Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:43:38.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Holy see and the Question of the Bishop-Elect of Rio, 1833-1839*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Manoel Cardozo
Manoel Cardozo*
Affiliation:
The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On march 22, 1833, the regency of Brazil in the name of the emperor, by virtue of the privileges of ecclesiastical patronage which the crown enjoyed, appointed Dr. Antônio Maria de Moura to the See of Rio de Janeiro, vacant since the death of the eighth bishop, Dom José Caetano da Silva Coutinho, on January 27, 1833. In accordance with the usual practice, the regency petitioned Pope Gregory XVI on April 30 of the same year to confirm the appointment by sending the appropriate bulls of institution without which (since collation is effected solely by institution of the Roman Pontiff) the bishop-elect could not be consecrated and enthroned and, in the case of Brazil, could not exercise jurisdiction over the diocese or administer it. When Gregory refused to confirm Dr. Moura, for reasons which will later be made clear, the Imperial Government and the Holy See became involved in a dispute more bitter and prolonged than any of the many disputes between the two powers that characterize the history of the church-state relationship in Brazil from the proclamation of the independence of the country in 1822 to the abrogation of the union and the renunciation of patronage by the government in 1890.

Type
Articles
Information
The Americas , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , April 1954 , pp. 3 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to my colleagues of The Catholic University of America, Monsignor Edward G. Roelker and Dr. J. Craig La Drière, for their courtesy in reading the manuscript. Needless to say, they are not to be held responsible for any errors that may appear in the text. I am also grateful to Mr. Robert H. Haynes, assistant librarian of the Harvard College Library, and to Mrs. Consuelo G. Talkington, of the Library of Congress, for bibliographical assistance.

References

1 See Thornton, Mary Crescentia, The Church and Freemasonry in Brazil, 1872-1875: A Study in Regalism (Washington, D. C., 1948), chap. IIIGoogle Scholar; and Santini, Cândido, De Regio lure Patronatus in Brasilia: Perquisitio historico-juridica in praefati Iuris originem et specificam naturam (1514-1890) (Porto Alegre, 1934)Google Scholar.

2 Trindade, Raimundo, Instituições de igrejas no bispado de Mariana, Serviço do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional, N° 13 (Rio de Janeiro, 1945), p. 25 Google Scholar; Diario do Governo (Rio de Janeiro), March 28, 1833; and Cândido Mendes de Almeida, Direito civil ecclesiastico brazileiro antigo e moderno… (Rio de Janeiro, 1866), I, 2a parte, 562.

3 Augusto Vitorino Alves Sacramento Blake, Diccionario bibliographico brazileiro; IV (Rio de Janeiro, 1898), 358.

4 The original is in the Vatican Archive, Secretariat of State, rubrica 251. (The papers of the Secretariat of State will hereafter be cited as rubrica 251.) It is published in Trindade, op. cit., pp. 25-26.

5 The Brazilian government subsequently appointed a commission to examine the extent of the authority of the bishops-elect in Brazil. The commission decided that such persons could not administer their churches before receiving the bulls of confirmation from the Holy See. If, however, they were canonically elected, they might licitly be named vicars capitulars, administrators (“Governadores”) of their bishoprics, when the necessity and utility of the churches involved demanded it. See Parecer de huma commissão nomeada pelo governo, demonstrando tres theses de direito publico ecclesiastico braziliense (Rio de Janeiro, 1837), p. 16.

