Chapter XIII (2)

As the credit of suggesting the site and originating the work
recently built in the quadrangular court of the British Museum is
popularly assigned to you, whilst I claim to have devised and made
known the scheme in the first instance, I hope you will hold me
excused for asking you to be so good as to give me the means of
placing the matter rightly before the public by informing me whether
the project to the same effect which I laid before Lord Ellesmere’s
Commission in 1848, and communicated to the Trustees of the Museum in
1849, had been seen by you before you devised the present work.

My plan, with an abstract of the description which accompanied it,
was, after the drawing which presented it came back from the Trustees,
published in the _Builder_, as you know; for I sent you a copy of the
print, and that was two years before the scheme lately carried out was
made known to the public.

I am, yours, &c.,
WILLIAM HOSKING.”

To this Panizzi lost no time in replying:—

“British Museum,
May 1st, 1857.

“Sir,

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday’s
date requesting me to inform you whether a certain project of yours of
building in the inner quadrangle of the Museum, and which, as you
state, you laid before Lord Ellesmere’s Commission in 1848, and
communicated to the Trustees in 1849 (as I have just now ascertained
for the first time) had been seen by me before I designed the present
work, that is the Reading-Room and Libraries recently built on that
site.

I beg in answer to state that I had never seen your project or the
scheme to which you allude before I suggested the work which is now
completed.

I saw, when published, in the _Builder_, a separately printed copy of
it which was sent to me, I suppose by you, without any accompanying
note or letter, long after the works for carrying out my suggestion
had been commenced.

The concluding part of your letter must mean, of course, that that
publication took place two years before the scheme lately carried out
had been made known, _not_ that you sent me the copy of your plan two
years before my suggestion had been made known to the public. It is
desirable that there should be no ambiguity on this point.

Permit me to add that the schemes for covering over, or building in
the quadrangle were numberless. My colleague, Mr. Hawkins, had often
suggested, long before 1850 a communication by corridors across the
quadrangle, from the front entrance to the several departments, with a
central building for the Trustees’ Meeting-Room and officers standing
round it.

You suggested a great Central Hall with one floor of 120 feet in
diameter, two inscribing octagonal corridors presenting niches to
receive statues, and extensive wall surface fit to receive reliefs and
inscriptions with connecting galleries, etc.

The Hall was intended by you for the exhibition of the finer and more
important works of sculpture, besides a quadrilateral hall to contain
ample staircases, etc.

I, on the other hand, have suggested and have seen built a circular
Reading-Room, 140 feet in diameter, with amazing shelf room for books
of a totally novel construction. No central hall, no quadrilateral
hall nor ample staircases, no space, niches, or wall-surface for the
exhibition of works of sculpture, statues, or inscriptions as you
suggested. How your scheme can be designated as being to the same
effect as mine, and how, had I seen it, it can take the merit of
originality from mine, others will say.

Yours was the scheme of an architect; thick walls, ample staircases,
etc. Mine the humble suggestion of a Librarian, who wanted to find, at
a small cost of time, space, and money, ample room for books and
comfortable accommodation for readers, neither of which purposes you
contemplated.

Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”

William Hosking, Esq.

Mr. Hosking also attempted to extract information as to the alleged piracy from the architect of the new Reading-Room.

“Athenæum, 30th April, 1857

“My dear Sir,

Will you be so kind as to tell me whether you ever saw the
drawing, or any copy of it, of my project for building a modified copy
of the Pantheon at Rome within the enclosed quadrangle of the British
Museum, _before_ the scheme of the analogous work recently executed
under your directions at the same place, and attributed to Mr.
Panizzi, was communicated to you?

Yours &c., &c.,
WILLIAM HOSKING.”

To Sydney Smirke, Esq.

How much success Mr. Hosking attained in this attempt will be seen on a perusal of Mr. Smirke’s answer:—

“May 2, 1857.

“Dear Sir,

I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday. I
recollect seeing your plans, or rather I had a glance over them at a
meeting of the Trustees, shortly after you sent them.

When, long subsequently, Mr. Panizzi showed me his sketch for a plan
of a New Reading-Room, I confess it did not remind me of yours, the
purposes of the two plans and the treatment and construction
altogether were so different.

The idea of building over the quadrangle is of very early date, it was
certainly mooted in the Museum fifteen years ago.

Yours, &c., &c.,
SYDNEY SMIRKE.

It may as well be mentioned in this place, that as Panizzi in his letter already quoted, disclaims originality in choosing the position of his New Room, so Mr. Hosking, in a subsequent letter, dated 4th of May, 1857, to Mr. Smirke, admits that “It is quite 15 years since Mr. Hawkins proposed to build corridors across it (the quadrangle) to facilitate intercommunication.” Neither of the opposing parties, however, takes note of the fact that, as early as 1836-7, Mr. Thomas Watts, the late Keeper of the Department of Printed Books in the British Museum, had actually suggested the construction of a Reading-Room in the very spot of Panizzi’s selection.

He had written in the _Mechanics Magazine_ for March 11th, 1837, commenting upon the waste of space occasioned by the empty quadrangle, “A Reading-Room, of ample dimensions, might have stood in the centre, and been surrounded on all four sides by galleries for the books, communicating with each other and lighted from the top.” A little further on, however, he half retracts his own suggestion, remarking, “So much has been expended on the great quadrangle, that it might seem barbarous to propose filling up the square, as ought to have been originally done.” The grand conception of the cupola, by which architectural effect was to be taken away only to be restored with interest, had not dawned upon him; and, in fact, the reverence expressed by so many for the architecture of the inner court would have been more intelligible, if the court had been more accessible.

As regards originality, therefore, in this portion of the respective designs there can be no possible ground of discussion.

Still Mr. Hosking could not be convinced that, in other points, his design was not feloniously used and himself consequently wronged by Panizzi, and so published a long pamphlet dwelling, amongst other things, on the alleged fact that the latter must have seen the copy of the _Builder_ which he sent to him in May, 1852.

To this allegation Panizzi gave a categorical denial; but a short statement, dated May 18th, 1858, in answer to the longer pamphlet, will show sufficiently for our present purpose the line of attack adopted by his opponent, and his own method of defence.

_Remarks on Mr. Hosking’s Claims to the Design of the British Museum
New Building._

1st.—Mr. Hosking having suggested “a modified copy of the Pantheon,” a
massive building for the exhibition of sculpture, with no
accommodation for readers or books, now claims the merit of the
structure which I suggested, and which has been built, was intended,
and is used, solely, for readers and for books. His scheme included
quadrilateral halls, central halls, ample staircases, corridors, &c.,
all of the usual materials; the building which I suggested and have
seen carried out, is original in plan, use of materials, arrangement,
and construction. Mr. Hosking says that it is not the plan of the
Pantheon that he claims, “but the application of its form,
disposition, and proportions;” and the plagiarism he alleges, is the
application of such his device, with certain of his combinations,
contrary to honour and good faith, not only on my part, but also on
that of the Trustees. It will be obvious to any one who will inspect
the building, that neither the form, nor the disposition, nor the
proportions of the Pantheon, have been adopted in the new building at
the Museum. There is no resemblance whatever between the architectural
features of the two schemes. Mr. Hosking proposed a reduced
Pantheon,—a cupola 120 feet in height, and the same in diameter. The
cupola of the Reading-Room is 140 feet in diameter, and 106 feet in
height. Are these two conceptions alike?

2nd.—Mr. Hosking says that I am a “pirate,” having taken from his
scheme my suggestions for building the Reading-Room and surrounding
Libraries; which suggestions I made on the 5th of May, 1852. Instead
of using hard words and dealing in generalities, it would be better
that Mr. Hosking should declare specifically which of his suggestions
have been adopted in the new building. I affirm none, not even the
most trifling. Indeed such an appropriation was impossible, as I am
going to prove. Mr. Hosking states that, on the 14th of June, 1852, he
sent me a copy of that portion of the _Builder_, dated June 22, 1850,
in which his scheme of building was set forth. I distinctly aver that
I did not receive that portion of the _Builder_ on the 14th of June,
1852, nor in any part of 1852 or 1853, and that I never knew of Mr.
Hosking’s plan till the latter part of 1854, when I did see, for the
first time, the extract from the _Builder_ of the 22nd of June, 1850.

3rd.—Long after the works for the new building were begun, I found in
my study at the British Museum (not at my private residence), a paper
merely addressed to me, in which was carelessly wrapped up a copy of
what professed to be an extract from that number of the _Builder_. I
showed it at once to Mr. Jones and to Mr. Fielder, as a document just
received, and wondering whence it came. I learned then, for the first
time, from Mr. Fielder, who Mr. Hosking was.[S] The moment I received
Mr. Hosking’s letter of the 30th of April, 1857, informing me that the
extract from the _Builder_ had been sent by him, I showed it to both
those gentlemen, who recollected, immediately, my having shown them
that extract, as I have just stated. The works for the new building
were begun late in March, 1854, the contract was made some time after:
I became acquainted with Mr. Fielder after the contract was made.

4th.—Mr. Hosking admits that I could not have received his paper in
May, 1852, when I put forward my “first design,” but is positive that
I had received it when I put forward “the other, early in 1854.” My
answer is, that I never put forward any design whatever after May,
1852. I have freely made suggestions to Mr. Smirke; he has most
unreservedly consulted me from May, 1852, to the present day; but I
have never made any other design than that shown by the two plans of
May, 1852, accompanying my report of the 5th of that month, and
printed by order of the House of Commons on the 30th of that same
month.

5th.—Mr. Hosking asserts that if the cupola rested merely on its iron
supports (which it does, in fact, as any one may see) it would tumble
down; and, as if to show that he has not the most distant conception
of what the Museum Reading-Room ought to be, he actually proposes that
the King’s Library should be used as such.

6th.—If the new Reading-Room and Libraries at the British Museum have
any merit, they have, by universal consent, that of being in every way
adapted to their respective purposes. The fittings, the tables, the
warming, the lighting, the peculiar system of ventilation applied, the
multifarious, minute arrangements adopted in order to economise space
and for the accommodation and comfort of readers, as well as for the
ready access to books, are certainly not less important than the
building of which they form an integral and vital part, but upon none
of which has Mr. Hosking put forth his views. His suggestion of
placing works of art in a room 120 feet in diameter, lighted from the
top of a dome at a height of 120 feet, speaks for itself.

7th.—On the publication of my plans by order of the House of Commons,
in June, 1852, they were much canvassed in the public press, and
severely animadverted upon in the _Quarterly Review_. The possibility
of their success was long denied, and Mr. Hosking was silent. That
success is now established, and Mr. Hosking claims the merit as his
own.

A. PANIZZI.

B. M., May 18, 1858.

-----

Footnote S:

The name of Mr. Hosking occurs repeatedly in the printed document here
referred to as that of the author of the plan therein put forth.

-----

Previously to the issue of this statement, Panizzi had asked for, and obtained, from the architect his opinion on the dissimilarity between the two plans.

“Grosvenor Street,
April 8th, 1858.

“Dear Sir,

I feel no hesitation in complying with your request, and stating
that the idea of a circular Reading-Room with surrounding Library, and
with the divisions formed wholly of book-cases, was perfectly original
and entirely your own, and totally unlike the solid masonic structure
devised by Mr. Hosking for the exhibition of sculpture. The two plans
neither did, nor do, strike me as having any resemblance to each
other, and that is what I meant to express in my note of last July.
The architectural features of the present dome I am answerable for,
not you, and it is obviously as unlike the Pantheon as any two domes
can be. It was Michael Angelo’s cupola of St. Peter which suggested
the present lines of yours.

Yours, &c., &c.,
SYDNEY SMIRKE.

Neither Panizzi nor Hosking lacked supporters amongst the numerous critics and judges who, as a matter of course, came forward on such an occasion; and a war, supported by newspapers on either side, was vigorously carried on for upwards of a year. Into the details of the controversy it would be tedious and irrelevant to enter; but whoever will undertake impartially to peruse the records of it (many of which are still extant), will have neither doubt nor difficulty in ascribing the victory to Panizzi.

But as “there is a river in Macedon and there is, moreover, a river at Monmouth,” so it must be admitted that there were, at least, three sterling points of resemblance between the two designs. They are as follows:—1st. That for each was chosen the same plot of ground, but that the merit of originality in such choice belongs to neither designer. 2nd. That both buildings had domes, but these domes so dissimilar that comparison is out of the question. 3rd (and here lay the most striking point of resemblance), That in design, purpose, execution, proportion, and every other detail, Panizzi’s building differs “toto cœlo” from the structure devised by Hosking.

The whole story gives occasion for melancholy reflection on the common and vulgar fortune of so many great men, whose claims to invention or discovery are constantly challenged by those of whose existence they never heard until their own works were perfected. There is reason to believe that the claimants to the invention of the Archimedean screw, are almost equal in number to those who have suggested building in the inner quadrangle of the British Museum.

The following is a description of the room:—

“The Reading-Room is circular. The entire building does not occupy the whole quadrangle, there being a clear interval of from 27 to 30 feet all round, to give light and air to the surrounding buildings, and as a guard against possible destruction by fire from the outer parts of the Museum. The dome of this Reading-Room is 140 feet in diameter, its height being 106 feet. In this dimension of diameter it is only inferior to the Pantheon of Rome by 2 feet; St. Peters being only 139; Sta. Maria in Florence, 139; the tomb of Mahomet, Bejapore, 135; St. Paul’s, 112; St. Sophia, Constantinople, 107; and the Church at Darmstadt, 105. The new Reading-Room contains 1,250,000 cubic feet of space; its ‘suburbs,’ or surrounding Libraries, 750,000. The building is constructed principally of iron, with brick arches between the main ribs, supported by 20 iron piers, having a sectional area of 10 superficial feet to each, including the brick casing, or 200 feet in all. This saving of space by the use of iron is remarkable, the piers of support on which our dome rests only thus occupying 200 feet, whereas the piers of the Pantheon of Rome fill 7,477 feet of area, and those of the tomb of Mahomet, 5,593. Upwards of 2,000 tons of iron have been employed in the construction. The weight of the materials used in the dome is about 4,200 tons viz., upwards of 200 tons on each pier.”

It may be considered that we are open to the impeachment of plagiarism, greater even than could be ascribed to Panizzi, inasmuch as we have taken our statistics from a penny book—that most accurate one sold at the Museum at this very moderate price—and having borrowed from this valuable little publication, we can but claim as our excuse the worth of its contents, and the consideration of those readers into whose hands the small publication may never have fallen.

A domed building possessing beauty of appearance is by no means easy of construction, and some of the most celebrated in the world are conspicuously deficient in grace and elegance, especially as regards the exterior.

Fortunately it has fallen to the lot of the new Reading-Room to be concerned only with the most manageable side of its dome—viz., the inside.

By this, as will be universally allowed, criticism is disarmed. The proportions of the room are admirable, and the lines of architecture full of grace and beauty. The lighting is based on the most scientific principles, and the dome itself (only inferior in dimensions to one other in existence) maintains its own appearance as to actual size, and is of grandeur proportionate to its general lightness and elegance.

The spectator will, however, be most struck with its style of internal decoration, a grand example of success, when our attempts have hitherto been so futile.

The fear of tampering with colour has ever been one of our idiosyncrasies, and it may be observed in this instance.

True, that in our uncertain climate and obscure atmosphere, Nature herself lends but little aid in the matter, either as regards instruction or example; but the colouring of the Reading-Room may be pronounced free from indifference or conventionality, and to the freedom observable is added a boldness and originality which must be seen to be truly estimated at its proper value.

To give the reader, however, some general notion of the manner in which the colouring has been managed, we quote, without apology, one more passage from the small _brochure_ to which we have alluded:—

“In the decoration of the interior dome, light colours and the purest gilding have been preferred. The Great Room, therefore, has an illuminated and elegant aspect. The decorative work may be shortly described:—The inner surface of the dome is divided into twenty compartments by moulded ribs, which are gilded with leaf prepared from unalloyed gold, the soffites being in ornamental patterns, and the edges touching the adjoining margins fringed with a leaf-pattern scolloped edge. Each compartment contains a circular-headed window, twenty-seven feet high and twelve feet wide, with three panels above, the central one being medallion-shaped, the whole bordered with gilt mouldings and lines, and the field of the panels finished in encaustic azure blue, the surrounding margins being of a warm cream colour. The details of the windows are treated in like manner—the spandril panels blue; the enriched column and pilaster caps, the central flowers, the border moulding and lines being gilded—the margins cream colour throughout. The moulded rim of the lantern light, which is painted and gilded to correspond, is 40 feet in diameter. The sash is formed of gilt moulded ribs, radiating from a central medallion, in which the Royal Monogram is alternated with the Imperial Crown.

“The cornice, from which the dome springs, is massive and almost wholly gilded, the frieze being formed into panels bounded by lines terminating at the ends with a gilt fret ornament. Each compartment of the dome is marked by a bold enriched gilt console, which forms at once the support of the main rib and the base for a colossal marble statue, a series of which it is proposed to place on the cornice.

“Between the cornice and the floor the space is filled with the bookcases and galleries of access, the cornice, standards, and railings of which are wholly gilded, the panels of the soffites of the latter being blue, having gilded ornaments therein.”

It will have been observed that the original draft of Panizzi’s scheme proposed to provide space for a larger number of readers than was ultimately found advisable. The problem of accommodating readers was, indeed, less momentous than that of accommodating books; and any account of Panizzi’s edifice would be most imperfect which did not take some notice of his solution of this latter difficulty. As already stated, the space in which the new Reading-Room was to be erected was quadrangular, while the room itself was to be circular. The quadrangle is 335 feet by 235; the diameter of the dome of the Reading-Room, as ultimately constructed, was 140 feet. The circle thus inscribed in the quadrangle left, consequently, ample space for the construction of additional rooms. After deducting a clear space of from 27 to 30 feet left, for the sake of air and light, between the exterior of the new building and the inner wall of the original Museum, the former was still 258 feet by 184, equivalent to an area of 47,472 square feet. The amount of this space external to the Reading-Room (about three-eighths of the whole) was occupied:—1. By a circular gallery in four tiers, including the basement storey, carried entirely round the Reading-Room. 2. By four corridors in three tiers, each forming a quadrangle parallel with the interior walls of the original Museum structure. 3. By four apartments of triangular shape, filling up the spaces left vacant between the circle and the quadrangle in which it was inscribed. Accommodation was thus provided for about 1,200,000 books, or five times as many as the Museum had possessed when Panizzi became Keeper. This result was obtained by great economy of space, there being no walls except the exterior wall, the partitions being formed by the books themselves arranged fore-edge to fore-edge, except against the external wall, the shelves of double bookcases being divided longitudinally by a wire lattice. These shelves are placed between grooved uprights of galvanized iron, and upon metal pins inserted into holes made for the purpose in the wooden lining of the grooves. Sufficient space is left between these rows of bookcases to admit of the passage of two barrows, and the entire remaining space is available for the storage of books. The roof is glass, and the flooring of the galleries is formed of open iron gratings to allow of the transmission of light to the basement. The presses are everywhere of the same dimensions, eight feet by three, so that each gallery is eight feet high. The shelves are made of zinc covered with leather, the multiplicity of perforations in the wooden lining of the uprights allowing of their being placed apart at any interval required, and, thanks to Mr. Watts’s elastic system of numbering the presses, the books destined to occupy them were removed from their previous locality without the alteration of a single press mark. They consisted, for the most part, of acquisitions made since 1845, the date when Panizzi’s quoted report on the deficiencies of the Library was laid before the House of Commons. The ground floor of the Reading-Room was occupied by 20,000 volumes especially selected to serve as a Reference Library. These were partly chosen, and the whole were admirably catalogued by Mr. Rye, then Second Assistant-Keeper, who also drew the coloured ground plan of the Reading-Room, and superintended the placing of the volumes. Several picked Assistants worked extra time under him for many days, and the task was only completed just in time for the opening of the room. The galleries were filled with periodicals, and all the books above and below were bound, or, at least, gilt and furbished, with an especial view to decorative effect.

It only remained to provide for the management of the Room by the appointment of Mr. Watts as Superintendent. “The readers,” wrote Mr. Winter Jones in 1859, “have thus placed at their disposal, for six hours every day, the services of a gentleman whose intimate acquaintance with the Museum collections, extensive knowledge of the literature of his own and foreign countries, and acquirements as a linguist rarely to be met with, render him peculiarly fitted to carry out the chief object of the Trustees.”

This description, which has already been drawn out to a length rather exceeding our original intentions, but which the interest of the subject somewhat justifies, may appropriately be concluded with a notice of the last ornaments added to the Reading-Room:—

Here is a bust of Panizzi, by Baron Marochetti, placed over the principal entrance; an admirable likeness, but, whatever its merits, the position in which it was to have been placed met at the time with strenuous opposition on the ground of convenience even from Panizzi himself.

“B. M., May 14th, 1856.

“My dear Sir Henry,

I had the curiosity to go and see where it was proposed to
place my bust, I need not say that the condescension of the
Trustees in permitting it to be exhibited anywhere is as
gratifying to me as the mark of regard which prompted my
fellow-labourers in the Printed-Book Department to subscribe for
that work; I am, therefore, much flattered by the suggestion of
the Building Committee, but my personal feelings and gratification
ought not to prevail over the public convenience, and on this
ground I earnestly beg of them to reconsider that suggestion.

I confess I am astonished at Mr. Smirke not objecting to the
proposed site; he well knows that the corridor leading from the
hall to the New Reading-Room _is not too wide as it is_, were it
possible it ought to be wider—he knows that he is obliged, and has
agreed with me to make two recesses or niches, one on each side,
in which attendants may sit in that corridor, out of the way of
the readers going to and from; lastly, he knows that that is the
only place in the Library open to the public, to the walls of
which can be affixed large maps, on rollers for ready use; the
only objection to this scheme being the narrowness of the
corridor, and knowing all this he leaves it to me to point out the
inconvenience of leaving such an useless obstruction as my bust
placed there.

I again say that the public convenience and utility imperatively
require both the walls of the corridor to be reserved for public
use, and the thoroughfare to the Reading-Room to be kept quite
clear.

Yours, &c., &c.,
A. PANIZZI.”

Sir Henry Ellis, &c., &c.

It is evident that the ultimate destination of the bust had not been fixed upon up to the 7th of March, when Mr. Smirke addressed the following letter to Panizzi:—

“In the public corridor leading to the New Reading-Room will be a
wide, handsome folding door, over this, there is a piece of blank
wall which will form the termination of the vista on approaching
the Great Room; I want to put some object there that the eye might
dwell on with pleasure as you advance along the corridor. What do
you think of a circular niche over the door with a _Bust of the
Queen in it_? Minerva’s head might do—but the Queen’s would be
more in accordance with the _spirit of the times_!”

A curious incident, with happier details than the great cause of Hosking _v._ Panizzi, must not be omitted from the history of the New Reading-Room. It will be remembered that, in 1823, the Duke of Modena had executed a well known effigy of Panizzi; and it happened, in after years, that this so-styled “Duchino” potentate’s friend and ally, Austria (who would fain have dealt with the great Carbonaro in a more effective manner), struck with honest admiration of his genius, as displayed in the New Reading-Room, after failing to obtain actual possession of his head, judged it expedient to take what advantage she could of that head’s cerebral development. Accordingly, on the completion of Panizzi’s work, she instructed her Ambassador in this country (Count Apponyi) to apply for information as to the plans, construction, &c., &c., of the New Room in the British Museum, with a view to adapting them to the projected New Library of the University of Vienna. The following correspondence contains an even more valuable tribute to Panizzi’s reputation than the honour already paid to him by his adopted country:—

“Londres, le 9 Juin, 1857.

“Monsieur le Comte,

L’admiration universelle qu’a excité la construction et
l’organisation de la nouvelle salle de lecture du Musée
Britannique à Londres a fait naître au Ministère de l’Instruction
Publique en Autriche le désir de connaître plus à fond tout ce qui
se rapporte à l’établissement de cette salle dans le bût d’en
tirer avantage pour la bibliothèque de l’Université de Vienne qui
va être nouvellement construite.

J’ai été en conséquence chargé, M. le Comte, d’avoir recours à
l’obligeante intervention de V. E., à l’effet d’obtenir, de la
manière la plus détaillée qu’il sera possible, les plans, et
descriptions relativement à la construction et aux arrangements
intérieurs de la dite salle, dont la perfection est digne de
servir de modèle à tous les établissements de ce genre.

J’espère qu’en vue du but que se propose le Gouvernement Impérial,
celui de S.M.B. ne se refusera pas à la demande que, par
l’entremise de V. E., je me permets de lui adresser.

Veuillez, &c., &c.,
APPONYI.”

(A Lord Clarendon.)

To this Panizzi, much amused and doubtless flattered, as he should have been by the whole affair, which he had communicated as a good joke to a few of his very intimate friends, sent a courteous reply with the required information.

The effect of the new Reading-Room in encouraging study was speedily perceptible. During 1856 the number of visitors had been 53,422. From its opening to the public on May 18th, 1857, to the end of the year they were 75,128. “The general success of the New Room,” said the _Edinburgh Review_, “is, in fact, alarming.” The remark proved just. The concourse of readers went on increasing until, in 1862, it was necessary to raise the limit of age from 18 to 21, a measure recommendable on other grounds. The result proved how large a proportion of the visitors were youths under age, who merely resorted to the Reading-Room to get up their tasks. The average daily attendance fell from between nearly 400 and 500 to about 360, and so continued until within the last few years, when, from causes which do not fall within the scope of a history of Panizzi’s administration, the daily average again rose and is now about 450, or nearly treble that of the old Reading-Room.

Thus has been presented to our readers a short history of the steps by which the present Reading-Room became a realized fact, and the important part which Panizzi played in its design, erection, ornamentation, and gradual development—a Room, which world-known will ever associate his name with itself and its wonderful treasures, and will remain a noble monument of his zeal for the welfare and grandeur of an Institution so dearly loved.

END OF VOL. I.

S. STRAKER AND SONS, PRINTERS, LONDON AND REDHILL.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s Note

On p. 144, there is a passage beginning “How do you account...”, the quotation marks of which are somehow incorrect. Rather than speculate regarding the intent, it is left as printed.

Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original.

36.5 in converting it into an instrume[m/n]t of Replaced.
Carbonarism

43.28 it was related at a bang[n/u]et. Inverted,

65.30 the highest admiration.[” /[ “]It would be Moved.
impossible,”

90.10 indicate a lively imagination.[”] Removed.

94.7 are neatly turned, and [and ] convey Redundant.

100.29 of an energetic admin[i]strative faculty. Inserted.

107.30 during these four months[,/.] Replaced.

117.11 besides Charles König, a German[.] Added.

124.24 that _lapis_ means a [a] _stone_ Redundant.

137.21 a recommendati[e/o]n from the other Principal Replaced.
Trustee

143.4 sterling value.[”] Removed.

171.17 (2 vols[.] 8vo, on vellum.) Added.

181.6 as a free man to Italy is evinced[.] Added.

188.35 the innumerable frag[e]ments Removed.

188.36 an Assi[s]tant in the Museum. Inserted.

189.13 even including Scotland.[’/”] Replaced.

217.33 who was likely to g[ua/au]ge the diplomacy Transposed.

220.7 le mariage du Duc de Montpensier[.] Added.

225.36 qui ne crée qu’une simple éven[t]ualité Restored.

255.3 To return to the British Museum an[d] the Restored.
Royal Commission

256.17 had been shown to exist[.] Added.

256.26 between Sir C[.] Fellows Added.

258.22 cases destructive of responsibility[.] Added.

272.21 you will be appreciated as you deserve.[’] Added.

282.22 on purpose to show him this[.] Added.

284.22 not always ple[a]sant or exhilarating Inserted.

286.7 “That nine copies of each book or books[’/”] Replaced.

298.15 as explained in my lett[t]er Removed.

305.1 ‘the _milder_ shades of Purgatory[’] Added.

311.2 et obtenait du Pape un privil[é/è]ge exclusif Replacced.

311.4 Je connaissais d[e/é]jà plusieurs des petites Replaced.
éditions

340.20 [á/à] la civilisation et au progrès. Replaced.

344.1 After eight months’ incumbency[./,] Replaced.

350.19 shown to Mr. Winter[ ]Jones on the same day. Inserted.

353.10 of those intended to sep[e/a]rate closets Replaced.

355.19 they cannot avoid giving them the choice[.] Added.

369.32 with the same “bon[a/â] fides” Replaced.

387.25 pour la biblioth[é/è]que Replaced.