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 fragmentsfragments having been put together by the late John Doubleday, an AssistantAssistant in the Museum.
These commenced on the 30th of June, and we append a letter from Panizzi to Lord Rutherfurd, dated from Ischl on July 28th:—
“Here I am from Vienna on my way to Venice. I am not going to the Modenese regions. You shall hear a great deal about that and other matters on my return. Sir Robert Gordon (Ambassador), though a Scotchman and a Tory, has behaved with the very greatest kindness to me, and has acted with great energy. I have done all he wished, which was in every respect what I wished, and I believe him as pleased with me as I am with him. Yesterday and to-day I have been among the most beautiful scenery I ever saw in my life—even including Scotland.”Scotland.”
The time, thus allowed, was not dedicated altogether to private enjoyment, most probably quite the reverse. Panizzi went abroad with the intention of visiting the leading libraries of Germany, taking on his way to Vienna, Stuttgart, where the famous Psalter[I] of 1457 was said to be for sale. It had been discovered in 1842 in the Library of the Collegiatstift, at Eichstädt, in Bavaria, by the antiquarian, J. Hess, through whose interest it was transferred, in 1843, to Stuttgart in exchange for another rare volume, the “Acta Sanctorum.” The Keeper of the Printed Books was, as it may easily be imagined, eager to purchase the volume, and on the 11th of June he wrote the following report:—“Mr. Panizzi has the honour to report that a copy of the First Psalter (1457) not long since discovered, and now in the Royal Library of Stuttgart, may be obtained for the British Museum, if what Mr. Panizzi has heard may be relied upon. It is said that the Government of Würtemberg might be disposed to part with it to a Public Library, but to no one else. Mr. Panizzi intends visiting Stuttgart partly for the purpose of seeing this volume—the most important by far, as well as the rarest of all early monuments of typography.”
I. The book is of great importance. It was printed in Mentz, by Fast and Schœffer. It is the first printed Psalter; the first book printed with a date; and containing the first specimens of printing in colours, as shown in the initial letters. A copy, bequeathed by Mr. Grenville, is now to be seen in the King’s Library, British Museum.
The recommendation of Panizzi was that the sum of six hundred guineas should be offered, for, to use his own words: “The copy now in the Royal Library at Paris, wanting six leaves, sold by auction in 1817, for 12,000 francs, or £480. It is made up of two copies, and is otherwise objectionable. The funds of the Royal Library at Paris being then low, Louis XVIII. himself paid the above price, and presented the volume to that institution.”
It is hardly necessary, though the volume did not find its way to the British Museum, to say that the Trustees did not hesitate a moment to sanction the purchase for the sum recommended.
The main object, on this occasion, being that of visiting his native place, Panizzi’s official position must be temporarily ignored, and this point of view kept in sight. On the 24th of June of the year 1845, he received a friendly note from the Austrian Ambassador in London, requesting him to call at the Embassy, in order that he might submit to him a dispatch from Prince Metternich, and another from the Minister of Police, Count Sedlnitzky, stating that he might with safety proceed to the Austrian Empire. Early in July he arrived at Vienna, as has already been noticed, and was there received with marked attention by Her Majesty’s Ambassador. The Duke of Modena was at the time on a visit to the Emperor of Austria, and through Sir Robert Gordon, Panizzi obtained an interview with Francis IV. Before the meeting took place, Panizzi wrote to a near relative of his, Signor Prospero Cugini, to the effect that the Duke had accepted all he had heard of him with unusual grace, expressing, at the same time, his desire for an interview, and also, what must have astonished Panizzi most, that he would have been allowed to go unmolested to Brescello. His delight can easily be imagined. On the 21st of July he had the gratification of an interview with the Duke, who, being now in his 66th year, was perhaps a little less blood-thirsty than when Panizzi left him in the year 1821. Francis’s love for Jesuitism and his cunning never seems to have abandoned him, even to the last; he died in the following year. The meeting was all that could be desired; and, as may be conceived, the conversation turned at once on the political state of Italy. On this subject Panizzi was too open-hearted, even to the extent of forgetting the prudence which should have permeated his words and actions; he clearly and distinctly told the Duke that his mode of Government was wholly hateful to his visitor, though he had no feeling of enmity towards the Duke himself personally, and that perhaps there remained even a sense of gratitude. However, in spite of this, they parted apparently good friends, and with the full assurance that Panizzi was at perfect liberty to go to Modena, or wherever he pleased.
His license was, however, based on false pretences; no such liberty was in reality granted. Indeed, it was never intended to be carried out, or if so, to be under the most unpleasant restrictions. Our warrant for this assertion is not only gathered from Panizzi’s own words, but from incontrovertible and stern facts. On the 7th of August Panizzi wrote from Venice to Cugini:—
“I must not, and cannot, now enter into particulars of the reasons which have determined me not to enter the Modenese States. What I suffer on account of it, God knows! but I had sooner die than accept such a vile promise as the one conceded to me. You must have noticed how prudently I have conducted myself, and how gratefully I should have accepted such indulgence—an indulgence which I believed to have been graciously given. In the word of honour of your Governors I have no faith. I will not go to Modena, where I have heard, a week ago, that there are orders against me, and which have been issued by the Duke himself.”
He then proceeded to Mantua, where he arrived on the 19th of August, and was met by some of his relatives. From this place he addressed a note to the Modenese authorities, demanding an explanation; the answer sent was short and discourteous.
It was so pre-arranged long before Panizzi and his former sovereign met; for on the 9th of July, eleven days before the meeting, an order had already reached Reggio to watch the visitor, to note his associates, and to send a full account of all that transpired to Modena.