6 The Moura question has been treated at considerable length by Jerônimo de Avellar Figueira de Mello, “Dissídio entre Feijó e a Santa Sé … contribuição para a sua história diplomática,” Revista do lnstituto Histórico e Geográfico Brasileiro, Anais do Segundo Congresso de História Nacional, II (Rio de Janeiro, 1942), 91-198; João Pandiá Calógeras, Da Regencia á Quéda de Rozas, vol. III of A Politica Exterior do Imperio, Brasiliana, vol. 25 (São Paulo, 1933), chap. IV; Thornton, op. cit., pp. 76-88; and João Dornas Filho, O Padroado e a Igreja Brasileira, Brasiliana, vol. 125 (São Paulo, 1938?), pp. 72-106. Figueira de Mello’s study is based on materials in the archive of the Brazilian Embassy to the Holy See. There are references to the question in the works of such authors as E. Vilhena de Moraes, Basílio de Magalhães, Manuel Tavares Cavalcanti, and Cândido Mendes de Almeida. The best contemporary account, as far as it goes, is Reflexões imparciaes sobre a falla do trono e as respostas das camaras legislativas de 1836, na parte relativa ao bispo eleito d’esta diocese e á Santa Sé Apostolica (Rio de Janeiro, 1837). There are brief and interesting observations on the question by Alexandre José da Silva de Almeida Garrett, the translator of José Ignacio Moreno’s work which appeared in Oporto in 1843 under the title of Ensaio sobre a supremacia do papa, especialmente a respeito da instituição dos bispos, pp. XIV-XV. I do not know whether or not Cândido Santini’s dissertation at the Gregorian University, a small part of which has been published (see note 1), has appeared in extenso. My own study is to a large extent based on materials in the Vatican Archive which, to my knowledge, have never been used before. The occasional references to the Moura question in the State Department Despatches in the National Archives, Washington, D. C., are of little use.

7 “Brasile. Nomina del Canonico D. Antonio Maria de Moura alla Chiesa del Rio Janeiro,” 1833, rubrica 251.

8 Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, Session 164, Rome, October 11, 1835, rubrica 251. This document will hereafter be cited as sess. 164. There are numerous other references to Moura’s ordination in the papers of the Vatican Archive that deal with his case.

9 “Estudantes da Universidade de Coimbra nascidos no Brasil,” Brasilia, IV, supplement (Coimbra, 1949), 423-424.

10 de Magalhães, Basílio, Etsudos de História do Brasil, Brasiliana, vol. 171 (São Paulo, 1940), p. 100 Google Scholar, note. Other biographical data is given in José Joaquim da Rocha to Cardinal Bernetti, Rome, December 16, 1834, rubrica 251. Some authorities say he joined the faculty of the Law School in 1828.

11 See inter alia Fabbrini to Bernetti, Rio, March 26, 1833, N° 295, Brasile 228, rubrica 251.

12 The projects described below were published by the Tipografia Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, 1831.

13 Causa da religião e disciplina ecclesiastica do celibato clerical. Defendida da inconstitucional tentativa do Padre Diogo Antonio Feijó (Rio de Janeiro, 1828), p. 12; Magalhães, op. cit., p. 93.

14 The publication of these three proposed bills, particularly the one on matrimony, provoked heated discussion in and out of Parliament. See especially Dom Romualdo Antônio de Seixas, Archbishop of Bahia, “Representação Dirigida á assembléa Geral Legislativa, sobre hum Projecto de Lei, relativo aos Impedimentos, e Causas Matrimoniaes,” Bahia, July 20, 1832, in his Collecção das Obras, II (Recife, 1839), 277-303. The recommendations of the commission were never approved by the chamber of deputies.

15 The Ministry of Justice also had charge of ecclesiastical affairs.

16 Anais da Câmara, 1832, I, 41-43.

17 Ibid., p. 43.

18 Seixas, op. cit., pp. 277-303.

19 Fabbrini to Bernetti, Rio, March 26, 1833, doc. cit.

20 Fabbrini to Bernetti, Rio, April 3, 1833, N° 297, Brasile 228, rubrica 251.

21 See above, p. 3.

22 Fabbrini to Bernetti, Rio, May 3, 1833, N» 301, Brasile 232, rubrica 251.

23 Ibid. Moutinho took Moura’s process to the Cardinal Secretary of State on August 28, 1833. Calógeras, op. cit., p. 133.

24 The material used above has been taken from the memorandum, “Vertenza fra la S. Sede ed il Governo del Brasile sulla nomina del Canonico de Moura alla Chiesa di Rio Janeiro,” sent by the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs on October 6, 1835, to Cardinals De Gregorio Odescalchi, Giustiniani, and Bernetti, rubrica 251. Hereafter cited as Vertenza. See also Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 97 et seq.

25 Bernetti to Fabbrini, Rome, September 14, 1833, rubrica 251, rough draft marked “urgente” and “Confidenziale.”

26 Moutinho to Bernetti, Rome, September 16, 1833, N° 6806, rubrica 251; Moutinho to Bento da Silva Lisboa, the Brazilian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rome, September 27, 1833, in Antônio Augusto de Aguiar, Vida do Marquez de Barbacena (Rio de Janeiro, 1896), pp. 897-898. Moutinho to Bernetti is also transcribed in Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 99 et seq.

27 Moutinho to Lisboa, doc. cit.

28 Ibid.

29 Moutinho in this regard was obviously misinformed. The marriage law had in fact been discussed for the first time in the chamber of deputies on May 25, 1832.

30 Moutinho’s memorandum on his audience with the pope was enclosed in Moutinho to Lisboa, doc. cit.

31 See Vertenza; Moutinho de Bernetti, Rome, October 13, 1833, Moura 24, rubrica 251; and Figueira de Mello, op. cit., p. 103.

33 Ibid.

33 Moutinho to Bernetti, Rome, October 13, 1833, doc. cit. The document is published by Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 103-104.

34 Bernetti to Moutinho, Rome, October 22, 1833, N° 8190, rubrica 251. It is published, in Portuguese translation, by Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 104-105.

35 Bernetti to Fabbrini, Rome, October 22, 1833, N° 8190, rubrica 251.

36 Aureliano de Sousa e Oliveira Coutinho, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to José Joaquim da Rocha, Brazilian Minister to Rome, Rio, February 28, 1834, in Aguiar, op. cit., p. 902.

37 See Raúl Adalberto de Campos, Relações diplomaticas do Brasil Contendo os nomes dos Representantes Diplomaticos do Brasil no estrangeiro e os dos Representantes Diplomaticos dos diversos paizes no Rio de Janeiro de 1808 a 1912 (Rio de Janeiro, 1913), pp. 55, 103.

38 Aguiar, op. cit., pp. 902-904. The government’s threat to have Moura consecrated in Brazil without the approval of the Holy Father led to the publication of two pamphlets in defense of the supremacy of the Roman See (1) Da incompetencia do Concilio National para estabelecer hum novo modo de instituiçaõ canonica dos bispos, sem a intervenção do papa, memoria Traduzida do Francez, o Amigo da Religião, e do Rei, N.° 291, tom. 12. Aos Ex.mos e R.mos Srs. Prelados do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro, 1835); and (2) Memoria sobre o direito da primazia do soberano pontifice romano, quanto a confirmação e instituição canonica de todas os bispos. Traduzida do francez (Rio de Janeiro, 1837).

39 Calógeras, op. cit., p. 136. Moutinho remained in Rome until July. See Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 105-106.

40 See Vertenza and sess. 164.

41 As early as October 10, 1823, according to Eugênio Egas, Diogo Antonio Feijó (Estudo) (São Paulo, 1912), p. 42.

42 Anais da Câmara, 1827, V, 11.

43 Ibid., p. 24.

44 Luiz Gonçalves dos Santos, O celibato clerical, e religioso defendido Dos golpes da Impiedade, e da Libertinagem dos Correspondentes da Astréa. Com hum appendice sobre o voto separado do senhor deputado Feijó (Lisboa, 1830), p. 93. The work was first published in Rio in 1827. Astréa was a Masonic publication.

45 Anais da Câmara, 1827, V, 115 et seq.

46 Ibid., p. 120.

47 See Santos, op. cit., passim.

48 Ibid., pp. 3-58.

49 Reprinted in Eugênio Egas, Diogo Antonio Feijó (Documentor) (São Paulo, 1912), pp. 157-173. It is also reproduced in Santos, op. cit., pp. 59-85.

50 It was reissued in São Paulo in 1887. It is also published in Egas, Documentos, pp. 98-156. His work was based on José Manoel da Veiga’s Memoria sobre o Celibato Clerical (Coimbra, 1822) according to Causa da religião e disciplina ecclesiastica do celibato clerical, p. 96.

