her birth and
domiciliation within the kingdom of England as a counter-poise to
her father's want of primogeniture." "Without openly professing
Roman Catholicism, she was thought to be inclined that way, and to
be certainly willing to make favourable terms with the Roman
Catholics." Introduction by J. Bruce to _Correspondence of King
James VI. of Scotland with Cecil and others_.
So far as the Catholics were concerned, the "Bye" conspiracy
unfortunately revealed another; for Father Watson, in a written
confession which he made in prison, brought accusations of disloyalty
against the Jesuits. It was quite true that, two years earlier, Catesby,
Tresham, and Winter--all friends of Sir Everard Digby's--had endeavoured
to induce Philip of Spain to invade England, and had asked Father Garnet
to give them his sanction in so doing; but Garnet had "misliked it," and
had told them that it would be as much "disliked at Rome."[62]
[62] Dodds' _Church History of England_, Vol. iv. p. 8. Tierney's
Notes.
Winter had arranged that if Queen Elizabeth should die before the
invasion, the news should be at once sent to the Spanish court. For this
purpose, a Yorkshire gentleman, named Christopher Wright, and one Guy,
or Guido, Faukes, or Fawkes, "a soldier of fortune," of whom we shall
have more to say by-and-bye, were sent to the Court of Spain in
1603. Although Father Garnet disapproved of the plan, he had given
Wright a letter of introduction to a Jesuit at the Spanish Court.
Neither Wright nor Fawkes were able to rouse King Philip, who said that
he had no quarrel with his English brother, and that he had just
appointed an ambassador to the Court of St James's to arrange the terms
of a lasting peace with the English nation. Knowing something of this,
Father Watson used it as an instrument of revenge against the Jesuits,
who, he knew, had intended to warn King James against his own attempt to
entrap him.[63] "It is well known to all the world," he wrote, "how the
Jesuits and Spanish faction had continually, by word, writing, and
action, sought his majesty's destruction, with the setting up of another
prince and sovereign over us; yea, and although it should be revealed
what practises they had, even in this interim betwixt the proclaiming
and crowning of his majesty." And then he enumerated some of these
"practises," among others, "levying 40,000 men to be in a readiness for
the Spaniard or Archduke; by buying up all the great horses, as Gerard
doth; by sending down powder and shot into Staffordshire and other
places, with warning unto Catholics to be in a readiness; by collection
of money under divers pretences, to the value of a million;" "by
affirming that none might yield to live under an heretic (as they
continually termed his majesty);" "and by open speech that the king and
all his royal issue must be cut off and put to death." In making these
bitter and, for the most part, untrue accusations against the Jesuits,
he complained that he was "accounted for no better than an infidel,
apostate, or atheist, by the jesuitical faction," and that he was never
likely "to receive any favour" from his majesty "so long as any Jesuit
or Spaniard" remained "alive within this land."
[63] Dodds' _Church History of England_, Appendix i. p. xxxv.
Undoubtedly, during the cruel persecutions of Elizabeth, Jesuits, as
well as secular priests, and Catholic laymen too, for that matter, had
hoped that her successor on the English throne might be of their own
religion; they had good cause for doing so; the Pope himself had urged
the enthronement of a Catholic monarch for their country, and in
fairness, it must be admitted that not a few Englishmen, who considered
themselves royalist above all others, had at one time refused to regard
Elizabeth herself as the legitimate possessor of the British crown; but,
when James had been established upon the throne, with the exception of a
few discontents, such as the conspirators in the "Bye" plot and the
diminutive Spanish party, the English Catholics, both lay and clerical,
acknowledged him as their rightful king. Pope Clement VIII.[64]
"commanded the missionaries" in England "to confine themselves to their
spiritual duties, and to discourage, by all means in their power, every
attempt to disturb the tranquillity of the realm;" he also ordered "the
nuncio at Paris to assure James of the abhorrence with which he viewed
all acts of disloyalty," and he despatched "a secret messenger to the
English Court with an offer to withdraw from the kingdom any missionary
who might be an object of suspicion to the Council."
[64] Lingard, Vol. vii. chap. i.
