2. To transcribe _literally_ from the Catalogues the title of the
Work wanted.
3. To write in a plain clear hand, in order to avoid delay and
mistakes.
4. Before leaving the Room, to return the books to an attendant, and
to obtain the corresponding ticket, the READER BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE BOOKS SO LONG AS THE TICKET REMAINS UNCANCELLED.
N.B. Readers are, under no circumstances, to take any Book or MS.
out of the Reading Rooms.
Can any one say that to request readers to fill up such a form
_correctly_, and to comply with these rules, is giving unnecessary
trouble? My suggestion was approved of by Sir H. Ellis,--under whose
especial control the management of the Reading Room is placed,--and who,
moreover, proposed that the same system should be adopted for MSS.;
which was done accordingly with the concurrence of Sir F. Madden, and
the sanction of the Trustees. It has continued in operation ever since
for both departments; but no attack has been made upon any one but
myself for this scheme. The improvement was all but unanimously
acknowledged to be very great; and no one rendered more justice to its
merits, to the motives which led to its adoption, and to its beneficial
results than Sir N. Harris Nicolas, who, having heard that a reader had
expressed some dissatisfaction, addressed to me the following letter:
"Torrington Square, 20th October, 1837.
"MY DEAR SIR,
"Having heard to-day, with great surprise, that a Reader of the
Library of the British Museum had expressed dissatisfaction at the
new regulations which you have introduced for obtaining Books, I
take the liberty of offering you the opinion of a person who has
constantly used the Library for sixteen years, and who, perhaps, is
not very likely to be suspected of bestowing indiscriminate or venal
praise.
"The great object of a Public Library is _dispatch_ in procuring
books. This can only be secured by _perspicuity_ in describing them.
"In my humble judgment, no better mode could possibly be devised for
immediately obtaining any particular work, than the printed tickets
you have suggested. By specifying the Titles from the Catalogue, and
copying from it the _Press-marks_, the applicant can at once
identify the particular edition, or copy of an edition, which he
requires. The importance of this to a critical student is obvious;
and I cannot shew the utility of the _new_ system more forcibly,
than by saying that I have often, formerly, been assured that a book
was not in the Museum, though I had myself referred to it only a few
days before. The requisition to insert the Titles and Press-marks on
the tickets is not merely reasonable, but it is indispensible, if
the Library is to be conducted with satisfaction to the Public and
to the Librarians. If people will not take the trouble to comply
with rules, which, so far from being vexatious, are absolutely
necessary for their own comfort, they can have no right to complain.
The fault is _theirs_ if mistakes or delay ensue; and it is as
absurd, as unjust, to impute the effect of their own ignorance or
carelessness to the Officers of the Museum.
"The only thing I can suggest about the new tickets is, that the
_Press-marks_ should be made more _simple_; but this is so manifest,
and is so entirely dependant upon the re-arrangement of the Library,
that it would be ridiculous to say another word on the subject.
"As to _dispatch_ in procuring books. Not only does my own
experience convince me of the great improvements which have taken
place since your last appointment, but such is the opinion of every
one whom I have heard speak of the Museum; and I have long had daily
opportunities of witnessing your courtesy and earnest desire to
render your Department as beneficial as possible to the Public. To
point out a defect, or to suggest an improvement, is to secure your
attention; and, as a matter of common justice, I anxiously bear
testimony to the change which has taken place since your promotion.
You have done wonders in a few weeks; and I pray you not to allow
the caprice or folly of individuals to affect your exertions.
"Believe me, with great esteem, my dear Sir, very sincerely yours,
&c."
This letter stated almost all that could be said in favour of the plan:
it seemed to express opinions maturely considered; I was therefore
unprepared to hear condemned, as unnecessary and vexatious, (_See_ No.
X.) what had been pronounced by the same writer, as not only not
vexatious, but absolutely necessary. The plea, that "he usually writes
and speaks from the impression of the moment," may as easily be alleged
in defence of his present as of his former judgment, and lead people to
trust neither. But although that letter sets forth what can be said in
favour of the plan which it praises, it touches but slightly on those
hindrances, which carelessness or malice can alike produce to defeat its
success. Any person, who, from either cause, gives wrong references, who
writes illegibly, who misdescribes a book, who misspells the name of an
author, who asks for a large number of books at the same moment, who
will not take the trouble to deliver his tickets to the proper person,
but leaves them about to be lost or mislaid, who has recourse to the
pettiest devices to create a grievance for the purpose of complaining of
it, such a person will certainly be kept occasionally waiting; and how
can it be otherwise? Yet these are the very persons who complain most,
avoiding, however, investigation, when they would be proved wrong, and
writing anonymously to newspapers, stating truly, it may be, the fact of
having been kept waiting, but taking good care to render it impossible
to prove that it was by their fault. This is not all: the endeavours
made to correct their mistakes and to decipher their handwriting, take
much time; and the delay is not unfrequently turned against the officers
and servants of the Museum, who are actually found fault with for doing
more than they are bound to do. Meanwhile, readers who have done all
that is required of them are probably kept waiting; and though they may
submit in silence to the inconvenience, they cannot help feeling
dissatisfied with what seem to be defects in the management of the
Library.
The _justice_ of the complaint which gave rise to the following
correspondence, will have been rendered more intelligible by this
preliminary information. The facts are as follows:--
On the 18th of May, Sir N. H. Nicolas asked for five works at once. Four
out of five of these works were brought to him within half an hour, as
he himself states; and on the supposition, that he, in his first letter,
had complained of delay, I, in answer, (No. II.) expressed my regret at
the occurrence. In letter No. III. Sir Nicholas says, "I did not make
any complaint respecting the _four_ books, because I am so accustomed to
such a delay, that I consider it a matter of course, though certainly
not one of necessity." I quote this passage as it affords the most
conclusive proof of the _despatch_ in obtaining books in the Reading
Rooms of the British Museum, and of the unreasonableness of such readers
as Sir N. H. Nicolas. I assert without fear of contradiction, that, in
none of the great public Libraries in the world, equal in extent to that
of the British Museum, is one single reader supplied with four out of
five works, which he asks for at once, at the rate of seven minutes and
a half each work, nor even in double that time. The very fact that Sir
N. Harris Nicolas considers such a delay a matter, "not of necessity,"
proves to what he is reduced for want of solid ground of complaint. I
expressed a regret, for which there was no occasion, for peace sake, and
because the moment I got Sir N. H. Nicolas's first letter, I suspected,
that, an article against the Museum Library in the _Spectator_ of the
day before being his, his letter was only a peg for a _querelle
d'Allemand_, which I should have been most glad to avoid. With these
feelings I wrote letter No. II.
There are in the old printed and "useful" catalogue, from which Sir N.
H. Nicolas took what he wrote on his ticket, three distinct works by the
same author, the entries of which are as follows:--
BURCHETT (JOSIAH) Memoirs of Transactions at Sea
during the War with France; beginning
in 1688, and ending 1697.
8^{o} _Lond._ 1703.
(806 _b_)/2-------Mr. Burchett's Justification on his
Naval-Memoirs, in answer to Reflections
made by Col. Lillingston,
or that part which relates to Cape
Francois and Port de Paix. 8^{o}
_Lond._ 1704.
581 _i_-----------A Complete History of the most
remarkable Transactions at Sea,
from the earliest Accounts of Time,
to the conclusion of the War with
France, fol. _Lond._ 1720.
It appears from Sir N. H. Nicolas's first letter, that the work he
wanted was the last; and had he given a ticket somewhat as follows,
there is no doubt he would have got the book in five minutes:--
-----------+-------------------------------------+------+-------+-----
Press Mark.| Title of the Work wanted. |Size. |Place. |Date.
-----------+-------------------------------------+------+-------+-----
| | | |
|_Burchett (Josiah) A complete history| | |
581 _i_ | of the most remarkable transactions |_fol._|_Lond._|1720.
| at Sea, &c._ | | |
| | | |
-----------+-------------------------------------+------+-------+-----
(Date) _May 18th, 1846._ _N. Harris Nicolas._ (Signature)
Please to restore each volume of the Catalogue to its place, as soon as
done with.
Instead of this, he gave a ticket, of which the following is a
_fac-simile_:--
[Illustration]
Now the attention of those who take an interest in this matter is
particularly requested to the following details, every one of them
trifling indeed, and yet all springing from the ticket which was given,
and more than enough to show the consequences which followed from the
carelessness of its writer:--
After having sent into the Reading Room _four_ out of the five books
asked for by Sir N. H. Nicolas--which, as he states, took half an
hour--and therefore, as nearly as possible, at half-past three, the same
attendant went in search of the fifth, marked 581 _i_. He found that 581
_i_ contained only _folios_, and he did not, therefore, and very
properly, lose more of his time in looking for an octavo, which was
written for; he had lost enough by being sent to a place where what was
wanted could not be. In justice to the other readers, as well as to the
department, the ticket ought to have been at once returned to Sir N. H.
Nicolas, marked "wrong," in order that he might have corrected his own
mistakes. If a reader's mistakes are to be corrected by the attendants,
all the evils arising from the old system, as described in my evidence
before the House of Commons, are increased; for in addition to the loss
of time in finding what a reader wants, there is the previous and
additional loss caused by the error of the applicant, in directing an
attendant to look for a work where it could not be. This loss of time
proves injurious chiefly to the other readers; and it is "for their own
comfort" that readers are requested to comply with the rules, without
causing an attendant to waste the public time to discover what an
individual applicant may want, which no one can know so well as the
applicant himself.
The attendant, however, being newly appointed, and being anxious to
serve Sir N. H. Nicolas, set about trying to find what was wanted. The
first difficulty which presented itself was to make out the ticket, so
badly written as almost to defy the eye of a man unaccustomed to the
hand. A consultation was held with another attendant (and thus the loss
of time of another man added to the former) and the name _Burchett_
being made out, the Catalogue was referred to, and the three entries
found as already transcribed. The ticket, let it be remembered,
contained only the words "Burchett's History of Transactions at Sea,
8^{o}. fvr 1704," without saying for what period. The first of the three
entries began with the words "Memoirs of Transactions at Sea," and
related to an 8vo. printed at London in 1703; _Memoirs_ and _History_
are not the same words; yet, as a mistake had occurred, might this not
be the book, the date, 1703, being so near to 1704? The second entry was
to be sure, of an 8vo. printed at London, in 1704; but then it was not a
History of Transactions at Sea; the third entry, besides being a History
not of Transactions at Sea, like the _Memoirs_, but only of the most
remarkable ones, was a folio, not an 8vo. and printed in 1720, not 1704:
It stood, however, in 581 _i_. In doubt which was the book wanted, the
attendant not unnaturally supposed it might be the first; but then the
entry had no Press-mark which could enable him to ascertain the fact by
looking at the book itself: this led him to make a third attendant
likewise lose some time to examine into the circumstances; who, knowing
more of the Library, (having been longer in it) perceived that this
entry was unmarked, because the volume to which it referred had been
sold as duplicate of one in the Royal Library, where the preserved copy
would be found. The first attendant then transferred the ticket to a
fourth well acquainted with the Royal Collection; and this fourth
attendant, after all proper enquiries, came to the correct conclusion,
that the "Memoirs" were not wanted; but, as he could not say which work
was, he returned the ticket to the attendant from whom he had received
it. Now there was yet a chance of making out the meaning of the writer
of that ticket, and that was to examine the identical copy of the volume
of the Catalogue kept in the Reading Room, from which the ticket ought
to have been copied, and to see whether all this trouble was caused by
an error in it, which might have misled Sir N. H. Nicolas. To ascertain
this the attendant went to examine that volume, but with no better
result, and he was still unable to discover where the error lay.
Whilst all this was going on, Sir N. H. Nicolas complained once and only
once to Scott the attendant, who did not tell him that he had corrected
a wrong Press-mark given for the book, as stated, nor that "he had often
applied for it." To Mr. Grabham and to Scott Sir N. H. Nicolas pointed
out in the Catalogue the book he wanted. Scott went into the Library,
found the attendant, assisted by another, still endeavouring to discover
the book, and on the entry being pointed out by Scott, as it had been to
him by Sir Nicholas, the attendant went with the Catalogue in his hand
to show to this gentleman whence the delay arose, and to express _his
great sorrow_ that Sir Nicholas should have been kept waiting: He,
moreover, told Sir Nicholas that he should now have the book in five
minutes. Sir N. H. Nicolas did not, however, seem satisfied, and allowed
the attendant to have the additional trouble of finding the book in a
hurry; yet, as soon as he had heard that it would be forthcoming in five
minutes, Sir Nicholas _left the room_, without waiting the few minutes
requisite to find it, and went away; most fortunately leaving behind him
the ticket, which enables me to show the real state of the case. And he
complains of having been kept waiting an hour and a half for one book!
The fact is, he was kept waiting one hour--for during the first half
hour he had got four other books--and who can wonder at it? And who has
more right to complain, the reader of the officers, or the officers of
the reader? The only reader who had a right to complain, _but who did
not_, although he considered the delay _unusual_, was Mr. Fairholt, who
wanted to look at a work merely to correct a proof sheet which he had
brought with him, and who had asked for it very correctly, but who could
not obtain it for more than half an hour, whilst the time of six persons
was more or less wasted on Sir N. Harris Nicolas, who complains of the
attendant, after not only a good explanation but a respectful apology,
and who, moreover, ventures to assert in his Correspondence (See Letter
No. X) that I justify the attendant "in refusing the book," whereas
nothing can be clearer than that the attendants, one and all, far from
refusing any book, did all they could, and more than they were bound, to
find it, and that Sir Nicholas was fully aware of this, when he wrote
that letter.
If any one among those who act under my direction, fails in his duty, I
never shall hesitate in taking proper notice of it; but I will never
allow any of them, whatever be his station, to be unjustly accused
without defending him. When I answered Sir N. Harris Nicolas's first
letter, I very briefly stated only such facts as proved the injustice of
his accusation, without giving any opinion whatever: the reasons for my
moderation have been given. This moderation did not avail me much. Sir
N. H. Nicolas was not only dissatisfied with my letter, but, in his
reply, (No. III.) he shifted his ground, and complained of "the
difficulties and delay arising from the present regulations, and the
state of the Catalogues." If the difficulties and delay arise from the
regulations, then his complaint of neglect against the attendant was a
most ungenerous proceeding; and if he thought this complaint well
grounded, he would not complain of the system. As he talked of the
attention of the Trustees being called to this subject, I begged of him
(No. IV. and V.) to prove what he had asserted--the truth of the
habitual delay, and its cause. He declined the offer (which a man,
convinced of the veracity of his statements, would have willingly
accepted) and wrote in a much lower tone. (No. VI.) I again called on
him to specify his charges, (No. VII.) and told him that his
unfavourable opinions must be "of a _recent_ date." He denied this,
carefully avoiding entering into any particulars, but went on with
generalities, (No. VIII.) except as to "Press-marks, &c." which he
declared to be the source of delay. In answer to this _recent_
accusation, I employed the very arguments and words which he himself had
long before used in praise of this very system and arrangement. (No.
IX.) His own words and arguments made him still more dissatisfied, and
he vehemently condemned them. (No. X.) Upon which I sent him, enclosed
in No. XI. a copy of his own letter of the 20th of October, 1837; and,
as he had been taunting me with what he had printed and meant to print
against me, I called on him to print along with it this letter. This he
declined to do, (No. XII.) though, in the _Spectator_ of the 30th of
May, he continued his attacks--not without some awkwardness, however,
now that he knew the proof I had of what he had so indignantly denied,
the _recent_ date of his unfavourable opinions.
In the course of the Correspondence, Sir N. H. Nicolas endeavoured to
drag me into a controversy about Catalogues, and a variety of other
points connected with the Library. I did not feel disposed to enter into
a profitless discussion with such an adversary. In the _Spectator_, too,
he has indulged in making assertions, and passing sentence on every
thing which he assumes that I have ever done, or now do. I shall not
defend myself, except before a competent judge. Whenever an inquiry,
which I have courted, (Letters No. IV. and V.) and still court, and from
which Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas has shrunk, and will shrink, shall
take place, either before the Trustees, or before any "higher authority"
whatever, I will prove, what I stated in my Letter No. XI., that no
reliance can be placed on his opinions and assertions. I shall take no
further notice, either of anything that Sir N. Harris Nicolas may say,
or of any anonymous attack whatsoever.
A. PANIZZI.
BRITISH MUSEUM,
_June 5th, 1846_.
CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN SIR NICHOLAS H. NICOLAS
AND MR. PANIZZI.