51 Anais da Câmara, 1828, IV, 250.

52 Memorias do marquez de Santa Cruz, arcebispo da Bahia D. Romualdo Antonio de Seixas, metropolitano e primaz do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro, 1861), p. 83. Hereafter cited as Memorias.

53 See Calógeras, op. cit., p. 128.

54 See Dornas Filho, op. cit., pp. 68-69.

55 A copy of Moura’s letter is in rubrica 251.

56 Magalhães, op. cit., pp. 98-99.

57 Ibid., pp. 99-100.

58 “Resposta A hum Aviso do Excellentissimo Ministro da Justiça, exigindo o seu parecer sobre a questão do Celibato, suscitada em S Paulo,” Rio de Janeiro, June 14, 1834, in Seixas, op. cit., II, 349-370.

59 Memorias, p. 84.

60 Anais da Câmara, 1834, I, 144-147.

61 Dated September 24, 1834. Seixas, op. cit., II, 373-403.

62 The pope, delighted with the archbishop’s defense, sent him a brief of congratulations. Memorias, pp. 84-85.

63 Rocha to Bernetti, Rome, December 16, 1834, N° 24, rubrica 251. The document is published by Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 108-110.

64 Vertenza.

65 Rocha to Capaccini, Rome, December 17, 1834, rubrica 251.

66 Vertenza.

67 The Holy See’s sympathy for the regency in its internal difficulties was communicated verbally to Rocha in reply to his private letter of December 27, 1834. Sess. 164.

68 Vertenza; sess. 164.

69 Bernetti to Rocha, Rome, February 16, 1835, rubrica 251. The letter was signed for the cardinal by F. Capaccini. See translation of text as given in Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 111-112.

70 Ibid.

71 Bernetti to Fabbrini, Rome, February 16, 1835, draft, rubrica 251. See also Vertenza.

72 An undated draft of the declaration is in rubrica 251.

73 Rocha to Bernetti, Rome, February 21, 1835, Moura 24, rubrica 251. The text of this quotation varies slightly from the one which appears in Figueira de Mello, op. cit., p. 115.

74 Vertenza; sess. 164.

75 Sess. 164.

76 See Calógeras, op. cit., p. 136.

77 Campos, op. cit., p. 103.

78 See Aguiar, op. cit., p 904. Manoel Alves Branco was then Minister of Foreign Affairs.

79 It is hardly necessary to say that the regency learned of the proposed declaration even before Fabbrini received it in Rio on June 3, 1835. See sess. 164.

80 Ferretti to Bernetti, Naples, May 9, 1835, rubrica 251.

81 Calógeras, op. cit., p. 137. The subject was broached by the Holy Father. See Drummond’s dispatch to Rio of June 3, 1835, in Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 118-119.

82 Vertenza.

83 Sess. 164.

84 Vertenza, N° 31, says that the declaration was sent with the dispatch of February 22.

85 Sess. 164.

86 Anais da câmara, 1835, I, 136.

87 Ibid., p. 168.

88 Ibid., p. 155. See also Fabbrini to Bernetti, Rio de Janeiro, June 20, 1835, N» 434, rubrica 251.

89 Vertenza, N<> 31.

90 Fabbrini to Bernetti, Rio de Janeiro, June 20, 1835, N° 435, rubrica 251.

91 Ibid.

92 Bernetti to Fabbrini, Rome, June 13, 1835, draft, rubrica 251. See also Vertenza. The developments in Rio were mentioned in the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ dispatch to Drummond of June 15, 1835, received in Rome on September 16. See Drummond to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Manoel Alves Branco), Rome, September 17, 1835, in Figueira de Mello, op. cit., p. 121.

93 Archbishop of Calcedonia to Bernetti, Rome, June 13, 1835, Moura 24, rubrica 251. See also Vertenza.

94 Doc. cit.

95 Archbishop of Calcedonia to Bernetti, doc. cit.

96 Capaccini to Drummond, Rome, June 14, 1835, rubrica 251. Bernetti wrote to Fabbrini in this connection on June 13, 1835, doc. cit., enclosing a copy of the revised declaration. Capaccini in his letter of June 14, doc. cit., asked Drummond himself to forward Bernetti’s dispatch to Fabbrini, which Drummond agreed to do. On June 14, in a note to Monsignor Capaccini (rubrica 251), the Brazilian chargé said: “… votre paquet adressé à Monsieur le Chargé d’Affaires du Saint Siège près de la Cour du Brésil, partira demain pour sa destination.…”

97 Vertenza; sess. 164.

98 Drummond to Bernetti, Rome, August 26, 1834, Moura 25, rubrica 251.

99 Vertenza, N° 29.

100 See above, p. 30. Drummond first learned of the letter from Monsignor Frezza, on September 7, 1835. See Drummond to Alves Branco, Rome, September 17, 1835, in Figueira de Mello, op. cit., p. 120.

101 Drummond to Capaccini, Rome, September 8, 1835, rubrica 251.

102 The draft of a reply to Drummond appears on the back of Drummond’s letter of September 8, ibid.

103 Sess. 164.

104 Vertenza, N° 34.

105 Drummond to Alves Branco, Rome, September 17, 1835, doc. cit., p. 121.

106 Ibid., p. 122.

107 Ibid., p. 123.

108 Vertenza, N° 35.

109 The ultimatum is published in Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 125-131. In Vertenza, Nos. 37-38, the note is given in Italian translation.

110 Amis da Câmara, 1837, I, 94. See also Thornton, op. cit., pp. 84-85.

111 In 1835 the Brazilian Minister of Foreign Affairs wanted the Holy Father to remove Fabbrini from Rio de Janeiro. Calógeras, op. cit., p. 137.

112 Sess. 164.

113 Ibid.

114 Ferretti to Bernerti, doc. cit.

115 See Feijó’s letter to the Archbishop of Bahia, Rio de Janeiro, June 4, 1832, in Seixas, op. cit., II, 259.

116 Ibid., p. 300.

117 “A l’avant-garde des mauvais prêtes qui s’étaient vendus à l’Empire pour combattre Rome, et qui commencèrent leur carrière en entrant dans la franc-maçonerie, mérite d’être mentionées: Diago Feijo, Miguel José Reinaut, Monseigneur Pizarro, Chanoine Ianuario da Cunha Barbosa, Antonio da Rocha Franco, José Custodio Dias et José Bento Leite Ferreira de Mello.” F. Badaró, L’Eglise au Brésil pendant l’empire et pendant la république (Roma, 1895), p. 36. I have respected the author’s typographical errors.

118 For regalism in Brazil see especially Thornton, op. cit., chaps. I-II.

119 For the life of Feijó see Egas, Estudos; Octávio Tarquínio de Sousa, Diogo Antônio Feijó (Rio de Janeiro, 1942); and Luís Castanho de Almeida, O sacerdote Diogo Antônio Feijó (Petrópolis, 1951). See also Thornton, op. cit., pp. 68 et seq.

120 For these details see Raimundo Trindade, Archidiocese de Marianna subsidios para a sua historia (São Paulo, 1928), I, 368, and the same author’s Instituições de igrejas no bispado de Mariana, fully cited above, p. 3.

121 Memorias, p. 100.

122 Fabbrini to Bernetti, Rio de Janeiro, August 3, 1833, N° 315, Brasile 242, rubrica 251.

123 Ibid.

124 The speech was printed by the Typographia Nacional of Rio de Janeiro in 1832. The above quotations are taken from page 5. The speech itself does not appear in the Anais da câmara for 1832.

125 Kidder, Daniel P., Sketches of residence and travels in Brazil, embracing historical and geographical notices of the empire and its provinces (Philadelphia, 1845), I, 299.Google Scholar

126 Memorias, p. 100. In his dispatch N° 27 to the Secretary of State, dated Rio de Janeiro, October 12, 1835, William Hunter, the American chargé d’affaires, referred to Feijó’s election as regent and referred also to Feijó’s religious ideas. Feijó, according to Hunter, denied or had denied the necessity of the intervention of the Roman See in the confirmation of bishops, and opposed clerical celibacy. Hunter wrote: “… my prediction is, that sooner or later a religious question may be that on which are to be suspended the destinies of Brazil.”

127 Ibid., p. 93.

128 The instructions are transcribed in Aguiar, op. cit., p. 891.

129 Anais da Câmara, 1836, II, 220-221.

130 Memorias, p. 101.

131 Ibid., p. 101.

132 Dom Romualdo Antônio de Seixas to Diogo Antônio Feijó, Bahia, June 28, 1832, in Seixas, op. cit., II, 261-262.

133 Aguiar, op. cit., p. 891.

134 Ibid., p. 907.

135 Ibid., pp. 916-918, where the dispatch is transcribed.

136 Ibid., pp. 930-932, where the dispatch is transcribed.

137 Pontois to Broglie, Rio de Janeiro, January 11, 1836, rubrica 251. Figueira de Mello, op. cit., p. 133, says that Rome asked France to intervene.

138 Garibaldi’s letter, without any indication of the addressee, is in rubrica 251.

139 Pontois to Broglie, doc. cit.

140 See Garibaldi to Lambruschini, Paris, April 1, 1836, rubrica 251.

141 The suspension of the recourse to Rome in spiritual matters is mentioned by Seixas, op. cit., II, 317.

142 The letter is transcribed in Aguiar, op. cit., pp. 935-936. For an account of Drummond’s negotiations after he left Rome the first time see Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 133 et seq.

143 de Azevedo, M. D. Moreira, Historia patria o Brazil de 1831 a 1840 (Rio de Janeiro, 1884), p. 237.Google Scholar

144 Egas, Estudo, pp. 206-207.

145 No mention of the difficulties as such appears in the reports of 1833, 1834 and 1835 of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have not seen the report for 1836.

146 Relatorlo da repartição dos negocios da justiça apresentado á assembléa geral legislativa na sessão ordinaria de 1836, pelo respectivo ministro e secretario de Estado Antonio Paulino Limpo de Abreu (Rio de Janeiro, 1836), pp. 38-40.

147 Fallas do throno desde o anno de 1823 até o anno de 1812 accompanhadas dos respectivos votos de graças da camara temporaria e de differentes informações e esclarecimentos colligidas na secretaria da camara dos Srs. Deputados (Rio de Janeiro, 1872), p. 248.

148 Ibid., pp. 251-252.

149 Reflexões imparciaes, p. 67.

150 Anais da Câmara, 1836, II, 34-35.

151 Dom Romualdo Antônio de Seixas, in his Memorias, p. 97, writes that it was brought out at the discussion of the Fala do Trono that Fabbrini had discovered the plagiarism. Vasconcelos’ speech is summarized only in the Anais. From a comparison of the two documents, as published side by side in Reflexões imparciaes, p. 23, it is clear the writer of the Brazilians note had Strangford’s note of August 11, 1823, as published in Henri Meisel’s Cours de style diplomatique (Paris, 1826), II, 191-201, before him when he wrote the ultimatum to the Holy See. See Thornton, op. cit., pp. 82-83.

152 See Campos, op. cit., p. 103.

153 Relatorio da repartição dos negocios da justiça apresentado á assembléa geral legislativa na sessão ordinaria de 183.1, pelo respectivo ministro e secretario de Estado Gustavo Adolfo de Aguilar Pantoja (Rio de Janeiro, 1837).

154 Ibid. Cf. Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 133 et seq.

155 Campos, op cit., p. 103. For a fuller account of Drummond’s subsequent activities see Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 143 et seq.

156 See the speech by Andrada Machado in the chamber of deputies, May 25, 1839, Anais da câmara, 1839, I, 157.

157 See Thornton, op. cit., p. 67.

158 Anais da câmara, 1827, II, 128.

159 Ibid., III, 131.

160 Ibid., p. 132.

161 Ibid., pp. 136-137.

162 Ibid., p. 137.

163 Ibid., p. 146.

164 Ibid., pp. 146-147, session of July 13.

165 Nabuco, Joaquim, Um estadista do imperio Nabuco de Araujo sua vida suas opiniões, sua época (Rio de Janeiro, 1900), I, 317-318.Google Scholar

166 Ibid., p. 318.

167 Sessions of the chamber of deputies of May 27 and 28, 1839, Anais da câmara, 1839, I, 174-175, 184, 192, 195.

168 Nabuco, op. cit., p. 38.

169 Memorias, p. 109.

170 Relatorio da repartição dos negocios da justiça apresentado á assembléa geral legislativa na sessão ordinaria de 1838 pelo respectivo ministro e secretario de estado Bernardo Pereira de Vasconcellos (Rio de Janeiro, 1838), p 19.

171 Dornas Filho, op. cit., p. 103.

172 Memorias, p. 110.

173 Ibid.

174 Speech by Andrada Machado in the chamber of deputies, May 25, 1839, Amis da câmara, 1839,1, 157. Macedo’s negotiations are treated at length by Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 145 et seq.

175 The Dublin Review, in its issue of July, 1838 (apud Thornton, op. cit., p. 77), stated the issue nicely when it said that the regency “seemed determined from the beginning to make this a trial of strength between the civil and ecclesiastical powers, and to see how far it would be possible to make the latter sacrifice its scruples, and even its principles, to the desire of preserving good understanding with the former.”

176 Dornas Filho, op. cit., pp. 104-105. Moura’s letter was first published in the Aurora Fluminense (Rio de Janeiro), May 31, 1839.

177 Sacramento Blake, op. cit., VI, 164.

178 Fallas do throno, p. 283.

179 Sacramento Blake, op. cit., VI, 164, says that he was preconized on December 13. According to Sisson, S. A., Galeria dos brasileiros illustres (os contemporaneos) retratos dos homens mais illustres do Brasil, na politica, sciencias e letras desde a guerra da mdependencia até os nossos dias copiados do natural e lithographados (Rio de Janeiro, 1861), I, 26.Google Scholar Figueira de Mello, op. cit., p. 175, says that he was proclaimed bishop at the secret consistory of December 23.

180 Anais da Câmara, 1839,1, 172-173.

181 Anais do Senado, 1839, I, 299, session of June 5.

182 Ibid., p. 314.

183 Ibid.

184 Speech of June 10, 1839, ibid., p. 334.

185 Ibid., pp. 334-335.

186 Ibid, p. 335. Feijó’s speech was known in Rome through a copy of O Despertador Commercial e Politico which published it on June 11, 1839.

187 Ibid., pp. 345-347, session of June 10. Vasconcelos’ speech was also known in Rome from a copy of O Despertador Commercial e Politico of Rio de Janeiro of June 12, 1839.

188 Anais do Senado, 1839, I, 361-364. The speech was published in O Despertador Commercial e Politico of Rio de Janeiro on June 12, 1839. Alves Branco, according to William Hunter, the American charge d’affaires in Rio de Janeiro, was “so feeble—so treacherous without being plausible—so vain of talents without their possession.…” Hunter to the Secretary of State, Rio de Janeiro, November 2, 1835, State Department Archives, National Archives, Washington, D. C.

189 Fabbrini to Lambruschini, Rio de Janeiro, December 17, 1839, N° 674, rubrica 251. Lambruschini had since succeeded Bemetti as Secretary of State. For Macedo’s activities in this regard see Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 170 et seq.

190 Macedo informed the government of the pope’s decision to make Moura a domestic prelate in his dispatch of December 24, 1839. Macedo sent Moura the pontifical brief of his appointment in his dispatch of December 29, 1840. See Figueira de Mello, op. cit., pp. 175-176.

191 Fabbrini to Lambruschini, Rio de Janeiro, May 12, 1840, N° 695, rubrica 251.

192 Ibid.

193 Ibid.

194 Coleman, William J., The First Apostolic Delegation in Rio de Janeiro and its Influence in Spanish America A Study in Papal Policy, 1830-1840 (Washington, D. C., 1950), p. 351.Google Scholar

195 Campodonico to Lambruschini (?), Rio de Janeiro, May 23, 1842, rubrica 251. During my research for this paper in the Vatican Archive, I failed to take note of Campodonico’s addressee. The internuncio was referring to the oration delivered at Moura’s funeral.