I.

With respect to the laws, which, since the separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome, at the time of the Reformation, have been past against those who remained in communion with the See of Rome-the laws against them may be reduced under five heads :

I. 1. The first, are those, which subjected them to penalties and punishments for exercising their religious worship;-under which head, may be ranked, the laws respecting their places of education, and the ministers of their church. By these laws, if any English priest of the church of Rome, born in the dominions of the crown of England, came to England from beyond the seas, or tarried in England three days, without conforming to the church, he was guilty of high treason, and those incurred the guilt of high treason, who were reconciled to the see of Rome, or procured others to be reconciled to it. By these laws also, papists were totally disabled from giving their children any education in their own religion; for, if they educated their children at home, then, for maintaining the schoolmaster, if he did not repair to church, or was not allowed by the bishop of the diocese, they were liable to forfeit 101. a month, and the schoolmaster was liable to forfeit forty shillings a day; and if they sent their children for education to any school of their persuasion abroad, they were liable to forfeit 1001. and the children so sent were disabled from inheriting, purchasing or enjoying any lands, profits, goods, debts, duties, legacies, or sums of money.-Saying mass was punishable by a forfeiture of 200 marks: hearing it, by a forfeiture of 100. See 1 Eliz. ch. 2. 23. Eliz. ch. 1. 27 Eliz. ch. 2. 29 Eliz. ch. 6. 35 Eliz. ch. 2. 2 Jac. 1. ch. 4. 3 Jac. 1. ch. 4, 5. 7. Jac. 1. ch. 6. 3 Car. 1. ch. 2. 25 Car. 2. ch. 2. 7 and 8 W. 3. ch. 27. 1 Geo. 1. ch. 13.

I. 2. Under the second head, were those laws, which punished the English communicants with the church of Rome for not conforming to the established church. These are generally called the Statutes of Recusancy. It should be observed, that absence from church, alone, and unaccompanied by any other act, constitutes recusancy, in the true sense of that

word. Till the statute of the 35 Eliz. chap. 2., all noncon formists were considered as recusants, and were all equally subject to the penalties of recusancy: that statute was the first penal statute made against popish recusants, by that name, and as distinguished from other recusants. From that statute arose the distinction between protestant and popish recusants; the former were subject to such statutes of recusancy, as preceded that of the 35th of queen Elizabeth, and to some statutes against recusancy, made subsequently to that time; but they were relieved from them all, by the Act of Toleration in the first year of king William's reign.* From the 35th Eliz. ch. 2. arose also the distinction, between papists and persons professing the popish religion, and popish recusants, and popish recusants convict. Notwithstanding the frequent mention in the statutes of papists and persons professing the popish religion, neither the statutes themselves, nor the cases adjudged upon them, present a clear notion of the acts or circumstances that, in the eye of the law, constituted a papist, or a person

* This is true only of such Protestant recusants as subscribe to the following "Profession of Christian belief:” “I, A. B. profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, his eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God, blessed for evermore ; and do acknow. ledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." See § 13. of the Toleration Act. Sect. 17 of the same act provides, “That neither this act, nor any clause, article, or thing herein contained, shall extend, or be construed to extend, to give any ease, benefit, or advantage, to any papist, or popish recusant whatsoever; or ANY PERSON WHO SHALL DENY, IN HIS PREACHING OR WRITING, THE DOCTRINE OF THE BLESSED TRINITY, as it is declared in the aforesaid articles of religion;" referring to § 15 above quoted. The reader will find some remarks on this clause in the Protestant Dissenters' Almanack, for the year 1810, at that time published under my superintendence. I am happy to find, that Mr. W. Smith, one of the most liberal and patriotic members of the House of Commons, has just given notice of his intention to attempt a repeal of this most scandalous and disgraceful clause of the act, by a strange misnomer, called the Toleration Act. On the day (July 15, of the present year, 1812) fixed for Mr. Smith's notice, there were so few members present, that they could not make a house, as they phrase it; so little interest do many of our worthy representatives feel in the subject of religious toleration!

professing the popish religion. When a person of that description absented himself from church, he filled the legal descrip. tion of a popish recusant: When he was convicted in a court of law of absenting himself from church, he was termed in the law a popish recusant convict. To this must be added the constructive recusancy hereinafter mentioned to be incurred by a refusal to take the oath of supremacy.-With respect to the statutes against recusancy, by these statutes, popish recusants convict were punishable by the censures of the church, and by a fine of 201. for every month, during which they absented themselves from church; they were disabled from holding offices or employments; from keeping arms in their houses; from maintaining actions or suits at law or in equity; from being executors or guardians; from presenting to advowsons; from practising in the law or physic; and from holding offices, civil or military; they were subject to the penalties attending excommunication, were not permitted to travel five miles from home, unless by license, upon pain of forfeiting all their goods; and might not come to court under pain of 1001. A married woman, when convicted of recusancy, was liable to forfeit two thirds of her dower or jointure: she could not be executrix or adminis tratrix to her husband, nor have any part of his goods; and, during her marriage, she might be kept in prison, unless her husband redeemed her at the rate of 101. a month, or the third part of his lands. Popish recusants convict were, within three months after conviction, either to submit and renounce their religious opinions, or, if required by four justices, to abjure the realm; and if they did not depart, or if they returned without license, they were guilty of felony, and were to suffer death as felons. (See the statutes referred to under the former head.)

I. 3. As to the penalties or disabilities attending the refusal of Roman catholics to take the oath of supremacy, the declaration against transubstantiation, and the declaration against popery: it must be premised, that the Roman catholics make no objection to take the Oath of Allegiance, 1 G. 2. c. 13. or the Oath of Abjuration, 6 Geo. 3. c. 53. With respect to the Oath of Supremacy,-by the 1st Elizabeth, ch. 1. the persons therein mentioned were made compellable to take the Oath

of Supremacy contained in that act: by the 3d of king James the 1st, ch. 4. another oath was prescribed to be ta ken, commonly called the Oath of Allegiance and Obe dience: these oaths were abrogated by the 1st of king William and queen Mary, sess. 1. ch. 8., and a new oath of allegiance, and a new oath of supremacy were introduced, and required to be taken in their stead: the statute made in the 2d session of the 1st year of king George the 1st, ch. 13, contains an oath of supremacy, in the same words as the oath of supremacy required to be taken by the 1st of king William and queen Mary. By that oath, persons are made to swear, that "no foreign prince, person, prelate, "state or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, 66 power, supremacy, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesias"tical or spiritual, within the realm." It was required to be taken by the persons therein named; it might be tendered to any person, by any two justices of the peace; and persons refusing the oath so tendered were adjudged to be popish recusants convict, and to forfeit and be proceeded against as such. This was the Constructive Recusancy referred to above. It was not the offence itself of recusancy, which, as we have already observed, consisted merely in the party's absenting himself from church; it was the offence of not taking the oath of supremacy, and the other oaths prescribed by the act of 1 Geo. 1., the refusal of which, was, by that statute, placed on the same footing, as a legal conviction on the statutes of recusancy, and subjected the party refusing to the penalties of those statutes. This was the most severe of all the laws against papists: The punishment of recusancy was penal in the extreme; and the persons objecting to the oath in question, might be subjected to all the penalties of recụsancy, merely by their refusing the oath, when tendered to them. It added to the penal nature of these laws, that the oath in question might be tendered, at the mere will of two justices of peace, without any previous information or complaint before a magistrate, or any other person. Thus, by refusing to take the oath of supremacy, when tendered to them, they became liable to all the penalties of recusancy and the same refusal, by 7 and 8 Wm. 3. ch. 4. and 1 Geo.

1. st. 2. ch. 13. restrained them from practising the law as advocates, barristers, solicitors, attorneys, notaries, or proctors, and from voting at elections.

I. 4. With respect to receiving the Sacrament of our Lord's Supper: By the 13 Cha. 2. (commonly called the Corporation Act), no persons can be legally elected to any office, relating to the government of any city or corporation, unless within a twelvemonth before he has received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the rites of the church of England; and he is also enjoined to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, at the same time that he takes the oath of office, or, in default of either of these requisites, such election shall be void.

I. 5. As to the Declaration against Transubstantiation: By

Protestant dissenters who so far conform, (and I am sorry to add, we have a few who act thus inconsistently) in order that they may enjoy certain honorary or lucrative offices, may justly be reproached with making a gain of godliness. Yet a Protestant dissenter may have a seat in the house of commons, who cannot, honourably, be a petty justice of the peace! William Smith, Esq. the member for Norwich, is a professed dissenter, and an Unitarian, so`also is Benjamin Hob house, Esq. member for Hindon. Mr. Wilberforce is a zealous Calvinist, and a member of several societies, principally under the direction of dissenters; and the same may be said of the Thorntons, and several other persons, who make a point of voting with the pious member for Yorkshire. Thomas Thompson, Esq. member for Midhurst, is a Wesleyan Methodist, an occasional writer in the Methodist Magazine, and a LOCAL PREACHER!! Mr. Halhed, lately also a Menber of the house of commons, was a believer in Richard Brothers, the mad Prophet! This most extraordinary gentleman was, in the early part of his life, an unbeliever, and had attempted to invalidate the truths of holy writ by arguments deduced from Indian chronology. He is described as one of the profoundest oriental scholars then living. The study of Indian mythology brought him back to Christianity, and by a strange perversion of intellect, the Trimourtee of the Hindoos convinced him of the doctrine of the Trinity; and as he recovered his faith he lost his wits: for he published a book in defence of Brothers, and when that unhappy prophet was sent to prison, instead of to Bedlam, Mr. Halhed made an excellent speech in the House of Commons on the injustice and impolicy of that measure. See Letters from England, by DON MANUEL Alvarez Espriella, (Robert Southey) Vol. III. LetOur parliament is, therefore, liberal towards all sorts of Christians except Roman Catholics!!!

ter 69.