to accept any equitable arrangement. The cardinals resisted the acknowledgment of the new king-first, because the interference of two heretical powers (England and Holland) was very offensive to them; and secondly, because it appeared to be a favourable opportunity for the renewal of the Papal right and for the attainment of greater compliance in ecclesiastical matters. The Republics of Venice and Genoa sided with the cardinals, as it was extremely disagreeable to them to have an Italian prince raised to the dignity of a king. Mgr. Lambertini (afterwards Benedict XIV.), who was very popular at foreign courts on account of his liberality and love of peace, had to overcome many objections at Rome before the Indult for the right of presentation was granted to the king and his successors, October 25, 1726, the other rights of the Holy See being reserved. The crafty diplomatist D'Ormea obtained great concessions from Benedict XIII. for the Sardinian court. There were also Papal fiefs in the continental possessions of the king for instance, Alessandria, which had been built in honour of Alexander III. and had always been subject to the Holy See ;7 also the principality of Masseran and the marquisate of Crevacour, which had been restored to the Papal See in 1658 by the family of the Fieschi, who had had possession of it since 1394.8 Alexander VII. accepted the restitution, 1659, and in 1661 forbade the alienation of this property, enlarging the Bull of Pius V. against alienation of property from the Church of Rome. When, after this, Prince Charles Bassi-Ferrari-Fieschi sold this estate, without the consent of the Roman See, to Victor Amadeus II., who was then duke, Innocent XI. as lord superior declared the sale null and void, February 26, 1686.10 Considerable contentions arose, and for a long time all efforts at arrangement were fruitless. At last the dispute was adjusted by Benedict XIV., 1741; he adopted a plan formerly entertained of conferring an apostolic vicariat in temporalibus on the King of Sardinia under certain conditions, viz. of rendering homage and presenting a gold chalice worth 2000 scudi every year on the feast of St. Peter, which continued to be the custom till the French Revolution.11

1 Innocent III. says of Sardinia: Tota Sardinia dominii juris et proprietatis Apostolicae Sedis existit.' Ap. Raynald. a. 1200, n. 49, 1. iii. Ep. 35, pp. 917, 918 (to the judex of Cagliari, whom he reproaches with his crimes and calls to account, at the same time commissioning the bishops to this effect). Ib. Ep. 36, p. 918, 1. v. ; Ep. 124, 125, pp. 1126-1128; l. vi. Ep. 29, p. 31: Cui (Rom. Eccl.) tam in spiritualibus quam in temporalibus est subjecta.' Cf. Ep. 30, p. 32; 1. vii. Ep. 109, p. 391; l. ix. Ep. 63, p. 876. Rudolph I., 1274, also acknowledged Corsica and Sardinia to be possessions of the Holy See (Pertz, Mon. Germ. iv. 403, 404).

2 Raynald. ad a. 1297, n. 2.

n. 17.

Mariana, de Rebus Hisp. 1. xiv. c. xiv.

Thomassin, P. ii. 1. ii. c. xxxvii. n. 5.

3 Raynald. ad a. 1335, n. 39.

Carutti, Storia del Regno di Vittoria Amadeo II., Turino, 1856, p. 105. Rigant. in Reg. ii. Canc. § 1, n. 20, t. i. p. 209.

Katherina, sister of Philip III. of Spain, married Duke Charles Emmanuel of Savoy (1580-1630), who was great-grandfather of Victor Amadeus II.

Carutti, 1.c. pp. 412-415 seq. 427 seq. 483 seq.

For the documents see Ughelli, Italia Sacra, t. iv. p. 442; Migne, PP. Lat. ccxv. 621. Cf. letter of Innocent III. of 1206, 1. ix. Ep. 93 (ib. p. 910). 8 Moroni, Dizionario, v. Masserano, t. xliii. pp. 237, 238.

9 Alex. VII. Const. Cum sicut, May 8, 1659; Const. Inter, Feb. 1, 1661 (Bullar. Rom. vi. v. p. 1 seq. 127).

10 Innoc. XI. Const. Cum sicut, Bull. viii. 381 (al. xi. pp. 481-483, Const. 149).

12 Carutti, Storia del Regno di Carlo Emanuele III., Torino, 1859, vol. i. pp. 153, 154. Docum. n. 3, pp. 347-352. Moroni, l.c. p. 238.

