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 66 66 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 66 be difficult for any gentleman of the law, to "discover upon what evidence Throckmorton was "convicted; if he takes from the queen's council * Doctor Challoner's Memoirs of Missionary Priests, Vol. I. p. 11. 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, 66 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 66 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 66 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 66 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. 66 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, declaring their allegiance to the Pope and his 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 reasoning, exposes me to censure, or requires the slightest alteration or explanation. 66 I say in it,*" That the replies made by the priests to the six questions were unsatisfactory, " is too clear;" that "they are either refusals to answer or evasive answers, or such answers as " expressed their belief of the deposing doctrine, or at least a hesitation of opinion respecting it." I add, " that among the six questions, there is " not one which the Catholics of the present times " have not fully and unexceptionably answered in "the oaths which they have taken in compliance "with the acts of the 18th, 31st and 33d year of " his present majesty; "-and that, " in the reign " of Elizabeth, several priests and the bulk of the laity would have answered them with the same "candour and integrity of principle, as all the pre 66 66 sent Catholic clergymen and laity of England " would now answer them, and have in fact an"swered them." In every part of my works, in which I have mentioned the refusal of the priests to answer these questions, I have lamented and condemned it. But let them not be blamed more than they deserve. In the words of Father Hart, one of the refusing priests, which answer I have transcribed in my Historical Memoirs; † "they acknowledged "her majesty to be their lawful queen; and that " she ought to be obeyed, notwithstanding the bull "the bull, supposed to be published by Pius the * Vol. I. p. 429. † Vol. I. p. 429. 66 66 66 Fifth; but whether she ought to be obeyed and taken for lawful queen, notwithstanding any bull or sentence, the Pope' could give, this, they said they could not answer." I have no hestitation in repeating my opinion of that their refusal to answer their questions, justified strong precautions. But I also confidently assert, that all Elizabeth's new creation of felonies, premunires and treasons was an enormous abuse of the power of legislation, and cannot be too strongly deplored or condemned. If her government had been just and humane, even precaution would have been unnecessary. 15.-Your account of Father Campian, (page 226), contains much misrepresentation, both of him and of my account of his trial. You say, that, from " my account of him, You might infer, that he came into the country as an "innocent merchant and traveller, and was arrested " and condemned solely because he was a priest, " and believed in transubstantiation and purga 66 tory."-Have I insinuated anything of the kind? -Have I not said, and, in your next preceding page, have You not cited me for saying, that " he had entered into the society of Jesus,-had " been ordained priest, and had returned to Eng" land to exercise his missionary functions?" Then You exclaim, -" How great will be the " astonishment of the reader, who has depended " on your apparent fairness and impartiality in |