to return to the british museum and the royal commission of 1847-49—which differed widely from the committee of 1835-36. before both parliamentary committee and royal commission, the institution was on its trial, but the points of attack were different. in 1835, the natural history departments engrossed the principal attention, while the library escaped with comparatively slight notice, for although its deficiencies were not less conspicuous than those of the natural history department, the public standard of completeness in the library was low. panizzi had been keeper eleven out of the twelve years. there could hardly have been a better proof of his administration than the elevated ideal of a public library which it had produced. he was tried by a standard of his own, which but for him would have had no existence. many silent in 1836 were now clamorous for the realization of an ideal which they owed to him, and the severity of their attacks was in truth the best testimony to his desert.
256it soon appeared that panizzi would be the lion of the day, and that the proceedings of the commission would be chiefly important as they might result in confirming or weakening his position with the public. it was believed, indeed, that the dissatisfaction of scientific men with the preponderance of literature in the governing body had much to do with the appointment of the commission; and the ostensible cause was undoubtedly a memorial addressed by many persons of high eminence in science to the prime minister on march 10th, 1847. the centre of gravity, nevertheless, shifted very quickly. the proceedings of the commission, as regarded the library, were interesting from beginning to end; elsewhere, though much that was curious and amusing came to light, it would hardly be thought that a nodus tali dignus vindice had been shown to exist. if such there were, it was in the secretary’s office, where irregularities were admitted requiring correction, and involving the examination of the whole anomalous system by which, in a measure since 1828, and more particularly since the committee of 1835, the secretary had been allowed to usurp the functions of the principal librarian. everywhere else the subjects calling for inquiry were comparatively slight, such as misunderstandings between sir c. fellows and sir r. westmacott respecting the arrangement of the xanthian marbles, or disagreements between dr. gray and mr. k?nig respecting the rightful custody of the gilbertson fossils and the boundaries of zoology and pal?ontology in general. the library was the real field of contention, and matters 257relating to it occupy more than one half of the bulky tome in which the evidence and recommendations of the committee were finally embodied (1850).
the commission was originally appointed on june 17th, 1847, but was only enabled to hold three sittings during the expiring session of that year.
it reassembled in 1848, amid the storms of continental revolution which inevitably occupied much of the time and thoughts of its members; and it was soon discovered, both that its numbers were too limited, and that the quorum required by the royal letters of appointment was too large to insure the indispensable regularity of attendance. it having on one occasion proved impossible to obtain a sufficient attendance, the original commission was revoked, and a new one issued, increasing the number of commissioners from eleven to fourteen, and reducing the number necessary for despatch of business from five to three (may 5, 1848).
the commission, as thus finally constituted, was a very strong one, presided over by so accomplished a man of letters as lord ellesmere, and including, among its more active members lord seymour (the present duke of somerset), lord canning, sir r. murchison, and the lord advocate, mr. andrew rutherfurd. mr. john payne collier, at that time librarian to the duke of devonshire, officiated as secretary.
the first attention of the commissioners was naturally directed to the principal librarian’s and secretary’s offices, and their inquiry soon brought out the extent to which the functions of the former had come to be 258discharged by the latter. “he has risen,” said the report, “to be the most important officer in the establishment, though without that responsibility which attached to the principal librarian and the heads of departments.” the importance which the commissioners rightly ascribed to this officer entirely depended upon his preparation of the agenda to be submitted to the trustees, and his habitual attendance at their meetings. the duties of his office were in other respects so light, although they had been represented to require the assistance of a subordinate, who had actually been appointed (mr. fitzgerald, subsequently prime minister in new zealand), that when mr. forshall was attacked with serious illness, during the sittings of the commissioners, sir henry ellis found himself able to discharge all the duties of the secretary in addition to his own. of an endeavour which had been made to find the secretary occupation in keeping a register of acquisitions, the commissioners were obliged to report that this document, as prepared in his office, was “not only of no practical use, but in some cases destructive of responsibility.”
under these circumstances, the commissioners very quickly came to the conclusion that the false step made in 1837 must be retraced, and the offices of principal librarian and secretary amalgamated—a decision so obviously sound that it must probably have been carried into effect, even if, shortly after the close of their deliberations, mr. forshall’s infirmities had not rendered his retirement absolutely inevitable.
the administration of the secretary’s office had a strong bearing upon the questions relating to the 259department of printed books of which the commissioners had to take cognizance. nothing had more strongly excited public animadversion than the delay in the preparation of the new printed catalogue. the trustees, as was supposed, had directed that it should be complete in print by the end of 1844. the year 1848 had now come, and it had not progressed, even in manuscript, beyond letter d. one volume, containing letter a (or part of it), had been printed in 1841, and there were no symptoms of a successor. panizzi was able to show convincingly how contradictory were the instructions which the inexplicable carelessness of the executive department had allowed to be attributed to the trustees. in the manuscript copy of their minute of july 13, 1839, the application of the rules of cataloguing was left to his discretion. in the copy subsequently printed by direction of the trustees, this discretion was limited to titles already prepared. in the former he was ordered to have the catalogue ready in press by december, 1844. in the latter he was told that it must be ready for press. the latter, it would appear, was what the trustees really intended; but no intimation of their wishes having been conveyed to panizzi, time, labour, and money had been wasted in printing an imperfect volume, which, it now appeared, need not have been printed at all; whilst the supposed necessity for an alphabetical method of cataloguing had prevented recourse to the much more expeditious plan of taking the books shelf by shelf. it further appeared that this unfortunate minute need not necessarily have been final. an opportunity for remonstrance had been 260expressly reserved, but the portion of the document referring to this point having been kept from panizzi’s knowledge, no action could be taken, so that the trustees and their officer were committed to an impracticable undertaking. the commissioners determined that “any delay which could have been avoided was mainly ascribable to the desire of the trustees to hurry on printing.”
a still more important question was whether the catalogue ought to be printed at all. the opinion of the literary witnesses unconnected with the museum was naturally strongly in favour of a printed catalogue. the opinion of panizzi may be gathered from the verbal replies he had already given to questions put to him by the library committee of the trustees on march 6th, 1847.
“the catalogue might be completed by the end of 1854 of all the books which the museum will contain up to that period. it would take to 1860 to prepare such catalogue in such a state of revision as might be fit for the press. it would occupy seventy volumes. it would require one year to correct the press of two volumes. it would, therefore, require thirty-five years to pass the catalogue through the press, and, when completed in 1895, it would represent the state of the library in 1854.”
this estimate could not be impeached if its basis were admitted—namely, that the system already adopted in framing the catalogue was to be adhered to. many men of letters, however, thought that the plan of the catalogue might be contracted with advantage, but found it difficult to answer the argument that the work already done must, in that case, be thrown away. mr. j. payne collier, the secretary 261to the commission, apparently thought this sacrifice immaterial. he had convinced himself that by short entries, and a disregard of minor niceties, the rate of cataloguing could be accelerated fourfold, and was, perhaps, justified in considering that if so, the abandonment of all that had been effected would be a measure of economy. unluckily for mr. collier, he did not, like panizzi’s other antagonists, confine himself to abstract propositions, but rashly exhibited himself in the light of an amateur cataloguer. he catalogued twenty-five books in his own library, and placed the titles in the hands of panizzi, who transferred them for examination to his principal assistant, mr. winter jones. “they contain,” said mr. jones, “almost every possible error which can be committed in cataloguing books, and are open to almost every possible objection which can be brought against concise titles.”
as mr. collier had entered a play of aristophanes under mitchell, and the works of shakespeare under schlegel, as he had put an anonymous english book under a writer to whom it was only attributed conjecturally, and had catalogued a collection of plays in such a manner as to suggest that it was a history of the drama, the justice of mr. jones’ characterization could not be disputed. the commissioners were, doubtless, justified in the unexpressed conclusion at which they evidently arrived, that such blunders, committed by a man of mr. collier’s attainments, must be attributable to the fundamental errors of his system. mr. j. bruce, mr. g. l. craik, and other advocates of hasty work and concise catalogues, would have 262fared no better at the hands of mr. winter jones. one of them, indeed, mr. j. g. cochrane, of the london library, had actually produced a catalogue, the unscientific character of which was pungently exposed by professor de morgan, by far the most bibliographically competent of all the witnesses, and whose profound acquaintance with early mathematical literature enabled him to demonstrate what research, accuracy, and scholarship, the correct description of such literature demands. another valuable witness was mr. john wilson croker, whose evidence was in general full of good sense, and who brought forward the scheme (already independently suggested by mr. e. roy of the library) for keeping up the catalogue on movable slips pasted on the leaf, and thus admitting of displacement when it became necessary to insert new matter. this plan was subsequently adopted, and proved adequate for all practical purposes until recently, when, from the enormous bulk of the manuscript catalogue, printing has been adopted.
several other matters of great, though minor, importance were the subject of detailed explanation on the part of panizzi. he had to rebut the frequent complaints made on account of deficiencies in the library. these proved to be utterly unfounded in almost every specific instance alleged, with the sole exception of the english books which had not been duly delivered under the copyright-act, the enforcement of which was at that time, as we shall hereafter fully discuss, no part of the keeper’s duty, and had been performed with little zeal by the secretary. 263as regarded the unquestionable deficiencies of the library in foreign literature, no one, it was admitted, had exposed them so energetically as panizzi himself in the celebrated report of 1845, to which reference has already been made. he had done more than point them out; by personal influence he had obtained the grant of ￡10,000 per annum towards making them good. not the least interesting portion of his evidence related to the measures adopted to this end in concert with intelligent booksellers, such as asher and stevens. the grenville library, however, had been by far the most brilliant acquisition of his keepership; and this, as we shall soon show, was wholly due to his private influence with mr. grenville. his prescience of the ultimate destination of this magnificent collection accounted for his apparent neglect of several opportunities of acquiring books, for which he had silently submitted to censure. there was nothing in which panizzi’s practical good sense was more apparent than in the improvements introduced by him into binding, whether as regards economy or durability. the books bound before his time are in very many instances tumbling to pieces, and not from use, while not a single book bound under his direction has required rebinding, except from excessive wear and tear.
on the whole, it may be confidently affirmed that no public officer whose conduct had been subjected to scrutiny ever established a more triumphant justification than panizzi, and that investigation has seldom brought to light more creditable facts, previously unknown, 264or not properly appreciated. his detractors were covered with confusion, and he appeared to the world as the one man in the museum endowed with signal administrative talent, and as qualified, above all other men, to be at the head of the institution. the commissioners did not say this in so many words, but their opinion was no mystery, and their report, in so far as the library was concerned, was in general but the echo or endorsement of panizzi’s views.
one most important recommendation they made, which unfortunately was not acted upon—viz., the provision of means for the compilation of an index of subjects to the catalogue, to proceed pari passu with the alphabetical titles of the latter. this would have doubled the value of the catalogue; but thirty years have passed, and the catalogue is still destitute of this inestimable auxiliary. the suggestion may still be carried into effect at any moment, as regards accessions for the future; but the lost ground will be regained with difficulty.
of many other questions raised, the only really important one, outside the printed book department, related to the secretary’s office, and here the commissioners’ purpose was firm, and the reform they proposed radical. the post of secretary, as distinct from that of principal librarian, was to be abolished altogether. this return to the ancient practice of the museum had the advocacy of one of the most accomplished and influential of the trustees, mr. w. r. hamilton; and the indisposition of mr. forshall soon rendered it necessary, as well as expedient, to carry it into effect. from that hour panizzi was the real ruler of the british museum.
265it may be remarked that the trustees and their officers alike appeared in a much more advantageous light than before the parliamentary committee of 1835. the inquiries of that committee had borne fruit. the duties of the officers were understood and discharged in a far more liberal spirit, and the board of trustees had profited largely from the disposition to elect its members out of regard to literary and scientific eminence or proved administrative ability rather than mere rank.
this tendency, happily for the museum, has gone on increasing to the present day.
we may now proceed to treat of that acquisition of the grenville library which so greatly affected the fortunes of the british museum, and for which panizzi has mainly to be thanked. for this a new chapter seems to be required.
266
chapter ix
mr. thomas grenville; his bequest; portrait by manzini; chartist demonstration; copyright act; mr. bohn.
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 267such 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 268ellesmere, 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.
269the 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. 270i 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 271kept 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 272well 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 273here 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 274mr. 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 275after 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 276by 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.
277the 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 278to 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.”
279
“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.
280the 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.
281the 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, 282and 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 dep?t 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. k?nig’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 283montagu 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 284would-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 prima facie 285that 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. 286but, 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.
287in 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 288well 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 289exposed 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 290summonses 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 291the 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.
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 292made 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 293publicity—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.
