LIVES OF
                              THE FOUNDERS
                                 OF THE
                            BRITISH MUSEUM;
                                  WITH
                    NOTICES OF ITS CHIEF AUGMENTORS
                         AND OTHER BENEFACTORS.
                               1570–1870.


                           BY EDWARD EDWARDS.




                                PART II.


                                LONDON:
                 TRÜBNER AND CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
                                 1870.
                        (_All rights reserved._)




              PRINTED BY J. E. ADLARD, BARTHOLOMEW CLOSE.




                              CHAPTER III.
             A GROUP OF BOOK-LOVERS AND PUBLIC BENEFACTORS.

  ‘If we were to take away from the Museum Collection [of Books] the
  King’s Library, and the collection which George the Third gave before
  that, and then the magnificent collection of Mr. Cracherode, as well
  as those of Sir William Musgrave, Sir Joseph Banks, Sir Richard Colt
  Hoare, and many others,—and also all the books received under the
  Copyright Act,—if we were to take away all the books so given, I am
  satisfied not one half of the books [in 1836], nor one third of the
  _value_ of the Library, has been procured with money voted by the
  Nation. The Nation has done almost nothing for the Library....

  ‘Considering the British Museum to be a National Library for research,
  its utility increases in proportion with the very rare and costly
  books, in preference to modern books.... I think that scholars have a
  right to look, for these expensive works, to the Government of the
  Country....

  ‘I want a poor student to have the same means of indulging his learned
  curiosity,—of following his rational pursuits,—of consulting the same
  authorities,—of fathoming the most intricate inquiry,—as the richest
  man in the kingdom, as far as books go. And I contend that Government
  is bound to give him the most liberal and unlimited assistance in this
  respect. I want the Library of the British Museum to have books of
  both descriptions....

  ‘When you have given a hundred thousand pounds,—in ten or twelve
  years,—you will begin to have a library worthy of the British
  Nation.’—

  ANTONIO PANIZZI—_Evidence before Select Committee on British Museum_,
     7th June, 1836. (Q. 4785–4795.)

  _Notices of some early Donors of Books.—The Life and Collections of
      Clayton Mordaunt_ CRACHERODE.—_William_ PETTY, _first Marquess of
      Lansdowne, and his Library of Manuscripts.—The Literary Life and
      Collections of Dr. Charles_ BURNEY.—_Francis_ HARGRAVE _and his
      Manuscripts.—The Life and Testamentary Foundations of Francis
      Henry_ EGERTON, _Ninth Earl of Bridgewater_.


The Reader has now seen that, within some twelve or fifteen years, a
Collection of Antiquities, comparatively small and insignificant, was so
enriched as to gain the aspect of a National Museum of which all
English-speaking men might be proud, and mere fragments of which
enlightened Foreign Sovereigns were under sore temptation to covet. He
has seen, also, that the praise of so striking a change was due, in the
main, to the public spirit and the liberal endeavours of a small group
of antiquarians and scholars. They were, most of them, men of high
birth, and of generous education. They were, in fact, precisely such men
as, in the jargon of our present day, it is too much the mode to speak
of as the antitheses of ‘the People,’ although in earlier days men of
that strain were thought to be part of the very core and kernel of a
nation.

But if it be undeniably true that the chief and primary merit of so good
a piece of public service was due to the HAMILTONS, TOWNELEYS, ELGINS,
and KNIGHTS of the last generation, it is also true that the Public,
through their representatives, did, at length, join fairly in the work
by bearing their part of the cost, though they could share neither the
enterprise, the self-denial, nor the wearing toils, which the work had
exacted.

Now that the story turns to another department of the National Museum,
we find that the same primary and salient characteristic—private
liberality of individuals, as distinguished from public support by the
Kingdom—still holds good. But we have to wait a very long time indeed,
before we perceive public effort at length falling into rank with
private, in the shape of parliamentary grants for the purchase of books,
calculated even upon a rough approximation towards equality.

As COTTON, SLOANE, HARLEY, and Arthur EDWARDS, were the first founders
of the Library, so BIRCH, MUSGRAVE, TYRWHITT, CRACHERODE, BANKS, and
HOARE, were its chief augmentors, until almost ninety years had elapsed
since the Act of Organization. Of the Collections of those ten
benefactors, eight came by absolute gift. For the other two, much less
than one half of their value was returned to the representatives of the
founders. And that, it has been shown, was provided, not by a
parliamentary grant, but out of the profits of a lottery.


The first important addition to the Library, subsequent to those gifts
which have been mentioned in a preceding chapter as nearly
contemporaneous with the creation of the Museum, was made by the Will of
Dr. Thomas BIRCH, [Sidenote: BEQUEST OF DR. THOMAS BIRCH, January,
1766.] one of the original Trustees. It comprised a valuable series of
manuscripts, rich in collections on the history, and especially the
biographical history, of the realm, and a considerable number of printed
books of a like character.

Dr. BIRCH was born in 1705, and died on the ninth of January, 1766. He
was one of the many friends of Sir Hans SLOANE, in the later years of
Sir Hans’ life. When the Museum was in course of organization, BIRCH
acted not only as a zealous Trustee, but he occasionally supplied the
place of Dr. MORTON as Secretary. His literary productions have real and
enduring value, though their value would probably have been greater had
their number been less. His activity is sufficiently evidenced by the
works which he printed, but can only be measured when the large
manuscript collections which he bequeathed are taken into the account.
Very few scholars will now be inclined to echo Horace WALPOLE’S
inquiry—made when he saw the Catalogue of the Birch MSS.—‘Who cares for
the correspondence of Dr. BIRCH?’

[Sidenote: BEQUEST OF DAVID GARRICK, January, 1779.]

Soon after the receipt of the BIRCH Collection, a choice assemblage of
English plays was bequeathed to the Museum by David GARRICK. Its
formation had been one of the favourite relaxations of the great actor.
And the study of the plays gathered by GARRICK had a large share in
moulding the tastes and the literary career of Charles LAMB. Thence he
drew the materials of the volume of _Specimens_ which has made the rich
stores of the early drama known to thousands of readers who but for it,
and for the Collection which enabled him to compile it, could have
formed no fair or adequate idea of an important epoch in our literature.

[Sidenote: BENEFACTIONS OF SIR W. MUSGRAVE.]

Sir William MUSGRAVE was another early Trustee whose gifts to the Public
illustrated the wisdom of SLOANE’S plan for the government of his Museum
and of its parliamentary adoption. MUSGRAVE shared the predilection of
Dr. BIRCH for the study of British biography and archæology, and he had
larger means for amassing its materials. He was descended from a branch
of the Musgraves of Edenhall, and was the second son of Sir Richard
MUSGRAVE of Hayton Castle, to whom he eventually succeeded. He made
large and very curious manuscript collections for the history of
portrait-painting in England (now _Additional MSS._ 6391–6393), and also
on many points of the administrative and political history of the
country. He was a zealous Trustee of the British Museum, and in his
lifetime made several additions to its stores. On his death, in 1799,
all his manuscripts were bequeathed to the Museum, together with a
Library of printed British Biography—more complete than anything of its
kind theretofore collected.

This last-named Collection extended (if we include a partial and
previous gift made in 1790) to nearly two thousand volumes, and it
probably embraced much more than twice that number of separate works.
For it was rich in those biographical ephemera which are so precious to
the historical inquirer, and often so difficult of obtainment, when
needed. Nearly at the same period (1786) a valuable Collection of
classical authors, in about nine hundred volumes, was bequeathed by
another worthy Trustee, Mr. Thomas TYRWHITT, distinguished both as a
scholar and as the Editor of CHAUCER.

But all the early gifts to the Museum, made after its parliamentary
organization, were eclipsed, at the close of the century, by the bequest
of the Cracherode Collections. [Sidenote: THE BEQUEST OF THE CRACHERODE
COLLECTION.] That bequest comprised a very choice library of printed
books; a cabinet of coins, medals, and gems; and a series of original
drawings by the great masters, chosen, like the books and the coins,
with exquisite taste, and, as the auctioneers say, quite regardless of
expense. [Sidenote: 1799.] It also included a small but precious cabinet
of minerals.

The collector of these rarities was wont to speak of them with great
modesty. They are, he would say, mere ‘specimen collections.’ But to
amass them had been the chief pursuit of a quiet and blameless life.

[Sidenote: LIFE AND CHARACTER OF MR. MORDAUNT CRACHERODE.]

Clayton Mordaunt CRACHERODE was born in London about the year 1730. And
he was ‘a Londoner’ in a sense and degree to which, in this railway
generation, it would be hard to find a parallel. Among the rich
possessions which he inherited from Colonel CRACHERODE, his father—whose
fortune had been gathered, or increased, during an active career in
remote parts of the world—was an estate in Hertfordshire, on which there
grew a certain famous chestnut-tree, the cynosure of all the
country-side for its size and antiquity. This tree was never seen by its
new owner, save as he saw the poplars of Lombardy, or the cedars of
Lebanon—in an etching. In the course of a long life he never reached a
greater distance from the metropolis than Oxford. He never mounted a
horse. The ordinary extent of his travels, during the prime years of a
long life, was from Queen Square, in Westminster, to Clapham. For almost
forty years it was his daily practice to walk from his house to the shop
of ELMSLY, a bookseller in the Strand, and thence to the still more
noted shop of Tom PAYNE, by ‘the Mews-Gate.’ Once a week, he varied the
daily walk by calling on MUDGE, a chronometer-maker, to get his watch
regulated. His excursions had, indeed, one other and not infrequent
variety—dictated by the calls of Christian benevolence—but of these he
took care to have no note taken.

Early in life, and probably to meet his father’s wish, he received holy
orders, but he never accepted any preferment in the Church. He took the
restraints of the clerical profession, without any of its emoluments.
His classical attainments were considerable, but the sole publication of
a long life of leisure was a university prize poem, printed in the
_Carmina Quadragesimalia_ of 1748. The only early tribulation of a life
of idyllic peacefulness was a dread that he might possibly be called
upon, at a coronation, to appear in public as the King’s cupbearer—his
manor of Great Wymondley being held by a tenure of grand-serjeantry in
that onerous employment. Its one later tinge of bitterness lay in the
dread of a French invasion. These may seem small sorrows, to men who
have had a full share in the stress and anguish of the battle of life.
But the weight of a burden is no measure of the pain it may inflict. Mr.
CRACHERODE looked to his possible cupbearership, with apprehension just
as acute as that with which COWPER contemplated the awful task of
reading in public the Journals of the House of Lords. And the sleepless
nights which long afterwards were brought to CRACHERODE by the horrors
of the French revolutionary war were caused less by personal fears than
by the dread of public calamities, more terrible than death. During one
year of the devastations on the other side of the Channel, chronicled by
our daily papers, Mr. CRACHERODE was thought by his friends to have
‘aged’ full ten years in his aspect.

The one active and incessant pursuit of this noiseless career was the
gathering together of the most choice books, the finest coins and gems,
the most exquisite drawings and prints, which money could buy, without
the toils of travel. Our Collector’s liberality of purse enabled him to
profit, at his ease, by the truth expressed in one of the wise maxims of
John SELDEN:—‘The giving a dealer his price hath this advantage;—he that
will do so shall have the refusal of whatsoever comes to the dealer’s
hand, and so by that means get many things which otherwise he never
should have seen.’ The enjoyment—almost a century ago—of six hundred
pounds a year in land, and of nearly one hundred thousand pounds
invested in the ‘sweet simplicity’ of the three per cents., enabled Mr.
CRACHERODE to outbid a good many competitors. His natural wish that what
he had so eagerly gathered should not be scattered to the four winds on
the instant he was carried to his grave, and also the public spirit
which dictated the choice of a national repository as the permanent
abode of his Collections, has already made that long course of daily
visits to the London dealers in books, coins, and drawings, fruitful of
good to hundreds of poorer students and toilers, during more than two
generations. From stores such as Mr. CRACHERODE’S—when so preserved—many
a useful labourer gets part of his best equipment for the tasks of his
life. He, too, would enjoy a visit to the ‘PAYNES’ and the ‘ELMSLYS’ of
the day as keenly as any book-lover that ever lived, but is too often,
perhaps, obliged to content himself with an outside glance at the
windows. Public libraries put him practically on a level with the
wealthiest connoisseur. When, as in this case—and in a hundred more—such
libraries derive much of their best possessions from private liberality,
a life like Mordaunt CRACHERODE’S has its ample vindication, and the
sting is taken out of all such sarcasms as that which was levelled—in
the shape of the query, ‘In all that big library is there a single book
written by the Collector himself?’—by some snarling epistolary critic,
when commenting on a notice that appeared in _The Times_ on the occasion
of Mr. CRACHERODE’S death.

On another point our Collector was exposed to the shafts of sarcastic
comment. He loved a good book to be printed on the very choicest
material, and clothed in the richest fashion. The treasure within would
not incline him to tolerate blemishes without.—

                 ‘Nusquam blatta, vel inquinata charta,
                 Sed margo calami notæque purus,
                 Margo latior, albus integerque,
                 Nec non copia larga pergainenæ.—
                 Adsint Virgilius, paterque Homerus,
                 Mundi pumice, purpuraque culti;
                 Et quicquid magica quasi arte freti
                 Faustusque Upilioque præstiterunt.

                        ·       ·       ·       ·       ·

                 Hic sit qui nitet arte Montacuti,
                 Aut Paini, Deromique junioris;
                 Illic cui decus arma sunt Thuani,
                 Aut regis breve lilium caduci.’

In CRACHERODE’S eyes, external charms such as these were scarcely less
essential than the intrinsic worth of the author. ‘Large paper’ and
broad pure margins are fancies which it needs not much culture or much
wit to banter. But now and then, they are ridiculed by those who have
just as little capacity to judge the pith and substance of books, as of
taste to appreciate beauty in their outward form.[1]

The solidity of those three per cents., and the plodding perseverance of
their owner, were in time rewarded by the collection (1) of a library
containing only four thousand five hundred volumes, but of which
probably every volume—on an average of the whole—was worth, in
mercantile eyes, some three pounds; (2) of seven portfolios of drawings,
still more choice; (3) of a hundred portfolios of prints, many of which
were almost priceless; and (4) of coins and gems—such as the cameo of a
lion on sardonyx, and the intaglio of the _Discobolos_—worthy of an
imperial cabinet.

The ruling passion kept its strength to the last. An agent was buying
prints, for addition to the store, when the Collector was dying. About
four days before his death, Mr. CRACHERODE mustered strength to pay a
farewell visit to the old shop at the Mews-Gate. He put a finely printed
_Terence_ (from the press of FOULIS) into one pocket, and a large paper
_Cebes_ into another; and then,—with a longing look at a certain choice
_Homer_, in the course of which he mentally, and somewhat doubtingly,
balanced its charms with those of its twin brother in Queen
Square,—parted finally from the daily haunt of forty peripatetic and
studious years.

Clayton Mordaunt CRACHERODE died towards the close of 1799. He
bequeathed the whole of his collections to the Nation, with the
exception of two volumes of books. A polyglot _Bible_ was given to Shute
BARRINGTON, Bishop of Durham; a princeps _Homer_ to Cyril JACKSON, Dean
of Christ Church. Those justly venerated men were his two dearest
friends.


The next conspicuous donor to the Library of the British Museum was a
contemporary of the learned recluse of Queen Square, but one whose life
was passed in the thick of that worldly turmoil and conflict of which
Mr. CRACHERODE had so mortal a dread. [Sidenote: THE COLLECTOR OF THE
LANSDOWNE MANUSCRIPTS.] To the Collector of the ‘Lansdowne Manuscripts,’
political excitement was the congenial air in which it was indeed life
to live. But he, also, was a man beloved by all who had the privilege of
his intimate friendship.

William PETTY-FITZMAURICE, third Earl of Shelburne, and first Marquess
of Lansdowne, was born in Dublin, in May, 1737. He was the son of John,
Earl of Shelburne in the peerage of Ireland, and afterwards Baron
Wycombe in the peerage of Great Britain. The Marquess’s father united
the possessions of the family founded by Sir William PETTY with those
which the Irish wars had left to the ancient line of Fitzmaurice.

William, Earl of SHELBURNE, was educated by private tutors, and then
sent to Christ Church, Oxford. He left the University early, to take (in
or about the year 1756) a commission in the Guards. He was present in
the battles of Campen and of Minden. At Minden, in particular, he
evinced distinguished bravery. In May, 1760, and again in April, 1761,
he was elected by the burgesses of High Wycombe to represent them in the
House of Commons. But the death of Earl John, in the middle of 1761,
called his son to take his seat in the House of Lords. He soon evinced
the possession of powers eminently fitted to shine in Parliament. The
impetuosity he had shown on the field of Minden did not desert him in
the strife of politics. Those who had listened to the early speeches of
PITT might well think that the army had again sent them a ‘terrible
cornet of horse.’ So good a judge of political oratory as was Lord
CAMDEN thought SHELBURNE to be second only to CHATHAM himself.

[Sidenote: BEGINNING OF LORD SHELBURNE’S CAREER IN PARLIAMENT.]

Lord SHELBURNE’S first speech in Parliament—the first, at least, that
attracted general notice—was made in support of the Court and the
Ministry (November 3, 1762). Within less than six months after its
delivery he was called to the Privy Council, and placed at the head of
the Board of Trade and Plantations. This appointment was made on the
23rd of April, 1763. Just before it he had taken part in that delicate
negotiation between Lord BUTE and Henry FOX (afterwards Lord HOLLAND)
which has been kept well in memory by a jest of the man who thought
himself the loser in it. This early incident is in some sort a key to
many later incidents in Lord SHELBURNE’S life.

[Sidenote: SHELBURNE AND HENRY FOX.]

For, in all the acts and offices of a political career, save only one,
Lord SHELBURNE was characteristically a lover of soft words. In debate,
he could speak scathingly. In conversation, he was always under
temptation to flatter his interlocutor. In this conversation of 1763
with FOX, SHELBURNE’S innate love of smoothing asperities co-operated
with his belief that it was really for the common interest that BUTE and
FOX should come to an agreement, to make him put the premier’s offer
into the most pleasing light. When FOX found he was to get less than he
thought to have, he fiercely assailed the negotiator. Lord SHELBURNE’S
friends dwelt on his love of peace and good fellowship. At worst, said
they, it was but a ‘pious fraud.’ ‘I can see the fraud plainly enough,’
rejoined FOX, ‘but where is the piety?’

The office accepted in April was resigned in September, when the
coalition with ‘the BEDFORD party’ was made. Lord SHELBURNE’S loss was
felt in the House of Lords. But it was in the Commons that the Ministry
were now feeblest. ‘I don’t see how they can meet Parliament,’ said
CHESTERFIELD. ‘In the Commons they have not a man with ability and words
enough to call a coach.’

In February, 1765, SHELBURNE married Lady Sophia CARTERET, one of the
daughters of the Earl of GRANVILLE. The marriage was a very happy one.
Not long after it, he began to form his library. [Sidenote: FORMATION OF
LORD SHELBURNE’S LIBRARY.] Political manuscripts, state papers of every
kind, and all such documents as tend to throw light on the arcana of
history, were, more especially, the objects which he sought. And the
quest, as will be seen presently, was very successful. For during his
early researches he had but few competitors.

[Sidenote: THE SECRETARYSHIP OF STATE.]

On the organization of the Duke of GRAFTON’S Ministry in 1766 (July 30)
Lord SHELBURNE was made Secretary of State for the Southern Department,
to which at that time the Colonial business was attached. [Sidenote:
1766–1768.] His colleague, in the Northern, was CONWAY, who now led the
House of Commons. As Secretary, Lord SHELBURNE’S most conspicuous and
influential act was his approval of that rejection of certain members of
the Council of Massachusetts by Governor BERNARD, which had so important
a bearing on colonial events to come.

SHELBURNE, however, was one of a class of statesmen of whom, very
happily, this country has had many. He was able to render more efficient
service in opposition than in office. Of the Board of Trade he had had
the headship but a few months. As Secretary of State, under the GRAFTON
Administration, he served little more than two years. His opponents were
wont to call him an ‘impracticable’ man. But if he shared some of
CHATHAM’S weaknesses, he also shared much of his greatness. And on the
capital question of the American dispute, they were at one. They both
thought that the Colonies had been atrociously misgoverned. They were
willing to make large concessions to regain the loyalty of the
Colonists. They were utterly averse to admit of a severance.

[Sidenote: LORD SHELBURNE IN OPPOSITION.]

Under circumstances familiar to all readers, and by the personal urgency
of the King, Lord SHELBURNE was dismissed from his first Secretaryship
in October, 1768. His dismissal led to CHATHAM’S resignation. SHELBURNE
became a prominent and powerful leader of the Opposition, an object of
special dislike to a large force of political adversaries, and of warm
attachment to a small number of political friends. His personal friends
were, at all times, many.

The nickname under which his opponents were wont to satirize him has
been kept in memory by one of the many infelicities of speech which did
such cruel injustice to the fine parts and the generous heart of
GOLDSMITH. The story has been many times told, but will bear to be told
once again. The author of the _Vicar of Wakefield_ was an occasional
supporter of the Opposition in the newspapers. One day, in the autumn of
1773, he wrote an article in praise of Lord SHELBURNE’S ardent friend in
the City, the Lord Mayor TOWNSHEND. Sitting, in company with Topham
BEAUCLERC, at Drury Lane Theatre, just after the appearance of the
article, GOLDSMITH found himself close beside Lord SHELBURNE. His
companion told the statesman that his City friend’s eulogy came from
GOLDSMITH’S pen. [Sidenote: 1773. November.] ‘I hope,’ said his
Lordship—addressing the poet—‘you put nothing in it about Malagrida?’
[Sidenote: Hardy, _Life of Lord Charlemont_, vol. i, p. 177.] ‘Do you
know,’ rejoined poor GOLDSMITH, ‘I could never conceive the reason why
they call you “Malagrida,”—_for_ Malagrida was a very good sort of man.’
This small misplacement of an emphasis was of course quoted in the clubs
against the unlucky speaker. ‘Ah!’ said Horace WALPOLE, with his wonted
charity, ‘that’s a picture of the man’s whole life.’

[Sidenote: GROWTH OF LORD SHELBURNE’S LIBRARY.]

Lord SHELBURNE’S library profited by his long releasement from the cares
of office. He bestowed much of his leisure upon its enrichment, and
especially upon the acquisition of manuscript political literature. In
1770, he was fortunate enough to obtain a considerable portion of the
large and curious Collection of State Papers which Sir Julius CÆSAR had
begun to amass almost two centuries before. Two years later, he acquired
no inconsiderable portion of that far more important series which had
been gathered by BURGHLEY.

[Sidenote: THE CÆSAR PAPERS.]

Whilst Lord SHELBURNE was serving with the army in Germany, the ‘Cæsar
Papers’ had been dispersed by auction. There were then—1757—a hundred
and eighty-seven of them. About sixty volumes were purchased by Philip
Cartaret WEBB, a lawyer and juridical writer, as well as antiquary, of
some distinction. On Mr. WEBB’S death, in 1770, these were purchased by
SHELBURNE from his executors. On examining his acquisition, the new
possessor found that about twenty volumes related to various matters of
British history and antiquities; thirty-one volumes to the business of
the British Admiralty and its Courts; ten volumes to that of the
Treasury, Star Chamber, and other public departments; two volumes
contained treaties; and one volume, papers on the affairs of Ireland.

[Sidenote: THE CECIL OR BURGHLEY PAPERS.]

The ‘Burghley papers,’ acquired in 1772, had passed from Sir Michael
HICKES, one of that statesman’s secretaries, to a descendant, Sir
William HICKES, by whom they were sold to CHISWELL, a bookseller, and by
him to STRYPE, the historian. These (as has been mentioned in a former
chapter) were looked upon with somewhat covetous eyes by Humphrey
WANLEY, who hoped to have seen them become part of the treasures of the
Harleian Library. On STRYPE’S death they passed into the hands of James
WEST, and from his executors into the Library at Shelburne House. They
comprised a hundred and twenty-one volumes of the collections and
correspondence of Lord BURGHLEY, together with his private note-book and
journal.

Another valuable acquisition, made after Lord SHELBURNE’S retirement in
1768 from political office, consisted of the vast historical Collections
of Bishop White KENNETT, extending to a hundred and seven volumes, of
which a large proportion are in the Bishop’s own untiring hand.
Twenty-two of these volumes contain important materials for English
Church History. Eleven volumes contain biographical collections, ranging
between the years 1500 and 1717. All that have been enumerated are now
national property.

Other choice manuscript collections were added from time to time. Among
them may be cited the papers of Sir Paul RYCAUT—which include
information both on Irish and on Continental affairs towards the close
of the seventeenth century; the correspondence of Dr. John PELL, and
that of the Jacobite Earl of MELFORT.

These varied accessions—with many others of minor importance—raised the
Shelburne Library into the first rank among private repositories of
historical lore. To amass and to study them was to prove to its owner
the solace of deep personal affliction, as well as the relief of public
toils. At the close of 1770, he lost a beloved wife, after a union of
less than six years. He remained a widower until 1779.

Another source of solace was found in labours that have an inexhaustible
charm, for those who are so happy as to have means as well as taste for
them. [Sidenote: LORD SHELBURNE AS A LANDSCAPE GARDENER.] Lord SHELBURNE
lived much at Loakes—now called Wycombe Abbey—a delightful seat, just
above the little town of High Wycombe. Its striking framework of
beech-woods, its fine plane-trees and ash-trees, and its broad piece of
water, make up a lovely picture, much of the attraction of which is due
to the skill and judgment with which its then owner elicited and
heightened the natural beauties of the place.[2] But those of Bowood
exceeded them in Lord SHELBURNE’S eyes. There, too, he did very much to
enhance what nature had already done, and he had the able assistance of
Mr. HAMILTON of Pains-Hill. In consequence of their joint labours,
almost every species of oak may be seen at Bowood, with great variety of
exotic trees of all sorts. Both wood and water combine to make, from
some points of view, a resemblance between Wycombe and Bowood. And both
differ from many much bepraised country seats in the wise preference of
natural beauty—selected and heightened—to artificial beauty. Lord
SHELBURNE himself was wont to say: ‘Mere workmanship should never be
introduced where the beauty and variety of the scenery are, in
themselves, sufficient to excite admiration.’

But, in their true place, few men better loved the productions of
artistic genius. He collected pictures and sculpture, as well as trees
and books. He was the first of his name who made Lansdowne House in
London, as well as Loakes and Bowood in the country, centres of the best
society in the intellectual as well as in the fashionable world.

Years passed on. The course of public events—and especially the death of
Lord CHATHAM and the issues of the American war—together with many
conspicuous proofs of his powers in debate, tended more and more to
bring Lord SHELBURNE to the front. Between him and Lord ROCKINGHAM, as
far as regards real personal ability—whether parliamentary or
administrative—there could, in truth, be little ground for comparison.
But in party connection and following, the claims of the inferior man
were incontestible. Lord SHELBURNE, towards the close of 1779, signified
his readiness to waive his pretensions to take the lead—in the event of
the overthrow of the existing Government—and his willingness to serve
under Lord ROCKINGHAM; so little truth was there in the assertion,
[Sidenote: H. Walpole to Mann; 1780. March 21.] made by Horace WALPOLE
to his correspondent at Florence, that SHELBURNE ‘will stick at nothing
to gratify his ambition.’

But that very charge is, in fact, a tribute. WALPOLE’S indignation had
been excited just at that moment by the zealous assistance which
SHELBURNE had given, in the House of Lords, to the efforts of BURKE in
the lower House in favour of economical reforms. He had brought forward
a motion on that subject on the same night on which BURKE had given
notice for the introduction of his famous Bill (December, 1779). He
continued his efforts, and presently had to encounter a more active and
pertinacious opponent of retrenchment than Horace WALPOLE.

In the course of a vigorous speech on reform in the administration of
the army, Lord SHELBURNE had censured a transaction in which Mr.
FULLERTON, a Member of the House of Commons, was intimately concerned.
[Sidenote: LORD SHELBURNE’S DUEL WITH FULLERTON.] FULLERTON made a
violent attack, in his place in the House, upon his censor. But his
speech was so disorderly that he was forced to break off. In his anger
he sent Lord SHELBURNE a minute, not only of what he had actually
spoken, but of what he had intended to say, in addition, had the rules
of Parliament permitted. And he had the effrontery to wind up his
obliging communication with these words:—‘You correspond, as I have
heard abroad, with the enemies of your country.’ His letter was
presented to Lord SHELBURNE by a messenger.

The receiver, when he had read it, said to the bearer: ‘The best answer
I can give Mr. FULLERTON is to desire him to meet me in Hyde Park, at
five, to-morrow morning.’ They fought, and SHELBURNE was wounded. On
being asked how he felt himself, he looked at the wound, and said: ‘I do
not think that Lady SHELBURNE will be the worse for this.’ But it was
severe enough to interrupt, for a while, his political labours.

[Sidenote: HIS SECRETARYSHIP IN THE ROCKINGHAM ADMINISTRATION.]

On the formation in March, 1782, of the Rockingham Administration, he
accepted the Secretaryship of State, and took with him four of his
adherents into the Cabinet. But the most curious feature in the
transaction was that Lord SHELBURNE carried on, personally, all the
intercourse in the royal closet that necessarily preceded the formation
of the Ministry, although he was not to be its head. GEORGE THE THIRD
would not admit Lord ROCKINGHAM to an audience until his Cabinet was
completely formed. The man whose exclusion from the Grafton Ministry the
King had so warmly urged a few years before, was now not less warmly
urged by him to throw over his party, and to head a cabinet of his own.
He resisted all blandishment, and virtually told the King that the
triumph of the Opposition must be its triumph as an unbroken whole;
though he doubtless felt, within himself, that the cohesion was of
singularly frail tenacity.

On the 24th of March, SHELBURNE had the satisfaction of conveying to
Lord ROCKINGHAM the royal concession of his constitutional
demands—obtained after a wearisome negotiation, and only by the piling
up of argument on argument in successive conversations at the ‘Queen’s
House,’ lasting sometimes for three mortal hours. [Sidenote: DEATH OF
LORD ROCKINGHAM, 1782, 1 July.] Three months afterwards, the new Premier
was dead. And with him departed the cohesion of the Whigs.


[Sidenote: FORMATION OF LORD SHELBURNE’S MINISTRY.]

As Secretary of State, Lord SHELBURNE’S chief task had been the control
of that double and most unwelcome negotiation which was carried on at
Paris with France and with America.[3] For it had fallen to the lot of
the utterer of the ‘sunset-speech,’[4]—‘if we let America go, the sun of
Great Britain is set’—to arrange the terms of American pacification. And
the obstructions in that path which were created at home were even more
serious stumbling-blocks than were the difficulties abroad. The cardinal
points of Lord SHELBURNE’S policy, at this time, were to retain, by hook
or crook, some amount or other of hold upon America, and at the worst to
keep the Court of France from enjoying the prestige, or setting up the
pretence, of having dictated the terms of peace.

That the split in the Whig party was really and altogether inevitable,
now that ROCKINGHAM’S death had placed SHELBURNE above reasonable
competition for the premiership, was made known to him when at Court, in
the most abrupt manner. On the 7th of July (six days after the death of
the Marquess), Fox took him by the sleeve, with the blunt question: ‘Are
you to be First Lord of the Treasury?’ [Sidenote: Walpole to Mann (from
an eye witness), 1782, July 7.] When SHELBURNE said ‘Yes,’ the instant
rejoinder was, ‘Then, my Lord, I shall resign.’ Fox had brought the
seals in his pocket, and proceeded immediately to return them to the
King.

In his first speech as Premier, Lord SHELBURNE spoke thus:—‘It has been
said that I have changed my opinion about the independence of
America.... My opinion is still the same. When that independence shall
have been established, the sun of England may be said to have set. I
have used every effort, public and private—in England, and out of it—to
avert so dreadful a disaster.... [Sidenote: _Parliamentary Debates_,
vol. xxiii, col. 194.] But though this country should have received a
fatal blow, there is still a duty incumbent upon its Ministers to use
their most vigorous exertions to prevent the Court of France from being
in a situation to dictate the terms of Peace. The sun of England may
have set. But we will improve the twilight. We will prepare for the
rising of that sun again. And I hope England may yet see many, many
happy days.’

The best achievements of the brief government of Lord SHELBURNE were
(first) the resolute defence, in its diplomacy at Paris and Versailles,
of our territories in Canada, and (secondly) its consistent assertion of
the principle that underlay a sentence contained in a former speech of
the [Sidenote: MERITS OF THE SHELBURNE MINISTRY.] Premier—a sentence
which, at one time, was much upon men’s lips:—‘I will never consent,’ he
had said, ‘that the King of England shall be a King of the Mahrattas.’
The merits, I venture to think, of that short Ministry, have had scant
acknowledgment in our current histories. And the reason is, perhaps, not
far to seek.

The popular history of GEORGE THE THIRD’S reign has been, in a large
degree, imbued with Whiggism. The historians most in vogue have had a
sort of small apostolical succession amongst themselves, which has had
the result of giving a strong party tinge to those versions of the
course of political events in that reign which have most readily gained
the public ear. When the full story shall come to be told, in a later
day and from a higher stand-point, Lord SHELBURNE, not improbably, will
be one among several statesmen whose reputation with posterity (in
common—in some measure—with that of their royal master himself, it may
even be) will be found to have been elevated, rather than lowered, by
the process.

[Sidenote: _Debates_, vol. xix, col. 850.]

But, be that as it may, party intrigue, rather than ministerial
incapacity, had to do, confessedly, with the rapid overthrow of the
Government of July, 1782.

Personally, Lord SHELBURNE was in a position which, in several points of
view, bears a resemblance to that in which another able statesman, who
had to fight against a powerful coterie, was to find himself forty years
later. But in SHELBURNE’S case, the struggle of the politician did not,
as in CANNING’S, break down the bodily vigour of the man. Lord SHELBURNE
had twenty-two years of retirement yet before him, when he resigned the
premiership in 1783. And they were years of much happiness.

[Sidenote: THE CLOSING YEARS OF LORD LANSDOWNE’S LIFE.]

Part of that happiness was the result of the domestic union just
adverted to. Another part of it accrued from the rich Library which the
research and attention of many years had gradually built up, and from
the increased leisure that had now been secured, both for study and for
the enjoyment of the choice society which gathered habitually at
Lansdowne House and at Bowood.

Lord SHELBURNE’S retirement had been followed, in 1784, by his creation
as Earl Wycombe and Marquess of Lansdowne. In the following year, he
sold the Wycombe mansion and its charming park to Lord CARRINGTON.
Thenceforward, Bowood had the benefit, exclusively, of his taste and
skill in landscape-gardening. Unfortunately, his next successor, far
from continuing his father’s work, did much to injure and spoil it. But
the third Marquess, in whom so many of his father’s best qualities were
combined with some that were especially his own, made ample amends.

The exciting debates which grew out of the French Revolution and the
ensuing events on the Continent, called Lord LANSDOWNE, now and then,
into the old arena. But the domestic employments which have been
mentioned, together with that which was entailed by a large and varied
correspondence, both at home and abroad, were the things which chiefly
filled up his later years. The Marquess died in London on the seventh of
May, 1805. He was but sixty-eight years of age, yet he was then the
oldest general officer on the army list, having been gazetted as a
major-general just forty years before.


[Sidenote: THE PURCHASE OF THE LANSDOWNE MANUSCRIPTS.]

In order to acquire for the nation that precious portion of Lord
LANSDOWNE’S Library which was in manuscript, the national purse-strings
were now, for the first time, opened on behalf of the literary stores of
the British Museum. Fifty-three years had passed since its complete
foundation as a national institution, and exactly twice that number of
years since the first public establishment of the Cottonian Library, yet
no grant had been hitherto made by Parliament for the improvement of the
national collections of books.

Four thousand nine hundred and twenty-five pounds was the sum given to
Lord LANSDOWNE’S executors for his manuscripts. Besides the successive
accumulations of State Papers heretofore mentioned, the LANSDOWNE
Collection included other historical documents, extending in date from
the reign of HENRY THE SIXTH to that of GEORGE THE THIRD; the varied
Collections of William _Petyt_ on parliamentary and juridical lore;
those of WARBURTON on the topography and family history of Yorkshire,
and of HOLLES, containing matter of a like character for the local
concerns of the county of Lincoln; the Heraldic and Genealogical
Collections of SEGAR, SAINT GEORGE, DUGDALE, and LE NEVE; and a most
curious series of early treatises upon music, which had been collected
by John WYLDE, who was for many years precentor of Waltham Abbey, in the
time of the second of the Tudor monarchs.


[Sidenote: THE ACQUISITION OF THE HARGRAVE AND BURNEY LIBRARIES.]

The Lansdowne Collection did not contain very much of a classical
character. Its strength, it has been seen already, lay in the sections
of Modern History and Politics. The next important addition to the
Library of the Museum—that of the manuscripts and printed books of
Francis HARGRAVE—was likewise chiefly composed of political and
juridical literature. But the third parliamentary acquisition brought to
the Museum a store of classical wealth, both in manuscripts and in
printed books. HARGRAVE’S Legal Library was bought in 1813. Charles
BURNEY’S Classical Library was bought in 1818. In the biographical point
of view neither of these men ran a career which offers much of narrative
interest. The one career was that of a busy lawyer; the other, that of a
laborious scholar. But to BURNEY’S life a few sentences may be briefly
and fitly given.

The second Charles BURNEY was a younger son of the well-known historian
of Music, who for more than fifty years was a prominent figure in the
literary circles—and especially in the Johnsonian circle—of London; and
in whose well-filled life a very moderate share of literary ability was
made to go a long way, and to elicit a very resonant echo. That ‘clever
dog BURNEY,’ as he was wont to be called by the autocrat of the
dinner-table, had the good fortune to be the father of several children
even more clever than himself. Their reputation enhanced his own.

[Sidenote: THE LIFE AND LITERARY WORKS OF DR. CHAS. BURNEY.]

Charles BURNEY, junior, was born at Lynn, in Norfolk, on the 10th of
December, 1757. He was educated at the Charter House in London, at Caius
College, Cambridge, and at King’s College, Aberdeen. At Aberdeen, BURNEY
formed a friendship with Dr. DUNBAR, a Scottish professor of some
distinction, and an incident which grew, in after-years, out of that
connection, determined the scene and character of the principal
employments of BURNEY’S life. He devoted himself to scholastic labours,
in both senses of the term; their union proved mutually advantageous,
and as tuition gave leisure for literary labour, so the successful
issues of that labour spread far and wide his fame as a schoolmaster. He
was one of the not very large group of men who in that employment have
won wealth as well as honour. It was finely said, many years ago—in one
of the State Papers written by GUIZOT, when he was Minister of Public
Instruction in France—‘the good schoolmaster must work for man, and be
content to await his reward from God.’ In BURNEY’S case, the combined
assiduity of an energetic man at the author’s writing-table, at the
master’s desk, and also (it must in truthful candour be added) at his
flogging block,[5] brought him a large fortune as well as a wide-spread
reputation. This fortune enabled him to collect what, for a
schoolmaster, I imagine to have been a Classical Library hardly ever
rivalled in beauty and value. It was the gathering of a deeply read
critic, as well as of an open-handed purchaser.

The bias of Dr. BURNEY’S learning and tastes in literature led him to a
preference of the Greek classics far above the Latin. Naturally, his
Library bore this character in counterpart. He aimed at collecting Greek
authors—and especially the dramatists—in such a way that the collocation
of his copies gave a sort of chronological view of the literary history
of the books and of their successive recensions.

For the tragedians, more particularly, his researches were brilliantly
successful. Of _Æschylus_ he had amassed forty-seven editions; of
_Sophocles_, one hundred and two; of _Euripides_, one hundred and
sixty-six.

His first publication was a sharp criticism (in the _Monthly Review_) on
Mr. (afterwards Bishop) HUNTINGFORD’S Collection of Greek poems entitled
_Monostrophica_. This was followed, in 1789, by the issue of an Appendix
to SCAPULA’S Lexicon; and in 1807 by a collection of the correspondence
of BENTLEY and other scholars. Two years later, he gave to students of
Greek his _Tentamen de Metris ab Æschylo in choricis cantibus
adhibitis_, and to the youthful theologians his meritorious abridgment
of Bishop PEARSON’S _Exposition of the Creed_. In 1812, he published the
Lexicon of PHILEMON.

The only Church preferments enjoyed by Dr. BURNEY were the rectory of
St. Paul, Deptford, near London, and that of Cliffe, also in Kent. His
only theological publication—other than the abridgment of PEARSON—was a
sermon which he had preached in St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1812. Late in
life he was made a Prebendary of Lincoln.

Like his father, and others of his family, Charles BURNEY was a very
sociable man. He lived much with PARR and with PORSON, and, like those
eminent scholars, he had the good and catholic taste which embraced in
its appreciations, and with like geniality, old wine, as well as old
books. He was less wise in nourishing a great dislike to cool breezes.
‘Shut the door,’ was usually his first greeting to any visitant who had
to introduce himself to the Doctor’s notice; and it was a joke against
him, in his later days, that the same words were his parting salutation
to a couple of highwaymen who had taken his purse as he was journeying
homewards in his carriage, and who were adding cruelty to robbery by
exposing him to the fresh air when they made off.

[Sidenote: CHOICE BOOKS IN BURNEY’S LIBRARY.]

Some of Dr. BURNEY’S choicest books were obtained when the Pinelli
Library was brought to England from Italy. The prime ornament of his
manuscript Collection, a thirteenth century copy of the _Iliad_, of
great beauty and rich in scholia, was bought at the sale of the fine
Library of Charles TOWNELEY, Collector of the Marbles.

Although classical literature was the strength of the BURNEY Collection,
it was also rich in some other departments. Of English newspapers, for
example, he had brought together nearly seven hundred volumes of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, reaching from the reign of JAMES
THE FIRST to the reign of GEORGE THE THIRD. No such assemblage had been
theretofore formed, I think, by any Collector. He had also amassed
nearly four hundred volumes containing materials for a history of the
British Stage, which materials have subsequently been largely used by
Mr. GENEST, in his work on that subject. For BURNEY’S life-long study of
the Greek drama had gradually inspired him with a desire to trace what,
in a sense, may be termed its modern revival, in the grand sequel given
to it by SHAKESPEARE and his contemporaries. He had also collected about
five thousand engraved theatrical portraits, and two thousand portraits
of literary personages.

A large number of his printed books contained marginal manuscript notes
by BENTLEY, CASAUBON, BURMANN, and other noted scholars. And in a series
of one hundred and seventy volumes BURNEY had himself collected all the
extant remains and fragments of Greek dramatic writers—about three
hundred in number. These remains he had arranged under the collective
title of _Fragmenta Scenica Græca_.

A splendid vellum manuscript of the Greek orators, in scription of the
fourteenth century, had been obtained from Dr. CLARKE, by whom it had
been acquired during Lord ELGIN’S Ottoman Embassy, and brought into
England. It supplied lacunæ which are found wanting in all other known
manuscripts. It completed an imperfect oration of _Lycurgus_, and
another of _Dinarchus_. Another MS. of the Greek orators, of the
fifteenth century, is only next in value to that derived from CLARKE’S
researches in the East, of 1800. There is also a very fine manuscript of
the Geography of PTOLEMY, with maps compiled in the fifteenth century,
and two very choice copies of the Greek _Gospels_, one of which is of
the tenth, and the other of the twelfth centuries.

In Latin classics, the BURNEY Manuscripts include a fourteenth century
_Plautus_, containing no fewer than twenty plays—whereas a manuscript
containing even twelve plays has long been regarded as a rarity. A
fifteenth century copy of the mathematical tracts collected by PAPPUS
ALEXANDRINUS, a _Callimachus_ of the same date, and a curious Manuscript
of the _Asinus Aureus_ of APULEIUS, are also notable. The whole number
of Classical Manuscripts which this Collector had brought together was
stated, at the time of his death, to be three hundred and eighty-five.


Dr. BURNEY died on the twenty-eighth of December, 1817, having just
entered upon his sixty-first year. He was buried at Deptford, amidst the
lamentations of his parishioners at his loss.

[Sidenote: DOCTOR BURNEY’S CHARACTER.]

For in BURNEY, too, the scholar and the Collector had not been suffered
to dwarf or to engross the whole man. His parishioners assembled, soon
after his death, to evince publicly their sense of what Death had robbed
them of. The testimony then borne to his character was far better,
because more pertinent, laudation, than is usually met with in the
literature of tombstones. Those who had known the man intimately then
said of him: ‘His attainments in learning were united with equal
generosity and kindness of heart. His impressive discourses from the
pulpit became doubly beneficial from the influence of his own example.’
The parishioners agreed to erect a monument to his memory, ‘as a record
of their affection for their revered pastor, monitor, and friend; of
their gratitude for his services, and of their unspeakable regret for
his loss.’

Another meeting was called shortly afterwards, with a like object, but
of another sort. Despite his reverence for Busbeian traditions, Dr.
BURNEY had known how to win the love of his pupils. [Sidenote: _Annual
Biography and Obituary_, vol. iii, p. 225.] A large body of them met,
under the chairmanship of the excellent John KAYE, then Regius Professor
of Divinity at Cambridge, and afterwards Bishop of Lincoln, and they
subscribed for the placing of a monument to their old master in
Westminster Abbey.

[Sidenote: THE APPLICATION OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM TO
           PARLIAMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF BURNEY’S LIBRARY.]

On the twenty-third of February, 1818, the Trustees of the British
Museum presented to the House of Commons a petition, praying that Dr.
BURNEY’S Library should be acquired for the Public. The prayer of the
petition was supported by Mr. BANKES and by Mr. VANSITTART, and a Select
Committee was appointed to inquire and report upon the application.

In order to an accurate estimate of the value of the Library, a
comparison was instituted, in certain particulars, between its contents
and those of the Collection already in the national Museum. In comparing
the works of a series of twenty-four Greek authors, it was found that of
those authors, taken collectively, the Museum possessed only two hundred
and thirty-nine several editions, whereas Dr. Charles BURNEY had
collected no fewer than seven hundred and twenty-five editions.[6]
[Sidenote: ACQUISITION OF THE BURNEY LIBRARY BY THE NATION.] His
Collection of the Greek dramatists was not only, as I have said,
extensive, but it was arrayed after a peculiar and interesting manner.
By making a considerable sacrifice of duplicate copies, he had brought
his series of editions into an order which exhibited, at one view, all
the diversities of text, recension, and commentary. His Greek
grammarians were arrayed in like manner. And his collection of
lexicographers generally, and of philologists, was both large and well
selected.

[Sidenote: _Report of Select Committee_, 1818; passim.]

The total number of printed books was nearly thirteen thousand five
hundred volumes, that of manuscripts was five hundred and twenty; and
the total sum given for the whole was thirteen thousand five hundred
pounds.

It was estimated that the Collection had cost Dr. BURNEY a much larger
sum, and that, possibly, if sold by public auction, it might have
produced to his representatives more than twenty thousand pounds.


In the same year with the acquisition of the Burney Library, the
national Collections were augmented by the purchase of the printed books
of a distinguished Italian scholar long resident in France, and eminent
for his contributions to French literature. [Sidenote: COLLECTION OF P.
L. GINGUENÉ. (Died 11 Nov., 1816.)] Pier Luigi GINGUENÉ—author of the
_Histoire Littéraire d’Italie_ and a conspicuous contributor to the
early volumes of the _Biographie Universelle_—had brought together a
good Collection of Italian, French, and Classical literature. It
comprised, amongst the rest, the materials which had been gathered for
the book by which the Collector is now chiefly remembered, and extended,
in the whole, to more than four thousand three hundred separate works,
of which number nearly one thousand seven hundred related to Italian
literature, or to its history. This valuable Collection was obtained by
the Trustees—owing to the then depressed state of the Continental
book-market—for one thousand pounds. And, in point of literary value, it
may be described as the first—in point of price, as the cheapest—of a
series of purchases which now began to be made on the Continent.

A more numerous printed Library had been purchased together with a
cabinet of coins and a valuable herbarium, at Munich, three years
earlier, at the sale of the Collections of Baron VON MOLL. His Library
exceeded fourteen thousand volumes, nearly eight thousand of which
related to the physical sciences and to cognate subjects. [Sidenote:
COLLECTION OF BARON VON MOLL. (1815.)] The cost of this purchase, with
the attendant expenses, was four thousand seven hundred and seventy
pounds. The whole sum was defrayed out of the fund bequeathed by Major
Arthur EDWARDS.[7]

These successive purchases, together with the Hargrave
Collection—acquired in 1813—increased the theretofore much neglected
Library by an aggregate addition of nearly thirty-five thousand volumes.
And for four successive years (1812–15) Parliament made a special annual
grant of one thousand pounds[8] for the purchase of printed books
relating to British History.

[Sidenote: FRANCIS HARGRAVE AND HIS COLLECTIONS IN LAW LITERATURE.]

The peculiar importance of the Hargrave Collection consisted in its
manuscripts and its annotated printed books. The former were about five
hundred in number, and were works of great juridical weight and
authority, not merely the curiosities of black-letter law. Their
Collector was the most eminent parliamentary lawyer of his day, but his
devotion to the science of law had, to some degree, impeded his
enjoyment of its sweets. During some of the best years of his life he
had been more intent on increasing his legal lore than on swelling his
legal profits. And thus the same legislative act which enriched the
Museum Library, in both of its departments, helped to smooth the
declining years of a man who had won an uncommon distinction in his
special pursuit. Francis HARGRAVE died on the sixteenth of August, 1821,
at the age of eighty.


[Sidenote: THE EGERTON BEQUEST.]

Leaving now this not very long list of acquisitions made by the National
Library, in the way of purchase, either at the public cost or from
endowments, we have again to turn to a new and conspicuous instance of
private liberality. Like CRACHERODE, and like BURNEY, Francis Henry
EGERTON belonged to a profession which at nearly all periods of our
history—though in a very different degree in different ages—has done
eminent honour and rendered large services to the nation, and that in an
unusual variety of paths.

Each of these three clergymen is now chiefly remembered as a
‘Collector.’ Each of them would seem to have been placed quite out of
his true element and sphere of labour, when assuming the
responsibilities of a priest in the Church of England. CRACHERODE was
scarcely more fitted for the work, at all events, of a preacher—save by
the tacit lessons of a most meek and charitable life—than he was fitted
to head a cavalry charge on the field of battle. BURNEY was manifestly
cut out by nature for the work of a schoolmaster; although, as we have
seen, he was able—late, comparatively, in life—so to discharge (for a
very few years) the duties of a parish priest as to win the love of his
flock. EGERTON was unsuited to clerical work of almost any and every
kind. Yet he, too, with all his eccentricities and his indefensible
absenteeism, became a public benefactor. The last act of his life was to
make a provision which has been fruitful in good, having a bearing—very
real though indirect—upon the special duties of the priestly function,
for which he was himself so little adapted. The bequests of Francis
EGERTON had, among their many useful results, the enabling of Thomas
CHALMERS to add one more to his fruitful labours for the Christian
Church and for the world.

It may not, I trust, be out of place to notice in this connection, and
as one among innumerable debts which our country owes specifically to
its Church Establishment, the impressive and varied way in which the
English Church has, at every period, inculcated the lesson (by no means,
nowadays, a favourite lesson of ‘the age’) that men owe duties to
posterity, as well as duties to their contemporaries. The fact bears
directly on the subject of this book. Into every path of life many men
must needs enter, from time to time, without possessing any peculiar and
real fitness for it. In a path which (in the course of successive ages)
has been trodden by some millions of men, there must needs have been a
crowd of incomers who had been better on the outside. They were like the
square men who get to be thrust violently into round holes. But, even of
these misplaced men, not a few have learnt, under the teaching of the
Church, that if they could not with efficiency do pulpit work or parish
work, there was other work which they could do, and do perpetually. Men,
for example, who loved literature could, for all time to come, secure
for the poorest student ample access to the best books, and to the
inexhaustible treasures they contain. CRACHERODE did this. BURNEY helped
to do it. EGERTON not only did the like, in his degree, in several parts
of England, but he enabled other and abler men to write new books of a
sort which are conspicuously adapted to add to the equipment of divines
for their special duty and work in the world. Neglecting to learn many
lessons which the Church teaches, to her clergy as well as to laymen, he
had at least learnt one lesson of practical and permanent value.

Hence it is that, in addition to the matchless roll of English worthies
which, in her best days, the Church has furnished—in that long line of
men, from her ranks, who have done honour to her, and to England, under
_every_ point of view—she can show a subsidiary list, comprising men
whose benefactions are more influential than were, or could have been,
the labours of their lives; men of the sort who, being dead, can yet
speak, and to much better purpose than ever they could speak when alive.
Among such is the Churchman whose testamentary gifts have now very
briefly to be mentioned.


[Sidenote: LIFE OF FRANCIS HENRY EGERTON, EARL OF BRIDGEWATER, AND
           FOUNDER OF THE ‘BRIDGEWATER TREATISES.’]

Francis Henry EGERTON was a younger son of John EGERTON, Bishop of
Durham, by the Lady Anna Sophia GREY, daughter and coheir of Henry GREY,
Duke of Kent. He was born on the eleventh of November, 1756. The Bishop
of Durham was fifth in descent from the famous Chancellor of England,
Thomas EGERTON, Viscount Brachley, to whom, as he lay upon his
death-bed, BACON came with the news of King JAMES’S promise to make him
an Earl. Before the patent could be sealed, the exchancellor, it will be
remembered, was dead, and JAMES, to show his gratitude to the departed
statesman, sold for a large sum the Earldom of Bridgewater to the
Chancellor’s son. Eventually, of that earldom Francis Henry EGERTON was,
in his old age, the eighth and last inheritor.

Mr. EGERTON was educated at Eton and at All Souls. He took his M.A. in
1780, and in the following year was presented, by his relative, Francis,
Duke of BRIDGEWATER—the father of inland navigation in Britain—to the
Rectory of Middle, in Shropshire, a living which he held for eight and
forty years.

He was a toward and good scholar. From his youth he was a great reader
and a lover of antiquities, as well as a respectable philologist. His
foible was an overweening although a pardonable pride in his ancestry.
That ancestry embraced what was noblest in the merely antiquarian point
of view, along with the grand historical distinctions of state service
rendered to Queen ELIZABETH, and of a new element introduced into the
mercantile greatness of England under GEORGE THE THIRD. A man may be
forgiven for being proud of a family which included the servant of
ELIZABETH and friend of BACON, as well as the friend of BRINDLEY. But
the pride, as years increased, became somewhat wearisome to
acquaintances; though it proved to be a source of no small profit to
printers and engravers, both at home and abroad. Mr. EGERTON’S writings
in biography and genealogy are very numerous. They date from 1793 to
1826. Some of them are in French. All of them relate, more or less
directly, to the family of EGERTON.


In the year 1796, he appeared as an author in another department, and
with much credit. His edition of the _Hippolytus_ of EURIPIDES is also
noticeable for its modest and candid acknowledgment of the assistance he
had derived from other scholars. He afterwards collected and edited some
fragments of the odes of SAPPHO. The later years of his life were
chiefly passed in Paris. His mind had been soured by some unhappy family
troubles and discords, and as years increased a lamentable spirit of
eccentricity increased with them. It had grown with his growth, but did
not weaken with his loss of bodily and mental vigour.

One of the most noted manifestations of this eccentricity was but the
distortion of a good quality. He had a fondness for dumb animals. He
could not bear to see them suffer by any infliction,—other than that
necessitated by a love of field sports, which, to an Englishman, is as
natural and as necessary as mother’s milk. At length, the Parisians were
scandalised by the frequent sight of a carriage, full of dogs, attended
with as much state and solemnity as if it contained ‘milord’ in person.
To his servants he was a most liberal master. He provided largely for
the parochial service and parochial charities of his two parishes of
Middle and Whitchurch (both in Shropshire). He was, occasionally, a
liberal benefactor to men of recondite learning, such as meet commonly
with small reward in this world.[9] But much of his life was stamped
with the ineffaceable discredit of sacred functions voluntarily assumed,
yet habitually discharged by proxy.

On the death, in 1823, of his elder brother—who had become seventh Earl
of BRIDGEWATER, under the creation of 1617, on the decease of Francis
third Duke and sixth (Egerton) Earl—Francis Henry EGERTON became eighth
Earl of BRIDGEWATER. But he continued to live chiefly in Paris, where he
died, in April, 1829, at the age of seventy-two years. With the peerage
he had inherited a very large estate, although the vast ducal property
in canals had passed, as is well known, in 1803, to the LEVESON-GOWERS.

Part of Lord BRIDGEWATER’S leisure at Paris was given to the composition
of a largely-planned treatise on Natural Theology. But the task was far
above the powers of the undertaker. He had made considerable progress,
after his fashion, and part of what he had written was put superbly into
type, from the press of DIDOT. Very wisely, he resolved to enable abler
men to do the work more efficiently. And this was a main object of his
remarkable Will.

That portion of the document which eventually gave to the world the
well-known ‘Bridgewater Treatises’ of CHALMERS, BUCKLAND, WHEWELL,
PROUT, ROGET, and their fellows in the task, reads thus:—

[Sidenote: LORD BRIDGEWATER’S BEQUESTS FOR THE PREPARATION OF TREATISES
           ON NATURAL THEOLOGY.]

‘I give and bequeath to the President of the Royal Society the sum of
eight thousand pounds, to be applied according to the order and
direction of the said President of the Royal Society, in full and
without any diminution or abatement whatsoever, in such proportions and
at such times, according to his discretion and judgment, and without
being subject to any control or responsibility whatsoever, to such
person or persons as the said President for the time being of the
aforesaid Royal Society shall or may nominate or appoint and employ. And
it is my will and particular request that some person or persons be
nominated and appointed by him to write, print, publish, and expose to
public sale, one thousand copies of a work “_On Power, Wisdom, and
Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation_,” illustrating such work
by all reasonable arguments; as, for instance, the variety and formation
of God’s creatures, in the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms; the
effect of digestion, and thereby of conversion; the construction of the
hand of man, and an infinite variety of arrangements; as also by
discoveries, ancient and modern, in arts, sciences, and in the whole
extent of literature. And I desire that the profits arising from and out
of the circulation and sale of the aforesaid work shall be paid by the
said President of the said Royal Society, as of right, as a further
remuneration and reward to such persons as the said President shall or
may so nominate, appoint, and employ as aforesaid. And I hereby fully
authorise and empower the said President, in his own discretion, to
direct and cause to be paid and advanced to such person or persons
during the printing and preparing of the said work the sum of three
hundred pounds, and also the sum of five hundred pounds sterling to the
same person or persons during the printing and preparing of the said
work for the press, out of, and in part of, the same eight thousand
pounds sterling. And I will and direct that the remainder of the said
sum of eight thousand pounds sterling, or of the stocks or funds wherein
the same shall have been invested, together with all interest, dividend,
or dividends accrued thereon, be transferred, assigned, and paid over to
such person or persons, their or his executors, administrators, or
assigns, as shall have been so nominated, appointed, and employed by the
said President of the said Royal Society, at the instance and request of
the same President, as and when he shall deem the object of this bequest
to have been fully complied with by such person or persons so nominated,
appointed, and employed by him as aforesaid.’

[Sidenote: BEQUESTS OF LORD BRIDGEWATER TO THE BRITISH MUSEUM.]

What was done by the Trustees under this part of Lord BRIDGEWATER’S
Will, and with what result, is known to all readers. That other
portion of the Will which relates to his bequest to the British Museum
reads thus:—‘I give and bequeath to the Trustees for the time being of
the _British Museum_ at Montagu House, in London, to be there
deposited ... for the use of the said Museum, in conformity with the
rules, orders, and regulations of the said establishment, absolutely
and for ever, all and every my Collection of Manuscripts as
hereinafter particularly described. That is to say, the several
volumes of Manuscripts, and all papers, parchments (written or
printed), and all letters, despatches, registers, rolls, documents,
evidences, authorities and signatures, and all impressions of seals
and marks, of every description and sort, and of what nature or kind,
severally and generally belonging to my Collection of Manuscripts, or
in my possession, stamped with my arms or otherwise (except such
letters, notes, papers, &c.), as are hereinafter directed to be burned
and destroyed [‘_two words cancelled_, BRIDGEWATER’], in the
discretion of my Trustees and Executors hereinafter appointed; and
also save and except all such letters, papers, and writings as are
attached to and accompanying the printed books specifically bequeathed
by me to the Library at _Ashridge_, and which said last-mentioned
letters, papers, and writings are also, if I mistake not, stamped with
my arms. And I also will and require that all and every the aforesaid
manuscripts, papers, parchments (written or printed), letters,
despatches, registers, rolls, documents, evidences, authorities,
signatures, impressions of seals and marks of every description and
sort, and every other Manuscript or Manuscripts appertaining to my
said Collection whatsoever and wheresoever, or which shall or may
hereafter, during my life, be added thereto (but not private letters,
notes, or memorandums of any sort or kind, which I direct to be burned
or destroyed), shall, within the space of two years from the day of my
decease, be collected and removed to the _British Museum_ as
aforesaid, under the particular care, superintendence, and direction
of Eugene Auguste BARBIER, one of my Trustees and Executors
hereinafter appointed; for which particular service I give and
bequeath to him, the said Eugene Auguste BARBIER, the sum of two
thousand pounds sterling. I also give, bequeath, and demise unto the
said Trustees of the _British Museum_ all my estate, lands, parcels of
land, ground, hereditaments and appurtenances, situate in the parish
of _Whitchurch-cum-Marbury_, or in any other parish or place in the
Counties of Salop or Chester, or in either or both of the said
Counties, and also all the trees growing thereon, and all seats,
sittings, and pews in the Parish Church of Whitchurch-cum-Marbury
aforesaid, all or any of which I shall or may have bought or
purchased, and which now belong to me by right of purchase, descent,
or otherwise, to have and to hold the same estate, lands, parcels of
land, ground, hereditaments and appurtenances, to them the said
Trustees of the said _British Museum_ for the time being for ever,
upon the trusts nevertheless, and to and for the ends, intents, and
purposes hereinafter particularly mentioned, expressed, and declared;
that is to say, that the trees growing on the aforesaid estate, lands,
parcels of lands, ground, hereditaments, and appurtenances, shall not
be cut or brought down or destroyed, but shall and may be suffered to
grow during their natural life, and that the smaller trees only may be
thinned here and there, with care and judgment, so as to promote the
growth of the larger trees; and that the same estate, lands, parcels
of land, ground, hereditaments and appurtenances, seats, sittings or
pews, or any part thereof, shall not be susceptible of being let,
underlet or rented, by or to any person or persons who shall hold,
have, take, or rent any estate, farm, lands, or property of or from
the family of EGERTON, or of or from any person or persons having that
name, or of or from the Rector of _Whitchurch-cum-Marbury_ aforesaid
for the time being; and upon further trust that they the said Trustees
of the British Museum for the time being do and shall lay out and
apply the rents, issues, and profits which shall from time to time
arise from and out of the said estate, lands, parcels of land, ground,
hereditaments and appurtenances, in the purchase of manuscripts for
the continual augmentation of the aforesaid Collection of Manuscripts.
I further will and direct that my said Trustees hereinafter appointed,
within the space of eighteen calendar months after my decease, do lay
out and invest in the Three per cent. Consolidated stocks or funds of
England, in the names of the Trustees of the _British Museum_ for the
time being, or in such names and for such account as the said Trustees
shall direct, the sum of seven thousand pounds sterling, the interest
and dividends whereof, as the same shall from time to time become due
and payable, I desire and direct shall and may be paid over by the
said Trustees to such person or persons as shall from time to time be
charged with the care and superintendence of the said Collection of
Manuscripts. I also give, grant, bequeath, and devise unto my Trustees
hereinafter appointed all and singular my house, land, tenements,
hereditaments, and appurtenances at or near _Little Gaddesden_, in the
County of Herts, upon trust that they my said Trustees do and shall,
during their joint lives and the life of the survivor of them, let and
demise the same for such term or time as they shall think fit, for the
best rent that can be had and gotten for the same; but the same
premises, under no circumstances, to be let, underlet, or rented by or
to any person or persons who shall have, hold, take, or rent any
estate, farm, or property of or from the family of EGERTON, or any
person or persons bearing that name, and do and shall pay over the
rents, issues, and profits thereof, as and when received, to the
Trustees for the time being of the _British Museum_ aforesaid, to be
laid out and applied by such last-mentioned Trustees in the service
and for the continued augmentation of the said Collection of
Manuscripts; and from and after the decease of the survivor of them my
said Trustees hereinafter appointed, I give and devise the said house,
land, tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances, unto and for the use
of the proprietor or proprietors of the Manor and Estate of
_Ashridge_, his heirs and assigns for ever. And as to all the rest,
residue and remainder of my real and personal estate and effects, of
every nature and kind soever and wheresoever situate, not hereinbefore
disposed of, or availably so, for the purposes intended, I give,
devise, and bequeath the same to my said Trustees, upon trust that
they my said Trustees do pay over and transfer the same to the said
Trustees of the _British Museum_, and do otherwise render the same
available for the service of and towards maintaining, preserving,
keeping up, improving, augmenting, and extending, as opportunities may
offer, [Sidenote: _Will of Francis Henry, Earl of Bridgewater._
(Official copy.)] my said Collection of Manuscripts so deposited in
the _British Museum_ as aforesaid, in the most advantageous manner,
according to their judgment and discretion.’

The eccentricity of which I have spoken showed itself in the successive
changes of detail and other modifications which these bequests underwent
before the testator’s death. What with the Will and its many codicils,
the documents, collectively, came to be of a kind which might task the
acumen of a FEARNE or a St. LEONARDS. But the drift of the Will was
undisturbed. The restrictions as to the underletting of the Whitchurch
estate, and the like, were now limited by codicils to a prescribed term
of years after the testator’s death; power was given to the Museum
Trustees to sell, also after a certain interval, the landed estate
bequeathed for the purchase of manuscripts, should it be deemed
conducive to the interest of the Library so to do; and an additional sum
of five thousand pounds was given to the Trustees for the further
increase of the Collection of Manuscripts, and for the reward of its
keeper, in lieu of the residuary interest in the testator’s personal
estate.

[Sidenote: _Minutes of Trustees_; (printed in Parliamentary Paper of
           1835–6).]

On the 10th of March, 1832, the Trustees resolved that the yearly
proceeds of the last-named bequest should be paid to the Librarians in
charge of the MSS., but that their ordinary salaries, on the
establishment, should be diminished by a like amount.

[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE EGERTON MSS.;]

The Manuscripts bequeathed by Lord BRIDGEWATER comprise a considerable
collection of the original letters of the Kings, Queens, Statesmen,
Marshals, and Diplomatists, of France; another valuable series of
original letters and papers of the authors and scientific men of France
and of Italy; many papers of Italian Statesmen; and a portion of the
donor’s own private correspondence. The latter series of papers
includes, amongst others, letters by Andres, D’Ansse de Villoisin, the
Prince of Aremberg, Auger, Barbier, the Duke of Blacas, Bodoni,
Boissonade, Bonpland, Canova, Cuvier, Ginguené, Humboldt, Valckenaer,
and Visconti. Some of these are merely letters of compliment.
Others—and, in an especial degree, those of D’Ansse de Villoisin, of
Boissonade, of Ginguené, of Humboldt, and of Visconti—contain much
interesting matter on questions of archæology, art, and history.

[Sidenote: AND OF THE ADDITIONS MADE TO IT FROM 1832 TO 1870.]

The earliest additions to the Egerton Collection were made by the
Trustees in May, 1832. In the selection of MSS. for purchase the
Trustees, with great propriety, have given a preference—on the whole;
not exclusively—to that class of documents of which the donor’s own
Collection was mainly composed—the materials, namely, of Continental
history. Amongst the earliest purchases of 1832 was a curious Venetian
_Portolano_ of the fifteenth century. [Sidenote: THE HARDIMAN MSS. ON
IRISH ARCHÆOLOGY AND ENGLISH HISTORY.] In the same year a large series
of Irish Manuscripts, collected by the late John HARDIMAN, was acquired.
This extends from the Egerton number ‘74’ to ‘214’; and from the same
Collector was obtained the valuable _Minutes of Debates in the House of
Commons_, taken by Colonel CAVENDISH, between the years—so memorable in
our history—from 1768 to 1774.[10] In the year 1835, a large collection
of manuscripts illustrative of Spanish history was purchased from Mr.
RICH, a literary agent in London, and another large series of
miscellaneous manuscripts—historical, political, and literary—from the
late bookseller, Thomas RODD. From the same source another like
collection was obtained in 1840. An extensive series of French State
Papers was acquired (by the agency of Messrs. BARTHES and LOWELL) in
1843; and also, in that year, a collection of Persian MSS. In the
following year a curious series of drawings, illustrating the
antiquities, manners, and customs of China, was obtained; and, in 1845,
another valuable series of French historical manuscripts.

Meanwhile, the example set by Lord BRIDGEWATER had incited one of those
many liberal-minded Trustees of the British Museum who have become its
benefactors by augmentation, as well as by faithful guardianship, to
follow it in exactly the same track. [Sidenote: AUGMENTATION OF LORD
BRIDGEWATER’S GIFT BY THAT OF LORD FARNBOROUGH, 1838.] Charles LONG,
Lord Farnborough, bequeathed (in 1838) the sum of two thousand eight
hundred and seventy-two pounds in Three per cent. Consols, specifically
as an augmentation of the Bridgewater fund. Lord FARNBOROUGH’S bequest
now produces eighty-six pounds a year; Lord BRIDGEWATER’S, about four
hundred and ninety pounds a year. Together, therefore, they yield five
hundred and seventy pounds, annually, for the improvement of the
National Collection of Manuscripts.

In 1850 and 1852, an extensive series of German _Albums_—many of them
belonging to celebrated scholars—was acquired. These are now ‘Egerton
MSS. 1179’ to ‘1499,’ inclusive, and ‘1540’ to ‘1607.’ A curious
collection of papers relating to the Spanish Inquisition was also
obtained in 1850. [Sidenote: _Egerton MSS._ 1704–1756.] [Sidenote: _Ib._
1758–1772.] In 1857, the important historical collection, known as ‘the
Bentinck Papers,’ was purchased from Tycho MOMMSEN, of Oldenburgh. In
the following year, another series of Spanish State Papers, and also the
Irish Manuscripts of Henry MONCK MASON;—in 1860, a further series of
‘Bentinck Papers,’—and in 1861, an extensive collection of the
Correspondence of POPE and of Bishop WARBURTON, were successively
acquired.

To these large accumulations of the materials of history were added, in
the succeeding years, other important collections of English
correspondence, and of autograph MSS. of famous authors; and also a
choice collection of Spanish and Portuguese Manuscripts brought together
by Count DA PONTE, and abounding with historical information. [Sidenote:
_Egerton MSS._ 2047–2064.] To this an addition was made last year (1869)
of other like papers, amongst which are notable some Venetian
_Relazioni_; papers of Cardinals Carlo CARAFFA and Flavio ORSINI; and
some letters of Antonio PEREZ. [Sidenote: _Ib._ 2077–2084.] In 1869,
there was also obtained, by means of the conjoined Egerton and
Farnborough funds, [Sidenote: _Ib._ 2087–2099.] a curious parcel of
papers relating to the early affairs of the Corporation and trade of
Dover, from the year 1387 to 1678; [Sidenote: _Ib._ 2086; 2100.]
together with some other papers illustrative of the cradle-years of our
Indian empire.

Amongst the latest accessions obtained from the Bridgewater fund are
some MSS. from the hand of a famous English poet of the last generation.
These have now an additional, and special, interest in English eyes,
from a recent lamentable occurrence. [Sidenote: THE ‘BYRON MSS.’ IN THE
EGERTON COLLECTION (1867).] The pen of a slanderer has aimed at gaining
a sort of celebrity, more enduring than anything of its own proper
production could hope to secure, by attempting to affix on BYRON and on
Augusta LEIGH—after both the great poet and the affectionate sister have
lain many years in their several graves, and can no longer rebut the
slander—the stain of an enormous guilt. Some, however, are yet alive, by
whom the calumny _can_, and will, be conclusively exposed. Meanwhile,
the slanderer’s poor aim will, probably, have been reached—but in an
unexpected and unenviable way.

                               ‘The link
             _Thou_ formest in his fortunes, bids us think
             Of thy poor malice, naming thee with scorn.’

Very happily, the calumniating pen was not held in any English hand.


Much more might, and not unfitly, be said in illustration of the
historical and literary value of those manuscript accessions to the
National Library which, in these later years, have accrued out of the
proceeds of Lord BRIDGEWATER’S gift. Enough, however, has been stated,
to serve by way of sample.

[Sidenote: OTHER BENEFACTIONS OF LORD BRIDGEWATER.]

Nor were these the only literary bequests and foundations of the last
Earl of BRIDGEWATER. He bequeathed, as heir-looms, two considerable
Libraries, rich both in theology and in history—to the respective
rectors, for ever, of the parishes of Middle and of Whitchurch. These, I
learn—from MS. correspondence now before me—are of great value, and are
gladly made available, by their owners for the time being, to the use of
persons able and willing to profit by them. He also founded a Library,
likewise by way of heirloom, at Ashridge.


Whilst the National Library was thus being gradually improved, both by
increased liberality on the part of Parliament and, far more largely, by
the munificent gifts of individuals, other departments of the Museum had
not been neglected.

[Sidenote: THE ACQUISITION OF THE GREVILLE MINERALS;]

Charles GREVILLE, the nephew of Sir William HAMILTON, had collected, in
his residence at Paddington Green, a noble cabinet of minerals. It was
the finest assemblage of its kind which had yet been seen in England.
For the purchase of this Collection Parliament made a grant, in the year
1810, of thirteen thousand seven hundred and twenty-seven pounds.

[Sidenote: OF THE MONTAGU MUSEUM; [See, hereafter, Book III, c. I.]]

In 1816, a valuable accession came to the zoological department, by the
purchase, for the sum of eleven hundred pounds, of a Collection of
British Zoology, which had been formed at Knowle, in Devonshire, by
Colonel George MONTAGU. The Montagu Collection was especially rich in
birds.

[Sidenote: AND OF THE COLLECTIONS OF SIR R. C. HOARE.]

Nine years later, the Library was further benefited, in the way of gift,
by a choice Italian Collection, gathered and given by Sir Richard Colt
HOARE, of Stourhead; and, in the way of Parliamentary grant, by the
acquisition of the collection of manuscripts, coins, and other
antiquities, which had been made in the East, during his years of
Consulship at Baghdad, by Claudius James RICH.

Sir Richard HOARE was not less distinguished for the taste and judgment
with which he had collected the historical literature of Italy, than for
the zeal and ability with which he cultivated, both as author and as
patron, the—in Britain—too much neglected department of provincial
topography. He had spent nearly five years in Italy—partly during the
reign of NAPOLEON—and amassed a very fine collection of books
illustrative of all departments of Italian history. In 1825, Sir Richard
presented this Collection to the Trustees of the British Museum in these
words:—‘Anxious to follow the liberal example of our gracious monarch
GEORGE THE FOURTH, of Sir George BEAUMONT, and of Richard Payne KNIGHT
(though in a very humble degree), I do give unto the British Museum my
Collection of Topography, made during a residence of five years abroad;
and hoping that the more modern publications may be added to it
hereafter.’ The Library so given included about seventeen hundred and
thirty separate works. Sir Richard did something, himself, to secure the
fulfilment of the annexed wish, by adding to his first gift, made in
1825, in subsequent years.

[Sidenote: COLLECTIONS OF CLAUDIUS RICH. [See, hereafter, Book III, c.
           3.]]

The researches of Claudius RICH merit some special notice. He may be
regarded as the first explorer of Assyria. Had it not been for his early
death, it is very probable that he might have anticipated some of the
brilliant discoveries of Mr. LAYARD. But his quickly intercepted
researches will be best described, in connection with the later
explorations in the same field. Here it may suffice to say that from Mr.
RICH’S representatives a Collection of Manuscripts, extending to eight
hundred and two volumes—Syriac, Arabic, Persian, and Turkish—was
obtained, by purchase, in 1825, together with a small Collection of
Coins and miscellaneous antiquities.

To the Oriental Manuscripts of RICH, an important addition was made in
the course of the same year by the bequest of [Sidenote: HULL’S ORIENTAL
MSS.] Mr. John Fowler HULL—another distinguished Orientalist who passed
from amongst us at an early age—who also bequeathed a Collection of
Oriental and Chinese printed books. Mr. HULL’S legacy was the small
beginning of that Chinese Library which has now become so large.

[Sidenote: THE PERSEPOLITAN MARBLES.]

It was also in the year 1825 that Sir Gore OUSELEY presented a
Collection of Marbles obtained from Persepolis. These will be mentioned
hereafter in connection with the antiquarian explorations of Claudius
RICH and his successors. The donor of the Persepolitan Marbles died on
the eighteenth of November, 1844.


[Sidenote: HISTORY OF ‘THE PORTLAND VASE.’]

In addition to these many liberal benefactions made during the earlier
years of the present century, a smaller gift (virtually a gift, though
in name a ‘deposit’) of the same period claims brief notice, on account
both of its artistic value and of its curious history. I refer to that
exquisite monument of ancient art known, for many years, as the
‘Barberini Vase,’ but now more commonly as the ‘Portland Vase,’ from the
name of its last individual possessor.

This vase is one of the innumerable acquisitions which the country owes
to the intelligent research and cultivated taste of Sir William
HAMILTON. It had been found more than a century before his time
(probably in the year 1640), beneath the Monte del Grano, about three
miles from Rome, on the road to Tusculum. The place of the discovery was
a sepulchral chamber, within which was found a sarcophagus containing
the vase, and bearing an inscription to the memory of the Emperor
ALEXANDER SEVERUS (_A.D._ 222–235) and to his mother. About this
sarcophagus and its inscription there have been dissertations and
rejoinders, essays and commentaries, illustrative and obscurative, in
sufficient number to immortalise half a dozen Jonathan OLDBUCKS and
‘Antigonus’ MAC-CRIBBS. And the controversy is still undetermined.

After having been long a conspicuous ornament of the Barberini Palace,
the ‘Barberini Vase’ was bought by HAMILTON. When, in December, 1784, he
paid one of his visits to England, the vase came with him. Its fame had
previously excited the desires of many virtuosi. By the Duchess of
PORTLAND it was so strongly coveted, that she employed a niece of Sir
William to conduct a negotiation with much more solemnity and mystery
than the ambassador would have thought needful in conducting a critical
Treaty of Peace. [Sidenote: _Correspondence of Mrs. Delany_, vol. ii (in
many places).] The Duchess’s precautions foiled the curiosity of not a
few of her fellow-collectors in virtû. ‘I have heard,’ wrote Horace
WALPOLE, ‘that Sir W. HAMILTON’S renowned vase, which had disappeared
with so much mystery, is again recovered; not in the tomb, but the
treasury, of the Duchess of PORTLAND, in which, I fancy, it had made
ample room for itself. Sir William told me it would never go out of
England. I do not see how he could warrant _that_. The Duchess and Lord
Edward have both shown how little stability there is in the riches of
that family.’ [Sidenote: H. Walpole to Lady Upper-Ossory, 10 August,
1785. (Cunn. Edit., vol. ix, p. 3.)] As yet, the reader will remember,
that ‘Portland Estate,’ which was so profitably to turn farms into
streets, was but in expectancy.

And then WALPOLE adds: ‘_My_ family has felt how insecure is the
permanency of heir-looms,’—the thought of that grand ‘Houghton Gallery,’
and its transportation to Russia, coming across his memory, whilst
telling Lady UPPER-OSSORY the story of the coveted vase, just imported
from the Barberini Palace at Rome.

The Duchess of PORTLAND enjoyed the sight of her beautiful purchase only
during a few weeks. It was bought in by the family (at the nominal price
of £1029[11]) at the sale of her famous museum of curiosities—a sale
extending to more than four thousand lots—and twenty-four years
afterwards, it was lent, for exhibition (1810), by the third Duke of
PORTLAND, to the Trustees of the British Museum, where it has since
remained.

When WEDGWOOD set about imitating the Portland Vase in his manufactory
at Etruria—for which purpose the then Duke liberally lent it to him—he
discovered that the vase had been broken and skilfully put together
again. After it had been publicly exhibited during almost thirty-five
years in London, the frenzy of a maniac led—as it seemed at the
moment—to its utter destruction. But, mainly by the singular skill and
patience of the late John DOUBLEDAY (a craftsman attached to the
Department of Antiquities for many years), it was soon restored to its
pristine beauty. That one act of violence in 1845 is the only instance
of very serious injury arising from open exhibition to all comers which
the annals of the Museum record.




                              CHAPTER IV.
    THE KING’S OR ‘GEORGIAN’ LIBRARY;—ITS COLLECTOR, AND ITS DONOR.

                                 ‘A crown,
         Golden in show, is but a wreath of thorns;
         Brings dangers, troubles, cares, and sleepless nights,
         To him who wears the regal diadem.’

                ·       ·       ·       ·       ·

         ‘O polish’d perturbation! golden care!
         That keep’st the ports of slumber open wide
         To many a watchful night!’—
                                 _Henry IV_, Part 2, iv, 4.

  _Notices of the Literary Tastes and Acquirements of King_ GEORGE THE
      THIRD.—_His Conversations with Men of Letters.—History of his
      Library and of its Transfer to the British Nation by_ GEORGE THE
      FOURTH.


The strong antagonisms in mind, in disposition, and in tastes, which
existed between GEORGE THE THIRD and GEORGE THE FOURTH, may be seen in
the small and incidental acts of their respective lives, almost as
distinctly, and as sharply defined, as they are seen in their private
lives, or in their characteristic modes of transacting the public
business. [Sidenote: THE CONTRASTS BETWEEN GEORGE III AND GEORGE IV.]
GEORGE THE THIRD regretted the giving away of the old ‘Royal Library’ of
the Kings his ancestors, not because he grudged a liberal use of royal
books by private scholars, but because he thought a fine Library was the
necessary appendage of a palace. He occasionally stinted himself of some
of his personal enjoyments in life, in order to have the more means to
amass books. He formed, during his own lifetime, a Library which is
probably both larger and finer than any like Collection ever made by any
one man, even under the advantageous conditions of royalty. When he had
collected his books, he made them liberally accessible. To himself, as
we all know, Nature had not given any very conspicuous faculty for
turning either books or men to good account; nor had education done much
to improve the parts he possessed.

GEORGE THE FOURTH, as it seems, regretted the formation of the new Royal
Library by the King his father, because, when he inherited it, he found
that its decent maintenance and upkeeping would demand every year a sum
of money which he could spend in ways far more to his taste. He had been
far better educated than his father had been. And to him Nature had
given good abilities; but study was about the last and least likely use
to which, at any time, he was inclined to apply them. If he saw any good
at all in having, on his accession, the ownership of a large Library, it
lay, not in the power it afforded him of benefiting literature, and the
labourers in literature, but in the possibility he saw that so fine a
collection of books might be made to produce a round sum of money. One
of his first thoughts about the matter was, that it would be a good
thing to offer his father’s beloved Library for sale—to the Emperor of
Russia. By what influences that shrewd scheme of turning a penny was
diverted will be seen in the sequel.


If GEORGE THE THIRD was, in respect to his parts, only slenderly
endowed, he had in another respect large gifts. Both his industry and
his power of sustained application were uncommon. And his conscientious
sense of responsibility for the use of such abilities as he had was no
less remarkable. Whatever may have been his mistakes in government, no
man ever sat on the British throne who was more thoroughly honest in his
intentions, or more deeply anxious to show, in the discharge of his
duties, his consciousness of being

                 ‘Ever in his great taskmaster’s eye.’

That his public acts did not more adequately correspond with his good
desires was due, in large measure, to an infelicitous parentage and a
narrow education.

As the father of lies sometimes speaks truth, so a mere party manifesto
may sometimes give sound advice, though clothed in a discreditable garb.
[Sidenote: THE EDUCATION OF GEORGE III, AFTER THE DEATH OF FREDERICK,
PRINCE OF WALES.] When public attention came first to be attracted to
the character of the peculiar influences which began to mould the
training of the young Prince of WALES soon after his father’s death, a
Court Chamberlain received, one morning, by the post, an unsigned
document, which he thought it his duty to place in the hands of the
Prime Minister, and he, when he had read it, thought the paper important
enough to be laid before the King. This anonymous memorial denounced, as
early as in the winter of 1752 (when the Prince was but fourteen years
old), the sort of education which GEORGE THE THIRD was receiving as
being likely to initiate an unfortunate reign.

The paper (which I have now before me) is headed: ‘_A Memorial of
several Noblemen and Gentlemen of the first rank_,’ and in the course of
it there is an assertion—as being already matter of public
notoriety—‘that books inculcating the worst maxims of government, and
defending the most avowed tyrannies, have been put into the hands of the
Prince of Wales,’ and such a fact, it is said, ‘cannot but affect the
memorialists with the most melancholy apprehensions when they find that
the men who had the honesty and resolution to complain of such
astonishing methods of instruction are driven away from Court, and the
men who have dared to teach such doctrines are continued in trust and
favour.’[12]

[Sidenote: _A Memorial_, &c.; MS. ADDIT. 6271, fol. 3.]

Making all allowance for partisan feeling and for that tinge of Whig
oligarchism which peeps out, as well in the very title, as in the
contents of this ‘Memorial,’ there was obvious truth in the
denunciation, and a modicum of true prophecy in the inference. But such
a remonstrance had just as little effect, in the way of checking undue
influences, as it had of wisdom in the form given to it, or in the mode
of its presentation at Court.

[Sidenote: NARROW RANGE OF GEORGE THE THIRD’S TASTES FOR BOOKS.]

The Prince’s education was not merely imbued with ideas and maxims
little likely to conduce towards a prosperous reign. It was
intellectually narrow and mean. He grew up, for example, in utter
ignorance of many of the great lights of English literature. In respect
to all books, save one (that, happily, the greatest of all), he became
one of those who, through life, draw from the small cisterns, instead of
going to the deep wells. He seems to have been trained to think that the
literary glories of his country began with the age of Queen ANNE.

In after-years, GEORGE THE THIRD attained to some dim consciousness of
his own narrowness of culture. The ply, however, had been too early
taken to be got rid of. No training, probably, could have made him a
scholar. But his powers of application under wise direction would have
opened to him stores of knowledge, from which unwise influences shut him
out for life. His faculty of perseverance in study, it must be
remembered, was backed by thorough honesty of nature, and by an ability
to withstand temptations. When he was entering his nineteenth year, a
sub-preceptor, who had watched him sedulously, said of him: ‘He is a lad
of good principle. He has no heroic strain, and no turn for
extravagance. He loves peace, and, as yet, has shown very virtuous
principles. He has the greatest temptation to gallant with ladies, who
lay themselves out in the most shameless manner to draw him on, but to
no purpose.’ Certainly this last characteristic was neither an inherited
virtue nor an ancestral tradition. And it stands in curious contrast
with the tendencies of all his brothers and of almost all his sons.

From youth upwards the Prince read much, though he did not read wisely.
No sooner was he King than he began to set about the collection of his
noble Library. In the choice of a librarian he was not infelicitous,
though the selection was in part dictated by a feeling of brotherly
kindness. For he chose a very near relative—Mr. afterwards Sir Frederick
Augusta BARNARD. Mr. BARNARD had many qualities which fitted him for his
task.

[Sidenote: FOUNDATION OF THE NEW ROYAL LIBRARY.]

The foundation of the Library was laid by a very fortunate purchase on
the Continent. Its increase was largely promoted by a political
revolution which ensued shortly afterwards; and, in order to turn his
large opportunities to most account, the King’s Librarian modestly
sought and instantly obtained the best advice which that generation
could afford him—the advice of Samuel JOHNSON.

In 1762, the fine Library of Joseph SMITH, who had been British Consul
at Venice during many years, was bought for the King. It cost about ten
thousand pounds. SMITH had ransacked Italy for choice books, much as his
contemporary, Sir William HAMILTON, had ransacked that country for
choice vases. And he had been not less successful in his quest. In
amassing early and choice editions of the classics, and also the
curiosities and rarities of fifteenth century printing, he had been
especially lucky. From the same source, but at a later date, GEORGE THE
THIRD also obtained a fine gallery of pictures and a collection of coins
and gems. For these he gave twenty thousand pounds. [Sidenote:
_Dactyliotheca Smithiana_; 1767; Lady M. W. Montagu, _Letters_, vol.
iii, p. 89.] For seven or eight years the shops and warehouses of
English booksellers were also sedulously examined, and large purchases
were made from them. In this labour JOHNSON often assisted, actively, as
well as by advice.

When the suppression of the Jesuits in many parts of Europe made the
literary treasures which that busy Society had collected—often upon a
princely scale and with admirable taste, so far as their limitations
permitted—both the King and his librarian were struck with the idea that
another fine opportunity opened itself for book-buying on the Continent.
It was resolved that Mr. BARNARD should travel for the purpose of
profiting by it. Before he set out on his journey, he betook himself to
JOHNSON for counsel as to the best way of setting about the task.

JOHNSON’S counsel may be thus abridged: The literature of every country
may be best gathered on its native soil. And the studies of the learned
are everywhere influenced by peculiarities of government and of
religion. In Italy you may, therefore, expect to meet with abundance of
the works of the Canonists and the Schoolmen; in Germany with store of
writers on the Feudal Laws; in Holland you will find the booksellers’
shops swarming with the works of the Civilians. [Sidenote: SUBSTANCE OF
JOHNSON’S ADVICE ON THE COLLECTION OF THE KING’S LIBRARY.] Of Canonists
a few of the most eminent will suffice. Of the Schoolmen a liberal
supply will be a valuable addition to the King’s Library. The
departments of Feudal and Civil Law you can hardly render too complete.
In the Feudal Constitutions we see the origin of our property laws. Of
the Civil Law it is not too much to say that it is a regal study.

In respect to standard books generally, continued JOHNSON, a Royal
Library ought to have the earliest or most curious edition, the most
sumptuous edition, and also the most useful one, which will commonly be
one of the latest impressions of the book. As to the purchase of entire
libraries in bulk, the Doctor inclined to think—even a century ago—that
the inconvenience would commonly almost overbalance the advantage, on
the score of the excessive accumulation of duplicate copies.

And then he added a remark which (long years afterwards) Sir Richard
Colt HOARE profited by, and made a source of profit to our National
Museum. ‘I am told,’ said JOHNSON, ‘that scarcely a village of Italy
wants its historian. And it will be of great use to collect, in every
place, maps of the adjacent country, and plans of towns, buildings, and
gardens. By this care you will form a more valuable body of geography
than could otherwise be had.’

On that point—as, indeed, on all the points about which he gave
advice—JOHNSON’S counsel bore excellent fruit. The ‘body of geography’
contained in the Georgian Library has never, I think, been surpassed in
any one Collection (made by a single Collector) in the world. It laid,
substantially, the foundation of the noble assemblage of charts and maps
which now forms a separate Department of the Museum, under the able
superintendence of Mr. Richard Henry MAJOR, who has done much for the
advancement of geographical knowledge in many paths, but in none more
efficiently than in his Museum labours.

Like good counsel was given to BARNARD by the great lexicographer, in
relation to the gathering of illustrated books. He told the King’s
Librarian that he ought to seek diligently for old books adorned with
woodcuts, because the designs were often those of great masters.

[Sidenote: JOHNSON’S REMARK ON MODERN ILLUSTRATED BOOKS.]

When to this remark the Doctor added the words: ‘Those old prints are
such as cannot be made by any artist now living,’ he asserted what was
undoubtedly true, if he limited that high praise to the best class of
the works of which he was speaking. But his words carry in them also an
indirect testimony of honour to GEORGE THE THIRD. If, in the century
which has passed since Samuel JOHNSON discussed with Frederick BARNARD
the wisest means of forming a Royal Library, a great stride has been
made by the arts of design in Britain, a share of the merit belongs to
the patriotic old King. He was amongst the earliest in his dominions to
encourage British art with an open hand. He was not only the founder of
the Royal Academy, but a most liberal patron to artists; and he did not
limit his patronage to those men alone who belonged to his own Academy.
If for a series of years the Royal Academy did less for Art, and did its
work in a more narrow spirit of coterie than it ought to have done, the
fault was not in the founder. And, of late years, the Academy itself
has, in many ways, nobly vindicated its foundation and the aid it has
received from the Public. Towards the foundation of the Academy, GEORGE
THE THIRD gave, from his privy purse, more than five thousand pounds. To
many of its members he was a genial friend, as well as a liberal patron.

Many other institutions of public education shared his liberality. Some
generous benefactions which he gave to the British Museum itself, in the
earlier years of his reign, have been mentioned already. But there were
a crowd of other gifts, both in the earlier and in the later years, of
which the limits of this volume at present forbid me to make detailed
mention.


The Continental tour of Mr. BARNARD was very successful as to its main
object. He obtained such rich accessions for the Library as raised
it—especially in the various departments of Continental history and
literature—much above all other Libraries in Britain.

[Sidenote: _Bibliotheca Askeviana_ (1775). _Literary Anecdotes of
           Eighteenth Century_, vol. iv, p. 513 (183–).]

Within a few years of his return to England the very choice Collection
which had been formed by Dr. Anthony ASKEW came into the market. For
this Library, in bulk, the King offered ASKEW’S representatives five
thousand pounds. They thought they could make more of the Collection by
an auction, but, in the event, obtained less than four thousand pounds.
The Askew Library extended only to three thousand five hundred and
seventy separate printed works, but it contained a large proportion of
rare and choice books. The chief buyers at the sale were the Duke of LA
VALLIÈRE and (through the agency of DE BURE) LEWIS THE SIXTEENTH. The
King of England bought comparatively little, although on this occasion
Mr. BARNARD could scarcely have withholden his hand on the score of the
special injunctions which the King had formerly laid down for his
guidance in such public competitions.

For it deserves to be remembered that GEORGE THE THIRD’S conscientious
thoughtfulness for other people led him, early in his career as a
Collector, to give to his librarian a general instruction such as the
servants of wealthy Collectors rarely receive. ‘I do not wish you,’ he
said, ‘to bid either against a literary man who wants books for study,
or against a known Collector of small means.’ He was very free to bid,
on the other hand, against a Duke of ROXBURGHE or an Earl SPENCER.

The King’s kindness of nature was also shown in the free access which he
at all times afforded to scholars and students in his own Library. To
this circumstance we owe some of the most interesting notices we have of
his opinions of authors and of books.

[Sidenote: THE OLD LOCALITIES OF THE GEORGIAN LIBRARY.]

In the earliest years of the Royal Collectorship part of the Library was
kept in the old palace at Kew, which has long since disappeared, the
site of it being now a gorgeous flower-bed. Afterwards, and on the
acquisition for the Queen, of Buckingham House,[13] the chief part of
the Collection was removed to Pimlico, and arranged in the handsome
rooms of which a view appears, by way of vignette, on the title-pages of
the sumptuously printed catalogue prepared by BARNARD. It was at
Buckingham House that JOHNSON’S well-known conversation with the King
took place, in February, 1767.

When JOHNSON first began to use the Royal Collection it was still in its
infancy. He was surprised both at its extent and at the number of rare
and choice books which it already included. He had seen BARNARD’S
assiduity, and had helped him occasionally in his book-researches, long
prior to the tour of 1768. But it astonished him to see that the King,
within six or seven years, had gathered so fine a Library as that which
he saw in 1767. He became a frequent visitor. The King, hearing of the
circumstance, desired his librarian to let him know when the literary
autocrat came again.

[Sidenote: THE INTERVIEW AT BUCKINGHAM HOUSE BETWEEN GEORGE III AND DR.
           JOHNSON.]

The King’s first questions were about the doings at Oxford, whence, he
had been told, Johnson had recently returned. The Doctor expressed his
inability to bestow much commendation on the diligence then exhibited
by the resident scholars of the University in the way of any
conspicuous additions to literature. [Sidenote: 1767, February.]
Presently, the King put to him the question, ‘And what are you about
yourself?’ ‘I think,’ was the answer—given in a tone more modest than
the strict sense of the words may import—‘that I have already done my
part as a writer.’ To which the King rejoined, ‘I should think so too,
had you not written so well.’ After this happy retort, the King turned
the conversation on some recent theological controversies. About that
between WARBURTON and LOWTH he made another neat though obvious
remark—‘When it comes to calling names, argument, truly, is pretty
well at an end.’ They then passed in review many of the periodical
publications of the day, in the course of which His Majesty displayed
considerable knowledge of the chief books of that class, both English
and French. [Sidenote: Croker’s _Boswell_, pp. 184–186.] He showed his
characteristic and kingly attention to minutiæ by an observation which
he made when JOHNSON had praised an improved arrangement of the
contents of the _Philosophical Transactions_—oblivious, at the moment,
that he had himself suggested the change. ‘They have to thank Dr.
JOHNSON for that,’ said the King.

Another remark made by GEORGE THE THIRD during this conversation
deserves to be remembered. ‘I wish,’ said he, ‘that we could have a
really well-executed body of British Biography.’ This was a desideratum
in the seventh year of the old King, and it is a desideratum still in
the thirty-fourth year of his granddaughter. The reign of Queen VICTORIA
was comparatively young when the late Mr. MURRAY first announced, not
without some flourish of trumpets, a forthcoming attempt at such a
labour, but the little that was said as to the precise plan and scope of
the work then contemplated, gave small promise of an adequate
performance; and hitherto there has been no performance at all.

[Sidenote: THE KING’S CONVERSATION WITH DR. BEATTIE;]

Six years after the interview with JOHNSON, another literary
conversation, of which we have a record, was held in the Royal Library.
But on this occasion the scene was Kew. Dr. BEATTIE’S fame is now a
thing of the past. There is still, however, some living interest in the
account of the talk between the author of _The Minstrel_ and his
sovereign, held in 1773, [Sidenote: 1773. August.] about liturgies,
[Sidenote: Forbes, _Life of Beattie_, vol. i, pp. 347–354.] about
prayers occasional and prayers _ex tempore_, and about the methods of
education adopted in the Scottish universities.

The King’s least favourable—but not least characteristic—appearance, as
a talker on literary subjects, is made in that conversation with Miss
BURNEY, [Sidenote: AND WITH MISS BURNEY.] in which he uttered his
often-quoted remark on SHAKESPEARE:—‘Was there ever such stuff as great
part of _Shakespeare_—only one must not say so?’ [Sidenote: 1785.
December.] The sense of the humorous seems in GEORGE III to have been
wholly lacking. And some part of the sadness of his life has probably a
vital connexion with that deficiency.

In the last-mentioned conversation, the King evinced considerable
acquaintance with French literature. He shared, to some extent, the then
very general admiration for ROUSSEAU, on whom he had bestowed more than
one act of kindness during the brief English exile of the author of
_Emile_. [Sidenote: D’Arblay, _Diary_, vol. ii, pp. 395–398.] He shared,
also, the common impression as to the absence of gratitude in the
brilliant Frenchman’s character. When Miss BURNEY told him that his own
portrait had been seen to occupy the most conspicuous place in
ROUSSEAU’S living-room after his return to France, the King was both
surprised and touched.


Next after the large and choice acquisitions made for the King’s Library
on the Continent, some of its most conspicuous and valuable literary
treasures were acquired at the several sales, in London, of the
Libraries of James WEST (1773), of John RATCLIFFE (1776), and of Richard
FARMER (1798). It was at the first of these sales that GEORGE THE THIRD
laid the foundation of his unequalled series of the productions of the
father of English printing.

[Sidenote: GEORGE THE THIRD’S SERIES OF BOOKS FROM CAXTON’S PRESS.]

The _Caxtons_ bought for the King at West’s sale included the dearly
prized _Recuyell of the Histories of Troye_ (1472–1474?), the _Booke of
the Chesse_ (1476?), the _Canterbury Tales_ of CHAUCER (1478?), the
_Dictes and Sayinges of the Philosophers_ (1480), the _Mirrour of the
World_ (1481), the _Godfrey of Boloyne_ (1482), the _Confessio Amantis_
(1483), the _Paris and Vienne_ (1485), and the _Royal Booke_ (1487?). Of
these, the lowest in price was the _Confessio_ of 1483, which the King
acquired for nine guineas, and the highest in price was the _Chaucer_ of
1478, which cost him forty-seven pounds fifteen shillings.

At the same sale, he also acquired another Caxton, which has a peculiar
interest. The King’s copy of the _Troylus and Creside_ (probably printed
in the year 1484) formerly belonged

          ‘To Her, most gentle, most unfortunate,
          Crowned but to die—who in her chamber sate
          Musing with Plato, though the horn was blown,
          And every ear and every heart was won,
          And all, in green array, were chasing down the sun;’

and it bears her autograph.

Three years after the dispersion of WEST’S Library came that of the
extraordinary Collection which had been made by a Bermondsey
ship-chandler, John RATCLIFFE by name. This worthy and fortunate
Collector has been said, commonly, to have amassed his black-letter
curiosities by buying them, at so much a pound, over his counter.[14]
But of such windfalls no man has ever been so lucky as to have more than
a few. [Sidenote: JOHN RATCLIFFE OF BERMONDSEY AND HIS CURIOUS LIBRARY.]
John RATCLIFFE was, like his King, a large buyer at WEST’S sale, and at
many other sales, upon the ordinary terms.

By pains and perseverance he had collected of books printed by CAXTON
the extraordinary number of forty-eight. No Collector ever surpassed, or
even reached, that number, except Robert HARLEY, in whose days books
that are now worth three hundred pounds could, not infrequently, be
bought for much less than the half of three hundred pence.

RATCLIFFE’S forty-eight _Caxtons_ produced at his sale two hundred and
thirty-six pounds. The King bought twenty of them at an aggregate cost
of about eighty-five pounds. Amongst them were the _Boethius_, of 1478;
the _Reynarde the Foxe_, of 1481; the _Golden Legende_, and the
_Curial_, both of 1484; and the _Speculum Vitæ Christi_, probably
printed in 1488. The _Boethius_ is a fine copy, and was obtained for
four pounds six shillings. A few years ago an imperfect copy of the same
book brought more than sixteen times that sum.

[Sidenote: GIFTS TO THE KING’S LIBRARY.]

Two others of the King’s _Caxtons_ were the gift of Jacob BRYANT. One of
these is Ralph LEFEVRE’S _Recueil des histoires de Troye_, printed,
probably, in 1476. The other is the _Doctrinal of Sapience_, printed in
1489. This last-named volume is on vellum, and is the only copy so
printed which is known to exist. A third Caxton volume was bequeathed to
GEORGE THE THIRD by Mr. HEWETT, of Ipswich. This is the _Æsop_ of 1484,
and is the only extant copy. [Sidenote: GEORGE III AND THE BIBLIOMANIA.]
It was delivered to the King by Sir John HEWETT and Mr. Philip BROKE,
the legator’s executors. GEORGE THE THIRD was very sensitive to the
special triumphs of collectorship, and would be sure to prize the _Æsop_
all the more for its attribute of uniqueness.

A story in illustration of this specific tinge of the bibliomania in our
royal Collector was wont to be told by Sir Walter SCOTT, and is
mentioned in his interesting obituary notice of the King, printed in the
_Edinburgh Weekly Journal_[15] immediately after the King’s death.
According to SCOTT, GEORGE THE THIRD was fond of crowing a little over
his brother-collector, the Duke of ROXBURGHE, on the score that the
royal copy of the famous _Recuyell of the Histories of Troye_ had a
pre-eminence over the Roxburghe copy. The pre-eminence was of a sort,
indeed, to which no one but a thorough-paced Collector would be
sensible. For it consisted in the ‘locking,’ or wrong imposing, of
certain pages, afterwards corrected at press. The fault, therefore,
indicated priority of working off. But I do not find in the King’s
_Recuyell_—which now lies before me—the peculiarity spoken of in the
poet’s story. Such a fault does exist in the Roxburghe copy, which now
belongs to the Duke of DEVONSHIRE. Other and authenticated anecdotes,
however, are abundant, which suffice to show the close knowledge of, and
the keen interest in, his books, by which GEORGE THE THIRD was
characterised. It was a still better trait in him that he found real
pleasure in knowing that the treasures and rarities of his Library
subserved the inquiries and studies of scholars. Nor did he make narrow
limitations. Men like JOHNSON and Bishop HORSLEY profited by the
Collection. So, too, did men like GIBBON and PRIESTLEY.

The total number of Caxton prints amassed by GEORGE III was thirty-nine.
Of these three are in the Royal Library at Windsor—namely, the _Recueil_
(1476?), the _Æsop_ (1484), and the _Doctrinal_ (1489).


[Sidenote: GEORGE THE THIRD’S APPEARANCE AS AN AUTHOR.]

To a keen enjoyment of the pleasures of collectorship, the King added,
in 1787, a passing taste of those of authorship. As a Collector, the
bibliomania did not engross him. He had a delight in amassing fine
plants as well as fine books. The _Hortus Kewensis_ (in both
applications of the term) was largely indebted to his liberality of
expenditure and to his far-spread research. He sent botanic missionaries
to the remotest parts of Asia, as well as to Africa. He took the most
cordial interest in those varied voyages of discovery which—as I have
observed in a former chapter—cast so distinctive a lustre on his reign,
and in consequence of which such large additions were made to our
natural history collections, public and private. And he did much to
promote scientific agriculture, both by precept and by example. It was
as a practical agriculturist that the King (under a slight veil of
pseudonymity[16]) made his bow to the reading public by the publication
of seven articles in Arthur YOUNG’S useful and then well-known
periodical, the _Annals of Agriculture_.

Those articles have a threefold aim. They inculcate the wisdom, for
certain soils, of an intermediate system of treatment and of cropping,
midway between the old routine and the drill-husbandry, then of recent
introduction; they describe several new implements, introduced by DUCKET
of Esher and of Petersham; and they advocate an almost entire rejection
of fallows. They further describe a method, also introduced by Farmer
DUCKET, and then peculiar, of destroying that farmer’s pest, couch-grass
(_triticum repens_), by trench-ploughing it deep into the ground, and
contain many other practical suggestions, some of which seem to have
been empirical, and others so good that they have become trite.

But the best service rendered by GEORGE THE THIRD to the agricultural
pursuits, of which he was so fond, was his introduction of the Merino
flocks, which became conspicuous ornaments to the great and little parks
at Windsor. Part of the success which, for a time, attended the
importation of those choice Merino breeds was due to the zealous
co-operation of Lord SOMERVILLE and of Sir Joseph BANKS [see the next
chapter], but the King himself took a real initiative in the matter;
acquired real knowledge about it; and deserved, by his personal efforts,
the cognomen given him (by some of those worthy farmers who used to
attend the annual sales at Windsor) of ‘the Royal Shepherd.’

[Sidenote: ILLNESS OF GEORGE III;]

The recreative pursuits, alike of the book-collector and of the
agriculturist, as well as the labours of the conscientious monarch, were
at length to be arrested by that great calamity which, after clouding
over some months of the years of vigour, was destined to veil in thick
gloom all the [Sidenote: 1810.] years of decline—the years when great
public triumphs and crushing family afflictions passed equally unnoted
by the recluse of Windsor.

         ‘Thy lov’d ones fell around thee.
                       ... Thou, meanwhile,
         Didst walk unconscious through thy royal towers,
         The one that wept _not_, in the tearful isle!

                ·       ·       ·       ·       ·

         But who can tell what visions might be thine?
         The stream of thought, though broken, still was pure.
         Still on that wave the stars of Heaven might shine
         Where earthly image would no more endure.
         Nor might the phantoms to thy spirit known,
         Be dark or wild,—creations of Remorse,—
         Unstain’d by thee, the blameless Past had thrown
         No fearful shadows o’er the Future’s course.’

[Sidenote: AND HIS DEATH.]

When GEORGE THE THIRD died at Windsor Castle, on the 29th of January,
1820, the public mourning was sincere. [Sidenote: 1820. January.] During
its ten years of rule, the Regency had done very much to heighten and
intensify regret for the calamity of 1810. The errors of the old monarch
came, naturally, to be dwarfed to the view, when his private virtues
acquired all the sharp saliency of contrast.

Since his death, political writers have usually been somewhat harsh to
his memory. But the verdict of history has not yet been given in. When
the time for its delivery shall at length come, there will be a long
roll of good deeds to set off against many mistakes in policy. Nor will
the genuine piety, and the earnest conscientiousness of the individual
man—up to the measure of the light vouchsafed to him—be forgotten in the
preliminary summing up. What GEORGE THE THIRD did for Britain simply in
conferring upon it the social blessings of a pure Court, and of a bright
personal example, is best to be estimated by contemplating what, in that
respect, existed before it, and also what came immediately after it.
Comparisons of such a sort will serve, eventually, to better purpose
than that of feathering the witty shafts of reckless satirists, whether
in prose or in verse. Meanwhile, it is enough to say that no honester,
no more God-fearing man, than was GEORGE THE THIRD, ever sat upon the
throne of England.


During all the time of his long illness, the King’s Library had
continued, more or less, to grow. When he died, it contained sixty-five
thousand two hundred and fifty volumes, besides more than nineteen
thousand unbound tracts. [Sidenote: STATE OF THE KING’S LIBRARY IN
JANUARY, 1820.] These have since been bound severally. The total number
of volumes, therefore, which the Collection comprised was about
eighty-four thousand. At the time of the King’s decease, the annual cost
of books in progress, and of periodical works, somewhat exceeded one
thousand pounds. The annual salaries of the staff—four officers and two
servants—amounted to eleven hundred and seventy-one pounds. The Library
occupied a fine and extensive suite of rooms in Buckingham Palace. One
of them was large enough to make a noble billiard-room.

The Royal Library, therefore, embarrassed King GEORGE THE FOURTH in two
ways. It cost two thousand two hundred pounds a year, even without
making any new additions to its contents. It occupied much space in the
royal residence which could be devoted to more agreeable purposes. Then
came the welcome thought that, instead of being a charge, it might be
made a source of income. The Emperor of Russia was known to covet, as a
truly imperial luxury, what to the new King of Great Britain was but a
costly burden. He broached the idea—but met, instead of encouragement,
with strong remonstrance.

The news of the royal suggestion soon spread abroad. Amongst those who
heard of it with disgust were Lord FARNBOROUGH (who is said to have
learnt the design in talking, one day, with Princess LIEVEN) and Richard
HEBER. Both men bestirred themselves to prevent the King from publicly
disgracing the country in that way. Lord FARNBOROUGH betook himself to a
conference with the Premier, Lord LIVERPOOL. Mr. HEBER discussed the
matter with Lord SIDMOUTH. By the ministers, public opinion upon the
suggested sale was pretty strongly and emphatically conveyed to His
Majesty, whatever may have been the courtliness of tone employed about
it.

[Sidenote: CONFERENCE BETWEEN GEORGE IV AND HIS MINISTERS ON DISPOSAL OF
           THE LIBRARY.]

GEORGE THE FOURTH, however, was not less strongly impressed by the
charms of the prospective rubles from Russia. He felt that he could find
pleasant uses for a windfall of a hundred and eighty thousand pounds, or
so. And he fought hard to secure his expected prize—or some indubitably
solid equivalent. [Sidenote: R. Ford, in the _Quarterly Review_ (Dec.,
1850), vol. lxxxviii, p. 143;] ‘If I can’t have the rubles,’ said the
King, ‘you must find me their value in pounds sterling.’ The Ministers
were much in earnest to save the Library, and, in the emergency, laid
their hands upon a certain surplus which had accrued from a fund
furnished some years before by France, to meet British claims for losses
sustained at the date of the first French Revolution. [Sidenote: Comp.
_Minutes of Evidence taken by the Commissioners on Brit. Mus._ (also in
1850), pp. 117, 118.] But the expedient became the subject of an
unpleasant hint in the House of Commons. And the Government, it is said,
then resorted to that useful fund, the ‘Droits of Admiralty.’ By hook or
crook, GEORGE THE FOURTH received his ‘equivalent.’ He then sat down to
his writing-table (at Brighton), to assure Lord LIVERPOOL—in his
official capacity—of the satisfaction he felt in having ‘this means of
advancing the Literature of my Country.’ Then he proceeded to add:—‘I
also feel that I am paying a just tribute to the memory of a Parent,
whose life was adorned with every public and private virtue.’


The Executors or Trustees of King GEORGE THE THIRD knew well what the
monarch’s feelings about his Library would, in all reasonable
probability, have been, had he possessed mental vigour when preparing
for his last change. They exacted from the Trustees of the Museum a
pledge that the Royal Library should be preserved apart, and entire.

[Sidenote: THE NEW BUILDING ERECTED FOR THE GEORGIAN LIBRARY.]

Parliament, on its side, made a liberal provision for the erection of a
building worthy to receive the Georgian Library. The fine edifice raised
in pursuance of a parliamentary vote cost a hundred and forty thousand
pounds. [Sidenote: 1821–28.] It provided one of the handsomest rooms in
Europe for the main purpose, and it also made much-needed arrangements
for the reception and exhibition of natural-history Collections, above
the books.

The removal of the Royal Library from Buckingham House was not completed
until August, 1828. All who saw the Collection whilst the building was
in its first purity of colour—and who were old enough to form an opinion
on such a point—pronounced the receptacle to be eminently worthy of its
rich contents. The floor-cases and the heavy tables—very needful, no
doubt—have since detracted not a little from the architectural effect
and elegance of the room itself.

Along with the printed books, and the extensive geographical
Collections, came a number of manuscripts—on historical, literary, and
geographical subjects.[17] By some transient forgetfulness of the pledge
given to Lord FARNBOROUGH, the manuscripts, or part of them, were, in
March, 1841, sent to the ‘Manuscript Department’ of the Museum.
[Sidenote: _Minutes of Evidence_ (1850), as above.] But Mr. PANIZZI,
then the Keeper of the Printed Books, successfully reclaimed them for
their due place of deposit, according to the arrangement of 1823. Nor
was such a claim a mere official punctilio.

In every point of view, close regard to the wishes of donors, or of
those who virtually represent them, is not more a matter of simple
justice than it is a matter of wise and foreseeing policy in the
Trustees of Public Museums. The integrity of their Collections is often,
and naturally, an anxious desire of those who have formed them. In a
subsequent chapter (C. ii of Book III) it will be seen that the wish
expressed by the representatives of King GEORGE THE THIRD was also the
wish of a munificent contemporary and old minister of his, who, many
years afterwards, gave to the Nation a Library only second in splendour
to that which had been gathered by GEORGE THE THIRD.

Not the least curious little fact connected with the Georgian Library
and its gift to the Public, is that the gift was _predicted_ thirty-one
years before GEORGE THE FOURTH wrote his letter addressed to Lord
LIVERPOOL from the Pavilion at Brighton, and twenty-eight years before
the death of GEORGE THE THIRD.

In 1791, Frederick WENDEBORN wrote thus:—‘The King’s private Library ...
can boast very valuable and magnificent books, which, as it is said,
will be one time or another joined to those of the British Museum.’
WENDEBORN[18] was a German preacher, resident in London for many years.
He was known to Queen CHARLOTTE, and had occasional intercourse with the
Court. May it not be inferred that on some occasion or other the King
had intimated, if not an intention, at least a thought on the matter,
which some courtier or other had repeated in the hearing of Dr.
WENDEBORN?




                               CHAPTER V.
            THE FOUNDER OF THE BANKSIAN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY.

  ‘It may be averred for truth that they be not the highest instances
  that give the best and surest information.... It often comes to pass
  [in the study of Nature] that small and mean things conduce more to
  the discovery of great matters, than great things to the discovery of
  small matters.’—BACON.

  ‘Not every man is fit to travel. Travel makes a wise man better, but a
  fool worse.’—OWEN FELLTHAM.

  _The Life, Travels, and Social Influence, of Sir Joseph_ BANKS.—_The
      Royal Society under his Presidency.—His Collections and their
      acquisition by the Trustees of the British Museum.—Notices of some
      other contemporaneous accessions._


[Sidenote: BOOK II, Chap. V. THE FOUNDER OF THE BANKSIAN MUSEUM AND
           LIBRARY.]

We have now to glance at the career—personal and scientific—of an
estimable public benefactor, with whom King GEORGE THE THIRD had much
pleasant intercourse, both of a public and a private kind. Sir Joseph
BANKS was almost five years younger than his royal friend and
correspondent, but he survived the King by little more than three
months, so that the Georgian and the Banksian Libraries were very nearly
contemporaneous accessions. The former, as we have seen, was given in
1823, and fully received in 1828; the latter was bequeathed
(conditionally) in 1820, and received in 1827. These two accessions,
taken conjointly, raised the Museum collection of books (for the first
time in its history) to a respectable rank amongst the National
Libraries of the day. The Banksian bequest made also an important
addition to the natural-history collections, especially to the herbaria.
It is as a cultivator and promoter of the natural sciences, and
pre-eminently of botany, that Sir Joseph won for himself enduring fame.
But he was also conspicuous for those personal and social qualities
which are not less necessary to the man, than are learning and
liberality to the philosopher. For the lack of such personal qualities
some undoubted public benefactors have been, nevertheless, bad citizens.
In this public benefactor both sets of faculties were harmoniously
combined. They shone in his form and countenance. They yet dwell in the
memory of a survivor or two, here and there, who were the contemporaries
of his closing years.

Joseph BANKS was born at Reresby Abbey, in Lincolnshire, on the
thirteenth of December, 1743. He was the only son of William
BANKS-HODGKENSON, of Reresby ABBEY, by his wife Sophia BATE.

[Sidenote: THE BANKESES OF RERESBY ABBEY.]

Mr. BANKS-HODGKENSON was the descendant of a Yorkshire family, which was
wont, of old, to write itself ‘Banke,’ and was long settled at
Banke-Newton, in the wapentake of Staincliffe. The second son of a
certain Henry BANKE, of Banke-Newton, acquired, by marriage, Beck Hall,
in Giggleswick; and by his great-grandson, the first Joseph BANKES,
Reresby Abbey was purchased towards the close of the seventeenth
century. His son (also Joseph) sat in Parliament for Peterborough, and
served as Sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1736. The second (and eldest
surviving) son of the Member for Peterborough took the name of
HODGKENSON, as heir to his mother’s ancestral estate of Overton, in
Derbyshire, but on the death of his elder brother (and his consequent
heirship) resumed the paternal name, and resigned the Overton estate to
his next brother, who became Robert HODGKENSON, of Overton. Mr.
BANKS-HODGKENSON died in 1761, leaving to his son, afterwards Sir Joseph
BANKS, a plentiful estate.

The youngster was then little more than beginning his career at Oxford,
whither he had recently come from Eton, though his schooling had been
begun at Harrow. [Sidenote: EARLY YEARS OF SIR JOSEPH BANKS.] He was
‘lord of himself,’ and of a fine fortune, at the critical age of
eighteen. To many, such an inheritance, under like circumstances, has
brought misery. To Joseph BANKS, it brought noble means for the
prosecution of a noble aim. It was the ambition of this young
Etonian—not to eclipse jockies, or to dazzle the eyes of fools, but—to
tread in the footsteps of LINNÆUS. Rich, hardy, and handsome in person,
sanguine in temperament, and full of talent, he resolved that, for some
years to come, after leaving the University, the life that might so
easily be brimmed with enjoyments should incur many privations and face
many hardships, in order to win both knowledge and the power of
benefiting the Public by its communication. That object of early
ambition, it will be seen, was abundantly realised in the after-years.

There is no reason to think that a resolution, not often formed at such
an age as eighteen, was come to in the absence of temptation to a
different course. BANKS was no ascetic. Nor was it his fortune, at any
time, to live much with ascetics. One of his earliest friends was that
Lord SANDWICH[19] whose memory now chiefly connects itself with the
unsavoury traditions of Medmenham Abbey, and with the peculiar pursuits
in literature of John WILKES. With SANDWICH he spent many of the bright
days of youth in fishing on Whittlesea Mere. BANKS had the good
fortune—and the skill—to make his early acquaintanceship with the future
First Lord of the Admiralty conducive to the interests of science. The
connexion with the Navy of another friend of his youth, Henry PHIPPS,
afterwards Earl of MULGRAVE, was also turned, eventually, to good
account in the same way.

Part of young BANKS’ vacations were passed at Reresby and in frequent
companionship with Lord SANDWICH; part at his mother’s jointure-house at
Chelsea, very near to the fine botanic garden which, a few years before,
had been so much enriched by the liberality of Sir Hans SLOANE. In that
Chelsea garden, and in other gardens at Hammersmith, BANKS studied
botany with youthful ardour. And he made frequent botanic excursions in
the then secluded neighbourhood. In the course of one of these rambles
he fell under suspicion of felony.

[Sidenote: BANKS’ YOUTHFUL ADVENTURE NEAR HAMMERSMITH.]

He was botanizing in a ditch, and his person happened to be partially
concealed by a thick growth of briars and nettles, at a moment when two
or three constables, who were in chase of a burglar, chanced to approach
the spot. The botanist’s clothes were in a miry condition, and his
suspicious posture excited in the minds of the local Dogberries the idea
that here they had their man. They were deaf to all expostulations. The
future President of the Royal Society was dragged, by ignominious hands,
before the nearest justice. The magistrate agreed with the constables
that the case looked black, but, before committing either the prisoner
or himself, he directed that the culprit’s pockets should be searched.
They contained little money, and no watches; but an extraordinary
abundance of plants and wild flowers. The explanations which before had
been refused were now accepted, and very courteous apologies were
tendered to the victim of an excess of official zeal. But the
awkwardness of the adventure failed to deter the sufferer from his eager
pursuit, in season and out of it, of his darling science. A botanist he
was to be.

He left Oxford in 1763, and almost instantly set out on a scientific
voyage to Newfoundland and Labrador. [Sidenote: THE FIRST VOYAGE OF
EXPLORATION TO NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR.] Here he laid the first
substantial groundwork of his future collections in natural history. He
sailed with PHIPPS, who was already a captain in the Navy, and had been
charged with the duty of protecting the Newfoundland fisheries.
[Sidenote: 1763.] The voyage proved to be one of some hardship, but its
privations rather sharpened than dulled the youthful naturalist’s
appetite for scientific explorations. He had learned thus early to
endure hardness, for a worthy object.

[Sidenote: THE SECOND VOYAGE;—TO THE SOUTH SEAS.]

His second voyage was to the South Seas, and it was made in company with
the most famous of the large band of eighteenth century maritime
discoverers—James COOK, [Sidenote: 1768.] and also with a favourite
pupil of LINNÆUS (the idol of BANKS’ youthful fancy), Daniel Charles
SOLANDER, who, though he was little above thirty years of age, had
already won some distinction in England, and had been made an
Assistant-Librarian in the British Museum.[20]

To make the voyage of _The Endeavour_ as largely conducive as was
possible to the interests of the natural sciences, Mr. BANKS incurred
considerable personal expense, and he induced the Admiralty to make
large efforts, on its part, to promote and secure the various objects of
the new expedition. One of those objects was the observation at Otaheite
of a coming transit of Venus over the Sun; another was the further
progress of geographical discovery in a quarter of the world to which
public interest was at that time specially and strongly turned. BANKS,
individually, was also bent on collecting specimens in all departments
of natural history, and on promoting geographical knowledge by the
completest possible collection of drawings, maps, and charts of all that
was met with. He engaged Dr. SOLANDER as his companion, and gave him a
salary of four hundred pounds a year. With them sailed two draughtsmen
and a secretary, besides four servants.

[Sidenote: THE BOTANICAL EXPLORATIONS AT TERRA-DEL-FUEGO.]

_The Endeavour_ set sail from Plymouth on the twenty-sixth of August,
1768, and from Rio-de-Janeiro on the eighth of December. [Sidenote:
1769. January.] On the fourteenth of January, 1769, the naturalists
landed at Terra-del-Fuego, and they gathered more than a hundred plants
theretofore unknown to European botanists. Proud of their success, they
resolved that, after a brief rest, they would explore the higher
regions, in hope to reap a rich harvest of Alpine plants. SOLANDER, as a
Swede and as a traveller in Norway, knew something of the dangers they
would have to face. BANKS himself was not without experience. But both
were enterprising and resolute men. They set out on their long march in
the night of the fifteenth of January, in order to gain as much of
daylight as possible for the work of botanizing. They hoped to return to
the ship within ten hours. As they ascended, SOLANDER warned his
companions against the temptation that he knew awaited them of giving
way to sleep when overcome by the toil of walking. ‘Whoever sits down,’
said he, ‘will be sure to sleep, and whoever sleeps will wake no more.’
But the fatigue proved to be excessive. The foreseeing adviser was borne
down by it, and was the first to throw himself upon the snow. BANKS was
the younger man by six or seven years, and had a strong constitution. He
fought resolutely against temptation, and, with the help of the
draughtsmen, exerted himself with all his might to keep SOLANDER awake.
They succeeded in getting him to walk on for a few miles more. Then he
lay down again, with the words, ‘Sleep I must, for a few minutes.’ In
those few minutes the fierce cold almost paralysed his limbs. Two
servants (a seaman and a negro) imitated the Swede’s example, and were
really paralysed. With much grief, it was found that the servants must,
inevitably, be left to their fate. The party had wandered so far that
when they set about to return they were—if the return should be by the
way they had come—a long day’s journey from the ship. And their route
had lain through pathless woods. Their only food was a vulture. A third
man seemed in peril—momentarily—of death by exhaustion. Happily, a
shorter cut was found. Their journey had not been quite fruitless. But
they all felt that they had bought their botanical specimens at too dear
a rate. Two men were already dead. One of the draughtsmen seems to have
suffered so severely that he never recovered from the effects of the
journey. Mr. BUCHAN died, three months afterwards, in Otaheite, just
four days after they had landed in the celebrated island, to visit which
was among the especial objects of their mission.

[Sidenote: THE STAY IN OTAHEITE.]

The transit of Venus over the Sun’s disc was satisfactorily observed on
the third of June, [Sidenote: 1769.] but the observation had been nearly
foiled by the roguery of a native, who had carried off the quadrant. The
thief was found amongst several hundred of his fellows, and, but for a
characteristic combination in BANKS of frank good humour and of firm
hardihood, the spoil would not have been recovered. On this, as upon
many other occasions, both his fine personal qualities and his genial
manners marked him as a natural leader of men. On occasions, however, of
a more delicate kind they brought him into a peculiar peril. Queen
OBEREA fell in love with him. She was not herself without attractions.
And they were clad in all the graces of unadorned simplicity. The
poetical satirists of his day used Sir Joseph—after his return—with
cruel injustice if he was really quite so successful, in resisting
feminine charms in Otaheite, as he had formerly been at home.

[Sidenote: THE VOYAGE TO NEW HOLLAND.]

But however that may have been, his researches, as a naturalist, at
Otaheite were abundantly successful. And to the island, in return, he
was a friend and benefactor. [Sidenote: 1769–1770.] After a stay of
three months the explorers left Otaheite for New Holland on the 15th of
August, 1769. In Australia their collections were again very numerous
and valuable. But their long stay in explorations exposed them to two
great dangers, each of which was very nearly fatal to Mr. BANKS and to
most of his companions. They struck upon a rock, while coasting New
South Wales. Their escape was wonderful. The accident entailed an amount
of injury to the ship which brought them presently within a peril more
imminent still. Whilst making repairs in the noxious climate of Batavia,
a pestilence seized upon nearly all the Europeans. Seven, including the
ship’s surgeon, died in Batavia. Twenty-three, including the second
draughtsman, Mr. PARKINSON, died on shipboard afterwards. BANKS and
SOLANDER were so near death that their recovery seemed, to their
companions, almost miraculous.

[Sidenote: THE RETURN HOME.]

After leaving New South Wales and Batavia they had a prosperous passage
[Sidenote: 1771. June.] to the Cape—prosperous, save for the loss of
those whom the pestilence had previously stricken—and made some
additions to their scientific stores. _The Endeavour_ anchored in the
Downs on the 12th of June, 1771, after an absence of nearly three years.
Beyond the immediate and obvious scientific results of the voyage, it
was the means, eventually, of conferring an eminent benefaction on our
West Indian Colonies. It gave them the Bread-Fruit tree (_Artocarpus
incisa_). The transplantation of GOD’S bounties from clime to clime was
a favourite pursuit—and a life-long one—with Sir Joseph BANKS, and its
agencies cost him much time and thought, as well as no small expenditure
of fortune.


The hardships and sufferings of Terra-del-Fuego and of Batavia had not
yet taken off the edge of his appetite for remote voyages. [Sidenote:
THE EXPEDITION TO ICELAND.] He expended some thousands of pounds in
buying instruments and making preparations for a new expedition with
COOK, [Sidenote: 1772. July.] but the foolish and obstructive conduct of
our Navy Board inspired him with a temporary disgust. He then turned his
attention to Northern Europe. He resolved that after visiting the
western isles of Scotland he would explore Iceland. SOLANDER was again
his companion, together with two other northern naturalists, Drs. LIND
and VON TROIL. BANKS chartered a vessel at his own cost (amounting, for
the ship alone, to about six hundred pounds).

Before starting for the cold north, they refreshed their eyes with the
soft beauties of the Isle of Wight. There, said one of the delighted
party, ‘Nature has spared none of her favours;’ and a good many of us
have unconsciously repeated his remark, long afterwards. They reached
the Western Isles of Scotland before the end of July, and, after a long
visit, explored Staffa, the wonders of which were then almost unknown.
Scientific attention, indeed, was first called to them by BANKS, when he
communicated to Thomas PENNANT, of Downing, his minute survey, and his
drawings of the basaltic columns.

He thought that the mind can scarcely conceive of anything more
splendid, in its kind, than the now famous cave. [Sidenote: THE VISIT TO
STAFFA.] When he asked the local name of it, his guide gave him an
answer which, to Mr. BANKS, seemed to need explanation, [Sidenote: 1772.
August 12.] though the name has nowadays become but too familiar to our
ears. ‘The Cave of FIUHN,’ said the islander. ‘Who or what is “Fiuhn”?’
rejoined BANKS. The stone, he says, of which the pillars are formed, is
a coarse kind of basalt, much resembling the ‘Giants’ Causeway’ in
Ireland, ‘though none of them so neat as the specimens of the latter
which I have seen at the British Museum.... [Sidenote: Banks to Pennant;
Aug., 1772.] Here, it is dirty brown; in the Irish, a fine black.’ But
he carried away with him the fullest impression of the amazing grandeur
of the whole scene.

[Sidenote: THE TOUR IN ICELAND.]

The tourists reached Iceland on the twenty-eighth of August. They
explored the country, and saw everything notable which it contained. On
the twenty-first of September they visited the most conspicuous of the
_geysers_, or hot-springs, and spent thirteen hours in examining them.
On the twenty-fourth, they explored Mount Hecla.

The most famous geyser described by VON TROIL (who acted usually as
penman for the party) was situate near a farm called Harkaudal, about
two days’ journey from Hecla. You see, he tells us, a large expanse of
fields shut in, upon one side, by lofty snow-covered mountains, far
away, with their heads commonly shrouded in clouds, that occasionally
sink (under the force of a prevalent wind) so as to conceal the slopes,
while displaying the peaks. The peaks, at such moments, seem to spring
out of the clouds themselves. On another hand, Hecla is seen, with its
three ice-capped summits, and its volcanic vapours; and then, again, a
ridge of stupendous rocks, at the foot of which the boiling springs gush
forth, with deafening roar, and are backed by a broad marsh containing
forty or fifty other springs, or ‘geysers,’ from which arise immense
columns of vapour, subject of course to all the influences and
lightings-up of wind and sky. Our tourists carefully watched the
‘spoutings’ of the springs—which are always fitful—and, according to
their joint observations, some of these rose to the height of sixty
feet. [Sidenote: Von Troil to Bergmann; 7 Sept., 1773. (Abridged.)]
Occasionally—it has since been observed by later explorers—they reach to
an elevation of more than three times that number of feet.

Nor did Mr. BANKS neglect the literature of Iceland, which abounds with
interest. He bought the Library of Halfdan EINARSSON, the literary
historian of Iceland, and made other large and choice collections. And
he presented the whole to the British Museum—after bestowing, I believe,
some personal study on their contents—upon his return to England at the
close of the year.


[Sidenote: SOCIAL POSITION AND INFLUENCE OF SIR JOSEPH BANKS.]

For many generations, it has been very conducive to the possession of
social prestige in this country that a man should have acquired the
reputation of an adventurous traveller. Even if the traveller shall have
seen no anthropophagi, no men ‘whose heads do grow beneath their
shoulders,’ he is likely to attain to some degree of social eminence,
merely as one who has explored those

                    ‘Antres vast and desarts idle,’

of which home-keeping people have no knowledge, save from the tales of
voyagers. To prestige of this kind, Mr. BANKS added respectable
scientific attainments, a large fortune, and a liberal mind. He was also
the favoured possessor of graceful manners and of no mean powers of
conversation. It was, therefore, quite in the ordinary course of things
that his house in London should become one of the social centres of the
metropolis. It became much more than that. From the days of his youth
BANKS had seen much of foreigners; he had mixed with men of European
distinction. An extensive correspondence with the Continent became to
him both a pursuit and an enjoyment, and one of its results, in course
of time, was that at his house in Soho Square every eminent foreigner
who came to England was sure to be seen. To another class of persons
that house became scarcely less distinguished as the abode, not only of
the rich Collections in natural history which their owner had gone so
far to seek, and had gathered with so much toil and hardship, but of a
noble Library, for the increase of which the book-shops of every great
town in Europe had been explored.

[Sidenote: THE ROYAL SOCIETY, AND ITS HISTORY UNDER THE RULE OF SIR
           JOSEPH BANKS.]

The possessor of such manifold distinctions and of such habits of mind
seemed, to most men, marked out as the natural head of a great
scientific institution. Such a man would be sure to reflect honour on
the Society, as well as to derive honour from his headship. But at this
particular epoch the Royal Society (then the one conspicuous scientific
association in the kingdom) was much embroiled. Mr. BANKS was, in many
respects, just the man to assuage dissensions. But these particular
dissensions were of a kind which his special devotion to natural history
tended rather to aggravate than to soften.

Mathematicians, as all men know, have been illustrious benefactors to
the world, but—be the cause what it may—they have never been famous for
a large-minded estimate of the pursuits and hobbies of other men, whom
Nature had not made mathematical. At the time when Joseph BANKS
leaped—as one may say—into eminence, both scientific and social, in
London, Sir John PRINGLE was President of the Royal Society, and his
position there somewhat resembled the position in which we have seen Sir
Hans SLOANE to have been placed. [Sidenote: See before, Book I, c. 6.]
Like Sir Hans, PRINGLE was an eminent physician, and a keen student of
physics. He did not give umbrage to his scientific team, exactly in the
way in which SLOANE had given it—by an overweening love of reading long
medical papers. But natural, not mathematical, philosophy, was his
forte; and the mathematicians were somewhat uneasy in the traces whilst
Sir John held the reins. If PRINGLE should be succeeded by BANKS, there
would be a change indeed on the box, but the style of coachmanship was
likely to be little altered. It is not surprising that there should have
been a good deal of jibbing, just as the change was at hand, and also
for some time after it had been made.

[Sidenote: THE ELECTION TO THE PRESIDENCY.]

Mr. BANKS was elected to the chair of the Royal Society on the 30th of
November, 1777. He found it to be a very difficult post. [Sidenote:
1777. 30 Nov.] But, in the end, the true geniality of the man, the
integrity of his nature, and the suavity of his manners, won over most,
if not quite all, of his opponents. The least that can be said of his
rule in that chair is that he made the Royal Society more famous
throughout Europe, than it had ever been since the day when it was
presided over by NEWTON.

For it was not the least eminent quality of BANKS’ character that, to
him, a touch of _science_ ‘made the whole world kin.’ He was a good
subject, as well as a good man. He knew the blessings of an aristocratic
and time-honoured monarchy. He had that true insight which enables a man
to discriminate sharply between the populace and the People. But, when
the interests of science came into play, he could say—with literal and
exactest truth,—

             ‘Tros Tyriusve mihi nullo discrimine agetur.’

He took a keen and genial delight both in watching and in promoting the
progress of science on the other side of the Channel, whether France
itself lay under the loose rule of the republican and dissolute
Directory, or under the curbing hand of the First Consul, who was
already rapidly aspiring towards empire.

On ten several occasions, BANKS was the means of inducing our Government
to restore scientific collections, which had been captured by British
cruisers, to that magnificent Botanic Garden (the _Jardin des Plantes_,
at Paris) for which they had been originally destined. [Sidenote:
Cuvier, _Éloge de M. Banks_, passim.] Such conduct could not but win for
him the affectionate reverence of Frenchmen. On one eminent occasion his
good services went much further.

[Sidenote: BANKS’ INTERVENTION WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THE FRUITS OF THE
           EXPEDITION OF LA PÉROUSE.]

Men yet remember the European interest excited by the adventurous
expedition and the sad fate of the gallant seaman, John Francis DE LA
PÉROUSE. When the long search for LA PÉROUSE, which had been headed by
the French Admiral BRUNI D’EUTRECASTEAUX, came by discords to an
untimely end, the collection of specimens of natural history which had
been made, in the course of it, by DE LA BILLARDIÈRE, was brought into
an English port. The commander, it seems, felt much as SLOANE’S
captain[21] had felt at the time of our own Revolution of 1688. From
LEWIS THE SIXTEENTH he had received his commission. He was unprepared to
yield an account of its performance to anybody else. He brought his
cargo to England, and placed it at the absolute disposal of the French
emigrant Princes.

By the eldest Prince, afterwards LEWIS THE EIGHTEENTH, directions were
given that an offer should be made to Queen CHARLOTTE to place at Her
Majesty’s disposal whatever she might be pleased to select from the
Collections of LA BILLARDIÈRE, and that all the remainder of them should
be given to the British Museum.

To the interests of that Museum no man of sense will think that Sir
Joseph BANKS was, at any time, indifferent. At this particular time, he
had been, repeatedly, an eminent benefactor to it. By the French Prince
the Collections were put at his orders for the advantage of the Museum,
of which he was now a Trustee, as well as a benefactor. But his first
thought was for the national honour of Britain, not for the mere
aggrandizement of its Museum. ‘I have never heard,’ said BANKS, ‘of any
declaration of war between the philosophers of England and the
philosophers of France. These French Collections must go to the French
Museum, not to the British.’ And to France he sent them, without a
moment’s hesitation. Such an act, I take it, is worthy of the name of
‘cosmopolitanism.’ The bastard imitation, sometimes current under that
much abused term—that which knows of no love of country, except upon a
clear balance of mercantile profit—might be more fitly called by a
plainer word.

[Sidenote: INSTANCES OF BANKS’ LIBERALITY TO HUMBOLDT.]

Nor were Frenchmen the only persons to benefit by the largeness of view
which belonged to the new President of the Royal Society. At a later
period, he heard that Collections which had been made by William VON
HUMBOLDT, and subsequently seized by pirates, had been carried to the
Cape, and there detained. BANKS sent to the Cape a commission for their
release, and restoration to the Collector. He defrayed the expenses, and
refused to accept of any reimbursement. Such actions might well reflect
honour on the Royal Society, as well as on the man whom the wisest among
its fellows had placed at their head.

The Royal Society had but a share of its President’s attention, though
the share was naturally a Benjamin’s portion. He worked assiduously on
the Board of Agriculture. He helped to found the Horticultural Society
and the Royal Institution of London. He became, also, in 1788, a
co-founder of that ‘African Institution’ which contributed so largely,
in the earlier years of this century, to promote geographical discovery
in Africa, and to spread—of dire necessity, at but a snail’s pace—some
of the blessings of Christian civilization to those dark places of the
earth which are full of cruelty.

BANKS’ close intercourse with the Continent enabled him to do yeoman’s
service to the African Institution. Many ardent and aspiring young men
in all parts of Europe were fired, from time to time, with an ambition
to do some stroke or other of good work in an enterprise which was, at
once, scientific and, in its ultimate issues, evangelical. Some of the
aspirants were, of course, but very partially fitted or equipped for
such labours. But among those who entered on it with fairest promise the
protégés of BANKS were conspicuous. Some brief notice of the services he
was enabled to render in this direction belongs, however, more fitly, to
a somewhat later date than that at which we have, as yet, arrived.


[Sidenote: BANKS’ FAVOURABLE RECEPTION AT THE COURT OF GEORGE III.]

Among the Fellows of the Royal Society there had been much division of
opinion as to the eligibility of Joseph BANKS for their Presidency. At
Court, there was none. GEORGE THE THIRD, with all his genuine good
nature, had been unable to restrain a lurking dislike of Sir John
PRINGLE’S friendly intercourse with Benjamin FRANKLIN. He was pleased to
see PRINGLE retire to his native Scotland, and to receive BANKS at
Court, in Sir John’s place. He did not then anticipate that the new
President would, one day, offend (for a moment) his irrepressible
prejudices in a somewhat like manner.

Sometimes, Sir Joseph’s attendance at Court brought him into company
which had become to him, in some degree, unwonted. We have seen him
making a very favourable impression in the feminine circles at Otaheite.
But the ladies in attendance on Queen CHARLOTTE were less charmed with
him. In March, 1788, I find Fanny BURNEY diarizing (at Windsor Castle)
thus:—‘Sir Joseph BANKS was so exceedingly shy that we made no
acquaintance at all. If, instead of going round the world, he had only
fallen from the moon, he could not appear less versed in the usual modes
of a tea-drinking party. [Sidenote: D’Arblay, _Diary_, vol. iv, p. 128.]
But what, you will say, has a tea-party to do with a botanist, a man of
science, and a President of the Royal Society?’

In March, 1779, Mr. BANKS made a happy marriage with Dorothea HUGESSEN,
daughter and coheir of William Weston HUGESSEN, of Provender, in Kent.
Two years afterwards, the King made him a Knight Grand Cross of the
Order of the Bath, and cultivated his familiar and frequent acquaintance
both in town and at Windsor. Ere long, he was still further honoured
with the rank of a Privy Councillor. Both men were deeply interested in
agriculture and in the improvement of stock. Sir Joseph shared his
sovereign’s liking for the Merino breeds; took an active part in
managing those in Windsor Park, and for many years presided, very
successfully, over the annual sales. The King had been willing to give
away his surplus stock, for the mere sake of promoting improvement, but
he was made to see that more good was likely to accrue from sales than
from gifts. When in Lincolnshire Sir Joseph BANKS laboured hard for the
more complete drainage of the fens, and in many ways furthered the
introduction of sound agricultural methods. He was a good neighbour;
though not a very keen sportsman. And most of his time was now
necessarily passed either in London or in its neighbourhood. But, among
other acts of good fellowship, he rarely visited Reresby Abbey without
patronising a picnic ball at Horncastle, for the benefit of the public
dispensary of that town. And it was noted by Lincolnshire people that
when, in the after-years, Sir Joseph’s severe sufferings from gout kept
him much away from Reresby, the dispensary suffered also—from
depletion—until Mr. DYMOKE, of Scrivelsby, had revived, after BANKS’
example, the good old annual custom of the town.

[Sidenote: THE AFRICAN INSTITUTION.]

It was in the year 1797, and again in 1806, that Sir Joseph was enabled
to render special service to that African enterprise which lay near his
heart, by enlisting in its toils a zealous German and a not less zealous
Swiss—Frederick HORNEMANN and John Lewis BURCKHARDT. It was the fate of
both of those enterprising men to pay the usual penalty of African
exploration. HORNEMANN succumbed, after six years’ service. BURCKHARDT
was spared to work for ten years. Some among the minor scientific
results of his well-known travels are preserved in the Public Library at
Cambridge (to which he bequeathed his manuscripts). Others of them are
in the British Museum. The latter would deserve record in these pages,
were it now practicable. BURCKHARDT died at Cairo on the seventeenth of
October, 1817, just eleven years after his arrival in London, from
Göttingen, with that letter to Sir Joseph BANKS in his pocket which,
under Divine Providence, determined his work in life. Another great
public service of a like kind, rendered by Sir Joseph BANKS to his
country and to mankind, was his zealous encouragement of explorations in
Australia.


Meanwhile, a new outburst of discord in the Royal Society arose out of a
well-merited honour conferred on its President by the Institute of
France, in 1802. It was inevitable that a body so eminent and
illustrious as the French Institute should not only feel gratitude to
Sir Joseph BANKS for that liberality of spirit which had dictated, in
the midst of war, his many gracious and generous acts of service to
Frenchmen, but should long since have reached the conviction that they
would be honouring themselves, not less than honouring him, by his
reception in their midst. [Sidenote: HIS ELECTION INTO THE INSTITUTE OF
FRANCE.] During the momentary lull afforded by the Peace of Amiens—when
the Institute was reorganized by the hand of the great man who was proud
of its badge of fellowship, even when clad in the dalmatica—they placed
BANKS at the head of their eight Foreign Members. BANKS’ estimate of the
honour of membership was much like NAPOLEON’S. ‘I consider this mark of
your esteem,’ said BANKS, in his reply, ‘the highest and most enviable
literary distinction which I could possibly attain. To be the first
elected as an Associate of the first Literary Society in the world
surpasses my most ambitious hopes.’

Several Fellows of the Royal Society resented these warm
acknowledgments. [Sidenote: _Letter of Misogallus_, 1802 (privately
printed).] They thought them both unpatriotic, and uncomplimentary to
themselves. The mathematical malcontents, with Bishop HORSLEY at their
head, eagerly profited by so favourable an opportunity of renewing the
expression of their old and still lurking dissatisfaction with the
choice of their President. HORSLEY addressed to Sir Joseph a letter of
indignant and angry remonstrance. Somewhat discreditably, the Bishop
chose a pseudonymous signature instead of manfully affixing his own.
‘_Misogallus_’[22] was the mask under which he made an appeal to those
anti-Gallican prejudices which so many of us imbibe almost with our
mother’s milk, and have in after-years to get rid of. He aimed a
poisoned dart at his old antagonist, when pointing one of his many
passionate sentences in a way which he knew would arrest the special
attention of the King. The shaft hit the mark. But the King was
presently appeased. He knew BANKS, and he knew the Bishop of St. Asaph.


[Sidenote: SIR JOSEPH BANKS AS AN AUTHOR.]

From time to time Sir Joseph BANKS contributed many interesting articles
to the _Philosophical Transactions_, and to the _Annals of Agriculture_.
His able paper on the Blight in Wheat did service in its day, and was
separately published. But it is not as an author that this illustrious
man will be remembered. He knew how to fructify the thoughts and to
disseminate the wisdom of minds more largely gifted than his own.
Necessarily, space and prominence in the public eye is—more especially
after a man’s death—a good deal determined by authorship. Hence, in our
_Biographical Dictionaries_, a crowd of small writers occupy a
disproportionate place, and some true and illustrious public benefactors
remain almost unnoticed. Undeniably, the fame of one such benefactor as
a Joseph BANKS ought to outweigh, and must, intrinsically, outweigh,
that of many scores of minor penmen. His benefactions were world-wide.
And by them he, being dead, yet speaks, and will long continue to speak,
to very good and lofty purpose. He died in London on the ninth of May,
1820, at the venerable age of eighty-one years completed.

He died without issue, and was succeeded in his chief Lincolnshire
estates by the Honourable James Hamilton STANHOPE (afterwards Mr.
STANHOPE BANKS), and by Sir Henry HAWLEY. [Sidenote: DEATH.] [Sidenote:
BEQUESTS.] His Kentish estates were bequeathed to Sir Edward KNATCHBULL.

[Sidenote: _Will and Codicils_, Jan. 7 and 21; and March 7, 1820.]

His Library, Herbarium, Manuscripts, Drawings, Engravings, and all his
other subsisting Collections, he bequeathed to the Trustees of the
British Museum, for public use for ever, subject to a life-use and a
life-interest in them which, together with an annuity, he specifically
bequeathed to the eminent botanist, Robert BROWN, who was, for many
years, both his friend and his librarian. He also gave an annuity of
three hundred pounds a year to Mr. BAUER, an eminent botanical
draughtsman; and he added, largely, to the innumerable benefactions he
had made in his lifetime to the Botanical Gardens at Kew. To Mr. BROWN
he also left the use, for life, of his town house in Soho Square,
subject to the life-interest, or the voluntary concession, of the
testator’s widow.

In his first Codicil, Sir Joseph BANKS made a proviso that, if it should
be the desire of the Trustees of the British Museum—and if that desire
should also receive the approval of Mr. BROWN—the life-possessor should
be at full liberty to cause the Collections to be transferred to the
Museum during his lifetime. That, in fact, was the course which, by
mutual consent, was eventually taken, to the manifest advantage of the
British Public and the promotion of Science.


Part of Sir Joseph’s personal Manuscripts were bequeathed to the Royal
Society; another portion to the British Museum; and a third portion
(connected with the Coinage of the Realm) to the Royal Mint. A minor
part of his Collections in Natural History had been given to the British
Museum in his own lifetime, [Sidenote: OTHER BEQUESTS.] and he had
personally superintended their selection and arrangement. He had also
been a benefactor to the Hunterian Museum at Glasgow, to the Museum of
the London College of Surgeons, and to that, also in London, formerly
known as ‘Bullock’s Museum.’ He was, throughout life, as eager to give,
as he was diligent to get.

[Sidenote: THE TRANSFER OF THE BANKSIAN COLLECTIONS TO THE MUSEUM.]

About the year 1825, negotiations were opened by the Trustees of the
British Museum with Mr. Robert BROWN, with the view of obtaining for the
Public the immediate use of the Banksian Library and the other
Collections, and, along with them, the public services of the eminent
botanist under whose charge they then were. The then President of the
Royal Society, Sir Humphrey DAVY, acted for the Public in that
negotiation; but some delays intervened, so that it was not brought to a
close until nearly the end of the year 1827.

At that date, the transfer was effected. Mr. BROWN became the head of
the Botanical Department of the Museum, and his accession to the Staff
added honour to the institution—in the eyes of all scientific Europe—as
well as eminent advantage to the public service. Mr. BROWN acted as
Keeper until nearly the time of his decease. He died in the year 1858,
full of years and of botanical fame.

The Library of Sir Joseph BANKS comprised the finest collection of books
on natural history which had ever been gathered into one whole in
England. It was also pre-eminently rich in the transactions, generally,
of learned societies in all parts of the world; and there is a masterly
Catalogue of the Collection, by Jonas DRYANDER, which was printed, at
Sir Joseph’s cost, in the years 1798–1800. [Sidenote: THE BANKSIAN
LIBRARY.] That Catalogue, I venture to hope, will, some day, become—with
due modification—the precedent for a printed Catalogue of the whole
Museum Library—vast as it already is, and vaster as it must needs become
before that day shall have arrived.

[Sidenote: THE BANKSIAN HERBARIA.]

The Banksian Herbaria comprise BANKS’ own botanical collections in his
travels, and those of CLIFFORT, HERMANN, CLAYTON, AUBLET, MILLER,
JACQUIER, and LOUREIRO, together with part of those made by TOURNEFORT,
the friend and fellow-botanizer of SLOANE, and the author of the
_Corollarium_. They also include many valuable plants gathered during
those many English Voyages of Discovery which, from time to time, BANKS’
example and his liberal encouragement so largely fostered. From the
Collections now seen in the Botanical Room of the British Museum not a
few of the great works of LINNÆUS, GRONOVIUS, and other famous
botanists, derived some of their best materials. These Collections are
at present under the zealous and faithful care of Mr. John Joseph
BENNETT, long the assistant and the friend of BROWN.


[Sidenote: BRIEF NOTICE OF SOME OTHER NEARLY CONTEMPORANEOUS
           ACCESSIONS.]

Among nearly contemporaneous accessions which would well merit some
detailed notice, were the space for it available, are a valuable
assemblage of Marbles from Persepolis, which had been collected by Sir
Gore OUSELEY, and were given to the Museum by the Collector, and a small
but choice Collection of Minerals from the Hartz Mountains, given to the
Public by King GEORGE THE FOURTH. The Persepolitan sculptures were
received in the year 1825; the Minerals from the Hartzgebirge, in the
year 1829.




                            BOOK THE THIRD.
                  _LATER AUGMENTORS AND BENEFACTORS._
                               1829–1870.




                        _CONTENTS OF BOOK III_:—


 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION:—SUMMARY VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH
              MUSEUM DURING THE PRINCIPAL-LIBRARIANSHIP OF JOSEPH
              PLANTA.

        II. INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED):—SUMMARY VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE
              BRITISH MUSEUM DURING THE PRINCIPAL-LIBRARIANSHIP OF SIR
              HENRY ELLIS.

       III. INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED):—SUMMARY VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE
              BRITISH MUSEUM DURING THE PRINCIPAL-LIBRARIANSHIP OF SIR
              ANTONIO PANIZZI.

        IV. ANOTHER GROUP OF ARCHÆOLOGISTS AND CLASSICAL EXPLORERS.

         V. THE FOUNDER OF THE GRENVILLE LIBRARY.

        VI. BENEFACTORS OF RECENT DAYS.

       VII. RECONSTRUCTORS AND PROJECTORS.

‘The comprehensive character of the British Museum—the origin of which
may be traced to the heterogeneous nature of Sir Hans SLOANE’S
bequest—doubtless makes it difficult to provide for the expansion of its
various branches, according to their relative demands upon the space and
light which can be applied to their accommodation. Any attempt, however,
now to diminish that difficulty by segregating any portion, or by
scattering in various localities the components of the vast aggregate,
would involve a sacrifice of great scientific advantages which are not
the less inherent in their union because that union was, in its origin,
fortuitous....

‘Some passages of our evidence ... illustrate the difficulty of
drawing a line of separation, for purposes of management and
superintendence, between certain Collections.... Its occurrence [_i.
e._ the occurrence of such a difficulty] indicates strongly the value
to Science, of the accidents which have placed in near juxtaposition
the Collections of mineralogy [and] of forms of existing and extinct
animal and vegetable life. The immediate connexion of all alike with
the Library of the Museum is too important to allow us to contemplate
its dissolution.’—_Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire
into the Constitution and Management of the British Museum_ (1850), p.
36.




                               CHAPTER I.
      GENERAL VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM, UNDER THE
       ADMINISTRATION, AS PRINCIPAL-LIBRARIAN, OF JOSEPH PLANTA.

          ... Perséverance keeps honour bright.
          To have done, is to hang
          Quite out of fashion, like a rusty mail
          In monumental mockery.
                                      _Troilus and Cressida._

       ‘Signor, mirate, come ’l tempo vola,
           E siccome la vita
           Fugge, e la Morte nè sovra le spalle,
           Voi siete or qui: pensate alla partita
           Che l’ alma ignuda e sola
           Conven ch’ arrive a quel dubbioso calle.’.
                                   PETRARCH (_Italia mia_, &c.).

  _Notices of the Life of Joseph_ PLANTA, _third
      Principal-Librarian.—Improvements in the Internal Economy of the
      Museum introduced or recommended by Mr._ PLANTA.—_His labours for
      the enlargement of the Collections—and on the Museum Publications
      and Catalogues.—The Museum Gardens and the Duke of_ BEDFORD.


Hitherto these pages have chiefly had to do with the history of the
integral parts of the British Museum, and with that of the men by whom
these integral parts, taken severally, were first founded or first
gathered. We have now to glance at the organic history of the whole,
after the primary Collections and the early additions to them came, by
aggregation, to be combined into the existing national establishment. It
may, at best, be only by glances that so wide a subject can (within the
limits of this one volume) be looked over, in retrospect. That necessity
of being brief suggests a connection of the successive epochs in the
story of the Museum, for seventy years, with the lives of the three
eminent men who have successively presided over the institution since
the beginning of the present century. Those three official lives, I
think, will be found to afford succinct divisions or breakings of the
subject, as well as to possess a distinctive personal interest of their
own. Our introductory chapters will therefore—in relation to the
chapters which follow them—be, in part, retrospective, and, in part,
prospective.


When Dr. Charles MORTON died (10 February, 1799), Joseph PLANTA was, by
the three principal Trustees, appointed to be his successor. The choice
soon commended itself to the Public by the introduction of some
important improvements into the internal economy of the institution. It
is the first librarianship which is distinctively marked as a reforming
one. In more than one of his personal qualities Mr. PLANTA was well
fitted for such a post as that of Principal Officer of the British
Museum. He had been for many years in the service of the Trustees. He
had won the respect of Englishmen by his literary attainments. He was
qualified, both by his knowledge of foreign languages and by his eminent
courtesy of manners, for that salient part of the duties of
librarianship which consists in the adequate reception and the genial
treatment of strangers.

Joseph PLANTA was of Swiss parentage. He was of a race and family which
had given to Switzerland several worthies who have left a mark in its
national history. He was born, on the twenty-first of February, 1744, at
Castasegna, where his father was the pastor of a reformed church. The
boy left Switzerland before he had completed the second year of his age.
[Sidenote: LIFE OF JOSEPH PLANTA, THIRD PRINCIPAL-LIBRARIAN.] He began
his education at Utrecht, and continued it, first at the University of
Göttingen, and afterwards by foreign travel—whilst yet open to the
formative influences of youthful experience upon character—both in
France and in Italy. It was thus his fortune to combine what there is of
good in the characteristics of the cosmopolite with what is better in
those of a patriotic son of the soil. It was Joseph PLANTA’S fortune
never to live in Switzerland, as a resident, after the days of early
infancy, but, for all that, he remained a true Swiss. And one of the
acts of his closing years in England was to make a most creditable
contribution to Helvetic history.

Andrew PLANTA, father of Joseph, came to London in 1752. He was a man of
good parts and of pleasing address. He established himself as pastor of
a German congregation, and was also made an Assistant-Librarian in the
British Museum. Afterwards, he was chosen to be a Fellow of the Royal
Society and a ‘reader’ to Queen CHARLOTTE. That appointment brought with
it, in course of time, a measure of Court influence by which young
PLANTA profited. His youthful ‘_Wanderjahre_’ had inspired the growing
man with a keen desire to see more of foreign countries. When the
father’s favour at Court put him in a position to represent at
head-quarters the youth’s fancy to see life abroad, and to state (as he
truthfully could) that neither talent nor industry were lacking in his
character, the statement obtained for Joseph PLANTA the secretaryship of
legation at Brussels. There, he felt himself to be in an element which
suited him; but his filial affection brought him back to England in
1773, in order that he might solace the last days, on earth, of his
father. In that year the elder PLANTA died.

It was also in 1773 that Joseph PLANTA became an Assistant-Librarian. In
the next year he was appointed to succeed Dr. MATY in both of his then
offices. At the Royal Society he succeeded him as Secretary; at the
Museum, he succeeded him as an Under-Librarian—when the Doctor was made
head of the establishment. His new post at the Museum brought to PLANTA
the special charge of the Department of MSS.

Joseph PLANTA had already made—immediately after his first appointment
as Assistant-Librarian—his outset in authorship by the publication of
his _Account of the Romansch Language_. [Sidenote: _Phil. Trans._, vol.
lxvi, pp. 129–160.] It is a scholarly production, though (it need hardly
be said) not what would be expected, on such a subject, after the
immense stride made in linguistical studies during the ninety-five years
which have elapsed since it was given to literature, in pages in which
nowadays such a treatise would hardly be looked for. Its first
appearance was in the _Philosophical Transactions_. In 1776 it was
translated into German and printed at Chamouni.

The subsequent years were devoted, almost exclusively, to the proper
duties of his Museum office—on the days of service—and to those of the
Paymastership of Exchequer Bills, a function to which Mr. PLANTA was
appointed in 1788, and the duties of which he discharged, with
efficiency and honour, for twenty-three years. Authorship had but little
of his time until a much later period of life.

A little before his appointment in the administrative service of the
country, PLANTA had married Miss Elizabeth ATWOOD. For him, marriage did
just the opposite of what it has, now and then, been said to do for some
other men. It took off the edge of his liking for foreign travel. For it
gave him a very happy home. Their union endured for twenty-four years.
PLANTA was not a man of the gushing sort. [Sidenote: Falkenstein,
_Zeitgenossen_, &c., Dritte Reihe, Bd. ii, pp. 3, seqq.] But, to
intimates, he would say—in the lonely years; there were to be but few of
them—‘She was an angel in spirit and in heart.’ Mrs. PLANTA died in
1821.

On the death of Charles MORTON, Mr. PLANTA, as we have seen already, was
made Principal-Librarian. He found the Museum still in its infancy,
although no less than forty-six years had passed since the bequest of
Sir Hans SLOANE was made to the British Public, and more than forty
years since that Public had entered upon its inheritance. The
collections had kept pace with the growth of science only in one or two
departments. In others the arrear was enormous. The accessibility was
hampered with restrictions. The building was in pressing need of
enlargement, gradual as had been the growth of some sections, and
glaring as was the deficiency of other sections.

PLANTA put his shoulders to the wheel, and met with support and
encouragement from several of the Trustees. But the feeling still ran
strongly against any approach to indiscriminate publicity in any
department of the Museum. Men did not carry that restrictive view quite
so far in 1800, as it had been expressed by Dr. John WARD—an able and
good man—in 1760, and earlier; but they still looked with apprehension
upon the combined ideas of a crowd of visitors, and irreplaceable
treasures of learning and of art. A good many of the men of 1800
possessed, it must in candour be remembered, living recollections of the
sights and the deeds of 1780. Residents in Bloomsbury were likely, on
that score, to have particularly good memories. They had seen with their
eyes precious manuscripts, which treasured up the life-long lore of a
MANSFIELD, given by the populace to the flames.

Under the influence of such memories as these, Mr. PLANTA had to propose
abolition of restrictions, with a gentle and very gradual hand. He began
by improving the practice, without at first greatly altering the rules.
By and by he brought, from time to time, before the Trust, suggestions
for relaxations in the rules themselves.

[Sidenote: IMPROVEMENTS INTRODUCED, OR RECOMMENDED, BY JOSEPH PLANTA, IN
           THE INTERNAL ECONOMY OF THE MUSEUM.]

From the outset he administered the Reading-Room itself with much
liberality. When he became Principal-Librarian the yearly admissions
were much under two hundred. In 1816, they had increased to two hundred
and ninety-two. In 1820, to five hundred and fifteen. As respects the
Department of Antiquities, the students admitted to draw were in 1809
less than twenty; in 1818 two hundred and twenty-three were admitted. In
1814 he recommended the Trustees to make provision for the exhibition
every Thursday, ‘to persons applying to see them,’ the Engravings and
Prints;—the persons admitted not exceeding six at any one time, and
others being admitted in due succession. He also recommended a somewhat
similar system of exhibition for adoption in the Department of Coins and
Medals. And the Trustees gave effect to both recommendations. Eventually
Mr. PLANTA proposed, for the _general_ show Collections of the Museum, a
system of entirely free admission at the instant of application,
abolishing all the hamper of preliminary forms.

[Sidenote: HIS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE VARIOUS
           COLLECTIONS.]

It was also, I believe, at Mr. PLANTA’S instance, or partly so, that the
Trustees applied to Parliament, in 1812, for special grants to enable
them to improve the Collection of Printed Books, with reference more
particularly to the endeavour to perfect the National Library in the
National History—to that very limited extent to which the monuments and
memorials of our history are to be found in print. Virtually, the grants
on behalf of the Manuscript Department, not those on behalf of the
Printed Book Department, were, in 1812, as they still are in 1870, the
grants which mainly tend to make the British Museum what, most
obviously, it ought to become, the main storehouse of British History
and Archæology, both in literature and in art.

The magnificent additions made by private donors to every section of the
British Museum during the administration of PLANTA, have been
sufficiently passed under review in the closing chapters of Book II.
Several of them, it has been seen, were the fruits of the public spirit
of individual Trustees. Such gifts amply vindicated the wisdom both of
Sir Hans SLOANE and of Parliament, when both Founder and Legislature
gave to men of exalted position a preference as peculiarly fit, in the
judgment of each, for the general guardianship of the Museum.

[Sidenote: HIS CATHOLICITY OF TASTES AND SYMPATHIES.]

