tion dictated by his malice] and
his [Roderigo's] palace in Rome full of furniture of great value."

What possible proof can Guicciardini have--what possible proof can there
be--of such a "bargain"? It rests upon purest assumption formed after
those properties had changed hands--Ascanio being rewarded by them for
his valuable services, and, also--so far as the Vice-Chancellorship was
concerned--being suitably preferred. To say that Ascanio received
them in consequence of a "bargain" and as the price of his vote and
electioneering services is not only an easy thing to say, but it is the
obvious thing for any one to say who aims at defaming.

It is surprising that we should find in Guicciardini no mention of the
four mule-loads of silver removed before the election from Cardinal
Roderigo's palace on Banchi Vecchi to Cardinal Ascanio's palace in
Trastevere. This is generally alleged to have been part of the price
of Ascanio's services. Whether it was so, or whether, as has also been
urged, it was merely removed to save it from the pillaging by the mob
of the palace of the cardinal elected to the Pontificate, the fact is
interesting as indicating in either case Cardinal Roderigo's assurance
of his election.

M. Yriarte does not hesitate to say: "We know to-day, by the dispatches
of Valori, the narrative of Girolamo Porzio, and the Diarium of
Burchard, the Master of Ceremonies, each of the stipulations made with
the electors whose votes were bought."

Now whilst we do know from Valori and Porzio what benefices Alexander
actually conferred, we do not know, nor could they possibly have
told us, what stipulations had been made which these benefices were
insinuated to satisfy.

Burchard's Diarium might be of more authority on this subject, for
Burchard was the Master of Ceremonies at the Vatican; but, unfortunately
for the accuracy of M. Yriarte's statement, Burchard is silent on the
subject, for the excellent reason that there is no diary for the period
under consideration. Burchard's narrative is interrupted on the death of
Innocent VIII, on July 12, and not resumed until December 2, when it is
not retrospective.

There is, it is true, the Diarium of Infessura. But that is of no more
authority on such a matter than the narrative of Porzio or the letters
of Valori.

Lord Acton--in his essay upon this subject--has not been content to rest
the imputation of simony upon such grounds as satisfied M. Yriarte. He
has realize