ould
pray for him.[332] Thus it exactly fell in with the King's views to be
a Protestant, as was absolutely necessary for his authority in England
and Scotland, and yet at the same time not to have the Catholics
against him, and to be able to reckon the Pope of Rome among his
friends.

It is evident that this state of affairs, as it was inconsistent with
the laws of England, could not be permanently maintained. Even men of
moderate views in other respects disapproved the middle course taken
by the King: for they thought it necessary to concede nothing to the
adherents of the Papacy, if they were to be saved from the necessity
of conceding everything. The Catholics desired a public declaration of
toleration. But this could only have emanated from Parliament: the
King had not the courage, and his ministers had not the wish, to make
a serious proposal to that effect. On the contrary, when the
Protestant spirit of the capital displayed itself so unmistakably in
consequence of the severities with which the Puritans were threatened,
the King and his Privy Council, while affirming that they were merely
executing the laws, announced their intention of introducing a like
severity in the treatment of the Catholics. James I appeared to feel
himself insulted if any one threw a doubt on his wish to allow the
laws to operate in both directions. And as the Parliament which was so
zealously Protestant was expected to reassemble in the autumn of 1605,
the laws against the Catholics began to be applied without
forbearance. A renewed persecution was first set on foot against the
priests, who it is true were not punished with death, at least in the
vicinity of the Court, but were thrown into prison, where they not
infrequently succumbed to the rough treatment which they had
undergone. But even the laity daily suffered more and more from the
violence of the spies who forced their way into their houses. They
complained loudly and bitterly of the insecurity of their position,
which had already gone so far that often no tenants could be found for
their farms; and they considered that the least evil, for to-day they
lost their possessions, to-morrow they would lose their freedom, and
the day after their life.[333] There had now for a long time been two
parties among them, one of which submitted to what was inevitable,
while the other offered a violent resistance. With the fresh increase
of oppression, the latter party obtained the upper hand.