treatment of the Roman catholics, the question seems to involve principles of a very abstract nature, and to be by no means so clear, as it is generally assumed to be. A government must always have a right to defend itself, and retaliation can only be justified on the plea of future prevention. It may be conceded by the protestant, that great cruelty was used towards the Roman catholics, and that the line of policy pursued, whether just or unjust, was very injudicious ; that a sincere Roman catholic priest might have acted against the statutes of Elizabeth upon mistaken principles, and probably that many did so. But, on the other hand, it seems likely that a protestant at the time might fairly have esteemed these laws necessary and just; and upon abstract principles of justice they probably are just, though it would be difficult to establish their necessity. The question would stand thus: The head of a body politic (the church of Rome) officially promulgates doctrines and assumes an authority a incompatible with civil government; every one, therefore, who by any act maintains that authority, does virtually place himself beyond the pale of civil society. We are not at present discussing how such an individual ought to be treated. It is obvious that kindness and reason would be most likely to bring him home to a sense of his duty; but a government must have

a Pius V. pretended to free the subjects from their allegiance. Clement VIII. granted a plenary pardon to all the followers and abettors of Tyrone, as in the case of a crusade. Camden's Eliz. 581.

of the bull, were guilty of treason, in foro conscientiæ. The temporary suspension of the bull does in reality not alter the question; the bull was to be put in force whenever circumstances made it likely to be injurious to the country. We may pity men who were exposed to the necessity of committing such a treasonable act, if indeed they were bound in their consciences to obey the papal authority; but we must blame the pope who sent them, not the government which hanged men whose acts tended to overturn its authority. When the individual convicted disclaimed the objectionable tenet, he was sometimes pardoned, as in the case of Rishton, Bosgrove, and Orton*, though others were executed whose answers might have satisfied a reasonable tribunal.

. 442. But in viewing the question, with reference only to the cruelty of it, the state of danger and irritation arising from various injuries must fairly and fully be taken into consideration. The Roman catholics as a body were carrying on a mnost vehement attack against Elizabeth, because she was a protestant. (1569.) The pope had excommunicated her. (1565.) France and Spain had conspired for the extirpation of heresy. (1572.) In France the Roman catholics had begun by trying to murder all their protestant countrymena. Spain had given proofs of

a One of the most dreadful features connected with the massacre of St. Bartholomew's consists in the approbation given to

* Butler's Cath. i. 429.