l 1 l A ‘ l l I I l I I w m I!” *‘l l‘ IIW mm H m 3% IIH TH _ 3:215 msmav m: 114?; “mamas LJSSABILWHES iN ENGLAND :3R'C'M ”.T'HE MIDDLE AGES UNTEL 335%! “3.916515 for {73:9 3125323912:- afi M. a MICHIGAN STATE CCLLEQE r3.- 3_" ; ii“ 7 , «"-- g. 3 . 1 7‘ 1 "ac u. fishing; J. v‘i.u;{{n\3fitu “£931 This is to certify that the thesis entitled ”The History of the Religious Disabilities in England from the Middle Ages until 1858” presented by Gabriel U. Onukaogu has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for I’l. A. degree in HiStory H. H. Kimber Major professor pro forma Date Julx 6. 1951 0-169 THE HISTORY OF THE RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES IN ENGLAND FROM THE MIDDLE AGES UNTIL 1858 By GABRIEL U. ONUKAOGU A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of History 1951 ACKNOWLEDGMENT It is my pleasant duty to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. H. H. Kimber for his valuable assistance in preparing the thesis . .l I. Mal? , I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION............. 1 CHAPTER I. The Restrictions on the Jews and the Lollards in the Middle Ages . . . . 7 II. The Dawn of the Catholic Disabilities . . 18 III. The Attitudes of the Royalty and Parliaments Towards the Catholics From 1547 Until 1678 . . . . . . . 31 IV. Puritans, Quakers and Dissenters . . . 51 V. The Comparative Survey of the Sufferings of the Different Religious Bodies and Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . 61 67 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . INTRODU CTION During the Middle Ages the Christians considered the indulgence in usury as sin and avarice. Consequently they did not engage in such practice. The Jews who had settled in England at this time indulged in usury, and Florentine Cap- italists imported many Jews to participate in the business which the Christians considered to be very unethical. The Christians in the Middle Ages hated the Jews be- cause of their indulgences in usuries and their superstitions. The Massacre of the Jews dated from the reign of King Richard I, they were segregated from the Christians during the reign of Henry III, and they were forced to dwell in a Ghetto as from that period. They were expelled from England in 1290 by King Ed- ward I and many of them were massacred on their way to the Continent. The Jews were readmitted into England as from the period of Oliver Cromwell, their conditions as from that time were better than those of the Medieval period. However, in 1858, the Jews achieved their Emancipation. l R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (lst. ed.; New York: Harcourt, Brace 8: Co., 1926), p. 37. Z The Lollards also complained against usury and desired the right interpretation of the Scriptures.2 The Lollards were the followers of Wycliffe who emerged as from the reign of Richard II and existed until the modern time. They were per- secuted during the reigns of Henry IV, and Henry V because they were regarded as Socialists or Communists. The Protestant Reformation in England was the work of King Henry VIII, and this reformation had many effects. "If the medieval ideal was to purge the world of heretics, the object of the Protestants was to exclude all dissentients from the territory under their control."3 The aim of the reforma- tion was to effect religious liberty and toleration which it aided indirectly and involuntarily. "It was the logical aim of the consistently intolerant among the Catholics and Protestants alike to secure the extermination of the Opposite religious party." 2 Ibid., p. 50. 3 W. K. Jordan, The Development of Religious Tolera- tion in England (lst. ed.; Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1932), p. 31. 4 Ibid. , p. 32. The gravest early blow upon the Catholics was the dis- solution of the English Monasteries by King Henry VIII. He secularized the monastic wealth for economic reasons. He gave hOpeful promises to the monks which he did not keep. He employed some part of the money derived on national pur- poses. The sweeping away of the monastic houses had some momentous results on some classes of English peeple: The creation of a large class of poor to whose poverty was attached the stigma of crime; the division of class from class, the rich mounting up to place of power, the poor sinking to lower depths; destruction of custom as a check upon exactions of landlords; the loss by the poor of those foundations at schools and universities intended for their children, and the passing away of ecclesiastical titles into the hands of lay owners. The Catholic Church during the Middle Ages massacred sects which were regarded as been dangerous to the Catholic social and spiritual order, and she had also exterminated the intellectuals whose pr0ponents were conceived to be threats to 6 the so-called purity of dogma. 5 Cardinal Gasquet, Henry VIII and the English Monas- teries (8th. ed.; London: G. Bell 8: Sons, Ltd., 1925), pp. 476-7. 6 Jordan, 0p. cit., p. 33. 4 The Protestant Reformation averted the legical founda- tion for the theory of religious persecution, and thus, it acted as a stimulus the growth of religious toleration.7 At the very beginning, the Protestants were very excessive in their activ- ities. Their early creeds resulted into dogmatic systems which were quite intolerant as those from which they had re- volted.8 During the reign of Queen Elizabeth uniformity of relig- ion was very indispensable. "Religious unity was regarded as a national necessity in the face of a hostile Europe."9 The crisis at the Continental EurOpe made some Englishmen feel that it was necessary to enforce a degree of uniformity in religion, and men supported the theory of persecution in order to restore normalcy. In the last analysis the Catholic thought did not promote religious toleration because of the doubtful practices of the Je suit party . 7 Ibid., p. 78. 8 Ibid., p. 79. 9 Ibid., p. 162. In its mistaken zeal and political complexion Jesuit policy had been chiefly responsible for the suffer- ings of the English Catholics. During several occasions after the Protestant reforma- tion, barbarous penal laws had been imposed upon the English and Irish Catholics. In Ireland laws were passed which re- versed the relations between a father and his child, and a father could not enjoy the natural rights of his child. A Cath- olic teacher was very badly treated, and a priest could expose himself to hanging if he married a Protestant woman to a Catholic. The chief Catholic disabilities were these: They could not enter either House of Parliament; they could not act as guardian to a Protestant; they were scarcely allowed to possess arms; they were practically excluded from juries, and from the majority of public offices. George Fox, the founder of the Quaker Religion, suf- fered hardship, toil, and other physical disabilities. He was repeatedly beaten, stoned, dragged upon the earth, "mudded 10 Ibid., p. 419. 11 W. F. Collier, History of England (lst. ed.; London: Nelson & Sons, 1879), p. 530. and blooded," he was imprisoned in crowded, dark and ver- minous dungeons, loathsome with unspeakable filth." The Jews, Lollards, Catholics, Anglicans, and Quakers suffered equally, for they were all been persecuted, they un- derwent death penalties, and most of them died in prisons. They were all politically disabled, and each sect achieved its Emancipation after some period of severe torments for religion's sake. The Puritans and the Dissenters did not undergo death penalties in comparison with the other religious bodies. The Dissenters were municipally disabled since the Clarendon Code forbade them from holding municipal offices, but they were tolerated during the reign of George II. All the religious disabilities came to an end after 1858. 12 Norman Penny, The Short Journal and Itinerary Journals of George Fox (lst. ed.; Cambridge: The University Press, 1925), Intro. p. 13. CHAPTER I THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE JEWS AND THE LOLLARDS IN THE MIDDLE AGES All the Jews within the realm must serve King Henry III, and that they must remain in those places where they were during the reign of King John; they should conduct their ser— vices and ceremonial rites in silence so that they might be quite inaudible to the protestants, this was decreed in 1253.1 No Christian nurse hereafter suckle or nourish the male child of any Jew, and that no Christian man or woman serve any Jew or Jewess, nor eat with them, nor dwell in their house. A Jew or Jewess would be penalized if he or she would eat or buy meat in Lent, and it was against the law for a Jew to destroy or question about the Christian Faith; sexual inter- course between a Christian woman and a Jew was highly pro- hibited, and at the same time every Jew must wear an identi- fying badge. The Jews were not allowed to enter into any l R. H. Tawney, Select Documents on English Eco- nomic History (lst. ed.; London, 1921), p.—45. Loc . cit. 8 church, and that they must possess licenses from the king be- fore they could enter into any Christian town. By the order of King Henry III a Jew by name Salle was expelled from England together with his wife, and all his . . , 4 belongings were confiscated by the king. Jacob of Norwich, a Jew, was punished for non-residence in a Jewry in 1270. He dwelt at Honiton without the authori- zation of the king, because Honiton had no Jewish community; his possessions were forfeited and he was ordered to appear before the law court for a trial. We have provided by the council of the prelates magnates and chiefs who are of our council, and also have ordained and decreed for us and our heirs that no Jew have a freehold in Manors, lands, tenements, fees, rents, and holdings whatsoever by charter, gift, feoffment, confirmation or any other obligations or in any other wise. Jews could not plead by the English writs of Chancery, 7 but could plead only by the previous writs of Jewry. 