of the dislike of the Brownists or Barrowists entertained in court circles at that time, and for the hint it furnishes of the prevalence of their "heretical" opinions, deserves to be quoted.

He said: "In my conceit the Brownists are worthy to be rooted out of a commonwealth. But what danger may grow to ourselves if this law pass, it were fit to be considered. For it is to be feared that men not guilty will be included in it. And that law is hard that taketh life and sendeth into banishment, where men's intentions are to be judged by a jury, and they shall be judges what another means. But that law which is against fact [which punishes for an act] is but just; and punish the fact as severely as you will. If two or three thousand Brownists meet at the sea, at whose charges shall they be transported? or whither will you send them? I am sorry for it, I am afraid there is near twenty thousand of them in England; and when they be gone, who shall maintain their wives and children?"

Mr. Finch said: "There be great faults in the preamble and the body of this bill. It pretendeth a punishment only to the Barrowists and sectaries; but throughout the whole bill, not one thing that concerneth a Barrowist [exclusively]. And if we make a law against Barrowists and Brownists, let us set down a note of them, who they are. But as the bill is, not to come to church, or to speak

* D'Ewes, 517.

The

against the [ecclesiastical] government established, this is not the opinion of the Brownists [i. e., is not peculiar to the Brownists]. This law being allowed to be an explanation of 23 [23d Eliz.] maketh all the offenders in that statute to be traitors. This law excepts no person. So all are in the former penalties of that law, for 23 Eliz. is only for such as are of the Romish religion. And now to make it include all the opinions, is to make additions to that, but no explanations. The clause of speaking against law is very dangerous; for who can be safe from this? Non hospes ab hospite tutus. For if a man speak against non-residents, excommunication as it used, or any other abuse of the church, he incurs the danger of the law. clause against conventicles is very dangerous. For the conference of any persons together, being of any number, the prayers of holy exercise, being not allowable in any place by law, is an assembling against the laws: for the words be very strict, howsoever not contrary to the law, the offence is all Now in the body of the law, the words, ecclesiastical are not such as be meant in primo of the queen, but such as are intended in this statute. And the annexing of the words: He must be an obstinate recusant, and also write and speak, etc.' -this is very suspicious; for, obscuris vera is never good. Whosoever repaireth not to his own parish church is a recusant within this law. -' Vide apr. 6 die veneris sequent.".

one.

* D'Ewes, 517.

6

These speeches will give the reader an idea of the severe character of the bill which the church authorities were now trying to get through parliament. But with all the avowed hatred of the Brownists, the members of the house were not willing to put all dissenters thus at the mercy of the bishops' courts; and the bill was again recommitted, this time to all the privy council.

On the 6th of April, Sir Thomas Heneage, the vice-chamberlain, reported to the house, that after "long tarrying together," and much discussion, the committee had been unable to agree on a form of a bill which would meet "the disordered Barrowists and Brownists, without peril of entrapping honest and loyal subjects." This report gave rise to further speeches, pro and con, and resulted in a proposition for a conference with the lords. In this conference "some additions, subtractions and alterations were agreed on and recommended. The house discussed these, referred them again to some of the former committees, and finally passed the bill, on Saturday, April 7th, 1593,* three days -two working days before the final adjournment of parliament.

As passed, this statute is entitled: "An Act to retain the Queen's subjects in Obedience." It provided, that every person above the age of sixteen years, who obstinately refused to attend the services of the established church of England, or

* D'Ewes, 520.

persuaded any one so to do, or to refuse the communion, or to deny her majesty's authority in causes ecclesiastical, or to attend a conventicle, and refused to conform should be subjected to imprisonment without bail or mainprise. And if for three months he refused to conform, he was doomed to abjure the realm; or if he refused to abjure, or neglected to depart, or returned without leave, he was condemned to death as a felon, without benefit of clergy. Persons harboring such recusants, except within specified degrees of kindred and connection, after due notice, forfeited ten pounds sterling a month for every such offence. And all persons who abjured the realm, or who, being found guilty, refused to abjure, forfeited their goods and chattels forever, and their landed rights and possessions during life.*

This cruel statute was made to take effect on and after the 20th of May, 1593, and to continue in effect until the close of the next parliament.

It was four years before another parliament was summoned, October, 1597, and adjourned, February 9th, 1597-8. This parliament renewed the

statute, to be in force until the close of the next parliament; which assembled October 27th, 1601, and adjourned December 19th, 1601. This was the last of Elizabeth's parliaments. The statute was again renewed by the first parliament of

* Statutes of the Realm, 35 Elizabeth, chap. 1, vol. 1v. pp. 841– 48.

James I., which assembled March 19, 1603-4, to be in force to the end of the next parliament; and by that parliament was renewed, with slight alterations, without limitation of time."

Thus, this oppressive act of legislation was brought to bear for a long term of years on the hated dissenters and separatists from the established church; causing their imprisonment, and the confiscation of their property, and driving them into foreign lands, there to drag out their weary lives among unsympathizing strangers, in poverty and reproach. Under this law thousands of good men, in every part of the kingdom, suffered for an entire generation; all because they would not sacrifice their conscientious religious convictions to the will of a corrupt hierarchy.

It was while this unchristian law was under discussion in parliament, and on the very day that the committee reported the impossibility of coming to any agreement, the sixth of April, 1593, that those unflinching Congregationalists, Barrowe and Greenwood, were suddenly hurried to the gallows; as people said, “of malice of the bishops, to spite the nether house," where the bishops' original bill encountered such severe opposition as to raise a doubt whether any bill of the kind could be gotten through; the archbishop fearing, probably, lest his prey, which he had taken so much pains to entrap,

* Statutes at Large, 39 Eliz. ch. 18, sect. 26; 43 Eliz. ch. 9, sect. 18; 1 James, ch. 25, sect. 13; 3 James I. ch. 4, sect. 19.