_Legion of Honour; Ecclesiastical Titles Bill; Serjeant Shee’s Bill;
Concordat of 1855._
It was remarked of Panizzi, when in Italy as a proof of his general
unobtrusiveness and lack of desire for distinction, that his visiting
card bore only the simple inscription ‘Mr. Panizzi.’ As in early years
his soul had been vexed by the mild constitutionalism of Parma and
Modena, so in riper age he showed himself perversely antagonistic, not
only to the sway of the King of Naples, but to every Government of
Europe which bore in his eyes the slightest tinge of that especial
object of his hatred—absolutism. Yet there were some, and amongst them
one which would hardly have been accepted by Panizzi as the most
disinterested supporter of liberty, that deemed this would-be liberator
of the oppressed, this ex-Carbonaro, this revolutionary firebrand,
worthy of notice, and even of some outward and visible sign of
distinction and esteem. It was a real shock to his modesty when he was
presented with the cross of the Legion of Honour by the President of the
French Republic.
Letters to Lord Rutherfurd and to Mr. Haywood, which are subjoined,
clearly show how surprised Panizzi was at this unexpected honour:—
“British Museum, Tuesday.
“My dear Rutherfurd,
... I am in good health and happy, but for one thing that
happened to me at Paris, where I dined at the President’s last
Saturday, and who suddenly presented me with the Cross of Officer of
the Legion of Honour! This makes me miserable. Keep this to yourself.
At Naples things are worse than described by Mr. Gladstone.
Yours, &c., &c., A. PANIZZI.”
-------
“My dear Haywood,
I arrived here last evening in perfect health, and very happy
to be back again. I dined on Saturday at the President’s at Paris, who
(I must tell you how annoyed I am at it—it makes me miserable)
suddenly presented me with the Cross of Officer of the Legion of
Honour! Of course I could not say no, but hope to be forbidden
accepting it. Meanwhile it makes me unhappy.
Yours, &c., &c., A. PANIZZI.”
A second decoration, the Royal order of “Saint Maurice and Lazarus” of
Sardinia, was presented to him a few years later, in December, 1855, in
which year Victor Emmanuel visited London with Cavour. Of this last
honour, considering by whom it was conferred, Panizzi may possibly have
been prouder than of his first, but, with innate modesty, he forbore to
ask the requisite permission to accept either, and preferred to remain
almost to the end of an honourable life undecorated;—despising medals,
orders, and unreal designations which, he well knew, could not add to
his reputation.
In the year 1851, shortly after his return to England, there landed on
these shores the bugbear of Popery in its most appalling form, which
scared the natives of the island into a state of mind bordering on
temporary imbecility. Those who remember the Papal Aggression[C] will
also, with shame, remember the foolish fanaticism that burst forth in
every quarter, the undignified terror of many who should have known
better than to put so little confidence in their own cause, and the
extravagant and senseless rumours with which the air was filled. To this
unseemly panic Lord John Russell’s notorious _Durham Letter_ materially
contributed; but although there was no ground for alarm, there was, it
cannot be denied, abundance of room for indignation. Many men of the
most tried judgment and unquestionable moderation (albeit their voices
were well nigh drowned in the general clamour), who treated the
abrogation of the ancient sees by the Pope, and all other his _bruta
fulmina_ with the contempt they deserved, were, nevertheless, not
disposed to sit down calmly under an insult to the Church and people of
England, aggravated by the studied offensiveness with which it was
offered. Such as these were the last, however, to see the necessity for,
and did their best to oppose, the construction of such a steam-engine to
crack a cockchafer as the notorious “Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.”