3 Ibid., p. 46. 4 Loc. gt. 5 Ibid., p. 47. 6 Loc. fit.’ 7 Ibid. , p. 48. 9 According to the parliamentary enactment of Henry III, no Christian woman or man should serve a Jew as a cook, baker, brewer, and that Jewish children were not to be nursed by the Christian women or men.8 The Jews of Marlborough were removed to Devizes those of Gloucester were removed to Bristol, those of Worcester were removed to Hereford, and the Jewish community of Cambridge was removed to Norwich. These removals were the king's discriminating activities which testified that the Jews were completely segregated from the Christians. In 1290 the Jews were banished from England.10 They had become unp0pu1ar because of their strange customs and religion which the peOple did not understand. The superstition of the time credited them with great crimes, and believed that human sacrifices were offered at their festivals. They were hated as well, because their chief occupation was usury of which they had the monOpoly, as the Church did 8 Ibid., p. 49. 9 Ibid., p. 50. 10 Loc . cit . 10 not allow the Christians lend out money at interest. The enormously high rates of interests increased the ill-will felt towards them. The Jews suffered both from the violence of the peOple and the rapacity of the king. King Edward I ban- ished them because of their unp0pu1arity, many of them were robbed and killed on board the ships which were conveying them over to the continent, and in the last analysis, they were declared as traitors. The Emergency of the Lollards and the Restrictions on Them The Lollards were the followers of Wycliffe in England during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In the middle . . 12 ages the Lollards preached liberty, equahty and brotherhood. The discontent, due to social grievances, had of late years been fanned by the Lollard priests, who were now begin- ning to preach on social questions and to demand equality of wealth, saying that all men were equal before God, and that 11Ibid., p. 51. 2 George M. Trevelyan, England in the Age of Wycliffe (3rd. ed.; London, 1904), p. 196. 11 there was no reason why some should be poor and others rich. Many peeple thought that they were disseminating socialistic or communistic ideas.1' The restrictions on them plus their persecutions took place mainly during the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V. The government of Henry IV was at variance with heresy, and con- sequently the sheriffs were empowered to help the bish0ps ap- prehend all those who were accused of heresy, and through armed forces many Lollards were arrested and were tried and sentenced to death.14 By many establishing facts, the Lancastrian sovereigns were always in close alliance with the Church, and the chief persecuting statute passed in English history was drawn up in this reign. The Lollards had been encouraged in the reign of Richard II whose first wife, Anne of Bohemia, had been very favourable to their cause, but Henry IV saw that their doctrines would lead to social and political as well as religious changes; 13 Ibid., pp. 196-199. 14 W. E. Lunt, History of England (3rd. ed.; New York, 1949), p. .255. 12 he consequently threw himself on the side of the church, and in 1401 the Statute De Haeretico comburendo (for the burning of heretics) was passed.15 The act forbade any preaching without a license from a bish0p, and said that men convicted of heresy by the ecclesiastical counts, and refusing to re- cant, were to be handed over to the civil authorities and burnt by the sheriff, and the first victim was William Sawtoe. Henry V was a staunch supporter of the Church against heresy. He had taken active part in the persecutions of the reign of his father, and now he aimed at the destruction of Lollardism. The leader of the Lollards at this time was Sir John Old Castle, he was arrested and imprisoned but he es- caped, and he was afterwards captured and burnt. Various proceedings were directed against many Lol- lards and many hundreds were indicted, and in the last anal- ysis only one of the arrested Lollards was charged of Social- istic ideas . 5 Trevelyan, 0p. cit., p. 334. 16 Lunt, Op. cit., p. 256. 13 Two individuals, a baker and a skinner were burnt at the stake for being Lollards, their deaths took place a year after the burning of the thirty-seven heretics, later on, twenty- five men of the Lollard party were arrested but majority of them recanted and were released only one Of them became . . 17 Opinionated and was burnt. Lollardism existed until 1521, and a Lollard preacher who was called Thomas Man was burnt at stake in 1518.. In 1521 so many proceedings were effected against the Lollards . 18 . some recanted and only Six men were burnt. In the reign of Henry VII, they were also persecuted, two were killed at Norfolk and Kent, in London five of them were burnt; Richard Hun, a Lollard was imprisoned for his religious beliefs and he died in the prison. 17 Trevelyan, Op. cit., p. 340. 18 Ibid., p. 348. 19 Ibid., p. 349. 14 From the Readmittance of the Jews Until the Accomplishment of Their Emancipation Oliver Cromwell found it very difficult to grant legal toleration to both the Jews and the Catholics since legal tol- erations to both Of them were not in harmony with the public Opinion in England. The readmittance Of the Jews into England placed Oliver Cromwell in a similar predicament. A learned Portuguese Jew, by name Manasseh Ben Is- rael, in 1655, requested Oliver to allow the Jews to come back to England in order to settle there for the purpose Of trading. The Protector was in favour of their returning into England. He, therefore, assembled a committee of clergymen, merchants and lawyers to discuss with him on the Jewish question. He spoke very well on behalf of the Jews, but the clergymen felt that their religion would be in danger, and the merchants did not want commercial equality with the Jews, consequently no legal religious toleration was granted to them. However, the Protector permitted them to meet in private houses for their worship, and they gained a favour with him. He encouraged them whole heartedly, and it is therefore quite certain that 15 the resettlement of the Jews in England dated from the period of Cromwellian reign.20 Specific Disabilities of the Jews and the Emancipation In the middle ages a Jew was not allowed to hold any position in the government, he could not be able to become a citizen. He could not become a professional man, in other words, he was denied of the right to engage in any reputable profession. He could not be a member of craft or merchant guild. He dwelt in a ghetto, he wore a particular badge, he was illegally taxed. Education and high standard of living were far from his reach.21 As from the time of Cromwell, the Jewish situations were better in many respects. The emergence of some wealthy Jews took place. The removal of the Jewish disabilities had been discussed since 1830 but no remedy was effected. At the general elec- tion of 1847, Baron Rotschild appeared for the City of London, 20 Charles Firth, Oliver Cromwell (2nd. ed.; New York, 1924) , p. 362. 21 "Jews," Encyclopaedia Britannica V. _1_3_ (1946), p. 58. 16 and consequently, the Jewish question was revived. Mr. Robert Grant first brought the bill which would grant the right of cit- izenship to the Jews and unfortunately for them, the bill was vetoed?“Z The state of law which was enacted during the mid- dle ages made a Jew become a pariah in a society. He tol- erated every species of humiliation. He could not vote if he refused to take the elector's oath, he could not practice at the bar, or become lawyer, and he could not be allowed to get an employment in the School. In a community, a Jew possessed no identity, a ban was inflicted upon him socially and politically. Even when the Catholics were freed from their religious disabilities, the Legislature still refused to tolerate the Jews.23 Mr. Grant's bill held no water in 1830, and during the two subsequent occasions, the bill was also vetoed. However, improvements had been gradually achieved, and by 1847 every Jew had achieved all the privileges of an English citizen except 22 L. J. Jennings, Croker Papers, Vol. III (lst. ed.; London, 1884), p. 136. Loc . cit . 17 franchise.24 Lord John Russell brought a bill which could enable Baron L. Rothschild to be admitted into the franchise but the conservative party, at large, Opposed the bill. In 1714, Mr. John Toland urged on the Emancipation _Of the Jews plus their Naturalizations. The Pelham's Jew Bill of 1753 crushed the Obstacles in the way of the Jewish Eman- cipation. Lord Russell, Mr. Grant and Macaulay were in syrn- pathy with the Jews. In 1858, the Jewish Emancipation was accomplished, and Mr. Lionel de Rothschild was the first Jew to be admitted to the franchise. Governmental and University offices were Opened to them in 1866, 1871, and 1878.25 24 Loc . cit. 25 "Jews,” Enclepaedia of Social Sciences VOL VII (1944), pp. 394-395 . CHAPTER II THE DAWN OF THE CATHOLIC DISABILITIES The breach with Rome was the work of King Henry VIII himself, and the immediate cause was the king's desire to get a divorce from Catherine of Aragon. The nation which as a whole had been almost untouched by the doctrines taught by the leaders of the new learning, were willing to agree, for there was a long standing dislike Of papal authority in England, dating from the time of John's submission to the POpe. The English peOple had always objected to papal interferences and papal exactions, and acts passed to lessen the POpe's authority in England had always been pOpular. Naturally, Henry VIII had hitherto always upheld the Pope, and had himself written a pamphlet defending the papacy against the attacks of Luther, for which he received the title of the "defender Of faith" from the POpe. Henry VIII had broken off his alliance with Charles party because he resented his attacks on POpe, and it was only the attitude of the latter towards the divorce question that led the king to destroy all the papal authority in England. 19 Henry VIII had married Catherine of Aragon after his brother's death, but the marriage was not a happy one. There was only one child surviving, and that was a daughter by name, Mary, and broadly Speaking, the king wanted a son fearing that there might be a disputed succession after his death. He de- clared that notwithstanding the papal dispensation that had been obtained, marriage with his brother's widow was unlawful, and applied to the Pope for a divorce. He did not expect or antici- pate to meet much opposition from the POpe to whom the friend- ship of English king was of utmost importance, but as the POpe was a prisoner in the hands of Charles V who was Catherine's nephew, he dared not decide in Henry's favour, and tried to get over the difficulty by temporising. The POpe first appointed a commission to try the case in England, and sent over Cardinal Campeggio who was to act in concert with Wolsey. When the court met the inquiry was postponed by papal command for three- months, and when that time had elapsed, the trial was adjourned again, and the POpe finally declared that the case should be brought to Rome to be settled. 20 To this decree, Henry VIII, refused to submit as he considered it an indignity to have any case in which he was concerned tried before a foreign court. The king, therefore, determined to decide the matter on his own authority, and he even consulted the students Of the continental universities as the pending issue, and about one-half decided the case in his favour. It was in order to be able to effect the divorce legally that he threw off papal authority in England. Reforms in the English Church The Reformation Parliament passed acts which checked the abuses of pluralities, limiting the fees that might be charged by the clergy, and forbidding the clergy to follow any trade but their own. The next events in the history of England were the pas- sing of the acts separating England from the Church of Rome, and transferring to the king all the powers held by POpe .in England. These powers were the rights Of taxation—chiefly Of l W. E. Lunt, History of England (3rd. ed.; New York, 1949). Pp. 308-309. 21 the clergy, and the right of deciding disputes by appeals to the papal courts. The right Of confirming appointments to bishOpries, and the right to legislate for the church for is- suing bulls. The POpe's right to take the first fruit was checked by the Act of Annates, 1532, which forbade annates to be paid to Rome but to be paid to Henry VIII. By the Act of Appeals, 1533, appeals to the foreign courts were forbidden, and thus taking from the POpe, en the judicial authorities. Peter's pence was forbidden and all authorities in the appointment of bishOps was taken away from the Pope. Finally, in 1534, the Act of Supremacy was passed by which it was declared that the Pope held no authority in England at all, and the king took the title of Supreme Head under Christ 2 of the Church in England. 2 Oscar Albert Marti, Economic Causes of the Reforma- tion in England (lst. ed.; New York: Macmillan Company, 1929), pp. 143-174. 22 Early Restrictions On the Catholics In 1534, the royal commissioners went to various areas and administered the oath of Succession. Many disobedient religious bodies were fined and some lost their lives. The Nun of Kent, a woman who, during fits of epilepsy, uttered sham prOphecies against the king was put to death, and her five companions were put to death at Tyburn. More and Fisher who refused to take oath of allegiance were beheaded in 1535. The royal commissioners persecuted both Lutheran and papal preachers. The friars disobeyed the order of the king, and two cartloads of them were driven to the tower. The Fran- ciscans of the stricter branch were loaded in chains and were persecuted very ruthlessly. NO preaching was allowed without royal license and the subject and the tone of the sermon were dictated by the king. The king's chief engine of tyranny was the great extension of the law Of treason by which many clergy- men perished . 3 Arthur Lyon Cross, A Shorter History of England (Re- vised ed.; New York: Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 207. 23 Nationalization or Secularization of Church PrOperty in England Dr. Marti felt that the nationalization of the Church prOp- erty was due to the following economic factors: A fear of national disintegration; the interests of the public weal and of the national defense; the cupidity of the ruling classes; and the passing of an old, outworn economic order of things. The Dissolution Of Monasteries The Act of Supremacy was followed by an attack on the monasteries, which had always been subject to papal authority and had been outside the jurisdiction of either the king or the English Church. The nominal object was the reformation of monastic abuses, the real Object was the desire of the king to get for himself the wealth Of the monasteries. In 1536, a com- mission was appointed to inquire into the condition of the smal— ler monasteries. About four hundred monasteries with the incomes under 200 a year were abolished. Marti, Op. cit., p. 175. 24 In 1539, an act was passed which abolished the larger . 5 . . . monasteries. The king promised to prOVide for the monks, practically, no provision was made for the monks. However, there were many abuses in the monasteries, the money was often misused and the monastic vows were not kept. Protestant Excesses The use of the English language was enforced in the churches. Images, stained glass windows, paintings, and carvings were destroyed. The creeping to the cross on Good Friday, the use Of ashes, palms, candles, and holy water were stopped. Gardiner and Bonner the devout Catholics resisted these measures very vigorously and they were both imprisoned. King Edward VI published the first Act of Uniformity. In 1552, he passed the second Act Of Uniformity, and the Book of Common Prayer was revised. Penalties were imposed on those who refused to obey these acts. If a Catholic or any other person 5 B. Henning, A. Foord, and B. Mathias, Crises in English History (lst. ed.; New York: Henry Holt 8: Co., T949), pp. 113-126. 25 failed to attend the Church of England, he or she was impris- oned for six months during the first offense, one year's im- prisonment for the second offense and death penalty for the third offense.6 The Implanting of a Deep Hatred of Romanism The man who had most to do with the restoration of papal supremacy in England was the Queen's cousin, Cardinal Pole, who was now sent to England by Pope with legative au- thority. The persecuting statutes Of Henry IV and Henry V were revived. Strict investigations were made, a register of heretics or a Black Book of Heretics was kept, and those who refused a recant could be punished with death. The first victims were Rogers, the Prebendary of St. Paul, HOOper, Bishop of Gloucester, and they were followed by others, of whom the most noted were Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. The leaders Of the persecutions were Gardiner, Bonner, Pole, and Queen Mary, herself. The persecutions were most severe at Kent, Sussex and the eastern counties. Cross, Op. cit., pp. 231-234. 26 In three years about three to four hundred Protestants . 7 . . . . . were killed. The effect of this severity was to implant in the nation the deep hatred of Romanism. Queen Mary, the first queen regnant of England has bequeathed to history the memory of a bigoted persecutor, and by her persecutions she did more than any other sovereign to make England a Protestant country. Restrictions on the Jesuits and Catholic Priests Catholic priests and Jesuits were imprisoned at Wis- beach Castle. A complaint had been lodged out that some of these prisoners made arrangements with their keeper in order to be supplied with good diet. Parliamentary authorities de- creed that no good diet and liberty should be given to them. Robert Southwell a Jesuit was brought out for trial on the 20th of February, 1595 at the court of King's Bench before the chief Justice whose name was POpham. The arms of Robert Southwell were tied with cords. The Attorney-General 7 John Richard Green, A Short History of the English Pe0ple (lst. ed.; New York: American Book Company, 1916), pp. 361-369. ll 27 Mr. Coke, Opened the indictment, and he was proved guilty. On the 22nd of February, 1595, he was brought to a place of execution. Mr. Tyburn tied cords round his wrists. He was finally hanged and after his death the sheriff asked the sergeant to cut the rOpe by which he was hanged, and he did 50.8 Two Jesuit prisoners escaped from the Wisbeach Castle. These prisoners broke the iron bars of their windows, and descended through their bed cords. The keeper Of the castle was brought to trial for negligence of duty. He pleaded for the mercy of the judge because the prisoners escaped during his absence. These Jesuits actually suffered different kinds of per- secutions, and they were made to live animal—like lives. I The BishOps were ordered to make an Inquisition con- cerning the Recusants. Many attempts were made to reform them by instructions and teaching and most of them were in- 10 dicted to imprisonments by the customary rules of law. 8 G. B. Harrison, A Second Elizabethan Journal (lst. ed.; New York: Richard RT Smith, Inc., 1931), pp. 10-15. 9 Ibid., p. 165. 10 Ibid., p. 65. llv y I, 28 On the 19th of December, 1596, Sir Thomas Cornwallis who was a loyal recusant was exempted from all the ill mea- sures against the Catholics. On the 7th of April, 1597, Queen Elizabeth determined to banish the Seminary priests. She in- structed Mr. Bacon to calculate the number of Seminary priests in various prisons and to formulate charges against them. Forty-six Recusants were ordered to pay #5 each, because they furnished light horses for Ireland. The papists were considered to be very dangerous, the magistrates [were ordered to be harsh, cruel and strict towards them, and that they should be stoned ruthlessly.12 Owing to events of vital importance the members of the Council had not for a long time examined or heard the suspected Jesuits who were imprisoned for a long time ago. A body of twelve men was appointed to examine the prisoners every week. The keepers of the prison would give the names of the pris- oners to this commission and would examine them according to the information which was received concerning them. The 11 Ibid.. pp. 157-180. 12 Ibid., p. 305. 29 commissioners could as they pleased, remove the prisoners to other prisons for their safe keeping and to make the restric- tions on them more rigid. The council ordered the Earl of Pembroke to ascertain the number of Recusants who had fled to Wales. As there was no commission set up in Wales to trythe Recusants, a large number Of them had fled there. Commissioners were appointed in Wales to examine them, and all suspected per- sons would be examined also. In Wales, the Jesuits and Sem- inaries who fled there had conducted their prayers and worships in private places. An order was passed that no Catholic should proceed to Wales, and that if peOple were found holding private worships they would be arrested and punished very severely; that an example should be set to others and that these intolerable abuses should be checked.14 Arms were taken away from the Recusants. Many of them who possessed armours in their houses were disabled. 13 G. B. Harrison, An Elizabethan Journal (2nd. ed.; New York: Cosmopolitan 36312 Corporation, 192W, p. 106. 14 Ibid., p. 147. 30 In 1585 Special commissioners seized all the arms Of the Recusants. All the suspected and certified persons lost their arms, unless they would conform to law and public order.15 Puritans in Prison During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Thomas Cartwright who was the founder of Puritan sect and other Puritans were in prison in 1592. They requested the Lord Treasurer for their release on bail. They promised not to infringe upon the law of the land. The authorities re- quired them to renounce their faith, and that they would enjoy the same amount of freedom and liberty as other subjects. The Puritans were forced to submit against the testimony of their beliefs. They had been in the prison yard for a long time. The prison rooms and environments were very unhealthy, no ventilation of any kind. Most of these Puritan prisoners be- came sick because of lack of air. On the 3lst Of March, 1592, the Puritan prisoners were 17 liberated, the Council annulled the charges against them. 15 Ibid., p. 157. 16 Ibid., p. 117. 17 Ibid., p. 125. CHAPTER III THE ATTITUDES OF THE ROYALTY AND PARLIAMENTS TOWARDS THE CATHOLICS FROM 1547 UNTIL 1678 On the 6th of September, 1547, King Edward VI went to St. Paul and destroyed all the images, and on the 9th of the same month he visited St. Bride and did the same. All images in the Catholic churches were pulled down by the king's decree. A complete change was made throughout the kingdom which disabled all the established conventions. Two men who were destroying the images on the 17th of November, 1547, were killed and many other reformers were injured. New BishOps and preachers were appointed, and they were ordered by the king to preach against images and sacra- ments of the altar. There was also a proclamation against Catholic mass. During this reign of Edward VI the Protestants initiated revolutions or reformatory excesses which rendered the personal liberties of the Catholics at a stake. l E. K. Kendal, Source-Book of English History (lst. ed.; New York: Macmillan 81 Co., 1889), p. 146. Loc . cit. 32 The hostile deve10pment abroad and the plots at home created greatest anti-Catholic measures. The measures that were meted out against the English Romanists were mainly intended to create the safety, prosperity, and the strength of the crown. The anti-Catholic legislations passed by the Elizabethan Parliaments took place in 1571-1572, 1581 and 1585-1587.4 These occurred immediately after the emergence of the Earls. During the period of the expedition of Leicester to the Nether- lands, the Babington conspiracy, the time at which the Scottish queen was executed, and at the time that the Armada threat- ened to invade England. Broadly speaking, in the time of Peace the penal laws were suspended, but in time of danger they were revived. The penal laws were mainly against the ardent papists, and the Recusants were favoured occasionally. Recusants were the Catholics who refused to attend divine services in an Anglican Church. 3 Roger B.. Merriman, "The Treatment of English Catholicism in the Reign Of Queen Elizabeth," American His- torical Review, V. XIII (No. 3, April, 1908), p. 480. 4 Ibid., p. 481. 33 The queen and the council did not desire to persecute on religious grounds. The penalties were in forms of fines and confiscations. In the Continental EurOpe, the nonconform- ists suffered tortures, death penalties, banishments, but in England these restrictions were Sparingly applied in exceptional cirCumStances for Special purposes or ends in view. The Elizabethan government inclined to exile the Puritans as "factious disturbers," of the State, while the policies effected towards the Catholics were those of su— pervision, segregation, and retention. In time of special danger the Recusants were confined into these places: Ely, Broughton, and Wisbeach in Cambridge. By exiling the Puritans, the government would not involve her- self in foreign wars because the Puritans had no friends in the Continental EurOpe, but the Catholics had friends in the Con- tinent, hence they were detained‘and imprisoned at home. However, the banishments of the Jesuits and Seminary priests were dictated by political expediency, and these priests Loc. cit. Ibid., p. 482. Loc. cit. 34 were quite irreconcilable. The winter Of 1580-1581 was the most critical period for the English Catholics. Ireland revolted, and the critical events in Netherlands were quite at hand. The followers of the imprisoned queen were very aggressive, Cam- pion and Parsons landed at Dover in June, 1580. Sir Francis Walsingham returned to England from his embassy to Nether- lands, and planned to fish out all the Recusants and punish them ruthlessly. He was a Protestant, and according to his plans, be arrested and imprisoned so many Catholics. In the Catholic Lancashire the queen's representatives arrested sixty men for attending mass and threatened the county with impris- onments. The torture by the rack was employed, and Mr. Norton was the Rack master, he was a lawyer and a poet; and he examined all the Catholics by tortures. Queen Elizabeth did not really want the enforcement of the statutes against the Catholics, even she was not in earnest collecting the imposed fines. She was only interested in pass- age of the acts during the acute climax of the crisis which 8 Ibid., p. 484. 35 tendedto endanger her life. The dealings with the Catholics between 1585-1587 were very lenient. The government ultimately felt that segregation and imprisonments were very expensive, and that banishments would bring them into contact with the Continental Catholics, finally, Sir Francis Walsingham planned to transport them to North America. George Peckham who was not a Catholic suffered on account of his wife who was a notorious Recusant. Peckham, through the influence of his wife, sent money to the London Prisons. He was arrested, tried and imprisoned in 1580. He was released on March 1, 1581 by a pledge of £000 bond, and he still continued to help the Catholics.11 Mr. Peckham contacted a notorious papist by name Sir Thomas Gerard who was in because he attempted to free Mary, the queen of Scots. The families of Peckham and Gerard were Ibid., p. 486. 10 Ibid., p. 492. 11 Ibid., p. 493. 36 united by marriage, and both of them determined to transport the Catholics to North America}.2 Lord Baltimore found a home for the Oppressed Cath- olics in Maryland in 1634. The government thought that the transportation of the Catholics to North America would free England from dangers. According to the constitutional documents of the Puritan Revolution the number of Recusants during the reign of Queen Elizabeth was comparatively small, but during the reign of Charles I the number Of the Recusants was highly increased and about two thousand Catholics in each county. The estab- lishment of College of Jesuits at Clerkenwell, and the spread- ing of Arminian faction were highly resented by the houses of the Parliament. The houses of the Parliament directed the execution of the against papery very diligently. Restrictions were imposed 12 Ibid., p. 494. l3 Ibi ., p. 500. 14 Sir R. Gardiner, Constitutional Documents of Puritan Revolution (lst. ed.; Oxford, 1889), p. 13. 37 upon the College of the Jesuits, and the petition of Sir Robert Heath on behalf of the Catholics was dishonoured. All the Catholic papers, writings, books, and sermons were banned.15 Teachers and all those who maintained papish ideas and Opinion would be punished. During the commonwealth period, the Parliament re- viewed all the laws passed by the former kings and queen against the Catholics and their accomplices and made them most rigid. By an act of Parliament everybody from the age of six- teen up must go to church every Sunday or pay a sum of £20, if arrested must be bailed at a sum oféZOO. Any Schoolmaster who would teach contrary to the Church of England, should lose his job, and would suffer imprisonment without bail for one year. Individuals who would resort to private places to worship on Sundays should be severely punished and imprisoned. 15 Loc. cit. 16 Ibid., p. 300. 17 Ibid.. pp. 301-3. 38 The Act of 1563 extended the provisions Of the Act of Supremacy, and all classes of persons were forced to take the oath of Supremacy, and a second refusal was to be considered as a high treason. Mary, Queen of Scots was now in England and her machinations hastened the executions of the four plots against Queen Elizabeth. Pope Pius V excommunicated and deposed the Queen and these excommunication and deposition rendered the religious disputes irreconcilable.18 Purely, no one could be a good subject, and at the same time a good Roman Catholic. In 1570 Norfolk and the Earl Of Northumberland were executed, and about the year 1579, the Jesuits entered into the stage, and through their plotting activities, the Romanist and Marian party predominated in Scotland. The Romanists also created the Desmond rebellion in Ireland. Campion and Par- sons were sent to England mainly to get rid of the queen's life. By the Act of 1581, it was impossible to convert any of the Queen's subjects to Catholicism. 18 G. M. Prothero, Statutes to the Parl., Constitutional Documents of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James 1(3rd. ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906), p. 47. 19 Ibid., p. 48. 39 By the Act of 1587, the Parliament was legalized to seize two-thirds of the property of any offender.20 The mur- der of William the Silent in 1584, and Parry's plot in 1585 alarmed the queen and the Parliament. Any English subject who would receive his or her education at the Catholic college would be held as guilty of high treason on failure to take the oath of Supremacy. By the Act Of 1585, government tried and executed Mary, Queen of Scots. The early statutes of the year 1593 was di- rected against the Protestant sectaries. The second penal law of 1593 was directed against the Recusants. They could not be allowed to travel five miles from their homes, and all the suspected Recusants were imprisoned. The laws of Queen Elizabeth barred the ardent Catholics from politics and Universities, as well as from legal and edu- 23 cational profe s sions . 20 Ibid., p. 49. 21 Loc. cit. 22 Ibid.} p. 50. 23 Ibid., p. 51. "v“ v—V 40 James I tried at first to relax the severity of the laws against the Romanists, but the Gunpowder Plot made him change his mind. He made laws against them more rigid and severe. By the Act of 1606, the Recusants had to take sacrament an- nually according to the Anglican rite and they were subject to heavy penalties on failure to do so. James I could also take the two-thirds of the prOperty of the offenders according to the Act of 1587. The imposed the oath of Allegiance, and any Catholic who would refuse twice to take the oath of allegiance was subject to outlawry and forfeiture, and a conversion to Romanism was punishable by death; heavy bribes were offered to men who would provide with James I the names of all the offenders.24 In the last analysis, the Catholics were barred, during the reign of James I, from the legal and medical professions, from the posts in the army and navy and from the minor posts in the kingdom. If the wife of a Protestant turned Catholic, she was heavily punished, and marriages, baptisms, and burials 24 Loc . cit . 41 that were conducted not by the Anglican rites were punish- able.25 King James I decreed that the Recusants had no rights to any kind of recreation in the kingdom, and all the non- conformists and other peOple who refused to attend church on Sundays would not be permitted to participate in all the legal recreations of the kingdom.26 Only the Protestants were titled to inheritance. The Recusants could not inherit. They also lost their ecclesiastical patronages, they could not act as trustees, the privacy of their dwellings were violated since justices Of peace could search their houses for books and relics. They were disarmed in the same way as during the previous reigns, and the Act of 1610 strengthened the measures of the Act of 1606. The oath of allegiance was to be taken by anybody. Failure to do so, the offender would be excluded from any place of trust and liberal profession, and on many occasions the wives Of the 25 Ibid., p. 52. Joseph Tanner, Constitutional Documents of the Reign of James I (lst. ed.; Cambridge: University Press, 1930), p. 56. 42 . 27 . Recusants were disabled. Broadly Speaking, the penal code infringed the rights, liberties and the privacy of the English subjects. And be it further enacted, that no Recusant convict shall at any time after the end of this session Of Parlia- ment practice the common law of this realm as a coun- 4 selor, clerk, attorney, or solicitor in the same, nor shall ). practice the civil law as advocate or proctor; nor practice physic, nor exercise or use the trade or art of an apoth- ecary; nor shall be judge, minister, clerk or steward in any court, or keep any court, nor Shall be register or town-clerk or other minister or officer in any court, nor Shall bear any office or charge as captain, lieutenant, ( corporal, sergeant, ancient bearer or other office in the I camp, troop, band or company of soldiers; nor Shall be captain, master, governor, or bear any Office or charge in any Ship, castle or fortress of the King's Majesty's, his heirs and successors; . . . any person offending herein shall also forfeit for every such offenseflOO. King James I still decreed that nobody Should send his or her children abroad to be educated under Roman Catholic teachers, and that no aid or food supplies should be sent away . . 29 from England to the Catholic children abroad. In 1650, Cromwell attempted to tolerate the Catholics but the public Opinion was highly against the prOposal. In 1654, 27 Prothero, op. cit., pp. 52-3. 28 Ibid., p. 264. 29 Ibid., p. 427. 43 a Catholic priest was killed because he was a stout Catholic. In 1656, Mazarin of France requested Oliver Cromwell to tol- erate Catholics legally. This is his reply: "I cannot," ans- wered the Protector, "as to a public declaration of my sense on that point; although I believe that under my government your Eminency on behalf of the Catholics has less cause for com- plaint than under the Parliament. For I have of some and those very many, had compassion, making a difference. I have plucked many out of the fire, — the raging fire of persecution, which did tyrannize over their consciences and encroach by arbitrariness of power over their estates. And herein it is my purpose, as soon as I can remove impediments and some weights that press me down, to make a further progress, and discharge my promise to your Eminence." In 1670, Charles II concluded with Louis XIV of France the Secret Treaty of Dover, by which he was bound to estab— lish Roman Catholicism in England. Louis XIV promised to send armed help if the attempt to introduce Roman Catholicism led to revolt. In accordance with the terms Of this treaty 30 Charles Firth, Oliver Cromwell (2nd. ed.; New York, 1924), p. 362. 44 Charles 11 published a Declaration of Indulgence, to suspend the execution of the religious laws, but this roused so much Opposition that he was obliged to withdraw it. Parliament, in. revenge, passed the Test Act in 1673, which was directed chiefly against the Roman Catholics, and forbade anyone to hold Office under the State unless he would take Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England.31 The im- mediate result of this act was the fall of the Cabal Ministers, two of whom were Roman Catholics; Ashley, and Buckingham were removed from the office, and only Lauderdale remained inoffice. The council chamber at White Hall in 1678 wrote to Earl of Danby to search the houses of the papists and all sus- pected Recusants in his county for arms of war and violence. On the whole the council insisted that all the Catholics should , 32 be disarmed. 31 W. E. Lunt, History of England (3rd. ed.; New York, 1949), p. 453. 32 Robert Bell, Fairfax Memoirs of the Reign p_f Charles II (lst. ed.; London: Publisher in Ordinary to Her Majesty, 1849), p. 291. 45 The Earl of Shaftesbury enacted a law which would pre— . . . . 