More peaceful times were hoped for through the accession of James I., but these hopes were doomed to disappointment. James may not have been very hostile to the religion of his baptism, but his training had been Calvinist, and the Puritan party was gradu ally waxing stronger. One outcome of the loss of hope among Catholics was the murderous Gunpowder Plot devised by a few of them, but the only result was a new Penal Code and the execu tion of several who were charged with complicity in the plot. A new oath of allegiance was framed, calling on those who took it to swear that the deposing power of the Pope was "impious, heretical and damnable." Some Catholics thought they could in conscience do this, while others held the contrary. Hence arose much controversy among them. The oath was condemned by Paul V., but even this did not end the dispute for many, among them George Blackwell the archpriest, who had governed the recu sant clergy since 1598 and considered that the condemnation only represented the Pope's private opinion, and hence did not bind in conscience. Blackwell was superseded by Birkhead as archpriest, and he was followed by Harrison. But the clergy had long been petitioning to be ruled by a bishop, and in 1623 Dr. William Bishop was appointed and consecrated as titular bishop of Chalce don.
Again towards the end of James' reign there seemed prospect of indulgence on account of the negotiations in progress for the marriage of Prince Charles with the Infanta of Spain. For some years there had been but few executions for religion, but fines and penal exactions had brought in £36,000 a year to the king, and the prisons were full of recusants. The first step towards the marriage treaty was the release of all these. But the marriage was never arranged. Partly from hostility to any indulgence to Catholics which was necessarily involved in the settlement, parlia ment was averse to the match, and at last James had to draw back. The penal laws were enforced anew, and things were soon almost as bad as ever. But then another matrimonial scheme raised the question once more. This was the plan to marry Prince Charles to Henrietta Maria of France. Concessions to the Cath olics at least equal to those promised to the Spaniards were de manded by Richelieu. Still, the marriage seemed desirable both to James I. and to Louis XIII., so a secret understanding was signed that ample indulgence should be given to the main body, as well as full liberty to the princess to practise her religion. Hence the marriage took place. But meanwhile James was dead, and Prince Charles was king.
The new monarch at once found himself in considerable diffi culty. Promises had been made to France, and on the other hand parliament, ever stronger and more Puritan, called for the execution of the penal laws. Charles took the path of least re sistance, put the laws in force, and declared that the treaty with France had only been a device to obtain the pope's consent to a dispensation for the marriage. All that France could do was to secure a Catholic court, in great part foreign, for Queen Hen rietta Maria.
In 1632 the Holy See sent a trusty envoy, Gregorio Panzani, to report on the state of religion in England. This report, still extant, affords an interesting view of the position. Panzani esti mates the Catholics at 15o,000, and the priests at Boo. He names the Catholic peers, beginning with the Marquis of Worcester, 13 in number, but hazards the guess that many more strive to be reconciled to the Church on their death-beds. He describes the stately services at the Queen's chapel, notes the adoption of many rites by the High Church divines, and laments the growth of Puri tanism. He favours the naming of a resident bishop, but Charles I. was opposed to this. Hence the Catholics had no bishop in
England for the next 3o years, Dr. Smith, Bishop's succes sor, having retired to France. Shifty towards Catholics, Charles was not less so towards the bulk of the nation, and at last Civil War broke out. Catholics were mainly on the royalist side. They recognized the Puritans as their bitterest enemies, yet there was hostility to them in the royal camp as well, and a disinclination to accept their aid if coupled with freedom for themselves. But, when the royalist cause was losing, these scruples were flung away, and the king had no more faithful servants than these recusant gentry and their dependents. The sieges of Raglan and Wardour Castle held for the king are but instances of tenacious fidelity. But at last the king's cause ended in defeat, and the royalists could do no more. Parliament was supreme, and worked its will both on the monarch and on his followers. When bloodshed was over on the battlefield it did not cease on the scaffold, so that not a few priests suffered death in the parliamentary period, and are reckoned by their fellow Catholics as martyrs. The policy of Oliver Cromwell as protector was not in general one of persecu tion, but the fanaticism of his followers was irrepressible.
With the Restoration came an earnest of greater tranquillity. Charles II.'s court in exile had been in part Catholic, and he seems to have been convinced in his heart that that was the true religion. But he was quite alive to the need, if he was to be king, of dissembling his sentiments. But he married Catherine of Braganza with the rites of her faith, while the free exercise of her religion was guaranteed. Hence the queen always had a staff of priests at her court, where the services were splendid and al most public. As the reign advanced opposition grew stronger, being in part stimulated by the reception into the Church of sev eral notable people, chief amongst whom was James, duke of York, the king's brother. Again, an attempt to strengthen the royal position by an alliance with Louis XIV., and the acceptance of a subsidy from him led to a strong contrary current of opin ion. Charles bent to the storm, and new legislation to debar the Catholic peers from sitting in the House of Lords was passed (Test Act). Finally, the efforts of the Protestant party centred on the proposal to exclude the Duke of York from the royal suc cession. Charles set himself with courage and still greater skill to defeat this, but at first without much success. The popular imagi nation was inflamed by the so-called Titus Oates plot. Oates, whose former record was of the worst, deposed on oath to the existence of a plot among Catholics to seize the king, subvert the Protestant religion, and set up their own in its place. Public opinion was maddened and the perjured wretch gained general credence. Many persons were charged with sharing these treason able designs, and a considerable number, both priests and laymen, were brought to the scaffold, the most illustrious being Lord Staf ford and Oliver Plunket, archbishop of Armagh. Though Charles believed these victims to be innocent, he did not, perhaps could not, interfere to save them. Yet, while they went to their death, the king had won. Alive to the least sign of a turn in the tide, he dissolved parliament, but found the new one again hostile. He dissolved again, and by this time finding himself in the full flood of reaction in his favour, governed for the last two years of his reign without any other. He went on to take vengeance on his enemies of whom some were executed and others escaped to the Continent. There was no longer any chance of an Exclusion bill. Charles died Feb. 6, 1685, being received into the Catholic Church on his death-bed.