Part 2

Whilst all this was going on, Sir N. H. Nicolas complained once and only once to Scott the attendant, who did not tell him that he had corrected a wrong Press-mark given for the book, as stated, nor that "he had often applied for it." To Mr. Grabham and to Scott Sir N. H. Nicolas pointed out in the Catalogue the book he wanted. Scott went into the Library, found the attendant, assisted by another, still endeavouring to discover the book, and on the entry being pointed out by Scott, as it had been to him by Sir Nicholas, the attendant went with the Catalogue in his hand to show to this gentleman whence the delay arose, and to express _his great sorrow_ that Sir Nicholas should have been kept waiting: He, moreover, told Sir Nicholas that he should now have the book in five minutes. Sir N. H. Nicolas did not, however, seem satisfied, and allowed the attendant to have the additional trouble of finding the book in a hurry; yet, as soon as he had heard that it would be forthcoming in five minutes, Sir Nicholas _left the room_, without waiting the few minutes requisite to find it, and went away; most fortunately leaving behind him the ticket, which enables me to show the real state of the case. And he complains of having been kept waiting an hour and a half for one book! The fact is, he was kept waiting one hour--for during the first half hour he had got four other books--and who can wonder at it? And who has more right to complain, the reader of the officers, or the officers of the reader? The only reader who had a right to complain, _but who did not_, although he considered the delay _unusual_, was Mr. Fairholt, who wanted to look at a work merely to correct a proof sheet which he had brought with him, and who had asked for it very correctly, but who could not obtain it for more than half an hour, whilst the time of six persons was more or less wasted on Sir N. Harris Nicolas, who complains of the attendant, after not only a good explanation but a respectful apology, and who, moreover, ventures to assert in his Correspondence (See Letter No. X) that I justify the attendant "in refusing the book," whereas nothing can be clearer than that the attendants, one and all, far from refusing any book, did all they could, and more than they were bound, to find it, and that Sir Nicholas was fully aware of this, when he wrote that letter.

If any one among those who act under my direction, fails in his duty, I never shall hesitate in taking proper notice of it; but I will never allow any of them, whatever be his station, to be unjustly accused without defending him. When I answered Sir N. Harris Nicolas's first letter, I very briefly stated only such facts as proved the injustice of his accusation, without giving any opinion whatever: the reasons for my moderation have been given. This moderation did not avail me much. Sir N. H. Nicolas was not only dissatisfied with my letter, but, in his reply, (No. III.) he shifted his ground, and complained of "the difficulties and delay arising from the present regulations, and the state of the Catalogues." If the difficulties and delay arise from the regulations, then his complaint of neglect against the attendant was a most ungenerous proceeding; and if he thought this complaint well grounded, he would not complain of the system. As he talked of the attention of the Trustees being called to this subject, I begged of him (No. IV. and V.) to prove what he had asserted--the truth of the habitual delay, and its cause. He declined the offer (which a man, convinced of the veracity of his statements, would have willingly accepted) and wrote in a much lower tone. (No. VI.) I again called on him to specify his charges, (No. VII.) and told him that his unfavourable opinions must be "of a _recent_ date." He denied this, carefully avoiding entering into any particulars, but went on with generalities, (No. VIII.) except as to "Press-marks, &c." which he declared to be the source of delay. In answer to this _recent_ accusation, I employed the very arguments and words which he himself had long before used in praise of this very system and arrangement. (No. IX.) His own words and arguments made him still more dissatisfied, and he vehemently condemned them. (No. X.) Upon which I sent him, enclosed in No. XI. a copy of his own letter of the 20th of October, 1837; and, as he had been taunting me with what he had printed and meant to print against me, I called on him to print along with it this letter. This he declined to do, (No. XII.) though, in the _Spectator_ of the 30th of May, he continued his attacks--not without some awkwardness, however, now that he knew the proof I had of what he had so indignantly denied, the _recent_ date of his unfavourable opinions.

In the course of the Correspondence, Sir N. H. Nicolas endeavoured to drag me into a controversy about Catalogues, and a variety of other points connected with the Library. I did not feel disposed to enter into a profitless discussion with such an adversary. In the _Spectator_, too, he has indulged in making assertions, and passing sentence on every thing which he assumes that I have ever done, or now do. I shall not defend myself, except before a competent judge. Whenever an inquiry, which I have courted, (Letters No. IV. and V.) and still court, and from which Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas has shrunk, and will shrink, shall take place, either before the Trustees, or before any "higher authority" whatever, I will prove, what I stated in my Letter No. XI., that no reliance can be placed on his opinions and assertions. I shall take no further notice, either of anything that Sir N. Harris Nicolas may say, or of any anonymous attack whatsoever. A. PANIZZI. BRITISH MUSEUM, _June 5th, 1846_.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SIR NICHOLAS H. NICOLAS AND MR. PANIZZI.

No. I. _Sir N. H. Nicolas to Mr. Panizzi._

Torrington Square, 18th May, 1846. MY DEAR SIR,

I beg leave to acquaint you with what occurred to me to-day in the Reading Room of the British Museum, thinking it a proper subject of complaint.

At a few minutes after three o'clock, I wrote, according to the present forms, for _five_ books. After half an hour four of them were brought me. The fifth, viz. "Burchett's complete History of Transactions at Sea," not having appeared, I spoke twice to Mr. Scott, who assured me that he had often applied for it, and that on his last application he was told that I had given a wrong Press-mark, which he had corrected. I denied that I had given a wrong Press-mark. At _half-past four_ I again asked for the book; and a strong observation having caused the gentleman who succeeded Mr. Cates to attend to the matter, he ascertained that I had given both the Title and the Press-mark _correctly_. A person then came to me from the Library. His first excuse was, that though the Press-mark and the Title were correctly given, I had erroneously quoted the date! This was true; but I submit that when a Press-mark, and a Title are correctly stated, the book ought to be forthcoming; or, at all events, that some explanation should be afforded _before an hour and a half_. I told him so; and his excuse then was, that _he_ had _only_ had my ticket _half an hour_, and that he had sent me FOUR books! How far this may be a justification it is for you to judge; and I leave the facts without comment for your consideration,

I remain, &c.

I ought to add, that the person's manner was _not_ disrespectful.

No. II. _Mr. Panizzi to Sir N. H. Nicolas._

British Museum, May 19th, 1846. MY DEAR SIR,

I hasten to answer your letter of yesterday's date, which I have this moment received.

With reference to the delay of which you complain in the delivery of four out of five of the works you asked, it is now impossible for me to find on whom the fault rests. Had you informed me of the delay at the moment, I might have been more successful. The attendant who sent those four works to the Reading Room has not been here long; and may, therefore, have been less prompt in finding them than a more experienced hand might have been, and I regret it.

As to the fifth book, it appears from your letter that you required a folio printed at London in 1720. You have, however, given on the ticket the size as 8vo. the place as "fvr," which, may be, is meant for London, and the date 1704. There is in the catalogue a work of Burchett different from the one you wanted, and immediately preceding it, "8vo. Lond. 1704." You mistook this part of the entry of what you did _not_ want, and applied it to what you did.

Should you not deem this answer satisfactory, I will thank you by your informing me of it, that I may lay your complaint before the Trustees.

Believe me, &c.

No. III. _Sir N. H. Nicolas to Mr. Panizzi._

Torrington Square, 19th May, 1846. MY DEAR SIR,

In reply to your letter I beg leave to say, that your explanation is wholly unsatisfactory to me.

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.

With respect to the _fifth_ book, I am of opinion that the _title only_ ought to be--as it would have been in the time of your predecessors--sufficient. I did however give, and correctly, the _Press-mark_, and there is no other book in the English language with that title. It is idle to pretend that, because a mistake was made as to its size and date, which, in the instance of a work of which there is only _one_ edition, cannot be necessary, and ought not to be required, there was any difficulty in finding the volume.

If there had really been any doubt as to the work I required, why was not the question asked me, or _both_ books brought? whereas no notice whatever was taken of my application for _an hour and a half_, and then only because I insisted upon its being attended to.

You seem to think that I should have informed you of the delay in bringing the _four_ books. I rejoice that I did not waste my time in such a manner; for now, when I do complain of a flagrant act of neglect, you think fit to justify it, by imputing it to myself, in not having given correctly that which ought not to be required. My next complaint shall be to the Trustees themselves.

I pray of you to use your own discretion about submitting this correspondence to the Trustees. It is the less material to me whether you do or do not do so, inasmuch as I am perfectly sure that their attention must very shortly be called by the Public or by the Government to the difficulties and delay, arising from the present regulations and the state of the Catalogues, in obtaining printed books.

Believe me, &c.

No. IV. _Mr. Panizzi to Sir N. H. Nicolas._

May 20th, 1846. MY DEAR SIR,

Your letter of the 19th, as well as my answer and your reply of yesterday, shall be laid before the Trustees.

No one will rejoice more than myself at a thorough investigation of any part of my conduct, brought on by avowed and specific complaints in an open and straightforward manner.

Believe me, &c.

No. V. _The same to the same._

May 22nd, 1846. MY DEAR SIR

The Trustees meet to-morrow (Saturday, May 23rd) at one o'clock, p.m. Our correspondence shall be submitted to them, simply with a request on my part that they be pleased to inquire into all the circumstances to which it refers. I shall consider it a favour if you will bring before them all the charges you have to make against me, and be ready to substantiate them.

Believe me, &c.

No. VI. _Sir N. H. Nicolas to Mr. Panizzi._

Torrington Square, May 22nd, 1846. MY DEAR SIR,

When my letters to you (including, if you please, the present one) are submitted to the Trustees, they will learn that in my opinion a great change is necessary in the regulations of the Reading Room, and I beg leave to assure you that I am perfectly ready to avow and maintain to the Trustees everything which I may have at any time, or in any place said or written on the subject, should they think proper to ask me to do so.

It may assuredly be permitted to me, as one of the Public, to complain to the Head of any department of neglect in that department, and even to consider (as I most certainly do with respect to yours) that many of its proceedings, however well intended, are detrimental to the Public, and require to be altered, without being told that I am "bringing charges" against you, which I am invited to "substantiate," as if I were accusing you of misconduct.

Believe me, &c.

No. VII. _Mr. Panizzi to Sir N. H. Nicolas._

May 23rd, 1846. MY DEAR SIR,

Notwithstanding the concluding part of your letter of yesterday, which shall be submitted to the Trustees with the rest of our correspondence, I think that to find fault with my Department implies a charge against myself; still more so, as in your second letter you began by declaring--that my first was, "wholly unsatisfactory,"--that in the time of my predecessors things were better managed, by their requiring only the Title of the books wanted by readers, and no Press-mark,--that "your next complaint" should be to the Trustees themselves; and concluded by stating that their attention "must shortly be called by the Public, or by Government, to the difficulties and delay arising from the present regulations and state of the catalogues, in obtaining printed books."

These are certainly charges, and I naturally expected you would do me the favour to bring them before the Trustees, so that I might have an opportunity of proving them groundless.

I am glad that you now give me credit for good intentions; but as you still consider that "many of my proceedings are detrimental to the Public, and require to be altered," I shall feel obliged by your informing me what are the proceedings to which you allude: I presume that your unfavourable opinion of them is of a _recent_ date.

Believe me, &c.

No. VIII. _Sir N. H. Nicolas to Mr. Panizzi._

Torrington Square, 24 May, 1846. MY DEAR SIR,

I am favoured with your letter of yesterday. As you have referred our correspondence to the Trustees, and as my letters advert to those arrangements in your Department, which I consider detrimental to the Public, it is possible that I may be requested by the Trustees to state my objections more fully, when you will have an opportunity of answering them. If, however, the Trustees do not do so, you may be assured that you shall have ample information on the subject.

To enter into a personal discussion with a gentleman who is so perfectly satisfied of the propriety of his own measures, as to invite it, only that he may prove my objections to them "groundless;" and who, when complained to of a flagrant act of neglect in his Department, thought proper to justify it,--would manifestly be an utter waste of time. There must be an appeal to a higher authority: and which is the more necessary because you may not be answerable for all, though you certainly are for much, of what seems to be improper in your Department.

You are mistaken in supposing that my unfavourable opinion on those points is of a "_recent_ date." My sentiments respecting "Press-marks," &c. have long been entertained and expressed. I have also long thought that the delay in completing the catalogue was unjustifiable; but not having carefully examined its plan until a few weeks ago, or been acquainted with your last reports, I was not aware of its imperfections until lately.

It is candid to acquaint you that the opinions which I entertain about "Press-marks," and the delay in obtaining printed books are shared by every literary man to whom I have spoken; that no one can account for the delay in completing the catalogue; and that none approve of its plan. The general feeling appears to be similar to my own,--namely, that the effect of the system you have introduced is to keep all the _working_ part of literary men out of the Library until they are _actually compelled to refer to it_.

You must admit that this question is one of deep interest to literature: and as I do not imagine that you _desire_ or _intend_ to produce such results, I may, without any personal offence, presume to think that you have made some serious mistakes.

Believe me, &c.

No. IX. _Mr. Panizzi to Sir N. H. Nicolas._

British Museum, May 25th, 1846. MY DEAR SIR,

I have to acknowledge your letter of yesterday, and as, do what I may, I cannot prevail upon you to reduce to a definite and tangible shape the vague and serious charges which you have volunteered against me, I must have patience, and wait till you bring them before the "higher authority" of which you speak; when, as you foresee, I may show that I am "not answerable for all," though you, with characteristic fairness, have begun by supposing that I was.

The only one of your charges, about which you venture to come to something like particulars,--that relating to the Press-marks, &c.--I cannot avoid showing to be utterly "groundless;" and I am confident that you will agree with me in spite of your unfavourable opinion, which I persist in thinking "of a recent date."

"The great object of a Public library is despatch 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 obtaining any particular work than the printed tickets which I suggested in 1837, and which are now in use. 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 show the utility of the new system more forcibly than by appealing to your own experience, which will bear me out in saying that readers have often--before the introduction of those tickets--been assured that a book was not in the Museum, though they had themselves 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 it is unjust to impute the effect of their own ignorance or carelessness to the Officers of the Museum."[A]

I thank you for your candour in acquainting me, "that the opinion which you entertain about Press-marks and the delay in obtaining printed books is shared by every literary man to whom you have spoken." To be as candid with you, I beg to say that the experience of every one who has been heard speak of the Museum has convinced him of the great improvements which have taken place since my last appointment. I now beg that you will do me the favour to give me your authority for your assertion; I shall be most happy to give you mine, for one so directly at variance with yours. I am, &c.

No. X. _Sir N. H. Nicolas to Mr. Panizzi._

Torrington Square, 26th May, 1846. MY DEAR SIR,

The sooner a correspondence with a gentleman who will not understand what would be perfectly intelligible to every body else, who perverts the obvious meaning of courteous expressions, who affects to disbelieve a distinct assurance, and who ventures to accuse another of "unfairness," adding that it is "characteristic," is concluded, the better.

All which I have yet said of your proceedings as Keeper of the Printed Books, is, as I have no doubt you are aware, before the Public; and I only wait until my comments are finished to send you a copy of them "_from the Author_." You will find that in my opinion,

1. You have introduced regulations into the Library which are vexatious and unnecessary, and impede research by preventing literary men from consulting the Books with facility and comfort.

2. That the new Catalogue is improperly delayed; and that its plan is injudicious, if not impracticable, and therefore that the money spent on its compilation is wasted.

With respect to "_Press-marks_" my objection is, as you cannot but know, not to their being inserted in the Catalogue, to be used if a Reader desires to identify a particular copy of a book, but _to your insisting, as a sine quâ non_ to the delivery of any book whatever,--no matter how well known it may be--that the applicant shall refer to the Catalogue, _and fill up five columns_ "LITERALLY," including the "Press-mark." I say this is vexatious and unnecessary. In one hundred out of one hundred and five cases, the Title itself, written from memory, ought to be, as (I repeat it) it was in the time of your predecessors, sufficient. If a particular edition is wanted, the applicant will not fail to specify it. If he has a doubt as to the title or edition, he will then refer to the Catalogue. But in my case, when I had copied both the Title and the Press-mark, I could not obtain the book, and you justify the neglect.

I entirely deny that your system causes a quicker delivery of books. On the contrary, I declare from experience that the delay is now much greater than it was before you introduced your scheme. A Reader is still, sometimes, told that a book is not in the Library, though he may have used it only a few days before. Perhaps you may not have forgotten the Index to the Despatches of the Duke of Wellington, which you insisted with "characteristic" gentleness, was not in the Library, though I over and over again told you I had had it in my hands within a week.--I persisted, and the book was brought to me in ten minutes after your vehement assurances that it was not in the Museum! So much for the working of your system.[B]

You say the fault in these cases is the applicant's, for not complying with all your regulations; and you coolly talk of their imputing "the effect of their own ignorance or carelessness to the Officers of the Museum." I answer, that the Officers of the Museum have no right to impose regulations which are vexatious and unnecessary; which give useless trouble, and cause great loss of time. The applicants may almost as reasonably be expected to copy the whole of the first and last pages of books, as what you require; and because an _unimportant_ mistake is made as to the date and size of a book, of which there is only one edition, and no similar Title in the English language, the salaried Officer of the Institution refuses, or rather justifies his subordinate in refusing the book, and thinks it decorous and proper to taunt him with "ignorance or carelessness."

There is nothing so attractive in this controversy as to induce me to bring others into it; and if you do not choose to believe my assertion, I cannot help it. I have not presumed to doubt anything you have said, nor to impute improper motives to your conduct. But courtesy is a matter of feeling, and I have no right to expect you to imitate me.