_Mr. Thomas Grenville; his Bequest; Portrait by Manzini; Chartist
Demonstration; Copyright Act; Mr. Bohn._
[Illustration]
The acquisition of the Grenville Library, in 1847, made that year
notable for the British Museum. Before describing the collection, or the
circumstances under which it was bequeathed to the Nation, it will be
well to recall the liberality and discriminating judgment of the
high-minded donor, who brought it together at so great a cost; and,
therefore, we append a short notice of the Rt. Hon. Thomas Grenville,
the nation’s benefactor, who was born on the 31st of December, 1755, and
entered as a gentleman commoner at Christ Church before he was sixteen
years old. On the 10th of May, 1778, he joined the army as an ensign in
the Coldstream Guards, but resigned in the following year. His reasons
for having taken such a step were narrated by himself in Parliament on
the 11th of April, 1780. On the 26th of October, 1779, he was returned
to Parliament as a member for Buckinghamshire, and enrolled himself in
the party of Fox, who in 1782 trusted him to arrange the terms of the
treaty drawn up for the separation of Great Britain from her American
colonies.
From this mission Mr. Grenville was suddenly recalled, at the death of
Lord Rockingham; but in 1794 Earl Spencer sent him as Minister
Extraordinary to the Court of Vienna. Four years afterwards he was made
a Privy Councillor, and subsequently was despatched on an embassy to the
court of Berlin, in order to induce the King of Prussia to co-operate
with England against the continual attacks of the French Republic. This
mission, however, proved unsuccessful.
In 1800, he was appointed to a sinecure office, that of Chief Justice in
Eyre, South of Trent, which was worth about £2,000 per annum. Other
appointments followed; when, in 1818, he retired simultaneously from
Parliament and from public life.
To describe his personal appearance, his features were fine and regular,
with blue eyes shadowed by large eyebrows. In addition to quick
perception, he possessed a marvellous memory, ever ready with quotations
from his favourite authors.
In his old age he derived great pleasure from entertaining a few
intimate friends at dinner, and spending the after hours at whist.
Amongst those who frequented his house on such occasions were, Lord
Ellesmere, Samuel Rogers, Hallam, Lord Macaulay, Mr. Gladstone, Panizzi,
and Sydney Smith, who with reverent appreciation remarked to Panizzi, _à
propos_ of the host’s dignity and cheerfulness, _There, that is the man
from whom we all ought to learn how to grow old_.
The collection of this superb Library cost Mr. Grenville much labour,
and nothing could be more admirable in its way than the persistence with
which he followed out the intentions he had formed. It was a pursuit,
indeed, which he began early in life.
A favourite recollection of his, which he was apt to quote, was that
while in the Guards there bid against him at a sale a whole bench of
Bishops, for some scarce edition of the Bible; this was his first essay,
and similar success attended him in all his subsequent dealings. At his
death, _20,239_ volumes were counted, all in admirable condition and
beautifully bound. It was stated, at the time, that the collection cost
_£54,000_.
He had the habit of writing on a slip of paper, which he placed on the
fly-leaf of the volume, a short sketch of how and when it was acquired;
this was done in the neatest and clearest manner.
Mr. Grenville did not collect books simply for their rarity and
curiosity, he knew well the worth of those he purchased, and used them
as books of reference, as is proved by the notes which are to be found
in his own handwriting, even stating the number of times he himself
perused them; for instance, in the edition of Dean Sherlock on Death, he
wrote:—_Read thirteen times in 1846_.
The acquaintance between Grenville and Panizzi probably commenced as
early as 1830, at which period, it will be remembered, the latter was
engaged on his Bojardo and Ariosto.
The correspondence which passed at the time of the dedication of the
“Sonetti e Canzone di Bojardo,” has been fully given, and the documents
and letters which follow will prove how much Mr. Grenville became
attached to his Italian friend, and in what high estimation he held him.
The following “Memorandum” written by Panizzi himself, bearing the date
of November 3, 1845, is given in full:—
“Yesterday being Sunday, I called, as I generally do on such days, on
the Right Hon. Thomas Grenville, who has had an attack of cold, which
produced great cough and difficulty of breathing, somewhat alarming.
When I saw him last he was better, and we played whist till nearly
eleven o’clock. This was on Friday last, the 31st of October.
