CHAPTER XVII
Cardinal Alberoni; Panizzi and Lord Shrewsbury; Correspondence arising from Gladstone’s Visit to Naples.
There now arose, mainly out of the great subject treated by the Gladstone letters, an important correspondence between Panizzi and Lord Shrewsbury, who died at Naples, Nov. 9th, 1852. In 1850, his Lordship went to reside in quiet retirement at his villa near Palermo, from whence he visited Switzerland, and returned in Oct., 1852, but spent the Autumn at Rome. In politics he was a Whig. In the Catholic Directory we read ‘that the angelic purity of Lord Shrewsbury was the theme of every one’s admiration, and never did he allow a light or indelicate word, or the slightest allusion contrary to modesty to be made before him.’ In order that the reader may rightly understand the first few lines of this chapter, it must be stated en passant, that Panizzi had written in the British and Foreign Review for October, 1844, an article on the Republic of San Marino, in which he attempted a vindication of that brilliant example of a self-made man and dexterous (we may say unscrupulous) politician, Cardinal Alberoni. Let it also be said that the dark as well as the bright side of Alberoni’s character is therein treated with perfect impartiality. His intention was to write a full biography of the eminent Cardinal, and had requested Lord Shrewsbury to procure him some documents at Rome, as material for the work.
The commencement of Lord Shrewsbury’s first letter contains the answer to this commission:—
“Palermo, April 5th, 1851.
“Dear Mr. Panizzi,
As a private opportunity offers for England, I take advantage of it to say that I have by no means neglected your commission, yet I can only say in general terms that I have not succeeded in all your desire, for just now I cannot lay my hand on the correspondence, but the papers are where no one can get at them without a great deal of fuss, and without the intervention of some influential person on the spot, and who will undertake to examine them at the same time; and now that Cardinal Wiseman has, to our great surprise, left the position he was destined for, and taken up another where we did not expect to see him, the scheme you had so honourably intended for the vindication of an injured Prelate, and calumniated diplomatist and statesman, must fall to the ground for the present. Of course you have “Istoria del Cardinale Alberoni, Seconda Edizione, &c, &c., Amsterdam, 1720.” This appears, by the notice of it, to be an authentic and able defence of the Cardinal, containing four letters written by himself from Sestri, in reply to the accusations brought against him. If you can suggest anything I shall be happy to attend to it, but things at Rome are so perplexed and troublesome that it is difficult to get anyone to take an interest in matters that do not immediately concern their own duties. Had our friend Cardinal Wiseman remained, the thing could have been done no doubt, but he too has other questions to occupy him just at present....”
The following brilliant passage in the same letter commences the controversy between the correspondents on the affairs of the Neapolitan Government—Risum teneatis?
“We enjoy the peace and quiet—both civil and religious—of this place amazingly: and begin to feel that we are safer and happier under the absolutism of Ferdinand II., and the Martial Law of our Good Prince Satriano, than under the boasted sway of the ‘Glorious Principles!!’ For, under your good friend Ferdinand, and his worthy representative, we are sure of safety and protection, as long as we observe the law, as becomes a peaceful member of society. But, under the ‘Glorious Principles‘ we violate no law, and fancy ourselves safe, when, lo and behold, we are arraigned as criminals, and condemned to be mulct to the last farthing by an ex post facto arrangement of the collective wisdom (?) of the freest and most enlightened nation under the sun! But I shall shock your sensitive nerves, and scandalize your constitutional orthodoxy, so I must bid you good-bye, and beg of you to believe me, dear Mr. Panizzi, your very obedient and obliged friend and servant,
Shrewsbury.”
Thus Panizzi replied to the first of these passages:—
“British Museum, April 24th, 1851.
“My dear Lord,
I have had the honour to receive, a few days ago, your Lordship’s letter of the fifth inst., than which no letter could have given me greater pleasure. I should have acknowledged this honour ere this, had not the malady and subsequent death of Lord Langdale, one of the best friends I have ever had, taken from me the power of fulfilling even the most agreeable duty of thanking your Lordship for the kindness in remembering my request in reference to Alberoni, and still more for that of addressing to me so excellent a letter as you have been pleased to do. I cannot give your Lordship better proof of the value I set on your communication than by respectfully and frankly laying before your Lordship my views on the various topics to which your letter draws my attention, even when those views do not unfortunately coincide with your Lordship’s. Before coming to that, however, I wish to say a few words respecting Alberoni. From Prince Castelcicala I had already received a message, for which I begged him to thank your Lordship, showing that you had not forgotten the favour I had been encouraged by your kindness to ask your Lordship. I now beg to enclose a memorandum in Italian, stating in a few words what I want from Rome, and why I want it, and if a further attempt could be made I should feel obliged; if not, we must have patience. The Emperor of Russia has actually graciously condescended to order the copies of certain documents in his Imperial Archives to be made out and sent to me, and at Rome one cannot, even through the powerful interest of your Lordship, find means of knowing whether certain papers contain any charge against a Cardinal, who was certainly innocent, who is calumniated in history, and whose innocence, it is expected, would be fully established were the contents of the papers in question known. These are mortifying comparisons, my Lord, for us both as Catholics, and for me, moreover, as an Italian. The schismatic Emperor more ready to assist in proving the innocence of a Cardinal than Rome!!! Whatever has been printed and published respecting Alberoni I have procured, and the letters mentioned by your Lordship were the documents which led me first to suppose him innocent and calumniated, a supposition which further researches have amply confirmed.
