Torrington Square, 26th May, 1846.
MY DEAR SIR,
The sooner a correspondence with a gentleman who will not understand
what would be perfectly intelligible to every body else, who perverts
the obvious meaning of courteous expressions, who affects to disbelieve
a distinct assurance, and who ventures to accuse another of
"unfairness," adding that it is "characteristic," is concluded, the
better.
All which I have yet said of your proceedings as Keeper of the Printed
Books, is, as I have no doubt you are aware, before the Public; and I
only wait until my comments are finished to send you a copy of them
"_from the Author_." You will find that in my opinion,
1. You have introduced regulations into the Library which are
vexatious and unnecessary, and impede research by preventing
literary men from consulting the Books with facility and comfort.
2. That the new Catalogue is improperly delayed; and that its plan
is injudicious, if not impracticable, and therefore that the money
spent on its compilation is wasted.
With respect to "_Press-marks_" my objection is, as you cannot but know,
not to their being inserted in the Catalogue, to be used if a Reader
desires to identify a particular copy of a book, but _to your insisting,
as a sine qua non_ to the delivery of any book whatever,--no matter how
well known it may be--that the applicant shall refer to the Catalogue,
_and fill up five columns_ "LITERALLY," including the "Press-mark." I
say this is vexatious and unnecessary. In one hundred out of one hundred
and five cases, the Title itself, written from memory, ought to be, as
(I repeat it) it was in the time of your predecessors, sufficient. If a
particular edition is wanted, the applicant will not fail to specify it.
If he has a doubt as to the title or edition, he will then refer to the
Catalogue. But in my case, when I had copied both the Title and the
Press-mark, I could not obtain the book, and you justify the neglect.
I entirely deny that your system causes a quicker delivery of books. On
the contrary, I declare from experience that the delay is now much
greater than it was before you introduced your scheme. A Reader is
still, sometimes, told that a book is not in the Library, though he may
have used it only a few days before. Perhaps you may not have forgotten
the Index to the Despatches of the Duke of Wellington, which you
insisted with "characteristic" gentleness, was not in the Library,
though I over and over again told you I had had it in my hands within a
week.--I persisted, and the book was brought to me in ten minutes after
your vehement assurances that it was not in the Museum! So much for the
working of your system.[B]
You say the fault in these cases is the applicant's, for not complying
with all your regulations; and you coolly talk of their imputing "the
effect of their own ignorance or carelessness to the Officers of the
Museum." I answer, that the Officers of the Museum have no right to
impose regulations which are vexatious and unnecessary; which give
useless trouble, and cause great loss of time. The applicants may almost
as reasonably be expected to copy the whole of the first and last pages
of books, as what you require; and because an _unimportant_ mistake is
made as to the date and size of a book, of which there is only one
edition, and no similar Title in the English language, the salaried
Officer of the Institution refuses, or rather justifies his subordinate
in refusing the book, and thinks it decorous and proper to taunt him
with "ignorance or carelessness."
There is nothing so attractive in this controversy as to induce me to
bring others into it; and if you do not choose to believe my assertion,
I cannot help it. I have not presumed to doubt anything you have said,
nor to impute improper motives to your conduct. But courtesy is a matter
of feeling, and I have no right to expect you to imitate me.
I must again say, that the matters under discussion can only be settled
by a higher authority than yours. _You_ have brought the subject before
the Trustees,--_I_ have, as I usually do on subjects which concern the
Public, laid the facts before the Public. You can vindicate your
proceedings either to the Trustees or to the Public. I avow and maintain
all I have, and all I may yet say; but I decidedly decline to continue
this correspondence, because I am sure it can lead to no desirable
result, and for the other reasons which I have assigned. I consider the
subject one of a _Public Nature_, and regret to perceive that you are
angry; for, until your last letter, I had determined to avoid making any
_personal remark_ likely to displease you.
Believe me, &c.
I can have no sort of objection to your laying this and my last letter,
together with the communication which you will receive from me on Monday
next, before the Trustees, if you see fit.