“Yesterday I found him considerably better—I may say well—reading a book
of prayers, as he usually does on Sundays. It was about three o’clock,
and he was alone. After the usual inquiries after his health, &c., &c.,
he spoke nearly as follows:—
“‘I am glad, Mr. Panizzi, that we are alone, as I have something to tell
you, which I wish to be considered strictly confidential, and that you
will not mention to any human being as long as I live. There is nothing,
perhaps, that renders secrecy strictly necessary in what I am going to
say; but it is as well to keep it to ourselves, as it concerns nobody
but me. I have often perceived that you wished to know what would become
of my library after my death, and I have often seen also that you wished
it should go to the British Museum. That wish is very natural as well as
very creditable to you; for, treated as you have been by the Trustees,
had you been a less zealous officer, and not so thoroughly honest a man,
you would not so easily have forgiven their conduct towards you, and
felt so warm an interest in the welfare of that Institution as you have.
“I have admired your conduct in that respect, and been extremely pleased
by it. I have not imitated you for years I confess. The minute of which
I gave you the copy in Mr. Forshall’s handwriting, and which conveys an
ample and deserved acknowledgment of your good services, was a
disgraceful and unjust act towards you, and insult to me. They reserved
for me to do what they never had done to any one else, and they behaved
ill to you to vex me, I believe ... (as I dissented, he added). Well,
well, may be they or some one who had influence on them, counselled them
to punish you. I felt so much their conduct that, as you know, I left
the room when I saw what they were bent upon doing, and never went again
to their meetings, and I felt very much inclined never to speak again to
Lord Farnborough, who, after having both in private to me and at a
Committee agreed with the justice of doing what the Committee suggested,
got up at the general meeting which he and Mr. Forshall had packed to
move the rejection of the Committee’s report. I then was more than ever
determined to leave my library to the Duke of Buckingham, to be kept at
Stowe as a heirloom. But your generous conduct made me think that if
you, who had been much more injured than I was, forgave them, I ought.
“I knew, moreover, that you would be delighted to have my books, and I
often thought that the coming into your hands from mine was the very
best thing that could happen to them, as well as the most pleasing to
me. I was determined partly by these considerations to alter my will,
and still more so—or rather much more so—by another circumstance.
“You know that I have enjoyed for a long series of years a very good
sinecure. Although, as I have sometimes told you, my cousin, Lord
Glastonbury, left me a large fortune and made me rich, yet I could not
have formed such a library (which I think cost me nearer £50,000 than
£40,000) without my income from the sinecure. I have, therefore,
determined to bleach my conscience, and to return to the Nation what I
got from it, when I could have done without—but which would have been
given to some one else if I had given it up myself—by bequeathing my
library to the British Museum, and I have altered my will accordingly. I
shall direct that part of my will to be printed, that my motives be
understood, and that no one should think that I take the library from my
nephew the Duke, to whom I have told that I have left it to him, from
any unkindness or unfriendly feeling, which I certainly have not, as the
rest of my will will show. I could not in my Will say anything about
you, and the treatment you have received from those you have served and
serve so well and so faithfully, but I thought it a proof of my great
friendship for you to inform you of what I have done, and of my motives
for so doing. But, although I cannot say anything about it, the public
and the Trustees must be well aware that you have not taken any mean or
unfair advantage of my great regard for you, my dear friend, to turn me
from doing what I had done. I hope the Trustees will be more just to you
in future; indeed, you tell me they are, and have been lately, and am
glad of it. I thought they would not change; they must feel they have
wronged you, and I thought they would never like you in consequence.
Even my friend the Archbishop, one of the very best and most amiable men
living, was no doubt influenced, perhaps unconsciously, by such feelings
when he made objections to your appointment to succeed Mr. Baber. There
is some one who has great influence on the Archbishop, who is no friend
of yours. Take care, I know it. But I trust now that you are better
known you will be appreciated as you deserve.’
“This was the substance, and, as far as I recollect, these were the very
words of the communication which was delivered uninterruptedly, with his
usual energy and clearness, and without appearing the least fatigued, or
being stopped by coughing or anything else.
“I made the best acknowledgment I could for the honourable proof of
confidence he gave me. I told him, strongly moved, almost to tears, that
I hoped the day would be far distant when the British Museum should
profit by his munificent gift; and here we shook hands most heartily and
warmly, and I thanked him as well as I could for the affectionate manner
in which he had spoken of me and of my conduct.
“He replied it was only justice. Then he added that he left the whole
unfettered; that he thought we should have many duplicates among ours of
his books, but that he thought we ought to have them; at the same time,
he said, he did not care whether the Trustees sold his duplicates. I
said they never did it. Very well, he answered. Then he went on to say
that he would desire his executors to express a wish that the whole of
his books should be kept together, and that a catalogue of them all
should be published. But, he said, I shall not add these as absolute
conditions, only as my wish.
“We spoke of cataloguing, of how the books could be kept together, &c.,
which I said could and should be done, as was done for Sir J. Banks,
Cracherode, &c.; even without their desiring it. But the Dutch Minister,
was announced; we began to speak of indifferent things; and presently I
took leave and left them together at about four o’clock.
“A. PANIZZI.”
This document bears the following signature and note:—
“This paper was received by me from Mr. Panizzi, sealed up, on the 3rd
of November, 1845, and opened and read at his desire by me on the 18th
of December, 1846.
W. R. HAMILTON.”
Mr. Grenville died on the 17th of December, 1846; therefore, the above
document was read by Mr. Hamilton on the following day. The ”codicil”
made to his Will is dated 28th of October, 1845, exactly a week before
the incident narrated in the above memorandum.
Space does not allow us to make public a long and minute direction,
given by Panizzi to his Assistant, Mr. Rye, for the removal of this
Library to the British Museum; suffice it, therefore, to observe that it
enters into all the details respecting the handling and removal of these
treasures of typography.
The books now having safely reached the Museum, Panizzi made the
following official report respecting them:—
“Feb. 10, 1847.
“Mr. Panizzi has the honour to report that the removal of the Library
bequeathed to the Trustees by the Right Hon. T. Grenville has been
accomplished in five days without any injury whatever to the books,
the number of which, counted one by one, and without any regard to the
number of works, is 20,239.
“About five hundred of them are, for want of room on the shelves,
lying on the floor of the galleries of the room into which the books
have been removed from Hamilton-place. With respect to their
preservation from dust, Mr. Panizzi begs to suggest as the most
economical, as well as most expedient arrangement, that, for the
present, the doors of the presses be lined, or rather covered, inside
with green calico, or some such cheap material.
“Mr. Panizzi begs to state that the removal of the collection has been
effected in so short a time by his keeping at work the persons who
assisted him considerably after Museum time. He hopes that the
Trustees will, in consequence, approve of the remuneration and
gratuities which he has promised to the servants of Mr. Grenville who
assisted, as well as to the attendants and workmen for their extra
time and exertions, as detailed in the accompanying statement of
expenses, which he begs the Trustees will order to be paid.”
In vain did Panizzi urge the Trustees to provide adequate room for the
books; many of them lay for nearly two years on the floor of the
gallery, where they had been originally placed, exposed to the dust, and
to injury in various forms. Lord Fortescue, on one occasion, asked to
see his uncle’s books, and was not a little astonished to find them thus
uncovered and unprotected.
Much later, through the intervention of the Duke of Cambridge, the
collection was arranged as it now stands, and the donor’s bust, the work
of Conolly, presented by Sir David Dundas, was removed from the
Committee-room, and placed in its present position; this was
accomplished in the month of October, 1850.
The catalogue, the great expectation and hope of Mr. Grenville, now
demands our special attention.
A report was, therefore, sent to the Trustees:—
“February 11, 1847.
“When Mr. Grenville was pleased to inform Mr. Panizzi that his
collection would become the property of the Trustees, he informed him
also of his wishes, which he would express, and which Mr. Panizzi took
on himself to say would be undoubtedly attended to by the Trustees, as
much as if they were conditions attached to his bequest—
1st. That the whole of his collection should be kept together and
unbroken.
2nd. That the remainder of his catalogue should be printed.
The Trustees are aware that there are two volumes of the catalogue
printed. It was compiled by Messrs. Payne & Foss, who have the
manuscript in slips of the whole. It occurred to Mr. Panizzi that the
cheapest and shortest way of carrying the second wish of Mr. Grenville
into execution would be to purchase the manuscript titles, and with
this view Mr. Panizzi had a conversation with Mr. Foss, who, at his
request, has made the proposal specified in the accompanying letter.
Mr. Panizzi is of opinion that Mr. Foss’s terms ought to be accepted,
in which case the unprinted part of Mr. Grenville’s catalogue might be
sent to press almost immediately, and the whole completed in an
uniform manner.
Mr. Panizzi thinks that it is very desirable to accept this proposal
for the sake of economy and despatch. If the Trustees will allow him
to treat with Mr. Foss he thinks he, perhaps, might obtain some slight
modification of the terms now suggested.”
Panizzi showed the practical affection he had for his friend by his
presentations of rare and expensive books from time to time; these were
accompanied by letters, and Mr. Grenville invariably attached them to
the volume.
The following is a specimen:—
“B. M., May 2, 1845.
“My dear Sir,
I hope you will do me the honour of placing in your library a
Latin poem, by one Thomas Prati, printed at Treviso about 1475, on the
martyrdom said to have been suffered in that year by one _Simon_ or
_Symeon_, at the hands of the Jews of Trento. The event seems to have
created a great sensation at the time, and even at a much later period
its truth has been the subject of learned investigations.
It may be true that a boy was murdered at Trento in March 1475, but
that he fell a sacrifice to the Jews hatred of our religion, is as
incredible as it is unproved. So late as about a hundred years ago, a
dissertation was inserted in the 48th volume of Calagierò Raccolta
d’opuscoli, page 409 (De cultu Sancti Simonis—the martyr has been
canonized and his life and miracles are chronicled in the Acta
Sanctorum Pueri Tridentini et Martyris apud Venetos). That
dissertation, written to prove the _truth_ of the story, seems to me
conclusive against it.
Several poems are said to have been written on this subject. One of
them in Italian stanzas, utterly worthless, by one Fra Giovanni
Padovano, was printed so late as 1690, at Padua, and is in the British
Museum. Federici (_Tipografia Trevigiana_, p. 91) mentions four tracts
printed by Celerio in 1480, on the martyrdom of Simon, but none
written by Prati. He moreover mentions two (p. 52) printed by Gherard
de Lysa, one of which would seem to be precisely like that which I now
offer to you, if we were to judge from the title only, but the
particulars into which he enters show, 1st, that Federici never saw
even the book which he describes; 2nd, that whatever that book be, it
is a different one from this.
As you possess the very rare edition of Dante, published by Tuppo at
Naples, in the colophon of which Tuppo alludes to the murder of Simon
“non sono molti anni,” and as the fact is said to have happened in
1475, according to all authorities, it may be of some interest to you
to possess an uncommonly rare book, which may be of use in fixing at
about 1480 the date of your Dante, the very year when Tuppo began to
print separately from Reussinger.
Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”
Immediately after Mr. Grenville’s death, a portrait of him by an Italian
artist (C. Manzini,) was offered for sale. It is painted on ivory,
representing him at the age of 85, wearing a close-buttoned black coat,
and a plain white neckcloth. Panizzi was anxious that this work of art
should not fall into strange hands; and consequently, together with
other friends of the venerable book-collector, started a raffle, the
tickets being sold only amongst a selected few. Samuel Rogers was named
as one of them, and this originated the following correspondence:—
“August 29th,
St. James’s Palace.
“My dear Mr. Panizzi,
When I recover what I have lost, I mean to subscribe to
everything and to everybody. But now, alas, I have nothing to spare—I
cannot even afford to give you a mutton chop—and having poor enough of
my own to support, I cannot contribute to other people’s.
I shall be happy, however, to contribute my mite in this instance,
though not to raffle for the portrait, for to tell you the truth, the
portrait I do not care for; I had rather trust to my recollections.
Yours, &c., &c.,
S. ROGERS.”
“B. M., Monday,
“My dear Sir,
I am very sorry that I have expressed myself so ill in the note
which I took the liberty of addressing to you to contribute to the
support of other people’s poor, you having, as you say, and as it is
well known, poor enough of your own to support. I never would have
taken the liberty of writing for that purpose; and whatever mite you
may contribute to any charity, it must be from the impulse of your own
kind, benevolent heart, and not at my request, as I should never
presume to make it.
The difficulty in asking subscribers for the raffle of the portrait,
was not as to who was to be left out, but as to who was to be
preferred, and it was as a mark of respect to you that Mr. Gaskell and
myself thought you entitled, above many others, to be included amongst
our chosen few. I was too proud to leave to others to inform you of
our scheme.
Yours, &c., A. PANIZZI.”
“Thursday.
“My dear Mr. Panizzi,
I have just opened your letter, when I am starting for the
railroad, and I cannot say how distressed I should be if you could
conceive for an instant that I thought you had acted otherwise that
from the purest and noblest motives.
With Mr. Manzini I am unacquainted, but most happy should I be to
render any service, though, perhaps, it may be doubtful whether, in a
common case, a copy, however exquisite, is so valuable, when an
original may be had from Richmond at nearly the same price.
Yours, &c., &c.,
S. ROGERS.
P. S.—Again, though in haste, I must say how unhappy I am if I have
given one whose friendship I so highly value any uneasiness.”
This miniature is now in the National Portrait Gallery.
The following is from Panizzi to Lord Rutherfurd respecting his friend’s
death:—
“22nd December, 1847.
“You will have seen by the newspapers that poor Mr. Grenville is no
more, he had no reason to complain on leaving this world, after so
long and happy a life, which he had enjoyed within ten years of his
death, and from which he departed before either bodily or mental
infirmities had rendered it a burden to him; but, I who have lost one
of the best friends I have had, whose kindness was uniform as it was
excessive, I have certainly good reason for sorrow. A man alone in the
world, a foreigner, without any other ties of affection or blood,
concentrates all his feelings in his friends, and to lose one of them
is a greater loss to him than it is to others, whose heart is filled
by other objects.”
The circumstances of the gift of Mr. Grenville to the Museum having been
fully considered, brief allusion has here to be made to that which
threatened to become magnified into a national commotion, imperilling
the safety of our Public Institutions, and foremost amongst their
number, the British Museum. The year 1848 was memorable for the Chartist
demonstration. The principles and intentions of the agitators are well
known; however, on the 10th of April they proposed to hold a meeting of
200,000 men, who were to assemble at Kennington Common, and to march
thence in procession to Westminster, and present a petition to
Parliament. The Bank and other Public Institutions were occupied by the
Military, organized by the Duke of Wellington; these were strengthened
by no less than 150,000 persons of all ranks, voluntarily sworn to act
as special constables, and amongst the number Panizzi was enlisted on
the 8th of April.
The British Museum seems to have been one of the places in danger of
being attacked by the mob; it was, therefore, considered prudent to take
prompt and decisive measures to protect it from any possible assault.
Though Sir Henry Ellis was the chief officer of the Museum at the time,
Panizzi may be said to have taken the part of the real General, and was
most active in swearing in his subordinates, some of whom had Chartist
tendencies themselves, as, possibly, he had himself; but the safety of
the Museum was paramount to all other considerations, and, to an
objector, he replied, _What! not defend the place from which you get
your living!!_
Mr. Cowtan in his “Memories of the British Museum,” tells us “that all
persons employed upon the establishment, either in the various
departments, or as artizans at work upon the building, were sworn in as
‘special constables,’ making in all 250. Major Baron, of the Royal
Engineers, was sent to suggest the best means of barricading, and to
place the force at hand in the best positions for defending the Museum,
in case of an attack. The military force consisted of fifty-seven rank
and file, and two officers. To this must be added twenty pensioners from
Chelsea College. Fifty muskets, with proportionate ammunition were
supplied, as well as cutlasses, and pikes for from two to three hundred
persons. Provisions for three days were laid in, &c., &c.”
Scouts were sent out to bring authentic accounts, but the same
“Memories” also inform us that “one or two, who, before the event took
place, were loud in their protestations of devotedness to the Museum,
and willingness to lay down their lives in its defence, began to funk
and to _look unutterable things_.”
The following letter to Sir H. Ellis, referring to this subject, is well
worthy of perusal:—
“British Museum, Friday night, April 7th, 1848.
“My dear Sir,
I beg to enclose four lists of as many parties in my department,
consisting of eleven persons each, ready to be sworn as special
constables. The name at the head of each party is that of the
gentleman who will act as leader or foreman to it. Any order which you
will transmit to me for them shall be attended to. At the same time
allow me to say that if anything very serious were to happen, we are
not prepared for it. To be prepared, for an attack in earnest, should
not the Museum be made a depôt for troops; the usual military guard
ought to be at least doubled. Supposing the Riot Act read, and extreme
measures unavoidable, the Museum can be well defended by a
well-directed fire of musketry from the roof, which commands not only
every side of the building, but every approach to it, as well as some
most important points of the interior. I took Mr. Hawkins over it this
morning on purpose to show him this. I should regret as much as any
one that such mode of defence should ever be forced upon us, but a
danger is better avoided by the determination and readiness to meet it
with proper energy. The measures taken by the Government show that
they do not think lightly of the state of affairs; and always hoping
for the best, as prudent men, we ought to be ready for the worst.
Permit me to suggest also for your consideration that
1st. The gate by Mr. König’s house, on the west side of the officer’s
houses, as well as another gate, higher up, on the same road, ought to
be strengthened. The same ought to be done with those on the roads to
the north and east, right and left of the reading-room entrance. The
iron gate also to Montagu Place ought to be strengthened, locked, and
the key kept by you; nor ought the opening under the new passage, from
your house to the Library, to be left unprotected.
2nd. All the doors in the basement, particularly those opening on the
yards and roads outside the building, ought to be kept locked, and
none opened, under any pretence, without an officer’s order.
3rd. The two clerks of the works, the enginemen, and the house
carpenter, should be at hand throughout the day, and have the
fire-engines ready for use at a moment’s notice. It would be as well
to have a couple of men from Mr. Merryweather’s with them.
4th. More police lanthorns, a dozen at least to be provided, in case
they might be required at night.
5th. No officer, attendant, or servant whatever, to leave the Museum
on Monday, except with your special leave.
Yours, &c., A. PANIZZI.”
“P.S.—There are men in the house ready and able to use firearms (if
provided with them) should it be absolutely necessary. We ought to
provide them; as to the absolute necessity of actually using them, it
must depend on circumstances.”
On the 15th of April, the Trustees held a meeting, and “acknowledged
thankfully the human means which have been employed in their service, in
the maintenance of the safety of the British Museum in their charge, and
to record, accordingly, their grateful conviction of the intelligence,
energy, zeal, and union, which have been displayed by their Principal
Librarian, by the heads of departments” and by the gentlemen engaged
under them.”
Thus happily passed off what appeared to be at one time a threatening
position for the British Museum; and it is a subject of hearty
congratulation that the would-be disturbers of the public peace were
faint-hearted and disorganized, or serious results might have ensued,
fraught with danger to human life, and destruction to public buildings
and their contents. Had the Museum been really attacked, who can reckon
the loss to the Nation? No doubt the energetic precautions taken had
much to do with smothering the fire which appeared at one time likely to
kindle; and for this there is much reason for us, of the present day, to
be thankful to those, who were instrumental in protecting our National
Institution.
Again our ground must be shifted; from threatening without, turn we now
to tumults within, viz., in the literary world; it is our province to
discuss a matter—then, as now, unsettled, and, considering the
arguments, _pro_ and _con_, adduced on its behalf, most difficult of
decision. Our subject is the Copyright Act,—with which of course, in his
sphere, as custodian of our National gathering of the work of all
nations and all epochs, Panizzi was called upon to have intimate
acquaintance, as well as dealings, not always pleasant or exhilarating.
But—not to anticipate—we proceed to give a slight sketch of the objects
and workings of this Act, as then in force, the manner in which it
affected the custodian, and the code of strict integrity, regardless of
consequence, which he always followed.
From the days of Tudor rule to the present time, the Copyright Act has
periodically received the consideration of Parliament; literary men
regard as an inalienable right of property products of their brain. In
so thinking it would certainly appear primâ facie that their assumption
is correct, but a little sound reasoning will prove how capable of
modification are ideas hastily formed on this important subject. This
subject is now about to be briefly introduced to our readers, not only
as especially suitable to this biography, but as of vital interest to
all who are members of the great society of letters, and especially
referring to Panizzi, on whom devolved the arduous task of enforcing the
powers conferred on him by the Act, for the benefit of the British
Nation and the world at large.
It is out of the question to enter into minute details of the working of
this Act from its origin until now, for there would be no difficulty in
filling a volume were particulars to be fully rendered. Suffice it to
say that the first obligation to give copies of a work to any one was
imposed by 14 Car. II., c. 33, s. 16, by which it was enacted, “That
every printer shall reserve three printed copies, on the best and
largest paper, of every book new printed or reprinted by him with
additions, and shall, before any public venting of the said book, bring
them to the Master of the Company of Stationers, and deliver them to
him, one whereof shall be delivered to the Keeper of His Majesty’s
Library, and the other two to be sent to the Vice-Chancellors of the two
Universities respectively for the use of the public libraries of the
said Universities.”
The Statute underwent additions and modifications from this time, being
at some periods allowed to expire altogether, as it did on the 25th of
April, 1694. But, literary property being openly and frequently pirated,
a remedy was urged upon the Legislature as necessary in the years 1703,
1706, and 1709. A bill was introduced by Mr. Wortley, and finally passed
in the latter year. It is the 8 Anne, c. 21; the fifth section of it
enacting “That nine copies of each book or books” ... “shall be
delivered to the warehouse-keeper of the Company of Stationers for the
time being,” ... “for the use of the Royal Library, the Libraries of the
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the Libraries of the four
Universities of Scotland, the Library of Sion College in London, and the
Library commonly called the Library belonging to the Faculty of
Advocates at Edinburgh respectively.”
To evade this Act, publishers entered only the title of a part, or a
volume of any work, as it was generally understood that the claims could
be enforced only as to the part or volume entered, and that nine copies
of no other volume or part could be claimed; and so, as the Act was
practically eluded, enactment followed enactment, until the 5 and 6
Victoria, c. 45, made a very definite provision on the subject; not only
ordering the delivery at the British Museum of all books, but
particularizing the meaning of the word book: “That in the construction
of this Act, the word _Book_ shall be construed to mean and include
every volume, part or division of a volume, pamphlet, sheet of
letter-press, sheet of music, map, chart, or plan separately published,”
a penalty of £5., besides the value of the copy, being the fine for
non-compliance.
In May, 1850, the Trustees conferred on Panizzi, by power of attorney,
the unthankful duty of enforcing, in their name, the provisions of the
Copyright Act. With his accustomed energy, with a firm sense of duty,
and with a zeal, in some instances almost amounting to harshness, did he
face the difficulties of the situation. Were it simply to record the
success which attended his devotion to the interests of the Institution
he served so faithfully, we should have to quote his own words. “The
Trustees testified to their sense of the value of my services in this
matter by awarding me £100 a year;” but, as must be admitted on the
testimony of documents now before us, in his own handwriting, his zeal
was rather excessive; his battles with the publishers brought him odium,
and, at times, even personal vituperation, although he himself
undoubtedly intended to act with forbearance, and with that courtesy
which was one of his chief characteristics. Did it ever occur to Panizzi
that the noblest literature, that of Greece and Rome, knew no such law?
that, even supposing it might be necessary, in the nascent state of
literature in the sixteenth century, this more than protection may be
most injurious in more modern times, exactly as the state protection of
a given manufacture might primarily be good, but, for a permanency,
would be unsound policy?
On April 20th, 1852, Panizzi wrote:—
“Mr. Panizzi cannot help feeling that, in deference to the wish of the
Trustees, he has proceeded with too much leniency in the enforcement
of the Act. Respectable publishers, who cheerfully and punctually
comply with its provisions, as well as the readers who are
disappointed in not finding English publications in this library, seem
to have a right to more severe measures, not only towards refractory
publishers within the bills of mortality, but against those living in
the country against whom Mr. Panizzi will at last be forced to employ
the means which were some time ago approved of by the Trustees for
securing their right to books published out of London.”
These words as they stand clearly show the real state of Panizzi’s
inward determination to persevere in his object; and on the 14th of
August, 1852, we find a letter from the Principal Librarian, approving
of the steps he had “taken for the enforcement of the Copyright Act in
Scotland,” on the part of the Trustees.
In the same year, a certain Mr. Davis, of Shelton, forwarded a
prospectus of a work entitled “Crania Britannica,” with a request that,
as the book was to be “privately printed,” the Keeper of the Printed
Books should subscribe for a copy of the work. Panizzi submitted the
prospectus to the Trustees, who declined the purchase, whereupon Panizzi
communicated this decision to Mr. Davis, and added:—“In my opinion you
are bound to send a copy of that work to this Library in compliance with
the Copyright Act (5 and 6 Vic., cap. 45).
In September, 1852, in company with Mr. Henry Stevens, the American book
agent, Panizzi visited Oxford, Dublin, and Cork, and rendered signal
service to the Library by his unsparing exertions to detect defaulters,
and uphold the interests of the Museum. Amongst his remarks when in
Dublin was one that he “saw a number of important new works exposed for
sale of which he did not know the existence, and even in the case of
publications of no great general importance, he noticed many which ought
to be in the National Collection.” Innumerable difficulties met him in
his task. At Derby, “There are,” he says, “many works published, but the
two principal publishers having a house in London, it is this house
which, should it be necessary, will be held responsible for the
infringement of the Copyright Act.” Of course, his presence was in all
places which he visited attended with dislike; and it seems hardly fair
that, whilst acting from the purest motives in the public service, any
obloquy of a personal nature should have attached to him; yet, to say
the least, had not a sense of duty sustained him, his would have been a
most thankless errand.
Any attempt at times to preserve an _incognito_ was unavailing—a rather
undesirable fact which he soon discovered, as his person was well known.
However, on the 9th of October, 1852, a report from Panizzi was read at
a committee, when the thanks of the Trustees were accorded to him for
his exertions.
Many special cases of the actions which Panizzi brought against
publishers are worth recounting, but as their details are necessarily
very similar, and, as to the general reader such repetitions would not
be of any interest, the biographer contents himself with making special
allusion to the most troublesome opponent who ever entered the lists
against Panizzi, this was Mr. Bohn, the publisher, and bitter were the
denunciations hurled at Panizzi’s devoted head in the course of the
hearing of seventeen distinct summonses before Mr. Jardine, the
Magistrate, by Mr. Ballantine, the counsel for Mr. Bohn. _Harsh_,
_vexatious_, _tyrannical_, were a few of the adjectives which dropped
from the lips of that learned gentleman. Mr. Bodkin appeared for the
British Museum Authorities, and finally, Mr. Jardine, with encomiums on
the personal worth of both the disputants, considered nominal penalties
with costs sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case.
On the 2nd of February, 1853, appeared in _The Times_ a letter from
Panizzi, to which our readers are referred, but which is too lengthy to
give _verbatim_ here. In this letter he says:—“I knew that the Act had
been extensively evaded, and I felt that I ought to endeavour to enforce
it better,” and again, “I determined to proceed with as much forbearance
as I should find consistent with a due performance of my duty.” He then
refers to the fact that “publishers are bound to send their publications
to the Museum without receiving previous notice of their omissions of so
doing,” and addresses the warning in the shape of a circular prepared by
the Solicitors of the Trustees as a proof of their courtesy to those who
considered themselves hardly dealt with. If publishers refused to comply
with the law, what alternative had Panizzi but to enforce compliance?
Was he to purchase the books, or how was he to procure them? He states,
and states justly too, “I have no right to spend public money in
encouraging non-compliance with the law.... All I get is blame. If the
books are not in the Library, I am found fault with, and I am found
fault with if I use the only means I now have of procuring them.” Then
he cites the increase in the delivery of books, &c., 13,934,[M] in 1852,
against 9,871 in 1851, which certainly shows that his labours were not
only necessary, but by no means bare of practical results.
-----
Footnote M:
These would not be _books_ proper; in fact, no more than a fifth; the
rest being parts of works, _music, maps, &c._ The number of _books_
for 1879 being only about 8,000, not including music, maps, &c.
-----
In _The Times_ of the same date (February 2, 1853,) appeared a leading
article extolling the way in which Panizzi did his duty as a public
servant; it notes the peculiarity of the absence of Mr. Bohn’s name in
this long letter, although Panizzi must have had him in his mind at the
time he was writing; it deplores the “ill-considered expressions” by
which these gentlemen appear to irritate one another, and winds up with
these words:—“It is a lamentable thing to see two such men engaged in so
petty and so discreditable a warfare, the simple result of which will be
to damage both combatants in the opinion of all sober and moderate men.”
With this remark many will, doubtless, agree, yet Panizzi’s exceptional
position as a champion, it may be said almost of the whole world (for
the whole world has access to this store of knowledge), must not be
forgotten. He himself appears to have considered Mr. Jardine as biassed
in his views, for he stigmatized the Act as _strong, and its enactments
harsh_; but in whatever light we view the controversy, it would seem to
have been carried on with much acerbity, and this is certainly to be
regretted in the case of two such antagonists.
On the 3rd of February, 1853, Panizzi wrote to Mr. Haywood, alluding to
the ungrateful return made to him for his services. Having two months
before this seriously thought of returning his power of attorney, when
he was induced to retain it, he says, “I am now bound, and have no wish
to perform that duty,” then he alludes to the gratuity of £200 given to
Sir Henry Ellis, and continues, “To me nothing has ever been given, and
I will not go on,” and with some pardonable self-laudation adds, “They
will soon see the difference in the number of books which they will
receive, between my fearless and honest conduct, and that of anybody
else whom they may appoint.”
Further correspondence followed in _The Times_—a letter from Panizzi on
the 3rd of February, 1853, and one from Mr. Bohn on the 8th of the same
month. These letters possess no special interest; the former being
Panizzi’s re-statement of his case, and the latter Mr. Bohn’s rejoinder
to the fresh insinuations, and his own views on the subject.
On the 24th of February, 1853, Panizzi wrote to Sir Henry Ellis,
requesting that, whenever the subject of the re-enforcement of the
Copyright Act was again brought before the Trustees, he would
“respectfully represent to them his strong wish of being excused from
performing a duty which, in conformity with the arrangement of 1837,
under which he holds office, was expressly assigned to the Secretary.”
The great remedy for getting rid of all difficulties, now-a-days, seems
to be the taking up by Government of important schemes, and the
biographer has seen it widely suggested:—“Let Government be the only
publisher, because alone having perfect means of publicity—publishing
for all alike (at their own expense) and giving all alike an equal
chance.”
The Law of Copyright is about to come again under the consideration of
Parliament, when, we cannot tell, but it would have delighted him whose
“Memoirs” we write to have listened to, and advised fresh suggestions
on, a subject with which he was so intimately acquainted, and where his
disinterestedness (so far as he himself was concerned) led to so much
mortification and such undeserved opprobrium.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration]