“Mon cher Ami,
Voilà plus de huit ou dix jours que je cherche un moment pour vous écrire sans parvenir à le trouver. Nous avons eu de telles affaires depuis nos dernières communications, que le temps m’a toujours manqué. Vous n’avez pas idée des scènes qui ont précédé le 13 Juin. La violence des montagnards dépassait tout ce qu’on peut imaginer. Je les ai pris corps à corps dans la personne de Ledru-Rollin, et c’est entre deux huissiers gardant la tribune que j’ai pu parler. Poussés au pied du mur dans l’Assemblée, ils ont le lendemain tenté leur folle insurrection, et ils se sont heureusement perdus. Aujourd’hui nous sommes certains (pour assez longtemps) de la tranquillité matérielle. Le désordre ne peut pas l’emporter sur la force. C’est une grande conquête; mais il faut assurer par les lois notre avenir. C’est là une besogne des plus difficiles et des plus épineuses. Notre Constitution est absurde, nos lois électorales désastreuses; heureusement nous avons une bonne et sage majorité, qui est disposée à se très-bien conduire. Il y a donc des moyens de salut à travers beaucoup de chances de pertes. En définitive, nous avons beaucoup gagné, et je crois que d’ici à quelque temps nous n’agiterons plus l’Europe. C’est quelque chose de pouvoir dire d’un malade qui vous est cher, qu’il y a chez lui un mieux sensible.
Parlons de nos projets.
Malgré ce scélérat, ce montagnard, ce jésuite, ce rouge de Panizzi, nous voulons partir en Juillet et être à Londres du 15 au 20. Nous y passerons deux ou trois jours, après quoi nous partirons pour l’Ecosse. Notre motif c’est de ne pas avoir la pluie, qui est odieuse partout, mais surtout dans le Nord. Nous voulons voyager très-simplement, pour ne pas épuiser notre bourse modeste; mais cependant, ces dames ne peuvent se passer de deux femmes de chambre, et moi d’un valet de chambre: ce qui fait trois domestiques. Quant aux toilettes, le deuil nous dispense d’en porter beaucoup, sans quoi Mme. Thiers me donnerait des soucis à cet égard.
Mais il faut, que ce projet vous convienne et réponde à vos combinaisons personnelles. Si vous n’étiez pas disposé à alle, dans votre domaine d’Ecosse à cette époque, du 20 juillet au 10 août, il ne faudrait pas vous déranger et nous le dire franchement. Agissez avec nous en toute liberté. Il faut qu’il soit bien entendu que si vous ne pouvez pas aller dans votre cottage écossais, vous nous le disiez à l’avance, et que vous ne changiez pour nous aucun de vos projets.
The remaining letters of Thiers to Panizzi, quoted below, are of less importance, and briefer than those which enter into their correspondence on the great Spanish question; they chiefly consist of miscellaneous matter, although politics have still a fair share of space. We propose to place before the reader merely those which touch upon personal and domestic relations:—
“Mon cher Panizzi, dites-moi si vous pourriez vous charger de la commission suivante.
On va vendre à Londres, en vente publique, une collection d’une vingtaine de tableaux, fort beaux, et recueillis en Italie par un Anglais trés bon connaisseur
Dévoré de la fatale passion des tableaux, j’en voudrais acheter deux ou trois.
Allez-vous quelquefois dans les ventes publiques, ainsi que nous le faisons à Paris?
Voudriez-vous acheter ces deux ou trois tableaux, pour mon compte?
Je vous dirais les prix, qui peuvent monter à deux ou trois mille francs en tout, et que vous tirerez sur moi par les Rothschild. C’est dans les premiers jours de Juin que la vente a lieu. Dans le cas où vous me diriez oui, je vous enverrais les indications, c’est-à-dire le catalogue anglais, avec le numéro des tableaux que je désire.
Nous venons de renvoyer trois ministres, pour apaiser la Chambre qui n’est pas apaisée. Je crois, sauf la décision souveraine des événements, que le ministère Guizot tire à sa fin. Mille amitiés.
“Mille pardons, mon cher Panizzi, de toutes vos peines. J’attends mes trois tableaux avec impatience. Les Rothschild sont ce que vous dites. Mes trois mille francs, avec l’appoint, sont prêts pour payer votre traite. Adieu, et mille tendresses. Je vous aime vous savez combien.
“Mon cher Panizzi,
J’ai reçu mes trois tableaux en bon état, sauf le cadre du Murillo, légèrement endommagé. Les trois sont bien ceux que j’avais désignés. Je soutiens qu’ils sont ravissants, car j’ai la prétention de m’y connaître, et de plus, très-peu chers. Le Peternof est le plus parfait de ce maître. J’attends toujours votre traite pour la solder. Je ne l’ai pas encore reçue. M. L *** est un malhonnête. Les rois de l’argent sont ainsi faits. Je voudrais bien vous aller voir cet été, voir Ellice et tutti quanti, mais je n’ai pas un moment à moi. Il faut que j’aille voir mes électeurs, que je n’ai pas visités depuis des années, que je traite trop cavalièrement, et qui commencent à me bouder. Il faut, en outre, que j’aille accompagner Mme. Thiers aux Pyrénées. Tout cela ne me laissera pas le temps de respirer. Ce n’est pas tout: j’ai deux volumes d’histoire à terminer! Voilà tous mes esclavages! Plaignez-moi, et prenez en pitié la destinée humaine. Je souris quand on parle liberté. Nous sommes esclaves de mille lois, sans compter les lois physiques qui nous font graviter vers le centre de la terre comme des pierres, qui nous empêchent de voler comme des oiseaux, nager comme des poissons, en nous réduisant, pour aller un peu plus vite, à étendre des lames de fer sur la terre. Je suis morose, comme le latin Lucrèce, en songeant à cette vie. Si quelque chose pouvait me réjouir, ce serait l’abaissement croissant de ces ministres de la contre-révolution. Ils sont comme un vaisseau qui a une voie d’eau, et qu’on voit s’enfoncer de minute en minute. Adieu, je vous aime.
The first of these letters, relating to a political question of the day, was written by Thiers on the fall, for the second time, of Lord Melbourne’s administration, and the consequent accession of Peel to power.
It is amusing to recall how, on the previous overthrow of the Government of Lord Melbourne, a certain periodical, of Tory and Conservative proclivities, and of undoubted ability and influence, confidently predicted the eternal exclusion from power, thenceforth, of the defeated Minister, and the impossibility of his return. The fact that the succeeding Government of Peel lasted but a few short months, by the end of which time Melbourne was reinstated, was a proof of the prophetical skill possessed by the writer in the magazine. On the second occasion, however, Peel obtained a somewhat firmer and more durable seat.
The just appreciation shown in this letter, not only of the political bearing of events at the time, and of the character of Peel himself, but generally of the ordinary moderation in the tone of English politics, is not invariably conspicuous in the comments usually made on England by foreign critics.
The supposition or assertion of Monsieur Guizot’s despair at the end of the letter was probably a parting shot at a political rival.
“Mon cher Panizzi,
Voilà bien longtemps que je veux vous écrire, sans en trouver le temps. D’abord, je vous prie de remercier M. C. de ses oiseaux que j’ai mangés avec ma famille et mes amis, et qui étaient excellents. Je ne veux pas dire que j’ai mangé ma famille et mes amis, mais les oiseaux. Enfin vous voilà prêts à manger les Tories, je fais des vœux pour qu’il en soit ainsi. Il ne faut pas renoncer à l’alliance, même avec les Tories, mais elle me semble bien plus solide avec les Whigs, grâce à l’uniformité du principe. Cependant j’ai peur que mes amis manquent de résolution. S’ils laissent passer cette occasion de prendre le pouvoir, je ne sais pas quand ils pourront le reprendre. C’est une bonne fortune sans pareille pour battre le parti anti-réformiste. S’ils laissent M. Peel reprendre son rôle de conservateur demi-réformiste, il le continuera à son profit et gloire, et il faut reconnaître qu’il conviendra fort à l’esprit moyen de notre temps, justement défini juste-milieu par Louis-Philippe. Dussent vos amis échouer au Parlement, à leur place je tenterais, sauf à porter la question devant les électeurs. L’Angleterre est un pays trop légal, pour qu’il y ait du danger à convoquer le peuple électoral sur quelque question que ce soit. Au surplus, je fais des vœux bien plus que je ne donne de conseils, car on peut difficilement avoir un avis sur un pays qu n’est pas le vôtre. On nous dit que Lord Clarendon doit être ambassadeur ici; nous en serions tous enchantés. Ce serait le meilleur moyen de faire fleurir l’alliance. On a parlé aussi de Lord et Lady C ****. Celle-ci est une personne des plus mal choisies pour Paris. Elle est remuante, bel esprit, brouillée avec les trois quarts de la société de Paris pour ses impertinences, et amie de la Princesse de Lieven uniquement. Je vous prie de me garder le secret, en ne disant cela que là où cela peut être utile. Je ne veux pas me brouiller avec cette redoutable lady. A défaut de Clarendon, Lord Beauvale serait on ne peut mieux venu. Mais en êtes-vous à faire des ambassadeurs? je n’en sais rien. M. Guizot est au désespoir de la chute des Tories. Mille tendresses.
The next letter, from which the date of the year is absent, may be assumed, from the mention in it of the grande entreprise of Peel, to refer to the repeal of the Corn Laws, and in that case must have been written in the year 1846.
This assumption appears to be fully borne out by the further mention of Philippe-Guizot.
“Mon cher Panizzi,
Je sais que vous avez approuvé mon dernier discours Ad Philippum. Celui-ci a été fort mécontent, ce dont je me soucie peu, car je ne veux ni le flatter ni le blesser. Je vais à mon but qui est la vérité, et ne regarde ni à droite ni à gauche. Nous attendons ici la fin de votre grande entreprise, avec une extrême curiosité. On dit que M. Peel se retirera après. Soit, si vos amis doivent arriver. On vous craint et on vous déteste ici (vous veut dire Whigs), et on fait des vœux ardents pour le maintien de M. Peel, et comme on croit ce qu’on désire, on annonce volontiers le maintien de M. Peel. On veut dire Philippe-Guizot.
Dites-moi ce qu’il en faut croire. On se flatte volontiers que les Whigs arrivant, Lord Palmerston n’en sera pas.
Je vous adresse 50 exemplaires de mon discours que je vous prie de distribuer, 25 en habit habillé, 25 en habit négligé. Vous les distribuerez à votre gré. Je vous prie de les faire arriver notamment à MM. Russell, Palmerston, Ellice, Clarendon, Macaulay, Lansdowne, Lord Ashburton, Peel, Aberdeen, Lady Harriette, etc. Vous suppléerez à ma mémoire.
La belle Contessa Taverna est partie, nous laissant dans la tristesse du cœur.
Adieu, et mille tendresses.
“Je cherche une voie pour vous faire arriver mes 50 exemplaires. Si je ne la trouve pas, vous feriez bien de me l’indiquer courrier par courrier.”
In another epistle Thiers makes amusing allusion to Panizzi’s patriotism, and suggests means of liberating his country from tyranny and oppression which were more desirable than practicable, and which, to say the least, were not likely to come to pass just at that time, even with the patriot’s most earnest aspirations.
Happily the Italians have succeeded in achieving their own liberty, not only without the aid of foreign support, but in the teeth of very formidable and determined foreign opposition:—
“Mon cher Panizzi,
Je n’ai rien à ajouter à la lettre ci-jointe; je dis là tout ce que je dirais ici, car je n’ai qu’une manière de penser et de sentir. Je vous ajoute ces quelques mots pour vous dire que vous ferez de ma lettre tout ce que vous voudrez: si vous la trouvez de tout point convenable, et bonne à être envoyée à Lord Clarendon, vous pouvez la lui envoyer; il s’en servira comme il jugera à propos. J’ai bien le projet de vous aller revoir, et le plus tôt possible. Adieu; embrassez Ellice sur le front, comme s’il était jeune, joli et pur autant que ses charmantes nièces. Adieu; n’excluez pas Cromwell du Parlement, et faites décréter une expédition Britannique contre les petits tyrans Italiens. La belle Comtesse Taverna est malade, et seule à Paris; venez nous aider à la consoler.
Lastly, we add a letter to Rutherfurd, written by Panizzi while staying at Lord Clarendon’s. This letter seems to treat almost entirely of English politics, and furnishes an excellent specimen of the acuteness of the writer’s judgment on this subject, and, as it contains references to Thiers, this has been thought a not unfit place for its introduction. It is without date, but the contents show it to have been written early in January, 1846; and certain passages in it may possibly, after such a lapse of time, require a few words of explanation. In the previous year, it will be remembered, the Government of Sir Robert Peel had become involved in extreme difficulty, and an attempt had been made by Lord John Russell to form a ministry capable of settling the vexed question of the Corn Laws. This attempt proved signally unsuccessful, owing to an unhappy difference, which it is not too much to designate as a quarrel, that had sprung up between Lord Palmerston and Lord Grey. On the conduct of the latter in the affair, Lord Macaulay had written to a correspondent in Edinburgh a letter containing severe animadversions, which he wished to be strictly private.
Unfortunately, his correspondent, unaware, probably, of the writer’s wishes, and taking upon himself to think that so decided an expression of opinion on the part of so important a person was the legitimate property of the political world at large, sent the letter for publication to a leading Edinburgh newspaper, wherein it forthwith appeared, much to the disgust of Macaulay, and the displeasure of all right-thinking men. Panizzi’s remarks on this gentleman’s course of action are such as to be fully permissible under the circumstances:—
“My Dear Rutherfurd,
I rejoice at the prospect of your being here early this year, when we shall, I trust, spend many hours together, the more so if I become a member of Brooke’s,[J] where the “Bear”[K] took me to dinner one day, against all rules and principles, and then said I ought to become a member, and put down my name, and the good lord of this house[L] gladly seconded it, and I suppose no one will object to me as far as I can guess.
As to the important part of your letter, respecting public affairs and the late hubbub, I, first of all, agree with you that, although things have not gone quite right, they are not so bad as some thought (they don’t think so now, and will think better of them every day, after the first week of the session).
It seems to me evident, whatever may be said by those whose ambition or greediness warps the judgment, that the Whigs ought not to have taken office if they could help it. It is better that the world should see that it is they, out of office and on principle, who help a government to carry their (I mean the opposition’s) measures, than that they, the Whigs, should be at the mercy of their opponents for going on at all.
Peel would have brought them about 25 members, and with those, and great exertions and excitement, the Corn Laws might have been repealed; but then would they not have been in their enemies’ hands on all other questions, and on the most trifling measure unpalatable to the Tories? Would not Peel then have left them? And do you think that he would not have made his peace with the Tories, and be brought back by them and by those who would attribute, though Tories, the carrying of the good measure repealing the Corn Laws, to his support out of office, of his opponents? For you must not forget there are many friends of Peel who are against the Corn Laws; whereas there is not one Corn Law friend who is a friend of the Whigs, and who would, soon at all events, forgive them for repealing that Corn Law. The Whigs who join the Tories on this question would, unquestionably, have joined them in opposing Lord John’s Government, now and for some time to come; then, had you Whigs failed even in carrying the repeal of the Corn Laws, and being obliged to resign reinfecta, you would have been the object of universal hatred and contempt from both friends and enemies. From the former for having done too little, from the latter for having done too much, and shown you are not either powerful friends or terrible enemies.
But out of office you are 250. You can set your enemies by the ears; the public will see that it is you who command the measures, though your opponents carry them through by your patronage of them; and when once this, the greatest of all changes, is completed by the leader of those who oppose it most, the two great divisions or parties of Whigs and Tories will be left in their natural position, without any extraneous element to alter their essence; but the Whigs will be united, with the Reform Bill fairly working in town and country, and the Tories would be at sixes and sevens amongst themselves, and with a leader who has insulted, deceived, and crushed them.
But if it were to be wished that the Whigs had not undertaken to form a Government, it were also desirable that they should not have been obliged to give up on account of a crotchety nobleman, who
quarrels so easily with every one, and does not probably agree with himself. It gives a despicable opinion of the power of a party that cannot do or will not do without such a man, and personal objections of not a grand and important public principle that prevent two great men from agreeing together at all conscientiously, are but sorry reasons to give for such a failure. The discreet letter of our friend Tom is certainly to be regretted; the discreet friend to whom he wrote it deserves to be kicked for his breach of confidence. The less said the sooner mended on that. Grey will be up, say his say, Macaulay, I hope, will not answer him, and the matter will so far end and be forgotten.
But other explanations will be necessary. I am surprised you don’t know more of what really passed, as I should have thought Lord John, being at Edinburgh, would have told you all. But, perhaps, he does not like to say the whole; and so recollect that I write in full confidence. You may rely on the correctness of what I say, and, of course, use the knowledge as a prudent man to shape your questions and answers. Don’t compromise me, or say what you know, because, even without my name being mentioned, your authority would certainly be guessed. It so happens that I have had occasion to hear much about all this, and it is known that I have heard so much. Macaulay did not wait for Lord Grey’s consent or conniving or declaration, but joined the other at once.
Lord Grey told Ellice at Norwich that he objected to Palmerston as Foreign Secretary, but Ellice was far from being requested to inform Lord John of it. Yet, like a prudent man, he wrote up: “Here at Norwich I find all smooth, except as to the Foreign Department.” When they came to town, Ellice was told the objection of Grey had been got over; but on the Thursday night he learned that it was a mistake, and I know how and from whom; you shall hear it all when here. Yet he thought it might be arranged. Lord Grey goes about reading in his defence a letter he wrote to Lord John, to show that, in due time, he gave notice of his objection; but two persons who have read the letter say it is so full of generalities, that no one guessed to whom it pointed. No one dreamed of Lord Palmerston being the object; but, as he spoke as not having regard to person in the arrangements, it was guessed that the hints were intended against replacing Minto at the Admiralty. You will perceive that the Bear is above all accusation; some may say that Lord John himself may be found fault with, but then no one thought that Grey would carry the matter so far, and it was expected that he would yield, and that led to keeping his objection, or so it was understood, in the back ground, not to give it more importance that it might have. The only one to blame is Grey, he ought either to have spoken out at once clearly himself, or yielded as others have done, who were against asking the Government at all, and yet yielded to the opinion of the majority of their friends, and cheerfully joined them in leading what they considered the most forlorn hope.
All the others I can safely assure you are perfectly friendly. Lord John declares he will never have anything to do politically with Grey, so say the others. Lord Palmerston is entirely satisfied with the Bear’s conduct. If the foolish paragraphs in the newspapers had caused him to feel any distrust or jealousy of Lord Clarendon (which I doubt and hope not), that has been totally and wholly removed, I am happy to say by the writer of this enormous letter. (It is as long as a sermon.) Lord Clarendon behaved above all praise, and Lord Palmerston feels and avows it.
Thiers wrote to me a capital and most friendly letter, of course not for me only, although most private. I took care to communicate it to the proper quarters, and it has had a good effect, and cemented the good understanding that I was so happy in bringing about when Thiers was here (Lady Holland who knew all about it took all the credit herself!!!), and Palmerston’s explanations (do you think it will be a trifle for him to get over?) and his colleagues—why did he resign? Why does he come in with the same crew? Did they rebel? Why do they submit? Sixteen members of the Cabinet bespeak confusion. Are they to know what he is to do, or to obey blindly? Some of the underlings turn restive. Lord Mahon, for instance, I am told, will resign; if Peel were completely free-trader even in corn. Come up, &c., &c.,
J. Proposed on the 17th December, 1845; elected 17th February, 1846; resigned his membership 18th December, 1873.
K. The sobriquet of the Right Honourable E. Ellice.
L. Lord Clarendon.
The correspondence between Panizzi and Thiers extended no further than the letters set forth above.
Later on a feeling of coolness seems to have arisen between the two, the real origin of which it is difficult to determine; but if a conjecture may be hazarded, it was possibly caused by the fact that Thiers declined to extend his love for Panizzi—or, at least, any beneficial effects of it—to Panizzi’s countrymen in general, and thereby offended the ever ardent patriotism of his friend. Be that as it may, the intimate relation, which had so long subsisted between these once firm allies gradually cooled; and during the last years of their lives little or no communication passed between them. Nevertheless, the letters given will be valuable in the eyes of all admirers of the distinguished statesman whose pen has so short a time since been stayed for ever by the cold hand of death, and will serve as invaluable evidence of his ideas on various subjects of interest and importance.
CHAPTER VIII
To return to the British Museum andand 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.
It 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.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.C. Fellows and Sir R. Westmacott respecting the arrangement of the Xanthian marbles, or disagreements between Dr. Gray and Mr. König respecting the rightful custody of the Gilbertson fossils and the boundaries of Zoology and Palæontology in general. The Library was the real field of contention, and matters relating 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 discharged 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.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 Department 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 expressly 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 to 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 fared 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. As 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, or 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.
It 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.
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 such a step were narrated by himself in Parliament on the 11th of April, 1780. On the 26th of October, 1779, he was returned to Parliament as a member for Buckinghamshire, and enrolled himself in the party of Fox, who in 1782 trusted him to arrange the terms of the treaty drawn up for the separation of Great Britain from her American colonies.
From this mission Mr. Grenville was suddenly recalled, at the death of Lord Rockingham; but in 1794 Earl Spencer sent him as Minister Extraordinary to the Court of Vienna. Four years afterwards he was made a Privy Councillor, and subsequently was despatched on an embassy to the court of Berlin, in order to induce the King of Prussia to co-operate with England against the continual attacks of the French Republic. This mission, however, proved unsuccessful.
In 1800, he was appointed to a sinecure office, that of Chief Justice in Eyre, South of Trent, which was worth about £2,000 per annum. Other appointments followed; when, in 1818, he retired simultaneously from Parliament and from public life.
To describe his personal appearance, his features were fine and regular, with blue eyes shadowed by large eyebrows. In addition to quick perception, he possessed a marvellous memory, ever ready with quotations from his favourite authors.
In his old age he derived great pleasure from entertaining a few intimate friends at dinner, and spending the after hours at whist. Amongst those who frequented his house on such occasions were, Lord Ellesmere, Samuel Rogers, Hallam, Lord Macaulay, Mr. Gladstone, Panizzi, and Sydney Smith, who with reverent appreciation remarked to Panizzi, à propos of the host’s dignity and cheerfulness, There, that is the man from whom we all ought to learn how to grow old.
The collection of this superb Library cost Mr. Grenville much labour, and nothing could be more admirable in its way than the persistence with which he followed out the intentions he had formed. It was a pursuit, indeed, which he began early in life.
A favourite recollection of his, which he was apt to quote, was that while in the Guards there bid against him at a sale a whole bench of Bishops, for some scarce edition of the Bible; this was his first essay, and similar success attended him in all his subsequent dealings. At his death, 20,239 volumes were counted, all in admirable condition and beautifully bound. It was stated, at the time, that the collection cost £54,000.
He had the habit of writing on a slip of paper, which he placed on the fly-leaf of the volume, a short sketch of how and when it was acquired; this was done in the neatest and clearest manner.
Mr. Grenville did not collect books simply for their rarity and curiosity, he knew well the worth of those he purchased, and used them as books of reference, as is proved by the notes which are to be found in his own handwriting, even stating the number of times he himself perused them; for instance, in the edition of Dean Sherlock on Death, he wrote:—Read thirteen times in 1846.
The acquaintance between Grenville and Panizzi probably commenced as early as 1830, at which period, it will be remembered, the latter was engaged on his Bojardo and Ariosto.
The correspondence which passed at the time of the dedication of the “Sonetti e Canzone di Bojardo,” has been fully given, and the documents and letters which follow will prove how much Mr. Grenville became attached to his Italian friend, and in what high estimation he held him.
The following “Memorandum” written by Panizzi himself, bearing the date of November 3, 1845, is given in full:—
“Yesterday being Sunday, I called, as I generally do on such days, on the Right Hon. Thomas Grenville, who has had an attack of cold, which produced great cough and difficulty of breathing, somewhat alarming. When I saw him last he was better, and we played whist till nearly eleven o’clock. This was on Friday last, the 31st of October.
“Yesterday I found him considerably better—I may say well—reading a book of prayers, as he usually does on Sundays. It was about three o’clock, and he was alone. After the usual inquiries after his health, &c., &c., he spoke nearly as follows:—
“‘I am glad, Mr. Panizzi, that we are alone, as I have something to tell you, which I wish to be considered strictly confidential, and that you will not mention to any human being as long as I live. There is nothing, perhaps, that renders secrecy strictly necessary in what I am going to say; but it is as well to keep it to ourselves, as it concerns nobody but me. I have often perceived that you wished to know what would become of my library after my death, and I have often seen also that you wished it should go to the British Museum. That wish is very natural as well as very creditable to you; for, treated as you have been by the Trustees, had you been a less zealous officer, and not so thoroughly honest a man, you would not so easily have forgiven their conduct towards you, and felt so warm an interest in the welfare of that Institution as you have.
“I have admired your conduct in that respect, and been extremely pleased by it. I have not imitated you for years I confess. The minute of which I gave you the copy in Mr. Forshall’s handwriting, and which conveys an ample and deserved acknowledgment of your good services, was a disgraceful and unjust act towards you, and insult to me. They reserved for me to do what they never had done to any one else, and they behaved ill to you to vex me, I believe ... (as I dissented, he added). Well, well, may be they or some one who had influence on them, counselled them to punish you. I felt so much their conduct that, as you know, I left the room when I saw what they were bent upon doing, and never went again to their meetings, and I felt very much inclined never to speak again to Lord Farnborough, who, after having both in private to me and at a Committee agreed with the justice of doing what the Committee suggested, got up at the general meeting which he and Mr. Forshall had packed to move the rejection of the Committee’s report. I then was more than ever determined to leave my library to the Duke of Buckingham, to be kept at Stowe as a heirloom. But your generous conduct made me think that if you, who had been much more injured than I was, forgave them, I ought.
“I knew, moreover, that you would be delighted to have my books, and I often thought that the coming into your hands from mine was the very best thing that could happen to them, as well as the most pleasing to me. I was determined partly by these considerations to alter my will, and still more so—or rather much more so—by another circumstance.
“You know that I have enjoyed for a long series of years a very good sinecure. Although, as I have sometimes told you, my cousin, Lord Glastonbury, left me a large fortune and made me rich, yet I could not have formed such a library (which I think cost me nearer £50,000 than £40,000) without my income from the sinecure. I have, therefore, determined to bleach my conscience, and to return to the Nation what I got from it, when I could have done without—but which would have been given to some one else if I had given it up myself—by bequeathing my library to the British Museum, and I have altered my will accordingly. I shall direct that part of my will to be printed, that my motives be understood, and that no one should think that I take the library from my nephew the Duke, to whom I have told that I have left it to him, from any unkindness or unfriendly feeling, which I certainly have not, as the rest of my will will show. I could not in my Will say anything about you, and the treatment you have received from those you have served and serve so well and so faithfully, but I thought it a proof of my great friendship for you to inform you of what I have done, and of my motives for so doing. But, although I cannot say anything about it, the public and the Trustees must be well aware that you have not taken any mean or unfair advantage of my great regard for you, my dear friend, to turn me from doing what I had done. I hope the Trustees will be more just to you in future; indeed, you tell me they are, and have been lately, and am glad of it. I thought they would not change; they must feel they have wronged you, and I thought they would never like you in consequence. Even my friend the Archbishop, one of the very best and most amiable men living, was no doubt influenced, perhaps unconsciously, by such feelings when he made objections to your appointment to succeed Mr. Baber. There is some one who has great influence on the Archbishop, who is no friend of yours. Take care, I know it. But I trust now that you are better known you will be appreciated as you deserve.’deserve.’
“This was the substance, and, as far as I recollect, these were the very words of the communication which was delivered uninterruptedly, with his usual energy and clearness, and without appearing the least fatigued, or being stopped by coughing or anything else.
“I made the best acknowledgment I could for the honourable proof of confidence he gave me. I told him, strongly moved, almost to tears, that I hoped the day would be far distant when the British Museum should profit by his munificent gift; and here we shook hands most heartily and warmly, and I thanked him as well as I could for the affectionate manner in which he had spoken of me and of my conduct.
“He replied it was only justice. Then he added that he left the whole unfettered; that he thought we should have many duplicates among ours of his books, but that he thought we ought to have them; at the same time, he said, he did not care whether the Trustees sold his duplicates. I said they never did it. Very well, he answered. Then he went on to say that he would desire his executors to express a wish that the whole of his books should be kept together, and that a catalogue of them all should be published. But, he said, I shall not add these as absolute conditions, only as my wish.
“We spoke of cataloguing, of how the books could be kept together, &c., which I said could and should be done, as was done for Sir J. Banks, Cracherode, &c.; even without their desiring it. But the Dutch Minister, was announced; we began to speak of indifferent things; and presently I took leave and left them together at about four o’clock.