a second journey to Italy, for the purpose of local investigation, he considerably enlarged and appended to his work, "Observations de deux Gentilshommes Suédois sur l'Italie," (London, 1755, 4 vols. 12mo.) under the title of "Discussion Historique et Critique sur la Conjuration de Vénise." His chief guide, as well as inducement, in undertaking the inquiry, was a manuscript, composed of contemporaneous documents, in the library of the Marquis de Paulmy, whose ancestor, Réné d'Argenson, (Voyer de Paulmy,) had amassed these vouchers, while ambassador at Venice, where he died in 1653. This precious manuscript, as the editor of Saint-Réal designates it, is now, I believe, in the library of the Arsenal at Paris, with the general collection of the Marquis's books, which, on his death in 1785, were bought by the late Charles X., then Comte d'Artois. A copy is also in the Royal Library.

From this mass of original evidence, so viewed at least by M. Grosley, he arrived at the conclusion, that the conspiracy had no real existence, but was the concoction of the fertile brain of Sarpi, who persuaded the Senate, (of which he was the soul and oracle, and by whom he was "trusted with the most important secrets," as Burnet, in his life of Bishop Bedel, says, ever since the great contest with Paul V. in 1607,) to magnify into a state-plot an accidental ebullition of discontent among some foreign mercenaries, in order to remove the Spanish Ambassador, by imputing it to him.* This person, whom Saint-Réal describes as

*"Le résultat de cette discussion est qu'il n'y a aucune preuve d'une conspiration........ que le soulèvement qui a donné lieu à l'idée d'une conspiration, n'était qu'un mécontentement sans objet de quelques aventuriers;

"un des plus puissants génies et des plus dangereux esprits que l'Espagne ait jamais produits," had long been a peculiar object of dread and aversion to the Republic, whose intrigues he detected, and whose policy he opposed, as insidiously hostile to his sovereign, Philip III. when lately at war with Savoy, and not repelled, he conceived, with sufficient energy by that monarch, one of the feeblest of his race. To Bedemar was attributed, at the time, the famous "Squittinio della Liberta Veneta," or Scrutiny into the Liberty of Venice, (La Mirandola, 1612, 4to.,) as to Burke were generally ascribed, on their appearance, the Letters of Junius, because he was deemed most capable of the composition; and Bedemar alone was supposed to possess the deep information which that volume unfolded on all the elements of Venetian government. No book had appeared so pregnant with truth or so virulent in spirit, nor one which, consequently, created a more deadly hatred of the presumed author, who laid open the darkest recesses of the State; the overweening pretensions of which to maritime sovereignty, liberality of principle, and territorial independence, he exposed or derided. In Saint-Réal's opinion, also, Bedemar was the parent of this libel, as he terms it (page 166;) but it is now more generally considered

que la République elle-même n'a jamais cru sérieusement à cette prétendue conspiration; mais que, d'après les avis du fameux Paul Sarpi................elle a feint d'y croire pour avoir un prétexte de se délivrer du Marquis de Bédemar, dont l'œil vigilant gênait ses conseils, et ses manœuvres politiques."-(Preface to La Conjuration de Venise, Paris, 1781.)

Sarpi's relation of the celebrated event was printed at Lyons, in 16248vo., under the title of "Istoria particolare delle cose passate tra'l Summo Pontifice Paolo V., e la Serenissima Republica di Venetia." See the generally impartial Ranke's judgment of it in the Appendix to his fourth book. "Die Römische Päpbste, &c., Band iv."

the production of Welserus,* of Augsburg, whom a long residence at Venice, and other parts of Italy, had made a perfect master of the subject and language. (See Bayle, article Velserus, and Placcius de libris anonymis, Hamb. 1707.) A French translation, under the title of "Examen de la Liberté Originaire de Vénise," by Amelot de la Houssaie, forms part of his work-" Sur le Gouvernement de Vénise," (Amst. 1714, 3 vols. 12mo. ;) for which, in consequence of its freedom of thought and expression, he was committed to the Bastille. He had been Secretary to the French Ambassador at Venice, where, he states, that all intercourse, more especially after the event of 1618, was most rigidly interdicted between the nobles and foreign ministers, and which he exemplifies by some ludicrous and some mournful instances in his own person. "Si un noble," he says, "se rencontrait quelque part avec un gentilhomme, ou quelque autre personne de la maison d'un ambassadeur.........il ne serait pas en vie deux heures après." J. J. Rousseau likewise adverts to the Squittino, in his Contrat Social, liv. iii., chap. xi. ; and Monsieur Barbier also treats of it in his "Dictionnaire des Anonymes"-(1824.)

But, whoever was the author of the book, the ascription of it to Bedemar is at once a presumption of his capacity, and declarative of the Senate's anxiety to be freed from his obnoxious presence. Sarpi's device was effective of its purpose; and the ambassador, after a residence of eleven years, though he indignantly repelled the imputation in an audience

In the Egerton papers there is a letter to Welserus, dated 4th May 1612, (Collections for Lord Chancellor

from Galileo, on the spots of the sun. Egerton's Life, by Lord Bridgewater, page 180.)

of the Senate, with difficulty escaped the excited rage of the populace. His subsequent fortunes were singular enough. In 1622, he was raised to the purplethen appointed Governor of the Netherlands, whence he was removed for his severity, and was successively Bishop of Palestrina in Italy, and of Malaga in Spain, where he died in 1665, aged above eighty. The name in Spanish is Bedmar, not Bedemar, because so pronounced, as written by Saint Réal, whom, however, I have followed, as it is to his work I more particularly refer.

Meanwhile, the governments of Spain and Venice appeared alike solicitous to wrap in darkness the whole transaction, of which no official record has ever been discovered; and the Senate issued a proclamation, prohibiting, under pain of death, the imputation of the plot to the Spanish monarchy. It is easy to understand how the mystery may have remained unrevealed under a despotic state; but the secrecy which shrouded the deliberations of so numerous a body as the Senate of Venice has always been a source of astonishment. Constituted, in some degree, after the model of that of Rome, and reckoning, in like manner, about 300 members, who were divided into various departments of legislation, seldom did the object or result of their deliberations transpire, until the Council or Executive gave it effect. it effect. "Non dicam unum, sed neminem audisse crederes, quod tam multorum auribus fuerat commissum"-(Valerius Maximus, lib. ii. cap. 2,) is an observation not inapplicable to the circumstance. And similarly in Rome, when Eumenes, King of Pergamus, disclosed to the Conscript Fathers the secret preparations of war by Perseus, nothing was known

of the debate for five years-(U. C. 580-585.) "Hæc oratio movit Patres Conscriptos; ceterum in præsentia nihil præterquam fuisse in curiâ regem, scire quisquam potuit; eo silentio clausa curia erat! bello denique perfecto, quæque dicta ab rege, quæque responsa essent, emanavere."-(Livy, lib. xlii., cap. 14, and De la Houssaie, ut supra.

M. Grosley, I think it right to observe, has also offered a second solution of the enigma; in which he ascribes the principal agency to another celebrated monk, the Capuchin Père Joseph (Le Clerc,) who subsequently became the subtle instrument of Cardinal Richelieu's intrigues. His object, it would seem, was to excite a crusade against the Turks; but the attempt was quickly defeated and punished by the Venetian Government, just then particularly desirous of peace with the Ottoman power. Count Daru, however, at once rejects this version of the occurrence as improbable. His own exposition of it, as detailed in his valuable History of Venice, (7 vols. 8vo., Paris, 1819,) after the most diligent investigation, to which he has devoted his thirty-first book, (tome iv.,) is equally declarative of Bedemar's innocence. The real conspirators, according to this sagacious writer, were the Duke of Ossuna, and the Senate of Venice, in secret league to wrest Naples, of which the ambitious Duke was Viceroy, from Spain; but the project immaturely exploded, and as these high parties were too powerful to assail, even if suspected, the subordinate agents or dupes were, as usual, the sacrificed victims of propitiation. In fact, as Muratori (Annali d'Italia, Milano, 1749, ad annum 1618,) observes, and the remark is confirmed by the laborious compilers of