_Sir Henry Ellis; Parliamentary Committee, 1835-6; Keepership; Removal
of the Library from Montague House; Temporary Assistants; Catalogue;
Garnett; Winter Jones; Watts; Parry; Additions and Deficiencies
1838; Annual Grant._
[Illustration: Henry Ellis]
Allusion has already been made to Sir Henry Ellis, who was, at the time
of which we write, Principal Librarian, having held this appointment
since the 20th of December, 1827. In the year 1800, Mr. Ellis had
entered the service of the British Museum as a _Temporary Assistant_;
and Mr. Edwards, in his work entitled “Lives of the Founders of the
British Museum,” observes that “had it never fallen to the lot of Henry
Ellis to render to the public any service at all, in the way of
administering and improving the National Museum,” he would still have
earned an honourable niche in our literary history. His contributions to
literature are, indeed, very unequal in their character. Some of them
are fragmentary; some might be thought trivial. But very many of them
have sterling value.
He died at the age of 92, on the 15th of January, 1869, having retired
in 1856.
Between Panizzi and Sir Henry Ellis there was no reciprocal feeling of
friendship; indeed, at times, the former expressed himself so strongly
that we prefer not to reproduce his remarks. The first apparently
inimical act was Panizzi’s decided objection to Sir Henry’s Printed
Catalogue of the Museum Library; and we learn from a report, drawn up by
Ellis, on the 30th April, 1834, and which Panizzi delighted in cutting
up, that as soon as he (Ellis) was placed at the head of the Printed
Books Department, in 1806, and Mr. Baber advanced to the post of
Assistant-Keeper, the preparation of a new Alphabetical Catalogue of the
Library was ordered by the Trustees, and the work undertaken by the two
Librarians jointly. The former was answerable for the letters A to F,
with P, Q, and R, and the latter for the remaining letters. It may be
considered a bold statement, yet, this report, instead of containing a
correct account of the whole undertaking, was full, from beginning to
end, of the most inexact assertions: and these are clearly pointed out
by Panizzi, in the shape of marginal notes; he, indeed, seemed most
constant in his great delight of finding faults in the Printed Catalogue
itself. On one occasion, whilst in search of a book, he came suddenly on
an entry of a French translation of one of Jeremy Bentham’s works, in
which the author’s name, having been translated in the title-page of the
book into French, was transferred in the same form “_Bentham (Jérôme)_”
into the Catalogue. Panizzi’s comment on the entry was: “_In propria
venit, et sui eum non receperunt_,” a verse in the first chapter of St.
John, from the Vulgate, which he may, probably, have learnt when a boy,
acting as a server at mass, under his master the Abbate Fratuzzi; it is
equally probable that he knew it in no other form. The sentence is an
exact translation from the Greek εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθε καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ
παρέλαβον
But the English version is not so; “_He came unto his own, and his own
received him not_.” Mr. Major, the present Keeper of Maps, in the
British Museum, was at the time sitting in the same room with Panizzi,
and seeing him point out the mistake committed by Sir Henry Ellis, in
order to court enquiry exclaimed: “How do you account, Sir, for the
words “_in propria_” being used instead of “_ad suos_” which might have
been the version, had the English translation, the only one with which
he was then acquainted been correct. Panizzi was amazed at the question,
and turning round to his friend, exclaimed, “Goodness, he knows all
about it, I had never noticed the difference.” It is, however, a
pleasure to reflect that no very serious results accrued from these
disputes between the antagonists, and this is to be attributed to the
circumstance that both were true gentlemen, in the strict sense of the
word, and both men of education.
Whatever differences they may have had, they controlled their feelings,
and reined in their animosities, guided by the polished hand of
education, which, as was instilled into our minds, in our schoolboy
days,
“Emollit mores nee sinit esse feros.”
The whole case affords a fair example of the influence of gentle blood
and good breeding, as opposed to that grossness of ignorance, the sure
tendency of which is to cause forgetfulness of our better nature,
delivering us bound into the power of unbridled passion, and forcing the
most trivial disagreements to issue in petty spite and ill-feeling.
Conduct unworthy of a gentleman was the last thing that would be found
on either side in the case of Panizzi _v._ Ellis.
It is devoutly to be wished that this would happen on every occasion
where two men opposed in views meet; but it has been our lot to see a
very different state of affairs, where the disputants were unequally
matched on the intrinsic points of education and breeding.
But before dismissing the subject of quarrels (if such a term is
applicable to the jealousies and misunderstandings of educated men), we
must refer to the strong antagonistic feeling evinced towards him, whom,
in very bad taste, his colleague, Sir F. Madden, was wont to dub the
“_Foreigner_;” whilst necessity only compels the production of some
evidence of this, and makes us acknowledge our reluctance at laying-such
matters before our readers:—
“Sir,—I received yesterday a communication signed “F. Madden,” aping
all the forms of a diplomatic note, without any of its courtesy. I
forebore noticing the omission, too pointed to be misunderstood, in a
former note of yours. I am now driven to notice it, lest my
forbearance be mistaken for weakness. If you think you have reason to
be displeased with my conduct, I shall be ready to account for it
whenever you make up your mind to ask me in a direct and proper manner
to do so. This I hope you will not shrink from doing, else it will be
evident that, although chary of asking an explanation, and thereby
incurring some responsibility, you chose the shelter of official
communication to depart _safely_ under it from those forms which I
suppose you are aware the usages of society prescribe among gentlemen.
Such communications will in future be returned. If, however, you will
address me in the manner which I have a right to expect, your
communication shall be duly attended to.
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.
Sir F. Madden, &c., &c., &c.”