Happily, this clumsy machine has been rarely, if ever, set in motion,
and after some years of useless existence has, as all know, been finally
broken up. It was impossible that Panizzi, as a moderate Roman Catholic,
should have joined in the general outburst, or lent himself to swell the
ranks of the crew around him. But he had been brought up in a country
where the power of the priesthood has something of reality, and wherein
the behests of the Pope are of a little more importance than they ever
have been, or ever will be, in this realm. He was thoroughly imbued with
that dislike and horror of clericalism which those of the Latin branch
of the Church, when once they have broken free, yea, but a little, from
the more rigorous bonds of their religion, seldom fail to show. It would
be hard, then, to judge Panizzi severely, if he seems to have shared the
alarm prevalent at the time, and to have betrayed some dread of the
consequences of the Pope’s invasion of England. Let it be remembered,
too, that he was an Italian before he was an Englishman; and that
nothing could more effectually have roused his ire, than the insensate
conduct of Pius IX., “the most foolish man,” as some one has well said
of him, “that ever sat in the Papal chair.”
With this apology for any seeming weakness, or extravagance, in
Panizzi’s judgment of the _Papal Aggression_, the following letter on
the subject is laid before the reader:—
“British Museum,
February 18th, 1851.
“My dear Haywood,
I have written Kings and Popes, and I don’t see why what is
there said does not apply to England. You say it is a Protestant
country. The United Kingdom was Protestant before 1829, but I don’t
see now how you can say it is Protestant. As to the Church of England,
I am not sure that in point of numbers it exceeds much the Catholics,
and as the latter are eligible to all offices and places, with one or
two exceptions, as well as Protestants, I cannot understand why the
events which have happened in other countries are not considered a
precedent here. Suppose you had a Catholic Minister here—or, indeed,
suppose a Catholic Peer or Member of Parliament was to be treated as
Santa Rosa was in Piedmont, would not that be interfering in temporal
affairs? And why should not, in the time and when the opportunity
offer, an English Catholic be treated as the Piedmontese was for his
conduct in political affairs. Of course, neither you nor I mind being
refused the Sacrament or a burial in a consecrated place; but is it
nothing that the family of a man who is himself indifferent to it
should be harassed or distressed in this way? Is not the conduct of
the Bishops at Thurles a serious interference with the power of the
State? You seem to me to be of Roebuck’s opinion that nothing should
be done, which astonishes me in a man of practical sense as you are.
Show me a country where the interference of the Popes has not had to
be checked, except the United States of America, and I do not suppose
you are prepared, like Roebuck, to take all the consequences of such
an exceptional precedent. Moreover, show me a country where the Pope
has dared, of his own accord alone, to upset the old diocesan
partition, and establish a new one, and appoint at once thirteen
Bishops. The agitation shown at this moment is proof enough that the
Pope and his supporters have an enormous power in this country.
Is England to depend on the _bon plaisir_ of the Pope whether he will
use or abuse that power? Do you think the Pope has acted against the
wish of Austria and France in this business? Do you not see Austria
giving up all the old principles of the Emperors to the Pope, in order
to propitiate the support of the Church of Rome? Do you not see
Montalembert supporting the French President who reinstated the Pope?
Do you not see a war preparing against the Protestant cantons in
Switzerland? Do you think that the conduct of the Pope against the
King of Sardinia is wholly from religious motives? Did Wiseman come
back from Rome by Vienna as the most direct way? I told you before the
Catholic Emancipation that you would regret your trusting the priests,
and you laughed then; that you should laugh now is astonishing. Depend
upon it, you will find that the storm will not soon be over, and that
your philosophers will learn at their own _dear_ cost what the Papal
Power is.
It is not such milk and water measures that will stop the torrent as
those contemplated. England must prepare for a struggle of greater
moment and importance than any in which she has been hitherto
embarked. Keep this well in mind; it will not be over either in your
time or mine.
Yours ever,
A. PANIZZI.”
Probably, Panizzi, before the day of his death, learnt to understand why
the events in other countries should not be considered a precedent in
this, and how the case of Santa Rosa would be hardly likely to occur in
the British Parliament. His underestimate in this letter of the
numerical superiority of the Anglican body to the Roman Catholics in
England is manifestly due to his mixing up the three kingdoms together;
a confusion especially misleading in any consideration of the Papal
Aggression, inasmuch as that movement was not extended to Scotland
(where, however, it has a short time since been carried out peaceably
and quietly enough), and in Ireland the titles of the Romish prelates
have been always the same with those borne by their rivals of what may
be called, without offence, the Colonial Church.
More interesting, perhaps, than this letter, is another document put
forth by Panizzi on the same matter; its length, we regret, must prevent
us from offering it to our readers; however, he recommends a curious if
not altogether original prophylactic against ecclesiastical invasion
from abroad. His remarks on the foreign character assumed by an
Englishman who takes Roman orders, and of the allegiance (it can hardly
be called divided) by which he thereby becomes bound are remarkable. The
remedy which he proposes for ecclesiastical defection from patriotism
would be, if carried thoroughly into effect, a little too drastic; and,
if used short of thoroughly, might work a little more to the
disadvantage of those who applied it than of those on whom it should be
inflicted.
It has been thought best, at the risk of interrupting the proper
sequence in order of time of this history, to continue and finish in
this place the account of Panizzi’s connection with and views on the
Ecclesiastical questions which sprang up at home and abroad in his time.
For this purpose a few years must be skipped, and the reader referred to
the year 1854. Perhaps some apology should be offered for the
introduction here of a correspondence in that year on Serjeant
(afterwards Justice) Shee’s Bill on the Temporalities of the Irish
Church, inasmuch as that Bill obtained but little notoriety at the time,
and the Serjeant’s proposed reforms were never carried into effect by
legislation. But the following letters bear witness to the variety of
questions on which Panizzi was habitually consulted, and the frequency
with which his opinions were sought by his friends and acquaintances,
and it may be interesting to some to know what judgment he may have
formed upon a point relating to the much vexed question of Irish Church
property, a question which even yet remains to be thoroughly solved.
Moreover, to those who knew Justice Shee, the tone of the letter first
quoted may serve to recall the unaffected modesty and simplicity which
distinguished the character of him who may truly be called one of the
best of men:—
“Serjeants’ Inn, May 31st, 1854.
“Dear Mr. Panizzi,
Our conversation yesterday made me think that I might be, what
I have always wished to be, useful in mitigating the evils which we
regretted.
I have on the Order Book a Notice of a Motion for leave to bring in ‘A
Bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the Temporalities of the
Irish Church, and to increase the means of religious instruction and
Church accommodation for Her Majesty’s subjects in Ireland.’
If I had not good grounds for knowing that it would give satisfaction
to those whose just discontent at the existing state of things in
Ireland is a material element in the weakness and the difficulty of
all liberal Government, I would not propose it.
But I believe it would not only be acceptable to the Irish Catholic
Church and people, but a durable and easily defensible, because a just
and reasonable, settlement.
My notion of doing good with it is—by influencing public opinion in
its favour—and my object would be in a great degree gained if, after a
temperate explanation of my Bill from me, the Government would allow
it to be read a first time as a thing not unworthy of consideration.
Will you oblige me by reading it?
And if you think it is of a nature to induce any friend of yours to
change his opinion as to the unreasonableness of parties and persons
on the question, you are quite at liberty to communicate it to him.
Believe me, faithfully yours,
WILLIAM SHEE.”
To this Panizzi answered thus:—
“British Museum,
June 1st, 1854.
“My dear Sir,
I have read with the utmost attention the draft of Bill which
accompanied your letter of yesterday. The subject is as important as
it is difficult, and it is with the utmost diffidence that I venture
to express an opinion on the practicability of your suggestions. I am
afraid that any equitable proposal like yours would be resolutely
resisted by the Church of England, not so much for what you propose
doing now, but for the sake of the precedent you would establish. On
the other hand, that section of the Catholics which is the most
violent and noisy, and, therefore, I fear, the most influential in
Ireland, would not be satisfied with the arrangement you propose, but
would look upon it as the thin edge of the wedge, and an instalment
only of what they think due to them.
I am afraid that the question of the Temporalities of the Church of
Ireland is of such a nature that no moderate man can hope to settle it
to the satisfaction of both parties, so long as either possesses any
thing. The only way of settling it would be to take every farthing of
property from them all, and paying them all alike; but this is what
can never be done without a revolution.
There is a friend of mine to whom I should like to show your draft of
Bill, and beg, therefore, to keep it two or three days for the
purpose.
In the present state of public affairs, even if the Government were
disposed to entertain the principle of your Bill (and this is
supposing a great deal), I am afraid the Ministers will not consent to
its being introduced during this session. Of this, however, I am even
a worse judge than of the rest.
Believe me, &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
Lord John Russell’s opinion of the Bill was expressed no less decidedly,
though a little more curtly than Panizzi’s:—
“June 10th, 1854.
“I think, as you do, that the Serjeant’s Bill would have no chance in
Parliament.
Yours, &c., &c.,
J. RUSSELL.”
On the 18th of August, 1855, a Concordat between the Courts of Austria
and Rome was signed. This compact, by which a great deal of the liberty
of the Austrian Church was given up to the Papacy, caused much
dissatisfaction. In 1868, it was virtually abolished by the Legislatures
of Austria and Hungary. To none was it more distasteful than to Panizzi,
in whom, as will have been already seen, there was a wholesome dread of
the Roman Church (a dread not altogether unreasonable, when certain
countries and Governments had to be taken into account), and this was
strongly expressed in two letters from him to Mr. Gladstone and to Mr.
Haywood respectively. In the last of these, it must be granted that
Panizzi very accurately estimates the opposition likely to be offered by
disunited Sceptics and Freethinkers, void of combativeness and
enthusiasm, to the disciplined forces of the Pope and the Curia.
“B. M., June 1st, 1855.
“My dear Sir,
... First of all, any Government agreeing to a Concordat on
the ground discussed, the Civil Power is not paramount, but subject to
the superior power of Rome. When Napoleon became King of Italy, he
thought it right to ask the approval and confirmation of the sale of
the Church property, by the Pope. It was at once granted; but when
afterwards the State was going to dispose of one hundred millions of
francs more of that property, the Pope protested, and argued that
Napoleon himself, by asking the Papal sanction for past sales,
acknowledged that no sale could be lawful without the consent of Rome.
In the second place, the Court of Rome makes a great distinction
between a Treaty and a Concordat. The latter she looks upon, properly
speaking, as a boon granted by the Head of the Church, to any inferior
Civil Power who humbly sues for the favour.
I enclose you the first article of one of the most recent acts of this
kind—the very one, in fact, which the Papal Court complains to have
been broken by the Sardinian Government, by the Siccardi Law. In the
third place, the Court of Rome does not consider herself bound to
observe Concordats on her side.
First of all the general maxim of the Comitia is alleged, that ‘non
juramenta sed perjuria potius dicenda sunt quæ contra utilitatem
Ecclesiasticam attentantur.’
As the Church is the judge of the _utility_, being the highest power,
they say, no oath or promise can be binding if against Ecclesiastical
utility. Next in the matter of Concordats, the doctrine is explicitly
taught that the Pope has the power to derogate to them.
I give you extracts from the works of a great Canonist, who states the
pretensions of Rome to confute them; that, however, is another point:
the point is what they at Rome affirm.
Now for the extracts. The first Article of the Convention between
Gregory XVI. and Charles Albert, dated March 27th, 1841, runs
thus:—‘Avuto riguardo alle circostanze de’Tempi, alle necessità delle
private amministrazione della guistizia, ed alla mancanza de’mezzi
corrispondenti dei Tribunali Vescovili, la Santa Sede non farà,
difficoltà che i magistrati laici giudichino gli Ecclesiastici per
tutti i reati che hanno la qualificazione di crimini.’ _Ergo_, the
Santa Sede ‘può fare difficoltà’ if she chooses, and the Civil power
by asking to be allowed to try a priest guilty of murder, for
instance, acknowledges the right of the Holy See: _Ergo, in altre
circostanze_, that same Santa Sede can make _difficoltà_. You need not
my saying more. The Canonist who stated the doctrines of Rome on
Concordat to refute them, is Schmidt (Anton), Professor of Canon Law
at Heidelberg, in the last century, whose words are as follows:—
‘I.—Summum Pontificem Concordatis cum Natione germ, initis, derogare
posse contendunt præter Authores Pontificios Branden.
‘II.—S. Pontifex, ajunt, summus Christi Vicarius, & jure divino habet
dispensationem, ac plenissimam administrationem omnium bonorum ad
quascunque Ecclesias pertinentium, consequenter ex plenitudine
potestatis potest vel in totum, vel pro parte Concordata tollere.
‘III.—Concordata ceu Indulta ordinaria in favorem Germanorum admissa
continent meram gratiam, non tam vim pacti, quàm privilegii, & sicuti
privilegium revocari potest, ita in libera S. Pontificis remanet
facultate, an iisdem stare, vel ab eis recedere velit.
‘IV.—Licèt coram Puteo dec. 47, dicantur habere vim contractûs,
intelligendum hoc ex parte Germanorum, quòd vide licet illi non solum
ex jure divino sint obligati ut Christiani ad parendum Rom. Pontifici,
sed etiam ex speciali Concordia quasi in vim contractæ pacificationis
inita, ut in omni judicio Germani sedi Apostolicæ rebelles minus
forent excusabiles; si obedientiæ suavi jugo excusso, etiam pacta
firmata violare præsumant, adeoque Concordata dicunt saltem negotium
ex pacto, & privilegio mixtum.
‘V.—Id quod confirmatur etiam ex eo, quod S. Pontifex suam summam, &
absolutam potestatem, quam a Christo accepit, de rebus Ecclesiæ,
officiis, & beneficiis Ecclesiasticis disponendi a se abdicare non
possit, quin semper penes se majorem adhuc retineat.
‘VI.—Successores succedunt jure singulari non universali, nempe jure
Electionis, novo titulo, novo jure, & sic Nicolaus V. non potuit suis
successoribus taliter legem imponere, quam ipsi de omnimoda
necessitate tenerentur servare.’
(Thesaurus Juris Ecclesiastici sive Dissertationes Selectæ, &c., vol.
1, p. 339). Such doctrines ought to be known. Many Canonists,
Catholics, have differed from them. I have never heard them condemned
or disavowed at Rome; on the contrary, taught in the Universities in
the Papal States.
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.
-------
“B. M., Nov. 29th, 1855.
“My dear Haywood,
And so you are not afraid of the influence of the Church
because Scepticism and Infidelity prevail? It is because they prevail
that I fear the Concordat. If the Protestants were animated by
religious fanaticism, as they were some centuries ago, they would
resist and prefer martyrdom to submitting to Rome; but Philosophy, and
Scepticism, and Infidelity, and all that, are all negative qualities.
They do not give strength and courage.
Do you think all the Sceptics and Infidels in the world would fight
like the Waldenses, the Hussites, and the Germans under the King of
Sweden?
Moreover, the number of Infidels and Sceptics is limited to the upper
classes generally. What hold can they have on the ignorant masses, who
have only in view the gallows in this world and hell in the next?
There were Infidels and Sceptics enough in Spain and Italy in the
sixteenth century, and the united tyranny of the temporal and
spiritual power kept Italy obedient to Rome.
It was towards the end of the reign of Louis XIV. that the French
Protestants were obliged to submit.
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
Having now completed this ecclesiastical episode of Panizzi’s life, it
behoves us to return to our interrupted narrative and to the relation of
the results of his expedition to Italy, as well as his further action in
the liberation of his suffering friends and countrymen.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]