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.
314 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 315disposition; 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, 316as 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, 317and 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 318thought 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, 319i will be hanged if i know the subject matter of his note; what can i feign?
yours nevertheless truly,
j. p.”[o]
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.”
320a 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 r?le à van diemen land, que racine fit jouer à celui, qui causa la mort d’hippolyte.
“miss x—— à re?u aujourd’hui une lettre de sa mère annon?ant 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 crane, 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 321name 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 322fatigue 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 323john 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 324lord 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.”
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 325edward 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 326evidently 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 327involve 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.”
328it is really difficult to discover anything in sir t. d. hardy’s book which could have stirred up the s?va 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, 329because 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.
