Part 1

Produced by Adrian Mastronardi, David E. Brown and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned images of public domain material from the Google Print project.)

ON THE SUPPLY OF PRINTED BOOKS FROM THE LIBRARY TO THE READING ROOM OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM

"The requisition to insert the Titles and Press-marks on the tickets is not merely reasonable but it is indispensible, if the Library is to be conducted with satisfaction to the Public and to the Librarians. If people will not take the trouble to comply with Rules, which, so far from being vexatious, are absolutely necessary for their own comfort, they have no right to complain. The fault is _theirs_, if mistakes and delay arise; and it is as absurd as unjust to impute the effect of their own ignorance or carelessness to the Officers of the Museum."

SIR NICHOLAS HARRIS NICOLAS.

MDCCCXLVI.

The publication of the annexed correspondence has been determined upon not for the pleasure of exposing the mistakes and inconsistencies of Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas, but for the purpose of drawing the attention of those who take an interest in the collection of Printed Books in the British Museum to a most important part of its management, _viz._ the supply of books to readers. In order to make the correspondence intelligible, it will be necessary to explain not only the circumstances which gave rise to it, but also the system of arrangement adopted to secure a regular attendance upon the readers from the Library, as well as the reasons why this system has been suggested; and it is hoped that, when the whole system is carefully examined, it will not be found undeserving of that support, without which it is impossible that any scheme can be carried out.

At the risk of entering into minute and very uninteresting particulars, well known to those who are conversant with the arrangements of a large Library, it is requisite to state that the books in that of the British Museum are found by certain references, Press-marks, or symbols, by which each work is identified with the corresponding entry of its Title in the Catalogue. The Title of a work marked in the Catalogue with, for instance, 500 _a_, means that the work itself is in the press which is numbered 500, and on the shelf of that press which is distinguished by letter _a_; if the mark be 500 _a_ 2, the meaning is that the work occupies the second place on that shelf; and if marked 500 a/6 2, that it is the sixth article in the 2nd vol. on shelf _a_ of press 500. A book being wanted, the shortest way by far is generally found to be (and in the greatest number of cases it is the only one) to search the Catalogue, find the Press-mark, and look for the book accordingly. In 1836, at my suggestion, an alteration in the then prevailing system was adopted, which the Committee of the House of Commons on the British Museum, then sitting, considered an improvement, and so it was universally pronounced to be. The question put to me on the subject by Lord Stanley, as well as my answer, are here inserted.

"Will you state what improvement has been recently adopted in the New Transcript [of the Catalogue] with regard to reference?"

"In the Catalogue of the British Museum, the one which we keep for the use of the Library, there are certain references given, or symbols, to know exactly where to find a book. In the Reading Room Catalogue those symbols were not put; I thought, and Mr. Baber thought also, that it would be an evident improvement to have in the Catalogue for the Reading Room, the same references as in the Catalogue of the Library, because the reader would have only to copy the title of the book as well as the reference, and instead of his ticket going to one of our men, who is obliged to look over the Catalogue inside to put the reference, the attendant would go direct with that ticket to the place where the book is, and carry it to the Reading Room immediately. It would be an economy of time for the readers, consequently an economy of time for our men, and consequently a saving of expense in the number of men. But there are other advantages attending this system. Often the readers come to ask for a book which was never printed, or which, if printed, is not in the Library or they write down the title as they have seen it elsewhere, not correctly quoted, and give it to one of the attendants. The attendant begins to look over all the Catalogues, and cannot find the book; he is afraid of being in the wrong; he loses a great deal of time, and the consequence is, that all the readers who have written correct tickets are kept waiting, by the fault of him who has written an incorrect one. By the new system, a person will be obliged to look in the Catalogue in order to put down the reference; he will therefore ascertain whether we have the book or not, and not give us useless trouble, and to the injury of other readers. Having given that reference, if it be wrong, it may be wrong because it is incorrectly put, and then we must answer for it; but if it be the fault of the reader, although I could find the book, I would, on principle, return the ticket, because all the other readers are inconvenienced by the carelessness of this one, and the returning the ticket would be the best mode of ensuring attention. By this means we shall save much time, and remove much of the inconvenience now complained of by the readers."