§ 7.

Parma and Piacenza were also among the Papal fiefs; in 590 they had become united to the exarchate of Ravenna, and with it became part of the Papal States, and afterwards devolved once more upon the Roman See with the rest of Matilda's inheritance. On the 6th August 1545, Paul III. gave these duchies as a Papal fief, in exchange for a yearly tribute of 9000 ducats, to his son Pier Luigi Farnese, born before he entered holy orders, and after him to Pier's son Ottavio. The Farnese took their oath of allegiance, and, after the acknowledgment of Philip II. in 1552, remained in undisturbed possession.2 At the beginning of the Spanish War of Succession, Duke Francis Maria mounted the Papal arms for greater security from the belligerents. When in 1707 the emperor's party declared Parma an imperial fief, laid it under contribution, and oppresse

the clergy, Clement XI. (August 1, 1707) issued severe decrees against the usurpation.3 The house of Farnese expired with Duke Antonio, January 20, 1731, when Clement XII. declared that if the widowed Duchess Henriquetta should die without male heirs the country would revert to the Holy See, according to the law of investiture made by Paul III. Germany and Spain, however, strove for possession. The Infant Don Carlos, son of Philip V. of Spain, and Elizabeth Farnese, niece of the last duke, received the duchy, and later (in 1735) the kingdom of Naples. The peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (October 18, 1748) assured the duchy to him and his male heirs, on condition that if ever he ascended the Spanish throne he should cede it to his brother Philip. The rights of the Roman See were totally despised, and the power of protesting was all it now possessed. On the death of Duke Philip (July 18, 1765), and during the minority of his son, W. du Tillot conducted the government and made many laws inimical to the interests of the Church. The bishops expostulated, and Clement XIII. as lord superior declared the laws void and issued a severe admonition (1768), which excited the greatest anger in the Bourbon courts.5 History shows after what fashion these were really good 'Catholic' courts at that time; they treated the Roman See worse than any non-Catholic States, and oppressed Clement XIII. till he died. His successor, Clement XIV., ended the dispute by granting a dispensation to the young duke for his marriage with Maria Amalia of Austria, and without entering upon what had gone before, appearing tacitly to retract the past.7 Later events, such as the dethronement of Duke Ferdinand and the French occupation, forced the questions of right more and more into the background; but every year on the feast of St. Peter the solemn protest was renewed in Rome.

1 With regard to this inheritance, Innocent II., 1133, without renouncing his right, had been very compliant to Lothair II.; Hadrian IV. demanded it back in 1159 from Frederick I., who at last, in 1176, promised Alexander III. to return it, but in later negotiations endeavoured to evade his promise (cf. Hefele, v. 375, 495, 620, 622, 629, 643). Innocent III. successfully made good his right to the Tuscan territory. L. i. Ep. 15, p. 14, he writes: Cum ducatus Tusciae ad jus et dominium Ecclesiae Ro

manae pertineat, sicut in privilegiis Rom. Eccl. oculata fide perspeximus contineri, nullam inter se sub nomine societatis colligationem facere debuissent episcopi et consules civitatum Tusciae, nisi salvo per omnia jure pariter et auctoritate SS. Rom. Sedis.' L. vii. Ep. 64, p. 344, he commissions the Bishop of Mantua to take possession, for the Roman See, of those portions of Matilda's inheritance which were within or on the borders of his diocese.

2 Nicholi, Dissert. istorico-politica e legale sopra la natura e qualità delle città di Parma e Piacenza. Ragioni della S. Sede sopra il ducato di Parma e Piacenza. Della istoria del dominio temporale della Sede Ap. nel ducato di Parma, Roma, 1720. Theiner, Hist. du Pontificat de Clément XIV. t. i. p. 114 seq. Moroni, v. Parma, t. li. pp. 212 seq. 222 seq.

