SEDE VACANTE 1799-1800
(August 29,1799 — March 14, 1800)
Charles van Duerm, SJ, Un peu plus de lumiere sur le Conclave de Venise et sur les commencements du Pontificat de Pie VII. 1799-1800 (Louvain: Ch. Peeters 1896), pp. 185-186:
Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord, French Foreign Minister
to the Spanish Ambassador in Paris, the Marquis de Muzquiz
(February 18, 1800)
J'ai cru important, M. l'ambassadeur, de vous faire part de quelques réflexions sur un événement prochain qui peut, sous plusieurs rapports, intéresser l' Espagne et la Republique française. L' élection d'un successeur de Pie VI va être faite à Venise sous l'influence absolue de la Maison d'Autriche et par les cardinaux des pays soumis aujourd'hui à sa domination. Plusieurs circonstances se réunissent pour rendre cette élection illégale et irregulière. Il est facile et peu nécessaire de relever ici tous les motifs qui infirment les opérations de ce conclave, d'après les principes qui sur ce point sont une autorité sacrée: le défaut de concours des cardinaux de toutes les Puissances catholiques; la participation étrangère des deux gouvernements non catholiques de Petersbourg et de Londres: la transgression manifeste des formes et des usages adoptés dans les conclaves qui se tenaient à Rome. D' ailleurs il y a lieu de présumer qu'en s'occupant de l'élection d'un nouveau pontife, les Puissances coalisées qui y concourent exclusivement, auront préjugé des questions dont l'examen ultérieur et la décision définitive importent egalement à la France et à l'Espagne: telle est par exemple la détermination future de la dotation territoriale ou autre du nouveau pontife; tel encore le sort eventuel de cette partie de l'Italie qui formait le Domaine du pape. Quand l'élection sera faite, elle sera sans doute notifiée au roi d' Espagne. Le Premier Consul me charge, M. l'ambassadeur, de vous déclarer que dans son opinion il est de l'intérêt des deux pays, et dans le sens des obligations de l'alliance qui les unit, que S. M. Catholique refuse son adhésion actuelle à son élection, se réservant de l' approuver ou de l'improuver a l'avenir, et faisant porter son refus de la reconnaître sur les irrégularités de la formation et des opérations du prétendu conclave de Venise.
Alfred Boulay de la Meurthe (editor), Documents sur la négociation du Concordat et sur les autres rapports de la France avec le Saint-Siège in 1800 et 1801 Tome premier (Paris 1891), p. 2, no. 1.
Talleyrand had been Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Directory from July 16, 1797, but he was suddenly dismissed on July 20, 1799. He returned to office under the Consulate on November 22, 1799. It was in his first term as Minister of Foreign Affairs that Rome was captured and Pius VI deported, first to Florence, and then, when Florence was seized and Ferdinand III deposed, to France itself. The documents which could expose Talleyrand's role in these affairs are, of course, no longer extant.
Talleyrand was acting on February 18, 1800, obviously, at the direction of Napoleon [cf. Napoleon's usual method in his letter of February 16, 1800, to Admiral Mazarredo: Correspondence de Napoléon Ier Tome VI (Paris 1860), no. 4598, p. 170]. With his help Napoleon had overthrown the previous French government, the Directorate, which (under Napoleon's generalship) had seized the Po Valley, established the "Cisalpine Republic" on land which was partially Church territory ('the three Legations'), captured Rome, established a "Roman Republic", arrested and deported the Pope to France. Their concern for the Conclave was false, and based on political and military concerns. Napoleon was preparing for his invasion of the Po Valley in the Spring, a few weeks away, and he wished to throw confusion into his enemies.
Talleyrand was wrong about the illegality or uncanonical nature of the Conclave at Venice. Pope Pius VI had considered the likelihood that Rome would be under foreign occupation when he died and he gave instructions for the holding of a Conclave outside Rome in his Constitution Quum Nos, superiore anno [Bullarii Romani Continuatio VI. 3, no. MCLII, pp. 3097-3101]. The reference to the two non-Catholic powers "participating" in the Conclave denotes Great Britain and Russia, France's two enemies in the First Coalition; the French objection is obviously political. Neither power participated. As to the participation of France, when the death of Pius VI became known, the Sacred College of Cardinals gave official notification to King Louis XVIII, who was living in exile in Mittau, not to the Directory or to the First Consul [Charles Antoine Ricard (editor), Correspondence diplomatique et mémoires inédits du Cardinal Maury (1792-1817) (Lille 1891) I, 225]. There was no question as to which was the legitimate ruler of France, according to the Cardinals.
