Читать книгу The life and correspondence of Sir Anthony Panizzi, K.C.B. (Vol. 1&2) - Louis Fagan - Страница 9

Table of Contents

Sir Henry Ellis; Parliamentary Committee, 1835–6; Keepership; Removal of the Library from Montague House; Temporary Assistants; Catalogue; Garnett; Winter Jones; Watts; Parry; Additions and Deficiencies 1838; Annual Grant.

Allusion has already been made to Sir Henry Ellis, who was, at the time of which we write, Principal Librarian, having held this appointment since the 20th of December, 1827. In the year 1800, Mr. Ellis had entered the service of the British Museum as a Temporary Assistant; and Mr. Edwards, in his work entitled “Lives of the Founders of the British Museum,” observes that “had it never fallen to the lot of Henry Ellis to render to the public any service at all, in the way of administering and improving the National Museum,” he would still have earned an honourable niche in our literary history. His contributions to literature are, indeed, very unequal in their character. Some of them are fragmentary; some might be thought trivial. But very many of them have sterling value.value.

He died at the age of 92, on the 15th of January, 1869, having retired in 1856.

Between Panizzi and Sir Henry Ellis there was no reciprocal feeling of friendship; indeed, at times, the former expressed himself so strongly that we prefer not to reproduce his remarks. The first apparently inimical act was Panizzi’s decided objection to Sir Henry’s Printed Catalogue of the Museum Library; and we learn from a report, drawn up by Ellis, on the 30th April, 1834, and which Panizzi delighted in cutting up, that as soon as he (Ellis) was placed at the head of the Printed Books Department, in 1806, and Mr. Baber advanced to the post of Assistant-Keeper, the preparation of a new Alphabetical Catalogue of the Library was ordered by the Trustees, and the work undertaken by the two Librarians jointly. The former was answerable for the letters A to F, with P, Q, and R, and the latter for the remaining letters. It may be considered a bold statement, yet, this report, instead of containing a correct account of the whole undertaking, was full, from beginning to end, of the most inexact assertions: and these are clearly pointed out by Panizzi, in the shape of marginal notes; he, indeed, seemed most constant in his great delight of finding faults in the Printed Catalogue itself. On one occasion, whilst in search of a book, he came suddenly on an entry of a French translation of one of Jeremy Bentham’s works, in which the author’s name, having been translated in the title-page of the book into French, was transferred in the same form “Bentham (Jérôme)” into the Catalogue. Panizzi’s comment on the entry was: “In propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt,” a verse in the first chapter of St. John, from the Vulgate, which he may, probably, have learnt when a boy, acting as a server at mass, under his master the Abbate Fratuzzi; it is equally probable that he knew it in no other form. The sentence is an exact translation from the Greek εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθε καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον

But the English version is not so; “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” Mr. Major, the present Keeper of Maps, in the British Museum, was at the time sitting in the same room with Panizzi, and seeing him point out the mistake committed by Sir Henry Ellis, in order to court enquiry exclaimed: “How do you account, Sir, for the words “in propria” being used instead of “ad suos” which might have been the version, had the English translation, the only one with which he was then acquainted been correct. Panizzi was amazed at the question, and turning round to his friend, exclaimed, “Goodness, he knows all about it, I had never noticed the difference.” It is, however, a pleasure to reflect that no very serious results accrued from these disputes between the antagonists, and this is to be attributed to the circumstance that both were true gentlemen, in the strict sense of the word, and both men of education.

Whatever differences they may have had, they controlled their feelings, and reined in their animosities, guided by the polished hand of education, which, as was instilled into our minds, in our schoolboy days,

“Emollit mores nee sinit esse feros.”

The whole case affords a fair example of the influence of gentle blood and good breeding, as opposed to that grossness of ignorance, the sure tendency of which is to cause forgetfulness of our better nature, delivering us bound into the power of unbridled passion, and forcing the most trivial disagreements to issue in petty spite and ill-feeling. Conduct unworthy of a gentleman was the last thing that would be found on either side in the case of Panizzi v. Ellis.

It is devoutly to be wished that this would happen on every occasion where two men opposed in views meet; but it has been our lot to see a very different state of affairs, where the disputants were unequally matched on the intrinsic points of education and breeding.

But before dismissing the subject of quarrels (if such a term is applicable to the jealousies and misunderstandings of educated men), we must refer to the strong antagonistic feeling evinced towards him, whom, in very bad taste, his colleague, Sir F. Madden, was wont to dub the “Foreigner;” whilst necessity only compels the production of some evidence of this, and makes us acknowledge our reluctance at laying-such matters before our readers:—

“Sir—I received yesterday a communication signed “F. Madden,” aping all the forms of a diplomatic note, without any of its courtesy. I forebore noticing the omission, too pointed to be misunderstood, in a former note of yours. I am now driven to notice it, lest my forbearance be mistaken for weakness. If you think you have reason to be displeased with my conduct, I shall be ready to account for it whenever you make up your mind to ask me in a direct and proper manner to do so. This I hope you will not shrink from doing, else it will be evident that, although chary of asking an explanation, and thereby incurring some responsibility, you chose the shelter of official communication to depart safely under it from those forms which I suppose you are aware the usages of society prescribe among gentlemen. Such communications will in future be returned. If, however, you will address me in the manner which I have a right to expect, your communication shall be duly attended to.

Yours, &c., &c.,

A. Panizzi.

Sir F. Madden, &c., &c., &c.”

Many other disagreements—amounting by the animosity evinced, to something worthy of a worse name—we gloss over. Mention must, however, be made of the Rev. Josiah Forshall, Keeper of the MSS., afterwards Secretary, with whom Panizzi more than once came into collision.

Let us now leave this unpleasant topic, and proceed to an account of the Select Committee on the British Museum—more generally known as the Parliamentary Commission of 1835–36—which forms a turning point in the history of our Museum—not so much on account of anything actually effected by it, as from its marking the era when the national character of the Institution, and its mission as an instrument of the national culture, were first clearly recognised and defined. They would, indeed, have been professedly acknowledged at any period of its history; but the circumstances under which the establishment originated, and the manner in which it was managed and supported, had invariably tended to impress upon it a private and exclusive character. By the public it was principally regarded as a show of curiosities, differing from the Zoological Gardens in the same degree as inanimate differ from living things. The literary and scientific world recognised its value for students and amateurs, but had little conception of its function as a great educational agency. It could scarcely have been otherwise. Sir Hans Sloane’s munificent bequest had bestowed upon the public of his day that which it had neither demanded nor required. The measure of its immediate utility may be estimated by the regulation that it should be inspected by parties of not more than fourteen at one time, and always accompanied by an official.

Panizzi’s part in the Committee of 1835–36 was not prominent, though of considerable importance as respected his peculiar Department. The investigation, nevertheless, brought into the clearest relief the three great ideas with which he entered upon his official duties, and which, though acknowledged in principle, he was left almost alone to maintain and enforce, until they eventually became the accepted principles of the Museum, thereby occasioning a total metamorphosis in the spirit of the Institution, while its administrative constitution remained unaltered. These ideas may be thus defined:—

I. The Museum is not a show, but an Institution for the diffusion of culture.

II. It is a Department of the Civil Service, and should be conducted in the spirit of other public Departments.

III. It should be managed with the utmost possible liberality.

It may not be irrelevant if we attempt to show how these points had been understood before Panizzi’s time.

In a Minute dated February 27, 1809, Sir Joseph Banks defined a Museum for exhibition as “a collection framed for the purpose of administering instruction in the form of amusement, and thus endeavouring to awake latent curiosity.” He, therefore, concluded that not only the anatomical paintings in the custody of the Trustees should be transferred to the College of Surgeons, but the Osteological Collection also. He further thought that the specimens preserved in spirits, when not capable of being stuffed, should also be transferred to the same place, more particularly as “the room where they are kept must unavoidably smell strongly of spirits,” and “they are very frequently designated by the opprobrious appellation of hobgoblins.” It was clearly the view of this representative of science upon the Board that the Museum had no business with anything unadapted for public exhibition.

With respect to the second point, it is certainly no reproach to the governing body, or the officers of the Museum, that at the period of its establishment very little work should have been required from the latter. This ensued almost as a matter of necessity from the fact that the Museum was no national foundation, planned with systematic forethought, but a mere lucky windfall. Enough was done if its safe custody was ensured; the extension it was capable of receiving entered into nobody’s mind. The inevitable consequence was that, while the standard of knowledge and accomplishments among officers of the Museum has at all times been high, the standard of official efficiency was in its first days very low. So late as 1837 an honourable and respected officer could, without conscious absurdity, urge as a plea for promotion that he would thereby have less to do.

A conclusive criterion of the primitive conception of an officer’s duty may be found in a Minute of June 21, 1759—the year of the opening of the British Museum:—

“The Committee think proper to add that the requiring the attendance of the officers during the whole six hours that the Museum is kept open is not a wanton or useless piece of severity, as the two vacant hours (if it is not thought too great a burden upon the officers) might very usefully be employed by them in better ranging the several collections, especially in the Department of Manuscripts, and preparing Catalogues for publication, which last the Committee think so necessary a work that till it is performed the several collections can be but imperfectly useful to the public.”

In point of fact, these “Librarians” were “ciceroni.” In 1802, after forty-three years, three attendants were appointed to relieve the “Under and Assistant Librarians from the daily duty of showing the Museum,” and their salaries were advanced. But it does not appear, says the report of 1807, “that the Under or Assistant-Librarians received any particular injunctions to execute the several duties proposed for them, nor does it appear by their subsequent conduct that they understood themselves to be under any specific obligation to do any specific duties of that description.” “So that,” continues the report, “the public has been, and is, at an annual expense of above £2,000 a year for the mere purpose of showing the house to strangers, and providing an attendant upon the Reading Room.” This discovery led to considerable reform; the Trustees, very naturally, “feeling strong apprehensions that the munificence of Parliament should be checked, if it should think fit to inquire into the nature and extent of the duties now executed by the officers of the Museum.”

Matters were much improved by 1835; but the organisation of the Institution still bore evident traces of its origin in private liberality, and of the misconceptions which had so long prevailed as to its functions.

It was the constant endeavour of Panizzi to divest it of everything indicating affinity with private institutions, and to impress it more and more with the unique character of a national emporium of the world’s treasures.

The third point which generally characterised Panizzi’s administration was one to which the attention of the Committee of 1835–36 was vigorously directed, and in reference to which it was of considerable service. The regulations for the admission of the public were illiberal. Visitors were excluded at the very times when they had most leisure to attend; but when, as Sir Henry Ellis remarked, “the most mischievous part of the population was abroad,” and in holiday weeks the Museum should be closed, “because the place otherwise would really become unwholesome.” The Committee, however, came to a different conclusion, and admitting that reforms were necessary, decided that the Museum was to cease to be a private establishment. But the immediate cause of the Commission in question was the unreasonable complaint of a discharged servant, a Mr. John Millard, employed for some time as supernumerary in the Department of MSS., who had lost his situation through inefficiency. He possessed, it was said, some influence with Lord Brougham, and Mr., afterwards Sir Benjamin Hawes, M.P. for Lambeth, was induced to take up his case, and obtain its investigation under cover of a general inquiry into the administration of the Museum. The Committee, as at first appointed, March 27, 1835, was inconveniently numerous, and when re-appointed in the following session its numbers were considerably curtailed. Mr. Hawes, a man of no great refinement, but of thorough business capacity, and an excellent specimen of the not unfrequent type of popular M.P., who begins as a patriot and ends as a placeman, represented the reforming element, together with Dr. Bowring and some other members of a similar stamp, who mostly disappeared after the first session. Lord Stanley (the late Lord Derby) and Sir Robert Inglis represented the interests of the Trustees. Sir Philip Egerton, Mr. Ridley Colbome, and Mr. Bingham Baring were also amongst the most prominent members, Mr. Sotheron Estcourt being chairman.

The administrative organisation of the Museum at the time was certainly better calculated to invite inquiry than to sustain it. The offices of the Principal Librarian and Secretary, instead of being united, as at present—and of which more hereafter—were divided, with very mischievous consequences as regarded the authority of the former officer, and attended by all the evils of divided responsibility. Sir H. Ellis was an excellent antiquary and a most kind-hearted man, but could never, under any circumstances, have been more than the nominal head of the Museum.

The Secretary was, as has already been remarked, the Rev. Josiah Forshall, and the government of the Museum was in his hands. By a most preposterous regulation, while the inferior officer, the Secretary, always attended the meetings of the Trustees, the Principal Librarian was never present unless summoned. Mr. Forshall enjoyed the fullest confidence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in whose hands, by a tacit understanding which had become traditional, almost all administrative arrangements were left by the Principal Trustees. He was entirely opposed to all innovation tending to impart a more popular character to the Institution; and was, in fine, as thoroughly the representative of the principles on which the Museum had hitherto been administered as Panizzi was of those destined to supersede them.

Mr. Millard, the trivial cause of the Committee’s great effect, did not occupy much of its attention. It appeared that he had been removed for two causes, either of which was in itself sufficient to justify the act: he was incompetent, and his services had been dispensed with. The inferior work on which he had been engaged was discontinued; he was fit for nothing else. He had been treated with great and, indeed, with immoderate indulgence, having been allowed to remain two years after his virtual dismissal, in order “to give him an opportunity of finding another situation.” His case, it appeared, had kept the amiable Principal Librarian awake all night; the Keeper of MSS. himself, strangely enough, had given him a testimonial to the Windham Club. His patron endeavoured to prove his efficiency; but on July 2nd Sir Frederick Madden, then Assistant-Keeper of the MSS. came down “with some instances of Mr. Millard’s mistakes, and some questions which I should like to put him.” For some sufficient reason the instances were not adduced, the questions were not put, and no more was heard of Mr. Millard. He had, however, made an outlet for the long accumulating dissatisfaction with the Museum management, and the Committee found themselves arbiters in contentions affecting every Department in the Institution. They had to digest Mr. Forshall’s opinion that “men professionally engaged in literary and scientific pursuits” were unfit for the office of Trustee; and to reconcile Sir Henry Ellis’s statement that literary and scientific men looked up to a Trusteeship as the blue ribbon of their calling, with his admission that not one of them had ever obtained it. They had to enquire whether Sir Henry had made an adequate examination of the Baron de Joursanvault’s manuscripts, magnanimously offered by that nobleman to the English nation for 100,000 francs and permission to import 500 pipes of Beaune wine duty free. If he had not done so, was it because the collection was shelved so high that Sir Henry could not get at it without a ladder, and was it really a fact that no ladder could be found in the whole town of Pomard? Was it true, as asserted by the Edinburgh Review, that cases of birds had been transferred to the College of Surgeons and subsequently repurchased by the Museum? Or was Sir Henry Ellis’s conjecture admissible that certain green glass bottles, of which the transfer was acknowledged, might have been large enough and dirty enough to have been mistaken by the person who wrote that review “for packing cases?” How much of the Saurian collection bought from Mr. T. Hawkins was plaster? Was the Keeper of Geology justified in affirming that “the principal ichthyosaurus could not be exhibited without derogation from the character of the British Museum,” and that if it were treated as it deserved “the whole tail would disappear?”

Had the College of Surgeons been obliged to spend £1,000 on Zoological Literature, in consequence of the deficiencies of the British Museum Library?

It was admitted that the Museum possessed a fine collection of “Megatherium, Chalicotherium, Anthrocotherium, Anoplotherium, and Sus diluvianus” in plaster; but did it possess genuine fragments of any of these extinct quadrupeds? To be straightforward, were the “saurian and chelonian reptiles” in a confused and nameless state? Would the “intelligent visitor” have naturally expected to find “the limited space available for exhibition filled with twenty-eight cats placed together? Had the larger mammalia been mostly devoured by insects, with the exception of the llama’s mouth, which had happily withstood their ravages from consisting of plaster of Paris? The brunt of the assault, it will be seen, was borne by the Zoological Department, whose comparatively starved and neglected condition rendered it a convenient basis for attacks upon the general condition of the Museum, the assailing party being well versed in the axiom of fortification—that a fortress is no stronger than its weakest point.

The Printed Book Department, the battle-ground of subsequent years, attracted comparatively little attention at the time. The public had not yet discovered the value, either actual or potential, of such a collection. The ideal of what a National Library should be as yet only existed in Panizzi’s head. The general standard was exceedingly low, nor could this be a matter of surprise, when, as he himself pointed out, the Museum Library, after all, contained 40,000 more volumes than any library in the modern world, previous to the French Revolution.

With all the drawbacks of the Institution, its management was liberality itself, compared to that of even so splendid a library as the one at Vienna, with its accommodation for 45 readers, bringing their own pens and paper.

The acknowledged defects of the Museum Library, in some degree, served to screen its unacknowledged failings, for the Catalogue was so much behind hand that it was difficult to be certain whether any specified volume was to be found there or not. One important accession had been obtained, the English newspapers were now regularly deposited in the Library, and it was to this that the recent increase of readers was principally attributable. A late Trustee, Mr. Henry Banks, had been an incubus on the establishment, “It was extremely difficult to get any assent in his part to any purchase that was of any amount.” Mr. Baber had now more of his own way, yet when asked, “Is there that general consultation and cordial intercourse which is satisfactory to you as head of your Department?” he answered, “Certainly not.” His evidence related, in great measure, to the project for a new Catalogue, which had hitherto attracted but little attention outside the Museum. Mr. Hawes did his utmost to extort an admission that a Classed Catalogue would be desirable; but Mr. Baber, an experienced bibliographer, maintained firmly that such a Catalogue by itself was a delusion. The alphabetical arrangement was the only safe one: an index of subjects, however, might be a valuable appendage to such a Catalogue. It was the one fault of Mr. Baber’s evidence and of Panizzi’s that neither of them said how invaluable. They were probably afraid of countenancing the mischievous agitation for a Classed Catalogue pure and simple, knowing that years had already been wasted over an impracticable plan of their colleague, the Rev. T. H. Horne. Panizzi evidently felt much embarrassed between loyalty to his chief, allegiance to the Trustees, and his own strong sense of the deficiencies of the Library. His evidence, under such circumstances, was a model of tact and discretion. He implied rather than asserted, and his testimony gains greatly in cogency when read in the light of the reforms subsequently effected by himself.

In the question of classed and alphabetical Catalogues, Panizzi supported his chief, and took care to acquaint the Committee, how much the latter, and the Library, had been damaged by the compulsory withdrawal of Mr. Baber’s first plan for a Catalogue in favour of an alternative and inferior scheme. It was not difficult to discover that Panizzi was by no means satisfied with the administration of the Museum as it stood; at the same time he came to the assistance of the Trustees on a subject which had led to much criticism, by pointing out the importance of having men of rank and influence upon the Board, as well as men merely distinguished by literary and scientific eminence. Not his least important contribution to the proceedings of the Committee was the mass of information with respect to foreign Libraries and Educational Institutions, published in the appendices to its report, and mainly collected, directly or indirectly, by himself, either personally or from trustworthy witnesses, during his travels on the continent. These papers embody a vast amount of curious and interesting information from Vienna and Gottingen down to San-Luis Potosi, where “se trata de poner una biblioteca, y un museo, pero aun no se verifica.”

The report of the Committee was issued on July 14th, 1836.

It was not an elaborate document, and contained no reasons for its recommendations, most of which were of a sensible and obvious kind. The deficiencies and disarrangements of the Collections were attributed with perfect justice to the inadequacy of the funds and insufficiency of space. It was suggested that those Trustees whose attendance was infrequent and uncertain should receive a hint to retire, and that “for the future” literary and scientific distinction should constitute a ground of election for the Trust.

Many were the reforms adopted, to the great advantage of the Institution. The principal benefit of the Commission, nevertheless, consisted in the distinct recognition for the first time of the national and educational character of the Museum.

These observations must, however, be relinquished, interesting as they are, or we might be wandering on far beyond reasonable limits.

More might be said, and perhaps advantageously, on these seemingly unimportant subjects—yet, oh! how important to prove the steady progress of the Museum, and that in no small degree owing to Panizzi’s energy—but, as already said, we must restrain ourselves; and having subjects of intrinsic interest for the earnest peruser of this book to discuss, our inclination must be foregone.

When Panizzi entered upon his new office as Keeper, he was fully alive to the important duties which devolved upon him, and was well aware of the arduous and extraordinary task which he was called on to perform simultaneously with the ordinary business of the Department; he, therefore, resolved to keep the whole under his own immediate superintendence so far as was compatible with the regulations and wishes of the authorities.

The Trustees having, in 1837, provided means for removing the Library of Printed Books from Montague House to the new building on the north side of the Quadrangle, it was necessary to appoint a separate staff of assistants, and these were known as “temporary assistants.”

The operation of moving this mass of books, begun on the 1st of January, 1838, was successfully performed by efficient subordinates; but the labour and forethought required for the proper re-arrangement of the volumes and the alteration of the press-marks and references in the catalogues were such as can only be fully appreciated by those who have had some experience in similar undertakings.

At this time the collection consisted of about 160,000 volumes, exclusive of the Royal Library. On Panizzi was thrown, in addition to his other duties, the responsibility of suggesting, examining, and criticising every single article of furniture, fittings, &c., which the Library itself and the Reading Room required. The style of these, as well as the contrivances then adopted in the Department of Printed Books, were subsequently, so far as possible, copied in other Departments of the Museum, having been found equally economical and useful. The Trustees, under these circumstances, offered to find a person who should undertake the superintendence of the Catalogue—an outlay which, however, they were not called on to incur, Panizzi having twice declined the proffered assistance. The opinion of the Trustees and that of Panizzi, however, in regard to the amount of the work necessarily to be carried out without delay will be best gathered from the two following letters:—

The Rev. J. Forshall to Panizzi, December 27, 1838.

“Your letter of the 18th instant leads me, upon reading it attentively, to explain to you that the Trustees did not intend, in the communication to which your letter is a reply, to require from you to undertake the printing of the New Alphabetical Catalogue. They wished to ascertain whether, with the other duties which fall to your office, you felt that you could promise that vigorous and constant attention to the Catalogue which seems necessary to ensure the proper execution of the work. If you had felt that you could not, the Trustees would in that case have endeavoured to obtain other superintendence. The titles of the books in the King’s Library are to be incorporated with the others.”

Panizzi to the Rev. J. Forshall, January 1, 1839.

“In answer to your letter of the 27th of last month, and in addition to mine of the 18th, I beg to repeat that I am willing to undertake the duties mentioned in your letter of the 17th, and to endeavour to perform them to the best of my powers. I promise to give to the superintendence of the Catalogue all the attention of which I am capable; but it is not for me to say whether it will ensure the proper execution of the work. I feel it due to the Trustees, to the situation I have the honour of holding, and to my own character, not to shrink from the attempt.”

The removal of the books having been proceeded with for six months, it was found on the 23rd of June, that the collection contained, in round numbers, 165,000 volumes, of which 450 were extra folios, 15,000 folios, 23,000 4tos., 126,000 8vos., &c., &c. Up to that day 47,000 volumes had been removed to the new Library, and placed on the shelves destined for their reception, and at the end of 1839, about 12,000 more volumes remained still in Montague House.

A singular feature in the carrying out of this laborious task, was that no interruption of the supply of books to the readers took place. When Panizzi informed the Trustees of his intentions, the Bishop of London happening to be in the Committee Room, exclaimed, “It is impossible.” There is probably no precedent for this display of energy, and the magnitude of the attempt can only be appreciated by persons conversant with the daily use made of a Public Library by students, whose pursuits would have been totally interrupted had the method adopted absolutely required the closing of the Reading Room. The attempt was successful, and the works asked for by readers were generally forthcoming, excepting those actually in the course of removal and rearrangement, amounting at no time, on an average, to more than 8,000 volumes, or about five per cent. of the whole Library.

Mention has been made of the “efficient staff,” this was composed of the following gentlemen:—The Reverend Richard Garnett, Mr. John Winter Jones, Mr. Edward Edwards, Mr. W. Brenchley Rye, Mr. George Bullen, and last but not least, the late Sergeant Parry.

The Rev. R. Garnett was appointed Assistant-Keeper of the Printed Books, vice Cary, in 1838. He was an excellent scholar, thoroughly versed in German, Italian, French, and Spanish; had a good knowledge of Anglo-Saxon, and was conversant with several oriental languages. This gentleman died on the 27th of September, 1850, the sad event being announced to Panizzi by Mr. John Ridout, Panizzi’s and Garnett’s medical attendant. This coincidence deserves notice, for in reality it relates indirectly to the appointment of Mr. Richard Garnett, the present Superintendent of the Reading Room, so well-known to all its frequenters.^[E]

E. Appointed 1st March, 1851.

Panizzi wrote thus to Mr. Ridout:—

“September 27th, 1850,

“Dear Sir,

I was certainly prepared for the melancholy tidings brought by your note; I am, nevertheless, shocked at seeing it. I did promise I would do what I could for Mr. Garnett’s eldest boy, and shall keep my promise, and not without confident hope of success.

When I saw him last Tuesday, Mr. Garnett requested me to receive his salary (£100, due to-morrow) and pay it to his bankers, he signing the receipt, which I was to send him to-morrow morning, the pay day. All this now cannot be. It struck me that at the first moment it might be convenient for Mrs. Garnett to have a few pounds at once, and till she has time to settle her affairs; but not knowing her enough, I dare not make any offer of assistance. Can you help me in conveying my humble and poor offer to her in a proper and unobtrusive manner?

With many thanks to you, my dear Sir, for having made me aware of this sad event without delay,

I remain, &c., &c.,

A. Panizzi.”

Mr. John Winter Jones had been in the Institution since 1837, and besides ranking next to Panizzi, was also his friend, and stood firmly by him through all the vicissitudes of fortune which attended him; it will hereafter be noticed that he, in 1856, succeeded Panizzi as Keeper of the Printed Books, and finally in 1866, as Principal Librarian.

Mr. Thomas Watts, the linguist, was another of the “Temporary Assistants,” appointed in 1838, who rose to the grade of Keeper of the Printed Books, in succession to Mr. Jones, but did not live long to enjoy his promotion, for he died three years afterwards, on the 9th of September, 1869, aged 58.

In the autumn of the year 1835, Mr. Watts’ attention was attracted to the publication of the Parliamentary Commission of 1835–36, previously discussed. He read the evidence with great interest, and ere long, in 1836–37, wrote some valuable comments upon it, which embodied several suggestions for the improvement of the Museum service, some of which he had the satisfaction of seeing carried out during his lifetime.

Judging from certain passages which occur in a letter addressed to Panizzi by Mr. Watts, it might almost be inferred that long afterwards some sort of ill-feeling existed between the two. Panizzi, as already described, was a strict disciplinarian, and as he seldom allowed himself to be one minute behind-hand at his post, expected from all those under him similar punctuality in attendance, so that the Trustees might not lose any of the time which was their just due. Now it seems that Mr. Watts was accused by Panizzi of arriving late at the Museum and of wasting his time, as proved by the insufficient number of titles written by him for the Catalogue. This Panizzi communicated to him in the shape of a letter; which, after a few days, Mr. Watts, naturally stung by the rebuke, answered by an epistle of more than ordinary length, extending almost to eight quarto pages, of small writing, and beginning thus:—

“I have read repeatedly, with emotions of the greatest surprise and pain, the letter from you which I found on my desk on Wednesday morning. I have been for some days at a loss how to reply; but I perceive that a reply of some kind is imperatively needed.

The general impression which that letter conveys is that you find me idle and inefficient in zeal and energy, and setting a bad example. To hear such an accusation from any one would surprise me. I know not how to describe the feeling with which I hear it from you. You are the very first person to whom I should have appealed for its refutation. … It was at your recommendation that the Royal Commissioners^[F] to inquire into the affairs of the Museum expressed an opinion in very strong terms that my salary should be doubled and my position improved. You made use before them of these emphatic words:—“Mr. Watts has always done his duty and done it well.” … How, sir, am I to account for so striking a change in your opinion of me as your letter indicates?”

F. Here he refers to a later “inquiry.”

He seems to acknowledge that he had actually been in the habit of coming late to his work; (it was known that at times his health was not good) but promised that in future he would do his utmost to please and satisfy his chief in every possible manner.

In corroboration of the statement of Watts in the first part of his letter, it may not be amiss to give in full a report which Panizzi addressed to the Trustees about that period:—

“Mr. Panizzi begs to submit to the Trustees the case of Mr. Watts, a permanent assistant in this Department, who has been absent from his duties for the space of forty-five days, owing to a long illness. His salary is stopped during the time of absence, even when caused by a misfortune to which, as in this case, the very nature of his occupation in the Museum may have contributed. Mr. Panizzi begs that this circumstance and the value of the services of Mr. Watts, to which he has often had occasion to render justice, may induce the Trustees to direct Mr. Watts’ salary for the time of his absence to be paid.”

This Report is an excellent proof of Panizzi’s consideration for those under his supervision, and no further confirmation that the fault found with Watts arose from his strict sense of duty towards the Trustees, and a fearless disregard of bringing on himself the enmity of anyone for the simple discharge of that duty, is required. Perhaps this is better explained in his own words, in answer to Mr. Watts’ letter:—

“I have two principal duties to perform as the head of this Department. The first is to complete the new Catalogue with all possible despatch consistent with accuracy. Until that is done I ought not and will not entertain any other scheme, however plausible, which would inevitably interfere with the rapid progress of that great work. It is for that end, and for that only, that assistance is given to me so far as the Catalogue is concerned, and neither friends nor enemies shall make me turn from the path on which I am bound.”

The next distinguished “Temporary Assistant” to be introduced to our readers was John Humffreys Parry, the late Serjeant Parry, who has so recently departed this life.

Mr. Parry was recommended on the 31st of January, 1839, to Panizzi by Mr. Forshall, through the following letter:—

“The bearer, Mr. Humffreys Parry, is a gentleman of whose friends and connections I can bear testimony as being of the highest respectability. He is a young man of talent, intended for the Bar, but left, from family circumstances, much to his own resources. He would be glad to have employment upon the new Catalogue. Examine him, and form your own judgment as to his fitness.

Some private conduct of the young man’s has accidentally come to my knowledge, which enables me to assure you that he is a person of no common merit in many essential points of character.”

Immediately afterwards, at an interview, Panizzi gave him the appointment he sought, and on the 14th of February, 1839, Mr. Parry thus addressed his new chief:—

“36, Lower-street, Islington.

“Sir—Mr. Forshall has informed me that I am to receive the appointment on the Alphabetical Catalogue at the Museum, and having a few arrangements to make prior to commencing my duties, I fear I shall not be able to attend before Monday or Wednesday next. I think it right to apprise you of this, as Mr. Edwards stated to me your wish that I should lose no time, and I am anxious to comply with it.”

All those who knew the learned Serjeant in after years fully appreciate the geniality of his disposition. Panizzi soon became attached to him, and was not long in discerning his superior qualities. He was a great favourite with all. On one occasion, when all the Assistants were mustered in solemn conclave, to discuss a new rule for cataloguing, some one knocked at the door, when Parry, without leaving time for Panizzi to speak, imitated a person suffering from influenza, and said “Cub id!” None but he would so have dared to beard the lion in his den; but Panizzi joined in the laughter created by the joke as heartily as the rest. On another occasion Panizzi asked these gentlemen to give their opinion on a portrait of himself. One of them remarked that it looked rather dark, when Parry said, “Oh, I have seen Mr. Panizzi look much blacker than that!” One more instance of his ready wit and we have done. Mr. Parry occasionally absented himself from the Museum, until one afternoon Panizzi sent for him and requested him to discontinue such habits, when he received the following answer:—“I am very sorry, sir, for I was just going to ask you to let me go for the day.”^[G]

G. When he left the Museum, Panizzi introduced him to the late Mr. John Forster in these terms:—“A very clever gentleman, now a barrister, Mr. J. H. P., and formerly an assistant in this Library during the course of several years, and who knows more about the Museum than any one I know, called here yesterday, and told me that he was so vexed at the unfair and ignorant attacks on this Institution that he meant to write something about it. He is accustomed to write for the press, and his politics are excellent, and equalled by his frank, honest character. It struck me that he would be the very man to assist you. … If you see him you will like him.”

The position and the pay of these “Temporary Assistants,” most of whom in after years became men of distinction, would certainly be considered inadequate in the present day.

Previous to the year 1837, the Assistants were temporarily engaged to perform such services as were required in the several Departments; there being no regular scale of remuneration, but a daily payment fixed by the Trustees according to the aptness of the individual for the particular service allotted to him. The rate was 10s., 12s., and 15s., in one instance as high as 20s. for each day whilst actually employed at the Museum.

In 1837, the Trustees decided that the appointment of these Assistants should be permanent, and fixed a standing scale of remuneration; the members of this class were known as “Permanent Assistants.”

In 1838, at the time of the removal of the Library, the “Supernumerary or Temporary Assistants” were engaged at the rate of £2 12s. 6d. a week, or 8s. 9d. a day, for every day actually employed. Their number was increased from time to time, to provide the extra labour required in preparing the new Catalogue, and in the additional duties consequent upon the rapid increase of the Library.

In 1847, a slight change for the better took place in their status. In practice the promotion was from the Supernumerary to the Permanent class of Assistants; but there was no recognised claim to such promotion on the part of the Supernumeraries. In the year 1851, the distinction between the Permanent and Supernumerary Assistants was abolished, these Assistants, in all Departments, being considered as forming one body, although divided into two classes. In all these and subsequent changes, Panizzi was always the one who strove to promote the welfare of his subordinates.

Panizzi, Thomas Watts, J. Winter Jones, Edward Edwards, and John H. Parry, formed a committee for framing the rules for the new General Catalogue of the whole Library; each of them was separately to prepare, according to his own views, rules for the compilation of the projected work. These were afterwards discussed collectively, and when any difference arose, it was settled by vote.

The rules so drawn up were sanctioned by the Trustees, on the 13th of July, 1839, and printed on the 15th July, 1841. They were acknowledged at the time and still continue to be the most complete ever compiled, although attempts have, at various periods, been made to improve upon them: nor has the approbation bestowed upon them been merely of a local character; it has extended throughout Europe and America. The work occupied several months, the busy staff often being detained until late at night, on which occasions Panizzi invited his colleagues to share refreshments with him.

The above rules engaged Panizzi’s earnest attention, and on the 18th of March, 1839, he sent in the following report to the Trustees:—

“Mr. Panizzi has the honour to lay before the Trustees the Rules, which, under all circumstances, he proposes as advisable to be followed in the compilation of the Alphabetical Catalogue, accompanied by a number of illustrations. Although he is well aware that such rules must necessarily be affected by the haste with which they have been compiled, he ventures to hope they will be sufficiently intelligible to the Trustees, and enable them, even in their present imperfect state, to judge of the principles that Mr. Panizzi should wish to see observed. He is fully aware that many cases may arise unprovided for, and that some of these rules and principles may be liable to objections, which may not perhaps appear in other plans, seemingly preferable, but he trusts that what seems objectionable may, on mature reflection, be found in fact less so. He cannot, at present, do more than entreat the Trustees to take into their patient and minute consideration every single part, as well as the whole of the plan proposed, and then decide as they may think fit, bearing in mind that, although these rules may, if strictly followed, occasionally lead to what may appear absurd, the same objection, to a perhaps greater extent may be urged against any other plan, and far greater evils result from a deviation from a principle than from its inflexible application.”

On the 16th of the same month, March, Mr. Baber (Panizzi’s predecessor) happened to call at the Museum, when the draft of these rules was submitted to him, and with respect to them he expressed general satisfaction.

America has been mentioned with special reason.

The first general Conference of Librarians was held at New-York, September 15, 16, and 17, 1853, upon an invitation, signed by Professor C. C. Jewett, “for the purpose of conferring together upon the means of advancing the prosperity and usefulness of Public Libraries, and for the suggestion and discussion of topics of importance to book collectors and readers.”

At this meeting the learned Professor made a statement to the effect that the scholars of all nations demanded of Great Britain that the Catalogue of the Library of the British Museum should be thoroughly and efficiently executed, and should be a work of bibliographical authority.

Professor Jewett had made Panizzi’s acquaintance on his visit to London several years before, with the object of studying our Library, and sent to him a special invitation to attend the Conference. However, it was not accepted, and he wrote to Mr. Haywood thus, July 21, 1853:—

“As to my going anywhere, I have to tell you of a dream, which I should like to become a reality. There is going to be a Congress of Librarians in the United States, which is to open on the 15th of September next, and where all the great questions connected with the management of a great Library are to be discussed and uniform principles adopted. The Americans have always been my friends, and the principles which will prevail are mine. They wish me to go, and I should like it amazingly; but the expense is too heavy. I will try, if possible, to get help from the Trustees. Do you think it possible, in case of my going, that if the packet is not full I might have a cabin to myself?”

The grant for the purchase of Printed Books in 1838, being £1000 more than the preceding years, permitted the purchase of some rare and valuable books. For instance:—

The Translation of Montaigne’s Essays by Florio, with an autograph of Shakespere.

A copy of Luther’s Translation of the Bible in German, printed at Wittemberg, in 1559–61. (2 vols. folio, on vellum.)

The first edition of the Pentateuch, in the original, printed at Bologna, in 1482. (vellum, folio.)

The new Testament in German, printed at Augsburg, in 1535. (2 vols.vols. 8vo, on vellum.)

A richly illuminated Roman Missal, with the arms of Savoy facing the title-page, richly emblazoned. Printed in Paris, in 1517. (1 vol. folio, on vellum.)

The lives of Cornelius Nepos (1 vol. 4to, on vellum), printed at Parma, at the Bodoni Press, in 1799; and many others of equal importance.

In the year 1839 it must be noted that the Museum acquired two Latin Bibles, with copious manuscript notes, supposed to be by Melanchthon.

Besides these noteworthy and valuable purchases, presents were also received, and deserve particular mention. Two, especially, must not be omitted to be named:—1st. The Resolutions and other papers of the States General of Holland, from 1524 to 1798, with indices, the whole contained in 389 vols. folio, presented by H.M. the King of the Netherlands. 2nd. A copy of Cicero’s Orations, printed by Adam Ambergau, in 1742. 1 vol. folio, handsomely bound, presented by the Right Hon. Sir Arthur Paget, G.C.B.

The work having progressed satisfactorily thus far, it became necessary to inquire diligently into the many deficiencies in the National Library, and to propose means of supplying them. This was accordingly done in a Report dated 1st of January, 1845. On the 16th of December, the same year, it was forwarded to the Treasury by direction of the Trustees, and in the letter accompanying it the following passage occurs:—

“The Trustees of the British Museum earnestly hope that Her Majesty’s Government will take it into their grave deliberation whether the time has not come when it may be desirable, and on all grounds, literary, political, and economical, to enter at once upon a more enlarged and comprehensive scale of expenditure for the supply of Printed Books.

Without presuming to enter into other considerations, the Trustees conceive themselves warranted in stating it as their opinion that the present circumstances, as far as the British Museum itself is concerned, are extremely favourable to the entertaining of such a proposition.

The gentleman at the head of the Department is eminently qualified for the trust reposed in him: he is fully sensible of its importance, is ready to devote his whole time and thought (as indeed he has hitherto done in a most praiseworthy and exemplary manner) to make the Library in his charge as complete in every department of literature as he can, and at the same time accessible to the public on the easiest terms.”

The Report contains a sketch of the British Museum, and of its arrangement, together with some suggestions as to its future increase, utility, and importance. It shows how and when the Library was brought to the condition in which it was at the end of the year 1842. The state of the Collection in its several branches is examined, with regard to the various classes of human knowledge, to the various countries where the books were published, and to the languages in which they are written. Means are suggested by which the Collection ought to be increased to proportions worthy of the nation; and, lastly, attention is called to the effects which the proposed increase would have with regard to its arrangements, good order, and economy. This elaborate Report was begun as early as 1843. After many delays, Panizzi at last obtained consent, on the 4th of January, 1845, to its being printed privately for the Trustees, to whom individually it was ordered to be transmitted on the 24th of May following.

It remained disregarded, however, until the autumn of that year, when it was brought under the notice of Mr. Goulburn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Cardwell, Secretary of the Treasury. In consequence of this step, a meeting of the Sub-Committee on the Department of Printed Books was held on the 29th of November, 1845, the Chancellor of the Exchequer being present, and it was resolved that application should be made to the Treasury for the annual grant of £10,000 for ten years to come, to supply the deficiencies and exigencies shown by Panizzi to exist. The answer of the Treasury was most favourable: it was followed by a preliminary Parliamentary grant of £10,000, which was but the prelude to many others.

The letter of the Trustees to the Lords of the Treasury, their Lordships’ answer, and Panizzi’s report were laid before the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and ordered to be printed on the 27th of March, 1846.

From that year the collection of Printed Books increased steadily and at a rate unexampled in any other country. This influx of books, the necessity of Cataloguing, placing, and binding them, to render them available, and the difficulties created by want of space, added enormously to the already onerous duties of the Keeper.