was to form the whole business of the conclave. The cells were to be assigned by lot. The functionaries of the conclave were to be elected by the secret vote of the Sacred College. The most stringent measures were to be taken to ensure seclusion. The bull Aeterni Patris of Gregory XV. (15th of November 1621) Gregory XV. is a collection of minute regulations. In it is the rule compelling each cardinal, before giving his vote, to take the oath that he will elect him whom he shall judge to be the most worthy; it also makes rules for the forms of voting and of the voting papers, for the counting, the scrutiny, and in fact all the processes of the election. A second bull, Decet Romanum Pontificem, of the 12th of March 1622, fixed the ceremonial of the conclave with such minuteness that it has not been changed since.
All previous legislation concerning the conclave was codified and renewed by Pius X.’s bull, Vacante Sede Apostolico (Dec. 25, 1904), which abrogates the earlier texts, except Leo XIII.’s constitution Praedecessores Nostri (May 24, 1882), authorizing occasional derogations in circumstances of difficulty, e.g. the death of a pope away from Rome or an attempt to interfere with the liberty of the Sacred College. The bull of Pius X. is rather a codification than a reform, the principal change being the abolition of the scrutiny of accession and the substitution of a second ordinary scrutiny during the same session.
On some occasions exceptional circumstances have given rise to transitory measures. In 1797 and 1798 Pius VI. authorized the cardinals to act contrary to such of the laws concerning the conclave as a majority of them should decide not to observe, as being impossible in practice. Similarly Pius IX., by means of various acts which remained secret up till 1892, had taken the most minute precautions in order to secure a free and rapid election, and to avoid all interference on the part of the secular powers. We know that the conclaves in which Leo XIII. and Pius X. were elected enjoyed the most complete liberty, and the hypothetical measures foreseen by Pius IX. were not applied.
Until after the Great Schism the conclaves were held in various towns outside of Rome; but since then they have all been held in Rome, with the single exception of the conclave of Venice (1800), and in most casesThe conclave at Rome. in the Vatican.
There was no place permanently established for the purpose, but removable wooden cells were installed in the various apartments of the palace, grouped around the Sistine chapel, in which the scrutinies took place. The arrangements prepared in the Quirinal in 1823 did duty only three times, and for the most recent conclaves it was necessary to arrange an inner enclosure within the vast but irregular palace of the Vatican. Each cardinal is accompanied by a clerk or secretary, known for this reason as a conclavist, and by one servant only. With the officials of the conclave, this makes about two hundred and fifty persons who enter the conclave and have no further communication with the outer world save by means of turning-boxes. Since 1870 the solemn ceremonies of earlier times have naturally not been seen; for instance the procession which used to celebrate Modern procedure. the entry into conclave; or the daily arrival in procession of the clergy and the brotherhoods to enquire at the “rota” (turning-box) of the auditors of the Rota: “Habemusne Pontificem?” and their return accompanied by the chanting of the “Veni Creator”; or the “Marshal of the Holy Roman Church and perpetual guardian of the conclave” visiting the churches in state. But a crowd still collects morning and evening in the great square of St Peter’s, towards the time of the completion of the vote, to look for the smoke which rises from the burning of the voting-papers after each session; when the election has not been effected, a little straw is burnt with the papers, and the column of smoke then apprises the spectators that they have still no pope. Within the conclave, the cardinals, alone in the common hall, usually the Sistine chapel, proceed morning and evening to their double vote, the direct vote and the “accessit.” Sometimes these sessions have been very numerous; for example, in 1740, Benedict XIV. was only elected after 255 scrutinies; on other occasions, however, and notably in the case of the last few popes, a well-defined majority has soon been evident, and there have been but few scrutinies. Each vote is immediately counted by three scrutators, appointed in rotation, the most minute precautions being taken to ensure that the voting shall be secret and sincere. When one cardinal has at last obtained two-thirds of the votes, the dean of the cardinals formally asks him whether he accepts his election, and what name he wishes to assume. As soon as he has accepted, the first “obedience” or “adoration” takes place, and immediately after the first cardinal deacon goes to the Loggia of St Peter’s and announces the great news to the assembled people. The conclave is dissolved; on the following day take place the two other “obediences,” and the election is officially announced to the various governments. If the pope be not a bishop (Gregory XVI. was not), he is then consecrated; and finally, a few days after his election, takes place the coronation, from which the pontificate is officially dated. The pope then receives the tiara with the triple crown, the sign of his supreme spiritual authority. The ceremony of the coronation goes back to the 9th century, and the tiara, in the form of a high conical cap, is equally ancient (see Tiara).
In conclusion, a few words should be said with regard to the
right of veto. In the 16th and 17th centuries the character of
the conclaves was determined by the influence of what
were then known as the “factions,” i.e. the formation
of the cardinals into groups according to their
The right
of veto.
nationality or their relations with one of the Catholic courts
of Spain, France or the Empire, or again according as they
favoured the political policy of the late pope or his predecessor.
These groups upheld or opposed certain candidates. The
Catholic courts naturally entrusted the cardinals “of the crown,”
i.e. those of their nation, with the mission of removing, as far
as lay in their power, candidates who were distasteful to their
party; the various governments could even make public their
desire to exclude certain candidates. But they soon claimed an
actual right of formal and direct exclusion, which should be
notified in the conclave in their name by a cardinal charged
with this mission, and should have a decisive effect; this is
what has been called the right of veto. We cannot say precisely
at what time during the 16th century this transformation
of the practice into a right, tacitly accepted by the Sacred
College, took place; it was doubtless felt to be less dangerous
formally to recognize the right of the three sovereigns each to
object to one candidate, than to face the inconvenience of
objections, such as were formulated on several occasions by
Philip II., which, though less legal in form, might apply to an
indefinite number of candidates. The fact remains, however,
that it was a right based on custom, and was not supported by
any text or written concession; but the diplomatic right was
straightforward and definite, and was better than the intrigues
of former days. During the 19th century Austria exercised,
or tried to exercise, the right of veto at all the conclaves, except
that which elected Leo XIII. (1878); it did so again at the
conclave of 1903. On the 2nd of August Cardinal Rampolla
had received twenty-nine votes, when Cardinal Kolzielsko
Puzina, bishop of Cracow, declared that the Austrian government
opposed the election of Cardinal Rampolla; the Sacred College
considered that it ought to yield, and on the 4th of August
elected Cardinal Sarto, who took the name of Pius X. By the
bull Commissum Nobis (January 20, 1904), Pius X. suppressed
all right of “veto” or “exclusion” on the part of the secular
governments, and forbade, under pain of excommunication
reserved to the future pope, any cardinal or conclavist to accept
from his government the charge of proposing a “veto,” or to
exhibit it to the conclave under any form.
Bibliography.—The best and most complete work is Lucius Lector, Le Conclave, origine, histoire, organisation, législation ancienne et moderne (Paris, 1894). See also Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v. Papa, art. i.; Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica, s. v. Conclave, Conclavisti, Cella, Elezione, Esclusiva; Bouix, De Curia Romana, part i. c. x.; De Papa, part vii. (Paris, 1859, 1870); Barbier de Montault, Le Conclave (Paris, 1878). On the conclave of Leo XIII., R. de Cesare, Conclave di Leone XIII. (Rome, 1888). On the conclave of Pius X.: an eye-witness (Card. Mathieu),