Pope Pius VI had died in France in August, and the French had plenty of time to lodge protests and send their cardinals to a Conclave. The date of Talleyrand's letter, February 18, 1800, shows this clearly; the Conclave had been in progress for eleven weeks, and it had not begun until fourteen weeks after the death of Pope Pius VI. The French cardinals, however, were scattered, in exile because of their opposition to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Rochefoucald was 87, and living in exile in Münster, no friend of the French Republic. Laval-Montmorency was 75, and living in exile at Altona. Rohan was 65, and had fled from Strasbourg; he was living in exile at Ettenheim, part of his estates in German territory. Even Johann von Frankenberg of Mechlin was forced into exile by French forces and lived in exile in the diocese of Münster. All were in difficult financial circumstances, having lost their benefices, and having chosen to spend the funds they did have in supporting fellow exiled French priests. The French Cardinals were no friends of either the Directory or of the Consulate. To complain about the French cardinals not participating in the Conclave at Venice is to complain falsely. And in any case, one French Cardinal was participating, though he was an obedient subject of King Louis XVIII, not of General Bonaparte.
Talleyrand seems unaware that a Spanish cardinal was participating in the Conclave, Cardinal Lorenzana, and that the Spanish government was actively interested in the outcome [below]. A formal veto (exclusiva) of Cardinal Mattei, the Imperial candidate, had been authorized.
Napoleon had been in Egypt in 1798 and 1799; he left the Eastern Mediterranean to return home on August 24, 1799, and reached Fréjus on October 9; he was in Paris on October 16. On November 9, 1799, he and his associates, led by Abbe Sièyes and Talleyrand, overthrew the Directory, which had ruled France for four years. This was the famous "18 Brumaire". Napoleon had himself named "First Consul" and immediately set about rewriting a draft constitution (originally prepared by Abbe Sièyes) which would give him extensive powers. His interest in affairs in Venice could have been nothing more than peripheral [J. Orieux, Talleyrand, pp. 248-272].
On May 14, 1800, Napoleon was at Lausanne. On May 21, 1800, he had reached Aosta; on the 27th he was in Ivrea; on the 28th at Chivasso; on the 30th at Vercellae; at Novara on June 1; and on the 2nd at Milan. On June 10 he was at Pavia, crossed the Po, and reached Stradella. The Battle of Morengo took place on June 14, 1800. [Correspondence de Napoléon Ier Tome VI (Paris 1860), 344-456]. Louis Adolphe Thiers, History of the Consulate and the Empire of France Vol. I (translated by D. Forbes Campbell and John Stebbing) (London: Chatto & Windus 1893), 195-272.
Alfred Boulay de la Meurthe (editor), Documents sur la négociation du Concordat et sur les autres rapports de la France avec le Saint-Siège in 1800 et 1801 Tome premier (Paris 1891), p. 3, no. 2:
The Spanish Minister de Urquijo to the Marquis de Muzquiz
(March 15, 1800)
Ha dado cuenta al Ray N.S. del contenido de la nota del ciudadano Talleyrand relativa á la proxima eleccion de un sucesor del papa Pio VI, que V. E. me incluye en su carta de 27 de febrero último no. 36, y hecho cargo de todo me manda expresar á V.E., que habiéndose hecho el cónclave con todas las formalidades acostumbradas, con presencia de un cardenal español, que ha asistido prévio el permiso de Su Magestad y con las instrucciones que tenia dadas para asegurarse de su libertad en la eleccion, no puede el Rey ni en conciencia ni en politica dejar de reconocer al papa que se nombre, tanto mas que se vé y sabe que la córte de Viena ha cedido de su obstinacion y dado las instrucciones necesarias para que los cardenales nombren á quien gusten. Asi puede expresarlo V. E. á ese gobierno en conferencias verbales, presentando copiada la nota cuya minuta incluyo en respuesta á la de ese ministro de relaciones exteriores.
On Urquijo see Biographie universelle XII (1834), p. 238, s.v. "Urquijo (Don Mariano-Luis de)". Memorias de Don Manuel de Godoy Tomo tercero (Paris 1839), 44-64.
