Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:34:49.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English Catholicism Under Charles II: The Legal Position

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

J. A. Williams
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many years ago there was published an English translation of La Persecution des Catholiques en Angleterre sous Charles II by the Comtesse R. de’Courson: a work which remains the only one devoted wholly to English Catholicism during that reign. Unfortunately, however, the title is misleading and the book is given up almost entirely to the two and a half years of the Popish Plot—not, in other words, to the reign of Charles II as a whole but merely to one-tenth of it—with the result that the reader is presented with an unbalanced and unduly depressing picture. A more judicious appraisal has been provided by a number of “background” works such as Archbishop Mathew's Catholicism in England, Mr. E. I. Watkin's Roman Catholicism in England from the Reformation to 1950 and, most recently, Miss. M. D. R. Leys's fascinating Catholics in England, 1529-1829, while an article published in The Dublin Review (Autumn, 1959) suggested that the pecuniary laws, so ferocious on paper, to which Catholics were theoretically subject, were in fact enforced only very spasmodically during the reign of Charles II. Clearly, in order to judge how rigorously the penal laws were enforced in Charles Il’s reign, it is necessary first to consider what exactly were these laws; to establish what was the legal position of the English Catholics at the Restoration and to discover what fresh enactments were passed in the course of the next twenty-five years. It is such an examination of the legal position of the English Catholics between 1660 and 1685 which will be attempted in the pages that follow.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , October 1963 , pp. 123 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Translation by Mrs. F. Raymond-Barker (1899) entitled The Condition of English Catholics Under Charles II. All those concerned with the history of English Catholicism must regret the non-appearance of the intended sequel, dealing with the period 1603 to 1689, to the late Arnold Oskar Meyer's England and the Catholic Church under Queen Elizabeth (1916; see Author's Preface to English edition, p.V).

2. J. Anthony Williams, “Some Sidelights on Recusancy Finance Under Charles II.” The reader's attention is also drawn to the valuable notes on recusancy finance under Charles I contributed by Dom Hugh Aveling to volume 53 of the Catholic Record Society (1961, pp. 291-307).

3. Doran Webb, E. (ed.) Notes by the Ylth Lord Arundell of Wardour on The Family History (1916) p. 58.Google Scholar For some earlier negotiations, while Charles was still in exile, see Routledge, F. I., “Charles II and the Cardinal de Retz” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5th series, vol. VI (1956) pp. 49–68.Google Scholar

4. Butler, C., Historical Memoirs of English, Irish and Scottish Catholics (1822 edition) III, pp. 23–34,Google Scholar prints these three addresses but remarks incorrectly that Sir John was “afterwards created Baron Arundell of Wardour” (ibid., p. 26). Sir John was not a member of the Wiltshire branch of the family but of the Cornish—the Arundells of Lanherne. The above addresses were also printed, and the error repeated, by Miss, Maud Petre, The Ninth Lord Petre (1928), pp. 72–82.Google Scholar For genealogy, see Yeatman, J. P., The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundell (1882) p. 215.Google Scholar

5. See Lingard, J., History of England (1849 edition) IX, pp. 34-6Google Scholar; Hay, M.V., The Jesuits and the Popish Plot (1934) pp. 53–67,Google Scholar and Butler, C., op.cit., III pp. 34-5.Google Scholar

6. See Jessopp, A., One Generation of a Norfolk House (1879 edition) p. 63 Google Scholar; Caraman, P., The Other Face (1960) p. 34 Google Scholar; and Southern, A. C., Elizabethan Recusant Prose (1950), p. 14, note.Google Scholar

7. Microcosmography ; pp. 29-31 of the 1810 edition.

8. Introduction to History Without Bias ? by E. H. Dance (Council of Christian and Jews, 1954) p. 10. See also the eloquent plea for objectivity among Catholic historians by the editors of Recusant History (vol. 6, no.1. Bognor Regis, 1961; pp. 2–11.).Google Scholar

9. The seven statutes are: 1 Eliz., cap.2; 23 Eliz. cap.1; 29 Eliz., cap.6; 35 Eliz., cap.2; 3 & 4 Jac., I. cap.4; 3 & 4 Jac., I. cap.5; and 7 & 8 Jac., I, cap.6. The parliamentary manoeuvres behind the Elizabethan penal laws in general—not merely the recusancy statutes—and the way in which the severity of the original Bill was “toned down” by the time the Act was passed, are discussed in Professor J. E. Neale's two volumes Elizabeth I and her Parliament, 1559-81 and 1584-16001 (1953, 1957).

10. Some impression of the erratic incidence of both the smaller and the larger fines can be gathered from the following: Dickens, A. G., “First Stages of Romanist Recusancy in Yorkshire” in Yorks. Archaeological Journal, part 138 (1941) p.170 Google Scholar; Kennedy, W.P.M. Parish Life under Elizabeth (1914) pp. 124-7Google Scholar; Leatherbarrow, J., Lancashire Elizabethan Recusants (1947) passimGoogle Scholar; Lister, J., West Riding Sessions Rolls (1888) pp. xx–xxiii Google Scholar; Magee, B., The English Recusants, (1938), pp. 69–80 Google Scholar; Anthony Williams, I., “Some Sidelights on Recusancy Finance Under Charles II” (Dublin Review, Autumn 1959) p. 245 Google Scholar and works there cited.

11. Two examples are given in the Dublin Review article cited in the last footnote (p. 250).

12. Hughes, P., The Reformation in England, III (1954) p. 363, note 3.Google Scholar

13. Well illustrated in Ep. Presentments at Visitations, Boxes 2-9 in the Diocesan Archives at Salisbury.

14. It is hoped to publish the results of this investigation in the near future.

15. cf. A. B. Purdie, Blessed John Southworth (1930) and M. Waugh, Blessed John Plessington (Office of the Vice-Postulation, 1961). Earlier Martyrdoms (e.g. of Cuthbert Mayne in 1577 and Campion in 1581) were the outcome of prosecutions under, respectively, 13 Eliz., cap.2 and Edward III's Treason Act of 1352 (see Meyer, A. O., England and the Catholic Church Under Queen Elizabeth, 1916, pp. 150–151).Google Scholar

16. The Catholic Question, 1688-1829 (1929) p. 129.Google Scholar

17. Calendars of Treasury Books, VI, p. 568.Google Scholar The relevant statutes were 13 Eliz., cap. 2 and 3 & 4 Jac., I, cap.5.

18. Public Record Office: Privy Council Register, P.C. 2/67, pp.24, 76.

19. Gumbley, W., Obituary Notices of the English Dominicans (1955) p. 10.Google Scholar

20. Burton, E., The Life and Times of Bishop Challoner (1909) II, p. 165.Google Scholar

21. Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, 1559-1581 (1953) p. 121.Google Scholar

22. I Eliz., cap.4; 5 Eliz., cap.1. Catholics were, however, taking degrees at Oxford as late as 1588, and Cambridge was reported to contain popish recusants in 1591; Southern, cf. A. C., Elizabethan Recusant Prose (1950), pp. 21–22.Google Scholar

23. Roman Catholicism in England from the Reformation to 1950 (1957) p. 70.Google Scholar Further evidence is to be found in a list, among the Portland MSS., of persons in positions of trust, etc., whose wives, children or servants were recusants on non-communicants; this is printed in Historical Manuscripts Commission: Portland MSS.I (1901) pp. 1 & 2.Google Scholar

24. Magee, B., The English Recusants (1938) pp. 65-6, 70–71.Google Scholar

25. Henry Morse, Priest of the Plague (1957) p. 101 Google Scholar; see also Mathew, D., The Age of Charles I (1951) p. 139.Google Scholar

26. Caraman, P., John Gerard, the Autobiography of an Elizabethan (1951) pp. 245-6.Google Scholar

27. Gillow, J., A Literary and Biographical History, or Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics (1885-1903) I, pp. 205-6.Google Scholar

28. Diocesan Archives, Salisbury: Returns of Papists, Box 1 (1706 return) and House of Lords Record Office: Main Papers, 321, c.66 (1680 list) The former describes him as a doctor, the latter as “Savage Hill, Gent.”