Unfortunately, the discovery of the two conspiracies above mentioned, in
which Catholics were implicated, weighed more with James than any
assurances of goodwill from the Pope or his emissaries. Had not Watson
given King's evidence? Had not foreign invasion been implored by
Catholics? Had they not intended "the Lady Arabella" as a substitute for
his own Royal Majesty upon the throne? And had they not treasonably
united with their extreme opposites, the Puritans, in a design to
capture his precious person, with a view to squeezing concessions out of
him, if not to putting him to death? To some extent he did indeed
endeavour to conciliate the higher classes among his Catholic subjects,
by inviting them to court, by conferring upon them the honour--such as
it was--of knighthood, as in the case of Sir Everard Digby, and by
promising to protect them from the penalties of recusancy, so long as by
their loyalty and peaceable behaviour they should show themselves worthy
of his favour and his confidence, but he absolutely and abruptly
refused all requests for toleration of their religious worship, and more
than once, he even committed to the Tower Catholics who had the
presumption to ask for it.
The times were most trying to a recent convert like Sir Everard Digby. I
will again quote Lingard[65] to show how faithless was James to the
promises he had made of relief to his Catholic subjects:--"The
oppressive and sanguinary code framed in the reign of Elizabeth was
re-enacted to its full extent; it was even improved with additional
severities."
[65] Vol. vii. chap. i.
And then, after describing the severe penalties inflicted upon those who
sent children "beyond the seas, to the intent that" they "should reside
or be educated in a Catholic college or seminary," as well as upon "the
owners or masters of ships who" conveyed them, and adding that "every
individual who had already resided or studied, or should hereafter
reside or study in any such college or seminary, was rendered incapable
of inheriting or purchasing or enjoying lands, annuities, chattels,
debts, or sums of money within the realm, unless at his return to
England, he should conform to the Established Church, he
says:--"Moreover, as missionaries sometimes eluded detection under the
disguise of tutors in gentlemen's houses, it was provided that no man
should teach even the rudiments of grammar without a license of the
diocesan, under the penalty of forty shillings per day, to be levied on
the tutor himself, and the same sum on his employer."
And again, when James had been a year on the throne, the execution of
the penal laws enabled the king "... to derive considerable profit,"
says Lingard.[66] "The legal fine of L20 per lunar month was again
demanded; and not only for the time to come, but for the whole period of
the suspension; a demand which, by crowding thirteen separate payments
into one of L260, exhausted the whole annual income of men in
respectable but moderate circumstances. Nor was this all. By law, the
least default in these payments subjected the recusant to the forfeiture
of all his goods and chattels, and of two-thirds of his lands,
tenements, hereditaments, farms, and leases. The execution of this
severe punishment was intrusted to the judges at the assizes, the
magistrates at the sessions, and the commissioners for causes
ecclesiastical at their meetings. By them warrants of distress were
issued to constables and pursuivants; all the cattle on the lands of the
delinquent, his household furniture, and his wearing apparel, were
seized and sold; and if, on some pretext or other, he was not thrown
into prison, he found himself and family left without a change of
apparel or a bed to lie upon, unless he had been enabled by the charity
of his friends to redeem them after the sale, or to purchase with
bribes the forbearance of the officers. Within six months the payment
was again demanded, and the same pauperizing process repeated."
[66] Vol. vii. chap. i.
It may be only fair to say, however, that Mr Gardiner thinks Lingard was
guilty of exaggeration on one point; for he says[67] "the L20 men were
never called upon for arrears, and, as far as I have been able to trace
the names, the forfeitures of goods and chattels were only demanded from
those from whom no lands had been seized."
[67] _History of England_, 1603-42, Vol. i. p. 329, footnote.
A letter in Father Garnet's handwriting to Father Persons on these
topics should have a special interest for us, as it was pretty certainly
written at Gothurst, where he seems to have been staying at the time it
is dated, October 4 and 21, 1605. It says[68]:--"The courses taken are
more severe than in Bess's time.... If any recusant buy his goods again,
they inquire diligently if the money be his own: otherwise they would
have that too. In fine, if these courses hold, every man must be fain to
redeem, once in six months, the very bed he lieth on: and hereof, of
twice redeeming, besides other precedents, I find one here in Nicolas,
his lodging," _i.e._, in the house of Sir Everard Digby. "The judges now
openly protest that the king will have blood, and hath taken blood in
Yorkshire; and that the king hath hitherto stroked papists, but now will
strike:--and this is without any desert of Catholics. The execution of
two in the north is certain:"--three persons, Welbourn and Fulthering at
York, and Brown at Ripon, had in fact been executed in Yorkshire that
year for recusancy.[69] Father Garnet continues:--"and whereas it was
done upon cold blood, that is, with so great stay after their
condemnation, it argueth a deliberate resolution of what we may expect:
so that you may see there is no hope that Paul," _i.e._ Pope Paul V.,
"can do anything; and whatsoever men give out there, of easy proceedings
with Catholics, is mere fabulous. And yet, notwithstanding, I am assured
that the best sort of Catholics will bear all their losses with
patience: but how these tyrannical proceedings of such base officers may
drive particular men to desperate attempts, that I cannot answer
for;--the king's wisdom will foresee."
[68] I quote from _Dodd and Tierney_, Vol. iv., Appendix xvi., p.
ciii.
[69] Challoner, ii. 12, 13.
Mr Gardiner, in noticing the fines levied on recusants, mentions[70] one
point in connection with them which would be peculiarly vexatious to a
man of Sir Everard Digby's temperament and position. "The Catholics must
have been especially aggrieved by the knowledge that much of the money
thus raised went into the pockets of courtiers. For instance, the
profits of the lands of two recusants were granted to a foot-man, and
this was by no means an isolated case."
[70] _History of England_, 1603-42, Vol i. p. 230.
Sir Everard Digby's great friend, Father Gerard, also testifies at
great length to the persecutions under Elizabeth and James.[71] Father
Southwell was put "nine times most cruelly upon the torture," and the
law against the Catholics "put to cruel death many and worthy persons,"
and "many persons of great families and estimation were at several times
put to death under pretence of treason, which also was their cloak to
cover their cruelties against such priests and religious as were sent
into England by authority from His Holiness to teach and preach the
faith of Christ, and to minister his sacraments."
[71] _Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot_, p. 16. _seq._
Again, "their torturing of men when they were taken to make them confess
their acquaintance and relievers, was more terrible than death by much,
&c." "Besides the spoiling and robbing laymen of their livings and
goods, with which they should maintain their families, is to many more
grievous than death would be, when those that have lived in good estate
and countenance in their country shall see before them their whole life
to be led in misery, and not only themselves, but their wives and
children to go a-begging." "And to these the continual and cruel
searches, which I have found to be more terrible than taking itself. The
insolencies and abuses offered in them, and in the seizures of goods,
the continual awe and fear that men are kept in by the daily expectance
of these things, while every malicious man (of which heresy can want no
plenty) is made an officer in these affairs, and every officer a king
as it were, to command and insult upon Catholics at their pleasure." It
may be readily imagined how the writer of all this would discuss this
bad state of affairs with Sir Everard at Gothurst.
I have no wish to exaggerate the sufferings endured by Catholics during
the reigns of Elizabeth and the early Stuarts. I willingly admit that in
many cases the legal penalties were not enforced against them, nay, I
would go further and frankly remind my Catholic readers--Protestants may
possibly not require to have their memories thus stimulated--that half a
century had not elapsed since Protestants were burned at the stake in
Smithfield for their religion by Catholics. Besides all this, it is
certain that toleration, as we understand it, is a comparatively modern
invention, and that if Mary Queen of Scots had ascended the English
throne, or if it had fallen into the hands of Spain, Protestants in this
country might not have had a very comfortable time of it, especially in
the process of disgorging property taken from the Church, and that,
under certain circumstances, some of them might even have suffered death
for their faith; but, while readily making this admission, I doubt
whether any Catholic government ever attempted to oblige a people to
relinquish a religion, which it had professed for many centuries, with
the persistency and cruelty which the governments of Elizabeth and James
I. exercised in endeavouring to oblige every British subject to reject
the religion of his forefathers. Instances are not wanting of Catholics
dealing out stern measures towards those who introduced a new religion
into a country; this, on the contrary, was a case of punishing those who
refused to adopt a new religion.
