flattered himself with the hope of obtaining from the gratitude of the Emperor, Romania, in which country Cesena, his native place, is situated; and even that during his stay at Paris, he signified a wish on the subject directly to the Emperor, but very slightly, and with scarce a hope of success. 2dly, How can it be supposed that the institution of a patriarch was requested of the Court of Rome? A patriarch would have had no influence except in France: the influence of the Pope, who was the patriarch of the grand empire, extended all over the world: France would, therefore, have lost by the change. 3dly, Why should the Emperor demand the acceptance of his civil code? Did not the Code Napoleon then govern France and Italy? Did Napoleon need the aid of the Court of Rome, for the purpose of making laws in his own dominions? 4thly, Why should he require the freedom of worship? Was not freedom of worship a fundamental law of the French constitution? Did it then require the sanction of the Pope, any more than that of the minister Marron, and the consistories of Geneva? 5thly, Why should he demand the reform of the bishoprics, which were too numerous in Italy? Had not the Concordat of Italy provided a remedy for this?

Some negotiations, indeed, took place, with respect to the bishoprics of Tuscany and Genoa; but they were transacted in the forms established for matters of this kind. 6thly, For what purpose could the abolition of pontifical bulls for the Italian bishoprics and cures be required? Were not all these matters settled by the Concordat of Italy? 7thly, Why should Napoleon demand the abolition of the religious orders? Were they not already abolished in France and Italy? Had not the sale of their property been consummated and ratified by the Concordats? 8thly, How can it be supposed, embroiled as he was with the Court of Rome, that he should stipulate for the marriages of the priests; which would have been wantonly giving an advantage to his enemies? What was the celibacy of the clergy to him? Had he any time to waste in theological disputes? 9thly, What interest could he have in getting Joseph Bonaparte consecrated King of Naples by the Pope? Had the Pope been willing to perform this ceremony, Napoleon would have opposed it; lest it should be relied on as an act of sovereignty over Naples.

The direct correspondence of the Emperor with the Pope, from 1805 to 1809, has

remained secret: it related only to temporal matters, on which Napoleon did not need the consent or advice of his bishops; but in 1809, when the Pope, relying on a passage of the Council of Lyons, attempted, by the brief of Savona addressed to the Chapters of Florence and Paris, to obstruct the exercise of the functions of capitular vicars during the vacancies of sees, the discussions between the Pope and the Emperor were extended to spiritual matters. Napoleon then felt the necessity of the advice and intervention of the clergy: he established a council of theologians. His choice was fortunate: the Bishop of Nantes, who had been for half a century one of the oracles of Christianity, was the soul of this council: from that period, all the discussions became public.

Fox, conversing with Napoleon, after the treaty of Amiens, blamed him for not having stipulated for the marriage of the clergy. He replied, "I wanted, and I still want, to pacify: theological volcanoes are to be quenched with water, not with oil: I should have found it less difficult to introduce the Confession of Augsbourg into my Empire."

After the coronation, discussions took place respecting cardinals' hats, and about the

Pope's having thought proper to suppress certain points in his allocutions on the organic laws, and respecting penitentiary briefs; also relating to some circumscriptions of the dioceses of Tuscany and Genoa, and some secret affairs relative to the Kingdom of Italy: but the two sovereigns were not directly engaged in any of these discussions; they were always left to the care of the proper chancellors, who treated all these matters with moderation and prudence.

NOTE III.-ABDUCTION OF THE POPE.

VOL. II. PAGE 415.

"It is of little importance, in the main, who was the author of the scheme of carrying off the Pope. From whatever quarter it came, it is equally odious.

wholly on the side of history," &c.

Here the interest lies

The quarrel between the Emperor and the Pope, which lasted five years, and terminated in 1810 in the annexation of the temporal estates of the Holy See to the Empire, originated in 1805. The Courts of Vienna, Russia, and England had just concluded the third coalition against France: an Austrian army occupied Munich, put the King of Bavaria to flight, and took up a position on the Iller, there awaiting the junction of two Russian armies. The Archduke John, at the head of the principal army of the House of Austria, advanced to the Adige, menacing the conquest of all Italy. A French corps of observation, from 15,000 to 20,000 strong, under the command of Marshal Saint-Cyr, occupied the peninsula of Otranto: he was separated from the army of the Adige by the States of the Pope. An English squadron appeared in the Mediterranean, and had cruisers in the Adriatic; an Anglo-Russian army