_Bridport Election; Desire to visit Modena; Mazzini; Post Office
Espionage; Biographer’s Personal Reminiscences; Portland Vase;
Psalter, 1457; Interview with Francis IV; Libri._
In the honest endeavour to represent a man as he really was, both in his
inward and his outward bearings, the biographer has much difficulty to
encounter. It behoves him to reproduce a life with special regard to
dates, with no matter likely to confuse a reader, or to press too
heavily on his understanding; but this biography claims an especial
degree of attention, inasmuch as the principal person concerned, though
actually absent from his best-loved _locale_, was proving the interest
he took in affairs at home by his assiduous care of the duties with
which he was entrusted. Panizzi possessed no more power of ubiquity than
other men; still such was his energy that only a close observer could
follow his movements, and his wonderful activity often made him appear
to be in many places at the same time, and induced the belief that he
was, at all events, performing a dual character.
These observations are made simply to warn the reader against
mystification as to Panizzi’s movements, related in the pages which
follow—pages it is now incumbent on us to pen—for whereas he has lately
been treated of more especially in his official capacity, our position
must be changed, and he must be regarded from a political and personal
point of view. Indeed, the phases in which so remarkable a man may be
contemplated, are so varied that it requires consideration whence to
take our first observation.
However, having before us his own correspondence (and what can be more
corroborative of a man’s perspicuity than his own written expressions on
a subject?), a letter bearing date October 1, 1841, clearly sets forth
the political tendencies of Panizzi. In reference to the Bridport
election, then on the _tapis_, he writes in a spirit so rich in tone, so
lively, sensible, and witty, that nothing can induce us to debar our
readers from the enjoyment of his remarks. His manner of defending
Warburton’s “_purity_,” and his friend’s innocence in being deceived by
a “_rascally attorney_,” are too good to be passed over, and not only
shows acute insight into the matter, but is a testimony to the contempt
he bore for underhand dealing, under any circumstances, and in any
sphere of life:—
“B. M., October 1, 1841.
“Dear Haywood,
As to political news of importance I have none to give you. From
the newspapers you will have seen that Graham is not a favourite with
the _Times_, and it seems to me that Peel is not likely to agree with
all his colleagues. But this is prophecy, and I wish to give you
history—that of a small political transaction, the Bridport election.
I have it from a friend who was once a colleague of Warburton, and who
is still _très lié_ with him.
A Mr. Mitchell (or Maxwell?), a rich Radical, put himself forward at
the last general election with Warburton, but on distinct interests,
ready to win the election by money. He wrote to an agent there, known
as a good hand at this sort of thing, and authorized him to carry the
election and never mind the expense. The agent, an attorney, carried
it as ordered, and spent £5,600. The successful candidate refused to
pay the odd £600. After all means had been resorted to to induce him
to pay, the rascally attorney threatened this fool, his client, that
if he did not pay he would turn King’s evidence, and tell all the
story, and give all the proofs of how the election was carried, to the
Tories; and not getting his money, he was as good as his word, and a
case was laid before Austin that left no doubt both members would be
unseated, for about 150 of the bribed electors had voted for W. as
well as for his colleague. Moreover, although W. himself had kept
clear of all this, his agent having been requested a loan of £200 by
the agent of M., had lent them to him, and it could be proved that the
sum was spent in bribing voters for the Liberal candidates. Some of
the best of Warburton’s friends being strongly compromised, and M.
behaving very ill, and insisting upon keeping his seat, Warburton, to
save them, came to the agreement with the Tories that he should retire
and they desist from the petition presented against him, but following
up that against his colleague M., who, there is no doubt, they say,
will be unseated, when Warburton will be allowed to succeed him
without opposition from the Tories. As soon as the petition is tried,
W. is to let people know in some public manner that there is nothing
against his purity.
Yours, &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
In the year 1842 it was Panizzi’s desire, after twenty years’ absence,
to visit his native country, and the attempts he made to do so, and the
ready assistance which the English Government afforded him may be easily
estimated from the following official letters:—
‘Foreign Office, June 14, 1842.
“SIR,
I am directed by the Earl of Aberdeen to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter of the 19th of April last, requesting the assistance of
Her Majesty’s Government to obtain a promise from the Modenese
Government that, in the event of your visiting the Austrian dominions,
they would not require the Austrian authorities to deliver you over to
those of Modena; and I am to inform you, in reply, that the Modenese
Government have given to the Government of Her Majesty the assurance
that they will not demand your surrender from the Austrian
authorities, reserving, however, to themselves the power of requiring
your removal in the event of your forming suspicious relations with
Modenese subjects.
I am, &c., &c.,
CANNING.”
“Foreign Office, July 19, 1842.
“SIR,
I am directed by the Earl of Aberdeen to inform you that Prince
Metternich has assured Her Majesty’s Ambassador at Vienna that you are
at liberty to prosecute your travels in the Austrian empire without
incurring the danger either of being delivered up to the Modenese
Government, or of meeting with any molestation on the part of the
Austrian authorities.
I am, &c., &c.,
CANNING.”
These documents sufficiently prove the opinion entertained of Panizzi in
this country, and the facilities provided for the adoption of the course
he had planned for the attainment of the wish he had at heart; but by a
subsequent letter from the Foreign Office, dated 26th October, 1842, we
can conclusively prove that he was unable to accomplish his object, for
in this official document we read that a “Note Verbale” had been
delivered to Her Majesty’s representative at Vienna, to allow the
applicant to prosecute his travels under certain conditions—conditions
which the circumstances at that expiration of time most probably made
him feel unwilling to comply with. The following is the letter in
question:—
“With reference to Viscount Canning’s letter of the 19th of July last,
informing you that you were at liberty to prosecute your travels in
the Austrian dominions for the purpose of visiting the great libraries
of Austria, I am directed by the Earl of Aberdeen to transmit to you a
copy of a “_Note Verbale_,” which has been delivered to Her Majesty’s
Ambassador at Vienna relative to the conditions under which you will
be permitted to enter the Austrian dominions.
I am, &c., &c.,
H. U. ADDINGTON.”
In another letter, dated 3rd November, we find that Panizzi’s wish to be
unfettered by the “_Note Verbale_” is unnoticed by the authorities of
the Foreign Office, and that, however much they might feel disposed to
use their influence in his favour, still, entertaining due respect to
foreign authority, they declined to interfere again in the matter, and
therefore it must be concluded, having no further correspondence, either
on the part of the applicant or the Foreign Office, that the opinion of
the latter preponderated, and that the anxious hope of the former proved
abortive.
From the year 1842 to 1844 there is little substantial evidence of
Panizzi’s private movements. Notwithstanding his apparent activity, we
know what he had at heart, and how difficult he found it to obtain
success in the attainment of his wishes. In a letter from no less a
personage than Mr. Gladstone, dated 12th January, 1844, strong sympathy
in the endeavour to pass as a free man to Italy is evinced.
“Whitehall.
“I have spoken to Lord Aberdeen on the subject of your note. He has
the subject in hand, and also at heart; he will use every effort in
his power to obtain you a free permission, and he by no means despairs
of success....”
That Panizzi waited, and waited in vain, for the accomplishment of his
purpose, is evident from a second letter from the same distinguished
gentleman, dated 4th June, 1844, and what more valuable testimonial
could a man have than this? “_I only wish the Austrian Government knew
you as well as we do—none of these difficulties would occur._”
Less than two months afterwards Panizzi seems to be ailing in health;
so, at least, it must be inferred from a letter dated British Museum,
6th of August, 1844, wherein he states that he is suffering from a
painful swelling in the right wrist, and where, also, he repudiates the
imputation of goutiness. The letter is so characteristic, that, with
very slight abbreviations, we append it for the perusal of our readers:
“My dear Rutherfurd,
I am suffering from a painful swelling in the right wrist, that leaves
me hardly strength to hold the pen. Lord Melbourne consoles me with
assuring me that it is gout. I don’t believe it, and I will not.... I
am going to write an article on the Post-Office, for Welch, and one on
the Jesuits and the French University, and another on Algiers. What an
industrious boy I am? About Algiers I have got such a number of
publications as would astonish you, of course I mean about the French
possessions in Algiers that I intend writing, not about Barbarossa. I
hope to take down two in MS. with me, and shall expect you to read
them before they are printed, which will do _me_ more good than the
reading of Arnaldo now printed will do to you.... I cannot write more,
Brougham came here the other day, shouting, laughing, joking, and
jumping like a boy, and pressing me to stay at his place when I go
north; but I don’t think I shall have time. He is there now, comes
back for the O’Connell business at the end of the month, and goes back
to Westmoreland till the 15th or 20th of October.
Yours, &c., &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
[Illustration: Giuseppe Mazzini]
This is an appropriate period of our history for the introduction of the
well-known Giuseppe Mazzini, or the “_Profeta_,” as he was commonly
called by his worshippers, amongst whom Panizzi is certainly not to be
reckoned. It would be superfluous to enter into details about this
notable character; his writings, and perhaps it may be added, his
private life also, are already familiar to most of us.
Though Panizzi did not agree with Mazzini’s violent views as to
Republicanism, there is no doubt that they were for some considerable
time on intimate terms. Besides being a politician and a patriot of the
most enthusiastic kind, Mazzini was also a literary man of some note,
and shared Panizzi’s intense admiration for the works of Dante, and
still more those of Ugo Foscolo, as already related. Farini’s opinion of
Mazzini exactly tallied with Panizzi’s—that he was a man of no common
talent, remarkable for perseverance in his plans, for resolution under
suffering, and for private virtues; but in the last crisis of the
Italian nation he had confounded patriotism with self-love, or rather
with selfish pride, and chosen to risk seeing the temple of Italy burned
down, because she would not dedicate to him its high altar. Amongst our
papers are various letters in the handwriting of Mazzini, and one
especially noteworthy, written in 1840, wherein he recommends a friend
(as a reader) to the Reading Room of the British Museum, and in this
letter occurs a sentence worthy of reproduction:—“I received safely the
papers I lent you. I perceive that by the tone you do not agree with me.
I trust soon to be able to come and see you, and talk over my future
plans.”
That Panizzi, in after years, disagreed “_in toto_” with his friend’s
principles is notorious; but the actual origin of their estrangement
will for ever remain a mystery. In November, 1844, an article appeared
in the “_North British Review_,” written by Panizzi, and entitled
“_Post-Office Espionage_.” The opening of Mazzini’s letters at the
Post-Office, and their perusal by the authorities, formed the subject of
this treatise, and those revelations immediately aroused John Bull to a
pitch of honest indignation—“highly creditable to the moral feeling and
sound, good sense of the nation.” We learn from this article that
Mazzini’s suspicions were first awakened by observing that his letters
were doubly stamped; the stamp of 2 o’clock in the afternoon, for
instance, superseding that of 12 at noon. Having read in an Austrian
paper that the English authorities had undertaken to watch the
proceedings of the Italian refugees in Great Britain, the idea struck
Mazzini that it was not improbable that recourse might be had to opening
his letters. This was communicated to Panizzi, who strongly dissuaded
Mazzini from giving credence to such strange suspicions regarding the
English Government. He spurned this well-meant counsel, posted letters
directed to himself and to others, in the presence of witnesses, and
found that whilst the other letters were regularly delivered, his own
were as frequently delayed; he sealed them with wax, placing the
impression in a particular position, and then discovered that that
position of the seal had been changed. Another artifice was resorted to.
Grains of sand were enclosed in letters: they reached other parties
safely, but had disappeared from the letters directed to himself. This,
on the 14th of June, 1844, induced Mr. T. S. Duncombe, Member for
Finsbury, to present a petition from four gentlemen, living at No. 47,
Devonshire Street, Queen Square, alleging that their letters had been
delayed and opened by the authorities at the Post-Office. Sir James
Graham, the Home Secretary, did not deny that he had issued his warrant
for the adoption of such a course, adding, moreover, that a power was
given by Statute to the Secretary of State to open letters in transit
through the Post-Office. This led to some members of the Liberal side
taking up the subject with much warmth, and denouncing such proceedings
as despotic and perfectly unconstitutional. Their own action was not
altogether left undefended by the Ministers. Mr. Duncombe, though
unsuccessful, showed no disposition to let the matter rest here, and
ultimately succeeded in the formation of a Committee of both Houses,
composed of some of the most eminent amongst their respective members. A
report was printed, showing that the warrants of the Secretary of State
in previous cases were issued only on peculiar emergencies. There was no
other result from this affair, except that a Bill was introduced by Lord
Radnor in the Upper House for the abolition of the power complained of;
it was not, however, carried beyond the first reading.
The correspondence between Panizzi and Mazzini was by no means frequent,
and soon after this disgraceful scandal we find him sending to Panizzi
proofs of the well-known printed letter addressed to Sir James Graham,
and asking his advice on the matter.
So far has been traced the acquaintance of these two men from
documentary evidence; but the biographer can bring forward personal
reminiscences of this extraordinary man. Often has he heard Panizzi
relate how, on a certain journey, whilst waiting for a seat in the stage
coach running between France and Italy, one morning early, almost before
daybreak, he, on taking his seat, recognised close to him the figure of
a man, in blue spectacles, and carefully enveloped in his long Italian
cloak. It was no other than his _quondam_ friend Mazzini, who, finding
his incognito discovered, whispered “_Per amor di Dio, Signor
Panizzi!!!_” (For the love of God, Signor Panizzi!!!) As might be
expected, Panizzi assured him of his perfect safety. The frontier was
passed, after a most scrutinizing search by the French and Piedmontese
authorities.
The biographer also remembers one afternoon, about the year 1860, whilst
walking down Fleet Street, in the company of Panizzi, being desired to
look towards the left, on doing which, he perceived a man of very dark
complexion, in a shabby black coat, with a silk kerchief wound round and
round his neck, without collar, waistcoat buttoned high, and with
downcast eyes, standing by the side of one of the small archways of what
was but recently Temple Bar. Panizzi observed, “That is Mazzini.” No
bow, no sign of recognition passed between them. That the subject of
this memoir never afterwards communicated with his compatriot would be a
deviation from the truth, for in April, 1864, when Garibaldi visited
London, on the day, or soon after, it was publicly announced that the
Italian hero intended to leave England, the present writer was the
bearer of a note, penned by Panizzi, from whom he received instructions
to deliver it safely into the hands of Mazzini. This occurrence took
place early in the morning; so early, indeed, that day had scarcely
dawned when he left his friend’s residence at the British Museum, where
he was then staying.
This is but a slight sketch of the connection between Panizzi and
Mazzini, from which it may be gathered that no great warmth existed
between the two, for the latter was too impetuous to consort with the
former, who was imbued with common sense as well as with patriotic
motives in all his actions.
Let us now confine ourselves more immediately to Panizzi himself, and
whilst giving particulars of the various occurrences at this period, the
destruction of the famous _Portland Vase_, must not be passed over.
On the 7th of February, 1845, Panizzi, at about a quarter to four, when
descending the staircase of the Museum, leading from the room where the
vase stood, to the outer door, observed the perpetrator of this singular
piece of barbarity in the act of running away; and he used to relate,
with the greatest emotion, how delighted he should have been to stop him
(as he might have done), had he known the man’s dastardly conduct, and
to have inflicted on the spot that chastisement which the law was
powerless to administer. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the deed
probably saved the rascal from an immediate attack; he had seized an
ancient brick kept in the room, and deliberately aimed it at the
treasure, nor would he, on being questioned at the time, give any
account of the motives which had prompted him to commit so wilfully mean
and base an act. His name was William Lloyd, a native of Dublin. No time
was lost in conveying him to Bow Street, where he was remanded by the
sitting magistrate. The utmost punishment the magistrate, Mr. Jardine,
was able to inflict—£3, or two months in default—was absurdly inadequate
(as true believers in art know only too well) to so signal an offence.
The money was moreover paid very soon after by some perverse
sympathiser, and the offender was set free.[H]
So much then for the Portland Vase and its ignominious and cruel fate:
at the time of its occurrence the affair caused a great stir.
In the month of June, 1845, Panizzi made an application to the Trustees
to grant him twelve weeks’ holidays, in lieu of the usual annual
vacation; on the very excusable plea that, for several years past, extra
official duties had obliged him to forego the greater portion of his
allowed and legitimate leave. He was promptly, and with the
consideration that all servants of the Trustees have ever experienced on
such special and reasonable applications, whether for the sake of their
health or for visiting foreign countries, and thus acquiring valuable
knowledge—granted the twelve weeks’ holidays.
-----
Footnote H:
This world-renowned vase appears to have been a cinerary urn, as it
was filled with ashes, and the remains of bones were discovered within
it. It was enclosed in a marble sarcophagus, which was in a sepulchral
vault at a place called “Monte Grano.” According to some accounts, the
time of the discovery was at the close of the sixteenth century,
whilst others assert that it was dug up by order of Pope Urban
VIII.(Barberini) between 1623 and 1624. The sarcophagus was placed at
the entrance of the Museum Capitolinum, and the vase in the Barberini
Palace, where it remained for more than a century. It was at last
purchased by Mr. Bayers, who parted with it to Sir William Hamilton.
On the 10th of September, 1784, it was exhibited at the Society of
Antiquaries, London. The Duchess of Portland subsequently purchased
it, and from her it derived its title. It was deposited in the British
Museum in 1810 by His Grace the Duke of Portland. The vase is still
exhibited, the innumerable fragments having been put together by the
late John Doubleday, an Assistant in the Museum.
-----
These commenced on the 30th of June, and we append a letter from Panizzi
to Lord Rutherfurd, dated from Ischl on July 28th:—
“Here I am from Vienna on my way to Venice. I am _not_ going to the
Modenese regions. You shall hear a great deal about that and other
matters on my return. Sir Robert Gordon (Ambassador), though a
_Scotchman_ and a Tory, has behaved with the very greatest kindness to
me, and has acted with great energy. I have done all he wished, which
was in every respect what I wished, and I believe him as pleased with
me as I am with him. Yesterday and to-day I have been among the most
beautiful scenery I ever saw in my life—even including Scotland.”
The time, thus allowed, was not dedicated altogether to private
enjoyment, most probably quite the reverse. Panizzi went abroad with the
intention of visiting the leading libraries of Germany, taking on his
way to Vienna, Stuttgart, where the famous Psalter[I] of 1457 was said
to be for sale. It had been discovered in 1842 in the Library of the
Collegiatstift, at Eichstädt, in Bavaria, by the antiquarian, J. Hess,
through whose interest it was transferred, in 1843, to Stuttgart in
exchange for another rare volume, the “Acta Sanctorum.” The Keeper of
the Printed Books was, as it may easily be imagined, eager to purchase
the volume, and on the 11th of June he wrote the following report:—“Mr.
Panizzi has the honour to report that a copy of the First Psalter (1457)
not long since discovered, and now in the Royal Library of Stuttgart,
may be obtained for the British Museum, if what Mr. Panizzi has heard
may be relied upon. It is said that the Government of Würtemberg might
be disposed to part with it to a _Public Library_, but to no one else.
Mr. Panizzi intends visiting Stuttgart partly for the purpose of seeing
this volume—the most important by far, as well as the rarest of all
early monuments of typography.”
-----
Footnote I:
The book is of great importance. It was printed in Mentz, by Fast and
Schœffer. It is the first printed Psalter; the first book printed
with a date; and containing the first specimens of printing in
colours, as shown in the initial letters. A copy, bequeathed by Mr.
Grenville, is now to be seen in the King’s Library, British Museum.
-----
The recommendation of Panizzi was that the sum of six hundred guineas
should be offered, for, to use his own words: “The copy now in the Royal
Library at Paris, _wanting six leaves_, sold by auction in 1817, for
12,000 francs, or £480. It is made up of two copies, and is otherwise
objectionable. The funds of the Royal Library at Paris being then low,
Louis XVIII. himself paid the above price, and presented the volume to
that institution.”
It is hardly necessary, though the volume did not find its way to the
British Museum, to say that the Trustees did not hesitate a moment to
sanction the purchase for the sum recommended.
