teresting to recall, for they were simple curates or titulars of the churches of Rome, which, being the principal places of worship, were called the "cardinals," a name which passed in time to those who served them. According to other writers, the word "cardinalis" was used to designate the fixed permanent clergy of any church, those who were so built into it, and necessary to its being, that it might be said to revolve round them, as a door round its pivot. The use of this metaphor dates from the most remote antiquity, so that, for instance, the five Princes of the Philistines were called "axles" or "hinges" of the people. While in the early days of the Church the Bishops were considered much more important than the Cardinals, the prestige of the latter grew when the right of electing the Pontiff was restricted to the members of the Sacred College alone, chiefly in order to prevent the terrible calamities which used to be the consequence of the great number of electors of the Head of the Church-which had caused thirty-two schisms. Nicolas II was the first Pope elected, in 1059, without any popular intervention, and it was he who published the Magna Charta which established the authority of the Sacred College, and decreed that the Pope should preferably be chosen from among the dignitaries of the Eternal City. With this, and with the choice of the Cardinals chiefly among the clergy of Rome, the Divine Selection of the ancient capital of the Latin world as the centre of Christendom was fulfilled. All the same, no one can affirm that the intentions of Nicolas II were carried out, as, after his death, sixty-nine years passed before a Roman sat in the Chair of St. Peter. Hadrian VI of Utrecht was the last foreign Pope and was so disliked by the Romans, because of his austerity and closeness with regard to money, that when he died, in 1523, the following inscription was found on his physician's door, "You are the savior of your country."

Sixtus V, with his famous Bull "Postquam" of 1585, prescribed the number of Cardinals which prevails to this day, ordering that they should never exceed seventy, thus composed: six of episcopal rank, holding the old Roman suburban sees; fifty described as priests, holding a corresponding number of titles or parishes in Rome; and fourteen described as deacons, corresponding to the fourteen "regions" into which the city was divided under Augustus. This again strengthened the opinion

that Pope and Cardinals, if not actually Romans and Italians, should at least reside in the Eternal City. The influences brought to bear on the Popes practically in all times for the augmentation of the number of Non-Italian Cardinals were many and most powerful, including strong pressure from kings and emperors, who thus obtained the privilege of nominating what was called the "Cardinals of the Crown." This privilege was enjoyed by the Emperor of Austria, the Kings of France, Spain, Poland and Portugal, and by the Republic of Venice. Clement XII granted it also, but only once, to James III of England, commonly called the "Old Pretender."

In 1458 the Sacred College implored Pius II not to augment the number of these "privileged " Cardinals and return to the wise habit of choosing Italian prelates, or at least ecclesiastics living in Rome, but the Pontiff did not accede to their request, saying that his honor did not allow him to neglect foreign countries. This view was ratified by the Council of Trent, which expressed the opinion that the Pope should choose the Cardinals, as far as possible, from the whole Christian world. Up to a century ago, one of the greatest objections to so doing was the difficulty of communication and the length of time required for the journey to Rome. There are, in fact, examples of dignitaries who were a long time without knowing that they had been created Cardinals, owing to the difficulty of transmitting the news to them. Indeed, William Macclesfield, the English Dominican professor at Oxford, was created Cardinal in 1303 by Benedict XI, when he was already dead in Louvain, this fact being still unknown in Rome. Another Englishman, William Petow, Bishop of Salisbury, Confessor of Queen Mary, was created Cardinal by Paul IV in 1557, but many believe that he never knew of his promotion, concealed from him by the Queen, because the pontifical brief announcing his exaltation also ordered that the Papal Legate, Cardinal Pole, should be replaced by Petow, which the Sovereign did not wish. Petow died ten months later without having ever worn the purple.

The difficulty of the distance is now almost entirely overcome; indeed, Pius X, in speaking last June to Archbishop Farley, remarked that, "New York, it may be said, is as near Rome as Naples." In fact, while Cardinal McCloskey, at the death of Pius IX, in coming to Rome-accompanied, it is interesting to

note, by the then young Father John Farley-arrived when Leo XIII had been already elected; at the death of the latter, Cardinal Gibbons reached Rome even before the first sitting of the Conclave, and the only member of the Sacred College who did not arrive in time was Cardinal Moran, Archbishop of Sydney. The constantly augmenting facilities for coming to Rome, even from the most distant parts of the globe, do not, however, alter the fact that by Divine Will Rome is the seat of the Catholic Church; in Rome evolves and revolves all the complicated machinery of its organization, and that is yet another reason why the greater number of Cardinals have been, are and must be Italian. When the headquarters of Catholicism were for nearly seventy years at Avignon, for the same reason the greater number of Cardinals were French. Should the prediction of Mr. Stead be fulfilled, and the Papacy to reconquer the empire of the world become Anglo-Saxon and transfer itself to America, then the greater number of Cardinals will be from the United States.

The preponderance of the Italian element in the Sacred College has not, however, prevented illustrious Cardinals of other countries from occupying prominent positions at the helm of the Church. To cite only the most recent examples, it will be sufficient to recall that Cardinal Ledochowski, a Pole, was for a lifetime Prefect of the Congregation of Propaganda under Leo XIII, being thus called the "Red Pope," as the head of that Congregation had then under his jurisdiction by far the larger part of the Catholic world; and Cardinal Merry del Val, a Spaniard, is, and very likely will remain throughout the pontificate of Pius X, his Secretary of State, the position which, if not hierarchically, is de facto the highest and most important of the Holy See.

This would not be complete without answering certain statements which might lead astray American readers not thoroughly acquainted with Roman affairs. It has been pointed out that an American Archbishop settled the Pious Fund controversy with Mexico at the Hague Tribunal; that an American Bishop went to Rome as a member of the Taft Commission, contributing to the result achieved; that another American Bishop acted as arbitrator in the great anthracite coal strike of 1902; and that another illustrious American prelate tried to prevent the Spanish-American war, without any of them being made Cardinal. Had these

ecclesiastics been Italians, it is added, they would have received the Red Hat, as happens when an Italian Bishop persuades the Prince of Monaco not to visit King Victor Emmanuel in Rome, or when another displays great heroism during the cholera epidemic. As the American examples will be generally recognized, it will undoubtedly be thought that the Italian examples also refer to prelates who have really been raised to the purple under the alleged circumstances. It will, therefore, be well to have it known that the Prince of Monaco was to come to Rome as a guest of the King last year, to which the Vatican objected, as, since the loss of the Temporal Power, the Popes have prohibited all Catholic sovereigns and rulers from visiting the King of Italy in his capital. The Prince of Monaco, alleging indisposition, abandoned the idea of going to the Eternal City, but no one has ever known that any prelate had any share in his decision, and even if it were so the asserted reward of the Red Hat has never been given, as, since that time, no Consistory has been held and no Cardinal created.

As to the cholera epidemic, the most important one was that in 1884 in Naples, when the deaths amounted to a thousand a day, and King Humbert and the Archbishop of the city met side by side to tend and comfort the dying, giving one of the most sublime examples of civic heroism. That Archbishop was Sanfelice di Acquavella, a Benedictine and a Cardinal; but the Red Hat had already been conferred upon him in the Consistory of March, 1884, several months before the cholera broke out. No other prelate, either then or on similar occasions, has entered the Sacred College for services rendered on the occasion of an epidemic. During the last earthquake disaster in Sicily and Calabria, few men distinguished themselves as did Monsignor d'Arrigo, Archbishop of Messina, or Monsignor Morabito, Bishop of Mileto, in the province of Reggio, but it has not been hinted that there is the least probability of their being rewarded for their labors with the supreme dignity. of the Catholic hierarchy. It would be considered here almost the same as though it were said that all the naval and military officers who distinguished themselves there would be promoted admirals and generals. In conclusion, it would be absurd to expect that an institution, the central seat of which is so important as that of the Holy See, should not recruit the larger number of the members of its Senate from among Italians when Rome is its inevitable headquarters,

and there is no justifiable claim as to the appointment of Cardinals, either in Italy or elsewhere, while certain insistencies are only liable to produce the contrary effect. It is reported that the chances of certain American prelates to receive the muchcoveted honor were spoiled by some of their too zealous friends, one of whom, for instance, an official of the Government, and, which aggravated his action, a Catholic, went to Rome and positively declared to the Vatican that, interpreting the desire of the then President of the United States, he would not leave the Eternal City until he had in his hands the Red Hat to carry himself to the American candidate, whose position, character and elevation of mind were worthy of a wiser advocate, and who might well have quoted the proverb, "From my enemies I can deliver myself, but may Providence protect me from my friends."

The Papacy, through traditions and conventions, has pledged herself to the appointment of certain Cardinals in Europe, but has no desire to commit herself to this inconvenient practice in new countries, and that is why a Cardinal in New York was followed by one in Baltimore.

It must finally be considered that, with the exception of a few Cardinals intrusted in Rome with certain important offices like the Secretaryship of State, the Prefecture of Propaganda, the six suburban episcopal sees, the Chancellorship of the Church, etc., most of the other Cardinals, beyond being electors in the case of the vacant pontifical see, are much less important in power, prestige, influence and economic position than several Archbishops and some Bishops of the United States. While the Cardinalate would practically add nothing, except the satisfaction of some ambitious feeling, to some powerful Archbishops, like those of New York and Chicago, what the United States really needs is a Cardinal of theirs residing in Rome to interpret American opinions, methods and aims to the head of the Church. Of course if any of the American Archbishops were ordered to such a post, their admirable sense of duty and unflinching spirit of discipline would lead them to accept it, but no one of them would willingly leave their position in America to become a secondary member of the Sacred College in Rome. There could be no better demonstration of the superiority of an American Archbishop to an ordinary wearer of the purple in the Eternal City.

SALVATORE CORTESI.