I sincerely wish Cardinal Wiseman had remained at Rome, not so much on account of the assistance which, I do not doubt, his Eminence would have lent me in the Alberoni affair, as, on account of the irreparable mischief that his coming back to England has produced....”
The reader need hardly to be reminded that the last sentence refers to the celebrated “Papal aggression” of 1851. Panizzi’s answer to Lord Shrewsbury’s curious laudation of the Government of Naples is direct and incisive:—
“I am grieved, my Lord, more than I can express, at the praises your Lordship bestows on the Government of his Sicilian Majesty. I am grieved, because the countenance of such a Government by so high an authority as your Lordship’s encourages tyranny and despotism, to which two abominations all the miseries of mankind are to be attributed. I say all advisedly; for all the follies, the wickedness, the crimes of the extreme Republicans, whom I detest as cordially as the Neapolitan Government can do, are all owing to the detestable Governments under which people live, and by which they are driven to madness. Nations are, to a very great extent (I am almost inclined to say altogether) what their spiritual and temporal rulers make them; and in the same manner that we attribute much of the unfortunate state of Ireland to the English misgovernment of old, we must be just and attribute the miseries of Sicily, her dissatisfaction, her rebellious spirit, her crimes, and her cruelties to misgovernment. It is misgovernment that makes repealers, socialists, red republicans, &c. I wish I could say that things have improved of late in the Neapolitan Government; but, my Lord, Europe has heard with horror of the iniquitous, cruel, and worse than heathenish trials and condemnations that have lately taken place against men whose innocence is as well known and clear as daylight. I should not speak so positively were it not that Mr. Gladstone, the member for the Oxford University, whose talents, whose honesty, and whose sober political principles need no praise, has just come from Naples in such a state of indignation against the Government as I should never have expected to see in such a man. He has made it his business to enquire into the truth of the charges, into the proofs brought forward to support them, into the character of the accusers, witnesses, and judges, into the conduct of the Government, into the treatment of the accused, both before and after condemnation, and he has come to the conclusion, which he has expressed to me and to others in these precise words, deliberately weighed and then repeated, the Government of Naples is the Government of Hell upon earth. These expressions from an English gentleman, uttered in English, with the accent of deep religious conviction, need no comment. Mr. Gladstone has shown me documents in support of his conviction, and they bear him out most abundantly. As a strong Conservative, and because he is a Conservative, as a Christian and as a gentleman, Mr. Gladstone (I use his own words) feels himself bound in conscience to expose iniquities which I am horrified in thinking of. He will do so in the House of Commons, as far as he can, but the details are so horrible, so revolting, so indecent that he will not be able to tell before an assembly of gentlemen the whole truth. But what he will and can say will produce the proper effect in Europe, not on Republicans only, but on statesmen of Conservative principles, who feel these principles disgraced and compromised by such abominations. No Government can be formed in England, should the present one be forced to make way, without Mr. Gladstone, who, in office as out of office, will not spare the guilty. Another man of unimpeachable character, of remarkable talents, of opposite political principles, Sir William Molesworth, fully agrees with Mr. Gladstone, and both say openly that they rejoice at the majority of the House of Commons that kept Palmerston in office last summer, when they both voted in the minority.
Your Lordship is at perfect liberty to state all this; neither Mr. Gladstone nor Sir William Molesworth shrink from the responsibility of their statements; on the contrary, they make them openly and unreservedly. I pledge my honour that I do not overstate what they say; in fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so. If your Lordship, however, has any doubt, just please to write to either or both of them, and ask if I exaggerate.
And now, my Lord, allow me for the sake of humanity, whose cause I know no one has more at heart than your Lordship, for the sake of good government and religion, allow me to beseech you heartily to refrain from praising a government like that of Naples, or rather let me entreat your Lordship to use the powerful influence you must possess to open the eyes of the authorities, and induce them, for their own sake, for the sake of humanity, to behave like Christians.”
The reply to this contained in the following extract is both in form and substance a wonderful specimen of logical reasoning. We abstain from further comment on it and at once insert it, lest we detract from the enjoyment the reader must derive from its perusal:—
“Palermo, May 21st, 1851.
“Dear Mr. Panizzi,
I am very thankful for your kind, interesting, though melancholy letter of the 24th ult., but which only reached me yesterday evening, and as our post goes tomorrow, I have but little time to say anything. But the main question you have treated is so important and big with all sorts of consequences, that I cannot refrain from immediately touching on it. I translated that portion relating to Naples, and took it to the Lord Lieutenant, who will forthwith send it to Naples, and ask for some official document in return. He at once, as I was sure he could with a safe conscience, denied the truth of the main charges. That the prisons are in a very unsatisfactory state, cannot be denied, and is sadly to be lamented. But reforms are almost always tedious and difficult. In what condition were the prisons in England some fifty years ago? Yet the King is by no means unmindful of them, and the female prisons have been thoroughly amended. They are now in the hands of the Jesuits and the Sisters of Charity.... But the iniquities of the Judicial system, as applied to State prisoners, is the great offence. Now, from what I had heard from Sir William Temple myself and from others, and what I hear now from the good Prince who rules this island, I am thoroughly convinced that Mr. Gladstone has been deceived by false testimony. The King’s government is the least vindictive it is possible to conceive; before 1848 there was not one State prisoner in Naples, and before the Revolution here, there had not been one single capital execution for six years. So much the worse you will say, and so say I. It was this mistaken leniency that wrought out half of the social mischief. Remember the trials are all public, the witnesses are examined in public, the proceedings are published in the public papers, and out of the thousands who have offended, very few are arrested and tried. The proceedings are slow for the purpose of giving, not violating justice, ... Sir W. Temple told me all that you have now asserted on the authority of Mr. Gladstone and Sir W. Molesworth, and he added that of all the liberal side of the late Chamber of Deputies there was not one who was not either an exile or a prisoner. I was horrified at the statement, and went forthwith to a most respectable English Resident, who knew Naples well: he immediately said, ‘That is false, to my own knowledge, for I am acquainted with several who are neither one nor the other.’ But the truth is that Sir W. Temple is mystified, and thus mystified others. He and Lord Napier, and all the Consuls, and all the travelling Ministers (such as Lord Minto) are, and have been ever in the hands of the Revolutionary Party, and are duped by them, and I am confident that Mr. Gladstone’s evidence will turn out of the same quality. After all, who were the liberals’ deputies?—who the men who infuriated the people on the 15th of May, and overturned the Constitution? They were Red Republicans, sworn to dethrone the Sovereign. Would they have been better treated in Ireland than in Naples?... The Revolution here was nothing but a history of atrocious crime and atrocious tyranny—regular mob-law exercised by a mob of armed banditti. There is no more honourable or humane or upright a man than Filangieri, nor a more humane and upright and honourable a Prince than his Sovereign; but, as M. Fortunato told Baillie Cochrane, ‘the characters of the Sovereign and his servants are sacrificed to the calumnies spread abroad in Naples,’ by those who ought to know better. No man reverences Liberty more than I do, or sees, and hates the evils of despotism; but mob-law is the greatest evil of all, and this, so far, has been the only blessing which so-called Constitutional liberty has hitherto brought to poor ill-fated Italy....
Very truly and sincerely yours,
Shrewsbury.”
And, at the risk of exceeding our limits of space, Panizzi’s reply must be given in full:—
“British Museum, June 4th, 1851.
“My dear Lord,
The day before yesterday I had the honour to receive your Lordship’s letter of the 21st of last month. I need not add that I am very much obliged to your Lordship for it. As your Lordship observes, the points now the chief subjects of our correspondence are so very important that I hope you will forgive me if I take the liberty of freely expressing my opinion when I am so unfortunate as to differ from your Lordship; for on such subjects flattery, and even over-deference, are a crime. It is the more necessary that I should, with due respect, but freely, express my dissent, when requisite, from your Lordship’s conclusions, as the opinion of your Lordship, and a correct knowledge of the facts on your part may lead to very important consequences.
I need not state it especially and prominently, perhaps, but ad abundantiam I wish it to be well understood, that in what I am going to say I mean nothing disrespectful towards His Sicilian Majesty, whom I supposed to be moved only by a sincere desire of performing the duties of his high station as a Christian Prince. I give him, therefore, credit for the very best intentions, and I trust I am not wrong in supposing that, far from feeling offended with those who, like myself, strive to open his eyes to the real state of his Government (supposing the opinions and statements of so humble a person like myself were to be known to his Majesty), he would feel thankful. As to the Prince of Satriano, I cannot figure to myself a Filangieri otherwise than humane, high-minded, and a lover of truth and justice. It is a name of which an Italian must be proud....
Your Lordship’s letter refers to three very distinct topics. First, the conduct of the Liberals; second, that of the King and his Government; third, that of the Courts of Law.
With respect to the first point, I shall not trouble your Lordship with many observations. If it be true that the people had no reason to be dissatisfied; if it be true that in Sicily, for instance, they were guilty of the atrocities laid at their door; if the chambers of representatives were formed out of needy lawyers and brawling demagogues, how is it, my Lord, that the Government which has always been strong and despotic has not produced better results? Whose fault is it that people don’t know when they ought to be satisfied, that when they can they are cruel, ferocious, and all that, that needy lawyers and demagogues carry the day?...
I hope, my dear Lord, that a passage in your letter is misunderstood by me. Your Lordship seems to think that it was owing to the leniency of the Government that the Liberals did all the alleged mischief, and that, by shedding of blood, better results would have been obtained. If so, I beg to differ entirely from your Lordship. I am not one of those squeamish sort of persons who faint at the mention of punishment of death, even for political crimes; but assuredly the Neapolitan Government has never been accused of weakness on that score. I believe there have been more people put to death in the two Sicilies for political crimes since the French Revolution in 1789 began than in any other country in the world, France excepted. In Spain civil war has raged for so many years that it is impossible to draw a comparison. But in no part of Germany or of the North, of course not in England, nor even in other parts of Italy, has blood been shed more recklessly, more cruelly, or more remorselessly than in the kingdom of the two Sicilies. And what is the result, I ask once more? Oh, my Lord, that blood letting is a terrible and dangerous remedy!... It is a game at which two may play, and if Kings are too ready to put to death, they may teach republicans the same readiness....
As to the conduct of the King’s Government, I can only say that, if there be no aristocracy in either Sicily or Naples, it is only because it has been destroyed by the King’s Government—that it is owing to the Government that the French law of succession has been introduced in the kingdom of Naples, and then in Sicily, that in those kingdoms the scandal has been often seen repeated of the Sovereign swearing to statutes and fundamental laws, and then breaking his oath without fear of God or man.... This may be kingcraft of some sort, but it is not either religion or morality.... I hear it often said, ‘Oh, the people are deceived and misled by demagogues, on whom they ought not to place confidence.’ Why, on whom are they to place confidence? The poor people, when what passes before their eyes shows to them that those who govern them hold nothing sacred, and that the more solemn the oath, the more explicit the promises, the more earnest the appeals to loyalty, the more easy the perjury, the more barefaced the quibbling, the more gross the deception of those who relied on oaths, on promises, and on fair words?
After the 15th of May, 1848, a proclamation was published at Naples, signed by the King only; weigh well his words as an English gentleman, and recollect there are not two principles of morals—one for Kings and the other for other persons, or one for England, and one for Naples.... Well, then, what has been done, and with what success—for I am a man of facts, and not of theories—to establish that good Government that is to be the forerunner of the Guarantees for it? And if the Constitutional system is impossible, why did the King give a Constitution?...
I now come to the third point. Your Lordship tells me that Mr. Gladstone has been deceived.... You say distinctly not only that Sir W. Temple and Sir W. Molesworth are mistaken and have been deceived, but you hold as undoubted that Sicilian liberals, as well as foreign Diplomatists and Consuls, and Captains, and Admirals, and Ministers, &c., &c., all are either knaves or fools, who either wilfully or stupidly misrepresent the truth. Well, if I had no other data to judge of the validity of this sweeping exception than that the bulk of the persons here mentioned are Englishmen, I should not assent to your views. And not only many of them are Englishmen, that is belonging to a nation, as a whole, the most veracious on earth, but both English and Foreigners are persons of standing, &c.... On what ground is your Lordship induced to doubt their trustworthiness? Of your own knowledge you cannot know much. You collect your information from persons belonging to one side only, &c., &c.... It is not said of all the Deputies on the liberal side of the late Chamber “there is not one who is not either an exile or a prisoner.” What is said is what follows: ‘Of the whole number of deputies (160), only 140 attended when the Chamber sat, of these 140 there are 24 in prison and 52 in exile, that is to say, more than half.’ Let the names of those 140 who attended be looked after, and let the Government say where are 76 of them. If the Government do not do so, it may be, my Lord, I shall have the painful duty of sending a list to your Lordship myself for the Government’s information. And in looking after deputies, I wish you would inquire after one who was assassinated, and also ask for a certain Peluso, a priest, who enjoys a pension from the Government.... With respect to the evidence of Mr. Gladstone individually, I beg to submit the following facts. Mr. Gladstone is a political opponent of the Ministers, and just before leaving London for Naples last summer, voted against Lord Palmerston on the Greek question. He went from here as strongly impressed as your Lordship can now be that Lord Palmerston’s policy was wrong at Naples, and that Sir W. Temple was greatly to blame for calumniating the Neapolitan Government. Such were Mr. Gladstone’s feelings on arriving at Naples. To say that he is a most scrupulously honourable man as well as one of the most acute living Statesmen, is to say what everybody knows. What must be stated in addition, as it is important to the point now in discussion, is that Mr. Gladstone is a thorough Italian Scholar, and reads as well as speaks the language as fluently and correctly as a well educated Italian....
“Now, my Lord, I defy those who tell you that Mr. Gladstone has been deceived to show that they have taken one-tenth of the trouble he has taken.... And I beg also to add that in Europe a statement of facts by Mr. Gladstone, even unsupported, which it is far from being, will outweigh the statements of all the judges and other officials of the Neapolitan Court. My blood boils to have to call such people judges, and such a den a Court!... I shall not apologise for the length of this letter. It was due to Mr. Gladstone to show that he is not likely to have been deceived, and it was due to your Lordship to show that you must have been deceived. I hope and trust you will not countenance by your praises, or by an extenuation of its faults, a Government which is a disgrace to humanity and to Christianity....
Believe me, with great respect and truth,
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. Panizzi.”
Nothing daunted by such strong and keen weapons of argument, Lord Shrewsbury returns to the charge with a supply of counter-ammunition in the shape of a worthless pamphlet, written by one Mr. Macfarlane, and termed, in unconscious irony, the “Cause of Order.”
“Palermo, June 12th, 1851.
“Dear Mr. Panizzi,
I send you an interesting little brochure, which, I trust, will serve to show that Mr. Gladstone has been mystified. Rely upon it, the Government of Naples, whatever imperfections it may have (and what Government is without them?) is by no means deserving of the censures which have been so liberally and so unjustly cast upon it by a certain class of writers, and still more, and with far greater effect, by a certain class of speakers and talkers.
Macfarlane’s statements, in his ‘Glance at Revolutionized Italy,’ and in his appendix, I am convinced, are by no means too favourable. The absurd, ridiculous, superficial, and notoriously false facts and figures of Mr. Whiteside will never counteract the solid truth of the rival, and more experienced, and far more talented tourist....”
The remainder of this letter is hardly worth quoting. Arguments, or assertions, are repeated, and there is much discussion on “the havoc, crime, and plunder” of the “Glorious Revolution,” on the previous fulness of municipal coffers and general prosperity of the country; on the progress of all works of commerce and agriculture, the making of new roads and harbours, the lightness of taxation, &c. There was “no grievance except old Maio’s slack hand over the demagogues. Had there been a Satriano or a Pronio there had been no Revolution, nor even a serious thought of it.”
The statements of the English Blue Books are stigmatised as a mass of error and bad faith.
The extreme prolixity of Lord Shrewsbury’s letters, and the weariness of the “damnable iteration” in which they abound, render it difficult, and indeed unnecessary, to present them in their entirety. In fact, so much of Panizzi’s portion of the correspondence, as is set out in full, gives all that is wanted of his opponent’s argument and of the answer to it. Lord Shrewsbury harps much on Sicily (out of which he comparatively rarely ventures) in his defence of the Government of King Ferdinand. Slightly oblivious of the fact that it is despotism that has reduced the Southern Italians to the state in which he finds them, he decides that such despotism should be perpetuated as the only form of Government which suits those it has created. To attempt to improve by absurd and iniquitous revolution, to interfere with the well-settled and satisfactory state of things here described by Lord Shrewsbury, and with the benevolent régime which had so ordered matters, would be reprehensible in the last degree. Meanwhile nothing can exceed the contempt with which the writer speaks of the almost too happy people of this too happily governed Kingdom; prefacing his notice by advising those who have rashly maligned the King and his Government to come over, and see and judge for themselves:—
“Let any one come here and read the official documents, and hear and see the lamentable history of a period which will ever be a blot upon our national honour and honesty, (for we violated every principle of international law,) he will imbibe very different notions of both the King and the Government which too many of us have been so unjustly and inveterately maligning. The people of these countries are no more fit for liberty than cats and dogs. They know not what it is, or how to use it, nor are there materials to guarantee its due exercise even if they understood it better. Large and free municipal privileges, such as they really have, with a good Governmental administration, and a strong hand to repress crime, is all that they are suited for, and all that they ought or do desire.... In the meanwhile, read Macfarlane, and sip in wisdom and instruction from his sprightly stream.... You look to his facts and assertions and the authorities upon which they rest, and believe that both you and Mr. Gladstone and Sir W. Molesworth have all been mystified, even more so than the readers of the Blue Books.”
No apology, we feel sure, is needed for the introduction in this correspondence of such letters from Mr. Gladstone as reached Panizzi during its continuance, and bear on the subject matter. A passage in the following epistle will remind the reader of the contrast between revolutions in more than one foreign country, and the manner in which such movements have happily been hitherto dealt with in England:—
“June 21st, 1851.
“My dear Panizzi,
You speak of the scanty justice done here to the cause of Italy. No doubt it is true, but something must be allowed for the imperfection of all organs contrived by men. Parliament fails, sometimes egregiously, in its duty to England. I have often thought it impenetrably hardened in injustice when the question has been about some acts of our own to Foreign Powers or countries. I am then the less surprised that it has little time or thought for Italy, not having enough for its own immediate duties, and of course preferring, not perhaps without a tinge of selfishness, what lies nearest home. I do, however, most deeply grieve over the silence of Parliament about the expedition to Rome in 1849. That was a great opportunity and should not have been missed. It was missed, out of a misplaced regard to democracy, the sham democracy of France.
I am, however, certain as matter of fact that the Italian habit of preaching unity and nationality in preference to showing grievance, produces a revulsion here; for if there are two things on earth that John Bull hates, they are an abstract proposition or idea and the Pope....
Most sincerely yours,
W. E. Gladstone.”
To speak of Lord Shrewsbury as an honourable, high-minded man—a gentleman in the strictest sense of the term, who honestly espoused the worse, inasmuch as he conscientiously believed it to be the better cause—would be almost offering an insult to his memory. An English Roman Catholic of the older sort, he was religiously (though perhaps unconsciously) rather than politically biassed in favour of the peculiar manner of Government obtaining in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Many members of that great Church to which he belonged will not hold her disparaged by the assertion that, in her relations to man, there are two great points which she chiefly regards. First, that men shall always be kept in due subjection to the powers that be in both Church and State, and secondly that they shall, while in that state of subjection, be rendered by their rulers as comfortable and contented as possible under the circumstances. A third object, which Christians are apt to look on as of some little importance—that men should be in mind so developed as to deem themselves of some account, both as individuals and as members of the State—she regards but distantly, if at all. Considering Lord Shrewsbury’s mental constitution, his view of the matters around him is in no wise surprising; but let the first well-authenticated case of anything approaching to tyranny and oppression reach his ears, and his humanity and indignation are at once apparent. Of this he shall be his own witness. Nor is his feeling of generosity lessened by the fact that, in protesting against the treatment awarded to the unhappy Poerio by the best of all possible governments, he accuses the sufferer of political crimes of the deepest dye, and brings accusations against him, the falsehood of which the most superficial enquiry would have demonstrated. Lord Shrewsbury confined himself not to expressions of sympathy only; he forthwith set himself heartily to bring what personal influence he possessed to bear towards procuring alleviation of the sufferings of the hapless criminal:—
“Palermo, June 26th, 1851.
“It was this day’s post that brought me your favour of the 4th. I cannot say how distressed I am at what you tell me of the fate of poor Poerio, for however guilty the man may be, his punishment is barbarous, inhuman, and unchristian. I cannot doubt what Mr. Gladstone saw. I really had no idea that, in these times, old habits and ways of thinking in these matters had still prevailed in Naples, to the exclusion of those more becoming, polite, and enlightened methods of dealing with State criminals. Our worthy Chief Governor is not yet returned from his tour, but I hope to see him before our next post leaves, and shall not fail to press this point upon him; and too happy shall I be to be able to report that the rigors of Poerio’s confinement have been already mitigated. Though I know full well that no man is more capable of discriminating between truth and falsehood than Mr. Gladstone, still I have heard so much of Poerio’s criminality as to leave no reasonable doubt upon my mind that, whatever defects there may have been in the evidence upon which he was convicted, there is no question of his guilt. He was, I think, an exile for his conduct in ’30, lived at Paris on terms of intimacy with Mazzini, and there published several Revolutionary Pamphlets, in fine, the whole Ministry, of which he formed a part, Dragonetti’s, perhaps, excepted, were noted and proved Republicans, such as Pepe and Saliceti. How, then, can any one doubt their determination to dethrone the King by means of the Constituent Assembly into which they were determined to transform the new Chamber, in May, ’48? No one at Naples doubted it....
“June 29th.
“... I have just seen our good Prince. I shall copy those portions of your letter relating to Poerio, and will send them to old Fortunato. But, fearing they might never reach the King, I will also send them to our friend the Marquis del Vasto, who has constant opportunities of seeing his Majesty.... Rely upon it, I shall do all I can ... what a pity Mr. Gladstone had not himself gone to the King; but now I hope he will wait to see if any good comes from this before naming the subject in Parliament. The Prince of Satriano says you may make what use you will of the enclosed MS.; he wishes it to be known, and would not object even to its publication; though, as he is preparing an elaborate work in detail, it would perhaps be better only to show it privately, certainly to Mr. Gladstone. I have left both open for the Prince of Castelcicala....”
In a letter from Mr. Gladstone to Panizzi a fair estimate is given of Lord Shrewsbury’s letters, and the general line of argument pursued by him.
“July 7th, 1851.
“Lord Shrewsbury’s letter really comes to nothing, so far as the issues raised by me are concerned. Meanwhile, the time is nearly exhausted, and next week I must absolutely print unless I learn that something good has been done, which may be an effective premise of more. It is an ugly and painful controversy, but I cannot help it....”
To Lord Shrewsbury’s advice contained in his letter of the 12th of June, asking Panizzi to come and see, and judge for himself, he replied, at once accepting the invitation:—
“July 14th, 1851.
“... Now I am ready. I have scraped together £100 for the purpose. I am ready to start on the 1st of September, and to go with your Lordship, in your presence and with your concurrence, verify all the statements made by Mr. Gladstone. If your Lordship and I find that they are unfounded, I shall publish the fact to the world; if they are well grounded, I shall respectfully beg of your Lordship to endeavour to convince the Neapolitan Government of the injustice of their proceedings. It is superfluous to say that this is to be kept between your Lordship and myself entirely at present, or else the enquiry would be nugatory, and our end, that of discovering the truth, in justice to the Government as well as to the victims—defeated. I wish nothing but the truth to come out. Let us, therefore, do our best to find it out. It is worth the trouble. I can dedicate to this the above sum and two months—September and October....”
To this Lord Shrewsbury replied, giving his opinion and advice as to the most effective way of carrying out the proposed plan, and excusing himself from personal participation:—
“July 25, 1851.
“I think your best plan will be to ask an audience of the King at once, and speak to him frankly on the matter. He will, I doubt not, listen to you, and give you the facilities you desire; but the object of your audience must not be known beforehand, or it may be thwarted. I have only one acquaintance at Naples—the Marquis del Vasto ... through him I think I could ensure you an audience of the King, but neither must know the precise object. I never was presented to the King in my life, though he has been extremely kind to us. I could not meet you at Naples for several reasons—that it always disagrees with me, &c., &c. You might open your audience with the King as the bearer of Mr. Gladstone’s statement, which, I should think, he would never otherwise see. I hear it has been sent to Naples; but if only to the Minister, the King will probably never see it. He listened most patiently to Baillie Cochrane, and is, I have good reason to believe, most anxious to learn the truth, which others may be as anxious to conceal from him.”
The letters of Mr. Gladstone on Panizzi’s proposed journey must be given here:—
“August 2nd, 1851.
“The Prince Castelcicala has sent a letter to Lord Aberdeen; it is not much to the purpose, but calls me a detractor and a calumniator. I could almost wish I were.”
“August 5th, 1851.
“It would indeed be greatly for my interest that you should go to Naples; your journey would lighten my responsibility, and afford me incomparable means of self-defence against the bold assertions with which I expect to be met.
Yet I can hardly in conscience recommend it to you, without conditions—your going would attract notice—your antecedents would be learned, and your steps watched. I cannot think you would ever be allowed to see the interior aspect of things with the sanction of the Government, whatever introductions you might have and whatever influence might be used in your favour. Certainly the case would be different if Lord Shrewsbury were to be the examining party, and you his unobserved, and therefore independent companion, and, I think, that in your place I should so put it to Lord Shrewsbury himself.... I am reading with some spice of dissatisfaction Petruccelli’s ‘Rivoluzione di Napoli.’ It certainly appears from this book that there were a party determined that the Constitution should not work. But the question always comes back, how such a party ought to be encountered.
Yours, &c., &c.,
W. E. Gladstone.”
Lord Shrewsbury’s application, which he duly made on Panizzi’s behalf to the Marquis del Vasto, unhappily failed of success; the Marquis being represented by his Lordship as a good, honest courtier, and will not meddle.
Respecting the Gladstone Pamphlet, Lord Shrewsbury wrote:
“I see that Lord Palmerston has noticed Gladstone’s Pamphlet, in very fine and honourable terms; still I hope the 20,000 is a misprint for 2,000. Is it not so? If not, I am glad the letter has been published, and sent to all the Courts; for it is the common cause of humanity and good Government, and even touches the honour of all crowned heads. I have always thought Lord Palmerston an honest, well-meaning, straightforward man—though too quick, credulous, and domineering.... I wish Mr. Gladstone all the credit and all the success he deserves.”
It would have been of much importance to Panizzi to obtain the countenance and influence of Lord Shrewsbury, both for his proposed interview with the King and during the whole of his visit in Naples; but his Lordship’s arrangements were incompatible with those which the traveller was under the necessity of making for his journey. He thus wrote:—
“B. M., August 25th, 1851.
“I am[“I am] firmly of opinion that the King does not know of all the iniquities now exposed by Mr. Gladstone, nor the cruelties of the prisons, and I start from this as a fact in my plans and dreams.... If your Lordship can manage to meet me—which I repeat ought not to be a very difficult matter for the Earl of Shrewsbury—we might under Providence be instrumental in alleviating an amount of human misery unparalleled in the world.... I shall be obliged for an early answer, as I am kept in London only by this business, and will take no holidays till I hear that I cannot employ the time allowed for them in a more useful manner than running from house to house in the country here.... Gladstone’s letters have gone through ten editions, and are the theme of every conversation. All the press, including that part opposed to the Minister and to Gladstone, as, for instance, the Morning Herald, have all taken Gladstone’s side; and in The Times of last Friday there was a letter from “our correspondent” from Naples supporting Gladstone....”
Panizzi now applied, in view of his long proposed visit, for permission to enter the Kingdom of Naples, and received the following answer:—
“Foreign Office,
August 26th, 1851.
“Sir,
... Lord Palmerston apprehends that you have been naturalized by Act of Parliament, and, if so, you are fully entitled to be considered as a British subject in every country but that of your birth, which his Lordship believes was the Duchy of Modena, and as a British subject you have a right to British protection in the Kingdom of Naples.
I am, &c., &c.,
H. U. Addington.”
Early in October Panizzi set forth on his journey.
Previous to his departure, Mr. Gladstone, who, it need hardly be said, took the deepest interest in his self-imposed mission, supplied him with the names of men of influence at Naples who were likely to be of the greatest service to him in attaining the object he had in view; these were Mr. Fagan and Signor Lacaita mentioned in the subjoined letters:—
“Fasque, September 24th, 1851.
“... I have just seen yesterday’s Times, and it seems the Neapolitan reply is ready and printed. I shall trust very much to you to aid me with matter for correcting it according to your inquiries in Naples. The persons on whose accuracy I am most disposed to rely are Mr. Fagan, at the Mission, and Signor Lacaita.... By this day’s post I have certain news of Poerio, from one who has seen him within a month; he was in hospital and allowed to walk for an hour or two detached from any other criminal, and carrying chains on him which my informant tells me weigh 20 or 25 pounds....”
Another letter, also from Mr. Gladstone, may be given, written four days before the last:—
“September 20th.
“I return Lord Shrewsbury’s letter. It is, I think, all things considered, very honourable to his candour, and I would hope you may do good through his means.... I earnestly hope the vindication and confutation will fall into your hands while you are on the spot. Here I shall be almost powerless to deal with the falsified details which it will probably produce.... I have had a good deal of interesting correspondence about my letters. Not the most pleasant of it is a letter from Mons. Guizot, very frank and kind, condemning outright my publication, and fully accepting the King of Naples, and all about him as a choice of evils. I have replied in terms which I hope will likewise be intelligible.
In Naples be sure to see and converse with Mr. Fagan of the Legation. Signor Lacaita, No. 3, Vico Tre Campane, a most excellent man, hunted by the Government....”
And October 3rd, 1851:—
“I most earnestly hope you will see the Neapolitan answer to me while you are in Italy, and, if possible, on the spot, for you will have facilities there, to verify or expose, such as cannot easily be attained.
The Neapolitan Government have written to ask Lord Palmerston whether he sanctioned my publication, to which he has replied by referring to my statement that I was alone responsible....
Yours, &c., &c.,
W. E. Gladstone.”
We shall, in our next chapter, follow Panizzi on his important mission, and give an abstract, as faithful and accurate as possible, of his doings whilst at Naples.
To the many who followed the course and knew the issue of the exertions then made, even this may appear unnecessary; but unless the name of the chief actor is to be passed over in the annals of humanity, our imperfect record will not be useless.