The main object, on this occasion, being that of visiting his native
place, Panizzi’s official position must be temporarily ignored, and this
point of view kept in sight. On the 24th of June of the year 1845, he
received a friendly note from the Austrian Ambassador in London,
requesting him to call at the Embassy, in order that he might submit to
him a dispatch from Prince Metternich, and another from the Minister of
Police, Count Sedlnitzky, stating that he might with safety proceed to
the Austrian Empire. Early in July he arrived at Vienna, as has already
been noticed, and was there received with marked attention by Her
Majesty’s Ambassador. The Duke of Modena was at the time on a visit to
the Emperor of Austria, and through Sir Robert Gordon, Panizzi obtained
an interview with Francis IV. Before the meeting took place, Panizzi
wrote to a near relative of his, Signor Prospero Cugini, to the effect
that the Duke had accepted all he had heard of him with unusual grace,
expressing, at the same time, his desire for an interview, and also,
what must have astonished Panizzi most, that he would have been allowed
to go _unmolested_ to Brescello. His delight can easily be imagined. On
the 21st of July he had the gratification of an interview with the Duke,
who, being now in his 66th year, was perhaps a little less blood-thirsty
than when Panizzi left him in the year 1821. Francis’s love for
Jesuitism and his cunning never seems to have abandoned him, even to the
last; he died in the following year. The meeting was all that could be
desired; and, as may be conceived, the conversation turned at once on
the political state of Italy. On this subject Panizzi was too
open-hearted, even to the extent of forgetting the prudence which should
have permeated his words and actions; he clearly and distinctly told the
Duke that his mode of Government was wholly hateful to his visitor,
though he had no feeling of enmity towards the Duke himself personally,
and that perhaps there remained even a sense of gratitude. However, in
spite of this, they parted apparently good friends, and with the full
assurance that Panizzi was at perfect liberty to go to Modena, or
wherever he pleased.
His license was, however, based on false pretences; no such liberty was
in reality granted. Indeed, it was never intended to be carried out, or
if so, to be under the most unpleasant restrictions. Our warrant for
this assertion is not only gathered from Panizzi’s own words, but from
incontrovertible and stern facts. On the 7th of August Panizzi wrote
from Venice to Cugini:—
“I must not, and cannot, now enter into particulars of the reasons
which have determined me not to enter the Modenese States. What I
suffer on account of it, God knows! but I had sooner die than accept
such a vile promise as the one conceded to me. You must have noticed
how prudently I have conducted myself, and how gratefully I should
have accepted such indulgence—an indulgence which I believed to have
been graciously given. In the word of honour of your Governors I have
no faith. I will not go to Modena, where I have heard, a week ago,
that there are orders against me, and which have been issued by the
Duke himself.”
He then proceeded to Mantua, where he arrived on the 19th of August, and
was met by some of his relatives. From this place he addressed a note to
the Modenese authorities, demanding an explanation; the answer sent was
short and discourteous.
It was so pre-arranged long before Panizzi and his former sovereign met;
for on the 9th of July, eleven days before the meeting, an order had
already reached Reggio to watch the _visitor_, to note his associates,
and to send a full account of all that transpired to Modena.
He was, however, not to be baulked of his projected visit to Parma,
where he went by a circuitous route, in order to avoid touching the soil
of his native State. Here he was met by all his old acquaintances, not a
few of whom travelled all the way from Brescello to Parma to see him.
The names of these Brescellese were taken down, and sent to the Police
Office at Modena. On his return to London he wrote to Lord Rutherfurd:—
“What kindness! what recollections! what a country! But as to the
Government, I do not wish it to be known that I speak with
disparagement of the Italian rulers, _as I wish to go there again_.
Nothing new here, except that Mons. Thiers comes from Lisbon to Lord
Ashburton’s, at the Grange, in ten or twelve days.”
We must pause for a while to congratulate Panizzi on his safe return,
and to quote the good wishes of Samuel Rogers and Dr. Shepherd on so
auspicious an occasion:—
“19th October, 1845.
