_The British Museum; Appointment Discussed; First Duties; Royal Society;
Promotion; Cary; Hallam’s Letter; Official Residence._
[Illustration: Sir Hans Sloane]
Not before the middle of the eighteenth century had the grand idea of
establishing a National Museum been entertained in England. The project
was suggested by the will of Sir Hans Sloane, Bart., of Chelsea, who,
during a long period of eminent practice in physics, had gathered
together whatever was within his reach of rare and curious, not only in
England, but in other countries. This great originator of our National
Collection was born in 1660, and died in 1753. The codicil of his will
bears date the 20th of July, 1749, and expresses a desire that his
collection might be kept together and preserved in his Manor House.
By the said codicil the testator directs that his trustees should make
their humble application to His Majesty, or to Parliament at the next
session after his own decease, offering the entire collection for the
sum of £20,000. This consisted of a numerous library of books, and MSS.,
with drawings, prints, medals, and coins, articles of virtu, cameos,
precious stones, &c., &c., which he had himself collected at an outlay
of £50,000.
His testamentary offer to the nation was accepted by Parliament, and in
1753 an Act (26 George II., c. 20) was passed, which may be termed a
Charter of Foundation.
Trustees were appointed, the identical individuals named by Sir Hans
during his lifetime, who had been consulted by competent persons, and
strongly felt the necessity of procuring the collection as a whole for
the use of the nation.
The attention of the legislature was not confined simply to the
collection of Sir Hans Sloane. The Act which directed the purchase of
his museum also gave instructions for the purchase of the Harleian
collection of MSS., for which a sum of £10,000 was granted. This Act
also directed that the Cottonian Library of MSS., which had been granted
to the Government for public uses by an Act of the 12th and 13th,
William III., should, with the addition of the library of Major Arthur
Edwards, form part of the general collection.
It was ordered that these several collections should be kept in their
respective places of deposit until a more convenient and durable
repository, safer from fire, and nearer to the chief places of public
resort, could be provided for the reception of them all.
To defray the expenses of these purchases, to procure a fit repository
for their preservation, and to provide a fund for the permanent support
of the establishment when formed, the Act directed that £100,000 should
be raised by way of lottery, the net produce of which, together with the
several collections, was to be vested in a corporate body selected from
the highest in the land so far as regards rank, station, and literary
attainments, upon whom it conferred ample powers for the disposition,
preservation, and management of the Institution, which, it was
determined, should bear the name of _The British Museum_.
The sum really raised under this Act, partly in consequence of benefits
arising from unsold tickets, amounted to £101,952. 7s. 6d.; but the
expenses of the lottery amounted to £6,200, and the cashier of the bank
received more than £550 in consideration of his management of it, so
that the net produce was £95,194. 8s. 2d. Out of this the sum of £20,000
was paid to the executors of Sir Hans Sloane; £10,000 to the Earl and
Countess of Oxford for the Harleian MSS.; £10,250 to Lord Halifax for
Montague House, and £12,873 for its repairs, which had been estimated at
£3,800; £30,000 being set apart as a fund for the payment of future
salaries, taxes, and other expenses. Some loss was also sustained by the
difference of price between the times of buying and selling stock, and
£4,660 were expended for furniture. The surplus was applied to the
gradual liquidation of numerous and general expenses, including the
removal of the different collections.
The only buildings offered as general repositories were Buckingham
House, with the gardens and field, for £30,000, and Montague House for
£10,000.
The consideration of the former was waived, partly from the exorbitant
sum demanded for it, and partly from the inconvenience of the situation.
The latter was finally fixed upon, and the agreement for its possession
was drawn up in the spring of 1754.
No offer of ground for building a repository was made, except in Old
Palace Yard, where it was at one time proposed that the Museum should
find a place in the general plan which had been there recently designed
by Kent for the New Houses of Parliament.
Montague House was originally built about 1674, by Ralph, Duke of
Montague, after the style of a French palace. It was erected from the
design of Robert Hooke, the celebrated mathematician, who took so
important a part in the re-building of London after the great fire.
Foreign artists were chiefly engaged in its completion, and amongst them
Verrio superintended the decorations.
When finished it was considered a most magnificent building; but on the
19th January, 1686, owing to the negligence of a servant the house was
burnt to the ground. The large income of the owner was again brought
into requisition for the re-construction of his palace; and, though
executed by fresh artists, the plan was the same, the new structure
being raised upon the foundation and remaining walls of the old one.
The architect now employed was Peter Puget, a native of Marseilles, who
was assisted by C. de la Fosse, J. Rousseau, and J. B. Monnoyer, three
artists of great eminence.
The exclusive employment of French artists gave rise to the popular, but
improbable, tale that Montague House was re-built at the expense of
Louis XIV., to whose Court the Duke had twice been attached as
Ambassador.
The second building was purchased as a repository for the collections.
In 1755 the Harleian MSS. were removed into it, and the following year
the other collections were added, and when all had been properly
distributed and arranged the British Museum was opened for public
inspection on the 15th of January, 1759.
The government of the Institution was vested in trustees, to the end
that, as the Act says: “A free access to the collections may be given to
all studious and curious persons at such times, and in such manner, and
under such regulations for inspecting and consulting the said
collections, as by the said trustees, or the major part of them, may be
determined in any general meeting assembled.”
The trustees are forty-eight in number. Twenty-three are called
official, being the holders for the time being of certain high offices;
by these the National interests of Church and State, Law, Science, and
Art are presumed to be represented and protected. Of these the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker of the
House of Commons are termed the _Principal Trustees_. Nine others are
called the _Family Trustees_, as representing the families of Sloane,
Cotton, Harley, etc., etc.; one is termed the _Royal Trustee_, because
nominated directly by the Crown. The remaining fifteen are styled the
_Elected Trustees_, who are all chosen by the other twenty-three.
In accordance with the desire of Sir Hans Sloane, the _elected_ were
chosen in the beginning from among the adepts in learning and science,
and this practice continued until about 1791, when the vacancies began
to be filled almost exclusively by persons of rank and fortune.
The chief officer of the British Museum is styled the _Principal
Librarian_, which is to a certain extent a misnomer, as he has no more
to do with the books than with the other portions of the collection; he
derives his appointment from the Crown under sign manual, and is
entrusted with the care and custody of the Museum, his duty being to see
that all the subordinate officers and servants perform their respective
duties properly.
The different departments are each managed by a head called _Keeper_,
and in most of them there is also an _Assistant-Keeper_, besides
assistants and attendants.
The patronage of the Museum is vested in the three Principal Trustees,
of whom the Archbishop of Canterbury takes precedence.
The hours for the opening of the Museum in 1759 were from 9 o’clock in
the morning till 3 in the afternoon, from Monday to Friday between the
months of September and April inclusive, and also at the same hours on
Tuesday in May, June, July, and August, but on Monday and Friday only
from 4 o’clock till 8 in the afternoon during these four months.
Persons desirous of inspecting the Museum were to be admitted by printed
tickets to be delivered by the porter upon their application in writing.
No more than ten tickets were to be delivered out for each hour; five of
the persons producing such tickets were to be attended by the
Under-Librarian, and the other five by the Assistant Librarian in each
Department.
On the 30th of March, 1761, the hours of admission were changed from
nine to eleven and one, and the number admitted at one time was
increased to 15.
On the 9th of February, 1774, a Committee of the House of Commons was
appointed to consider a more convenient method of admitting persons into
the Museum, and on the 11th of May the Committee suggested that on
certain days visitors should pay for admission. This was adopted and the
practice continued for 36 years afterwards, when, in 1810, Mr. Planta,
then Principal Librarian, first took the step of having the Museum
opened three times a week from ten to four o’clock, without tickets.
The first “_Principal Librarian_” was Dr. Gowin Knight, a distinguished
member of the College of Physicians. He was appointed in 1756, and
remained at the Museum till 1772, when he was succeeded by Dr. Matthew
Maty, who was born in 1718, near Utrecht, and was educated at the
University of Leyden. In 1740 he published “Dissertatio philosophica
inauguralis de Usu,” and, later on, a work on the effects of habit and
custom upon the human frame. Coming to England in 1741, he practised as
a physician, and soon became a man of reputation, but much of his spare
time was occupied in literary pursuits, and at the death of Dr. Knight
he was appointed _Principal Librarian_, which post, however, he held
only for four years, as he died in 1776.
Dr. Charles Morton, a native of Westmoreland, born in 1716, was his
successor. He was the author of several important works, and contributed
largely to the “Philosophical Transactions.” His death took place on the
10th of February, 1799.
Joseph Planta next obtained the appointment, having been engaged in 1773
as an Assistant Librarian. A native of Switzerland,he was born on the
21st of February, 1744, and educated at Utrecht, besides having been a
student at the University of Göttingen. From the date of his appointment
as Principal Librarian (1799) it may be said that the affairs of the
Museum began to improve; chiefly devoting himself to the improvement of
the reading-room, in 1816 the number of visitors increased, and, as
already stated, he suggested the vast improvement of throwing open the
doors of the British Museum freely three times a week. He died in 1827.
Sir Henry Ellis next occupied the position of Principal Librarian,
having been a servant of the Trustees since 1800. He was born at
Shoreditch, in London, 29th of November, 1777, but of him we shall have
occasion to speak more fully hereafter.
During this period the contents of the British Museum were divided into
three separate departments, namely, Printed Books, Manuscripts, and
Natural History, and to the first of these we must now draw the reader’s
attention.
The department of Printed Books consisted at first only of the library
of Sir Hans Sloane, which is said to have amounted to 50,000 volumes,
and that of Major Edwards; these were not, however, actually transferred
to the Museum till 1769. In 1757 His Majesty George II., “fully
impressed with a conviction of the utility of this Institution,” by
instrument under the Great Seal, added the Library of Printed Books and
Manuscripts, which had been gradually collected by the Sovereigns of
these realms from Henry VII. down to William III. Rich in the prevailing
literature of different periods, and including, with others, the
libraries of Archbishop Cranmer and of Isaac Casaubon, this library also
contains the venerable Alexandrian Codex of the Bible. His Majesty added
to his gift the privilege which the Royal Library had acquired in the
reign of Anne, of being supplied with a copy of every publication
entered at Stationers’ Hall.
The bulk of this Royal Collection consists of books of English divinity,
history, classics, &c., as well as of Italian and Spanish works, many of
the volumes remarkable for being printed on vellum, or dedication
copies. The most valuable among them are the productions of Vérard, the
celebrated Paris printer (1480-1530), who struck off, during the reign
of Henry VII., a copy on vellum of every book he printed. Unfortunately,
part of this collection was dispersed.
In 1759, Mr. Salomon Da Costa presented 180 Hebrew books, which, as he
states, “had been gathered and bound for King Charles II.”
The department was further enriched, in 1762, by a donation from George
III. of a collection of pamphlets and periodicals published in the
convulsive interval between the years 1640 and 1660. Chiefly
illustrative of the civil wars in the time of Charles I., they were
collected by an eminent bookseller, George Thomason; the whole comprises
upwards of 30,000 articles, bound in about 2,000 volumes.
It is impossible to enumerate in detail all the additions which have
been since made by gift or purchase. Dr. Thomas Birch’s library,
bequeathed in 1766, is rich in biography; two collections of books on
musical science were also presented—one by Sir John Hawkins, in 1778,
and the other by Dr. Charles Burney.
[Illustration: Sir Joseph Banks]
In 1780, 900 volumes of old English plays were given to the Museum by
Garrick. In 1786, numerous classics from the library of Thomas Tyrwhitt,
and a collection of ceremonials, processions, and heraldry from Mrs.
Sophia Sarah Banks was added. These gifts were supplemented in 1818, two
years later, by the library of Sir Joseph Banks, consisting of about
16,000 volumes, particularly rich in scientific journals, transactions
of societies, and books on natural history, but which were not actually
transferred to the Museum till 1827.
A collection of Italian history and topography from Sir Richard
Colt-Hoare, Bart., was presented in 1825. This gentleman printed only
twelve copies of the catalogue of his books, and wrote on the fly-leaf
of the copy which accompanied the presentation, “Anxious to follow the
liberal example of our gracious monarch, George IV.; of Sir George
Beaumont, Bart., of Richard Payne-Knight, Esq. (though in a very humble
degree), I do give unto the British Museum THIS my collection of
topography, made during a residence of five years abroad, and hoping
that the more modern publications may be added to it hereafter, A.D.
1825. RICHARD COLT-HOARE. This catalogue contains 1,733 articles.”
The valuable library of the Rev. Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode, consisting
of 4,500 volumes, came into the possession of the Museum in 1799; and
lastly, in 1835, Major-General Hardwicke bequeathed to the Trustees the
deficient works on natural history which formed part of his library, and
which caused an accession of 300 volumes.
Parliament also evinced its interest in the library, and gave
instructions for the following purchases:—
Mr. Francis Hargrave, an eminent barrister, had formed an important
collection of law books, which was purchased in 1813 for _£8,000_,
having been valued by a bookseller at _£2,247. 8s_.
Dr. Burney’s library was likewise purchased in 1818, and was estimated
at the value of _9,000_ guineas. It contained a remarkable collection of
Greek classics, besides 700 volumes of newspapers, &c., &c.
In 1769 a sum of _£7,000_ was paid for Major Edwards’ library, and in
1804 the sum of _£150_ was applied to the purchase of a collection of
Bibles belonging to Mr. Combe.
In 1807 classical works, with MS. notes by Dr. Bentley, were also
obtained by purchase.
_£1,000_ were spent in 1812 in the purchase of works on English history
and topography, and in 1815 books on music, belonging to Dr. Burney,
were acquired for the sum of _£253_.
In the course of the same year a collection of books, portraits,
minerals, &c., belonging to Baron Moll, of Munich, became national
property for the consideration of _£4,777. 17s. 5d._, and in 1818, the
Ginguené collection, consisting of 1,675 articles, chiefly on Italian
literature, besides 2,686 articles in Greek, Latin, French, &c., &c.,
&c., became another addition for _£1,000_.
Four separate collections of tracts, illustrating the Revolutionary
History of France, have been purchased at different times by the
Trustees. One was that formed by the last President of the Parliament of
Brittany, at the commencement of the revolution; two others extended
generally throughout the period, whilst the fourth was a collection of
tracts and papers published during the “Hundred Days” of the year 1815,
and became the property of the Museum in 1823, the whole forming a
library of revolutionary history, which contains as complete an account
of those important days for France as does the already-mentioned
collection of tracts of the civil wars of England.
Another and unrivalled feature of the Museum history is its progressive
collection of newspapers from 1588. But as, for the purposes of this
biography, we have stated enough of the condition of the Museum at the
time of Panizzi’s appointment, we shall say no more on the subject
except to add a few words on the general collection at the British
Museum, which may not be devoid of interest at this point of our
narrative.
Between 1805 and 1816 were added the choice statues and antiques of Mr.
Charles Townley, the Lansdowne MSS., the Greville minerals, the
Phigaleian and the Elgin marbles. Whilst, however, treasures upon
treasures were accumulating in the Institution, other good opportunities
were allowed, through apathy and ignorance, to be neglected, and amongst
the rarities thus lost were Dodwell’s Greek vases, Belzoni’s alabaster
sarcophagus, the Ægina marbles, the Millingen vases, and, last but not
least, the famous collection of drawings by old masters acquired by the
energy of Sir Thomas Lawrence, which, by the terms of his will, was
offered to the nation for one-third of its original cost.
To this neglect was added the sale of duplicate books, which so much
disheartened Lord Fitzwilliam (who died in 1816, and who intended to
bequeath his collection to the British Museum), that he altered his
mind, and handed it over to the University of Cambridge.
In 1823 the library of George III. was presented by George IV. to the
nation, and ordered by Parliament to be added to the Library of the
British Museum, but for ever to be kept separate from the other books.
Immediately after his accession George III. began to purchase books, and
for this purpose gave Mr. Joseph Smith, Consul at Venice, £10,000 for
his collection, besides other money which he sent to various continental
agents.
This library contains selections of the rarest kind, more especially
works in the first stages of the art of printing, and is rich in early
additions of the classics, in books by Caxton, in the history of the
States of Europe, in the Transactions of Academies, &c. At the time of
its formation the houses of the Jesuits were undergoing suppression, and
their libraries were on sale. It was accumulated during more than half a
century at an expenditure of little less than £200,000.
In the preface to the catalogue it is stated that it was compiled in
accordance with a plan suggested by Dr. Samuel Johnson. His Majesty’s
Librarian was Sir Frederick Barnard, who survived his royal master, and
continued to hold the appointment until the library became national
property. He died at the age of 87 on the 27th of January, 1830.
Soon after the reception of the gift, a Select Committee of the House of
Commons reported (April 18, 1823) that a new fire-proof building ought
to be erected to preserve it from all risks, and accordingly the present
east wing of the Museum was built, at the cost of £140,000, by Sir
Robert Smirke. The upper floor, though it has been used for the Natural
History collection, was intended for a picture gallery and for the
reception of MSS. The new building was completed in 1826, but the
library was not opened for two years afterwards. The room is 300 feet in
length, 55 feet in width in the centre, and 31 in height. The presses
are all glazed to preserve the books from dust. In the centre of the
room are four columns of Aberdeen granite, each of a single piece,
surmounted by Corinthian capitals of Derbyshire alabaster. Over the door
are inscriptions, one in Latin and the other in English, in these
terms:—“This Library, collected by King George III., was given to the
British Nation by his Most Gracious Majesty George IV., in the third
year of his reign, A.D., MDCCCXXIII.” As to the reality of the gift to
the nation there is some doubt; for it appears that George IV., having
some pressing call for money, did not decline a proposition for selling
the library in question to the Emperor of Russia. Mr. Heber, the
bibliographer and book collector, having ascertained the facts, and that
the books were in danger of leaving for the Baltic, sought an interview
with Lord Sidmouth, the Home Secretary, and stated the case,
observing—“_What a shame it would be that such a collection should go
out of the country!_” to which Lord Sidmouth replied, “_It shall not_;”
and, as it proved afterwards, the library was presented to the nation,
but on condition that the value should be paid, which was done from the
surplus of certain funds furnished by France for the compensation of
“losses by the revolution.”
With this necessarily brief account of the rise and progress of the
British Museum, we return now to the immediate subject of these memoirs.
In the previous chapter reference has been made to Panizzi’s dislike to
the appellation of “_foreigner_” a dislike, which, indeed, he always
entertained.
The act of naturalization took place scarcely one year after he became a
servant of the Trustees of the British Museum. It bears the date of
March 24th, 1832, and was, as might be expected, a source of great
satisfaction to him.
It has already been noticed that the National Institution had previously
enrolled amongst its increasing staff other _foreigners_, who all held
important, if not responsible, appointments—viz., Dr. Maty, a Dutchman,
and the very first Under-Librarian of the Department of Printed Books,
afterwards Principal Librarian; Dr. Solander, a Swede, and Joseph
Planta, a Swiss, besides Charles König, a German. Of these, strange to
say, not one was naturalized. Panizzi was now an Englishman after his
own heart, and his subsequent political career will amply testify to the
pride he took in being so. His suitability for the appointment and the
causes which led to his selection for so responsible an office, will be
best understood from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s own statement before
the Select Committee on the British Museum, which sat in 1836; but on
this subject more will be said hereafter.
His answer (No. 5,511) to a question put to him was as follows:—
“Mr. Panizzi was entirely unknown to me, except by reputation; I
understood that he was a civilian who had come from Italy, and that he
was a man of great acquirements and talents, peculiarly well suited
for the British Museum; that was represented to me by several persons
who were not connected with the Museum, and it was strongly pressed by
several Trustees of the Museum, who were of opinion that Mr. Panizzi’s
appointment would prove very advantageous for the Institution; and
considering the qualifications of that gentleman, his knowledge of
foreign languages, his eminent ability and extensive attainments, I
could not doubt the propriety of acceding to their wishes.”
The news of his appointment was first communicated to him on the 25th of
April, 1831, by the Right Hon. Thomas Grenville.
“I am just come from a meeting of the Trustees of the Museum and have
the satisfaction of telling you that your name, when proposed to
succeed to the vacant Assistant Librarianship, was received with high
testimony to you, universally approved, and the Archbishop said he
would lose no time in signing the appointment, and in obtaining the
Chancellor’s concurrence.
The appointment was £200 per annum for five days in the week, and £75
for extra attendance to Mr. Walter. I am very glad of your success,
and think that your appointment will be of great value to the Museum.”
That the Trustees were satisfied with the performance of Panizzi’s
duties there can be no doubt, and it will be interesting to record his
earliest labours. His first report is dated May 4th, 1831, in which it
is stated that he was engaged in transcribing a catalogue of duplicates
to be submitted to the Royal Society for their selection. This duty was
soon followed by cataloguing an extraordinary collection of tracts,
illustrative of the history of the French Revolution, and formerly the
property of Mr. Croker. That it was no easy task, and that it demanded
special attention, may be gathered from a letter which the cataloguer
addressed on the 18th of April, 1834, to Mr. Baber, then his superior
officer:—
“1st. As to the omission of the Christian name of the author, when his
family name is given.
2nd. As to the great proportion of anonymous tracts.
3rd. As to the number of works without any author’s name or title
whatever, or with so vague a title as to be of no use for the purpose
of cataloguing the work.”
He continues:—
“Much time is spent in searching for names or for authors, and in
glancing over tracts to see what is their subject, to catalogue them
properly, after a most tedious search proves useless with respect to
the first point, and no evidence remains of the trouble and loss of
time which it causes. I cannot catalogue more than forty tracts each
day.”
As it is a matter of importance that Panizzi’s stormy connection with
the Royal Society should be fairly and impartially added to these
memoirs, and as we have now arrived at the period when, for the proper
elucidation of the facts thereto belonging, the whole circumstances of
the case should be thoroughly weighed and dwelt upon, it will be
necessary to devote a few pages to a clear account of the proposal made
by that Society, of the obstacles that were placed in Panizzi’s path, in
his conscientious endeavours to fulfil the obligations imposed on him,
and of the untiring zeal and patience he displayed in doing his duty in
the matter, and in opposing the force with which it was attempted to
crush the evidence of his superior talent, and to trample under foot
even the Society’s own verbal agreements upon which, as coming from a
body of men beyond suspicion, Panizzi relied. The whole of that
opposition was successfully surmounted by his undoubted genius.
Biographers generally have to undergo the tedium of monotony in their
faithful endeavours to reproduce the lives of those whose careers they
pen, and it is only at certain epochs in the course of the lives of
consistent men that an opportunity is afforded for a discursive chapter
such as is now presented to our readers. It deserves, however, due
consideration, and has its value as a proof of the forbearance,
learning, and perseverance of the man of whom we are writing; whilst it,
without doubt, throws somewhat into shade the members of a very learned
Society, who vainly strove, first from want of knowledge of their own
requirements, and secondly from non-appreciation of him with whom they
had to deal, to undervalue true talent, and, by their associative power,
to make a show of quashing not only Panizzi’s (subsequently _proved_)
intelligence, but also his right to acknowledgment for the new light he
threw upon their want of accuracy and knowledge for the work which they
had confided to him, and for which they should—some, at least, must—have
known he was so eminently fitted.
The origin, progress, and dénoûment of this affair cannot be brought
within very small compass; but attracting (as they did at the time) the
notice of many literary men, are worthy of some space in this volume.
It would be amusing to watch the progress of this attempt to thwart
Panizzi’s intentions for the development of that which he so well
understood, even were it not also a necessary record of the
heartburnings of, and wrongs done to, one who, justly confident in his
own position, had to prove, step by step, willingly or not, for his own
defence, his superiority to those whose business it was to direct him,
and not to derive from him their inspiration.
To proceed, then, as we have intimated above, in reference to the
connection of Panizzi with the Royal Society; and to give our readers a
clear conception of that connection, it will be necessary to make
considerable quotations from his own letters and notes, for which,
considering their importance as indications of his learning, and
humility under adverse treatment, it will scarcely be necessary for us
to offer any apology.
In the year (1832-33) the Royal Society, from the incompetency of those
who had taken the matter in hand, found it advisable to engage the
services of some known and experienced cataloguer to revise a work,
which had been begun on their behalf by one of the members, whose
presumption and arrogance cannot be better proved than in the mild
unassuming language of Panizzi himself:—
“So long ago as October, 1832, I happened to meet Dr. Roget at dinner,
who told me that the Catalogue of the Royal Society, of which a sheet
had been set up in type as a specimen, had been found to require
revision in passing through the press, and that a Committee, on that
very day, had requested him to ask me whether I would undertake the
task. I said that I had no objection, and I received from him a
_proof_ of the sheet in question. The same evening, on my return home,
glancing over it, I was astonished at the numberless errors by which
it was disfigured. The more I looked into it, the worse did it appear,
and I soon felt convinced that it was utterly incapable of correction.
I immediately wrote a note to Dr. Roget, stating the conclusion to
which I had come, and begging to decline to have anything to do with a
work which I felt satisfied would be disgraceful to the Royal Society,
and to any person who should venture to meddle with it. Either in that
note, or verbally, shortly after, I mentioned to Dr. Roget that it
would be necessary for the Royal Society to have an entirely new
Catalogue, compiled in such a manner as would answer the expectations
which the public had a right to form; adding, that, although I would
never attempt to correct what had already been done, I was ready to
undertake a new compilation.
I had no idea when I so candidly expressed my opinion, that I was
making a powerful and unrelenting enemy in one of the most influential
officers of the Royal Society, who, as I have learned since, had put
together the titles of books which were to form the Catalogue, and was
so well satisfied with his performance as to order a very large number
of titles to be set up in type; whatever, in fact, he included in
classes, which he called: Mathematics, Astronomy and Navigation,
Mechanics, Optics, Transactions, Tables and Journals. The Members of
the Catalogue Committee, on being informed of what had passed between
Dr. Roget and myself, perceived that my opinion, as to the value of
the work done, was correct, and it was resolved that the compilation
of a new Catalogue should be intrusted to my care. Thus, not only all
that had been done was undone at once, but the time which had been
lost, and, what is more, the unwarrantable expense incurred by sending
so large a proportion of the ill-digested work to press, was thrown
away. Such is the origin of my connection with the Royal Society.”
This is an extract from a letter dated 28th January, 1837, from Panizzi
to his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex (then President of the Royal
Society), a letter wherein is fully set forth his whole conduct in the
case, and which, besides revealing the puerile and almost unpardonable
errors he detected in the titles brought under his notice, is a
wonderful certificate to the patience, endurance, and acuteness of a
gentleman who was called upon to contend, single-handed, with a
corporate body, supported by a clique necessarily jealous of its own
distinction.
We shall now explain as clearly as possible the course pursued by the
Society, and the pains-taking, much enduring way in which Panizzi met
his opponents.
Let us, therefore, continue to extract from the memorable letter to
H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex, those passages wherein are particularized the
egregious blunders of Panizzi’s predecessor in the work:—
“Authors’ names were not better treated than the subjects.
Bonaventura, the Christian name of Cavalieri, was taken for a family
name, and a cross reference put from it to Cavalieri; of the three
mathematical _decades_ of Giovan Camillo Gloriosi, one was put under
Camillo, his second Christian name, and the remainder under his family
name Gloriosi. On entering a collection, the word Collezione was taken
for a surname, and Nuova for a _christian_ name, and thus the entry is
to be found “Collezione (N.)” I will not notice mere errors of the
press, of which the number is prodigious; but there are entries which
prove abundantly that the printer was not to be accused of them.
Cossali’s History of Algebra in Italy was printed _Nella Real
Tipografia Parmense_, and _Parmense_ was gravely inserted as the name
of the place where the book was printed.
Da Cunha’s mathematical principles were translated into French by
D’Abreu after the author’s death, and have this title: “Principes
Mathématiques de feu J. A. Da Cunha.” Anyone who has even merely heard
of the “_feu_ Lord Maire de Londres” may easily guess, without much
knowledge of French, that _feu_ here means _late_, _i.e._, _deceased_.
The compiler of this Catalogue, however, did not attach such a gloomy
meaning to this word; but philosophically conceived it to signify
_fire_, as is evident by his precaution in writing it with a capital
F, _Feu_; and by substituting the word _Opuscules_ for the correct
one, _Principes_, the following entry was made:—
“Da Cunha (J. A.), Opuscules Mathématiques de Feu, traduits
littéralement du Portugais, par J. M. D’ Abreu. 8vo _Bordeaux_, 1811.
The idea conveyed to a Frenchman by this title would not be very
clear, but it might possibly be understood that this is an infamous
book, deserving to be burnt. It is a fortunate thing for _feu_ Mr. Da
Cunha, that this libel on his fair name was not published in his own
country (he was a Portuguese) when he was living, and when the fashion
was, not only to burn books, but authors; else, so dangerous an
insinuation by the Royal Society of London might have exposed him to
the chance of paying dearly for their blunders and bad French.
If errors of so ludicrous a nature occur in the first sheet which was
so often revised, one may easily conceive in what state that part of
the catalogue was which was set up, but not corrected. As a specimen I
transcribe three entries in the last _slip_, containing a list of
names put down pêle-mêle, of works said to be mathematical.
Litheosphorus, sive de lapide Bononiensi lucem in se conceptam ab
ambiente claro mox in tenebris mire conseruante liber Fortunii Liceti
Genuensis pridem in Pisano, nuper in Patauino, nunc in Bononiensi
Archigymnasio Philosophi eminentis. 4to. Utini, 1646.
I suspected at one time, that the error arose from _Litheosphorus_
being mistaken for a star, and no attention being paid to that
explanation “sive de _Lapide_ Bononiensi.” I am now satisfied that my
suspicion was unfounded, and that the blunder is gravely,
deliberately, and _learnedly_ perpetrated; it is not to be attributed
to the mere ignorance, that _lapis_ means a _stone_, not a _star_, but
to a very ingenious process of reasoning, by which phosphorus was
metamorphosed into a heavenly body.
To demonstrate in “as correct and complete” a manner “as the
circumstances of the case will allow,” I beg to call Your Royal
Highness’s attention to another work by Liceti, which does exist in
the library of the Royal Society, and which was catalogued in the
following manner, in the specimen now under consideration.
Licetus (Fort). De Lunæ sub obscurâ luce prope Conjunctiones Libri
III. 4to. _Utini_, 1641.
In my proofs it stands thus:
Licetus (Fortunius). De Lunæ subobscurâ luce prope conjunctiones, et
in eclipsibus observata. 4to. _Utini_, 1642.
Your Royal Highness may have heard of the Board of Agriculture having
sent for twelve copies of Miss Edgeworth’s essay on Irish _Bulls_, for
the use of that Institution, and this ludicrous mistake was thought so
exquisite, that no one would have fancied it could possibly be
equalled. But the attempt at cataloguing drawn up by some learned
astronomers, the ornament and pride of the Royal Society, proves that
among the members of this famous Institution, there are some who could
leave the whole Board of Agriculture in the shade. The work on
_star-fish_, mistaken for a work on _constellations_, not only is
adorned with plates, showing that it treated of _aquatic_ not
_heavenly bodies_, but on the very title-page there is an oval
engraving representing on the upper half the heavens covered with
_stars_, and the lower half, the sea with _star-fish_; with the motto,
_sicut superius ita est inferius_, which was taken literally by the
acute individual who made this entry, and who very mathematically
argued that the stars _below_, must belong to the domain of
astronomical science, if they be, as the author declares, like those
_above_. On the recto of the following page a dedication of the work
occurs to Sir Hans Sloane, as President, and to the Fellows of the
Royal Society, which probably was either passed over unread by the
modest fellow who catalogued the book; or served to dazzle his
understanding with such passages as this: “fulgent sidera in cœlis,
in orbe litterario illustris vestra Societas. Sideribus inscribere
stellas convenit.” But how could any one doubt that the work was
_astronomical_, when the writer provokingly begins his preface:
“Cœlorum spectare sidera decet juvatque Astronomos.” It is true he
continues: “Physicorum interest stellis marinis visum intendere.” But
this was probably taken for a figurative speech; and with that bold
decision by which great men are distinguished, this work on so
inferior a subject as star-fish, dedicated to the Royal Society, was
by the _élite_ of that same body declared to be a treatise on much
higher bodies, on _constellations_, and consequently classed among
astronomical books, whilst I, thinking _marine_ stars to be animals,
did not dare to follow an example so _splendidé mendax_, and classed
the work among others on _zoological_ subjects. What a difference,
both with respect to the length of the title and the classes in which
it was entered! Linckius would rise from his grave, were he to see
mis-classed a work, which, as he said, he had dedicated to the
resplendent constellations forming the Royal Society of his days, just
because it treated of stars! How fortunate that the learned persons
who are to render my Catalogue correct and complete have it still in
their power to appease his indignant shade by re-classing the work
among _astronomical_ treatises!
These few specimens will satisfy any one of the justice of my
assertion that it was impossible to correct such a work. I am fully
aware of the difficulties, nay, of the impossibility, of compiling any
catalogue which shall be free from errors of a very grave description.
No work requires more indulgence than one of this sort; but the
specimens which I have given are such as cannot admit of excuse or
palliation: they must at once convince the most indulgent observer
that those who committed them were incapable, utterly incapable of
performing the task they had undertaken. After what we have seen,
shall we wonder that Newton’s _Principia_ should be misplaced? We
cannot wonder; but by Your Royal Highness, who has the honour to fill
the chair once occupied by that immortal man, and by those Fellows of
the Royal Society who are not unworthy of the distinction, something
like sorrow must be felt, when they see in the catalogue of their
Library that work classed among _pure Mathematics_, as if _Mechanics_
had nothing to do with it.”
How amusing are some of Panizzi’s remarks, and how fully do they evince
the supreme contempt he must have felt for the ignorance displayed in
the sheets, which were submitted for his correction. It is impossible
not to help dwelling on and re-quoting such a sentence as this: “It is a
fortunate thing for _feu_ Mr. Da Cunha that this libel (the utter
non-appreciation of the word _feu_) on his fair name was not published
in his own country (he was a Portuguese) when he was living, and when
the fashion was not only to burn books, but authors.” This must have
been a cutting but amusing hint for His Royal Highness, and then we
perceive the manly tone of Panizzi when he added: “So dangerous an
insinuation by the Royal Society of London might have exposed him to the
chance of paying dearly for their blunders and bad French.”
In October, 1833, the New Catalogue, entrusted to Panizzi was commenced;
not, however, left to his own discretion, for _cabined, cribbed,
confined_, he was called on to follow a plan, concocted by the Library
Committee, of which he incidentally remarks: “_Heaven forbid that I
should ever be supposed guilty of having approved of it, or be suspected
capable of selecting such a plan, had I been at liberty to execute the
work as I pleased. I agreed to carry their plan into execution on my own
responsibility._”
The agreement entered into with the Council of the Society was only a
verbal one, and, by its terms, the compiler of the Catalogue was to be
paid according to the number of titles written, and at certain stages of
his labour, the first instalment when the whole of the titles were
written, the second when they were ready for the printer, and the third
when the book was completed. This agreement or contract was never
reduced to writing. Panizzi, it may be, was inexperienced in a business
point of view, but it is more probable that he placed implicit
confidence in the understanding with the Council, through the Chairman
Mr. Lubbock.
As the work progressed, however, the members of the Library Committee
appear to have conceived that they had a right to interfere with the
execution of the work. The compiler firmly resisted this, and it was
ultimately conceded that any proposals of the Committee were to be
regarded merely as suggestions.
In the course of a year Panizzi, having nearly completed the writing of
the titles on slips of paper, applied for the first instalment of the
remuneration in proportion to the number he had written.
What must have been his mortification to find that the Council would not
accept his computation, but referred his account to an underling, in
consequence of whose report they reduced the demand by one-third.
The consequent offer was rejected, and Panizzi’s claim afterwards
admitted by payment of the full amount.
A similar difficulty or objection arose about the second instalment, due
in July, 1835; when, after the Council had voted but one half the
amount, they ultimately granted the other, and the whole was paid.
When matters had progressed to the final stage, the revision of the
printer’s work for press, Panizzi had again occasion to complain of the
interference of the Catalogue Committee, and of insufficient access to
the books.
The Council hereupon took the opinion of certain then well-known
bibliographers, which was unanimously in favour of the compiler,
nevertheless it was resolved “_that Panizzi he no longer employed in the
formation of the Catalogue_.”
The Council had only paid a portion of the value of the work in its
possession, had refused arbitration, and by their summary resolution
thought to escape further liability.
Not so thought Panizzi. He maintained his claim, and the matter, after
narrowly escaping the intervention of the law, was settled
satisfactorily through the good offices of friends.
The summing up of his case, as expressed by himself, in concluding his
letter to the Duke of Sussex, is worthy of reproduction here.
“It would be an empty boast were I to say that the pecuniary loss
which I must needs submit to is indifferent to me. It is no such
thing; yet I can conscientiously say, that I should never have taken
the trouble of writing on this subject, had the pecuniary loss been
the only consequence of the conduct of the Council towards me. But,
after the observations made by Your Royal Highness, were I to submit
without stating the whole truth, I might be suspected guilty either of
unwillingness or incapability of fulfilling my contract, and that I
could not brook. I have offered over and over again to the Council,
through the secretaries, to refer our disputes to any two competent
judges; the consciousness of their being in the wrong has made the
Council shrink from this fair proposal. I can and will do no more. If,
however, Your Royal Highness considers it no more than due to the
character of the Royal Society, that the transactions between the
Council and myself should be thoroughly and openly investigated, I
will readily and cheerfully submit them to the consideration of a
tribunal so constituted. If, on the contrary, Your Royal Highness be
advised that no further steps need be taken in the matter, I shall
have my own opinion of the conduct of the Council, and of the Society
at large, as well as the Public, will be at liberty to form their own.
They will perceive that a contract was entered into between the
Council of the Royal Society and myself for the performance of a
literary work: That the Council broke the terms of that contract: That
they refused to state by what right they did so: That they would never
answer my proposals of referring to arbitration any point in which
they thought I did not act in accordance with our agreement: That,
after the rudest and most uncourteous proceeding, they stooped to
having clandestine access to private drawers containing the proofs of
what they owe to me, and have now the meanness not to pay their debt,
which, by their dishonest proceedings they are aware it is out of my
power legally to claim.”
Thus thwarted and impeded at every step, Panizzi at last succeeded in
once again proving that right can contend successfully with might; and
though years have elapsed since this unseemly treatment at the hands of
a great and learned Society took place, it is well that the occurrence
should not pass into oblivion, as it forms a conclusive proof of the
determined astuteness of the man, of his endurance of character, and of
his ability to judge of the weak points of his adversaries, a foretaste
of his prowess in many a subsequent struggle in his oft-times arduous
career.
Panizzi’s dealings with the Royal Society having been thus
satisfactorily disposed of, it will now be necessary to return to the
more matter-of-fact conduct of this remarkably persevering man in his
every-day efforts to attain that position which he held steadily in
view—efforts which were finally crowned with success.
At this time it was not an unusual thing, and especially during the
absence of the Keeper, for him to spend some of his holidays, and
evenings after official hours, in the Library; and it is a well-known
fact that in the winter, when the Museum closed early, he remained at
his post working by candle-light, which, however, was put a stop to on
account of the alleged possible danger of the practice.
About three years after his appointment, Panizzi was, in a report
written April 26th, 1834, proposed by Mr. Baber to direct the General
Catalogue then contemplated, Mr. Baber’s scheme of Cataloguing the books
in the Library not having been adopted. Panizzi and other of his
colleagues were desired to prepare titles for a new Catalogue. It
appeared, by the end of the year (1834), that he had written a larger
quantity of titles than any two of the other gentlemen, which assiduity
gained for him the approbation of the Trustees. Panizzi’s own words
before a Royal Commission on the 20th of May, 1848, were in these
terms:—
“In 1835, without my knowing anything about it, the Trustees found,
from a return laid before them in the month of January, that I had
been so fortunate as to do my duty well, and in a manner that
satisfied them. Mr. Baber was called in (I know this from himself),
and he was asked, I believe, if I recollect right, by the Bishop of
London (Dr. Blomfield) how it was that I had done so remarkably well;
and as there was an election going on, I remember the expression used
(as Mr. Baber reported to me) was, that I was ‘at the head of the
poll,’ Mr. Baber told me, that he had the goodness to answer that I
was there, and that I would keep there. That led the Trustees to
consider how I was remunerated, and they found that my remuneration
was much lower than that of other people.”
In consequence of this the adequacy of the remuneration in question was,
on the 10th of January, 1835, referred to the Sub-Committee of Finance
for their consideration; but at this meeting nothing material was
resolved on, except that the claim was admitted, and the matter
considered worthy of further deliberation. Sir R. H. Inglis was added to
the Finance Committee for this purpose; but in June of the same year a
meeting took place, with Lord Farnborough in the chair, when the
following resolution was passed:—
“That it is the unanimous opinion of the Sub-Committee that it would
be desirable for the Trustees to mark, by an increased remuneration to
Mr. Panizzi to the amount of £75 a year, that making up the sum that
he would receive if he were an Assistant Librarian, their sense of Mr.
Panizzi’s value to the Museum, and also of the particular service
which, by his zeal and knowledge, he has rendered in an eminent degree
to the advancement of the new Catalogue of the Printed Books.”
The members present, beside the Chairman, were the Marquis of Lansdowne,
Lord Ashburton, and the Right Hon. Thomas Grenville.
Here, therefore, was strong admission of the inadequacy of Panizzi’s
remuneration at the time, and strong special reasons were advanced to
support that admission, as well as the proposal for a more adequate
salary.
It was necessary for this resolution to be submitted to the General
Meeting on July 11th, 1835. Another minute was then passed openly
against the principle affirmed six months previously; it ran:—
“The Trustees, having taken into their consideration the Report of the
Sub-Committee of June 20th, although entirely concurring in the
opinion expressed by the Sub-Committee as to the zeal and ability with
which Mr. Panizzi has discharged the duties of his office, and
desirous of evincing the sence which they entertain of his services to
the Museum, yet feel themselves to be precluded, by the general
principles upon which the scale of remuneration to officers in similar
stations and with the same degrees of responsibility must of necessity
be framed, from adopting a rate of payment to Mr. Panizzi differing
from that which is fixed for the office which he at present holds in
the Museum.”
It might be interesting to inquire into the motives of the Committee, in
taking the adequacy of the remuneration in question into their
consideration. Was the concession made to the office or to the man who
held it? But we need not pursue this.
The minute of the General Meeting produced an unprecedented event. Mr.
Grenville, one of the Committee present, when he saw what was taking
place, rose, left the room, and never attended a meeting of the Trustees
again. The increase was not granted. To preserve the correctness of our
chronology, it is necessary to reserve an account of Mr. Grenville till
much later on. It is fair to state that Lord Lansdowne and Lord
Ashburton were not present on this occasion; but the Board considered it
necessary to instruct the Secretary (then Mr. J. Forshall) to forward to
Mr. Grenville a copy of the minute which he sent to Panizzi, with the
following note:—
“I do not lose a moment in transmitting to you, for your own custody,
the minute made by the Trustees: it is at least an honourable
testimony of the sense which they entertain of the value of your
services in the British Museum, and as such I send you the original
minute as I received it, and I beg you to keep it.—Yours, &c., &c., T.
GRENVILLE.”
In March, 1837, the Keeper, Mr. Baber, gave notice that he intended to
resign his post at midsummer. Mr. Cary, the celebrated translator of
Dante, who was then an Assistant-Librarian, would have been the natural
successor; but on account of his infirmities the Principal Trustees
raised an objection to such an appointment.
Now it is of great importance to us that these statements should be made
known, for much controversy, angry discussion, amounting to personal
vituperation, and many letters ensued on the appointment of Panizzi as
_Keeper of the Printed Books_, which, notwithstanding, took place on the
15th of July of the same year.
Meetings were held against the “_Foreigner_;” and one of the speakers
made an open statement that Panizzi had been seen in the streets of
London selling _white mice_: had it been a few years later, possibly the
distinctive title of organ-grinder would have been added. The
infirmities of Mr. Cary were well known, and Panizzi, out of regard and
in fairness to him, never asked for the place, nor took any decided step
for the purpose of obtaining it. On the 13th of March, 1837, he
addressed a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other
Principal Trustees, soliciting in general terms that if any appointment
was to take place they would bear his past services in mind.
The letter was to the following effect:—
“British Museum, March 13, 1837.
“My Lord Archbishop,
It is reported, that, in consequence of the new arrangements
which are going to be introduced into this establishment, some
vacancies are likely to occur in the offices of the several
departments. Having been so fortunate as to be honoured with the
approbation of the Trustees for (as they were pleased to say in July,
1835), ‘the zeal and ability’ with which I have (during a period of
nearly six years), discharged the duties of the office which I now
hold in the British Museum, I venture to beg of your Grace, and the
other Principal Trustees, to keep my humble services in view should
any place become vacant for which I should be deemed qualified. I take
the liberty of appealing to my past as an earnest of my future
conduct, should the Principal Trustees deem it expedient to promote me
to any higher situation than that which I now hold, and in which I
might humbly but warmly second the views and wishes of the Trustees in
extending the public utility of this Institution.
In the hope that this application may receive the favourable
consideration of your Grace and the other Principal Trustees,
I have the honour to be, &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
The letters to the Lord Chancellor and Speaker were in the same terms.
It was a common opinion that Mr. Cary had been ill-treated and passed
over in favour of Panizzi. However, Samuel Rogers, the poet, a friend of
Cary’s, after having strongly recommended the latter, thought that,
considering his ill-health it would scarcely be acting fairly to the
Principal Trustees, or to the public to press his claims. Mr. Cary saw
the Speaker, who, in the course of conversation, said: “I heard of a Mr.
Panizzi, who is next: What do you know of him?” What Cary’s answer was
is not known; but it is certain that, when the post was declared vacant,
the gentleman went to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the 24th of June,
1837, and again solicited the appointment, which, as might have been
expected, was withheld. Panizzi, having heard of it directly from Gary,
asked, in the presence of Mr. Baber, whether he would object to his
applying for it, when he answered, “_Not at all_.” There and then
Panizzi sat down and wrote this letter to the Archbishop:—
“My Lord Archbishop,
Since I had the honour of addressing your Grace, Mr. Baber has
resigned the Keepership of the Printed Books in this establishment. I
hope your Grace will not deem it presumptuous in me, to beg
respectfully of your Grace and the other Principal Trustees to take my
case into consideration, should they think it requisite to depart from
the usual system of regular promotion, on appointing his successor. I
venture to say this much, having been informed by Mr. Cary of the
conversation he has had the honour to have the morning before last
with your Grace, and beg to subscribe myself with the greatest
respect, &c., &c.
A. PANIZZI.”
No sooner was the promotion made known than the controversy began. _It
was a piece of favouritism, to a Foreigner, and an injustice to Mr.
Cary._
As to the first point, Panizzi was at the time personally unknown to the
Principal Trustees. Of this there was sufficient evidence.
There was ample precedent for the appointment of a _Foreigner_, and, if
so, objections could not be made, especially to a _naturalized_
Foreigner, and there was plenty of time for a better qualified person to
come forward, as quite four months elapsed between Mr. Baber’s announced
resignation and the appointment of a successor. If there was a semblance
of injustice, it was because the claims of an individual had been
postponed to the necessities of the Institution.
Mr. Cary then thought fit to write the following letter to the Lord
Chancellor Cottenham, which was published in the “Times” of July 18th,
1837.
“The following letter has been sent to the Lord Chancellor by the Rev.
H. F. Cary, the Translator of Dante, who seems to have been treated with
extraordinary injustice:—
‘British Museum, July 17,
‘My Lord,
I cannot suffer the communication yesterday made to me by our
Secretary, of your having passed me by in the nomination to the vacant
office of Librarian, and appointed a subordinate Officer over my head,
to reach me without an immediate remonstrance against this disposal of
your patronage. I have for the course of eleven years been constant in
the discharge of irksome duties in this establishment; and at a moment
when I was told to expect the reward never yet denied in this place to
such claims, I find it snatched from me by yourself and the Speaker of
the House of Commons, in the face of a recommendation from the other
Principal Trustee, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the only one of the
three who has been in the habit of attending here, and making himself
acquainted with our proceedings. My repeated requests for a personal
interview with your Lordship were met by refusal, and a desire to
communicate whatever I had to say by letter. Three letters which I
addressed to you were met by silence. In the last of these letters I
endeavoured to answer the objections which the Archbishop with his
usual humanity and consideration for the humblest of those who have
any claim on his attention, had apprised me of, as existing on the
part of the other Trustees. The objections were my age and the general
state of my health. My age, between 64 and 65 years, it was plain,
might rather ask for me that alleviation of labour which, in this as
in many other public offices is gained by promotion to a superior
place, than call for a continuance of the same laborious employment.
My health for the last four years has been such as to allow me, with
the interval of one fortnight only, to attend closely through every
day to the business of my department. Before that time (and it was the
only other instance of ill-health since I have been here) I had a
severe illness, occasioned by domestic affliction, on account of which
I was permitted to pass six months on the Continent, and even that
time was not wholly lost to the Museum, as I availed myself of the
opportunity to inquire into the state and management of the public
Libraries in most of the principal cities in Italy, where chiefly my
time was spent. Lest however, I should deceive myself as to the
present state of my health, I thought it right to consult three
medical men who best know the ailments I have been subject to. Their
opinions I immediately laid before the Archbishop, and copies of them
before yourself and the Speaker. They were unanimous as to my fitness
in point of health for the place I solicited. On their testimonies and
on his own previous knowledge of my character and services, the
Archbishop was pleased to declare his determination to appoint me,
with the understanding that if at any future time infirmity should
render me unfit for my trust, I should resign.
You, my Lord, and the Speaker, have refused to concur in the
appointment, and have placed my subordinate officer, Mr. Panizzi, a
Foreigner, who has been here some years less than myself, over me, and
at the head of our national library.
Being convinced that when the nomination to offices in the British
Museum was intrusted by the country to men themselves holding high
offices in the State, it was on the implied condition that they would
either acquit themselves of their duty by an attention to its internal
management, or abstain from active interference if they were conscious
of having given no such attention. I feel that I owe it not merely to
myself, but to my fellow-countrymen, to protest against your present
decision, to call publicly for an inquiry into the mode in which my
duty in the Museum has been performed, and into the particulars of
what I have done, which may be ascertained by means of our monthly
reports, and to demand for what reason a person in an inferior station
has been preferred to me, in opposition to the only one of the three
nominators who regularly inspects the minutes of the establishment,
and is at all likely to have an intimate and accurate knowledge of its
concerns, and to be capable of forming a just judgment concerning
them.
I am, &c.,
H. F. CARY.’”
In justification of Panizzi, Hallam’s opinion of his fitness for the
post is given:—
“Wimpole Street, July 6, 1837
My dear Sir,
[Illustration: Henry Hallam]
You first mentioned to me, about two months since, the prospect
of attaining a higher station in the Museum, in consequence of Mr.
Baber’s resignation, and seemed rather desirous of testimonies to your
literary and general character. The closer connection I have since had
with the Museum does not, I think, make it improper for me to say what
I would then readily have said had it appeared to me as requisite at
that time; but you are, of course, perfectly aware that I am only to
be considered as a private person, who has had frequent opportunities
of seeing you in the Library. In the many conversations on literary
subjects we have had together, both there and on other occasions, I
have been struck with your extensive and very ready knowledge of
books, which has several times been of much service to myself. Your
zeal and activity in the Department are so generally acknowledged that
no testimony of mine can be of much additional value, and the many
private friends you possess, among whom I reckon not a few of my own,
bear sufficient witness to the sincerity and integrity of your
character.
I am, &c.,
HENRY HALLAM.”
Panizzi then wrote to the Archbishop:—
“British Museum, July 19, 1837.
“I have just been informed by Mr. Forshall that your Grace has been
pleased to concur in my appointment of Under-Librarian, and I must beg
your Grace to accept my most sincere and respectful thanks for so much
kindness.
Your Grace will allow me to add that it will be the height of my
ambition to show myself not unworthy of the honourable trust reposed
on me, by a zealous discharge of the arduous duties of my office to
the utmost of my humble powers.
I have, &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
A fortnight had scarcely elapsed when a question arose on the subject of
an official residence, and this involved a lengthy correspondence
between Panizzi, the Secretary (the Rev. J. Forshall), and Sir F.
Madden. The latter—who, from the outset, appears to have regarded his
colleague in an inimical spirit (and no doubt the feeling was
reciprocal)—evinced the greatest eagerness to take possession of a
certain one of the lodgings which accompanied the appointments.
Further details would weary the reader; it will, therefore, be only
necessary to state that Panizzi was unsuccessful on this occasion in
obtaining the house to which, according to his own account, he was
entitled.
The following letter, however, is worthy of perusal as a specimen of his
persuasive and straightforward argument in the matter:—
“British Museum, July 25th, 1837.
I should not trouble you again with respect to the question now
pending before the Trustees, as to the apartments to be assigned to
Sir Frederick Madden and myself, did it not seem to me that the point
of seniority is the one which will probably influence their
determination. I am well aware that the Trustees are not bound to
assign the best apartments to the Senior Under-Librarian; but should
they be pleased to make seniority the ground of their decision, it is
important that they should have clearly before them facts and dates.
Mr. Baber resigned on the 24th of last June, and had his successor
been immediately appointed he might have been installed in his office,
and have had apartments assigned to him before you had vacated the
office to which Sir Frederick has been promoted. The appointment of
the successor to Mr. Baber, although made after your place had become
vacant, preceded, nevertheless, that of your successor; and it seems
to me that, however short the interval between the two nominations, he
who was _last_ elected cannot be _senior_ with respect to the other.
The circumstance of Sir Frederick having been an officer of this house
for a longer period, appears not to affect the case, since the point
is as to the seniority of the two Under-Librarians as such. I believe
in the army or navy the point would not bear discussion. Mr. Baber had
been in this house before Mr. König,and to give Mr. Baber seniority
over Mr. König on their both being promoted at the same time, the
appointment of the former gentleman was purposely dated earlier than
that of the latter, and then no one doubted Mr. Baber’s seniority. It
was not thought seniority would be given by the former services of Mr.
Baber, or else both appointments might have been dated the same day,
when they were actually agreed upon by the Principal Trustees.
Yours, &c., &c., A. PANIZZI.
The Rev. Jos^{h.} Forshall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration]