Chapter XIII (1)

_The New Reading-Room; Sir C. Barry’s Plans; Completion and Breakfast;
Mr Hosking’s Plans; Controversy; Bust by Baron Marochetti; Austria
Applies for Plans of Reading-Room._

It has been, and doubtless for some centuries to come will be, a matter of regret that the unrivalled collection called the British Museum has not, after the incalculable labour bestowed, and the vast sums of money spent upon it, found a home more worthy of its invaluable contents than the present building. Of this huge pile—an irregular oblong—but little appeals to the eye, less to the power of discussion. The Eastern and Western Wings still remain partially exposed to view in all their normal hideousness of yellow brick, unadorned by aught save a few meagre mouldings. The front, being, of course, the most conspicuous part of the structure, has been the object of attention, and has been ornamented in a manner suiting it to the public gaze. To effect this desirable, and certainly most legitimate object, choice has strangely been made of a style which, in itself most beautiful, is so hampered and restricted by the straitest and severest rules as to be almost incapable of adaptation to purposes of modern utility, and a magnificent Ionic portico and peristyle have been erected; the building, as a whole, thus presenting a striking contrast to any other structure to be found in the metropolis.

Confront the British Museum for one moment with the Madeleine of Paris, and how great is the difference! In the latter is seen the nearest approach to true Grecian architecture, combined with admirable proportions, and tasteful and correct ornamentation; by admission of light from the roof, the unsightliness of windows inserted in the walls is avoided, and, in its entirety, the building fairly represents that which it purports to be.

Let the visitor, however, enter, and he will find himself somewhat disappointed; for, instead of seeing a tolerably correct Greek temple, he will find a singularly ineffective and mediocre Christian Church. The profuseness of decoration, much of it foreign to the style, the want of power in what should be the central point of attraction, the general horizontal character of the lines, throwing out the building in an unnatural degree—all show the abortiveness of an effort to lend the rigidity of ancient forms to the exigencies of modern tastes.

Still, to compare the Madeleine, with all its faults, to the British Museum, would be an insult to the former; not that the classical façade of our own building is without merit: the nobility and majesty of the portico and colonnade cannot well be denied, and, if built of white marble (supposing the brightness of the marble could be preserved in this variable climate) instead of their present dingy material, they would have constituted, by their own merit, a most striking and dignified object, whatever cavils might have existed as to the reality of the purpose to which they would have been applied.

A certain distance, however, is requisite for the view, and this it is most difficult to obtain; on closer inspection it will be seen that the imposing range of pillars rather draws attention to, than serves to conceal, the frightful sash windows which glare from behind it, and whose light it obscures.

In the tympanum of the portico is a group of sculptured figures by Sir R. Westmacott. To this M. Edgar Vinet, in a notice of the British Museum in the _Journal des Débats_, written in 1858 (30th of December) alludes in the following words:—“Un fronton récemment terminé, et dans lequel Sir Richard Westmacott, ce qui se conçoit pour un sujet pareil, a représenté, d’une manière un peu confuse, l’homme passant de l’état sauvage, sans l’influence de la religion, à la civilisation et au progrès.”

This cluster of sculpture is by no means happy, and the kindly phrase of our critic, “une manière un peu confuse,” might, with a little freedom and more truth, be rendered by the English words, muddle, cram, and confusion.

On either flank of the main building, and in advance of it, is a block of official dwelling-houses, which, as some may remember, called down much denunciation at the time they were erected; they are, however, so void of pretentiousness that they seem hardly to deserve any very lavish outpouring of righteous indignation. It is enough to say of them that they would have been better away.

The British Museum is, however, more admirable inside than out. Here, nevertheless, the Nemesis of the style pursues the observer even more unrelentingly. If some of the vast and dismal rooms be not the very halls of Eblis, at least they are eminently fitted for the depositories of the sarcophagi of those who have descended thither. The beauty of their contents may, it is true, engross the visitor’s attention for a time, but he can hardly hope to remain long free from the depression and melancholy with which the surrounding air seems impregnated. The lighting (and here, again, the blame must be exclusively laid on the style adopted) is in many places most defective; as to the mural decoration, it cannot be better described than in the words of the already quoted M. Vinet:—A l’exception de la salle de lecture, vaste rotonde dont la coupole reluit d’or la, décoration intérieure du Musée Britannique vous étonne par sa simplicité; les murailles sont nues, quelques méandres, peints à l’encaustique, entourent des plafonds percés par un vitrage, par où passe une lumière froide et grise: voilà tout ce que l’orgueilleuse Albion a cru devoir accorder à l’embellissement intérieur de son Musée: décoration conçue avec un tel puritanisme qu’elle est restée au dessous des salles d’attente des chemins de fer, comme ornementation et comme goût. Une large cheminée de fonte, chauffée à blanc huit mois de l’année, occupe le centre de chaque pièce, et, par son prosaïsme forme le plus étrange contraste avec les œuvres élégantes, filles du soleil, qui l’entourent.”

To the objection that those who thus flatly condemn one form of architecture are bound to suggest another more suitable, a ready, and by no means embarrassing answer is forthcoming. The Pointed, the most beautiful and ductile of all styles, may be left out of consideration, as being hardly of sufficient congruity to the relics of art stored in the National collection. Moreover, to have attempted a Gothic structure at the time when the present Museum was built, might have afforded an instructive example of _corruptio optimi pessima_, but, in all probability, would have failed in point of utility, and would most certainly have been an outrage on good taste.