3 Carutti, Vittorio Amad. II. c. xiii. p. 209; c. xvii. pp. 280, 281. * Const. 39, Cum bonae, Bull. ed. Lux. xiv. pp. 154, 155.

5 Theiner, l.c. p. 115 seq. Moroni, 1. c. p. 232 seq. The hatred of these courts had reached to such a height at that time that the life of the writer of the admonition, Mgr. Antonelli, who was made later a cardinal-deacon, was sought after. The hired assassin, however, murdered another prelate, by name Mgr. Antonelli Velletri, whom he mistook for the other. Pacca, Memorie Storiche, P. ii. c. ii. pp. 160, 161, ed. 1830. Several of Du Tillot's decrees may be found in Münch. Conc. i. 498 seq.

Cf. R. A. Menzel, Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen, xi. pp. 453, 455.
Theiner, 1.c. pp. 286, 287.

PART II. PAPAL FIEFS OUT OF ITALY.

§ 1. Question as to feudal dependence of the Spanish kingdoms. § 2-4. England. § 5. Magna Charta. § 6. Scotland. § 7. Other tributary kingdoms. § 8. Kingdoms under the protection of St. Peter. § 9. Conduct of the Pope with regard to feudal subjection. Clement V. and Venice. § 10. The losses of Rome in land and power.

§ 1.

It is much to be doubted whether Portugal was ever really in feudal connection with the Apostolic See. Even supposing that Innocent III. had called it a tributary kingdom, and had placed it under his own and St. Peter's protection, still that shows no kind of feudal relation between them; tribute can be paid freely and out of devotion, not necessarily only from a vassal. Neither is it any proof that Innocent IV. appointed a regent to the kingdom, as the appointment can be explained on other legal principles, and in the decree itself there is no mention of feudal relations. As far as Aragon is concerned, we know that Peter II. of Aragon was crowned in 1204 by Inno

VOL. II.

G

cent III., that he made his kingdom subject to the Apostolic See, and paid a yearly tribute. At the same time it is very much disputed whether the tribute and the dependence were of a feudal nature. The oath which the king took at his coronation was only a simple oath of fidelity. The annual tribute might be intended as an expression of the king's religious dependence. The feudal dependence of the King of Aragon was only mentioned by Innocent III. with regard to certain castles.5 After the revolt of the Sicilians against Charles of Anjou, in 1282, Martin IV. excommunicated King Peter III. of Aragon, who had seized the throne, deprived him of both kingdoms, and made over Aragon to Philip the Bold, for one of his sons. Philip accepted it, and sought to make good his right at the head of an army. With regard to Sicily, the Pope acted as lord superior; some historians have asserted that he also acted thus in regard to Aragon; others? deny this. He by no means acted 'as using a divine right,' but appealed mainly to the fact that the King of Aragon was specially bound to fidelity to the Apostolic See. He pronounced those who despised his condemnation to have forfeited all the lands, fiefs, and rights which they derived either from the See of Rome or from any other sees, but not all their possessions in general.10 He thus resisted a revolution, and the deposition of a legitimate prince, with all the weapons left at his command; if in any way he overstepped the limits of moderation, it is open to any one to blame him ; even an' Ultramontane theologian' can do so without danger of offending against a dogma; but in itself this struggle was perfectly just. The feudal relations of the Spanish peninsula with the Roman See only concerned particular places; if they were more extended, it was only for a time and by single rulers.

1 Aug. Barbosa (J. U. D. Lusitanus), de Officio et Potestate Episcopi, P. i. tit. 3, c. ii. n. 64 seq. ed. Romae, 1623: 'Devotionis causa, solum ut tamquam Christi milites devoti et grati sub illius utpote ejusdem vicarii protectione militarent et Maurorum expulsioni et Christianae fidei propagationi incumberent.'

2 Innoc. IV. c. ii. de Suppl. Neglig. Prael. i. 8, in 6.

3 Innoc. Reg. xvi. Ep. 87. Raynald. a. 1204, n. 71, 72. Fleury, t. xvi. 1. lxxvi. n. 10. Thomassin, P. iii. 1. i. c. xxxii. n. 8. Hurter, Innocenz III. i. p. 598.