the people against God. Can lawyers, those who have accommodated themselves write thus in our days? Yes, it appears, with the property of others. but only at Rome. Cardinal Bellarmine goes still farther. "The first Christians," says he, "supported the emperors only because they were not the strongest." The avowal is frank, and I am suaded that Bellarmine is right. The Donation of Charlemagne. Donation of the Countess Matilda. The most authentic and considerable of these donations was that of all the per-possessions of the famous Countess Matilda to Gregory VII. She was a young widow, who gave all to her spiritual director. It is supposed that the deed was twice executed and afterwards confirmed by her will. At a time when the court of Rome believed itself deficient in titles, it pretended that Charlemagne had confirmed the donation of the exarchate, and that he added to it Sicily, Venice, Benevento, Corsica, and Sardinia. But as Charlemagne did not possess any of these states, he could not give them away; and as to the town of Ravenna, it is very clear that he kept it, since in his will he made a legacy to his city of Ravenna, as well as to his city of Rome. It is surprising enough tha! the Popes have obtained Ravenna and Rome; But as to Venice it is not likely that the diploma which granted them the sovereignty will be found in the palace of St. Mark. However, there still remains some difficulty. It was always believed at Rome that Matilda had given all her states, all her possessions, present and to come, to her friend Gregory VII. by a solemn deed in her castle of Canossa, in 1077, for the relief of her own soul and that of her parents. And to corroborate this precious instrument, a second is shown to us dated in the year 1102, in which it is said, that it is to Rome that she made this donation: that she recalled it, and that she afterwards renews it; and always for the good of her soul. written at Canossa have been written at How could so important a deed be All these acts, instruments. and diplo-recalled? Was the court of Rome so mas, have been subjects of dispute for negligent? How could an instrument ages. But it is a confirmed opinion, says Giannoni, that martyr to truth, that all Rome? What do these contradictions these pieces were forged in the time of mean? All that is clear is, that the Gregory VII. "E costante opinione souls of the receivers fared better than presso i più gravi scrittori che tutti questi{the soul of the giver, who to save it was istromenti e diplomi furono supposti nè tempi d'Ildebrando." obliged to deprive herself of all she possessed in favour of her physicians. In short, in 1102 a sovereign was de Donation of Benevento by the Emperor { prived of the power of disposing of an Henry III. acre of land; yet after this deed, and to the time of her death, in 1815, there are still found considerable donations of lands made by this same Matilda to canons and monks. She had not, therefore, given all. Finally, this deed was very likely made by some ingenious person after her death. The court of Rome still includes among its titles the testament of Matilda, which confirmed her donations. The popes, however, never produce this testament. It should also be known whether this rich countess had the power to dispose of her possessions which were most of them fiefs of the empire. from a received principle consequences the most favourable to themselves or his party. But is the principle true? Is the first fact by which it is supported incontestible? It is this which should be examined. It resembles our ancient ro The Emperor Henry V. her heir, possessed himself of all, and recognised neither testament donation, deed, nor right.mance-writers, who all take it for granted The popes, in temporising, gained more than the emperors in exerting their authority; and in time these Cæsars became so weak, that the popes finally obtained the succession of Matilda, which is now called the patrimony of St. Peter. Donations of the Sovereignty of Naples to the Popes. that Francus brought the helmet of Hector to France. This casque was impenetrable, no doubt; but had Hector really worn it? The holy Virgin's milk is also very respectable; but do the twenty sacristies, who boast of having a gill of it, really possess it? Men of the present time, as wicked as foolish, do not shrink from the greatest The Norman gentlemen who were the crimes, and yet fear an excommunifirst instruments of the conquests of Na-cation, which would render them cxecraples and Sicily, achieved the finest exble to people still more wicked and ploit of chivalry that was ever heard of. foolish than themselves. From forty to fifty men only delivered Salerno at the moment it was taken by an army of Saracens. Seven other Norman gentlemen, all brothers, sufficed to chase these same Saracens from all the country, and to take prisoner the Greek emperor, who had treated them ungratefully. It was very natural that the people, whom these heroes had inspired with valour, should be led to obey them through admiration and gratitude. Such were the first rights to the crown of the two Sicilies. The bishops of Rome could no more give those states in fief than the kingdoms of Boutan or Cachemere. Robert and Richard Guiscard, the conquerors of Apulia and Calabria, were excommunicated by Pope Leo IX. They were declared vassals of the empire; but the emperor, Henry III., discontented with these feudatory conquerors, engaged Leo IX. to launch the excommunication at the head of an army of Germans. The Normans, who did not fear these thunderbolts like the princes of Italy, beat the Germans, and took the pope prisoner. But to prevent the popes and emperors hereafter from coming to trouble them in their possessions, they offered their conquests to the church under the name of oblata. It was thus that England paid the Peter's pence; that the first kings of Spain and Portugal, on recovering their states from the Saracens, promised two pounds of gold a-year to the church of Rome. But England, Spain, or Portu They could not even grant the investiture which would have been demanded of them; for, tn the time of the aaarchy of the fiefs, when a lord would hold his free land as a fief for his protection, he could only address himself to the sove-gal, reign or the chief of the country in which it was situated. And certainly the pope was neither the sovereign of Naples, Apulia, nor Calabria. Much has been written about this pretended vassalage, but the source has never been discovered. I dare say that it is as much the fault of the lawyers as of the theologians Every one deduces never regarded the pope as their sovereign master. Duke Robert, oblat of the church, was therefore no feudatory of the pope he could not be so, since the popes were not the sovereigns of Rome. This city was then governed by its senate, and the bishop only possessed influence. The pope was, at Rome, precisely what the elector is at Cologne. There is a prodigious difference between the oblat › Examination of the Vassalage of Naples of a saint and the feudatory of a bishop. Baronius, in his Acts, relates the pretended homage done by Robert, Duke of Apulia and Calabria, to Nicholas II.; but this deed is suspected like many others; it has never been seen, it has never been found in any archives. Robert entitled himself duke by the grace of God and St. Peter; but certainly St. Peter had given him nothing, nor was that saint king of Rome. The other popes, who were kings no more than St. Peter, received without dif. ficulty the homage of all the princes who presented themselves to reign overNaples, particularly when these princes were the most powerful. and England. valuable, the donation of Robert GuisIt may be asked, whieh was the most card or that of John Lackland; both had been excommunicated, both had given their states to St. Peter, and became only the farmers of them. If the English baons were indignant at the infamous barcancelled it, the Neapolitan barons could gain of their king with the pope, and have equally cancelled that of baron Robert; and that which they could have done formerly, they certainly can do at present. Were England and Apulia given to the pope, according to the law of the church or of the fiefs,-as to a bishop or a sovereign? If to a bishop, it is precisely contrary to the law of Jesus, who Donation of England and Ireland to the so often forbids his disciples to take any cessors. Popes by King John. thing, and who declares to them that his kingdom is not of this world. If as to a sovereign, it was high treahad already done homage to the emperor. son to his imperial majesty: the Normans Thus no right, spiritual or temporal, belonged to the popes in this affair. When the principle is erroneous, all the deductions are so of course. Naples no more belonged to the pope than England. In 1213, King John, vulgarly called Lackland or more properly Lackvirtue, being excommunicated, and seeing his kingdom laid under an interdict, gave it away to Pope Innocent III. and his suc"Not constrained by fear, but with my full consent and the advice of my barons, for the remission of my sins against God and the church, I resign There is still another method of proEngland and Ireland to God, St. Peter,viding against this ancient bargain; it is St. Paul, and our lord the Pope Innocent, and to his successors in the aposto lic chair." the right of the people, which is stronger than the right of the fiefs. The people's right will not suffer one sovereign to be He declared himself feudatory lieu-long to another, and the most ancient law tenant to the pope, paid about eight is to be master of our own, at least when thousand pounds sterling in ready mowe are not the weakest. ny to the legate Pandulph, promised to pay a thousand more every year, gave the first year in advance to the legate who trampled upon him, and swore on his knees that he submitted to lose all, in the event of not paying at the time appointed. The jest of this ceremony was, that the legate departed with the money, and forgot to remove the excommunication. Of Donations made by the Popes. If principalities have been given to the bishops of Rome, they have given away many more. There is not a single throne in Europe to which they have not made a present. As soon as a prince had conquered a country, or even wished to do it, the popes granted it in the name of St. Peter. Sometimes they even made the first advances, and it may be said that they have given away every kingdom but that of heaven. Few people in France know that Julius II. gave the states of King Louis XII. to the Emperor Maximilian, who could not put himself in possession of them. They do not sufficiently remember that Sixtus V., Gregory XIV., and Clement VIII. were ready to make a present of France to whomsoever Philip II. would have chosen for the husband of his daughter Clara Eugenia. should have enjoyed the same exception; so that in six years after the general law, a particular one was obliged to be made for Artois. These new edicts concerning donations and testaments, were principally made to do away with all the commentators, who had considerably embroiled the laws, having already compiled six commentaries upon them. It may be remarked, that donations, or deeds of gift, extend much