Many other disagreements—amounting by the animosity evinced, to
something worthy of a worse name—we gloss over. Mention must, however,
be made of the Rev. Josiah Forshall, Keeper of the MSS., afterwards
Secretary, with whom Panizzi more than once came into collision.
Let us now leave this unpleasant topic, and proceed to an account of the
Select Committee on the British Museum—more generally known as the
Parliamentary Commission of 1835-36—which forms a turning point in the
history of our Museum—not so much on account of anything actually
effected by it, as from its marking the era when the national character
of the Institution, and its mission as an instrument of the national
culture, were first clearly recognised and defined. They would, indeed,
have been professedly acknowledged at any period of its history; but the
circumstances under which the establishment originated, and the manner
in which it was managed and supported, had invariably tended to impress
upon it a private and exclusive character. By the public it was
principally regarded as a show of curiosities, differing from the
Zoological Gardens in the same degree as inanimate differ from living
things. The literary and scientific world recognised its value for
students and amateurs, but had little conception of its function as a
great educational agency. It could scarcely have been otherwise. Sir
Hans Sloane’s munificent bequest had bestowed upon the public of his day
that which it had neither demanded nor required. The measure of its
immediate utility may be estimated by the regulation that it should be
inspected by parties of _not more than fourteen at one time_, and always
accompanied by an official.
Panizzi’s part in the Committee of 1835-36 was not prominent, though of
considerable importance as respected his peculiar Department. The
investigation, nevertheless, brought into the clearest relief the three
great ideas with which he entered upon his official duties, and which,
though acknowledged in principle, he was left almost alone to maintain
and enforce, until they eventually became the accepted principles of the
Museum, thereby occasioning a total metamorphosis in the spirit of the
Institution, while its administrative constitution remained unaltered.
These ideas may be thus defined:—
_I. The Museum is not a show, but an Institution for the diffusion of
culture._
_II. It is a Department of the Civil Service, and should be conducted in
the spirit of other public Departments._
_III. It should be managed with the utmost possible liberality._
It may not be irrelevant if we attempt to show how these points had been
understood before Panizzi’s time.
In a Minute dated February 27, 1809, Sir Joseph Banks defined a Museum
for exhibition as “a collection framed for the purpose of administering
instruction in the form of amusement, and thus endeavouring to awake
latent curiosity.” He, therefore, concluded that not only the anatomical
paintings in the custody of the Trustees should be transferred to the
College of Surgeons, but the Osteological Collection also. He further
thought that the specimens preserved in spirits, when not capable of
being stuffed, should also be transferred to the same place, more
particularly as “the room where they are kept must unavoidably smell
strongly of spirits,” and “they are very frequently designated by the
opprobrious appellation of hobgoblins.” It was clearly the view of this
representative of science upon the Board that the Museum had no business
with anything unadapted for public exhibition.
With respect to the second point, it is certainly no reproach to the
governing body, or the officers of the Museum, that at the period of its
establishment very little work should have been required from the
latter. This ensued almost as a matter of necessity from the fact that
the Museum was no national foundation, planned with systematic
forethought, but a mere lucky windfall. Enough was done if its safe
custody was ensured; the extension it was capable of receiving entered
into nobody’s mind. The inevitable consequence was that, while the
standard of knowledge and accomplishments among officers of the Museum
has at all times been high, the standard of official efficiency was in
its first days very low. So late as 1837 an honourable and respected
officer could, without conscious absurdity, urge as a plea for promotion
that he would _thereby have less to do_.
A conclusive criterion of the primitive conception of an officer’s duty
may be found in a Minute of June 21, 1759—the year of the opening of the
British Museum:—
“The Committee think proper to add that the requiring the attendance of
the officers during the whole six hours that the Museum _is kept open is
not a wanton or useless piece of severity_, as the two vacant hours (if
it is not thought too great a burden upon the officers) might very
usefully be employed by them in better ranging the several collections,
especially in the Department of Manuscripts, and preparing Catalogues
for publication, which last the Committee think so necessary a work that
till it is performed the several collections can be but imperfectly
useful to the public.”
In point of fact, these “_Librarians_” were “_ciceroni_.” In 1802, after
forty-three years, three attendants were appointed to relieve the “Under
and Assistant Librarians from the daily duty of showing the Museum,” and
their salaries were advanced. But it does not appear, says the report of
1807, “that the Under or Assistant-Librarians received any particular
injunctions to execute the several duties proposed for them, nor does it
appear by their subsequent conduct that they understood themselves to be
under any specific obligation to do any specific duties of that
description.” “So that,” continues the report, “the public has been, and
is, at an annual expense of above £2,000 a year for the mere purpose of
showing the house to strangers, and providing an attendant upon the
Reading Room.” This discovery led to considerable reform; the Trustees,
very naturally, “feeling strong apprehensions that the munificence of
Parliament should be checked, if it should think fit to inquire into the
nature and extent of the duties now executed by the officers of the
Museum.”
Matters were much improved by 1835; but the organisation of the
Institution still bore evident traces of its origin in private
liberality, and of the misconceptions which had so long prevailed as to
its functions.
It was the constant endeavour of Panizzi to divest it of everything
indicating affinity with private institutions, and to impress it more
and more with the unique character of a national emporium of the world’s
treasures.
The third point which generally characterised Panizzi’s administration
was one to which the attention of the Committee of 1835-36 was
vigorously directed, and in reference to which it was of considerable
service. The regulations for the admission of the public were illiberal.
Visitors were excluded at the very times when they had most leisure to
attend; but when, as Sir Henry Ellis remarked, “_the most mischievous
part of the population was abroad_,” and in holiday weeks the Museum
should be closed, “_because the place otherwise would really become
unwholesome_.” The Committee, however, came to a different conclusion,
and admitting that reforms were necessary, decided that the Museum was
to cease to be a private establishment. But the immediate cause of the
Commission in question was the unreasonable complaint of a discharged
servant, a Mr. John Millard, employed for some time as supernumerary in
the Department of MSS., who had lost his situation through inefficiency.
He possessed, it was said, some influence with Lord Brougham, and Mr.,
afterwards Sir Benjamin Hawes, M.P. for Lambeth, was induced to take up
his case, and obtain its investigation under cover of a general inquiry
into the administration of the Museum. The Committee, as at first
appointed, March 27, 1835, was inconveniently numerous, and when
re-appointed in the following session its numbers were considerably
curtailed. Mr. Hawes, a man of no great refinement, but of thorough
business capacity, and an excellent specimen of the not unfrequent type
of popular M.P., who begins as a patriot and ends as a placeman,
represented the reforming element, together with Dr. Bowring and some
other members of a similar stamp, who mostly disappeared after the first
session. Lord Stanley (the late Lord Derby) and Sir Robert Inglis
represented the interests of the Trustees. Sir Philip Egerton, Mr.
Ridley Colbome, and Mr. Bingham Baring were also amongst the most
prominent members, Mr. Sotheron Estcourt being chairman.
The administrative organisation of the Museum at the time was certainly
better calculated to invite inquiry than to sustain it. The offices of
the Principal Librarian and Secretary, instead of being united, as at
present—and of which more hereafter—were divided, with very mischievous
consequences as regarded the authority of the former officer, and
attended by all the evils of divided responsibility. Sir H. Ellis was an
excellent antiquary and a most kind-hearted man, but could never, under
any circumstances, have been more than the nominal head of the Museum.
The Secretary was, as has already been remarked, the Rev. Josiah
Forshall, and the government of the Museum was in his hands. By a most
preposterous regulation, while the inferior officer, the Secretary,
always attended the meetings of the Trustees, the Principal Librarian
was never present unless summoned. Mr. Forshall enjoyed the fullest
confidence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in whose hands, by a tacit
understanding which had become traditional, almost all administrative
arrangements were left by the Principal Trustees. He was entirely
opposed to all innovation tending to impart a more popular character to
the Institution; and was, in fine, as thoroughly the representative of
the principles on which the Museum had hitherto been administered as
Panizzi was of those destined to supersede them.
Mr. Millard, the trivial cause of the Committee’s great effect, did not
occupy much of its attention. It appeared that he had been removed for
two causes, either of which was in itself sufficient to justify the act:
he was incompetent, and his services had been dispensed with. The
inferior work on which he had been engaged was discontinued; he was fit
for nothing else. He had been treated with great and, indeed, with
immoderate indulgence, having been allowed to remain two years after his
virtual dismissal, in order “to give him an opportunity of finding
another situation.” His case, it appeared, had kept the amiable
Principal Librarian awake all night; the Keeper of MSS. himself,
strangely enough, had given him a testimonial to the Windham Club. His
patron endeavoured to prove his efficiency; but on July 2nd Sir
Frederick Madden, then Assistant-Keeper of the MSS. came down “_with
some instances of Mr. Millard’s mistakes, and some questions which I
should like to put him_.” For some sufficient reason the instances were
not adduced, the questions were not put, and no more was heard of Mr.
Millard. He had, however, made an outlet for the long accumulating
dissatisfaction with the Museum management, and the Committee found
themselves arbiters in contentions affecting every Department in the
Institution. They had to digest Mr. Forshall’s opinion that “_men
professionally engaged in literary and scientific pursuits_” were unfit
for the office of Trustee; and to reconcile Sir Henry Ellis’s statement
that literary and scientific men looked up to a Trusteeship as the blue
ribbon of their calling, with his admission that not one of them had
ever obtained it. They had to enquire whether Sir Henry had made an
adequate examination of the Baron de Joursanvault’s manuscripts,
magnanimously offered by that nobleman to the English nation for 100,000
francs and permission to import 500 pipes of Beaune wine duty free. If
he had not done so, was it because the collection was shelved so high
that Sir Henry could not get at it without a ladder, and was it really a
fact that no ladder could be found in the whole town of Pomard? Was it
true, as asserted by the _Edinburgh Review_, that cases of birds had
been transferred to the College of Surgeons and subsequently repurchased
by the Museum? Or was Sir Henry Ellis’s conjecture admissible that
certain green glass bottles, of which the transfer was acknowledged,
might have been large enough and dirty enough to have been mistaken by
the person who wrote that review “for packing cases?” How much of the
Saurian collection bought from Mr. T. Hawkins was plaster? Was the
Keeper of Geology justified in affirming that “the principal
ichthyosaurus could not be exhibited without derogation from the
character of the British Museum,” and that if it were treated as it
deserved “_the whole tail would disappear_?”
Had the College of Surgeons been obliged to spend £1,000 on Zoological
Literature, in consequence of the deficiencies of the British Museum
Library?
It was admitted that the Museum possessed a fine collection of
“_Megatherium_, _Chalicotherium_, _Anthrocotherium_, Anoplotherium, and
_Sus diluvianus_” in plaster; but did it possess genuine fragments of
any of these extinct quadrupeds? To be straightforward, were the
“saurian and chelonian reptiles” in a confused and nameless state? Would
the “intelligent visitor” have naturally expected to find “the limited
space available for exhibition filled with twenty-eight cats placed
together? Had the larger mammalia been mostly devoured by insects, with
the exception of the llama’s mouth, which had happily withstood their
ravages from consisting of plaster of Paris? The brunt of the assault,
it will be seen, was borne by the Zoological Department, whose
comparatively starved and neglected condition rendered it a convenient
basis for attacks upon the general condition of the Museum, the
assailing party being well versed in the axiom of fortification—that a
fortress is no stronger than its weakest point.
The Printed Book Department, the battle-ground of subsequent years,
attracted comparatively little attention at the time. The public had not
yet discovered the value, either actual or potential, of such a
collection. The ideal of what a National Library should be as yet only
existed in Panizzi’s head. The general standard was exceedingly low, nor
could this be a matter of surprise, when, as he himself pointed out, the
Museum Library, after all, contained 40,000 more volumes than any
library in the modern world, previous to the French Revolution.
With all the drawbacks of the Institution, its management was liberality
itself, compared to that of even so splendid a library as the one at
Vienna, with its accommodation for 45 readers, bringing their own pens
and paper.
The acknowledged defects of the Museum Library, in some degree, served
to screen its unacknowledged failings, for the Catalogue was so much
behind hand that it was difficult to be certain whether any specified
volume was to be found there or not. One important accession had been
obtained, the English newspapers were now regularly deposited in the
Library, and it was to this that the recent increase of readers was
principally attributable. A late Trustee, Mr. Henry Banks, had been an
incubus on the establishment, “It was extremely difficult to get any
assent in his part to any purchase that was of any amount.” Mr. Baber
had now more of his own way, yet when asked, “Is there that general
consultation and cordial intercourse which is satisfactory to you as
head of your Department?” he answered, “_Certainly not_.” His evidence
related, in great measure, to the project for a new Catalogue, which had
hitherto attracted but little attention outside the Museum. Mr. Hawes
did his utmost to extort an admission that a Classed Catalogue would be
desirable; but Mr. Baber, an experienced bibliographer, maintained
firmly that such a Catalogue by itself was a delusion. The alphabetical
arrangement was the only safe one: an index of subjects, however, might
be a valuable appendage to such a Catalogue. It was the one fault of Mr.
Baber’s evidence and of Panizzi’s that neither of them said how
_invaluable_. They were probably afraid of countenancing the mischievous
agitation for a Classed Catalogue pure and simple, knowing that years
had already been wasted over an impracticable plan of their colleague,
the Rev. T. H. Horne. Panizzi evidently felt much embarrassed between
loyalty to his chief, allegiance to the Trustees, and his own strong
sense of the deficiencies of the Library. His evidence, under such
circumstances, was a model of tact and discretion. He implied rather
than asserted, and his testimony gains greatly in cogency when read in
the light of the reforms subsequently effected by himself.
In the question of classed and alphabetical Catalogues, Panizzi
supported his chief, and took care to acquaint the Committee, how much
the latter, and the Library, had been damaged by the compulsory
withdrawal of Mr. Baber’s first plan for a Catalogue in favour of an
alternative and inferior scheme. It was not difficult to discover that
Panizzi was by no means satisfied with the administration of the Museum
as it stood; at the same time he came to the assistance of the Trustees
on a subject which had led to much criticism, by pointing out the
importance of having men of rank and influence upon the Board, as well
as men merely distinguished by literary and scientific eminence. Not his
least important contribution to the proceedings of the Committee was the
mass of information with respect to foreign Libraries and Educational
Institutions, published in the appendices to its report, and mainly
collected, directly or indirectly, by himself, either personally or from
trustworthy witnesses, during his travels on the continent. These papers
embody a vast amount of curious and interesting information from Vienna
and Gottingen down to San-Luis Potosi, where “_se trata de poner una
biblioteca, y un museo, pero aun no se verifica_.”
The report of the Committee was issued on July 14th, 1836.
It was not an elaborate document, and contained no reasons for its
recommendations, most of which were of a sensible and obvious kind. The
deficiencies and disarrangements of the Collections were attributed with
perfect justice to the inadequacy of the funds and insufficiency of
space. It was suggested that those Trustees whose attendance was
infrequent and uncertain should receive a hint to retire, and that “for
the future” literary and scientific distinction should constitute a
ground of election for the Trust.
Many were the reforms adopted, to the great advantage of the
Institution. The principal benefit of the Commission, nevertheless,
consisted in the distinct recognition for the first time of the national
and educational character of the Museum.
These observations must, however, be relinquished, interesting as they
are, or we might be wandering on far beyond reasonable limits.
More might be said, and perhaps advantageously, on these seemingly
unimportant subjects—yet, oh! how important to prove the steady progress
of the Museum, and that in no small degree owing to Panizzi’s
energy—but, as already said, we must restrain ourselves; and having
subjects of intrinsic interest for the earnest peruser of this book to
discuss, our inclination must be foregone.
When Panizzi entered upon his new office as Keeper, he was fully alive
to the important duties which devolved upon him, and was well aware of
the arduous and extraordinary task which he was called on to perform
simultaneously with the ordinary business of the Department; he,
therefore, resolved to keep the whole under his own immediate
superintendence so far as was compatible with the regulations and wishes
of the authorities.
The Trustees having, in 1837, provided means for removing the Library of
Printed Books from Montague House to the new building on the north side
of the Quadrangle, it was necessary to appoint a separate staff of
assistants, and these were known as “_temporary assistants_.”
The operation of moving this mass of books, begun on the 1st of January,
1838, was successfully performed by efficient subordinates; but the
labour and forethought required for the proper re-arrangement of the
volumes and the alteration of the press-marks and references in the
catalogues were such as can only be fully appreciated by those who have
had some experience in similar undertakings.
At this time the collection consisted of about 160,000 volumes,
exclusive of the Royal Library. On Panizzi was thrown, in addition to
his other duties, the responsibility of suggesting, examining, and
criticising every single article of furniture, fittings, &c., which the
Library itself and the Reading Room required. The style of these, as
well as the contrivances then adopted in the Department of Printed
Books, were subsequently, so far as possible, copied in other
Departments of the Museum, having been found equally economical and
useful. The Trustees, under these circumstances, offered to find a
person who should undertake the superintendence of the Catalogue—an
outlay which, however, they were not called on to incur, Panizzi having
twice declined the proffered assistance. The opinion of the Trustees and
that of Panizzi, however, in regard to the amount of the work
necessarily to be carried out without delay will be best gathered from
the two following letters:—
_The Rev. J. Forshall to Panizzi, December 27, 1838._
“Your letter of the 18th instant leads me, upon reading it
attentively, to explain to you that the Trustees did not intend, in
the communication to which your letter is a reply, to _require_ from
you to undertake the printing of the New Alphabetical Catalogue. They
wished to ascertain whether, with the other duties which fall to your
office, you felt that you could promise that vigorous and constant
attention to the Catalogue which seems necessary to ensure the proper
execution of the work. If you had felt that you could not, the
Trustees would in that case have endeavoured to obtain other
superintendence. The titles of the books in the King’s Library are to
be incorporated with the others.”
_Panizzi to the Rev. J. Forshall, January 1, 1839._
“In answer to your letter of the 27th of last month, and in addition
to mine of the 18th, I beg to repeat that I am willing to undertake
the duties mentioned in your letter of the 17th, and to endeavour to
perform them to the best of my powers. I promise to give to the
superintendence of the Catalogue all the attention of which I am
capable; but it is not for me to say whether it will ensure the
_proper_ execution of the work. I feel it due to the Trustees, to the
situation I have the honour of holding, and to my own character, not
to shrink from the attempt.”
The removal of the books having been proceeded with for six months, it
was found on the 23rd of June, that the collection contained, in round
numbers, 165,000 volumes, of which 450 were extra folios, 15,000 folios,
23,000 4tos., 126,000 8vos., &c., &c. Up to that day 47,000 volumes had
been removed to the new Library, and placed on the shelves destined for
their reception, and at the end of 1839, about 12,000 more volumes
remained still in Montague House.
A singular feature in the carrying out of this laborious task, was that
no interruption of the supply of books to the readers took place. When
Panizzi informed the Trustees of his intentions, the Bishop of London
happening to be in the Committee Room, exclaimed, “_It is impossible_.”
There is probably no precedent for this display of energy, and the
magnitude of the attempt can only be appreciated by persons conversant
with the daily use made of a Public Library by students, whose pursuits
would have been totally interrupted had the method adopted absolutely
required the closing of the Reading Room. The attempt was successful,
and the works asked for by readers were generally forthcoming, excepting
those actually in the course of removal and rearrangement, amounting at
no time, on an average, to more than 8,000 volumes, or about five per
cent. of the whole Library.
Mention has been made of the “_efficient staff_,” this was composed of
the following gentlemen:—The Reverend Richard Garnett, Mr. John Winter
Jones, Mr. Edward Edwards, Mr. W. Brenchley Rye, Mr. George Bullen, and
last but not least, the late Sergeant Parry.
The Rev. R. Garnett was appointed Assistant-Keeper of the Printed Books,
vice Cary, in 1838. He was an excellent scholar, thoroughly versed in
German, Italian, French, and Spanish; had a good knowledge of
Anglo-Saxon, and was conversant with several oriental languages. This
gentleman died on the 27th of September, 1850, the sad event being
announced to Panizzi by Mr. John Ridout, Panizzi’s and Garnett’s medical
attendant. This coincidence deserves notice, for in reality it relates
indirectly to the appointment of Mr. Richard Garnett, the present
Superintendent of the Reading Room, so well-known to all its
frequenters.[E]
-----
Footnote E:
Appointed 1st March, 1851.
-----
Panizzi wrote thus to Mr. Ridout:—
“September 27th, 1850,
“Dear Sir,
I was certainly prepared for the melancholy tidings brought by
your note; I am, nevertheless, shocked at seeing it. I did promise I
would do what I could for Mr. Garnett’s eldest boy, and shall keep my
promise, and not without confident hope of success.
When I saw him last Tuesday, Mr. Garnett requested me to receive his
salary (£100, due to-morrow) and pay it to his bankers, he signing the
receipt, which I was to send him to-morrow morning, the pay day. All
this now cannot be. It struck me that at the first moment it might be
convenient for Mrs. Garnett to have a few pounds at once, and till she
has time to settle her affairs; but not knowing her enough, I dare not
make any offer of assistance. Can you help me in conveying my humble
and poor offer to her in a proper and unobtrusive manner?
With many thanks to you, my dear Sir, for having made me aware of this
sad event without delay,
I remain, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
Mr. John Winter Jones had been in the Institution since 1837, and
besides ranking next to Panizzi, was also his friend, and stood firmly
by him through all the vicissitudes of fortune which attended him; it
will hereafter be noticed that he, in 1856, succeeded Panizzi as Keeper
of the Printed Books, and finally in 1866, as Principal Librarian.
Mr. Thomas Watts, the linguist, was another of the “_Temporary
Assistants_,” appointed in 1838, who rose to the grade of Keeper of the
Printed Books, in succession to Mr. Jones, but did not live long to
enjoy his promotion, for he died three years afterwards, on the 9th of
September, 1869, aged 58.
In the autumn of the year 1835, Mr. Watts’ attention was attracted to
the publication of the Parliamentary Commission of 1835-36, previously
discussed. He read the evidence with great interest, and ere long, in
1836-37, wrote some valuable comments upon it, which embodied several
suggestions for the improvement of the Museum service, some of which he
had the satisfaction of seeing carried out during his lifetime.
Judging from certain passages which occur in a letter addressed to
Panizzi by Mr. Watts, it might almost be inferred that long afterwards
some sort of ill-feeling existed between the two. Panizzi, as already
described, was a strict disciplinarian, and as he seldom allowed himself
to be one minute behind-hand at his post, expected from all those under
him similar punctuality in attendance, so that the Trustees might not
lose any of the time which was their just due. Now it seems that Mr.
Watts was accused by Panizzi of arriving late at the Museum and of
wasting his time, as proved by the insufficient number of titles written
by him for the Catalogue. This Panizzi communicated to him in the shape
of a letter; which, after a few days, Mr. Watts, naturally stung by the
rebuke, answered by an epistle of more than ordinary length, extending
almost to eight quarto pages, of small writing, and beginning thus:—
“I have read repeatedly, with emotions of the greatest surprise and
pain, the letter from you which I found on my desk on Wednesday
morning. I have been for some days at a loss how to reply; but I
perceive that a reply of some kind is imperatively needed.
The general impression which that letter conveys is that you find me
idle and inefficient in zeal and energy, and setting a bad example. To
hear such an accusation from any one would surprise me. I know not how
to describe the feeling with which I hear it from you. You are the
very first person to whom I should have appealed for its
refutation.... It was at your recommendation that the Royal
Commissioners[F] to inquire into the affairs of the Museum expressed
an opinion in very strong terms that my salary should be doubled and
my position improved. You made use before them of these emphatic
words:—“_Mr. Watts has always done his duty and done it well_.” ...
How, sir, am I to account for so striking a change in your opinion of
me as your letter indicates?”
-----
Footnote F:
Here he refers to a later “_inquiry_.”
-----
He seems to acknowledge that he had actually been in the habit of coming
late to his work; (it was known that at times his health was not good)
but promised that in future he would do his utmost to please and satisfy
his chief in every possible manner.
In corroboration of the statement of Watts in the first part of his
letter, it may not be amiss to give in full a report which Panizzi
addressed to the Trustees about that period:—
“Mr. Panizzi begs to submit to the Trustees the case of Mr. Watts, a
permanent assistant in this Department, who has been absent from his
duties for the space of forty-five days, owing to a long illness. His
salary is stopped during the time of absence, even when caused by a
misfortune to which, as in this case, the very nature of his
occupation in the Museum may have contributed. Mr. Panizzi begs that
this circumstance and the value of the services of Mr. Watts, to which
he has often had occasion to render justice, may induce the Trustees
to direct Mr. Watts’ salary for the time of his absence to be paid.”
This Report is an excellent proof of Panizzi’s consideration for those
under his supervision, and no further confirmation that the fault found
with Watts arose from his strict sense of duty towards the Trustees, and
a fearless disregard of bringing on himself the enmity of anyone for the
simple discharge of that duty, is required. Perhaps this is better
explained in his own words, in answer to Mr. Watts’ letter:—
“I have two principal duties to perform as the head of this
Department. The first is to complete the new Catalogue with all
possible despatch consistent with accuracy. Until that is done I ought
not and will not entertain any other scheme, however plausible, which
would inevitably interfere with the rapid progress of that great work.
It is for that end, and for that only, that assistance is given to me
so far as the Catalogue is concerned, and neither friends nor enemies
shall make me turn from the path on which I am bound.”
The next distinguished “_Temporary Assistant_” to be introduced to our
readers was John Humffreys Parry, the late Serjeant Parry, who has so
recently departed this life.
Mr. Parry was recommended on the 31st of January, 1839, to Panizzi by
Mr. Forshall, through the following letter:—
“The bearer, Mr. Humffreys Parry, is a gentleman of whose friends and
connections I can bear testimony as being of the highest
respectability. He is a young man of talent, intended for the Bar, but
left, from family circumstances, much to his own resources. He would
be glad to have employment upon the new Catalogue. Examine him, and
form your own judgment as to his fitness.
Some private conduct of the young man’s has accidentally come to my
knowledge, which enables me to assure you that he is a person of no
common merit in many essential points of character.”
Immediately afterwards, at an interview, Panizzi gave him the
appointment he sought, and on the 14th of February, 1839, Mr. Parry thus
addressed his new chief:—
“36, Lower-street, Islington.
“Sir,—Mr. Forshall has informed me that I am to receive the
appointment on the Alphabetical Catalogue at the Museum, and having a
few arrangements to make prior to commencing my duties, I fear I shall
not be able to attend before Monday or Wednesday next. I think it
right to apprise you of this, as Mr. Edwards stated to me your wish
that I should lose no time, and I am anxious to comply with it.”
All those who knew the learned Serjeant in after years fully appreciate
the geniality of his disposition. Panizzi soon became attached to him,
and was not long in discerning his superior qualities. He was a great
favourite with all. On one occasion, when all the Assistants were
mustered in solemn conclave, to discuss a new rule for cataloguing, some
one knocked at the door, when Parry, without leaving time for Panizzi to
speak, imitated a person suffering from influenza, and said “_Cub id!_”
None but he would so have dared to beard the lion in his den; but
Panizzi joined in the laughter created by the joke as heartily as the
rest. On another occasion Panizzi asked these gentlemen to give their
opinion on a portrait of himself. One of them remarked that it looked
rather dark, when Parry said, “Oh, I have seen Mr. Panizzi look much
blacker than that!” One more instance of his ready wit and we have done.
Mr. Parry occasionally absented himself from the Museum, until one
afternoon Panizzi sent for him and requested him to discontinue such
habits, when he received the following answer:—“I am very sorry, sir,
for I was just going to ask you to let me go for the day.”[G]
-----
Footnote G:
When he left the Museum, Panizzi introduced him to the late Mr. John
Forster in these terms:—“A very clever gentleman, now a barrister, Mr.
J. H. P., and formerly an assistant in this Library during the course
of several years, and who knows more about the Museum than any one I
know, called here yesterday, and told me that he was so vexed at the
unfair and ignorant attacks on this Institution that he meant to write
something about it. He is accustomed to write for the press, and his
politics are excellent, and equalled by his frank, honest character.
It struck me that he would be the very man to assist you.... If you
see him you will like him.”
-----
The position and the pay of these “_Temporary Assistants_,” most of whom
in after years became men of distinction, would certainly be considered
inadequate in the present day.
Previous to the year 1837, the Assistants were temporarily engaged to
perform such services as were required in the several Departments; there
being no regular scale of remuneration, but a daily payment fixed by the
Trustees according to the aptness of the individual for the particular
service allotted to him. The rate was 10s., 12s., and 15s., in one
instance as high as 20s. for each day whilst actually employed at the
Museum.
In 1837, the Trustees decided that the appointment of these Assistants
should be permanent, and fixed a standing scale of remuneration; the
members of this class were known as “_Permanent Assistants_.”
In 1838, at the time of the removal of the Library, the “Supernumerary
or Temporary Assistants” were engaged at the rate of £2. 12s. 6d. a
week, or 8s. 9d. a day, for every day actually employed. Their number
was increased from time to time, to provide the extra labour required in
preparing the new Catalogue, and in the additional duties consequent
upon the rapid increase of the Library.
In 1847, a slight change for the better took place in their status. In
practice the promotion was from the Supernumerary to the Permanent class
of Assistants; but there was no recognised claim to such promotion on
the part of the Supernumeraries. In the year 1851, the distinction
between the Permanent and Supernumerary Assistants was abolished, these
Assistants, in all Departments, being considered as forming one body,
although divided into two classes. In all these and subsequent changes,
Panizzi was always the one who strove to promote the welfare of his
subordinates.
Panizzi, Thomas Watts, J. Winter Jones, Edward Edwards, and John H.
Parry, formed a committee for framing the rules for the new General
Catalogue of the whole Library; each of them was separately to prepare,
according to his own views, rules for the compilation of the projected
work. These were afterwards discussed collectively, and when any
difference arose, it was settled by vote.
The rules so drawn up were sanctioned by the Trustees, on the 13th of
July, 1839, and printed on the 15th July, 1841. They were acknowledged
at the time and still continue to be the most complete ever compiled,
although attempts have, at various periods, been made to improve upon
them: nor has the approbation bestowed upon them been merely of a local
character; it has extended throughout Europe and America. The work
occupied several months, the busy staff often being detained until late
at night, on which occasions Panizzi invited his colleagues to share
refreshments with him.
The above rules engaged Panizzi’s earnest attention, and on the 18th of
March, 1839, he sent in the following report to the Trustees:—
“Mr. Panizzi has the honour to lay before the Trustees the Rules,
which, under all circumstances, he proposes as advisable to be
followed in the compilation of the Alphabetical Catalogue, accompanied
by a number of illustrations. Although he is well aware that such
rules must necessarily be affected by the haste with which they have
been compiled, he ventures to hope they will be sufficiently
intelligible to the Trustees, and enable them, even in their present
imperfect state, to judge of the principles that Mr. Panizzi should
wish to see observed. He is fully aware that many cases may arise
unprovided for, and that some of these rules and principles may be
liable to objections, which may not perhaps appear in other plans,
seemingly preferable, but he trusts that what seems objectionable may,
on mature reflection, be found in fact less so. He cannot, at present,
do more than entreat the Trustees to take into their patient and
minute consideration every single part, as well as the whole of the
plan proposed, and then decide as they may think fit, bearing in mind
that, although these rules may, if strictly followed, occasionally
lead to what may appear absurd, the same objection, to a perhaps
greater extent may be urged against any other plan, and far greater
evils result from a deviation from a principle than from its
inflexible application.”
On the 16th of the same month, March, Mr. Baber (Panizzi’s predecessor)
happened to call at the Museum, when the draft of these rules was
submitted to him, and with respect to them he expressed general
satisfaction.
America has been mentioned with special reason.
The first general Conference of Librarians was held at New-York,
September 15, 16, and 17, 1853, upon an invitation, signed by Professor
C. C. Jewett, “for the purpose of conferring together upon the means of
advancing the prosperity and usefulness of Public Libraries, and for the
suggestion and discussion of topics of importance to book collectors and
readers.”
At this meeting the learned Professor made a statement to the effect
that the scholars of all nations demanded of Great Britain that the
Catalogue of the Library of the British Museum should be thoroughly and
efficiently executed, and should be a work of bibliographical authority.
Professor Jewett had made Panizzi’s acquaintance on his visit to London
several years before, with the object of studying our Library, and sent
to him a special invitation to attend the Conference. However, it was
not accepted, and he wrote to Mr. Haywood thus, July 21, 1853:—
“As to my going anywhere, I have to tell you of a dream, which I
should like to become a reality. There is going to be a Congress of
Librarians in the United States, which is to open on the 15th of
September next, and where all the great questions connected with the
management of a great Library are to be discussed and uniform
principles adopted. The Americans have always been my friends, and the
principles which will prevail are mine. They wish me to go, and I
should like it amazingly; but the expense is too heavy. I will try, if
possible, to get help from the Trustees. Do you think it possible, in
case of my going, that if the packet is not full I might have a cabin
to myself?”
The grant for the purchase of Printed Books in 1838, being £1000 more
than the preceding years, permitted the purchase of some rare and
valuable books. For instance:—
The Translation of Montaigne’s Essays by Florio, with an autograph of
Shakespere.
A copy of Luther’s Translation of the Bible in German, printed at
Wittemberg, in 1559-61. (2 vols. folio, on vellum.)
The first edition of the Pentateuch, in the original, printed at
Bologna, in 1482. (vellum, folio.)
The new Testament in German, printed at Augsburg, in 1535. (2 vols. 8vo,
on vellum.)
A richly illuminated Roman Missal, with the arms of Savoy facing the
title-page, richly emblazoned. Printed in Paris, in 1517. (1 vol. folio,
on vellum.)
The lives of Cornelius Nepos (1 vol. 4to, on vellum), printed at Parma,
at the Bodoni Press, in 1799; and many others of equal importance.
In the year 1839 it must be noted that the Museum acquired two Latin
Bibles, with copious manuscript notes, supposed to be by Melanchthon.
Besides these noteworthy and valuable purchases, presents were also
received, and deserve particular mention. Two, especially, must not be
omitted to be named:—1st. The Resolutions and other papers of the States
General of Holland, from 1524 to 1798, with indices, the whole contained
in 389 vols. folio, presented by H.M. the King of the Netherlands. 2nd.
A copy of Cicero’s Orations, printed by Adam Ambergau, in 1742. 1 vol.
folio, handsomely bound, presented by the Right Hon. Sir Arthur Paget,
G.C.B.
The work having progressed satisfactorily thus far, it became necessary
to inquire diligently into the many deficiencies in the National
Library, and to propose means of supplying them. This was accordingly
done in a Report dated 1st of January, 1845. On the 16th of December,
the same year, it was forwarded to the Treasury by direction of the
Trustees, and in the letter accompanying it the following passage
occurs:—
“The Trustees of the British Museum earnestly hope that Her Majesty’s
Government will take it into their grave deliberation whether the time
has not come when it may be desirable, and on all grounds, literary,
political, and economical, to enter at once upon a more enlarged and
comprehensive scale of expenditure for the supply of Printed Books.
Without presuming to enter into other considerations, the Trustees
conceive themselves warranted in stating it as their opinion that the
present circumstances, as far as the British Museum itself is
concerned, are extremely favourable to the entertaining of such a
proposition.
The gentleman at the head of the Department is eminently qualified for
the trust reposed in him: he is fully sensible of its importance, is
ready to devote his whole time and thought (as indeed he has hitherto
done in a most praiseworthy and exemplary manner) to make the Library
in his charge as complete in every department of literature as he can,
and at the same time accessible to the public on the easiest terms.”
The Report contains a sketch of the British Museum, and of its
arrangement, together with some suggestions as to its future increase,
utility, and importance. It shows how and when the Library was brought
to the condition in which it was at the end of the year 1842. The state
of the Collection in its several branches is examined, with regard to
the various classes of human knowledge, to the various countries where
the books were published, and to the languages in which they are
written. Means are suggested by which the Collection ought to be
increased to proportions worthy of the nation; and, lastly, attention is
called to the effects which the proposed increase would have with regard
to its arrangements, good order, and economy. This elaborate Report was
begun as early as 1843. After many delays, Panizzi at last obtained
consent, on the 4th of January, 1845, to its being printed privately for
the Trustees, to whom individually it was ordered to be transmitted on
the 24th of May following.
It remained disregarded, however, until the autumn of that year, when it
was brought under the notice of Mr. Goulburn, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and Mr. Cardwell, Secretary of the Treasury. In consequence
of this step, a meeting of the Sub-Committee on the Department of
Printed Books was held on the 29th of November, 1845, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer being present, and it was resolved that application should
be made to the Treasury for the annual grant of £10,000 for ten years to
come, to supply the deficiencies and exigencies shown by Panizzi to
exist. The answer of the Treasury was most favourable: it was followed
by a preliminary Parliamentary grant of £10,000, which was but the
prelude to many others.
The letter of the Trustees to the Lords of the Treasury, their
Lordships’ answer, and Panizzi’s report were laid before the House of
Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and ordered to be printed on
the 27th of March, 1846.
From that year the collection of Printed Books increased steadily and at
a rate unexampled in any other country. This influx of books, the
necessity of Cataloguing, placing, and binding them, to render them
available, and the difficulties created by want of space, added
enormously to the already onerous duties of the Keeper.
Nor was this special grant otherwise than truly necessary; in fact, it
ran short of the sum requisite for purchasing the rarest and best
editions; the commonest being consequently acquired, and this only
tended to increase the bulk, thus reducing it to the level of an
ordinary Library, instead of raising it to the rank and splendour of a
National Collection, worthy of so great a country as England.
Interesting and important as is the subject of the present chapter—viz,
the gradual development of the resources of the National Institution,
and the energy displayed by those whose duty it was to use every
endeavour to raise the Museum in grandeur and extent—no great digression
is admissible, inasmuch as there is on our hands so great a press of
matter that nothing should induce us to lose the thread of our
biography, or forget that we have the life of Panizzi under treatment,
and the history of the British Museum only so far as it bears on his
doings and his labours on its behalf.
Of these we have attempted to give a clear and honest account. As
Panizzi was one of those who felt sincerely that “whatever is worth
doing at all is worth doing well,” and as he was blessed with ability
and decision of character to carry out whatever he had in hand, it is
pleasant to remark how thoroughly and efficiently he applied his talents
to the benefit of the National Institution; and much as it would delight
us to expatiate further on the subject, we must deny ourselves at
present, as it is now incumbent on us to enter into new channels in
connection with his life.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration]