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, 177related 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.

178A 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 179may 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 180prove 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 181his 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 182and 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.”
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.

183Though 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 184their 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 185James 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 186seat 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 187morning; 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 188he 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.

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.

189These 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 Eichst?dt, 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 190First 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.”

I. The book is of great importance. It was printed in Mentz, by Fast and Sch?ffer. 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 191might 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 192assurance 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.

193He 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 194the 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 chateau, 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.”

195A 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. 196Panizzi 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 197and 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 198is 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.