If you are in town will you do me the great favour to breakfast with
me on Tuesday next, at ten o’clock? If I hear nothing I shall venture
to hope, for I long to hear of your travels.
Yours ever,
S. ROGERS.”
St. James’s Place.
“Gateacre,
October 20th, 1845.
“My dear Panizzi,
A scamp of an attorney who thrust himself into some trifling
employment in Sir Francis Burdett’s celebrated contest for Middlesex,
on sending him his bill, after charging for a journey to Acton and
another to Ealing, &c., &c., &c., closed with the following item:—‘To
extraordinary mental anxiety on your account, £500,’ After this
precedent I have a good mind to charge you a good round sum for mental
anxiety on your account, which I suffered when, some weeks ago, I
heard a vague report that you were on your way to Modena, for I have
such a horror of the petty Italian despots that I could not persuade
myself that you were safe when in the power of the Duke. Lord
Brougham, however, set my mind at rest when I arrived at his
Cumberland château, on the 23rd ultimo, by informing me that he had,
on his late visit to London, learnt at the Museum that you were on
your return to England, having kept your neck out of the noose; and
Mr. Charles Preston, who called here yesterday, tells me that you are
well and hearty, and very busy in doing the hospitalities to M.
Thiers. By the bye, there is much truth in the critique on Thiers’
great work in the last Quarterly, but the article is written in a tone
and spirit of which, as an Englishman, I am ashamed.
Pray oblige me by giving me a full and particular account of your
interview with the Duke of Modena, and tell me how far you penetrated
into Lombardy. I presume you ran no risk in the Austrian
territories....
Truly yours,
WM. SHEPHERD.”
Before closing this interesting portion of our narrative, a letter from
Vienna, October 17th, must be quoted; it will be read with interest:—
“I availed myself of a late conversation with Prince Metternich to
express to him your gratification and thanks for the kindness and
civility which you have met with during your recent tour in Lombardy,
in consequence of the recommendation from the authorities here, and he
appeared pleased that you had had all facilities. I am convinced that,
as the ice has been broken, the same facilities would again be
afforded to you should business or pleasure induce you to
return.—Yours, &c., &c.,
A. C. MAGENIS.”
A few facts relating to Signor Libri must not be omitted. Inclination
might lead us to suppress them, but our duty as faithful recorders of
truth points to another direction. A biographer who has the heart and
the will to introduce into his narrative the events of the life he is
depicting, fearless of comment, is to be commended; and as such we do
not intend to pass without notice the Libri case—a case which indeed,
next to Panizzi’s sentence of death, was the most anxious event of his
life.
Signor Libri, a man of extraordinary talents, especially distinguished
as a mathematician, was a Tuscan by birth. He settled in Paris, and
whilst there, in addition to his political avocations, aided by his able
pen the Government of Louis-Philippe, and consequently became the bosom
friend of Mons. Guizot.
As a purchaser of books he contrived to amass a collection of rare
volumes, which he afterwards sold publicly to much advantage. Shortly
after the revolution of 1848 rumours were afloat that he had been the
robber of Public Libraries.
It is not our intention to enter for one instant into the merits of the
case, or to make any statement bearing on Signor Libri’s innocence or
guilt. Certain it is, that this most unpleasant affair gave rise to much
discussion at the time; and Panizzi has often been heard to say that,
had he not been known, as he was, to be a man of strict truth and
honesty, he himself would never have dared to defend such an accusation
as had been set up against his friend. As already intimated, we have no
plea to offer except that of faithful biographers for touching on so
delicate a subject. Panizzi was certainly not alone in his opinion; he
was supported by many others, and those men of distinction, amongst them
Guizot, Mérimée, and other personages now living.
M. Guizot wrote thus to Panizzi on the subject:—
“1 Décembre, 1849.
Je suis très occupé de M. Libri. Je trouve unique, scandaleusement
unique, qu’on ne lui communique pas toutes les charges, qu’on ne lui
donne pas toutes les facilités, et tous le temps nécessaires pour y
répondre. Quand les mauvaises habitudes judiciaires viennent en aide
au mauvais vouloir des ennemis tout est déplorablement difficile....
Je ferai tout ce qui sera en mon pouvoir pour que justice lui soit
rendue, et j’espère qu’en dernière analyse justice lui sera en effet
rendue.”
Enough has been said, however, on this painful subject, and it is to be
hoped our readers may take the same lenient view of it as these notable
individuals.
This chapter can scarcely be better brought to a conclusion than by an
original and characteristic letter of Panizzi’s, which is added as a
specimen of terse writing, and as showing his detestation of intolerance
in religious matters, as well as for the spirit in which it is worded,
so full of undisguised feeling, and so worthy of its open-hearted
writer:—
“B. M., 14th July, 1846.
“My dear Rutherfurd,
Many thanks for your letter of Sunday last, written, I suppose,
between Church time. Maitland, the editor of the W. B., had already
given me some insight, but very dim, into the amalgamation which has
taken place to oppose Macaulay and Craig. As I have said a thousand
times, the Britishers are the devil and all when they mix up together
their religion and their politics, and if Lord John will not have His
Satanic Majesty about his ears, he will interfere with religion of all
sorts as little as he can, but let the gentlemen of each party fight
it out among themselves, and be damned. We say in Italian that ‘chi
lava la coda all’asino consuma l’acqua e il sapone,’ and he throws
away his pains who tries in England, Scotland, and Ireland to
conciliate religious sects. Look at the abominable conduct of the
dissenters against the Whigs in general some years ago, at that of the
Free Kirk people at Glasgow against their unworthy Lord Rector, and,
just now at Plymouth, at that of dissenters against Ebrington. I saw
him last night, just after his return and arrival in town. He told me
that their conduct was abominable, and that at one time they
threatened serious mischief. The fellow who distinguished himself was
a man of the name of N *** who had hitherto proposed Lord E. He had
himself mismanaged some Dock Bill, and wanted to throw the blame on
Lord E., to whom he had, however, between that occurrence and the
election, written in the most friendly terms, and asked a favour from
him to procure the promotion of a son of his who is in the Excise.
Wood tells me that Ebrington wrote to him strongly, and that he
answered a sort of cold, official letter—as usual—which Ebrington sent
to the father. This made him angry, and it seems now the fellow denies
having applied; but Wood has got the letter addressed by N *** to
Ebrington, who is going to send it to Plymouth to expose that wretch.
Mr. Ellice wrote to me and told me he was going to assist at your
instabulation, or installation, as he called it. I answered to Mrs.
Ellice for him, but I have heard no more from either. Everybody says
here he ought to come back, else he will be thought displeased and in
a pet. Moreover, as I wrote to Mrs. Ellice, Lord Grey told me—no doubt
that I should repeat it as I did—that he wanted to see Ellice. As I am
a man of peace, I should like them to meet. Dundas’s appointment is
not approved by the Bar, and will do harm. Not that he is not, of
course, highly respected, esteemed, and liked, both for his talents
and personal manners, but because—no matter whether on account of bad
health, or any other reason—business has almost entirely left him,
whereas Romilly makes £5000 a year. Moreover, he has done nothing in
the House, at least for the party, and they think it wrong he should
share the honours and the spoil. I have not heard he has accepted, but
I suppose there is no doubt of it. His answer from York, where he was,
must have been here yesterday. There is some screw loose about the
sugar duties. The protectionists will support Lord John, and you may
depend on this—if he will not insert in his second resolution, which I
have not seen, some abstract principle, which they say is in it now,
about the harm of protection in general. If those objectionable words
are kept in the resolution they will oppose him. Now, I believe they
ought to be kept in good humour as much as possible, and certainly at
the sacrifice of uncalled-for abstract propositions. Lord Ponsonby is
to go to Vienna, though he says he does not. Now, I know he knows, and
his _nolo episcopari_ sort of tone is all humbug. He wishes to go
particularly; he thinks there he may settle matters with the Papal
Nuncio, and be sent thence Ambassador to Rome—the aim of his ambition.
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.
Peel has cut his leg sadly in washing his feet, by the breaking of the
tub.”
The versatility of thought displayed in this letter, the rapidity with
which its author speeds from subject to subject, and his clear and
decided views, are worthy of close observation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration]