"Torrington Square, 20th October, 1837.

"My dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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