He was, however, not to be baulked of his projected visit to Parma, where he went by a circuitous route, in order to avoid touching the soil of his native State. Here he was met by all his old acquaintances, not a few of whom travelled all the way from Brescello to Parma to see him. The names of these Brescellese were taken down, and sent to the Police Office at Modena. On his return to London he wrote to Lord Rutherfurd:—
“What kindness! what recollections! what a country! But as to the Government, I do not wish it to be known that I speak with disparagement of the Italian rulers, as I wish to go there again. Nothing new here, except that Mons. Thiers comes from Lisbon to Lord Ashburton’s, at the Grange, in ten or twelve days.”
We must pause for a while to congratulate Panizzi on his safe return, and to quote the good wishes of Samuel Rogers and Dr. Shepherd on so auspicious an occasion:—
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.
St. James’s Place.
“My dear Panizzi,
A scamp of an attorney who thrust himself into some trifling employment in Sir Francis Burdett’s celebrated contest for Middlesex, on sending him his bill, after charging for a journey to Acton and another to Ealing, &c., &c., &c., closed with the following item:—‘To extraordinary mental anxiety on your account, £500,’ After this precedent I have a good mind to charge you a good round sum for mental anxiety on your account, which I suffered when, some weeks ago, I heard a vague report that you were on your way to Modena, for I have such a horror of the petty Italian despots that I could not persuade myself that you were safe when in the power of the Duke. Lord Brougham, however, set my mind at rest when I arrived at his Cumberland château, on the 23rd ultimo, by informing me that he had, on his late visit to London, learnt at the Museum that you were on your return to England, having kept your neck out of the noose; and Mr. Charles Preston, who called here yesterday, tells me that you are well and hearty, and very busy in doing the hospitalities to M. Thiers. By the bye, there is much truth in the critique on Thiers’ great work in the last Quarterly, but the article is written in a tone and spirit of which, as an Englishman, I am ashamed.
Pray oblige me by giving me a full and particular account of your interview with the Duke of Modena, and tell me how far you penetrated into Lombardy. I presume you ran no risk in the Austrian territories....
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 few facts relating to Signor Libri must not be omitted. Inclination might lead us to suppress them, but our duty as faithful recorders of truth points to another direction. A biographer who has the heart and the will to introduce into his narrative the events of the life he is depicting, fearless of comment, is to be commended; and as such we do not intend to pass without notice the Libri case—a case which indeed, next to Panizzi’s sentence of death, was the most anxious event of his life.
Signor Libri, a man of extraordinary talents, especially distinguished as a mathematician, was a Tuscan by birth. He settled in Paris, and whilst there, in addition to his political avocations, aided by his able pen the Government of Louis-Philippe, and consequently became the bosom friend of Mons. Guizot.
As a purchaser of books he contrived to amass a collection of rare volumes, which he afterwards sold publicly to much advantage. Shortly after the revolution of 1848 rumours were afloat that he had been the robber of Public Libraries.
It is not our intention to enter for one instant into the merits of the case, or to make any statement bearing on Signor Libri’s innocence or guilt. Certain it is, that this most unpleasant affair gave rise to much discussion at the time; and Panizzi has often been heard to say that, had he not been known, as he was, to be a man of strict truth and honesty, he himself would never have dared to defend such an accusation as had been set up against his friend. As already intimated, we have no plea to offer except that of faithful biographers for touching on so delicate a subject. Panizzi was certainly not alone in his opinion; he was supported by many others, and those men of distinction, amongst them Guizot, Mérimée, and other personages now living.
M. Guizot wrote thus to Panizzi on the subject:—
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:—
“My dear Rutherfurd,
Many thanks for your letter of Sunday last, written, I suppose, between Church time. Maitland, the editor of the W. B., had already given me some insight, but very dim, into the amalgamation which has taken place to oppose Macaulay and Craig. As I have said a thousand times, the Britishers are the devil and all when they mix up together their religion and their politics, and if Lord John will not have His Satanic Majesty about his ears, he will interfere with religion of all sorts as little as he can, but let the gentlemen of each party fight it out among themselves, and be damned. We say in Italian that ‘chi lava la coda all’asino consuma l’acqua e il sapone,’ and he throws away his pains who tries in England, Scotland, and Ireland to conciliate religious sects. Look at the abominable conduct of the dissenters against the Whigs in general some years ago, at that of the Free Kirk people at Glasgow against their unworthy Lord Rector, and, just now at Plymouth, at that of dissenters against Ebrington. I saw him last night, just after his return and arrival in town. He told me that their conduct was abominable, and that at one time they threatened serious mischief. The fellow who distinguished himself was a man of the name of N *** who had hitherto proposed Lord E. He had himself mismanaged some Dock Bill, and wanted to throw the blame on Lord E., to whom he had, however, between that occurrence and the election, written in the most friendly terms, and asked a favour from him to procure the promotion of a son of his who is in the Excise. Wood tells me that Ebrington wrote to him strongly, and that he answered a sort of cold, official letter—as usual—which Ebrington sent to the father. This made him angry, and it seems now the fellow denies having applied; but Wood has got the letter addressed by N *** to Ebrington, who is going to send it to Plymouth to expose that wretch. Mr. Ellice wrote to me and told me he was going to assist at your instabulation, or installation, as he called it. I answered to Mrs. Ellice for him, but I have heard no more from either. Everybody says here he ought to come back, else he will be thought displeased and in a pet. Moreover, as I wrote to Mrs. Ellice, Lord Grey told me—no doubt that I should repeat it as I did—that he wanted to see Ellice. As I am a man of peace, I should like them to meet. Dundas’s appointment is not approved by the Bar, and will do harm. Not that he is not, of course, highly respected, esteemed, and liked, both for his talents and personal manners, but because—no matter whether on account of bad health, or any other reason—business has almost entirely left him, whereas Romilly makes £5000 a year. Moreover, he has done nothing in the House, at least for the party, and they think it wrong he should share the honours and the spoil. I have not heard he has accepted, but I suppose there is no doubt of it. His answer from York, where he was, must have been here yesterday. There is some screw loose about the sugar duties. The protectionists will support Lord John, and you may depend on this—if he will not insert in his second resolution, which I have not seen, some abstract principle, which they say is in it now, about the harm of protection in general. If those objectionable words are kept in the resolution they will oppose him. Now, I believe they ought to be kept in good humour as much as possible, and certainly at the sacrifice of uncalled-for abstract propositions. Lord Ponsonby is to go to Vienna, though he says he does not. Now, I know he knows, and his nolo episcopari sort of tone is all humbug. He wishes to go particularly; he thinks there he may settle matters with the Papal Nuncio, and be sent thence Ambassador to Rome—the aim of his ambition.
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.
CHAPTER VII
Thiers; Spanish Marriages; Downfall of Lord Melbourne’s Administration; Corn Laws; Coolness between Panizzi and Thiers.
Amongst the eminent men whose friendship Panizzi had the good fortune to enjoy, not the least was M. Adolpho Thiers, who must ever be regarded as one of the ablest and most honourable, if not the most successful of European statesmen. Thiers and Panizzi first met about 1840. Frequent association community of friends, similarity of tastes, and especially the interest felt by both in political affairs, soon united them in a friendship both intimate and lasting, which bore its fruits in due season. Thiers, writes Panizzi to Lord Rutherfurd, Oct. 30, 1845, has taken up all my time when here. It was I who brought him and Lord Palmerston together, and I have sent him away quite pleased with the reception. We shall talk about it, and you will be amused—if you answer my letters—with what I shall tell you of him and from him, and about him.”
Certain communications from Lord Clarendon to Panizzi contain acute and pertinent remarks on the illustrious Frenchman. For ourselves, we have always believed that an intimate feeling of Anglomisos (to coin a word somewhat milder in significance than Anglophobia) materially influenced Thiers. Himself the very incarnation of the Gallic indoles, it is not to be wondered at that he looked on the most prominent and obnoxious traits of English character as antagonistic and repulsive. Englishmen seemed to him the collective impersonation of a Sabidius, or of a Dr. Fell; but however much he might have disliked the English as a race, he was ever ready, owing to his candour and love of truth, to render full justice to England as a nation, whilst the facility with which he made intimate friends in this country is too well known to require illustration in these pages. The following letters are, however, suggestive:—
“My dear Panizzi,
I am exceedingly obliged to you for your information in re Thiers, whom I should have been delighted to ask to The Grove, but I fear there will be no chance of catching him during his short stay, as previous arrangements will not permit of our inviting him before the 25th. He really flits about Europe like a flash of lightning, and if he means to know anything about this country and its inhabitants he ought not to come only for a week at the deadest time of the year, though to be sure that is only in harmony with his usual system. Don’t you remember his famous note to Ellice when he (E.) was Secretary of the Treasury? ‘Mon cher Ellice, je veux connaître à fond le systême financier de l’Angleterre quand pourrez vous me donner cinq minutes?’ Lord Lansdowne has asked him to come here, and if he does not I shall try and find him on Wednesday on my way through London to join Lady C., whom I left at Gorhambury with her father, who is still very ill. When we are re-established at the Grove I need not say how much pleasure it will give her and me to see you there. We heard from Charles that you were well and prosperous, and had returned more devotedly attached than ever to the Duke of Modena.
“My dear Panizzi,
We were all in great hopes that Thiers would have come here to-day, but as he does not I must stay over tomorrow, for it would really be grief to me that he left England without my seeing him. It is quite a “bonne fortune” for Thiers, and important, moreover, to the relation between the two countries, that he should have fallen into your hands here, for there is no one so capable of properly directing his enquiries and opinions, and I am sure there is no born Englishman from whom he would receive with confidence and belief the sort of facts you will put before him. There is a great deal of avenir in Thiers, and he is still destined to exercise much influence upon the opinions of his countrymen, and if he could make himself personally cognizant of the feelings of the English towards France, and become sure that there is not among us a germ even of hostility or jealousy with respect either to the greatness or the prosperity of France, I think he might do much to allay that spirit of hatred towards us which his own works and a portion of the press under his control have already done much to excite. It would be an undertaking worthy of him, because it would tend to advance the best interests of civilisation, to put Anglophobia out of fashion in France, but for that he should be able to speak with authority and connaissance de cause, and I will defy even his cleverness to know this country, or to carry away any correct perceptions of it in a transitory visit, such as he is making. For my own sake, and being most desirous to show him any civility, I wish he had come a little later.
These letters cannot fail to be read with interest, coming from so appreciative a man as Lord Clarendon, pointing distinctly as they do to his intimate friendship with Panizzi, and expressing his hopes that Thiers would be cured of this “Anglo-phobia,” or, to use our own modified term, “Anglo-misos,” with his very true remark: “I’ll defy even his cleverness to know this country, or to carry away any correct perceptions of it in a transitory visit, such as he is making.”
In politics, though Panizzi’s opinions (albeit somewhat modified by lapse of time, and by his intercourse with the greater English statesmen) were probably still of a deeper revolutionary tinge than his friend’s, the two men were in the main of one mind. The prominent question of the day was that tissue of petty chicanery commonly known as The Spanish Marriages—a miserable intrigue—which caused considerable commotion at the time, and in due course produced consequences of a gravity out of all proportion to its intrinsic importance.
To recapitulate, its history in this place, and at this period, would be impertinent; with the aid of a slight introduction, and a few connecting remarks, enough of the nature of the transaction for the present purposes may be gathered from the correspondence of Thiers and Panizzi, as given below.
The affair seems to have come under serious diplomatic notice about the beginning of 1842, when Queen Isabella was in the twelfth year of her age. For a rough sketch of its origin, let the following suffice. M. Guizot, apprehensive that if a Prince of other than French or Spanish blood were to share the throne of Spain, France might be placed as it were between two fires, and patriotically wishing to make Spain, so far as possible, dependent upon his own country, insisted on limiting Queen Isabella’s choice of a husband to the descendants of the Bourbon Philip V.; at the same time, however, disclaiming any intention of including among the aspirants to the Queen’s hand any son of the King of the French.
The candidates spoken of at the time were—1st. Prince Leopold of Saxe-Cobourg, brother of the Queen of Portugal, and by no means a stranger to French blood, whose claim, if it can be so called, though causing the greatest disquiet to M. Guizot, was more a subject of conversation than reality. Indeed, except for a kind of counter-intrigue of a suspicious character, purporting to be in his favour, this competitor, can hardly be said to have been in the race. 2nd. Prince Metternich’s candidate, the Count de Montemolin, son of Don Carlos, who, although within M. Guizot’s conditions, had but little chance of success from the beginning. The third candidature was that of Count de Trapani, brother of the King of Naples, whose chance, as it turned out, was about equal to that of Count de Montemolin. To complete the list followed Don Francisco d’Assise, Duke of Cadiz, and his brother Don Enrique, Duke of Seville, sons of the Infant Don Francisco de Paula.
The design of the French Minister was communicated by M. Pageot, whom he sent for that purpose, to Lord Aberdeen, then Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The English Minister heard, with considerable astonishment, and with no little indignation, the unwarrantable proposal to restrict the Spanish Queen’s selection of her consort. He replied, however, that in a matter of a nature so entirely domestic it was not the wish of this country to interfere. M. Pageot thereupon endeavoured to obtain from the Foreign Secretary an expression of a like disinclination to intervene in case Queen Isabella were to fix her choice on her cousin, the Duc d’Aumale. The answer to this invidious hypothesis was that it was based upon a very different footing, and involved the question of the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe, as settled by Treaty.
As a matter of fact, Mons. Guizot had thus expressed himself to the Cabinet of England:—“We thought fit to apprise you, as the Ministry of one of the Great European Powers, of our intentions in regard to a political matter, which you may possibly consider of European interest, but in which we, on the other hand, take leave to hold the interest of France to be paramount to all others; and, inasmuch as, in such matter, we, the Government of France, have laid down a course of action, from which, so far as lies in our power, we will suffer no departure. We respectfully request you to give your adhesion to our design, or, if that be impossible to you, at least to remain impartial and inactive.”
Such a policy, subtly conceived, and springing from outre-cuidance, might well arouse patriotic indignation, and in no one would it be more likely to awaken this spirit than in Lord Clarendon. His lordship’s censure of Lord Aberdeen’s conduct, however, expressed in the following letter to Panizzi, seems, to say the least of it, a little severe:—
“My dear Panizzi,
I should have sincerely regretted if Palmerston had even thought he had reason to complain of any one of his friends during the late odious transaction; but I am particularly glad that the matter should have been discussed between you and him; for, as you well knew my opinions long before any question of a change of Government, respecting his return to the Foreign Office, and the groundless apprehensions which Thiers entertained upon that subject, you had the opportunity, as I am sure you had the good will, of removing any annoyance which a parcel of stupid newspaper articles (written probably for that purpose) respecting himself and me might have occasioned last week. My firm belief is that energy such as Palmerston’s is at this moment greatly needed at the Foreign Office, and that it would tend, far more than the present system, to an entente really cordial between us and France. I have over and over again told Lord Aberdeen that his predilection for Guizot, and consequent partisanship in France was endangering the peaceful relations between the two countries; because, on the one hand, it rendered hostility to England a natural and necessary weapon of attack against Guizot, and, on the other, this imposed on him the obligation to “faire des niches à l’Angleterre,” in order to prove his independence and keep his portefeuille. It was impossible for Lord John to do without Palmerston, and equally so to expect he would submit to take any other office than the Foreign at the presumptuous dictation of that mauvais coucheur, Lord Grey. With respect to Ellice, I believe that the “out of doors” calumnies are groundless. He is as incapable of wilfully concealing anything it was his duty to have communicated as I feel I should be myself. I never saw more efficient zeal than he manifested throughout the whole of the transactions; and, as I was present when he heard from Lord John of the objection raised by Lord Grey, and was witness to the readiness with which he volunteered to go and bring him to reason, it is impossible to suppose he was playing a double part; but he ought to be made acquainted with these reports, and I am sure he will have no difficulty in effectually disproving them. The reason upon which the embryo Government was broken up will, I am afraid, appear invalid and insufficient to the public; but, for my own part, I cannot regret the result. The undertaking was too vast for the slender means upon which Lord John could rely for success; he could only hope for a doubtful and unhearty support; but, having once embarked in the struggle, he would have been held responsible for all the consequences of failure. After a time, however, I am sure that the country will be glad that the measure should remain in the hands of the only man capable of carrying it, and, deal with it as he may, he must advance Liberal principles, and must break up his party.
These are strong denunciations, strongly expressed; yet, no doubt, Lord Clarendon felt keenly that Lord Aberdeen’s “predilection” for Guizot was “endangering the peaceful relations” between England and France, and his laudation of Lord Palmerston bears equal proof of the sincerity of his impressions.
Be it said, with all submission, that we might have gone further with Lord Aberdeen and fared worse.
It is perfectly true that the vigour and decision of character so conspicuous in Lord Palmerston was not invariably to be found in Lord Aberdeen. Still, if there was vigour, there was also a certain amount of violence occasionally apparent in the policy of the former. Granting fully that Lord Palmerston might, by a more decided show of opposition than was offered by his predecessor in office, have crushed the Spanish Marriages plot in its inception, and granting all that is said in Lord Clarendon’s letter as to the effect likely to be produced by Lord Aberdeen’s course of action (or inaction) on the “entente cordiale” we may be allowed to suspect that, under then existing circumstances, a peril of a different kind, and a more serious, might have arisen from direct interference on the part of the English Government; and that the coldness between the two countries, already caused by the audacity and double-dealing of the King of the French and his minister, might have been exchanged for a more acrid feeling, possibly even subversive of the peace still subsisting between England and France, and involving even the peace of Europe.
It only remains to be noted here that the effect of the underhand policy pursued all along by the French Government was the simultaneous marriages of Queen Isabella to Don Francisco d’Assise, and of her sister, the Infanta Luisa Fernanda, to the Duke de Montpensier, on the 10th of October, 1846. The diplomatic correspondence on the subject ceased soon after that event.
The following is the first letter written by Thiers to Panizzi on the important question:—
“Mon cher Panizzi,—
Voilà bien longtemps que je ne vous ai donné de mes nouvelles, et que je n’ai reçu des vôtres. Je n’ai pas ordinairement grand’chose à vous dire; je suis occupé, vous l’êtes, et c’est une explication suffisante d’un silence qui n’est et ne sera jamais de l’oubli. Ce que vous aviez prévu est arrivé. Les Whigs sont au pouvoir, et je souhaite qu’ils y restent. Mais que vient-il donc d’arriver entre nos deux pays? Ce nouvel incident m’afflige très-vivement, car je ne vois de politique véritablement bonne que dans l’union de la France et de l’Angleterre. Hors de là, il n’y a de triomphe que pour les oppresseurs des peuples et de l’esprit humain. Peut-être, à force de fautes, serons-nous obligés, les uns et les autres, de nous appuyer sur des amis qui ne seront pas les meilleurs, mais ce sera un malheur véritable. J’étais pour le maintien de l’alliance même avec les Tories, à plus forte raison avec les Whigs. Le jour où Lord Palmerston, parlant très-noblement de la Pologne, a dit que si les traités de 1815 n’étaient pas respectés sur le Danube ils cesseraient d’être respectables sur le Rhin, il a fait ressortir toute l’utilité, toute la fécondité de l’alliance de la France avec l’Angleterre sous les Whigs.
Pour moi, je déplore qu’on ait choisi ce moment pour se brouiller. Je n’aime pas à faire des concessions aux dépens de mon pays, mais le jour où un Ministre de l’Angleterre parle de la sorte, et rompt si ouvertement avec la coalition Européenne, ce jour-là je serais plus disposé à faire des concessions à aucun autre. Mais rompre pour un mariage, quand l’Angleterre n’insistait pas pour un Cobourg, me confond!
Cependant il faut savoir la vérité. Il circule les versions les plus contradictoires. La Princesse de Lieven jette tout sur les Whigs, et dit, dans son salon, que rien de pareil n’aurait eu lieu avec Lord Aberdeen. M. Guizot fait dire que Lord Palmerston a manqué aux engagements pris, et qu’il a, dès lors, été délié de ceux qui avaient été contractés à Eu. Voyez Lord Palmerston, puisque vous êtes lié avec lui; dites-lui de vous communiquer à vous, et pour moi, la vérité pure. Il ne faut me dire que des faits d’une exactitude incontestable.
Le danger de la situation, c’est que le ministère va jouer le jeu odieux qu’il reprochait à l’opposition, et que pour ma part je n’ai jamais voulu jouer, celui d’exciter le sentiment populaire contre l’Angleterre. Si le Cabinet Britannique a eu des torts, ce jeu sera facile. Il faut donc savoir exactement la vérité, et dans ces choses-là il ne sert guère de la dissimuler, car elle ressort bien vite des documents. Voici la question sur laquelle il faut être exactement fixé.
Quels engagements avait-on pris réciproquement à Eu?
Etait-on bien convenu de renoncer à un Cobourg, et de ne marier le Duc de Montpensier à l’infante qu’après que la reine aurait eu des enfants?
Serait-il vrai que la diplomatie Anglaise agissait à Madrid contrairement à ce double engagement? Que dès lors le Cabinet Français aurait pu se croire dégagé?
Est-il vrai que M. Guizot aurait adressé à Lord Palmerston une dépêche lui annonçant ses nouveaux projets, lui déclarant qu’il se considérait comme libre, et que Lord Palmerston serait demeuré plus d’un mois sans répondre?
Voilà des points sur lesquels il faut bien savoir la vérité.
Tâchez de savoir ce qu’il y a de vrai dans ce qui s’est passé à Madrid.
Je désire avoir un historique complet et vrai de toute l’affaire. Je désire savoir aussi comment l’Angleterre pose aujourd’hui la question, et où gît la difficulté entre les deux pays. Y a-t-il une solution raisonnable, également honorable pour les deux Cabinets?
Comment les Tories prennent-ils la question? En font-ils une affaire de parti contre les Whigs, ou bien une affaire du pays, commune à tous? Enfin, quel est l’avenir de votre politique intérieure? Lord John Russell se maintiendra-t-il? Pour moi, je fais des vœux en faveur des Whigs. Je suis révolutionnaire (dans le bon sens du mot) et je souhaite en tout pays le succès de mes analogues. Adieu, et mille amitiés. Je vous prie de m’écrire pas moins que vingt pages sur tout cela. Comme je n’aime pas que l’on colporte mes lettres, je vous prie de garder celle-ci pour vous et de me répondre par la poste, ou à Lille jusqu’au 25 Octobre, ou à Paris si vous mettez votre lettre à la boîte passé le 25. Je crois que la poste seule est sûre. Adieu encore, et mille amitiés.
To this Panizzi replied in a letter which, for its detailed and lucid statement of facts, may really be looked upon as a useful work of reference. Nor will the reader, we imagine, be inclined to think the comments of the writer on the doings of Guizot and of his accomplice (for so we will venture to call him), Count Bresson, French Minister at Madrid, one whit too severe:—
Mon cher Monsieur et Ami,
Les pièces que vous trouverez ci-jointes ont été imprimées pour être portées à la connaissance des légations britanniques à l’étranger: j’ai eu le bonheur de m’en procurer un exemplaire que j’ai le plaisir de vous envoyer, avec la certitude que vous en ferez un usage réservé, et qu’elles vous mettront à même de juger la conduite des deux Gouvernements Français et Anglais; par la date de la dernière dépêche, vous verrez que je ne pouvais pas vous les envoyer plus tôt.
J’ajouterai aux faits principaux, que vous trouverez consignés d’une manière authentique dans ces pièces, le récit de quelques autres circonstances, sinon tout à fait aussi importantes à connaître, au moins très-intéressantes, et sur l’authenticité desquelles vous pouvez également compter.
Ce fut en 1842 que le roi envoya vers le Gouvernement Anglais le Maréchal Sébastiani, pour obtenir son consentement au mariage de la Reine d’Espagne avec un descendant de Philippe V. Le Roi tenait beaucoup à persuader à ce Gouvernement que la France ne lui pardonnerait jamais de permettre un mariage quelconque dont l’effet serait de faire monter sur le trône d’Espagne tout autre que le descendant d’un Bourbon de la branche Espagnole. Le Gouvernement Anglais, dès lors, adopta la ligne de politique de laquelle il ne s’est jamais écarté après: Il exprima son indifférence à ce que la Reine choisît son époux parmi non-seulement les princes issus de Philippe V., mais de toute autre maison qui aurait été plus agréable à S. M. Catholique et à son peuple, excepté seulement un Prince Français. En se limitant à un descendant de Philippe V., le Roi excluait, par cela même, ses propres enfants aussi bien que ceux des autres maisons princières; le Gouvernement Anglais, au contraire, limitait ses objections aux premiers seulement.
Pendant toutes les négociations qui eurent lieu, soit à l’égard du Comte de Trapani que de Montemolin, la conduite de l’Angleterre ne s’est jamais démentie.
Lors de la visite de la Reine d’Angleterre au Château d’Eu, en 1845, S. M. Britannique aussi bien que Lord Aberdeen acceptèrent la proposition formelle et absolue, qui leur fut faite par le roi et son ministre de leur propre gré, à savoir: que la Reine d’Espagne n’épouserait pas un enfant de France (est-ce que cette phrase féodale vous fait frissonner), et que dans tout cas le Duc de Montpensier n’épouserait pas l’Infante avant que la Reine sa sœur n’eût mis au monde DES ENFANTS (au pluriel). Ni la Reine Victoria ni Lord Aberdeen se lièrent plus qu’ils ne l’étaient auparavant, soit à limiter le choix de la Reine d’Espagne à un descendant de Philippe V., à qui le Roi des Français tenait toujours, soit à admettre que l’Infante épouserait—même après que la condition proposée par Louis Philippe et son Ministre aurait été remplie—le Duc de Montpensier, sans objection de la part de l’Angleterre. Lord Aberdeen admettait implicitement que ce mariage serait l’objet de négociations ultérieures, après que la Reine Isabelle eût eu des enfants; il ajouta même en propres termes que cette condition préalable diminuait les objections du Gouvernement Anglais; ce qui veut dire que l’on en avait encore. Lord Aberdeen fit part de ce qui s’était passé à Sir R. Peel, qui approuva particulièrement la réserve que son collègue Ministre des Affaires étrangères avait mise dans sa conduite. Je vous dis cela pour vous mettre à même de juger de l’uniformité des vues des hommes d’Etat de l’Angleterre sur cette question.
Il paraît que, peu de temps après, la Reine Christine s’étant querellée avec Louis-Philippe ou bien en ayant fait mine, se détermina à marier la Reine Isabelle avec le Prince de Cobourg.
Je crois que Christine n’était que l’agent de Louis-Philippe, qui voulait faire tomber le Gouvernement Anglais dans un piége, pour avoir un prétexte de briser sa parole, alléguant que le Gouvernement Anglais favorisait sous main le mariage de la reine à un autre prince qu’un descendant de Philippe V. Mais, de bonne foi ou non, le fait est que Christine mit sur le tapis le mariage Cobourg. Les pièces ci-jointes entrent dans des détails très-importants sur cet épisode. Le Gouvernement Français fut averti, avec la plus grande franchise, de ce qui se passait par Lord Aberdeen. M. Bulwer lui avait écrit que Christine l’avait envoyé chercher et l’avait prié de lui donner son avis sur la rédaction d’une lettre qu’elle le chargea de vouloir bien envoyer au Prince de Cobourg alors à Lisbonne, à qui elle allait proposer sa fille aînée en mariage. M. Bulwer avait de bonne foi donné l’avis qu’on lui avait demandé et s’était chargé de la lettre, comme ami et non pas comme Ministre d’Angleterre. Non-seulement Lord Aberdeen informa M. de Sainte-Aulaire sur-le-champ de ce qu’il venait d’apprendre, non-seulement il donna des ordres positifs à M. Bulwer, de se garder bien de toute démarche qui pouvait faire croire que l’Angleterre avait la moindre préférence pour le Prince de Cobourg, mais il désapprouva la conduite de M. Bulwer dans cette occasion en termes si sévères que M. Bulwer en fut blessé au point d’envoyer sa démission de Madrid, que Lord Aberdeen ne crut pas à propos d’accepter.
M. Bresson se permit de reprocher aux ministres espagnols (et, je crois, à Christine elle-même) leur conduite d’une manière qu’on aurait eu droit d’attendre plutôt d’un caporal de la vieille garde, que d’un représentant de Louis-Philippe; il alla jusqu’à menacer le Gouvernement Espagnol d’une déclaration de guerre, si la reine épousait autre qu’un prince approuvé par Louis-Philippe. Ce pauvre Isturiz en informa en tremblant Lord Aberdeen, qui répondit par une lettre de 25 Juin dont on parle dans la dépêche de Lord Palmerston du 31 Octobre (p. 19). J’espère pouvoir vous en envoyer une copie. Cependant, Isturiz lui-même était un des principaux agents dans cette intrigue. A Madrid, des amis très-intimes de Christine firent tout ce qui leur fut possible pour engager le Gouvernement Anglais à se déclarer pour le Prince de Cobourg: on offrit carte blanche à l’Angleterre pour qu’elle mit le prix qu’elle jugerait convenable à la concession de son appui. A peine le ministère actuel avait été formé à Londres, qu’Isturiz s’adressa non officiellement à une de ses connaissances, qui en fait part, pour le prier de faire tout ce qu’il pouvait pour ces noces Cobourg, la conclusion desquelles, disait-il, dépendait absolument de l’Angleterre; mais ni Lord Palmerston ni l’autre ministre ne voulurent entendre parler de cela; on se déclara toujours neutre et indifférent.
Dans la première page de la première dépêche de Lord Palmerston, on parle d’une dépêche du 19 Juillet, à laquelle on fait encore allusion, soit par M. Guizot (pag. 9), soit par Lord Palmerston dans sa seconde dépêche (pag. 16), et dont MM. Guizot et Bresson ont fait un usage indigne, comme vous verrez par les pièces imprimées. Vous en recevrez, je me flatte, une copie sous peu de jours. Afin que vous jugiez de l’étendue de cette indignité et du peu de confiance que l’on peut placer dans la parole de votre ministre des Affaires étrangères, il faut que vous sachiez que la seconde partie de cette dépêche contenait des observations sur la conduite illégale, inconstitutionnelle et despotique du Gouvernement Espagnol. M. de Jarnac, chargé d’affaires du roi des barricades, désapprouva ces observations, et si M. Bresson n’a pas fait un usage public et officiel d’un document si confidentiel, comme M. Guizot dit, il s’en est au moins servi en cachette pour faire du tort à un Gouvernement libéral qui avait confié la dépêche à l’honneur d’un ministre ami, auprès du Gouvernement auquel cette dépêche ne devait pas être connue. Qu’en dites-vous, révolutionnaire?
La dépêche de Lord Palmerston du 22 Septembre fut communiquée à M. Guizot le 25 du même mois par Lord Normanby, qui était prêt à en discuter la substance. En lui annonçant les mariages de la Reine d’Espagne et de sa sœur quelques jours auparavant, M. Guizot avait promis à Lord Normanby que les mariages, quoique annoncés en même temps, n’auraient pas lieu en même temps. Lord Normanby exprima grand plaisir en apprenant cette détermination de votre Gouvernement, et cela donnait quelque lueur d’espérance que l’on pourrait encore l’entendre quant au mariage de l’Infante. Il en fit part au Gouvernement Anglais, ayant pris d’abord la précaution de faire lire sa dépêche à M. Guizot. Après avoir lu la dépêche du 22 Septembre, M. Guizot observa à Lord Normanby qu’une telle pièce méritait toute l’attention du Gouvernement Français, et qu’il ne se sentait pas autorisé à en discuter le contenu, avant que d’avoir pris les ordres du Roi. Lord Normanby observa que, dans ce cas, il se flattait que le départ du Duc de Montpensier, pour Madrid, serait ajourné. M. Guizot répondit que les mariages étant irrévocablement arrêtés pour le 10 Octobre, il fallait absolument que S. A. R. partît le jour fixé. Les mariages! ajouta Lord Normanby, ‘vous voulez dire celui de la Reine!—Non, non, de la Reine et de sa sœur,’ répliqua M. Guizot. Lord Normanby rappelle à M. Guizot sa promesse que les mariages seraient annoncés, mais n’auraient pas lieu en même temps. Le Ministre des Affaires étrangères tâche d’abord d’oublier sa promesse; mais comme cette pauvre ressource ne lui réussit pas, il conclut: ’D’ailleurs, les deux mariages ne seront pas célébrés en même temps: la reine sera mariée la première. Vous n’avez pas encore réussi à chasser tous les Jésuites de France: c’est à vous, mon ami, à leur faire quitter au moins l’Hôtel des Affaires étrangères, et à envoyer leurs maximes après eux.
Le Marquis de Lansdowne, en lisant la dépêche de Lord Normanby, qui rendait compte de ce tour de passe-passe de M. Guizot, en fut si étonné, que le papier lui tomba des mains: il pouvait à peine croire à ses propres yeux, lui qui avait si fréquemment entendu M. Guizot sermonner sur la bonne foi et la droiture en politique qui le possédaient, et qui avait jusque là pris M. Guizot au sérieux.
Ce qui se passa, lorsque Lord Palmerston donna communication de cette dépêche à M. de Jarnac, mérite toute votre attention. Les Whigs entrèrent au ministère au commencement de Juillet. Lord Palmerston eut à être réélu d’abord, et ne fut proprement installé qu’après le milieu de ce mois. Le 20 Juillet, M. de Jarnac eut sa première entrevue, pour affaires, avec Lord Palmerston, qui lui dit que le Gouvernement n’avait encore pu donner à la question du mariage de la Reine d’Espagne toute l’attention qu’elle méritait:—que cependant lui, Lord Palmerston, aussi bien que ceux de ses collègues auxquels il en avait parlé, nommément Lord Lansdowne, Lord Clarendon, et, avant tout, Lord John Russell, étaient du même avis que Lord Aberdeen; que l’on ne verrait pas de bon œil le mariage de la Reine avec un fils du Roi des Français; mais que, quant aux autres candidats, on était indifférent. Lord Palmerston ajouta que le Comte de Jarnac verrait toute la pensée du Gouvernement, autant que lui, Lord Palmerston, pouvait en juger, en lisant la dépêche qu’il allait lui communiquer, envoyée le jour précédent à M. Bulwer. C’était la dépêche du 19 Juillet. Comme M. de Jarnac commença par se plaindre de ce que l’on mettait sur la même ligne le Prince de Cobourg et les Infants Don Enrique et Don Francisco, Lord Palmerston observa, entre autres choses, que le Prince de Cobourg pouvait être considéré plutôt trop lié à la France qu’à l’Angleterre, et que s’il y avait quelqu’un qui avait droit de s’opposer à ses noces avec Isabelle II., ce serait bien l’Angleterre. M. de Jarnac tira alors de sa poche une lettre tout à fait privée de M. Guizot, qui le priait de tâcher de persuader au Gouvernement Anglais de recommander les deux Princes Espagnols exclusivement. Lord Palmerston dit que si l’on se déterminait à donner la préférence à quelqu’un, ce serait toujours à Don Enrique. M. de Jarnac se montra très-content de cela. M. Guizot paraissait être dans les mêmes sentiments à Paris et s’en exprima ainsi à Lord Normanby. C’est à cette lettre écrite par lui à M. de Jarnac, lettre qui n’avait aucun caractère officiel, qui ne fut pas considérée officielle, dont on ne donna point de copie au Ministre Anglais, que M. Guizot fait allusion, lorsqu’il dit (pag. 7) qu’au mois de Juillet il avait proposé au Cabinet de Londres d’agir de concert, pour se plaindre peu après que Lord Palmerston ne lui répondit que plus d’un mois après à cette proposition. La proposition, si c’en était une, était une proposition verbale, et M. de Jarnac reçut de Lord Palmerston, au moment même qu’il la fit, une réponse de la même nature, c’est-à-dire verbale. Ce ne fut qu’après avoir été encore invité à joindre ses démarches a celles du Gouvernement Français, près la Cour de Madrid, en faveur des deux Infants, que Lord Palmerston déclara, comme Lord Aberdeen avait fait précédemment, que l’Angleterre considérait Don Enrique celui des princes qui convenait à la Reine. La raison en était que M. Isturiz et les Ministres Espagnols, aussi bien que les agents Français, s’étaient beaucoup égayés sur le compte de Don Francisco en le peignant impuissant, sans esprit et haï par la Reine, qui s’en moquait. On alla même jusqu’à se vanter, de la part de Marie-Christine et de ses confidents, que l’on avait tout fait pour en dégoûter la Reine et que l’on avait réussi à souhait. Est-ce que des hommes d’honneur pouvaient, après cela, le recommander à la Reine comme un mari capable de la rendre heureuse, elle et l’Espagne? Ce rôle était réservé à M. Bresson: et il s’en est tiré en homme qui en était digne.
La Reine des Français fut chargée par le Roi de faire agréer le mariage du Duc de Montpensier à la Reine Victoire: mais elle n’y a pas réussi. S. M. Britannique en exprima rondement son opinion à Louis Philippe, qui lui fit répondre par la Reine des Belges. Les intrigants, qui ne manquent pas plus dans ce pays-ci que dans les autres, tâchent de faire leur mieux—et je crois avec quelque succès—pour faire changer de direction à cette indignation qui du Roi paraît à présent se tourner en partie contre M. Guizot.
Cette lettre, que j’espère vous comprendrez malgré mon Français, vous sera remise par un ami auquel je puis me fier. Ne vous fiez pas à votre poste. Répondez-moi s’il vous plaît, que l’Ambassade d’Angleterre envoie votre lettre, pour moi, sous convert, à Lord Normanby lui-même, qui n’a pas d’idée du sujet de notre correspondance, mais qui, me connaissant personnellement, voudra bien, je n’en doute pas, avoir la bonté de me la faire parvenir.
Dites-moi bien franchement ce que vous pensez de tout ceci, et soyez certain que je ne manquerai pas de vous faire connaître ce que j’apprendrai d’important relativement à cette malheureuse affaire.
The plot within a plot, in favour of Prince Leopold, caused Guizot much alarm and discomfort. The place of its origin he took to be Lisbon. It was, he conceived, if not strongly backed by British influence, at least virtually, though passively, supported by the English Cabinet. In this respect, looking on him as one who was likely to gaugegauge the diplomacy of others by his own measure, and, moreover, as being moved by the independent, and, it must be confessed, imprudent line taken at the time by the British Minister at Madrid, he need not be too harshly judged.
Panizzi’s theory, however, as to Queen Christina’s part in the affair, seems to go a little too far. To suppose her to have been the direct agent of Louis-Philippe in so ingenious a plot, and to be employed simply in carrying out his designs, is to impute even too much cunning and iniquity to the King of the French (who, it must be borne in mind, afterwards denied categorically any complicity in the matter), and to give too little credit for independence of character to the Queen Dowager. There are many reasons why Christina, a born intrigante, at a distance from Paris, and in her own country, finding that she had, for a time at least, the game in her own hands, should have been inclined to play it in her own way, give it an independent turn, and, at the same time, provide against chances of failure, without laying herself open afterwards to the charge of rashly deviating from the course which she had really come to Spain to follow. It requires no great stretch of imagination to conceive any amount of underhand dealing on the part of the principal actors in the Spanish Marriages; but we are disposed, after all, to take for truth what Guizot himself says in his “Mémoires,” of this episode of the intrigue, or that which, considering his position, may be accepted as pretty much the same thing, what he firmly believed to be the truth. Of course his wrath may have been simulated, and his joy at perceiving additional advantages in the counterplot well concealed; but that either he or his master directly instigated it, may well be doubted.
Having received no answer from Thiers, who, as he subsequently says, was very much engaged at the time, Panizzi wrote again, in continuation of his strictures on Guizot’s nefarious proceedings, in forcing on the Montpensier marriage;—