29. 35 Eliz., cap.2; 3 Jac. I, cap.5. In practice, however, they seem to have been little hindered in their travels; see Parkes, J., Travel in England in the Seventeenth Century (1925) pp. 37-8.Google Scholar

30. Cited by Hill, C., The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714 (1961) p. 243.Google Scholar

31. Cox, cf. J. C., The Parish Registers of England (1910) p. 105 Google Scholar; also p.106 for an instance, misdated “1504”) of delayed burial of an excommunicated papist. Excommunication of, and refusal to bury, a man reconciled to the Catholic Church on his deathbed is recorded in one of the oldest surviving Catholic registers, that of Worcester, extracts from which are printed by Payne, I. O. in Old English Catholic Missions (1889) p. 98.Google Scholar The man remained unburied for a week. See also The Month (March 1963) p.170.

32. Holdsworth, cf. Sir W., History of English Law, I, pp. 630–632.Google Scholar A seventeenth century sentence of excommunication is printed by Tate, W. E., The Parish Chest (1946) p. 147.Google Scholar

33. Diocesan Archives, Salisbury: Seth Ward's Notitiae (MS.) p.70.

34. Diocesan Archives, Salisbury: Ep. Presentments at Visitations, Box 6.

35. Diocesan Archives, Salisbury: Ep. Presentments at Visitations, Boxes 4 (Wilcot, 1671) and 5 (Hullavington, 1674). There are numerous instances of persons standing excommunicated for various periods in these two boxes and in boxes 2 (1662) and 6 (1683).

36. Diocesan Archives, Salisbury: Ep. Presentments at Visitations, Box 3 (1668) and Returns of Papists, Box 1 (Ms. list, undated but compiled—from internal evidence—between the Restoration and 1672).

37. “The Church of England, 1542-1837,” in Victoria County History of Wiltshire, III (1956) p.47; cf. also Dr. Whiteman's illuminating paper, “The Re-Establishment of the Church of England, 1660-1663,” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Series, vol. V (1955) pp. 111–131.Google Scholar

38. This was Mrs. Barbara Hall of Easton who appears as a convicted recusant in two recusant rolls (P.R.O., E.377/68 & 82) and who was repeatedly presented at Quarter Sessions as a popish recusant between October, 1663, and October, 1684, by the Hundred-jury and constables of Kin-wardstone (Great Rolls at the County Record Office, Trowbridge).

39. This was the first Conventicle Act (1664), In April, 1668, the Commons voted that it should be deemed not to apply to Catholics (Journals of the House of Commons, IX, p.90). The Conventicle Act was renewed, with amendments, as 22 Car. II. cap.1 in 1670. The latter, together with the other enactments of the Clarendon Code—the Corporation, Uniformity and Five Mile Acts—is conveniently printed in Gee, H. and Hardy, W. J., Documents Illustrative of English Church History (1896) pp. 594–632.Google Scholar

40. Commons’ Journals, VIII pp. 638-9 (20 Oct., 1666).Google Scholar

41. ibid., pp.641-2 (26 Oct., 1666).

42. P.R.O., Privy Council Register, P.C. 2/59 p.206,

43. P.R.O., Privy Council Register, P.C.2/59 pp.578-9,

44. Sir A. Bryant, King Charles II (1931) p.204, note.

45. Catholic Record Society, VI (1909) p. 77.Google Scholar

46. cf. Warwick County Records, VII (ed. Ratcliff, S.C. & Johnson, H. C., 1946) p. LXXX.Google Scholar

47. P.R.O., State Papers, Domestic, George I: S.P. 35/13 no. 63 and S,P, 35/54, no. 37.

48. Burton, E., The Life and Times of Bishop Challoner (1909) II, pp. 182-3.Google Scholar

49. P.R.O., Privy Council Register, P.C. 2/64 pp.132, 135; Steele, no,3584,

50. P.R.O., P.C. 2/64, p.188,

51. “Autograph Book,” no. 108; Cunnington. op.cit., pp.363-4. A week later a reward of £5 was offered for the apprehension of priests (Steele 3597).

52. Ogg, D., England in the Reign of Charles II (1934) p. 582.Google Scholar He was probably the murderer of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey; G Muddiman, cf. J. “The Mystery of Sir E. B. Godfrey” in The National Review, LXXXIV (1924) pp. 138–145.Google Scholar The Privy Council Register records two complaints against him for “unlawful wounding” (P.R.O., P.C. 2/65, p.434; 12 Jan., 1677) and a footnote on p.422 of G.E.C., The Complete Peerage, vol. X (1945)Google Scholar records that he was “imprisoned for blasphemy and other misdemeanours” and that he received verdicts of guilty on charges of manslaughter and murder. See also Ross Williamson, H., Historical Whodunits (1955) pp. 205–210.Google Scholar

53. P.R.O., Privy Council Register, P.C. 2/64, p.368,

54. Dockery, J. B., Christopher Davenport (1960), p.135.Google Scholar

55. Westminster Cathedral Archives: Series A,XXXIV, 110.

56. P.R.O., Privy Council Register, P.C. 2/64, p.379,

57. As I have already dealt elsewhere with this aspect of the subject there seems little point in covering the same ground here and the reader is referred to “Some Sidelights on Recusancy Finance Under Charles II,” in The Dublin Review, Autumn 1959, pp.245-254.

58. P.R.O., Privy Council Register, P.C. 2/69, p.19.

59. Blundell, M., Cavalier (1933) pp. 88-9, 100–101.Google Scholar

60. P.R.O., Privy Council Register, P.C. 2/65, p.514,

61. Calendar of Treasury Books, V, p. 794 (22 November 1677).Google Scholar

62. Calendar of State Papers (Domestic) 1666-7, pp.465-6.

63. P.R.O., S.P. 29/416, no. 90 (presentment by Grand Jury of Somerset, 9 Aug. 1681). See also by Bath & Rome: the living Link (1963) p.20.Google Scholar

64. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Portland MSS., III (1894) p.358; Richards, T. “The Religious Census of 1676” (Supplement to Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, 1925-6) p.109 Google Scholar; Victoria County History of Wiltshire, III (1956) pp. 120–121.Google Scholar The Wiltshire dissenters, who wondered whether “35 Eliz.” affected popish recusants only, were insufficiently precise; 35 Eliz., cap.l embraced “seditious sectaries” while cap.2 related to popish recusants.

65. P.R.O., Privy Council Register, P.C. 2/67 p.64; cf, also Warwick County Records, VII (1946) p. LXXII.Google Scholar

66. Calendar of State Papers (Domestic) 1679-80, p.92. There seems to be no trace of his reply.

67. Calendar of Treasury Books, VI, p.103 Google Scholar (20 lune, 1679, following an Order in Council of 7th May). A proclamation on 12th November, 1679, increased to £100 the reward for discovering Jesuits (ibid., VII, p.1444; Steele, no. 3700).

68. P.R.O., Privy Council Registers, P.C. 2/67, pp. 58, 112-3; P.C, 2/68 pp.242, 381.

69. Thus Mr. Brian, Magee, The English Recusants (1938) p.175.Google Scholar See also Duckett, Sir. G., Penal Laws and Test Act (2 vols. 1882, 1883)Google Scholar and Professor S. T. Bindoff's analysis of the Wiltshire replies to James II’s questionnaire in Victoria County History of Wiltshire, V (1957) pp.163-7.Google Scholar

70. Calendar of Treasury Books, IV, p.296.Google Scholar

71. P.R.O., Privy Council Register, P.C. 2/68, pp. 327, 335 (21st December, 1679).

72. Calendar of Treasury Books, VI, p.442.Google Scholar

73. The reader ought perhaps to be warned against the references to “an Act of 1683,” “an Act of 1685,” etc., which occur in the unsatisfactory chapter on the penal laws (chap. 3) in Hirst's, J. H., The Blockhouses of Kingston-Upon-Hull (1913).Google Scholar

74. Lingard, J., History of England (1849 edition) X, p.22,Google Scholar note; also, for Archbishop Sheldon's letter, English Historical Documents, 1670-1714, (ed. A. Browning, 1953) pp.394-5.Google Scholar

75. See The Dublin Review, Autumn 1959, p.252.

76. e.g. a payment of £20 in the Pells Receipt Book for the half-year from Michaelmas, 1681, to Easter, 1682 (P.R.O. Series E.401/1968, p.121).

77. P.R.O. Series E.401/1Easter, 1682 (P.R.O. Series E.401/1968, p.121).

77. P.R.O. Series E.401/1965-1975 inclusive.

78. Calendar of Treasury Books, VII, p.1228.Google Scholar

79. i.e. Michaelmas 1685 to Easter 1686 (P.R.O. Series E.401/1976).