further As to the emperors, there is not one than to the particular person to whom a since Charlemagne that the court of Rome present is made. For every present has not pretended to nominate. This is there must be paid to the farmers of the the reason why Swift, in his Tale of a royal domain—the duty of controul, the Tub, says, "that lord Peter became sud-duty of "insinuation,"the duty of the denly mad, and that Martin and Jack, hundredth penny, the tax of two sous in his brothers, confined him by the advice the livre, the tax of eight sous in the livre, of their relations." We simply relate &c. this drollery as a pleasant blasphemy of an English priest against a bishop of Rome. All these donations disappear before that of the East and West Indies, with which Alexander VI. of his divine power and authority invested Spain and Portugal. It was giving almost all the earth. He could in the same manner have given away the globes of Jupiter and Saturn with their satellites. Particular Donations. The donations of citizens are treated quite differently. The codes are unanimously agreed that no one can give away the property of another, as well as that no person can take it. It is an universal law. In France, jurisprudence was uncertain on this object, as on almost all others, until the year 1731, when the equitable chancellor d'Aguesseau, having conceived the design of making the law uniform, very weakly began the great work, by the edict on donations. It is digested in forty-seven articles; but in wishing to render all the formalities concerning donations uniform, Flanders was excepted from the general law, and in excepting Flanders, Artois was forgotten, which So that every time you make a present to a citizen you are much more liberal than you imagine. You have also the pleasure of contributing to the enriching of the farmers-general; but, after all, this money does not go out of the kingdom like that which is paid to the court of Rome. DRINKING HEALTHS. WHAT was the origin of this custom? Has it existed since drinking commenced? —It appears natural to drink wine for our own health, but not for the health of others. The propino of the Greeks, adopted by the Romans, does not signify "I drink to your good health," but I drink first that you may drink afterwards-I invite you to drink. In their festivals they drink to celebrate a mistress, not that she might have good health. See in Martial, Naevia sex cyathis, septem Justina bibatur. The English who pique themselve upon renewing several ancient customs, drink to the honour of the ladies, which they call toasting; and it is a great subject of dispute among them whether a lady is toast-worthy or not-whether she is worthy to be toasted. They drank at Rome for the victories of Augustus, and for the return of his health. Dion Cassius relates, that after the battle of Actium the senate decreed that, in their repasts, libations should be made to him in the second service. It was a strange decree. It is more probable that flattery had voluntarily introduced this meanness. Be it as it may, we read in Horace; Hinc ad vina redit lætus, et alteris Quum sol oceano subest. To thee be chaste the sacred song, With pious hymn and festal joy; {Bishop of Cork in Ireland, a great enemy to William in Ireland, said, "that he would put a cork in all those bottles which were drank to the glory of this monarch." He did not stop at this silly pun: he wrote in 1702 an episcopal address, to show the Irish that it was an atrocious impiety to drink to the health of kings, and, above all, to their memory; that the latter, in particular, is a profanation of these words of Jesus Christ; "Drink this in remembrance of me." It is astonishing that this bishop was not the first who conceived such a folly. Before him, the Presbyterian Prynn, had written a great book against the impious custom of drinking to the health of Christians. Finally, there was one John Geza, vicar of the parish of St. Faith, who published "The Divine Potion to preserve Spiritual Health, by the Cure of the inveterate Malady of Drinking Healths; with clear and solid Arguments against this Criminal custom; all for the Satisfaction of the Public, at the request of a worthy Member of Parliament, in the Year of our Salvation, 1648." It is very likely that hence the custom Our reverend father Garasse, our reverarose, among barbarous nations, of drink-end father Patouillet, and our reverend ing to the health of their guests; an absurd custom, since we may drink four bottles without doing them the least good. The dictionary of Trevoux tells us that we should not drink to the health of our superiors in their presence: This may be the case in France or Germany, but in England it is a received custoin. The distance is not so great from one man to another at London as at Vienna. father Nonotte, are nothing superior to these profound Englishmen. We have a long time wrestled with our neighbours for the superiority-To which is it due? THE DRUIDS. The Scene is in Tartarus.-The Furies entwined with Serpents, and Whips in their Hands. COME along, Barbaquincorix, Celtic It is of importance in England to Druid, and thou detestable Grecian drink to the health of a prince who pre-hierophant, Calchas; the moment of your tends to the throne; it is to declare your- just punishment has returned again; the self his partizan. hour of vengeance has arrived-the bell has sounded! It has cost more than one Scotchman and Hibernian dear for having drank to the health of the Stuarts. All the Whigs, after the death of King THE DRUID AND CALCHAS. Oh, heavens! my head, my sides, my eyes, my ears! pardon, ladies, pardon! |