It is hardly possible, however, to suppose that the illustrious architect of the British Museum was not as conversant with Roman as with Greek architecture, or that he was wholly unacquainted with the Romano-Italian works of Wren or Palladio.

As the Roman, unlike the Grecian, and still more unlike the Pointed, does not mainly depend for its beauty on the lines of its construction, the facility for legitimately decorating a building of the shape of the British Museum would have been far greater in the first-named style. Who shall say that in a gallery of the Roman type the statues of Roman Emperors, or even the monuments of Assyrian Kings, are out of place? or that the _disjecta membra_ of a Greek frieze or pediment would be incongruous with an architecture so nearly akin to their own? At any rate, we should have been able to view them with comfort, which is scarcely the case at present; for the power of lighting would have been increased tenfold. Opportunities, too, of a more effective system of intramural ornamentation would have been offered, and many other minor advantages, conducive to beauty or convenience, secured. Happily, in the latest addition to the great building—an addition that owes alike its origin, position, and form of construction to the enterprise and genius of Panizzi—the ponderous and unsuccessful imitation of the Greek style has been laid aside, and a light and graceful form of the Italian order adopted.

This little gem of architecture—this “MARGARITA”—is the “New Reading-Room.”

The history and traditions of the Reading-Room at the British Museum have been so faithfully and minutely recorded by others that it would be unpardonable to overcrowd our space in this work with too full a description of them. Since the year 1758, a Reading-Room has always been attached to the Museum, and the original apartment was, by all accounts, especially comfortable and even luxurious. Though small, it seems to have been sufficiently large to meet the requirements of those early days of its existence. We read of this pleasant corner room in “the basement story, with one oak table and twenty chairs,” so small as to be fitted for only twenty readers, yet it was seldom patronized to the extent of its full capabilities. In one respect it must have been truly paradisiacal, for it opened into a delightful garden in which, as tradition has it, the presiding deity was accustomed to walk, although not in the cool of the evening. This gentleman, Dr. Templeman, afterwards Secretary to the Society of Arts, seems, notwithstanding, to have found his duties sufficiently onerous. After eight months’ incumbency, “he takes the opportunity of reminding the Committee that he begs to be relieved from the excessive attendance of six hours’ continuance each day, for it is more than he is able to bear,” and on March 13, 1760, he records with a chuckle “Last Tuesday, no company coming to the Reading-Room, Dr. Templeman ventured to go away about 2 o’clock.” Not above twenty readers were admitted monthly during the first few months, and when the novelty of the institution had worn off, even this average declined to ten or twelve. It is true that among these appear the names of Johnson, Gray, Hume and Blackstone. Nor were the regulations patterns of liberality. The statutes directed that notice should be given in writing the day before to the officer in attendance by each person “what book or manuscript he will be desirous of perusing the following day; which book or manuscript in such request will be lodged in some convenient place in the said room, and will from thence be delivered to him by the officer of the said room.”

From the delightful garden with which it communicated, and its almost rural surroundings; from the illustrious names of those ornaments of the silver age of our literature who frequented it, and in the excellence of whose works one almost seems to discover traces of quiet ease of study, such as this resort must have afforded, it is with mingled feelings of regret and envy that we turn to our own time and lament that the world of readers and writers should have arrived at such monstrous dimensions and such unmanageable proportions.

One great improvement has recently been effected, the electric light—the latest application of science to the means of illuminating large buildings, has been, through the energy of Mr. E. A. Bond, the present Principal Librarian, most successfully introduced into this department—gladdening the hearts of students by increasing their hours of research, and enabling them to seek, with its clear effulgence, the information which they desire to possess.

Our contemplation of Panizzi’s majestic work has, however, its dark shade. It reminds us sadly of the bustling and feverish spirit which pervades our present, literature; of the enormous trade of bookmaking openly carried on amongst us, and of the lack both of dignity and polish only too often conspicuous in the best works of our best modern authors.

The quiet ease and learned leisure gradually died away, readers and authors of all classes rapidly increased; insignificant as were their numbers compared with the present multitude, it became incumbent on the authorities to prepare something more than the single and comfortable room with its garden; and in the old House and in its last days, three rooms were set apart for their accommodation.

To the first Reading-Room in the new building but scant praise can be accorded. The appointments of it were in no wise satisfactory, whilst the mode of access was almost mean and decidedly incommodious. Previously crowded, as a rule, it is on record that, although constructed to hold only about _120_ readers, no less than _200_ persons were frequently crammed into it. A larger apartment was, therefore, urgently called for; and, in 1838, the old room was closed, another being opened in a different quarter of the building. This, divided into two compartments, was about one-third larger than its predecessor, and in its size alone its superiority appears to have consisted. It is true that, in many respects, its fittings were far better, that a more convenient entrance was constructed, and that more attention was paid to the comfort, if not so much of the readers, at any rate of certain of the attendant officials, who had before this been wretchedly housed.

The lighting by means of windows many feet from the ground was, in both rooms, lamentably deficient. In neither had due care been taken to provide sufficient ventilation. The admission of fresh air appears to have been chiefly effected by the simple contrivance of opening the windows, a practice not always possible, and not unlikely, at certain seasons of the year to be attended with as much danger as would have been the retention of foul air. Readers who remained in the stifling atmosphere of either room for any length of time were known to complain of a peculiar languor and headache, and the expressive term _Museum Megrims_ was invented to describe the uneasy sensations of the too persistent student.

