"episcopalian government of Scotland, to massacre "the non-conforming Presbyterians, the massacre "at Glencowe, Munster, &c. &c. &c. proved the "principle of assassination to be the principle of "the Protestant Church? Certainly not;" You "for this doctrine," You say, was never "taught by our council or creed."

answer,

Never, never was this doctrine taught by the councils or creeds of the Roman Catholic Church. The 3d canon of the 4th council of Lateran, is your only stay for your assertion of the contrary; and that canon I have annihilated.

What

Did not the supreme head of your church, did not all your Lords Spiritual sanction every persecuting act which has been passed in this kingdom, against the Roman Catholics and Puritans? Did not some of your Lords Spiritual regularly attend the sittings of the High Commission? greater sanction has any church given to religious persecution? Why do you force me to mention these things? I most seriously wish,-and You know that I have often and often expressed my wish, that these lamentable scenes should be forgotten? Why do Doctor Southey and You keep the remembrance of them alive?

10. The inhuman act of the 27th of Elizabeth has your entire approbation: She banished, by your account, the priests, on the discovery of a plot framed by the Pope, the King of Spain, and the Duke of Guise, to invade England. You produce no evidence of the plot, and I am sure no evidence

can be produced, which proves that the English Catholics were engaged in it. "It is true," say You, (p. 223), " that the Romanists, by the exile of their priests, would be left without ministers of reli"gion; but the kingdom would lose its disturbers, " and the queen her traitors. Which alternative was the Government to prefer?"

66

Now, Sir, permit me most solemnly to request You, to come forward, and to produce all the evidence which You have in your power, to prove that the priests who resided in England at the time when this act was passed, (for those only it concerns), were traitors;-that any treasonable practices were then carrying on by them; -that any of them attempted to execute Pope Pius's execrable bull; brought it into the kingdom; circulated it; propounded its lawfulness, or, in any other manner, was art or part in it; or, in any other act inconsistent with the warmest loyalty, with the most perfect allegiance. Deal not in generals; name the individuals You charge; specify the act with which You charge them; produce Your proofs of the charge. Then and then only You will be entitled to a hearing. When a charge is made, and a flat denial of it given, no regard can be shown to it, until it is proved.Here then we stand;-You say the priests of whom we are speaking, were traitors for engaging in the plot You mention: I flatly deny the assertion;-I say, THEY WERE NOT ENGAGED IN THE PLOT, and demand your proofs. Nothing of the

kind was proved, either against Mr. Mayne or Mr. Tregon, (Tregian). The latter was a layman, and was not executed. So defective was the evidence against the former, that, to induce the jury to find him guilty, Mr. Justice Manhood, who tried him, alleged to the jury, "that, when plain proof was "wanting, strong presumptions ought to take place."

*

11. In page 218, You mention what is called Throckmorton's treason, in terms which appear to import, that his guilt admitted of no doubt. Does not Dr. Robertson † declare explicibly, that “ + many "circumstances appear to be remote from truth, "and even from probability." "It is strange" says Carte, "that the jury should find him guilty upon such an extorted confession, part of which

was certainly false." The general opinion of his innocence was at the time extremely great. To counteract its impression, Government caused "An Account of Francis Throckmorton's Treason" to be published." But notwithstanding the vast art," says Guthrie, § "with which it was written, it will "be difficult for any gentleman of the law, to "discover upon what evidence Throckmorton was "convicted; if he takes from the queen's council

P. 11.

* Doctor Challoner's Memoirs of Missionary Priests, Vol. I. For Mr. Tregan's sufferings, See Dodd's Church History. Vol. II. p. 168.-Hist. Mem. of English, Irish and Scottish Cathol. Vol. II. p. 27.

+ Hist. of Scotland.

Hist. Vol. III. page 586.

§ Gen. History of England. Vol. III. p. 422.

"the advantage of his own confession when on "the rack." The late Lord Auckland* points: out the barbarous irregularities of Throckmorton's trial, and uses them to prove his general position, that"in the progress of his trial the prisoner was, "in these times, exposed to such dangers, as left “him but little security, even in the strictest in"nocence." On all this you are quite silent.

Dr. Parry's tale is too ridiculous for discussion. 12. You then travel into foreign countries; but, according to your custom, while You mention the cruelties exercised by Catholics on Protestants, You are wholly silent on those exercised by Protestants on Catholics.-Justice required of You, either to mention, or to be silent upon both. In the same manner, You give us a list of regicidal writers of the Catholic communion; are they less numerous or less atrocious than Buchannan, Knox, Milton, Wilcox, Goodman, and several other Protestant advocates for regicide?

13. In page 221, You cite bishop Taylor, for saying that "the statute against the priests were "not passed till after much evidence, both by the "confession of the same priests themselves, and "diverse lay persons, that many of them at least "came into England to instigate the loyal to the "execution of the bull. This appears from the trial "of Mayne the Jesuit, and Mr. Tregion, who were "executed at Launceston for the same matter."

*Principles of Penal Law, 106, 193.

That any one Catholic priest, or any one Cartholic layman, confessed that he was sent over to instigate the loyal to the execution of the bull, I do not believe. "That these seminarists were "executed for treason, and not for religion ap

-

pears," You say, (p. 221), "from the admirable "tract of Lord Burleigh, printed in Bishop Gib"son's collection." Surely You should have noticed that Dr. Allen published a reply, (in my opinion a triumphant reply) to this tract. The fallacy of Lord Burleigh's work consists in this when he says that the priests were executed for treason, his readers are naturally led by this expression to suppose, that the priests were executed for acts which were treasonable by the ancient law of the realm, or the acknowledged law of every country. Now, nothing can be farther from the fact; the treasons for which they were executed were acts, which under the ancient laws of the realm, were meritorious, or at least indifferent, but rendered treasonable by Elizabeth's barbarous enactments.

14.-" For an account," You say in page 221, "of the refusal of the priests to profess their "allegiance to the queen, which was in fact, de

claring their allegiance to the Pope and his 66 party, I refer to Your own narrative in the first "volume of Your History of the Catholics of Eng"land, and to the third volume of Tracts against "Popery." This part of my History was written after great research, aud with particular care. I see nothing in it, which in respect either to fact or