Nor was this the only ground on which the persecutions by James appeared
unfair, tyrannical, and odious to Catholics. During the reign of
Elizabeth they had endured their sufferings as the penalties of a
religion contradicting that of their monarch. Perhaps they did not
altogether blame her so much for her persecutions, as for persecuting
the right religion in mistake for the wrong; and, after all, they knew
she had been persuaded by her Council that, for purposes of State, it
was necessary to break off relations with the Apostolic See, and to
maintain the newly-fangled Anglican faith; they knew that the refusal of
Rome to acknowledge her legitimacy, threatened the very foundations of
her throne, and consequently made every Catholic seem a traitor in her
eyes; they knew, too, that the Holy See had favoured Mary Queen of
Scots, whom she had regarded as her most dangerous rival. Under these
circumstances, therefore, while they found their troubles and trials
excessively bitter, they may not have been very profoundly astonished at
them. But when James, after a brief respite, continued and even
increased the persecutions of the previous reign, they looked at the
matter in quite a different light. In the first place, they expected
that the Protestant son of so Catholic a mother, who had suffered
imprisonment and death because she was a Catholic, could scarcely become
the friend and accomplice of those who had betrayed and martyred his
mother. I am not trenching on the question of the martyrdom of Mary
Queen of Scots; I am merely writing of the feeling respecting her death,
prevalent at that time among members of her own religion in this
country. Secondly, unlike Elizabeth, James had no cause for fearing the
Holy See; it never questioned his legitimacy; it had assisted him when
King of Scotland; its adherents in England had almost universally hailed
his accession to the crown with loyalty and rejoicing; and, as I have
already shown, the Pope had sent messages to him, offering to assist in
assuring the allegiance of the Catholics by removing any priests who
might be obnoxious to him.
Even Goodman, the Protestant Bishop of Gloucester, wrote[72]:--"After
Sixtus Quintus succeeded Clement Octavus, a man, according to his name,
who was much given to mercy and compassion. Now to him King James did
make suit to favour his title to the crown of England, which as King
James doth relate in his book, _Triplici nodo triplex cuneus_, the Pope
did promise to do." James said that he would show favour to
Catholics[73] "were it not that the English would take it ill, and it
would much hinder him in his succession; and withall, that his own
subjects in Scotland were so violent against Catholics, that he, being
poor, durst not offend them. Whereupon the Pope replied, that if it were
for want of means, he would exhaust all the treasures of the church and
sell the plate to supply him." And again, says Goodman of the English
Catholics and King James[74]:--"And certainly they had very great
promises from him." Nevertheless,[75] "he did resolve to run a course
against the papists," and "at his discourses at table usually he did
express much hatred to them."
[72] _The Court of King James I._, Vol. i. p. 82 _seq._
[73] _Ib._, p. 83.
[74] _The Court of King James I._, Vol. i. p. 86.
[75] _Ib._ p. 87.
Father Gerard writes that[76] there were "particular embassagies and
letters from His Majesty unto other Princes, giving hope at least of
toleration to Catholics in England, of which letters divers were
translated this year into French and came so into England, as divers
affirmed that had seen them." He was also "well assured that immediately
upon Queen Elizabeth's sickness and death, divers Catholics of note and
fame, Priests also, did ride post into Scotland, as well to carry the
assurance of dutiful affection from all Catholics unto His Majesty as
also to obtain his gracious favour for them and his royal word for
confirmation of the same. At that time, and to those persons, it is
certain he did promise that Catholics should not only be quiet from any
molestations, but should also enjoy such liberty in their houses
privately as themselves would desire, and have both Priests and
Sacraments with full toleration and desired quiet. Both the Priests that
did kneel before him when he gave this promise (binding it with the word
of a Prince, which he said was never yet broken), did protest so much
unto divers from whom I have it. And divers others, persons of great
worth, have assured me the same upon the like promise received from His
Majesty, both for the common state of Catholics and their own
particular."
[76] _Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot_, p. 24.
It is dangerous to make too much of evidence against which there may be
the shadow of a suspicion. Father Gerard's personal testimony can be
accepted without the smallest hesitation; but that of Father Watson, who
was probably one of the priests he mentioned who "did kneel before"
James when he made the solemn promise which Father Gerard heard of at
second hand, should be received with more caution. Lord Northampton's
statement in his speech at Sir Everard Digby's trial should certainly
obtain very careful consideration. "No man," said he,[77] "can speak
more soundly to the point than myself; for being sent into the prison by
the King to charge him with this false alarm" (_i.e._, the report that
James had promised toleration to Catholics), "only two days before his
death, and upon his soul to press him in the presence of God, and as he
would answer it at another bar, to confess directly whether at either
or both these times he had access unto his Majesty at Edinburgh, his
Majesty did give him any promise, hope, or comfort of encouragement to
Catholics concerning toleration; he did there protest upon his soul that
he could never win one inch of ground or draw the smallest comfort from
the King in those degrees, nor further than that he would have them
apprehend, that as he was a stranger to this state, so, till he
understood in all points how those matters stood, he would not promise
favour any way; but did protest that all the crowns and kingdoms in this
world should not induce him to change any jot of his profession, which
was the pasture of his soul and earnest of his eternal inheritance. He
did confess that in very deed, to keep up the hearts of Catholics in
love and duty to the King, he had imparted the King's words to many, in
a better tune and a higher kind of descant than his book of plainsong
did direct, because he knew that others, like sly bargemen, looked that
way when their stroke was bent another way. For this he craved pardon of
the King in humble manner, and for his main treasons, of a higher nature
than these figures of hypocrisy, and seemed penitent, as well for the
horror of his crime as for the falsehood of his whisperings."
[77] _Criminal Trials_, Jardine, Vol. ii. p. 177.
Probably Northampton may have exaggerated, possibly he may have lied, in
making this statement; but there is this to be remembered, that owing to
his false testimony against the Jesuits, already recorded in this
chapter, Father Watson must be regarded as a somewhat discredited
witness, and it will not do for us Catholics to accept his verbal
evidence against King James, and then to turn round and repudiate the
evidence against the Jesuits in his own handwriting,[78] without some
very strong reason for so doing. A reason of a certain strength does
indeed exist; for Watson's evidence against James was given freely and
uninterestedly; whereas his evidence against the Jesuits may very
probably have been offered in the hope that it might be accepted as the
price of pardon, or at least of some mitigation of the awful sufferings
included in the form of death to which he had been sentenced.
[78] Quoted above. I copied from Dodd; but the original may be found
in the S.P. Dom., James I., Vol. iii. n. 16.
Even if we altogether discard Watson's evidence of James's promises,
enough remains to satisfy my own mind that the new king had given the
Catholics more or less hope of toleration; and, if I am too easily
satisfied on this point, there can be no sort of question that Sir
Everard Digby, who was often with Father Gerard, and that many other
English Catholics had been assured, rightly or wrongly, and believed,
wrongly or rightly, that King James had solemnly promised to give them
immunity from persecution, if not freedom of worship, and that he had
basely and treacherously broken his faith with them and sold them for
the price of popularity among his far more numerous Protestant subjects:
who, then, can blame them for considering themselves to have been most
unjustly, perfidiously, and infamously treated by that monarch?
It may be worth while to quote here again from Goodman, the Protestant
Bishop of Gloucester, respecting the persecutions of the Catholics in
the reign of James.[79] "Now that they saw the times settled, having no
hope of better days, but expecting that the uttermost rigour of the law
should be executed, they became desperate; finding that by the laws of
the kingdom their own lives were not secured, and for the coming over of
a priest into England it was no less than high treason. A gentlewoman
was hanged only for relieving and harbouring a priest; a citizen was
hanged only for being reconciled to the Church of Rome: besides, the
penal laws were such and so executed that they should not subsist:--what
was usually sold in shops and openly bought, this the pursuivant would
take away from them as being popish and superstitious. One knight did
affirm that in one term he gave twenty nobles in rewards to the
doorkeeper of the attorney-general; another did affirm, that his third
part which remained to him of his estate did hardly serve for his
expense in law to defend him from other oppressions, besides their
children to be taken from home to be brought up in another religion. So
they did every way conclude that their estate was desperate, etc." If
objection should be taken to Goodman as a witness on the Protestant
side, on the ground that he eventually became a Catholic, I would reply
that, at the time he wrote what I have quoted, he was, as the editor of
his _Court of James the First_ says,[80] "an earnest and zealous
supporter of the Church," of England, and of James I., Goodman himself
writes[81] in that very book:--"Truly I did never know any man of so
great an apprehension, of so great love and affection--a man so truly
just, so free from all cruelty and pride, such a lover of the church,
and one that had done so much good for the church." Such an admirer of
King James might certainly be trusted not to say a word that he could
honestly avoid about the ill-treatment endured by any class of his
subjects during his reign.
[79] _The Court of King James I._, Vol. i. pp. 100-1.
[80] Introduction, p. viii.
[81] Vol. i. p. 91.