33 vent the Catholic lords from Sitting in the House of Lords. An order was given to arrest all the papish priests and a sum of £20 would be awarded to anyone who would be able to appre- hend them. Secretary Williams granted commissions to the g . . . . 34 1 papists and he was imprisoned for dOing so. There were fifty priests and Jesuits in prison and eight Catholic lords were also imprisoned. During the papish plot .a _ Sir E. Godfrey conducted the informations of the Tonge and Oates during, he was the most ruthless English magistrate of the time. Francis Caryle who was innocently accused of taking . . . . 35 part in the papish plot was rolled down in a barrel of nails. James II succeeded Charles II and he turned his atten- tion to the chief objects of his ambition, namely, the restora- tion of Roman Catholicism, the removal of the Catholic disa— bilities and the establishment of absolute powers. He wanted first of all to get rid of the Test Act in order that he might 33 Ibid., p. 297. 34 Ibid., p. 298. 35 Ibid., pp. 299-301. 46 appoint Roman Catholics to high Office, especially in the army. He appointed a Roman Catholic Officer Hales to a post in the army, and had an action brought against him in order that the . . . . 36 . question might be finally deCided. The power that he claimed, the right to exercise in appointing Hales was known as the Dis- pensing power, that is, the power Of dispensing with the laws 1 in the case of certain individuals, or the right to exempt cer— tain individuals if they broke the laws. The case concerning Hales was decided in favour of James II and Hales.37 The king made the use of this decision to appoint many Roman Catholics to high offices, both military and civil. The Prot- estant Anglicans feared that their religion would likely be sup- pressed by means of an army, and the king's attitudes were highly resented. The indignation of the nation was next aroused by the king's interference with the privileges of the Universities. In Cambridge the fellows were ordered to confer a degree on a Benedictine monk, and when they refused because he would 36 Lunt, Op. cit., p. 458. 37 Loc . cit. 47 not take the usual oaths, they were penalized. In Oxford, on the death of the President of the Magdalen College, the fellows were ordered to select as his successor, Farmer, a Roman Catholic and a man of bad character, and when they refused, heavy penalties were inflicted upon them.38 To assist James II in carrying out these measures he established the High Com- mission court again. Mass was openly celebrated in London, and the court was swarming with priests and Jesuits. He also established a standing army in order to overawe the Protestants. The Catholics at this time became Instructors and professors at Cambridge and Oxford Universities. On the 4th of April, 1687, James H issued the first declaration of Indulgence. This was an exercise of suspending power, by which the execution of laws could be suspended, not for an individual only, as in the case Of Hales, but for the whole country; it suspended for an indefinite time the execution of all the penal laws about religion, and these laws could now be broken with impunity. This aroused strong opposition in the country, but, notwithstanding the general dissatisfaction he 38 Ibid., p. 459. 48 issued the second declaration on the 27th of April, 1688. He ordered the clergy to read it from their pulpits on two suc- cessive Sundays in June. The clergy refused to read it. Seven bishops presented a petition to the king to withdraw the order, and this petition was published in London papers. James II regarded the bishOps as rebellious subjects and had them ar- rested. They were tried at the Law Court by the jury who acquitted them. Consequently the Glorious Revolution of 1688-9 was created and James II was dethroned, and William and Mary succeeded him.39 The Toleration Act allowed all the Protestants to worship as they liked, but no toleration was allowed to Roman Catholics or those who did not believe in Trinity.40 Dissenters were not still allowed to hold municipal offices. The High Church clergy who refused to take the oaths of allegiance to William were deprived of their livings. They were called the non—jurors. By the Bill of Rights of 1689, any Sovereign who pro- fessed Catholic religion could not reign, and if he married a 39 Arthur Lyon Cross, A Shorter History of England (Revised ed.; New York: Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 392. 40 Ibid., p. 424. 49 Catholic woman, his subjects would not obey him. The toler- ation act and the Bill of Rights mainly disabled the Catholics, Jews, and the Unitarians. By the Succession Act of 1701, . 41 the King of England must be a member Of Church of England. No Catholic, or Jew or Quaker, dissenter or Puritan could be a king of England. From the Obsoleteness of the Penal Laws to the Achievement of the Catholic Emancipation From 1750 to 1829 the penal laws against the Catholics were almost forgotten, they had become obsolete. On Friday last Mr. Dunning moved the Court of King's Bench for an information against two Justices of the Peace for Middlesex, for refusing to compel two per- sons to take the oaths, who had been charged to be RO- man Catholics, when Lord Mansfield refused Mr. Dun- ning's motion; at the same time (he) expressed his dis- approbation at this attempt to revive the severities of those very penal laws. By the activities of the Catholic Association Daniel O'Connell was elected as a parliamentary member for Clare. 41 Ibid., p. 425. 42 John Hampden, An Eighteenth-Century Journal (lst. ed.; London: Macmillan a-i-i-d— Co., Ltd., 1940), p. 335. 50 Through the humane efforts of Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington, a bill which averted all the political disabilities between Catholics and the Protestants passed the Houses of 43 Commons and Lords in 1829. The king approved the Eman- cipation Bill on 16th of April, 1829.44 43 Charles C. F. Greville, A Journal of the Reigns of King George IV and King William IV (2nd. ed.; New York: D. Appleton a. CST, 1886), pp. 141-178. 44 L. J. Jennings, Croker Papers, Vol. 11(lst. ed.; London, 1884), p. 14. CHAPTER IV PURITANS, QUAKERS AND DISSENTERS In the class psychology of the Puritans during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the achievement Of Parliamentary rights was the main motive. In 1576, Peter Wentworth who was a Puritan member Of the House of Commons insisted upon the liberty of speech in the Parliament and he attacked the bishOps. He was imprisoned for the reasons stated above. In 1587, another Puritan member strove for the certain changes in the Prayer Book. COpe, Wentworth, and three other Puritans petitioned the Privy Council for religious changes, and for this reason they were imprisoned in the tower. On the 9th of January, Sir Francis Knolly wrote to the Lord Treasurer in which he solicited on behalf Of the Puritans in prison. He argued that the Puritan prisoners were not very 3 seditious and that they should be treated with justice. l G. B. Harrison, An Elizabethan Journal (2nd. ed.; New York: CosmOpolitan B-o—Ok Corporation, 1929), p. 257. "Puritans," EncyclOpaedia of Social Sciences (1944), Vol. XIV, p. 3. Harrison, Op. cit., p. 103. 52 The hOpes which the Puritans nourished were shattered as soon as James I became King of England. The Millenary Petition was a failure since the Hampton court conference pro- duced no effect for the redress of the grievances of the Puri- tans. James I regarded all the Protestant nonconformists as Puritans and Novelists, that no toleration would be given to them. The Puritans and the Anglicans disagreed on fundamen- tals. The important ordinance of the Puritans was preaching and the vital and important religious rites of the Anglicans were sacraments.5 The difference in the belief of their relig- ious life dated from the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The queen highly hated preaching, and she quarrelled with her preachers always. The effect of the Reformation paralyzed the pulpit, and the Puritans destroyed this paralysis. 4 G. M. Prothero, Statutes to the Parl. , Constitutional Documents of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James fl3rd. ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906), p. 59. 01 Joseph Tanner, Constitutional Documents of the Reign of James I (lst. ed.; Cambridge: University Press, 1930), p. 48. "3" 53 The altar controversy was another source of discord between the Anglicans and the Puritans. One Opposing party wanted the altar to stand tablewise, and the other party wanted it to stand altarwise. Both parties disagreed on fundamental, ceremonial questions. They both fought against great principles. The Sabbatarian controversy was another source of con- flict between the Anglicans and the Puritans. The Puritans emphasized the exclusive authority of the Bible, and the Angli— cans insisted on the coordinated authority of the Church. The Puritan House of Commons in 1621 dismissed a member for Shaftesbury who interpreted the Sabbath to be Saturday and who also proved that dancing was legal. For the reasons stated above James I declared himself anti-Puritan, and in 1618 by series of decrees and declarations, he curbed the severity and rigidity Of the Puritan morals. The Declaration Of Sports This Declaration of Sports was issued on the 24th of May, 1618, and was later on embodied in Charles I's Declara- tion of Sports of 1633. James I asserted that the country had 6 Ibid., p. 49. f 54 been infested with two groups of peOple, the Papists and the Puritans who had been injurious to the public order. He, therefore, decreed that all English people were entitled to law- ful recreations on Sundays, and on Holy Days. Dancing, gam- bling and other sensuous practices which were regarded as vices by the Puritans, were legalized. The Puritans should either conform themselves to the existing decrees of the kingdom or Should leave the country at once. On the 10th of December, 1604, James I issued Pro- ceedings against the Puritan clergy. All the Puritans who would not obey or conform to the laws and doctrines of the established Church were subject to the deprivation of their benefices and various church livings. They should be deposed from their ministry and censures of the Church. Puritans Been Further Restricted The royal decree stipulated that no preacher should in- terpret the scriptural text contrary to the belief of the Church of England, and that the tOpic of the sermon should not affect 7 Ibid., p. 54. 