On a perusal of the sentences, which are given “_totidem verbis_” in the appendix of the book, the civilized reader remarks with astonishment that, on the tribunal’s own showing, half the offences for which it awards penalties are not proved at all. First, is recited a series of facts considered to be established, by far the greater part of which relate merely to the presence of the inculpated person at the formal reception of some new member into a secret society. Then, in many instances, comes a second string of accusations, confessedly not proved, but considered possible “_perchè si ha pure in processo qualche indizio_.” And sentence is equally awarded for both! The reasons, for which the sentence on a priest, Giuseppe Andreoli, was carried out, are worthy of attention:— 1. Because he had committed a crime which was punishable with death. 2. Because he had been the means of corrupting the younger part of the community. 3. Because he had abused the situation of Professor of Belles Lettres, at Correggio, in converting it into an instrument of Carbonarism. 4. Because he had confessed his crime too late, and not within that time, which the Duke had fixed upon as available for such confessions. As to the latter, it is to be borne in mind, that he confessed, simply on account of the Duke’s encouragement. The sentence was confirmed on the 11th of October, 1822, not because it was legally necessary, but, indeed, for the personal gratification of Francis IV; “_Invocando il Santissimo nome di Gesù_.” At the period of the production of this work Panizzi’s own process was in suspense. He mentions it in a note, complaining of the delay, as intended to discredit him in the eyes of the other Italian patriots. His cousin, Francesco Panizzi, had, it appears, made some sort of confession, and been treated with suspicious lenity. If the Modenese Government had any intention of forcing or enticing Antonio into the like course of action with his cousin, it must have been frustrated by his publication, which may account for the impotent passion evinced in the subsequent proceedings against him. The work would be felt the more irritating from its sobriety of manner, its moderation even in the midst of invective, and its constant appeal to establish legal principle, as the criterion of the whole question. While proclaiming his fervent aspirations for the independence of his country, the author incidentally disclaims any participation in the proceedings of the Carbonari, and the commission of any act tending to the overthrow of the existing Government. Such would be the natural attitude of a citizen like Panizzi, and he may well have affiliated himself to the secret society, as at that time the sole efficient agent in the cause of Italian freedom.