approve of its plan. The general feeling appears to be similar to my own,—namely, that the effect of the system you have introduced is to keep all the working part of literary men out of the Library until they are actually compelled to refer to it.

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

Believe me, &c.

No. IX. Mr. Panizzi to Sir N. H. Nicolas.

British Museum, May 25th, 1846.

My dear Sir,

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

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

"The great object of a Public library is despatch in procuring books. This can only be secured by perspicuity in describing them. In my humble judgment no better mode could possibly be devised for obtaining any particular work than the printed tickets which I suggested in 1837, and which are now in use. By specifying the Titles from the Catalogue, and copying from it the Press-marks, the applicant can at once identify the particular edition or copy of an edition which he requires. The importance of this to a critical student is obvious; and I cannot show the utility of the new system more forcibly than by appealing to your own experience, which will bear me out in saying that readers have often—before the introduction of those tickets—been assured that a book was not in the Museum, though they had themselves referred to it only a few days before. The requisition to insert the Titles and Press-marks on the tickets is not merely reasonable, but it is indispensible, if the Library is to be conducted with satisfaction to the Public and to the Librarians. If people will not take the trouble to comply with rules, which, so far from being vexatious, are absolutely necessary for their own comfort, they can have no right to complain. The fault is theirs, if mistakes or delay ensue; and it is as absurd as it is unjust to impute the effect of their own ignorance or carelessness to the Officers of the Museum."[A]

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

No. X. Sir N. H. Nicolas to Mr. Panizzi.

Torrington Square, 26th May, 1846.

My dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is