The position of matters at this time, as regards carrying out the terms of the Convention, was reported to Lord Shelburne, who had been requested to consult Lord Clarendon on the subject. This, however, he appears not to have considered of any very great importance. Mr. Gladstone seems equally to have oscillated between the two alternatives of exile to La Plata and a petition for a not dishonourable pardon:— “February 5th, 1857. “My dear Panizzi, The paper on the Argentine Colonization reads well, but everything depends on the good faith of the parties. What are the guarantees for the fulfilment of the terms? I see them not. On the other hand, I agree with you that if a petition could be framed, praying in terms of due respect for liberation, without directly or indirectly confessing guilt, there could be no dishonour in presenting it. Yours, &c., &c., W. E. GLADSTONE.” On the other hand, Lord Palmerston, though he expresses no belief one way or other, yet perceives in the possible want of _bona fides_ in carrying out the Convention on either side, not in the proposal of emigration, the chance that the prisoners might have to submit to that deprivation of future liberty, so much feared by Panizzi:— “11th February, 1857. “My dear Panizzi, “... As to Settembrini, I doubt whether he and any of his fellow-prisoners would not do well to agree _to go_ to South America. They would not be bound to _stay_ there; and it would be for them to decide whether their liberty is worth purchasing by two voyages across the Atlantic. Yours, &c., &c., PALMERSTON.” Settembrini, meanwhile, distracted by the diversity of opinion among his friends, and perplexed by the strenuous opposition displayed by Panizzi to the emigration scheme, applied to Mr. Fagan for explanation of this apparently uncalled for opposition, and for further advice as to his own action. As regards the alternative of petitioning the King for pardon, we confess that, on the point of honour, we coincide more strongly in Settembrini’s opinions, stated in the following letter, than in the views expressed in Panizzi’s letter to Lacaita. What the former wrote to Mr. Fagan is so well worth reading, and so characteristic of the writer, that we make no apology for presenting long extracts. “Santo Stefano, March 2nd, 1857. “My dear Mr. Fagan,—