The following is an extract from a private letter, written a short time since, in which, although the writer confesses that his memory, at this distance of time, is not as fresh as it might be, a fair description is given of the second or intermediate Reading-Room, as it was in the year 1846:—

“What I recollect about it is as follows. It was entered by a sort of
lane going down from Montague-place into what must have been at one
time a stable-yard. You then went up a staircase into a long, lofty
room.... I think there were two great sort of chests of hot water
pipes on each side of the entrance from the staircase. The entrance
divided the room into two unequal parts, and I fancy that the smaller
portion was reserved for readers of MSS. The catalogue was in a series
of presses near the west wall, commencing about opposite the entrance,
and extending north. The rest of the floor of the room was occupied by
reading-tables. At the north end was a thing like a buttery hatch.
From this you got your books, having previously given your docket
describing them. The walls of the room, for eight or ten feet from the
floor, were crowded with book-cases, except at the entrance and hatch,
and all accessible to readers in the room. I think the room was
lighted by windows above the book-cases, but, as far as I can
recollect, on the east side only. I think the other walls above the
book-cases resting on the floor of the reading room were also covered
with book-cases, but these not accessible from the Reading-Room, but
from galleries, &c., opening into the other parts of the building. I
recollect nothing about the ventilation, but I know that after working
some time, you found your head very hot and heavy, and your feet cold.
These were the symptoms of the ‘Museum Megrims,’ about which there
was, shortly after my experience of the place, a deal of chaff in the
papers. I fully sympathized with it at the time.”

The Library of the British Museum continued to increase in proportion to its rapid influx of readers; and in 1849, the collection, excluding the masses of MSS., pamphlets, and other unbound works, amounted to no less than 435,000 volumes.[Q] What a vast acquisition must this have been to the public, whether to the student, the critic, or the occasional lounger!

-----

Footnote Q:

In 1880, 1,300,000 volumes.

-----

The power of exercising rights of ownership was, however, by no means commensurate with the legal title to the property: indeed, owing to lack of room and other conveniences, such rights, in the case of very many who would otherwise have taken advantage of them, scarcely extended to liberty of inspecting the outsides of the volumes; as to the insides, they were literally closed books.

Such a state of affairs made a deep impression on Panizzi, whose incessant anxiety for, and interest in the Department over which he presided, added to his repugnance to suffering so much of its contents to lie idle and unprofitable, caused in him a ceaseless feeling of regret. He saw and knew, only too well, how alone reform was to take place—viz., by provision of ample room, and by due attention too the requirements of readers, at the same time securing the necessary amount of space in the building for the ever increasing additions to the Library.

From a very early period his attention had been directed to the requirements of the Reading-Room, and an important improvement in its service had been introduced by him even before he became Keeper of Printed Books. Before his time, the press-mark denoting the place of a book in the Library was not affixed to the Reading-room copy of the Catalogue, and the reader simply indicated the books he wished to see, which were then looked out in the Library copy of the Catalogue by the attendants. This system, which may have answered very well while the daily average of visitors did not exceed thirty, became entirely inadequate when they amounted to two hundred; and Mr. Baber, at Panizzi’s suggestion, directed that press-marks should be put to the Reading-Room Catalogue, so that the readers might search it for themselves. This innovation occasioned an immense saving of time, but was naturally resented by many to whom time was of less importance than trouble. Sir Harris Nicolas, an excellent type of the really hard-working reader, thought differently, and spontaneously addressed a letter to Panizzi, congratulating him upon his reform. This incident had an amusing sequel. Sir H. Nicolas saw fit to assail Panizzi’s management in a series of anonymous articles in the _Spectator_ newspaper, and among other points censured the very regulation of which he had previously approved. A correspondence ensued, in the course of which Panizzi cited the material parts of Sir Harris’s former letter to himself without marks of quotations, and Sir H. Nicolas mistaking his own arguments for his antagonist’s, fell foul of them in a fashion which gave Panizzi the opportunity he sought of withdrawing from further controversy with “a man endowed with so flexible a judgment, and so treacherous a memory.”

The improvements introduced by Panizzi into the internal arrangements of the Old Reading-Room were nevertheless trivial in comparison with those which he was destined to accomplish by the construction of a new one.

In 1850, he submitted to the Trustees his first plan for a new Reading-Room. As this, however, involved the acquisition of land and the consequent erection of new buildings, it was rejected on account of the delay and expense which would inevitably follow. The next plan of reform relating to the enlargement of the capacities of the Museum in general was brought forward by the Trustees themselves. This or a similar scheme had long since been mooted, but was regularly formulated for the first time in 1848. Their proposal was to buy up the whole of one portion of the street, on the east side of the Museum, to build on the site, and to complete that part of the edifice which faced Russell Square with a grand façade. This scheme, the cost of which was calculated to amount to only about a quarter of a million, did not receive the favourable consideration of Government. There is much reason to be thankful that the infliction of a second grand façade has been spared us. The first sketch for the New Reading-Room was drawn by Panizzi himself on April 18, 1852, and shown to Mr. Winter Jones on the same day.

On May 5 following, Panizzi sent in a report setting forth at large, and in forcible terms, the discomfort and inconvenience existing in his own Department of the Institution, and recommending, as a remedy, the construction of the new building in the inner quadrangle. It will not be amiss to give this report _in extenso_, as it will present something more than a sketch of the work intended—omitting, of course, all minor and unimportant details.

“May 5th, 1852.

“Mr. Panizzi has the honour to submit the following statement and
suggestions to the Trustees, in the hope that the pressing importance
of the subject will be deemed a sufficient apology for thus urging it
once more on their early and favourable consideration.”

“It is a known and admitted fact that there is no more available space
in which to arrange books in a proper and suitable manner in the
Printed Book Department; that the collection is, therefore, falling,
and will continue to fall, into arrears, the consequences of which are
also too well known to be here further insisted upon; that want of
accommodation in the Reading-Rooms, not only for readers, but for
books of reference and for catalogues, prevents many persons from
making use of the collection of printed books, whilst actual readers
pursue their researches and studies amidst many and various
discomforts, all owing to the crowded state of those rooms.”

“Supposing that it were at once determined to remove to suitable
buildings, to be erected for the purpose, some portion of any of the
collections now forming part of the British Museum, or that in order
to provide room for books an enlargement were forthwith decided upon
of the present Museum building, as Mr. Panizzi had the honour to
suggest long ago, it is manifest that many years must elapse before
the advantages to be derived from either alternative would be felt.
The additions which would in the interval be made to other collections
would greatly curtail the advantages ultimately proposed for the
readers, and for the department of Printed Books, both of which would
in the meanwhile continue to labour under the present and eventual
disadvantages already pointed out. Under any circumstances, therefore,
and whatever be the determination adopted as to provision being
eventually made for the general wants of the British Museum, the
claims of the readers require the immediate and special consideration
of the Trustees.”

“With respect, moreover, to this important part of the subject—the
accommodation for readers—it seems to Mr. Panizzi that none of the
existing parts of the British Museum offer such comforts,
conveniences, and advantages as appear to him absolutely required for
a proper Reading-room of such an institution—a circumstance to which
he particularly begs to direct the attention of the Trustees. Having
long held this opinion, Mr. Panizzi suggested from the first, and has
often suggested since, whenever the question of additions to the
present building has been brought under discussion, that a new
Reading-Room should be erected; and this suggestion he is more and
more convinced must be acted upon, even though portions of the
collections now contained in the British Museum were removed from it,
and the space which they occupy were destined to receive printed
books,—a destination which, it may be incidentally remarked, will be
convenient only with respect to certain parts of the building.”

“Mr. Panizzi thinks that the inconveniences now felt can be completely
remedied as well as all eventual difficulties removed in a short time,
and at a comparatively small cost, by the erection of a suitable
building in the inner quadrangle, which is at present useless.... The
building now suggested consists of an outer wall, not higher than the
sill of the windows of the quadrangle—about 18 feet. This wall is
intended only to protect the contents of the building, not to support
it. It ought to be supported by iron columns, and proper iron frames
and girders. It would be for the Trustees to consider of what material
the rest of the building should consist, and whether the whole or only
parts of its roof should be of glass; of course this may partly depend
on the quantity of light required.”

“All the partitions of the several portions (marked on the plan
accompanying the report), with the exception of those intended to
separate closets, washing-rooms, &c., &c., from the rest of the
building, should be formed by book-cases of uniform size, holding
books on both sides.”

“Such fittings and furniture would then be of use were it considered
expedient at some future period to remove the proposed building
altogether, and provide a Reading-Room elsewhere.”

“It is intended that a space of four feet should be left between the
outside of the areas of the building now existing and the outer wall
of the one suggested. Neither the light, nor even the ventilation of
the rooms underground would be interfered with, at least not to such
an extent as to render it doubtful whether a slight inconvenience
possibly accruing to the use of cellars ought to outweigh the manifest
advantages which must evidently result to the readers and Library from
the adoption of the proposed scheme.”

“By the adoption of that scheme a Reading-Room would be provided
capable of containing upwards of 560 readers at one and the same time,
all comfortably seated. They might have at their free disposal 25,000
volumes of works of reference. The superintendence, which is now
peculiarly difficult (in consequence of which mutilations and thefts
have, of late, become not uncommon), would then be as easy and as
effective as possible. The space assigned to books will, on a moderate
calculation, afford room for 400,000 volumes. There will, moreover, be
ample accommodation for Officers, Assistants, Transcribers, and
Attendants, to carry on their various duties in a more comfortable as
well as more economical manner than is now the case. Requisite
conveniences would also be provided for frequenters of the
Reading-Room. The whole building is capable of being as well lighted,
ventilated, and warmed, as can possibly be wished.”

“Mr. Panizzi having but a very limited knowledge of practical
architecture, and of the cost of building, cannot take upon himself to
give an estimate of the expense. He would, however, be greatly
surprised if the building now suggested, completely fitted up, were to
cost more than £50,000.”[R]

-----

Footnote R:

It so happened that Mr. Charles Cannon, one of the Assistants in the
Library, knew how to draw a plan in the proper manner; Panizzi,
therefore, employed him to put the rough sketch into such a shape as
to be clearly understood by the Trustees. The plans were accordingly
drawn and laid before the Board without any assistance from outside
the Museum. Panizzi, in after time, used frequently to refer to this
and some similar services as of great advantage to him.

-----

A few weeks after, Panizzi wrote to Lord Rutherfurd:—

“May 27, 1852.

“I have submitted a plan of building in the Quadrangle to the
Trustees, which has taken with them all amazingly, and will, no doubt,
be executed, for even the architect is pleased with it. He will have
nothing on earth to do but carry into execution my ideas; he has not
been able to suggest one single improvement. He tried yesterday to
draw a plan somewhat different from mine, but he was obliged to admit
it was a failure, and will have to execute purely and simply my own
plan. I shall save the country many and many thousand pounds, and do
wonders for readers and library.”

And in December of the same year, he addressed a letter to Hallam, the answer to which we give:—

“December 2, 1852.

“My dear Sir,

I have just received your valuable letter on the proposed
application to the Treasury for an addition to the building at the
Museum. Your plan appears to me the only one which will meet the
emergency, and also the only one which, on the score of expense, the
Government are at all likely to entertain. But as the Trustees have
already laid both this and the proposed building to the east before
the Treasury, they cannot avoid giving them the choice.

I much fear that it will not be possible for me to attend with the
rest of the deputation—that is, I am engaged at a distance from London
both next and the following week. I will do, however, all I can to be
present. But I do not suppose the Treasury will have time before the
adjournment of Parliament.

You have, I dare say, called on the Trustees forming the deputation. I
will, however, and as you permit me, transmit your letter to Mr.
Macaulay. I think that Mr. Goulburn is as likely to have weight as any
one, but I am sure you have been in communication with him.

I should not be surprised at the removal of Elgin and other marbles to
the new National Gallery, but, of course, that part of the Museum
could not be converted into a library without much inconvenience and
expense.

Yours, &c., &c.,
H. HALLAM.”

In June, 1852, there appeared in the _Quarterly Review_, an interesting article on the British Museum, from the pen of no less a personage than the Right Honourable Wilson Croker himself. On the face of this article the writer shows himself a thorough advocate of the merits of the Reading-Room then in existence. Denying the credibility, save in the case of a few individuals of abnormally weak and susceptible brains, of the traditional _Museum headache_, to which so many, and amongst them Thomas Carlyle, had from personal experience, borne witness; he proceeds to charge the room with the very defects on which the majority of its frequenters were in the constant habit of dilating.

Amongst other works at the head of this article, is one entitled _Observations on the British Museum, National Gallery and National Record Office, with suggestions for their improvement, by James Fergusson. London, 1849_.

In this work Mr. Fergusson, anticipating Panizzi’s purpose and choice of site, proposed to construct in the inner quadrangle of the British Museum, a Reading-Room about 175 feet by 105 feet. The writer of the article gives Panizzi no credit for the soundness of his scheme, and its adaptability to the requirements of the occasion, but attributes his recommendations simply to his zeal for the efficiency of his Department, and wonders how Mr. Smirke could have lent these ideas his professional concurrence. With Mr. Fergusson’s project he disagrees as likely to spoil the effect of the inner court, as touching _the grandeur and impressiveness in its naked severity_; in this he assumes that there is a peculiar merit in the eyes of those who have seen it, though it must be granted that, to the few who had done so, this peculiar merit was not so clearly visible. He proposes as an improvement to cover in the whole court with a glass roof, after the fashion of the original Crystal Palace of 1851, in Hyde Park, and to use the grand room thus obtained as a receptacle for antiquities, sculpture, etc., with other details of improvement, which, as they were never carried out, do not require to be particularized in these pages.

This was, in fact, the scheme submitted in 1853 to the Trustees of the British Museum by Sir Charles Barry. The report made by the Trustees respecting this plan is, as may be supposed, too long to quote _verbatim_, but is, substantially, as follows:—

That Sir C. Barry’s plan, so far as it related to increased accommodation in the British Museum, was absolutely impracticable.

That it betrayed great ignorance of the wants of the Museum, and indifference as to the safe-keeping of some of its most valuable contents.

That the large skylight covering the 75,200 square feet of quadrangle would darken every window therein, and, in many seasons, obscure the whole space.

That the communications between Departments would be more inconvenient than at present, and that the new Reading-Room, proposed by Sir C. Barry, would be deficient in light, air, and accommodation, and be attended by increased expense and delay in the procuring of books.

That the supervision of the Reading-Room would be less effective, and risk of loss incurred.

That access to parts of the Library would have to be through the Reading-Room; the Cataloguers would be separated by a great distance from their books, and the Catalogues themselves suspended during the progress of the works.

That the Exhibition of Prints and Drawings would be in like manner affected; that no additional space is provided for printed books; and that general displacement and confusion in this Department would be the result of the scheme.

That Sir C. Barry’s statement—viz., that the space of only one year is sufficient for the completion of the work is without foundation.

That the plan of removal of the greater objects of antiquity from their present site to Sir C. Barry’s new hall would be attended with extraordinary labour and expense, and that their position would be no more conspicuous than before.

That mummies, metals, pottery, and objects having delicacy of colour would run risk of injury.

That ventilation would be most difficult, and the approach to the area highly objectionable.

Lastly, that the sudden fall of any large portion of the enormous glass roof might destroy some most valuable object or objects of art.

Thus the Trustees dismissed the project of Sir C. Barry, and evinced an inclination to cling to their own design, notwithstanding its rejection by the Government.

It was not long, however, before they saw the expediency of adopting Panizzi’s views; and in a letter to Lord Rutherfurd, the latter speaks hopefully, first of his plan, and afterwards of his final anticipation of the success of his scheme.

“B. M., May 16, 1854.

“... Lord Aberdeen and also Mr. Gladstone, but not Lord Lansdowne,
have been to look at the model, and both have agreed that the building
should be raised as proposed. The Trustees on Saturday were
unanimously of opinion that my suggestion was right, and have written
for the Treasury’s approbation, which, after what I mention just
before, will, no doubt, be given, and the thing done.”

The foundations of the New Reading-Room were commenced in May, and the first brick was laid in September, 1854.

In a work of such a peculiar nature and vast importance, it would be impossible to avoid the constant recurrence of obstacles and difficulties; and a third letter from Panizzi to Lord Rutherfurd proves conclusively that these were caused by circumstances quite unconnected with the actual building operations. This we subjoin:—

“B. M., October 13th, 1854.

“... The building is going on tolerably. It will be used as a source
of great annoyance to me, particularly by our friend X——, who is here
for my sins. That building will cause yet to us all—I mean the
architect, builder, and myself—great anxiety and trouble; numberless
points are to be settled, and they are knotty ones. Then I have to
agree about it with some Trustees, who evidently have no clear
conception of what it is to be, and make suggestions and objections
which they would not make if they understood what that building is,
and how it will be when finished.”

As time progressed, it became necessary to encounter and settle the question of internal decoration—a question, in all countries, of extreme delicacy and taste, and, in our own climate, especially in the atmosphere of London, most difficult of solution. The New Reading-Room had no exterior, and those who have seen the interior in its present finished state may readily imagine how bald and unsatisfactory an appearance it would have presented had even a less lavish use been made of paint and gilding in its ornamentation. From a letter of Mr. Smirke’s to Panizzi it would appear that it required some effort to obtain for the building the least amount of gilding necessary.

Here, moreover, the equally delicate question of money arose, for Panizzi’s modest estimate of £50,000 had already been greatly exceeded in the mere construction of the room, without any of its numerous and much needed accessories.

That this was so, may be seen from Mr. Smirke’s. letter:—

“Leicester, October 29, 1856.

“My dear Sir,

... I shall not let the subject of gilding the dome drop without
an effort, and propose to submit it formally to the Trustees at their
next meeting. If four or five thousand pounds were spent in gilding
some of the mouldings of the dome an effect would be produced that
could hardly be imagined; it would _illuminate_, as it were, the whole
building, and beautify it without detracting from its simplicity and
grandeur.

The £100,000 which the building costs will have been entirely spent in
objects of utility; surely four or five thousand pounds will be a
small percentage on that sum for _ornament_. In what public building
in London has the ratio of ornament to utility been as four-and-a-half
to a hundred?

Yours, &c., &c.,
SYDNEY SMIRKE.”

Most happily the authorities entertained no parsimonious ideas in the matter; and a letter from the Secretary to the Treasury (the Right Honourable James Wilson) displays a liberal and enlightened view of the necessity of combining in the new room beauty with utility, although his opinions as regards the British Museum in general, may reasonably be questioned.

This letter will also be read with interest; therefore, although lengthy, no apology is needed for its insertion:—

“Treasury Chambers,
June 3, 1856.

“My dear Panizzi,

I have read your note of the 28th of May with much interest. I
have since sent you an official letter sanctioning the gilding of the
dome. That, however, need not be considered to preclude the
consideration of the painting of the ceiling, should the Trustees be
disposed to entertain it. As the matter appears to me it is thus:—The
British Museum is certainly the best public building we have of modern
times, and is one of the few things we have to be proud of. The
Reading Hall will be one of the finest rooms and the Dome one of the
grandest structures of its kind, not to say in England, but, so far as
I know, in Europe. These circumstances certainly point to the strong
motive we should have to complete it in the best style of which it is
capable. Adverting to the fact that the whole of the sides of that
enormous circle will be fitted up with dense rows of books, with a
mass of gilded and varied coloured backs, a plain white ceiling would
be tame and cold in the extreme, and I think the choice must lie
between rich gilding, or less gilding and painting. Against the latter
I think the plan of the interior of the dome is a serious drawback,
because, being fitted in compartments, any grand subject to spread
over the whole of the dome is impossible, and if painting is resorted
to at all, it will obviously be necessary to confine it to some mode
of filling the panels only, and which, _moreover_, excepting the
ovals, are of a bad shape; for I think it is obvious that any style
that may be adopted should be rich, grave, and even severe, looking to
the purpose for which the building is intended.

* * * * *

However, it will remain for the Trustees, if they think right, to
consider this subject deliberately after they may be in possession of
any information or advice which they think proper to seek. Expressing
only my own private views at this stage, I should on public grounds
think that it would be well worth consideration, in order to perfect
so grand a work, whether an additional sum of money should not be
expended, thrown over two or three years, if a great and decided
effect can be attained by painting in place of gilding.

Yours, &c., &c.,
JAMES WILSON.”

Notwithstanding the suggestions alluded to in this letter, to the great credit of the architect’s taste and judgment, the Dome was “fitted in compartments,” and no opportunity was given for “any grand subject to spread over the whole of the Dome.” Had this project been seriously entertained, it is assuredly more than doubtful whether an artist could have been found of sufficient capacity to undertake it with any probability of success.

There is no doubt whatever that the surface of the Dome, arranged and coloured as it fortunately has been, presents a far better effect than it would have done had it been surrendered to any such decoration as a grand subject painting extending over the whole of it.

But _à propos_ of decoration, Panizzi’s letter, written just one year before, and addressed to a Trustee of the British Museum, Mr. W. R. Hamilton, will also testify to his judgment and taste in architecture:—

“B. M., June 11, 1855.

“My dear Sir,

I had no idea that my objections to showing the ribs in the
interior of the cupola, and to the form of the windows in it, would
ever have become the subject of discussion. I stated these objections
to Mr. Smirke and Mr. Fielder, and as the former was responsible, he
was perfectly right in persisting in his views if he thought me wrong;
and had that been done privately, I should have allowed the matter to
pass in silence. But as my objections have been formally canvassed and
summarily dismissed—as I am likely to get more blame for the new
building than I am fairly entitled to, and as I believe my objections
to have more in them than others allow. I think it right to put on
record these objections, being firmly convinced that the time will
come when the not having given them more consideration will be a
source of regret. If I write to you, instead of making a report to the
Trustees, it is because I do not want to say officially more than I
did on Saturday last to the Board, because Mr. Smirke appealed to you
originally as a friend, and because your unwearied kindness to me,
makes me confident that you will, on the same ground, forgive my
relieving my mind to you by repeating my objections.

1st.—As to the cupola: I object to its showing the ribs on which it
rests. I say that this is unprecedented, that it will have a bad
effect, that it renders it impossible ever to ornament it, and that
the oval frames which are introduced about half way, in the spaces
between the ribs are meaningless, not in keeping with the building.
Far from showing how they are constructed, it is their being as if it
were suspended in the air that gives the cupolas their grace, and
renders them striking objects. From them comes the light as from the
sky, of which they represent the form as much as it is possible for
mortals to imitate nature.

To show the ribs in a cupola is the same as if we were to show in
their nakedness the beams and girders supporting a floor or a roof.

It is an utter mistake to say that the ribs (_costoloni_) of St.
Peter’s are seen in the great temple itself. The cupola which is seen
inside is a second cupola, quite smooth, built on purpose to conceal
the supports and ribs of the outer cupola, and these are seen only by
persons who go to the top of that superb building, ascending between
the two cupolas, the outer and inner one.

2nd.—As to the windows: Has any one ever seen such windows in a
building, the whole character and style of which is so totally
different from them in character and style? What will the effect be
after having passed through the magnificent entrance of the Museum, to
enter a room lighted not only by arched windows, but by windows with
such ornaments in their upper portion, and then divided lengthways by
a slender upright into two very narrow and very long arches, the
proportions and frame of which are so peculiar, and so much at
variance with everything else in the whole Museum? All the doors in
the very room which is to be lighted by those windows are of simple
and rectangular form. Will not this discordance produce a most
disagreeable effect?

I feel, perhaps, too strongly on the subject, and I most sincerely
wish I may be mistaken, but I cannot, fearing strongly that this
building, which I cherished the hope would prove as handsome as it
will be useful, will thus be rendered subject to animadversion. I
write under this conviction—under this conviction I spoke last
Saturday to the Trustees. I shall claim no merit on the success; I
must disclaim the responsibility of failure on these two points.

Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”

Although, during the progress of the building, Panizzi had frequent occasion to complain of the short-comings of the workmen employed thereon, yet, the new Reading-Room was entirely finished by the end of April, 1857, in the laudably short space of less than three years. Much credit was due to the great energy of the contractor, Mr. Fielder, for whom Panizzi entertained the highest esteem, and who was untiring in his earnest endeavours in carrying out the plans of the architect; and on the 2nd of May in the same year, the building was duly opened, a grand breakfast being given at the British Museum in honour of the occasion: to this the Prince Consort had been invited by Panizzi, and had accepted the invitation, but was prevented from attending by an unforeseen occurrence.

The following letter accounts for His Royal Highness’s absence from the ceremony:—

“Piccadilly,
April 30th, 1857.

“My dear Sir,

As the death of H.R.H. the Duchess of Gloucester will inevitably
prevent H.R.H. Prince Albert’s attending at the opening of the Reading
Room on Saturday next, you will oblige me by stating whether or not
the ceremony will still take place or be postponed to a future day.

Yours faithfully,
CADOGAN.”

A. Panizzi, Esq.

The postponement of the opening of the Room was, however, simply impossible, and amongst other notabilities present were the following:—

The Archbishop of Canterbury (Sumner), Earl and Countess of Clarendon, Earl Cawdor, Earl of Aberdeen, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Charles and Lady Eastlake, Lady Cranworth, Baron Marochetti, the Dean of St. Paul’s and Mrs. Milman, Professor Owen, Lord Panmure, Lord and Lady John Russell, Sir George and Lady Grey, Earl Spencer, the Bishop of London and Mrs. Tait, and the Duke of Somerset.

All the officers were also present, with the exception of Sir Frederick Madden (Keeper of the MSS.), but Mr. E. A. Bond, then Assistant-Keeper, represented him. One of the letters replying to Panizzi’s invitation to this breakfast may be given here, to show the estimate formed by one whose judgment may safely be respected, of the Librarian’s own share in the building of the new Reading-Room:—

“24, Bedford Square,
21st April, 1857.

“Dear Panizzi,

I shall have very great pleasure in witnessing the Inauguration
of the New Reading-Room, not only as an observance marking an epoch in
the advance of the Museum, but as tending by new allurements of
splendor and convenience to increase the resort of every class of
society to it, as well for study as for investigations.

Without lessening the merits of Mr. Smirke and Mr. Fielder in carrying
out its plans, the contriver and real architect throughout has been
Antonio Panizzi.

Your exertions have brought increased prosperity to the greatest of
our Institutions.

Yours ever sincerely,
HENRY ELLIS.”

Another letter, by the same hand, bears testimony to the success of the entertainment itself:—

“24, Bedford Square,
4th May, 1857.

“Dear Panizzi,

I must not resist the pleasure I feel in expressing to you my
congratulations on the successful opening of our new Reading-Room, on
Saturday, although H.R.H. Prince Albert, contrary to his own
intention, was prevented by the Duchess of Gloucester’s demise, from
honouring it with his presence.

You see I still venture to say _our_ Reading-Room, for although
officially defunct, my heart and mind remain attached to the welfare
of the place, and with it a fancied identity still hovering over me,
and I must say not a little encouraged by the prosperity and
increasing magnificence of the place I have so long loved.

Everybody who came on Saturday was delighted with your kind reception,
and nothing could be a more complete adaptation to the circuit which
surrounded it than your entertainment, alike conspicuous for the
abundance, and the refined taste in the selection and preparation of
its viands.

The ladies, I can assure you, were not a little pleased with the
compliment of the bouquets. The only regret I felt myself was in the
consideration of the fatigue you must have undergone in your own
exertions to prepare for making so choice a company as you assembled,
so completely pleased and happy, not omitting your toil also in the
reception; but in both points I am quite sure you were thoroughly
successful.

Accept my own thanks for your kindness to me personally on this
eventful occasion, and with my best wishes that you may long live to
continue your exertions for the benefit of the Museum, and that you
may be backed by the liberality of successive Chancellors of the
Exchequer, such as Sir George Cornewall Lewis.

Yours, &c., &c.
HENRY ELLIS.”

The reply to this conveys a graceful tribute to Sir Henry Ellis’s own deserts:—

“B. M., May 4th, 1857.

“My dear Sir Henry,

I assure you that I cannot find words to express adequately the
feelings with which I perused your most kind letter; believe me,
although I shall not say much, I feel deeply your kindness.

This great institution which has grown under your eyes, and increased
from small beginnings to its present magnitude by your _paternal_ care
and unremitting exertions for the space of 56 years, must always
occupy a high place in your heart. I can only express the hope that I
may not attempt in vain to follow your footsteps in the responsible
situation which I fill, and that the comparison may not be so much to
my disadvantage, when in future times the results of your
administration are compared with mine.

Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”

Whatever may have been Panizzi’s claim to be considered the “Architect,” as well as the originator of the design for the New Reading-Room, his reputation for having performed so great a service was not altogether unassailed. On the completion of his important work, a vigorous attack, more formidable perhaps in appearance than in reality, was directed from a somewhat unexpected quarter against both the originality of the plan and the _bonâ fides_ of the author. _Hæc feci monimenta meum tulit alter honorem, sic vos non vobis, etc._ Such were the words of William Hosking, Professor of Architecture, King’s College, London.

This gentleman had, some years before, prepared a design for additional buildings to the British Museum, and these he proposed to place in the quadrangle, on the site afterwards fixed on by Panizzi for his Reading-Room. In 1848 Mr. Hosking submitted his plan to Lord Ellesmere’s Museum Commission, and afterwards, in 1849, to the Trustees.

Great though its merits may have been, it unfortunately met with approbation from neither. Mr. Hosking now made a charge against Panizzi of having pirated not only his choice of the position, but also the form of the building, which he alleges has been colourably altered so as to pass for Panizzi’s own.

The earlier design appeared in the _Builder_ of June 22nd, 1850. We mention this in order that the reader may have an opportunity of comparing it with the latter and judge for himself as to which possesses the greater merit and originality.

Mr. Hosking’s building, it must in justice be allowed, would have been of itself extremely ornamental, and, with equal justice, it may be said would have been considerably less useful than ornamental. Although the superiority of past ages has reduced the art of the present day to imitation, combined, in comparatively rare cases, with happy adaptation, it is, nevertheless, doubtful how far any architect who should make an actual copy of so well-known a building as the Pantheon at Rome, and set it up in one of the most conspicuous positions in London, would be justified in so doing, or would merit popular approbation, even though he acted with the same “bonâ fides” as Mr. Hosking.

Not to enter, however, on this higher question, it is obvious that there were valid reasons why the Trustees should have rejected this scheme. They may be excused for not, at first sight, perceiving the necessity or utility of raising no less a structure than the dome of the Pantheon over a portion of the statuary of the British Museum. Another project in Mr. Hosking’s plan (not mentioned in the extract from the _Builder_), whereby he proposed to cut off a portion of the King’s Library for a new Reading-Room, was scarcely worthy of second consideration.

On the completion of Panizzi’s work Mr. Hosking, probably wroth at his own ill success, and aggrieved at the favour lavished on the other, proceeded to open his attack on the alleged pirate, firing his first shot direct at that individual:—

“Athenæum,
30th April, 1857.

“Sir,