but a few months later was transferred to Stockholm, where for the next twelve years he played a conspicuous part as the chief opponent of the French party. It is said that during his residence in Sweden Panin, who certainly had a strong speculative bent, conceived a fondness for constitutional forms of government. Politically he was a pupil of Alexis Bestuzhev; consequently, when in the middle 'fifties Russia suddenly turned Francophil instead of Francophobe, Panin's position became extremely difficult. However, he found a friend in Bestuzhev's supplanter, Michael Vorontsov, and when in 1760 he was unexpectedly appointed the governor of the little grand duke Paul, his influence was assured. He was on Catherine's side during the revolution of 1762, but his jealousy of the influence which the Orlovs seemed likely to obtain over the new empress predisposed him to favour the proclamation of his ward the grand duke Paul as emperor, with Catherine as regent only.
To circumscribe the influence of the ruling favourites he next suggested the formation of a cabinet council of six or eight ministers, through whom all the business of the state was to be transacted; but Catherine, suspecting in the skilfully presented novelty a subtle attempt to limit her power, rejected it after some hesitation. Nevertheless Panin continued to be indispensable. He owed his influence partly to the fact that he was the governor of Paul, who was greatly attached to him; partly to the peculiar circumstances in which Catherine had mounted the throne; and partly to his knowledge of foreign affairs. Although acting as minister of foreign affairs he was never made chancellor; but he was the political mentor of Catherine during the first eighteen years of her reign. Panin was the inventor of the famous “Northern Accord,” which aimed at opposing a combination of Russia, Prussia, Poland, Sweden, and perhaps Great Britain, against the Bourbon-Habsburg League. Such an attempt to bind together nations with such different aims and characters was doomed to failure. Great Britain, for instance, could never be persuaded that it was as much in her interests as in the interests of Russia to subsidize the anti-French party in Sweden. Yet the idea of the “Northern Accord,” though never quite realized, had important political consequences and influenced the policy of Russia for many years. It explains, too, Panin's strange tenderness towards Poland. For a long time he could not endure the thought of destroying her, because he regarded her as an indispensable member of his “Accord,” wherein she was to supply the place of Austria, whom circumstances hid temporarily detached from the Russian alliance. Poland, Panin opined, would be especially useful in case of Oriental combinations. All the diplomatic questions concerning Russia from 1762 to 1783 are intimately associated with the name of Panin. It was only when the impossibility of realizing the “Northern Accord” became patent that his influence began to wane, and Russia sacrificed millions of roubles fruitlessly in the endeavour to carry out his pet scheme.
After 1772, when Gustavus III. upset Panin's plans in Sweden, Panin, whose policy hitherto had been at least original and independent, became more and more subservient to Frederick II. of Prussia. As to Poland, his views differed widely from the views of both Frederick and Catherine. He seriously guaranteed the integrity of Polish territory, after placing Stanislaus II. on the throne, in order that Poland, undivided and as strong as circumstances would permit, might be drawn wholly within the orbit of Russia. But he did not foresee the complications which were likely to arise from Russia's interference in the domestic affairs of Poland. Thus the confederation of Bar, and the Turkish War thereupon ensuing, took him completely by surprise and considerably weakened his position. He was forced to acquiesce in the first partition of Poland, and when Russia came off third best, Gregory Orlov declared in the council that the minister who had signed such a partition treaty was worthy of death. Panin further incensed Catherine by meddling with the marriage arrangements of the grand duke Paul and by advocating a closer alliance with Prussia, whereas the empress was beginning to incline more and more towards Austria. Nevertheless, even after the second marriage of Paul Panin maintained all his old influence over his pupil, who, like himself, was now a warm admirer of the king of Prussia. There are even traditions from this period of an actual conspiracy of Panin and Paul against the empress. As the Austrian influence increased Panin found a fresh enemy in Joseph II., and the efforts of the old statesman to prevent a matrimonial alliance between the Russian and Austrian courts determined Catherine to get rid of a counsellor of whom, for some mysterious reason, she was secretly afraid. The circumstances of his disgrace are complicated and obscure. The final rupture seems to have arisen on the question of the declaration of “the armed neutrality of the North;” but we know that Potemkin and the English ambassador, James Harris (afterwards 1st earl of Malmesbury), were both working against him some time before that. In May 1781 Panin was dismissed. He died in Italy on the 31st of March 1783. Panin was one of the most learned, accomplished and courteous Russians of his day. Catherine called him “her encyclopaedia.” The earl of Buckinghamshire declared him to be the most amiable negotiator he had ever met. He was also of a most humane disposition and a friend of Liberal institutions. As to his honesty and kindness of heart there were never two opinions. By nature a sybarite, he took care to have the best cook in the capital, and women had for him an irresistible attraction, though he was never married.
See anonymous Life of Count N. I. Panin (Rus.; St Petersburg, 1787); Political correspondence (Rus. and Fr.), Collections of Russian Histor. Society, vol. ix. (St Petersburg, 1872); V. A. Bilbasov, Geschichte Katharina II. (Berlin, 1891-1893); A. Bruckner, Materials for the Biography of Count Panin (Rus.; St Petersburg, 1888).
PANIPAT, a town of British India, in Karnal district of the Punjab, 53 m. N. of Delhi by rail. Pop. (1901), 26,914. The town is of great antiquity, dating back to the great war of the Mahābhārata between the Pāndavas and Kaurava brethren, when it formed one of the tracts demanded by Yudisthira from Duryodhana as the price of peace. In modern times, the plains of Panipat thrice formed the scene of decisive battles which sealed the fate of upper India—in 1526, when Bāber completely defeated the imperial forces; in 1556, when his grandson, Akbar, on the same battlefield, conquered Himu, the Hindu general of the Afghān Adil Shāh, thus a second time establishing the Mogul power; and finally, on the 7th of January 1761, when Ahmad Shāh Durāni shattered the Mahratta confederacy. The neighbourhood is a favourite manœuvring ground for British camps of instruction. The modern town stands near the old bank of the Jumna, on high ground composed of the débris of earlier buildings. It is a centre of trade, and has manufactures of cotton cloth, metal-ware and glass. There are factories for ginning and pressing cotton.
PANIZZI, SIR ANTHONY (1797-1879), English librarian, was born at Brescello, in the duchy of Modena, Italy, on the 16th of September 1797. After taking his degree at the university of Parma, Antonio Panizzi became an advocate. A fervent patriot, he was implicated in the movement set on foot in 1821 to overturn the government of his native duchy, and in October of that year barely escaped arrest by a precipitate flight. He first established himself at Lugano, where he published an anonymous and now excessively rare pamphlet, generally known as I Processi di Rubicra, an exposure of the monstrous injustice and illegalities of the Modenese government's proceedings against suspected persons. Expelled from Switzerland at the joint instance of Austria, France and Sardinia, he came to England in May 1823, in a state bordering upon destitution. His countryman, Ugo Foscolo, provided him with introductions to William Roscoe and Dr William Shepherd, a Unitarian minister in Liverpool, and he earned a living for some time by giving Italian lessons. Roscoe introduced him to Brougham, by whose influence he was made, in 1828, professor of Italian at University College, London. His chair was almost a sinecure; but his abilities rapidly gained him a footing in London; and in 1831 Brougham, then lord chancellor, used his ex officio position as a principal trustee of the British Museum to obtain for Panizzi