8 Ibid., p. 73. 55 the thoughts of the Anglicans. That no preacher, vicar or curate Should preach any sermon on Sundays and Holy Day during the afternoon periods in any Cathedral throughout the kingdom. No preacher Of any denomination should preach aud- ibly the main tenets of the predestination. That no preacher should say or articulate in positive manner anything that was injurious to the prerogatives and Divine Rights of monarchy. That all the preachers should possess licenses. The Quakers and Their Religious Disabilities The Quakers were Christians who were organized into Society of Friends later, but this organization was founded by George Fox who was disabled in many ways. George Fox was troubled in two ways. At the very beginning the troubles came from the incited mob spirit and later they came from the ac- tivities of courts and magistrates in the form of prison sen- tences. He underwent eight imprisonments, and he was arrested and baled more than sixty times during his entire lifetime. His refusal to take an oath or to remove his hat was always grounds enough for a conviction without terminal limits. 9 Ibid., p. 81. 56 From 1668-1689, the Quakers suffered continuous per— secutions. They were exposed to dangers, they were subject to slanders and persecutions because they refused to take the oath. They were punished and imprisoned because of the oath of Supremacy and allegiance.lo They were imprisoned for non-payments of tithes. They endured various civil disabil- ities. Laws which were effectively enforced shut them off from political and municipal life. They did not enjoy music and art, and they were excluded from all pleasures. They had no chance to attain literary culture. In 1734, the Quakers petitioned the House of Commons to remove restrictions on them. Walpole supported the bill for the relief of the Quakers. He discussed all the suffer- ings, prosecutions, tortures, ruins, imprisonments which the Quakers had undergone, because they conscientiously refused to pay tithes and other ecclesiastical dues. He implored the Houses Of the Parliament to remove all their disabilities. The clergy of the Established Church petitioned against the bill and 0 Norman Penny, The Journal of George Fox (8th. ed.; London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1924), pp. 77-244. . “11"! '\-v* 57 created rigid Obstacles in the way Of their emancipation. How- ever, the bill met the approval of the House of Commons by a majority of 164 against 48.11 The bill protected the Quakers from being sued or prosecuted for not paying ecclesiastical dues or to be disturbed in any other way. The House of Lords rejected the bill by a majority of 54 against 35.12 The Prime Minister Walpole was highly un- happy for the failure of the Quakers' bill. He hated the var- ious persecutions on religious grounds. The Quakers at this time had established in County of Norfolk and in the city Of Norwich, and had warmly and strongly supported the men that Walpole wanted for office. The minister felt obligated to reward them so that they might continue to support his program. Unfortunately for him, the bishops of London, and the prelates formed a coali- tion against the Quakers and finally their relief bill suffered a defeat . 11 William Coxe, Memoirs Of Sir. R. Walpole (lst. ed.; London, 1800), Vol. II, pp. 368-9."— 12 Ibid., p. 370. 58 The Quakers were emancipated during the reign Of George 111. It was during this period that a certain Quaker attained a technical distinction, his name was Mr. Beale, he - . . 13 was the first person to construct a bathing machine. Quaker ladies were admitted to the dancing halls dur- 14 ing this time, and they started to dress in cultured manners. The Dissenters The Dissenters suffered political disabilities during the reign of Charles II. A series of four acts directed against the Dissenters was passed by the long Parliament of Charles 15 II and these acts are generally known as Clarendon Code. Clarendon was the chief minister in the first years of the reign. He had at first joined the party in favour Of reform, but he had changed sides after the Grand Remonstrance, and had been in exile all through the commonwealth, and was now 13 John Hampden, An Eighteenth-Century Journal (lst. ed.; London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1940), p. 176. 14 Ibid., p. 244. 15 W. E. Lunt, History of England (3rd. ed.; New York, 1949) , p. 449. 59 one of the strongest supporters of the Stuarts. He was an ardent supporter of the Church of England, and was in favour Of royal power. He was a constitutional royalist and thought that the royal power ought to be exercised only in accordance with the law. The Dissenters hated him because of the code, and the Cavaliers hated him also because of the Act of Indemnity and oblivion which deprived them of their lands. The Clarendon Code The corporation Act, 1661, forbade Dissenters to hold any municipal Offices, all persons holding any such office were to take an oath renouncing the covenant, and to take the sac- rament according to the forms prescribed by the Church of England within one year Of this appointment. The Act of Uniformity, 1662, struck a blow at the dis- senting ministers for they were required to take an oath to the effect that they believed in everything in the Book of Common Prayer. Two thousand ministers vacated their livings. The Conventicle Act, 1664, forbade any form of public service to be held other than that of the Church of England. - a...’ (pr-t" 60 Offenders were severely punished and for third offenses could be transported. Spies and informers were always ready to give evidence, and the gaols were filled with nonconformists. The Five Mile Act, 1665, forbade any dissenting min- ister to teach in a School, or, unless traveling, to come with- ing five miles of any corporate town or borough. In 1711, the occasional Conformity Bill, which had been constantly brought in since the early years of the reign, was at last passed. This bill was effected during the reign of Queen Anne.16 The object of this act was to prevent the Dissenters from evading the Test and the Corporation Acts, by taking the Sacrament once merely as a matter of form in order to qualify them for Offices, and it declared that all Dis- senters who entered office in this way and afterwards attended dissenting places of worship could be fined and disqualified from holding offices again. This act remained in force for only seven years. The annual Acts of Indemnity of George II Opened the civil offices to the Dissenters. 16 G. M. Trevelyan, Select Documents of Queen Anne's Reign (lst. ed.; Cambridge: The University Press, 1929), pp. 26-38. CHAPTER V THE COMPARATIVE SURVEY OF THE SUFFERINGS OF THE DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS BODIES AND CONCLUSION Mr. John Ackrick was a native of Richmond in York- shire. He was first of all a Protestant, later on he turned to a Catholic priest. He was apprehended at his sister's house and was imprisoned for being a Catholic, and being chained with irons at the York Castle, he died on the 2nd of March, 1585. Sir Thomas Acrick was another Catholic priest, he was arrested at Yorkshire and conducted to the prison for being a Catholic. Mr. John Adams was an ardent Catholic who was imprisoned and banished for being a Catholic. He returned to England and the persecutors seized him and d/ondemned to death for committing the crime of a high treason. Whereas Rowland Taylor, an ardent Protestant during the reign of Queen Mary, suffered very bitterly for being an Anglican. 1 Joseph Gillow, A Dictionary of English Catholics, Vol. I(1st. ed.; London: Burns & Oates, 1885), p. 3. 62 SO stood he still without either crying or moving, with his folded together, till Soyce with a halberd struck him on the head that the brains fell out, and the dead corpse fell down into the fire. Archbishop Cranmer was another Protestant who suf- fered in the same manner. He was condemned to be burnt at stake by the Parliament of Queen Mary. When he was about to be killed he repeated these words: And, forasmuch as my hand offended in writing contrary to my heart, my hand therefore shall be the first punished; for if I come to the fire, it shall be the first burned. ”This was the hand that wrote it," he again exclaimed at the stake, "therefore it shall suffer first punishment;" and holding it steadily in the flame "he never stirred nor cried" till life 3 was gone. While three hundred Puritans were expelled from the 4 kingdom by James I for being Puritans. John Lilburne and other Puritans were imprisoned for circulating Puritanical textbooks . 2 John Richard Green, A Short History of the English Peeple (lst. ed.; New York: American Book Company, 1916), pp. 365-6. 3 Ibid., p. 368. 4 Ibid., p. 482. 5 Arthur Lyon Cross, A Shorter History 9_f_ England (Revised ed.; New York: Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 311. 63 Comparatively, the Quakers suffered in the same man- ner. While George Fox was in a dungeon at Carlisle, a young boy by the name Of James Parnell came to visit Fox at the prison yard, he was converted at once by George Fox. This young man became a very powerful Quaker minister. He went to Essex to preach and he was arrested and committed into Colchester Castle. He was put into a hole called oven, and in 1655, he was subjected to hardships and various sufferings. This Oven or hole was Six feet high, and in order for Parnell to go out and come back he had to do it by means of rope. He had to fetch his food through a short ladder and rope. Un- fortunately for him, he missed the rope as he was trying to get his meal. He fell down upon a heavy stone, and he was greatly wounded. Consequently, he died within a few days af- terwards. George Fox the founder of Quaker religion experienced man's inhumanity to man at Mansfield Woodhouse during the starting point of his missionary work. "The people fell upon me , " he says , Norman Penny, The Journal Of George Fox (8th. ed.; London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1924), pp. 89-90. 64 in great rage, struck me down and almost stifled and smothered me; and I was cruelly beaten and bruised by them with their hands and with Bibles and sticks. Then they haled me out, though I was hardly able to stand, and put me into the stocks, where I sat some hours; and they brought dog-whips and horse-whips threatening to whip me. "Finally," he adds, "the rude people stoned me out of the town . . 7 for preaching the word of life to them." "Many hundreds of them, with their wives and children, had neither house nor bread."8 About four thousand of them were imprisoned. The Jews, however, suffered as the other religious bodies had suffered. Richard I massacred so many Jews, and Edward I expelled them from the kingdom and many of them were forced to be drowned on their way to the Continent. Conclusion By the evidences or facts stated in the previous pages, I conclude that the Catholics, Anglicans, Jews, Puritans, 7 Rufus M. Jones, George Fox Speaker and Friend (1st. ed.; New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1930), pp. 92—93. 8 Green, Op. cit., p. 625. 9 Ibid., p. 205. 65 Quakers were equally persecuted. The English nation did not like the Jews because Of their superstitions and their great desire for money. The Medieval Christians held them respon- sible for the death of Jesus Christ. The Catholics were persecuted mainly because of the attitudes of Queen Mary towards the Anglicans. She really planted deep hatred of Romanism in England. Queen Elizabeth hated the Catholics because of the plots formed by them against her, the foreign invasions threatened her which were engineered by the Catholics. Queen Elizabeth enacted penal laws in order to restore normalcy. In time of peace she suspended the penal laws but in time of danger she revived them. The Puritans had democratic views of government, they wanted liberty Of speech and other parliamentary rights during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The democratic views of the Puritans were highly dangerous to the Divine Right of Monarchy of King James I, so that he refused to tolerate them. Charles II was absolutely fed up with the rigidity and severity of the Puritan morals which they wanted to be enforced upon indi- viduals . 66 Queen Mary felt that the Anglicans were stumbling- blocks in her way to restore Catholic Religion in England and she consequently persecuted them. Oliver Cromwell felt that the Opinions of the Quakers were injurious to the public order. The Quakers violently attacked the clergy, they were not willing to remove their hats, and they misconducted themselves at different churches. The anachronism of their costumes displeased the public. It was difficult to sympathize with them in their sufferings or to denounce those who persecuted them for they themselves seemed to court persecution, as aspiring to the crown of martyrdom.10 However, by 1858 all the religious disabilities were removed in England, and England was thus saved by the hu- manitarians whose activities paved the way to all the Religious Emancipations . She grew and flourished like the green-bay tree as from 1858. 10 John Hill Burton, A History of the Reign of Queen Anne (lst. ed.; Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1882). p. 62. BIBLIOGRAPHY Documental Extracts Bell, Robert. Fairfax Memoirs of the Reign of Charles II. lst. ed.; London: Publisher in Ordinary to Her Maj- esty, 1849. Coxe, William. Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole. lst. ed.; Lon- don: Publisher in Ordinary to Her Majesty, 1800, Vol. II. Gardiner, Sir R. Constitutional Documents of Puritan Revolu- tion. lst. ed.; Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1889. Henning, Foord, and Mathias. Crises in English History. lst. ed.; New York, 1949. Jennings, L. J. The Croker Papers. lst. ed.; London: John Murray 8: Co., 1884. 5 vols. Kendal, E. K. Source-Book of English History. lst. ed.; New York: Macmillan & Co., 1900. Prothero, G. M. Constitutional Documents of the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James 1. 3rd ed.; Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1906. Tanner, Joseph. Constitutional Documents of the Reign of James I. lst. ed.; Cambridge: At the University Press, 1903. Tawney, R. H. Select Documents (Parliamentary Rolls) on English Economic History. lst. ed.; London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1921. Trevelyan, G. M. Select Documents (Parliamentary Statutes) on Queen Anne's Reign. lst. ed.; Cambridge: At the University Press, 1929. 68 Journals Greville, Charles C. F. A Journal of the Reign of King George IV and King William—IV. 2nd.—ed.; New YB'rk: D. Ap- pTeton 8: Co., 1886. Hampden, John. An Eighteenth-Century Journal. lst. ed.; London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1940. Harrison, G. B. An Elizabethan Journal. lst. ed.; New York: Cos'mOpolitan Corporation, 1929. Harrison, G. B. A Second Elizabethan Journal. lst. ed.; New York: Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1931. Harrison, G. B. A Last Elizabethan Journal. lst. ed.; London: Constable &—Co., Ltd., 1933. Penny, Norman. The Short Journal & Itinerary Journal of George Fox. lst. ed.; Cambridge: The University Press, 1925. Penny, Norman. The Journal of George Fox. Eighth ed.; London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1924. Pe riodical Article Merriman, R. B. ”The Treatments of English Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth," American Historical Re- view, V. XIII (No. 3, April, 1908), pp. 480-500. Encyclopaedia Articles "Jews," Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 13 (1946), p. 58. "Jews," EncyclOpaedia of Social Sciences Vol. V11 (1944), pp. 394-395. 69 "Puritans," EncyclOpaedia of Social Sciences Vol. XIV (1944), p. 3. Concentrated Fields of History Burton, J. Hill. A History of the Reign of Queen Anne. lst. ed.; Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1882. Firth‘, Charles. Oliver Cromwell. 2nd. ed.; New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1924. Gasquet, Cardinal. Henry VIII and the English Monasteries. 8th. ed.; London: G. Bell 8: Sons, Ltd., 1925. Gillow, Joseph. A Dictionary of English Catholics. lst. ed.; London: Burns 8: Oates, 1885. 5 vols. Jones, Rufus M. George Fox Speaker and Friend. lst. ed.; New York: Harper 8: Brothers Publishers, 1930. Jordan, W. K. The DevelOpment of Religious Toleration in England. lst. ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932. Marti, Oscar Albert. Economic Causes of the Reformation in England. lst. ed. ; New York: Macmillan Company, 1929. Tawney, R. H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. lst. ed.; New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1926. Trevelyan, G. M. England in the Age Of Wycliffe. 3rd. ed.; _“*— London: Longmans, Green 8: Co., 1904. 70 General History Airy, Samuel 0. The English Restoration. London, 1888. Barnes, Donald G. George III and William Pitt. London, 1939. Collier, William Francis. The History of England. London, 1879. ”- Creighton, M. Epochs of English History. London, 1889. Cross, Arthur Lyon. A Short History of England. New York, 1937. ‘— Feiling, Keith. A History of the Tory Party. Oxford, 1924. Gardiner, S. R. English History. New York, 1891. Green, John R. A Short History of English PeOple. New York, 1916. —' ‘— Hume, David. History of England. New York, 1867. Innes, A.. D. History of the British Nations. London, 1910. Kirkland, E. S. A Short History of England. Chicago, 1891. Lunt, W. E. History Of England. New York, 1949. Montgomery, D. H. Leading Facts of English History. Bos- ton, 1892. waat, R. B. A History of English Speaking PeOple. New York, 1943. Robinson, Cyril. A History of British PrOgress. New York, 1928. Terry, Benjamin. A History of England. Chicago, 1902. 71 Trevelyan, G. M. The History of England. London, 1944. Wernham, R. B. and Walker. England Under Elizabeth. Lon- don,‘ 1932. Williams, Basil. The Whig Supremacy. Oxford, 1939. Woodward, E. L. The Age of Reform. Oxford, 1938. Wrong, E. M. History Of England. New York, 1927. ”1111111111 11131111 lliljljl'ljlijjfjllll'E