_Minor Incidents; Holland House; Sydney Smith; Ecclesiastical Commission
Act (1836); Joseph Parkes; Count d’Orsay; Lord Melbourne; Mrs.
Norton; Dr. Hampden’s Case; Watts’ Portrait of Panizzi; Lord
Holland; Hardy’s Life of Lord Langdale._
Hitherto our work has consisted for the most part of details of
important facts: it may, therefore, be well for a time to digress, and
to string together some of the minor incidents of Panizzi’s life,
without which this could scarcely claim to be a faithful biography. To
recount such small traits of character may be deemed simply gossip; yet,
on reflection, it is not so, as it is thus that true light is brought to
bear on the man’s character, and, by these details, an opportunity is
given of judging disposition and intentions, which could not otherwise
have been afforded. In presenting the following items, therefore, to our
readers, accompanied as our observations are by original correspondence,
we simply perform the duty which should be fulfilled by every honest
biographer. In a life like Panizzi’s, much importance is attached to
what, at first, may appear insignificant, relating in a great degree to
the society of which he was a member.
[Illustration: Sydney Smith]
The name of Holland House has long been notable as the headquarters of
one of the most delightful of London _coteries_, not only for the
celebrity in the world of letters of its immediate frequenters, but also
for the eminence in political life of many more who resorted thither.
Whether or no the Church was adequately represented in the person of
that wittiest, and most genial of ecclesiastics, Sydney Smith, certain
it is that the society of the place would have been greatly the loser by
his absence. Here Panizzi, who, in proportion to the sterling worth of
his company, appears ever to have been a welcome guest, very soon after
his arrival in London established a footing; and at the time of her
marriage, in 1833, the present Lady Holland found him already an
_habitué_ of Holland House, in company with such distinguished
individuals as Lord Grey, Lansdowne, and Brougham, Moore, Jeffrey, and
Allen.
Speaking from personal knowledge of Panizzi, we are inclined, in a great
measure, to ascribe his remarkable social successes to that innate and
subtle quality with which so few men comparatively are endowed—perhaps
happily so; for want of a better term, let us call it personal
influence. In this respect he has always seemed to suggest to us a
comparison of him with the late Dr. Arnold. The latter was apparently a
man of great mental powers and amiable disposition; still, in his own
peculiar sphere, many of his contemporaries may have equalled, and some
even surpassed him.
This may be true to a certain extent; but, considering the talents which
this great man possessed, it seems almost absurd to remark that some of
his own pupils have attributed to him a deficiency of that sixth sense
which is generally regarded as the most judicious controller and
regulator of our actions—sense of humour. With men of discernment and of
note, there is, however, always some distinguishing quality,—so in the
case of Arnold and Panizzi it happened that, whereas the one was
calculated to instil into those with whom he came in contact awe, the
other was ever welcome, from the congeniality of his disposition. Nor in
saying this do we detract in the smallest degree from the mental or
moral worth of either. For this quality of personal influence, although,
like “reading and writing,” it comes “by nature,” yet is nevertheless
dependent for continuous life and maintenance upon genuine merit in its
subject.
Like mates not always with like, and the characters of Panizzi and
Sydney Smith must have differed very widely; yet, notwithstanding all
divergences of mental constitution, it was not long ere an intimate
friendship sprang up between them.
In the year 1836 the Ecclesiastical Commission Act, for the supervision
and re-adjustment of certain of the revenues and sources of revenue of
the English Church, was passed. It must be conceded that this Commission
made a pretty clean sweep of not a few offices in the Church hardly
worthy the expense of retention, as well as of others more venerable for
antiquity than valuable in point of usefulness; and for many years it
had to bear the brunt of accusations, not always made by those who
object to the most moderate reforms. It is only lately, indeed, that we
have ourselves listened to some, who might long ago have been wearied
of, though truly they were not satiated with, their denunciations of
this, to them, wanton act of spoliation, this invasion of the rights of
the Church, &c., &c., &c.
On the side of the assailants, Sydney Smith put in a very early
appearance. His attack upon the arbitrary power given to the Commission,
and on the little protection afforded to, and the little heed taken of,
the rights of the poorer clergy, lasted until 1840; in which year a
petition, presented by him, in July, against it, was read in the House
of Lords by the Bishop of Rochester.
Sydney Smith was warmly rebuked, for that he, a professedly consistent
Whig, should have borne himself with so much hostility towards the
rulers of his party. However, his correspondence on the subject during
these four years was extensive, and a letter written by him to Panizzi,
criticising the conduct of the Bishops, is certainly worthy of
reproduction:
“21 December, 1836.
Combe Florey.
“My dear Panizzi,
Various Bishops, of whom the Archbishop of Canterbury is at the
head, on the Ecclesiastical Commission, combine in recommending that
the revenues of their various churches should be seized, the patronage
confiscated, and the numbers abridged. Now, the Archbishop, at his
consecration, took a solemn oath that he would preserve the rights,
revenues, and property of his Cathedral; moreover, in the debates on
the Catholic question, the said Archbishop laid a great stress upon
the King’s oath at his Coronation, so did the Bishop of London. I have
no books here; would you do me the favour to look into the debates on
that subject, and extract any short passage from the speeches of
either of the _prelates_ on the _sanctity and importance_ of this
oath. You will find what has been said, of course, in Hansard. I shall
be much obliged to you to do this for me.
Ever yours truly,
SYDNEY SMITH.”
Fortunately even the power of Sydney Smith’s opposition failed to hinder
the carrying out of a reform, perhaps the least revolutionary that could
have been devised for the administration of the property of the Church.
In the same proportion as diversity of topics enters into a series of
correspondence, will, as a rule, be the amount of amusement to be
derived by the public from its perusal. But one more letter from Sydney
Smith to Panizzi is in our possession, and this, so far as it goes, and
in conjunction with the letter already quoted, sufficiently fulfils the
above condition. It certainly treats of no grave question of
ecclesiastical or other politics, but is concerned with nothing mean or
unimportant, since it relates to an invitation to dinner sent by the
writer to the recipient, and is eminently characteristic of its author:—
“23 April, 1844,
“My dear Panizzi,
I wrote to you two or three times inviting you to dinner for the
26th. Receiving no answer, I concluded you were dead, and I invited
your executors. News, however, came that you were out of town. I
should as soon have thought of St. Paul’s or the Monument being out of
town, but as it was positively asserted, I have filled up your place.
I hope to be more fortunate on another occasion.
Yours, &c., &c.,
SYDNEY SMITH.”
During this part of his career—as indeed so long as he could himself
write—Panizzi’s general correspondence was too voluminous to allow of
much selection; for the notes and explanations thereon, when at hand or
to be obtained, would inordinately increase the bulk of this work. We,
therefore, subjoin but a few specimens, which mostly speak for
themselves:—
“Westminster,
Dec. 4, 1842.
“Dear Panizzi,
What a d—— fellow you are; a man of taste and accomplishment to
write such a cursed illegible hand, that only the devil himself could
decipher you. The truth is that when you spoke to me about your note,
I really did not see the point of its contents. I opened it in my
office full of angry Jew creditors of a client. I just ran through it,
could not decipher half, and seeing it was on literature, no business,
I interred it alive in a box—the mausoleum of my merely private
correspondence—waiting leisure to peruse it. It so happened that I
never opened the said box till to-night, when I took up your body.
Really an illegible handwriting ought to be a statutory crime, and
shall be when I get into Parliament. I can’t now decipher _two_ of
your words till daylight in the morning. The next time you send me an
illegible note I will return it to you, not prepaid, to be copied by
your secretary.
So good night, and I could not sleep without giving you this
cat-o’-nine-tails. I never was so put to it in my life as when you
accosted me in the club, for thought I to myself, I will be hanged if
I know the subject matter of his note; what can I feign?
Yours nevertheless truly,
J. P.”[O]
-----
Footnote O:
Joseph Parkes, Lawyer and Politician, died 1865.
-----
The next is to the Editor of the _Edinburgh Review_, and relates to
certain articles written therein by Panizzi:—
“Saturday, British Museum,
(1844).
“My Dear Sir,
I direct to Edinburgh, as I suppose you either are or will soon
be back there. I am glad we agree about the ‘Jesuits.’ The
‘Post-Office’ article will be longer than I thought; there is a great
deal important unsaid that we must say. The Jesuits shall follow; both
by the middle of September shall be ready.... There is no article on
any subject of immediate, striking, and now exciting interest. For
instance the ‘Post-Office Espionage’ is one of them; Algiers and
French ambition is another. The Jesuits is a third, and that is why I
chose them. Any article on Ireland, or sugar and free trade, or the
slave trade, or Puseyism, &c., &c., would be welcome to general
readers. Puseyism, I know, you have touched upon, but, with the
_Dublin Review_ on the one hand and Newman’s publication on the other,
you might pay off these two inveterate enemies of yours most
capitally. Then, although I know your difficulties about it, as it is
a _serious_ review, you want light, amusing articles, anecdotes of
shooting, fishing, and of old Highlanders and robbers (or gentlemen
who took what they wanted), travels, &c. As I put down at random what,
I think, may illustrate what I mean, the number is, in fact, too good
for this age of light reading; we are impatient if we don’t get on in
reading, as we do travelling by steam.
Ever yours truly,
A. PANIZZI.”
A letter from Count d’Orsay, on a curious fact in natural history, will
be read with interest. Panizzi’s answer to this is not forthcoming, but
it may be doubted if he succeeded in conveying any very valuable
information to the Count’s mind on the subject:—
“Gore House,
Mardi.
“Mon cher Panizzi,
Je suppose que vous avez un _Buffon_ dans votre établissement,
qui pourra nous éclairer sur le sujet d’un animal presque fabuleux,
qui vient de jouer le rôle à Van Diemen Land, que Racine fit jouer à
celui, qui causa la mort d’Hippolyte.
“Miss X—— à reçu aujourd’hui une lettre de sa mère annonçant que le
même jour qu’elle écrivait, elle allait voir un tigre marin qu’on
avait tué avec une grande difficulté, et qui avait poursuivi sur terre
plusieurs personnes—c’était la terreur des environs, on le nommait
aussi Sea-Devil, il résista à quatre coups de feu, et après un combat
acharné on lui ouvrit le crâne, d’un coup de hache. Ainsi donc comme
la poste est partie avant qu’on ai vu ce monstre nous sommes très
anxieux de savoir si vos naturallistes connaissent ce personnage.
Votre tout dévoué, &c.,
C. D’ORSAY.”
The following, from Lord Melbourne to Panizzi, conveys the notion that
the former discovered the beauties of Ovid’s Metamorphoses rather late
in life:—
“South Street, Feb. 27, 1846.
“My dear Mr. Panizzi,
I have lately been looking at the Metamorphoses of Ovid, a book
in which I find much beautiful poetry and more curious matters.
Burman, in his note upon the title of the poem (Vol. II. of his
edition, p. 7) says that the poem was founded upon an ancient Greek
poem by the writer, of the name of Parmenius Chius. What is Burman’s
authority for this Parmenius, and where are the traces of his poem? I
do not remember ever to have read his name, and I cannot find it in
the Index to Quinctilian, who, I thought, had mentioned every poet of
any eminence, Greek or Latin.
Yours faithfully,
MELBOURNE.”
A letter from the Hon. Mrs. Norton, on the subject of Lord Melbourne’s
friendship for Panizzi (to which a second on the same subject is added),
must be quoted, though it is not without something of melancholy
interest:—
“Chesterfield Street,
(November, 1845) Friday evening.
“Dear Mr. Panizzi,
I met Lord Melbourne at dinner to-day, and mentioned to him
having seen you and Mr. Thackeray. He begged me to write, for him, to
ask you if you would dine with him on Monday, and Mr. Thackeray also.
Will you let me know, as soon as convenient, and will you, who are an
old friend of Lord Melbourne’s, explain anything that may seem odd and
blunt in his mode of inviting without introduction, though indeed he
persists very obstinately that Mr. Thackeray is a _clergyman_, with
whom he is, or ought to be, acquainted. I said I did not think it
clerical to write about the _Bishop of Bullocksmithy_, and that I did
not think Mr. Thackeray was a clergyman at all. But this is not of
importance in comparison of his coming to dinner at half-past seven
(punctual) on Monday.
I wish you would now and then call on Lord Melbourne, as since he is
invalided he takes great pleasure in receiving visits from his
friends, and I think about four o’clock or a little later (when there
is no House of Lords) is a good moment to find him. Poor Lady
Holland’s death has deprived him of a very near neighbour, where he
could be (without fatigue or form) in pleasant society. She had
certainly a very real regard for him.
Yours, &c., &c.,
CAROLINE NORTON.”
“Dear Mr. Panizzi,
If Mr. Thackeray will send his reply to Lord Melbourne, it will
save time and be more _correct_. It is only in _writing_ that he is
glad sometimes to get a secretary (like me), as his hand is rather
crippled, and his writing a trouble to perform, and when performed,
very illegible.”
I assure you there is ‘no love lost’ in your preference for him—as the
moment I mentioned your name he began praising you. The ‘green turf
and flat stone’ is a receipt for blotting out all dislikable
qualities, and we will give Lady H. the benefit of it. The charmed
circle is gone! It was the first peep of the great world I got in my
girlhood, and what the gap must be to those who are old enough to
remember all who composed that circle, we cannot judge, who only knew
it as the stars were dropping one by one away.
I am very sorry you cannot dine on Monday. I hope it will be a
pleasure deferred. Tell Mr. Thackeray the hour is 7.30, not nominally,
as is usual in London invitations.
Yours, &c., &c.,
CAROLINE NORTON.”
It is hardly to be wondered at that Panizzi never became so thoroughly
indigenous as to understand what must appear to a foreigner a greater
puzzle than even the constitution and politics of England—viz., the
management and regulation of ecclesiastical affairs. His opinion of the
Hampden case, and of the circumstances affecting it, cannot be the
result of any very profound reflection on the matter. As to the trouble
which, he feared, it might bring upon Lord John Russell, it may be
recollected that Lord John succeeded, in one instance at least, in
evading it in a manner that did more credit to his decision than to his
good manners.
“British Museum, Jan. 11, 1848.
“Dear Mrs. Rutherfurd,
... I have had nothing to do more amusing of late than to see
and hear all that has been said and spoken about Hampden. _I, a good
Roman Catholic and Apostolic man_, did not care how much damaged all
parties were spiritually; and so I did not mind if Hampden was proved
an infidel, or all the Bishops for him, as well as those against him,
in the wrong. But at one time I feared for the temporal effects of the
quarrel, lest it might give Lord John some trouble. It has ended
admirably. A Bishop who confesses that he condemned what he had not
read; thirteen Bishops and a Deacon opposed by a Deacon and thirteen
heads of houses at Oxford; part of the clergy sending addresses
against and part in favour of Dr. Hampden; a Dean who swears he will
not vote, and all the way allows his vote to be recorded; a Canon who
will not have Dr. Hampden because he was condemned by the very Bishop
who retracts three days after his condemnation, and confesses his
ignorance whilst he exposes his knavery; yesterday half a Church
hissing and the other half cheering, when the sermon of some Apostle
or other is declared duly elected; the folly, which I hear will be
persisted in to-morrow, of apologizing to the Court of the Queen’s
Bench, calling on Lord Denman and others to prevent the Archbishop of
Canterbury from exercising a merely spiritual rite—is not this
charming? Could any one like me wish for more fun?”
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
To continue our ramblings through the correspondence in our hands, we
insert a letter showing pretty clearly in what esteem Panizzi was held,
not only by Lord and Lady Holland, but by others of the society of their
house:—
“B. M., no date (? 1850.)
“My dear Haywood,
... I dined at Holland House on Saturday last, and Watts (the
painter) came after dinner. There is at Holland House a famous
portrait of Baretti by Sir Joshua Reynolds. Lord and Lady Holland and
some of the guests having prepared all this without my knowledge
beforehand, surrounded me after dinner, made me look at Baretti’s
portrait, and then said that there should be a _pendant_ to it, and
that my portrait, taken by Watts,[P] should be the thing. It was no
use saying more than I did—which was not a little to decline the
honour. The thing was a foregone conclusion; and so, before Watts goes
to Italy, which he is going to do almost immediately, he is going to
paint me. What will Gambardella say when he hears it?
Ever yours,
A. PANIZZI.”
-----
Footnote P:
G. F. Watts, R.A.
-----
Gambardella was a Neapolitan artist, living at that time in England. He
painted a portrait of Panizzi, which, according to Count d’Orsay, was
very unsatisfactory. Before quitting the subject of Panizzi’s connection
with Holland House, we should hardly be justified in omitting all
mention of an affair with which he became accidentally connected, and
which, though itself of no great importance, was nevertheless dashed
with a slight admixture of unpleasantness. A short time previously to
1850 the late Lord Holland had compiled and edited two books on the life
of his father, which were afterwards published with the following
titles:—“Foreign Reminiscences, by Henry Richard Lord Holland: Edited by
his Son, Henry Edward Lord Holland. (London, 1850).” And “Memoirs of the
‘Whig Party During My Time,’ by Henry Richard Lord Holland: Edited by
his Son, Henry Edward Lord Holland. (2 vols., London, 1852.)” The first
of these works the author had, we understand, entrusted for revision and
correction to the late Nassau Senior. It was afterwards, for _further
assurance_, submitted to Panizzi, who, not altogether content with
Senior’s treatment of it, subjected it to a closer revision. He
performed the same office for the second book, and finally prepared both
for the press.
* * * * *
It seems, however, that Lord John Russell, who had been instrumental in
collecting the greater portion of the materials composing these volumes,
had felt some alarm as to certain matters being published in them, and
notably in the _Reminiscences_, which might possibly reflect
detrimentally on the character of Lord Holland’s father, and he
accordingly communicated his apprehensions to the author, accompanied by
a gentle warning. This the latter regarded, not altogether unreasonably,
as one of those pieces of gratuitous advice which nearly approach
insults, and ill brooked the suspicion of inability to guard his own
father’s reputation. A correspondence ensued, into which Panizzi, as
might be expected, was drawn, and which was marked occasionally by a
tinge of acrimony. However, Lord Holland, after a number of letters had
passed from one party to the other, does not appear to have easily got
over his sense of wounded feeling; and by a letter, not in our
possession, but evidently prompted by indignation, greatly provokes
Panizzi, of whose character evenness of temper was by no means the
strongest point, and who seems to have been roused almost to hostility.
Lord Holland, in his final reply, demands, with some asperity, that the
subject be not recurred to, if their mutual friendship is to continue.
“A soft answer turneth away wrath,” and it must be owned that his
Lordship’s reply, however far we may suppose him to have been wrong on
the main question, is eminently that of a true gentleman:—
“April 17, 1851.
Naples.
“My dear Pan,
I wrote to you from Palermo a letter, which you will receive
almost at the same time as this.
It will show you how very far I was from entertaining any unkind
feeling towards you.
On my arrival here yesterday I found a letter from you, written in a
very hostile tone. I can only repeat that I feel great gratitude to
you in all this business, that I am sure you never meant in any way to
be unfriendly towards me, and that if I differed from you as to the
propriety of your letter to the _Times_, I am willing to suppose that
you on the spot might have better means of judging than I had....
Knowing how easily you take fire, I should have been more guarded in
writing to you; but I know also that hot as you are, you easily cool,
and that your indignation never really interferes with your kind
feelings for old friends.
Yours sincerely,
HOLLAND.”
So ended satisfactorily this notable controversy. Nor was this the only
complication of the kind in which the importance thrust on Panizzi
served to involve him. To none were his relations closer than to the
family of the late Lord Langdale, formerly Master of the Rolls, who, it
may be remembered, in 1850, refused the office of Lord Chancellor,
offered to him on the retirement of Lord Cottenham.
Panizzi’s acquaintance with Lord and Lady Langdale speedily ripened into
a warm intimacy, and of their daughter, the Countess Teleki, he was the
especial favourite. On the death of his Lordship, which happened on the
18th of April, 1851, Panizzi wrote as follows to Lord Rutherfurd:—
“April 24.
“Nothing but your own handwriting could have afforded me any real
pleasure in the deep grief I feel at the loss of both the friends
respecting whom you write. Lord Langdale’s I feel most, as I was often
with him, and as he has given me, at all times, and at some
particularly of a comparatively recent date, such proof of affection
and, what is more, of thorough esteem and regard, as I shall never
forget....
Thine, ever _di cuore_,
A. PANIZZI.”
Panizzi’s intimacy with the Langdale family was, notwithstanding this
great loss, kept up as of old, and to her last days Lady Langdale was a
frequent guest at his house. After her husband’s death, she, laudably
anxious to perpetuate the memory of so worthy a man, committed the
materials for his biography to Mr. (afterwards Sir T. D.) Hardy. The
book was published in 1852, and it happened that, as in the former case,
Lord Holland had aroused the fears of Lord John Russell, so in the
present, for like reasons, was the wrath of Lord Brougham evoked by the
“Memoirs of the Right Honourable Henry Lord Langdale.”
It is really difficult to discover anything in Sir T. D. Hardy’s book
which could have stirred up the _sœva indignatio_ in Lord Brougham,
as expressed in the subjoined letters, still less any aspersions on the
memory of Lord Langdale himself.
“Scarborough, 31 July, 1852.
“Caro Signor Antonio,
As you interfered (most unadvisedly I think) respecting that
book of Hardy’s, probably at the request of the family, I strongly
recommend you to give Lady Langdale advice which may prevent more harm
being done. I had not seen the book when I saw you. I have now seen
it, though I have not read the whole. I have read quite enough to show
me into what scrape Lady L. has gotten herself, by giving his papers
to a person who, with the best possible intentions I have no doubt, is
so ignorant of everything connected with the subject, except records,
that he has fallen into the grossest mistakes.... There are one or two
letters of Lord Langdale himself of which both Lord Denman and I are
agreed in exceedingly lamenting the publication....
Now as I understand Mr. Hardy has more letters and is going to publish
another volume or two, it really would only be an act of kindness to
Lady Langdale and of justice to Lord Langdale’s memory, to take care
that some friend of the family, who was also acquainted with Lord
Langdale personally, and with the history of their time, should
superintend Mr. H’s operations, and save him from falling into such
mistakes.
It is impossible to doubt that he is well acquainted with records, and
what he has given on that subject is extremely valuable. It is equally
certain that Lord Langdale deserves the highest praise, and nothing
can be more just than to give him the fullest credit, not only for
what he did, but for what he wished to do. If Mr. Hardy has attacked
almost every one else, that is his own affair, and I dare say no one
will much complain of being assailed when it was done in order to
exalt (unnecessarily, because he did not need it) so excellent and
useful a person as Lord Langdale....
Yours truly,
H. BROUGHAM.”
The charge brought by Lord Brougham in this letter against Panizzi of
being an accomplice in Sir T. D. Hardy’s crime, was, in a subsequent
letter from his Lordship, repudiated by him.
“Scarborough, 3 Aug., 1852.
“My dear Panizzi,
I never supposed you had interfered with the book which you told
me you knew nothing about, except that you had ‘unadvisedly’ (because
you knew nothing of it) urged X—— to speak favourably of it, which I
take for granted you would not have done had you read it. I object
entirely to my name being used, either with Lord Langdale’s family or
with Mr. Hardy, because they will suppose that I am resenting the
ridiculous attacks upon myself, which I presume there is no person so
utterly ignorant as to consider worth a moment’s notice, such as my
having only _talked_ about Law Reform before I came into office, and
never afterwards doing anything of the kind—when this very book itself
relates my having proceeded with the County Courts Bills the moment I
came in, and many other things which the author’s gross ignorance
keeps him from knowing were my Bills. Therefore, as regards myself, he
is welcome to spit out all the well-known spite of the Bentham people,
whose ally, probably their tool, he is as regards me. But what I do
complain of, is his having been suffered to publish Burdett’s letters.
Yours truly,
H. BROUGHAM.”
Here we pause to pursue in the following chapter our anecdotical mood,
illustrating the reminiscences with letters confirmatory of our various
allusions—letters which in themselves possess great value, if the
celebrity of their authors be borne in mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration]