&Innings hunt t4t %Int %auku.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
Tux report of Mr. Ewart's Committee of last session may be treated as the sequel of the inquiry commenced in the session of 1849, the results of which were noticed in the Spectator on the 10th November of that year. The report of 1850 bears that the Committee heard evidence on certain points connected with Foreign Public Libraries and the Library of the British Museum; and the conclusion arrived at is, that the establishment of-other public libraries of a popular character in the Metropolis would be advantageous, as relieving the British Museum from a numerous class of readers, and furnishing increased opportunities to the reading public of perusing instructive and amusing books.
The 'witnesses examined were Mr. Edward Edwards, supernumerary Assistant in the department of Printed Books in the British Museum; Mr. Robert Lemon, chief Clerk in the State Paper Office, and Secretary to the Commissioners for printing and publishing State Papers • Sir Henry Ellis, principal Librarian of the British Museum ; Mr. Antonio Panizzi, head of the department of Printed Books in the British Museum ; and Mr. Charles Richard Weld, Librarian to the. Royal Society. The evidence of these gentlemen was taken at four sittings ; but much ground was gone over within that'limited time. Most of the witnesses had peen examined during the inquiry of 1849 ; and much of the new questioning had reference to statements made in the former year, the accuracy of which had been challenged, and in some instances actually disproved in the interim. These statements related in the main to the extent and management of foreign public libraries, from which inferences unfavour- able to the management of the British Museum were drawn_ The in- quiry branched out into other points, such as the expediency of establish- ing additional public libraries in the Metropolis, the construction and working of the book-supplying machinery of the British Museum, the comfort and convenience of the Reading-room, the advantage to arise from keeping the room open in the evening, and the Catalogue question. Speaking broadly, it may be stated that Mr. Edwards, Mr.. Lemon, and Mr. Weld, were at issue on some points, more or less important, with
Panizzi. Sir Henry Ellis only spoke to one or two matters of fact. The time which usually elapses between the publication of a book and its appearance in the Catalogue and on the shelves, formed a topic of in- teresting inquiry. It is remarkable that so little exact information should have been supplied to the Committee by witnesses who from employment, taste, and pursuit, might have been expected to be an fait on all the lead- ing details of the British Museum manavanent. Taas of the witnesses could not tell within what period publishers • are bound to send copies of their works ; and statements dogmatically put forth before the Committee in 1849 were found in 1850 to have had their origin in mere hearsay. Other statements had been made so partially as to mislead. For example, Mr. Edwards stated, in a written communication which was embodied in the blue book of 1849, that Dr. Graham, the historian of North America, had been obliged to go to Gottingen for materials, the British Museum being destitute of what was needed. Mr. Edwards's impression was that this occurred in 1830 ; the truth being that it took place in 1825. In the latter year there was an admitted deficiency ; but by 1830, a store of books elucidatory of American history bad been laid in. But to resume.
Mr. Edwards was of opinion that unnecessary delay took place in ren- dering new books available for the use of readers ; and he attributed the circumstance to the Catalogue having got into arrear, owing to acci- dentalniruumstances.
Lord Seymour asked Mr. Lemon-" You state that you have every reason to think that books are never to be obtained by the-public in the Library of the British Museum till three years after their publication ? Answer-" That I am given to understand is the genuine matter of fact. * * * I do not know it further than by genuine report. * • * I generally consulted- the Manuscript department."
Under this head, Mr. Panizzi [14th March 1850] makes a curious statement. It must be borne in mind that the transcribing he speaks of refers to the manuscript record kept in the Reading-room for the use of the readers, and not to the extraordinary Catalogue in the course of preparation, and which was intended at one time to be printed.
Lord Seymour-" Prom your own experience, what should you say in explanation of a statement that the public. have not access to a book for the space of three or four years after its publication ? " Mr. Pauizzi in answer says, that is not correct ; and he undertakes to mention "what is correct." In 1845, he submitted a number of suggestions to the Trustees on the subject of increasing the Library. These suggestions were con- sidered by a special committee of the; Trustees, at which. Mr. Goulburn, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, assisted ; and the result was a Parliamentary grant of 10,000/. to be expended in the purchase of books. The present East Room wan directed to be built for their accommodation. Ratensive purchases were made, and the books were catalogued, [i.e. the titlepages copied in full on separate slips of paper, with the date of delivery, and other official particulars,] and shelved as advantageously as circumstances would allow. " When the titles were to be transcribed, [i.e. condensed from the more elaborate slips,] into two copies of the Catalogue, which are kept one in the Library and the other in the Read- ing-room, with the assistance of transcribers. I asked for transcribers for that purpose : and transcribers and some attendants would have been appointed, but the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker refused to sign the appointments, because the names of persons were submitted to them whom they were expected to appoint as a matter of course, and of whom they knew nothing whatever: • * * I continued in the mean time to purchase books with this large grant, though the appointments of tran- scribers required yet to be made : therefore there was an accumulation of arrears of books, which could not be placed for want of room, and for want of hands to enter them in the Catalogue ; and from that time and since that time, it is true that the books have- not been entered in the Catalogue as iast as usual ; but it is not correct to say that that is the practice or the system of the British Museum. Before this largo grant was made, no book was in the Library three months without being entered." Had he studied his own comfort, he might have discontinued his pur- chases; but he thought it better to have the books, and trust to time and. opportunity for the means of rendering them available. "To bring up those arrears, I obtained, about nine or ten months ago, a number of transcribers and they have had to begin a new series of an alphabetical catalogue." In three or four months, Mr. Panizzi expected that the Catalogue would be ready to be put into the Reading-room : and in re- ply to a question from Mr. Ewart he stated, that when that Catalogue should be so completed, he had no doubt the public would be able to have a newly-published work in the Reading-mom within six weeks after its publication. The Catalogue has been completed; and one of the duplicate copies ex- tending to 150 volumes (there are only a few manuscript entries on each page) was placed in the Reading-room on the 8th of September last This realizes the condition on which Mr. Panizzi bases his belief that he shall be able henceforth to let "the public have a newly-published work in the Reading-room within six weeks after its publication." Nous verrons.
From Mr. Panizzi's statement it would appear that the bad name which the Museum Library has acquired for reckless delay in rendering new books available to the public, is attributable to the circumstance of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons having declined to ratify the appointment of transcribers, because they had no personal knowledge of their character or qualifications. How many ap- pointments of much greater moment than that of &handful of penmen do these high officers make without the least personal acquaintance with the character or capabilities of the nominees ? In all such cases, the opi- nion of responsible parties must be taken ; and how it happened that the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker should have felt themselves justified in obstructing for several years the means of literary and scientific research by refusing to stufetion the appointment of the necesaary number of subordinate labourers, is a mystery which ought to be cleared up..
Previous page
