As I always strive to be accurate when writing for the press, an
accidental error should not give me much compunction; nevertheless, a
touch of the feeling is sure to obtrude itself on such occasions. Even
the apprehension of having added to the mass of current errors gives me
a fit of uneasiness, and having just recovered from an attack of that
description it may not be amiss to report the case for the benefit of
future patients.
When I wrote a memorandum on James Wilson, in reply to the query of
professor DE MORGAN, I stated that the united libraries of Pemberton and
Wilson were sold in 1772. _It was guess-work._
I recollected that the two libraries were sold in conjunction, but could
not recollect the date. On consulting the printed _List of the original
catalogues_ of libraries sold by auction by Mr. Baker and his successors
in the years 1744-1828, which was issued by the firm in the latter year,
the date appeared to be 1757. With that evidence, I penned a short
comment on the remarkable circumstance of the two learned friends
resolving to dispose of their libraries at the same time, on their
surviving the separation from their beloved books for fourteen years,
and on their dying within about six months of each other.
Some undefinable suspicions arose in my mind at this point of the
inquiry. Now, the original sale catalogue is in existence, and
accessible on proper application. I examined it. The sale commenced on
_Monday, February the 24th_. The year 1757 is added in _manuscript_;
and, since Pemberton and Wilson are described as _lately deceased_, it
is an undoubted error. So I tore up my sentimental scrap, leaving the
fragments on the table for the benefit of autograph collectors, and
replaced it with the six lines which conclude my reply. On reaching
home, I turned to the _Chronology of history_: the dominical letter was
just what I wished it to be! The _Book of almanacs_ added to my
comfortable sensations.
On a re-examination of my notes, it appeared that the united libraries
were sold by Baker and Leigh. Now, according to the above-described
_List of catalogues_, the partnership between Baker and Leigh did not
take place till 1775. The phrase _lately deceased_, applied to Pemberton
and Wilson, is not very precise; the sale, however, must have been after
1774. Resolved to pursue the inquiry, I examined a copy of the catalogue
in the royal library in the British Museum. It is bound with the
catalogue of the library of Edward Stanley, Esq., secretary to the
customs, which was sold in February 1776, and follows it. The volume is
lettered 1776. As the libraries of Pemberton and Wilson were to be
_viewed on Monday the 17th_, I turned to that day in the Stanley sale;
it was _Monday the 17th_. This seemed to prove that the two collections
were sold in the same year. Chronology says otherwise: the _Monday the
17th_ of the Stanley catalogue is an error of the printer; and the
lettering, with regard to Pemberton and Wilson, is an error of the
binder!
Believing, on the evidence above stated, that the sale was after the
year 1774, I came to the conclusion that it was in 1777--in which year
the 24th February fell on Monday. On further search at home, I met with
the catalogue in question. It is in a volume which was successively in
the possession of Dent and Heber, and contains the rare Fairfax
catalogue; also, _A catalogue of the very valuable library of Phillip
Carteret Webb, Esq._, which was sold by _Baker and Leigh_ in 1771. It
now became evident that the libraries of Pemberton and Wilson might have
been sold by _Baker and Leigh_ in 1772; and on examining the _Public
advertiser_ for that year, I found the sale advertised on Thursday the
20th of February. So I was right by _chance_, and in spite of manuscript
and printed authorities. Here ends the case.
Another anecdote in connexion with this inquiry deserves to be recorded.
I had read the life of Pemberton in the _General biographical
dictionary_. Chalmers therein states that his course of lectures on
chemistry, "was published in 1771, by his friend Dr. James Wilson." I
applied for the volume at the British Museum. By a rare accident the
_Scheme for a course of chemistry_ was produced instead of the _Course
of chemistry_, and as the day was far advanced, and _copy_ due, I gave
up the pursuit. On examination, it turns out that the volume contains a
memoir of Pemberton in twenty-three pages. Chalmers cites Hutton and
Shaw as his authorities; and _Hutton_, as I conceive, gives the
substance of it as his own composition! Wilson, in this important
memoir, declares that his intimacy with Pemberton was the _greatest
felicity_ of his life. He dates it the 10th Aug. 1771. He died on the
29th of September in the same year.
Wilson remarks, in his previous work, that on the successful practice of
navigation "depends, in an especial manner, the flourishing state of our
country." To this remark no one can refuse assent. The _Dissertation_ on
the history of the art has fallen into oblivion, because it exists only
in a work which has been superseded by others; but I venture to express
my opinion that a separate edition of it, with such corrections and
additions as might be required, and a continuation to the present time,
would be a desirable addition to scientific literature; and that no one
would perform the task with more ability, or more conscientiously, than
professor DE MORGAN.