Citation 27 Eliz.1, c. 2 | ||
 | ||
Long title An act against Jesuits, seminary priests, and such other like disobedient persons | ||
An act against Jesuits, seminary priests, and such other like disobedient persons, also known as Jesuits, etc. Act 1584, (27 Eliz.1, c. 2) was an Act of the Parliament of England during the English Reformation. The Act commanded all Roman Catholic priests to leave the country in 40 days or they would be punished for high treason, unless within the 40 days they swore an oath to obey the Queen. Those who harboured them, and all those who knew of their presence and failed to inform the authorities would be fined and imprisoned for felony.
Anyone else who was, or was later brought up as, a Jesuit overseas had to return to England within six months, and then within two days of arriving swear to submit to the Queen and also take the oath required by the Act of Supremacy 1558. Failure to do so was treason. Any person who did take the oath was forbidden from coming within 10 miles of the Queen for 10 years, unless they had her personal written permission. Again, failure to observe this requirement was treason.
1995 court case
The execution of a Catholic priest under the Act in 1594 became the subject of a court case 401 years later. In 1995 a church applied to the consistory court in Durham for a faculty (planning permission) to display a memorial plaque on the church door, in memory of the dead priest. Even though the 1584 Act had been repealed long ago, the priest's conviction had not been quashed, and so the court could not permit it:
in the absence of a posthumous pardon the court could not properly sanction a memorial to a person lawfully convicted of high treason; and that, accordingly, since no question had been raised as to the legal propriety either of the priest's conviction as a traitor or his execution and there had been no pardon, the faculty sought could not be granted, notwithstanding the subsequent repeal of the Act of 1584.
In 2008 the Oxford Consistory Court (presided over by the same judge) declined to follow that case as a precedent.