It was found, however, that some readers, who neglected to comply with these rules, hindered the ready supply of books to those who did comply with them; and when, in 1837, I succeeded Mr. Baber as Keeper of the Printed Books Department, I thought of suggesting printed tickets or formulæ, according to which books were to be asked for by merely filling them up. The following is an exact specimen of these tickets:

+-----------------------------------+-----+--------+------ Press Mark.| Title of the Work wanted. |Size.| Place. | Date. -----------+-----------------------------------+-----+--------+------ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -----------+-----------------------------------+-----+--------+------

(Date) ___________________________ (Signature).

Please to restore each volume of the Catalogue to its place, as soon as done with.

On the reverse it is as follows:

READERS ARE _PARTICULARLY_ REQUESTED

1. Not to ask for more than _one work_ on the same ticket.

2. To transcribe _literally_ from the Catalogues the title of the Work wanted.

3. To write in a plain clear hand, in order to avoid delay and mistakes.

4. Before leaving the Room, to return the books to an attendant, and to obtain the corresponding ticket, the READER BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BOOKS SO LONG AS THE TICKET REMAINS UNCANCELLED.

N.B. Readers are, under no circumstances, to take any Book or MS. out of the Reading Rooms.

Can any one say that to request readers to fill up such a form _correctly_, and to comply with these rules, is giving unnecessary trouble? My suggestion was approved of by Sir H. Ellis,--under whose especial control the management of the Reading Room is placed,--and who, moreover, proposed that the same system should be adopted for MSS.; which was done accordingly with the concurrence of Sir F. Madden, and the sanction of the Trustees. It has continued in operation ever since for both departments; but no attack has been made upon any one but myself for this scheme. The improvement was all but unanimously acknowledged to be very great; and no one rendered more justice to its merits, to the motives which led to its adoption, and to its beneficial results than Sir N. Harris Nicolas, who, having heard that a reader had expressed some dissatisfaction, addressed to me the following letter:

"Torrington Square, 20th October, 1837. "MY DEAR SIR,

"Having heard to-day, with great surprise, that a Reader of the Library of the British Museum had expressed dissatisfaction at the new regulations which you have introduced for obtaining Books, I take the liberty of offering you the opinion of a person who has constantly used the Library for sixteen years, and who, perhaps, is not very likely to be suspected of bestowing indiscriminate or venal praise.

"The great object of a Public Library is _dispatch_ in procuring books. This can only be secured by _perspicuity_ in describing them.

"In my humble judgment, no better mode could possibly be devised for immediately obtaining any particular work, than the printed tickets you have suggested. By specifying the Titles from the Catalogue, and copying from it the _Press-marks_, the applicant can at once identify the particular edition, or copy of an edition, which he requires. The importance of this to a critical student is obvious; and I cannot shew the utility of the _new_ system more forcibly, than by saying that I have often, formerly, been assured that a book was not in the Museum, though I had myself referred to it only a few days before. The requisition to insert the Titles and Press-marks on the tickets is not merely reasonable, but it is indispensible, if the Library is to be conducted with satisfaction to the Public and to the Librarians. If people will not take the trouble to comply with rules, which, so far from being vexatious, are absolutely necessary for their own comfort, they can have no right to complain. The fault is _theirs_ if mistakes or delay ensue; and it is as absurd, as unjust, to impute the effect of their own ignorance or carelessness to the Officers of the Museum.

"The only thing I can suggest about the new tickets is, that the _Press-marks_ should be made more _simple_; but this is so manifest, and is so entirely dependant upon the re-arrangement of the Library, that it would be ridiculous to say another word on the subject.

"As to _dispatch_ in procuring books. Not only does my own experience convince me of the great improvements which have taken place since your last appointment, but such is the opinion of every one whom I have heard speak of the Museum; and I have long had daily opportunities of witnessing your courtesy and earnest desire to render your Department as beneficial as possible to the Public. To point out a defect, or to suggest an improvement, is to secure your attention; and, as a matter of common justice, I anxiously bear testimony to the change which has taken place since your promotion. You have done wonders in a few weeks; and I pray you not to allow the caprice or folly of individuals to affect your exertions.

"Believe me, with great esteem, my dear Sir, very sincerely yours, &c."

This letter stated almost all that could be said in favour of the plan: it seemed to express opinions maturely considered; I was therefore unprepared to hear condemned, as unnecessary and vexatious, (_See_ No. X.) what had been pronounced by the same writer, as not only not vexatious, but absolutely necessary. The plea, that "he usually writes and speaks from the impression of the moment," may as easily be alleged in defence of his present as of his former judgment, and lead people to trust neither. But although that letter sets forth what can be said in favour of the plan which it praises, it touches but slightly on those hindrances, which carelessness or malice can alike produce to defeat its success. Any person, who, from either cause, gives wrong references, who writes illegibly, who misdescribes a book, who misspells the name of an author, who asks for a large number of books at the same moment, who will not take the trouble to deliver his tickets to the proper person, but leaves them about to be lost or mislaid, who has recourse to the pettiest devices to create a grievance for the purpose of complaining of it, such a person will certainly be kept occasionally waiting; and how can it be otherwise? Yet these are the very persons who complain most, avoiding, however, investigation, when they would be proved wrong, and writing anonymously to newspapers, stating truly, it may be, the fact of having been kept waiting, but taking good care to render it impossible to prove that it was by their fault. This is not all: the endeavours made to correct their mistakes and to decipher their handwriting, take much time; and the delay is not unfrequently turned against the officers and servants of the Museum, who are actually found fault with for doing more than they are bound to do. Meanwhile, readers who have done all that is required of them are probably kept waiting; and though they may submit in silence to the inconvenience, they cannot help feeling dissatisfied with what seem to be defects in the management of the Library.

The _justice_ of the complaint which gave rise to the following correspondence, will have been rendered more intelligible by this preliminary information. The facts are as follows:--

On the 18th of May, Sir N. H. Nicolas asked for five works at once. Four out of five of these works were brought to him within half an hour, as he himself states; and on the supposition, that he, in his first letter, had complained of delay, I, in answer, (No. II.) expressed my regret at the occurrence. In letter No. III. Sir Nicholas says, "I did not make any complaint respecting the _four_ books, because I am so accustomed to such a delay, that I consider it a matter of course, though certainly not one of necessity." I quote this passage as it affords the most conclusive proof of the _despatch_ in obtaining books in the Reading Rooms of the British Museum, and of the unreasonableness of such readers as Sir N. H. Nicolas. I assert without fear of contradiction, that, in none of the great public Libraries in the world, equal in extent to that of the British Museum, is one single reader supplied with four out of five works, which he asks for at once, at the rate of seven minutes and a half each work, nor even in double that time. The very fact that Sir N. Harris Nicolas considers such a delay a matter, "not of necessity," proves to what he is reduced for want of solid ground of complaint. I expressed a regret, for which there was no occasion, for peace sake, and because the moment I got Sir N. H. Nicolas's first letter, I suspected, that, an article against the Museum Library in the _Spectator_ of the day before being his, his letter was only a peg for a _querelle d'Allemand_, which I should have been most glad to avoid. With these feelings I wrote letter No. II.

There are in the old printed and "useful" catalogue, from which Sir N. H. Nicolas took what he wrote on his ticket, three distinct works by the same author, the entries of which are as follows:--

BURCHETT (JOSIAH) Memoirs of Transactions at Sea during the War with France; beginning in 1688, and ending 1697. 8^{o} _Lond._ 1703.

(806 _b_)/2-------Mr. Burchett's Justification on his Naval-Memoirs, in answer to Reflections made by Col. Lillingston, or that part which relates to Cape François and Port de Paix. 8^{o} _Lond._ 1704.

581 _i_-----------A Complete History of the most remarkable Transactions at Sea, from the earliest Accounts of Time, to the conclusion of the War with France, fol. _Lond._ 1720.

It appears from Sir N. H. Nicolas's first letter, that the work he wanted was the last; and had he given a ticket somewhat as follows, there is no doubt he would have got the book in five minutes:--

+-------------------------------------+------+-------+----- Press Mark.| Title of the Work wanted. |Size. |Place. |Date. -----------+-------------------------------------+------+-------+----- | | | | |_Burchett (Josiah) A complete history| | | 581 _i_ | of the most remarkable transactions |_fol._|_Lond._|1720. | at Sea, &c._ | | | | | | | -----------+-------------------------------------+------+-------+-----

(Date) _May 18th, 1846._ _N. Harris Nicolas._ (Signature)

Please to restore each volume of the Catalogue to its place, as soon as done with.

Instead of this, he gave a ticket, of which the following is a _fac-simile_:--

Now the attention of those who take an interest in this matter is particularly requested to the following details, every one of them trifling indeed, and yet all springing from the ticket which was given, and more than enough to show the consequences which followed from the carelessness of its writer:--

After having sent into the Reading Room _four_ out of the five books asked for by Sir N. H. Nicolas--which, as he states, took half an hour--and therefore, as nearly as possible, at half-past three, the same attendant went in search of the fifth, marked 581 _i_. He found that 581 _i_ contained only _folios_, and he did not, therefore, and very properly, lose more of his time in looking for an octavo, which was written for; he had lost enough by being sent to a place where what was wanted could not be. In justice to the other readers, as well as to the department, the ticket ought to have been at once returned to Sir N. H. Nicolas, marked "wrong," in order that he might have corrected his own mistakes. If a reader's mistakes are to be corrected by the attendants, all the evils arising from the old system, as described in my evidence before the House of Commons, are increased; for in addition to the loss of time in finding what a reader wants, there is the previous and additional loss caused by the error of the applicant, in directing an attendant to look for a work where it could not be. This loss of time proves injurious chiefly to the other readers; and it is "for their own comfort" that readers are requested to comply with the rules, without causing an attendant to waste the public time to discover what an individual applicant may want, which no one can know so well as the applicant himself.

The attendant, however, being newly appointed, and being anxious to serve Sir N. H. Nicolas, set about trying to find what was wanted. The first difficulty which presented itself was to make out the ticket, so badly written as almost to defy the eye of a man unaccustomed to the hand. A consultation was held with another attendant (and thus the loss of time of another man added to the former) and the name _Burchett_ being made out, the Catalogue was referred to, and the three entries found as already transcribed. The ticket, let it be remembered, contained only the words "Burchett's History of Transactions at Sea, 8^{o}. fvr 1704," without saying for what period. The first of the three entries began with the words "Memoirs of Transactions at Sea," and related to an 8vo. printed at London in 1703; _Memoirs_ and _History_ are not the same words; yet, as a mistake had occurred, might this not be the book, the date, 1703, being so near to 1704? The second entry was to be sure, of an 8vo. printed at London, in 1704; but then it was not a History of Transactions at Sea; the third entry, besides being a History not of Transactions at Sea, like the _Memoirs_, but only of the most remarkable ones, was a folio, not an 8vo. and printed in 1720, not 1704: It stood, however, in 581 _i_. In doubt which was the book wanted, the attendant not unnaturally supposed it might be the first; but then the entry had no Press-mark which could enable him to ascertain the fact by looking at the book itself: this led him to make a third attendant likewise lose some time to examine into the circumstances; who, knowing more of the Library, (having been longer in it) perceived that this entry was unmarked, because the volume to which it referred had been sold as duplicate of one in the Royal Library, where the preserved copy would be found. The first attendant then transferred the ticket to a fourth well acquainted with the Royal Collection; and this fourth attendant, after all proper enquiries, came to the correct conclusion, that the "Memoirs" were not wanted; but, as he could not say which work was, he returned the ticket to the attendant from whom he had received it. Now there was yet a chance of making out the meaning of the writer of that ticket, and that was to examine the identical copy of the volume of the Catalogue kept in the Reading Room, from which the ticket ought to have been copied, and to see whether all this trouble was caused by an error in it, which might have misled Sir N. H. Nicolas. To ascertain this the attendant went to examine that volume, but with no better result, and he was still unable to discover where the error lay.