CATHOLICISM IN ENGLAND FROM 1603 TILL 1750See bibliography of chap. ii.， iii.， iv. /Calendars of State Papers/ (James I.， Charles I.， The Commonwealth， Charles II.).
Knox， /Records of the English Catholics under the Penal Laws/， 2vols.， 1882-84. Challoner， /Memoirs of Missionary Priests and other Catholics that suffered death in England/ (1577-1684)， 2vols.， 1803. Lilly-Wallis， /A Manual of the Law specially affecting Catholics/， 1893. Butler， /Historical Memoirs of English， Scottish， and Irish Catholics/， 3 vols.， 1819-21. Id.， /Historical Account of the Laws respecting the Roman Catholics/， 1795. Willaert， S.J.， /Négociations Politico-Religieuses entre L'Angleterre et les Pays-Bas/， 1598-1625 (/Rev. d'Histoire Ecclés/， 1905-8). Kirk， /Biographies of English Catholics in the Eighteenth Century/ (edited by Rev. J. H. Pollen， S.J.， and E. Burton， 1909). Morris， /The Condition of Catholics under James I./， 1871. Id.， /The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers/， 1872-77. Payne， /The English Catholic Nonjurors of 1715/， etc.， 1889. Id.， /Records of English Catholics of 1715/， etc.， 1891.
Pollock， /The Popish Plot/， etc.， 1903. /The Position of the Catholic Church in England and Wales during the last two Centuries/， 1892. Hutton， /The English Church from the Accession of Charles I. to the death of Anne/.
With the accession of James I. (1603-25) Catholics expected if not a repeal at least a suspension of the penal laws. As a son of Mary Queen of Scots for whose rescue Catholics in England and on the Continent had risked so much， and as one whose religious views were thought to approximate more closely to Catholicism than to Nonconformity， it was hoped that he would put an end to the persecution that had been carried on so bitterly during the reign of his predecessor. But whatever might be the sentiments he entertained secretly or gave expression to while he was yet only King of Scotland， his opinions underwent a sudden change when he saw an opportunity of strengthening his hold upon the English people， and of providing for the penniless followers who accompanied him to his new kingdom. Unfortunately a brainless plot， the "Bye Plot，" as it is called， organised to capture the king and to force him to yield to the demands of the conspirators， afforded the more bigoted officials a splendid chance of inducing James to continue the former policy of repression. Two priests named Watson and Clarke joined hands with a number of malcontents， some of whom were Protestants， others Puritans anxious to secure more liberty for their co-religionists； but news of the plot having come to the ears of the archpriest and of Garnet the provincial of the Jesuits， information was conveyed to the council， and measures were taken for the safety of the king， and for the arrest of the conspirators. James recognised fully that the Catholic body was not to blame for the violent undertakings of individuals， especially as he knew or was soon to know that the Pope had warned the archpriest and the Jesuits to discourage attempts against the government， and had offered to withdraw any clergyman from England who might be regarded as disloyal.
James admitted frankly his indebtedness to the Catholics for the discovery of the plot， and promised a deputation of laymen who waited on him that the fines imposed on those who refused to attend the Protestant service should not be exacted. For a time it was expected that the policy of toleration was about to win the day， and the hopes of Catholics rose high； but in autumn (1603) when the episcopal returns came in showing that Catholics were still strong， and when alarming reports began to spread about the arrival of additional priests， the wonderful success of their efforts， and the increasing boldness of the recusants， an outcry was raised by the Protestant party， and a demand was made that the government should enforce the law with firmness.[1]
Shortly before the meeting of Parliament in March (1604) James determined to show the country that his attitude towards Catholicism was in no wise different from that of his predecessor. In a proclamation (Feb. 1604) he deplored the increasing number and activity of priests and Jesuits， denounced their efforts to win recruits for Rome， declared that he had never intended to grant toleration， and ended up by commanding all Jesuits and seminary priests to depart from the kingdom before the 19th March， unless they wished to incur the penalties that had been levelled against them in the previous reign.[2] In his speech at the opening of Parliament (March 1604) after announcing his adhesion to the religion "by law established" he outlined at length his attitude towards Rome. "Iacknowledge" he said "the Roman Church to be our mother church although defiled with some infirmities and corruptions as the Jews were when they crucified Christ；" for the "quiet and well-minded"laymen who had been brought up in the Catholic faith he entertained feelings of pity rather than of anger， but in case of those who had "changed their coats" or were "factious stirrers of sedition" he was determined if necessary to take measures whereby their obstinacy might be corrected. The clergy， however， stood on a different footing. So long as they maintained "that arrogant and impossible supremacy of their head the Pope， whereby he not only claims to be the spiritual head of all Christians， but also to have an imperial civil power over all kings and emperors， dethroning and decrowning princes with his foot as pleaseth him， and dispensing and disposing of all kingdoms and empires at his appetite，" and so long as the clergy showed by their practices that they considered it meritorious rather than sinful to rebel against or to assassinate their lawful sovereign if he be excommunicated by the Pope， they need expect no toleration.[3]