But private gifts—munificent as they were—left large gaps in the
National Collections. It is one of Mr. PLANTA’S distinctive merits that
his tastes and sympathies embraced the Natural History Department, as
well as those literary departments with which, as a man of letters, he
had a more direct personal connection. He supported, with his influence,
the wise recommendation to Parliament—made in 1810—for the purchase of
the GREVILLE Collection of Minerals. He recommended, in 1822, the
purchase, from the representatives of the naturalist MONTICELLI, of a
like, though minor Collection, which had been formed at Naples. The
Cavaliero MONTICELLI’S Collection was, in the main, one that had been
undertaken in imitation of an earlier assemblage of volcanic products
which had been also gathered at Naples by Sir William HAMILTON, and by
the Collector given (as I have already recorded) to the Trustees. In a
similar spirit he promoted the acquisitions which were made from time to
time, by the instrumentality of Claudius RICH, of Henry SALT, and of
several other workers in the fruitful field of Classical, Assyrian, and
Egyptian archæological exploration. Both in the literary and scientific
departments of the Museum he also gave some special attention to the due
continuance and completion of the various collections bestowed on the
Public by the munificence of Sir Joseph BANKS.

Another conspicuous merit belongs to Joseph PLANTA. He supported the
Trustees in that wise and large-minded policy which induced them to
regard _publication_, as well as accumulation, to be one of the chief
duties of their Trust for the Nation. He thought it not enough, for
example, to show to groups of Londoners, from time to time, and to
occasional foreign visitants, in almost solitary state, the wealth of
Nature and of Art in the Museum Collections. He saw it to be no less the
duty of the faithful trustees of such treasures to show them to the
world at large by the combined labours of the painter, the draughtsman,
the engraver, and the printer. [Sidenote: PLANTA’S LABOURS ON THE
MUSEUM’S PUBLICATIONS;] It will ever be an honourable distinction—in the
briefest record of his Museum labours—that he promoted the publication
of the beautiful volumes entitled _Description of the Ancient Marbles in
the British Museum_; of the _Catalogue of the Anglo-Gallic Coins_; of
the _Mausoleum and Cinerary Urns_; of the _Description of Terra Cottas_;
and other like works. The first-named work in particular is an especial
honour to the Trustees of the Museum, and to all who were concerned in
its production. Beautifully engraved, and ably edited, it made the
archæological treasures of the Nation widely known even to such
foreigners, interested in the study of antiquity, as circumstances
precluded from ever seeing the marbles themselves. When watching—in the
bygone years—the late Henry CORBOULD busy at the work into which he
threw so much of his love, as well as of his skill in drawing, I have
been tempted, now and then, to envy the craft which, in its results,
made our national possessions familiarly known, in the far parts of the
world, to students who could never hope to see the wonderful handicraft
of the old Greek sculptors, otherwise than as it is reflected and
transmitted by the handicraft of the skilled modern draughtsman.
CORBOULD had the eye to see artistic beauty and the soul to enjoy it. He
was not one of the artists who are artisans, in everything but the name.
In the ‘_Ancient Marbles in the British Museum_,’ published under the
active encouragement of the Trustees and of their Principal-Librarians,
during a long series of years, CORBOULD, as draughtsman, had just the
work for which Nature had pre-eminently fitted him.

[Sidenote: AND, PARTICULARLY, ON THE CATALOGUES.]

Joseph PLANTA also took his share in the compilation of the Catalogues
both of Printed Books and of Manuscripts. In this department, as in the
archæological one, he extended the benefits of his zealous labour to the
scholar abroad as well as to the scholar at home. What was carefully
prepared was liberally _printed_ and liberally circulated. PLANTA wrote
with his own hand part of the published _Catalogue of the Printed
Books_, and much of the _Catalogue of the Cottonian Manuscripts_. To the
latter he prefixed a brief life of the Founder, by which I have gladly
and thankfully profited in my own more extended labour at the beginning
of this volume.

One incidental employment which Mr. PLANTA’S office entailed upon him—as
Principal-Librarian—was of a less grateful kind. It merits notice on
more than one account, very trivial as is the incident of Museum history
that occasioned it, when looked at intrinsically.

In 1821, the then Duke of BEDFORD (John, ninth Duke) filed in Chancery
an injunction against the Trustees to restrain them from building on the
garden-ground of the Museum. [Sidenote: THE GARDENS OF THE BRITISH
MUSEUM AND THE DUKE OF BEDFORD.] To build was—at that time—an undoubted
injury to the Bloomsburians, and, consequently, a not less undoubted
depreciation of the Duke’s estate. It is hard, nowadays, to realise to
one’s fancy what the former Museum gardens were in the olden time. They
not only adorned every house that looked over them, but were—in
practice, and by the indulgence of the Trustees and officers—a sort of
small public park for the refreshment of the vicinity at large. Their
neighbourhood made houses more valuable in the market.

Almost seventy years before the filing of the Chancery injunctions of
1820–21, a predecessor of the Duke (John, seventh Duke) had compelled
Parliament—and with great reason—to enact that the ‘New Road’ should
be made a broad road; not a narrow lane. He had carried a proviso for
the construction of gardens in front of all the houses along the road.
Were public property, and public enjoyments, protected by English law
with one tenth part of the efficiency with which private property and
private enjoyments are protected, that clause in the ‘New Road Act’ of
1750 would have proved, in our own present day, a measure advantageous
to public health. But public easements are unknown, or nearly unknown,
to English law. And the Duke’s clause has come, in course of time, to
teem with public nuisance, instead of public benefit. Englishmen build
at the national cost magnificent cathedrals, and then permit
railway-jobbers to defile them, at pleasure, with railway
‘architecture.’ They construct, by dint of large taxation, magnificent
river-embankments, and permit every sort of smoke-belching chimney and
eye-killing corrugated-iron-monstrosity to spoil the view. What the
old Duke of BEDFORD intended to make a metropolitan improvement, as
well as a defence to his own property, has come to be a cause of
public detriment,—simply because our legislation, in the year of Grace
1870, affords protection to no kind of public property that is
insusceptible, by its nature, of direct valuation in pounds and pence.

The action of the ninth Duke of BEDFORD was in contrast with that of his
predecessor. It was not altogether selfish, since there was an actual
abatement of public enjoyment in that step which he was opposing. The
Trustees of the British Museum were really compelled to take something
from the Public with one hand;—but, with the other, they gave a tenfold
equivalent. Their contention, of course, prevailed against the Duke’s
opposition.

It may not be intrusive here to mention that it is known that by the
present Duke of BEDFORD very generous and liberal furtherance would be
given to new schemes of extension for the Museum, were Parliament, on
full consideration, to think enlargement at Bloomsbury the right course
to be taken in pending matters. But this subject will demand a few words
hereafter.


PLANTA’S energies seem for several years to have been given, almost
exclusively, to his Museum duties, in combination (as was perfectly
practicable and befitting, under the then circumstances) with his
Exchequer Paymastership. But in the closing years of his
Under-Librarianship many months were (not less fitly) given to a worthy
literary undertaking. He wrote his _History of the Helvetic Confederacy_
towards the end of the last century, and published it soon after his
appointment to the Principal-Librarianship. In the next year he
published a supplement to it, under the title of _A View of the
Restoration of the Helvetic Confederacy_. The _History_ reached its
second edition in 1807.

Based primarily on the great work of Johannes VON MÜLLER, PLANTA’S
_History of the Helvetic Confederacy_ is both a very able production and
one that is animated by a spirit of patriotism which is wise as well as
strong. It was an enduring contribution to the literature of the
author’s fatherland. After its appearance, his official duties mainly
engrossed his attention. He died, full of years and honours, in the year
1827, leaving a son, who, like his father and his grandfather,
distinguished himself in the civil service of their adopted country.

Joseph PLANTA, in his fifty-three years of service, had seen the British
Museum pass from its infancy into the early stages of its maturity. But
it still, at the time of his death, was too much regarded, both by the
general Public and by Parliament, as, in the main, a place of popular
amusement. His next successor saw the beginning of further improvements,
such as lifted the Museum upon a level with the best of its
fellow-institutions in all Europe. His second successor saw it lifted
far above them, in several points of view. And what he witnessed of
augmented improvement—when leaving office three or four years ago—was,
in a very large measure, the result of his own zealous labours and of
his eminent ability.




                              CHAPTER II.
 INTRODUCTION TO BOOK III (_Continued_):—GROWTH, PROGRESS, AND INTERNAL
 ECONOMY, OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM, DURING THE PRINCIPAL-LIBRARIANSHIP OF
                            SIR HENRY ELLIS.

  ‘It is expedient that the Trustees should revise the salaries of the
  Establishment, with the view of ascertaining what increase may be
  required for the purpose of ... obtaining the whole time and services
  of the ablest men, independently of any remuneration from other
  sources; and that, when such scale of salary shall have been fixed, it
  shall not be competent to any Officer of the Museum, paid thereunder,
  to hold any other situation conferring emolument or entailing duties.’

                                 REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE ON BRITISH
                                         MUSEUM, 14 July, 1836.

  _Internal Economy of the Museum at the time of the death of Joseph_
      PLANTA.—_The Literary Life and Public Services of Sir Henry_
      ELLIS.—_The Candidature of Henry_ FYNES CLINTON.—_Progress of
      Improvement in certain Departments.—Introduction of Sir Antonio_
      PANIZZI _into the Service of the Trustees.—The House of Commons’
      Committee of 1835–36._—PANIZZI _and Henry Francis_ CARY.—_Memoir
      of_ CARY.—PANIZZI’S _Report on the proper Character of a National
      Library for Britain, made in October, 1837.—His successful labours
      for Internal Reform.—And his Helpers in the work.—The Literary
      Life and Public Services of Thomas_ WATTS.—_Sir A._ PANIZZI’S
      _Special Report to the Trustees of 1845, and what grew
      thereout.—Progress, during Sir H._ ELLIS’S _term of office, of the
      several Departments of Natural History and of Antiquities_.


[Sidenote: BOOK III, CHAP. II. HISTORY OF THE MUSEUM UNDER SIR H.
           ELLIS.]

When Sir Henry ELLIS was appointed to be the successor of Mr. PLANTA
(20th December, 1827), the British Museum was still composed of but four
departments, in conformity with the organization of 1809. It was
publicly open on three days in each week, but only during forty weeks of
every year. This was a great improvement of the previous arrangements,
as we have seen, under MATY and MORTON. [Sidenote: CONDITIONS OF MUSEUM
ACCESSIBILITY AT COMMENCEMENT OF MR. ELLIS’S RULE.] But Mr. PLANTA’S
most conspicuous improvements lay in the (admittedly more important)
direction of access to the Medal, Print, and Reading-Rooms. To his
administration, students in all these departments were much indebted.
Sir Henry ELLIS was to witness and to carry out, very efficiently as
Principal-Librarian, some more extensive modifications of the old system
of things; but he, in his turn, was to be quite eclipsed (so to speak)
in the character of Museum improver, by his successor in office. And it
was, in fact, to the latter that such among the conspicuous improvements
of the last twenty years of Sir Henry’s official administration as
related to the Department of Printed Books—and in no department were the
improvements more striking—were pre-eminently due.


Sir Henry ELLIS (who has but so recently departed from amongst us)
entered the service of the Trustees, as a temporary assistant in the
Library, in the year 1800, having had already three years’ experience in
Bodley’s Library at Oxford. When coming occasionally to London during
his employment at Oxford he would see Dr. Charles MORTON, who had helped
to organize the Museum almost fifty years before. The _public_ life of
those two acquaintances spread, conjointly, over a period of a hundred
and twenty years.[23]

Had it never fallen to the lot of Henry ELLIS to render to the Public
any service at all, in the way of administering and improving the
National Museum, he would still have earned an honourable niche in our
literary history. His contributions to literature are, indeed, very
unequal in their character. [Sidenote: THE LABOURS IN LITERATURE OF SIR
H. ELLIS.] Some of them are fragmentary; some might be thought trivial.
But very many of them have sterling value. And his archæological
labours, in particular, were zealous and unremitting. He began them in
1798. He had not entirely ceased to add to them in 1868. In the closing
year of the eighteenth century he was giving furtherance to the labours
on British history of Richard GOUGH. In the sixty-eighth year of the
nineteenth century he was still taking an intelligent and critical
interest in the large undertakings of Lord ROMILLY and of Mr. DUFFUS
HARDY, for affording to future historians the means of basing the
reconstruction of our national history upon the one firm foundation of
an exhaustive search of our national records.

The fourth Principal-Librarian of the British Museum was born at
Shoreditch, in London, on the 29th of November, 1777. He was of a
Yorkshire family long settled (and still flourishing) at Dewsbury. Henry
ELLIS was educated at Merchant Taylors’ School, and at St. John’s
College, Oxford, where he graduated B.C.L. in 1802. His first book (but
not, perhaps, his first publication) was the _History of the Parish of
St. Leonard, Shoreditch_, printed in 1798. He became F.S.A. in 1800; one
of its Secretaries in 1813; and its Director in 1854. To the
_Archæologia_ he was a contributor for more than fifty years. In 1800,
he sent to the first Record Commission a Report on the Historical
Manuscripts at St. John’s. For the same Commission he wrote, in the year
1813, and the three following years, an _Introduction to Domesday Book_.
Of this he would speak very modestly in after-days, saying: ‘I have
worked on _Domesday_ for years; but only in making an opening into the
mine. Other men will have yet to bring out the metal.’ For the second
Record Commission he re-edited his _Introduction_ and considerably
improved it. This was done in 1832; and, to say the least, it brought
some very good ore to the surface. When both these Commissions had given
way to the better organization recently framed by Lord ROMILLY, he
edited, for the series of _Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain_,
the Latin Chronicle of John of Oxenedes, from a MS. belonging to Sir
Robert COTTON’S Library. When _Oxenedes_ was published, just sixty years
had passed from the publication of Sir Henry’s first Record labour,
undertaken at the instance of Lord COLCHESTER.

In the interval, he had had a great opportunity, the first glimpse of
which needs must have dilated the heart of so genuine a lover of
antiquity. The publication of an improved edition of the _Monasticon
Anglicanum_ of DODSWORTH and DUGDALE ought to have made a new epoch in
British archæology. But the opportunity was lost. In those days, there
was no encouragement for such labours at the Treasury; no enlightened
promoter of them at the Rolls House. The control of the new _Monasticon_
passed into the hands of mere tradesmen. Neither of Mr. ELLIS’S
co-editors ever buckled to the work. ELLIS himself became simply the
servant of the associated publishers, who had no aim whatever beyond
turning a golden penny out of the traditional prestige of Sir William
DUGDALE’S name, and out of the standing advertisement that the
_Monasticon_ was indubitably one of those books ‘which no gentleman’s
library ought to be without.’ Heaps of crude, untranslated, and
unelucidated information were thrust into the book, against the editor’s
own clear conviction of his duty, and in spite of his remonstrance. ‘We
must retrench,’ was the one answer to all editorial recommendations of
real improvement. And meanwhile the publishers were actually netting
fair profits from a long list of confiding subscribers. What might well
have been a ‘broadstone of honour’ to English literature became its
glaring disgrace.[24] No one would more gladly have striven for a better
result—had the power lain with him—than would Sir Henry ELLIS. As to his
nominal co-editors, they did almost nothing, from first to last.

To far better result did ELLIS labour upon his successive editions of
_Hall_, _Hardyng_, _Fabyan_, and _Polydore Vergil_, among our
chroniclers, and of BRAND’S _Observations on Popular Antiquities_, of
DUGDALE’S _History of Saint Paul’s Cathedral_, and of NORDEN’S _Essex_,
among the standard illustrations of our archæology and topography. But
his most enduring contribution to historical literature is, beyond
doubt, his _Original Letters, illustrative of English History_, the
publication of which began in 1824, and was completed in 1846. That work
alone would suffice to keep his name in honourable memory for a long
time to come.

At the British Museum he had a considerable advantage over his
predecessor in the Principal-Librarianship. He enjoyed the assistance,
almost from the first, of an abler staff, in more than one of the
departments, than Mr. PLANTA had commanded during the earlier years of
his administration. [Sidenote: LABOURS OF SIR H. ELLIS AT THE BRITISH
MUSEUM.] And an improved order of service had been established before
Mr. ELLIS’S rule began. In this way appliances lay already under his
hand which facilitated the work of progress, when—more especially—a
strong demand for improvement came from without, as well as from the
action of the Trustees themselves within.

[Sidenote: STATE OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM STAFF AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF
           MR. PLANTA.]

At that date the Department of Printed Books was under the charge of the
Rev. Henry Hervey BABER (the eminent editor of the ‘Alexandrian MS.’ of
the Septuagint). He was assisted by Mr. Henry Francis CARY, the
translator of DANTE, and also by Mr. WALTER, who had been one of the
Librarians of King GEORGE THE THIRD, and who, in 1831, was succeeded by
Mr. Antonio PANIZZI. In the Department of MSS. Mr. ELLIS’S
Assistant-Keeper, the Rev. Josiah FORSHALL, had succeeded to the charge,
and the new Keeper had the able assistance of Sir Frederick MADDEN,
whose labours for the improvement of his department are well known to
scholars. The Antiquities were confided to Mr. Edward HAWKINS; the
various Natural History Collections to Messrs. KÖNIG and CHILDREN. The
Botanical Department was, as I have shown at the close of the preceding
Book, just about to be reorganized (almost to be created) by the
transfer of the Collections of Sir Joseph BANKS, and with them of the
services of their distinguished Keeper. Taken altogether, such a staff
as this was of threefold efficiency to that with which Mr. PLANTA had
started at the beginning of the century.

Mr. ELLIS enjoyed an additional advantage from the great familiarity
with the whole service of the Museum which he had acquired during his
labours as Secretary from the year 1814. The secretarial duty had been
combined with the functions of keepership during thirteen years. Great
punctuality, a conspicuous faculty for method and memory, and very
courteous manners, were qualifications which are not always, or
necessarily, found in union with conspicuous industry. In him they were
combined. Nevertheless, he narrowly escaped losing the merited reward of
long and assiduous labours. For he had a formidable competitor.

[Sidenote: THE CANDIDATURE OF MR. H. FYNES CLINTON.]

At this time, a most accomplished scholar, who deservedly possessed
large influence, both social and political, had obtained the virtual
promise of almost the highest personage in the realm that whenever Mr.
PLANTA died he should receive the offer of successorship. Mr. Henry
FYNES CLINTON, in those quiet ante-reform days, had been able, for
twenty years, to unite the functions of a Member of Parliament with the
assiduous pursuits of scholarship in one of its highest forms. Learning
had higher charms for him than Politics, and he had no turn for debate,
but he had steadily attended the House of Commons while giving to the
world his _Fasti Hellenici_ and _Fasti Romani_. Six months before Mr.
PLANTA’S decease, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY had, in effect, promised
Mr. FYNES CLINTON that he would nominate him to be Principal-Librarian,
and the Archbishop well knew that, as far as learning went, such an
appointment would be applauded throughout Europe. The Archbishop (Dr.
Charles MANNERS SUTTON), did not forget his promise, and his vote
carried that of the then Speaker of the House of Commons, who was the
Archbishop’s son. Their joint communication with the Lord Chancellor
procured his assent also. ‘We have made,’ the Archbishop told Mr. FYNES
CLINTON, ‘your recommendation to the King as strong as possible.’ The
practice, as the reader will perhaps remember, was that the then
Principal Trustees should in all such cases recommend to the Sovereign
_two_ names, with such observations upon them as to those Trustees might
seem appropriate.

[Sidenote: _Letters and Journ. of_ H. Fynes Clinton, in the _Literary
           Remains_ (1854), pass.]

As Mr. ELLIS was now the senior officer; had had the care successively
of two several departments (MSS. and Printed Books); had also served as
Secretary, and, in all these employments, had acquitted himself with
diligence and credit, there could, of course, be no difficulty as to the
name which should be submitted to GEORGE THE FOURTH in company with that
of Mr. FYNES CLINTON. Other Trustees interested themselves in
supporting, indirectly but efficiently, the claims of one who had served
the Board so long. And the King was pleased to prefer the second name
which had been placed before him by the Principal Trustees rather than
the first. [Sidenote: Lord Lansdowne to Archbishop of Canterbury; 20
December, 1827.] Lord LANSDOWNE received His Majesty’s commands to
signify to the Archbishop that it was upon the ground of ‘long service
in the Museum’ that the King had made his choice.

[Sidenote: SERVICES AND CHARACTER OF SIR H. ELLIS.]

Those who had (like the writer) opportunity to watch, during most of the
succeeding thirty years, the continuance of that service, know that the
King’s selection was justified. Sir Henry ELLIS was not gifted with any
of those salient abilities which dazzle the eyes of men; but he had
great power of labour, the strictest integrity of purpose, and a very
kind heart. He was ever, to the Trustees, a faithful servant, up to the
full measure of his ability. To those who worked under him he was always
courteous, considerate, and very often he was generous. He would
sometimes expose himself to misconstruction, in order to appease
discords. He would at times rather seem wanting in firmness of will
than, by pressing his authority, wound the feelings of well-intentioned
but irritable subordinates. No one could receive from him a merited
reproof—I speak from personal experience—without perceiving that the
duty of giving it was felt to be a painful duty. The Commissioners of
1850 had ample warrant for hinting, in their Report to the Crown—when
alluding to certain internal disputes—that the qualities least abounding
in Sir Henry ELLIS’S composition were those which equip a man [Sidenote:
_Report_ (1850) p. 32.] ‘for such harsher duties of his office, as
cannot be accomplished by the aid of conciliatory manners, the index of
a benevolent disposition.’

A man of that temper will now and then, in his own despite, get forced
into a somewhat bitter controversy. One sharp attack on Sir Henry’s
administration of his Principal-Librarianship had a close connection
with discords of an anterior date which had broken out in the Society of
Antiquaries. [Sidenote: THE STORY OF THE MSS. AT POMARD.] The late Sir
Harris NICOLAS would scarcely have criticised, with so much vehemence,
what he thought to have been a careless indifference on ELLIS’S part to
the acquisition for the British Museum of an important body of
historical manuscripts, preserved in a chateau in a distant corner of
France (and offered to the Trustees in 1829), but for the circumstance
that Sir Henry’s kindly unwillingness, evinced a little while before, to
desert a very weak colleague at Somerset House had stood in the way of
some much-needed reforms in that quarter. Without in the least intending
beforehand to represent things unfairly, Sir H. NICOLAS acted under the
influence of an unconscious bias or pre-judgment. The Joursanvault story
is still worth telling, although it has now become an old story, and one
portion of the historical treasures it relates to are now past wishing
for, as an English possession.

In the course of the revolutionary convulsions in France, a great body
of historical documents had been abstracted from the famous old Castle
of Blois. Eventually, as years passed on, they found their way into the
country-seat, at Pomard, of the Baron de JOURSANVAULT, and with them
were amalgamated an extensive collection of old family papers, many
books on genealogy, and some choice illuminated missals.

An English gentleman long resident in France had formed the acquaintance
of the Baron de JOURSANVAULT, and in the course of conversation came to
hear of the existence of these historical treasures. He also perceived
that their owner had little taste for them, or ability to profit by
their contents. Sir Thomas Elmsley CROFT probed his French friend on the
subject of parting with them. The Baron lent a willing ear, and, to whet
his interlocutor’s appetite, told him that a great many of the
manuscripts related to the history of the English rule in France. Sir
Thomas then apprised an English friend, famous for his love of old MSS.,
of the existence of the hoards, and of the certainty that the Baron who
owned them would greatly prefer a few rouleaux of English gold to a
whole castle-full of the most precious parchments that ever charmed the
longing eyes of a Jonathan OLDBUCK—or a Harris NICOLAS.

Sir Harris, directly he received this piece of news from Paris, passed
it on to his friend the late Lord CANTERBURY, then Speaker, who, in
turn, communicated the information to Sir H. ELLIS, for the use of the
Trustees. ELLIS was sent to France—whither indeed he had, just at that
moment, arranged to go, in order to spend part of his holidays in Paris,
according to his frequent custom.

He reached Pomard (two hundred and fifty miles from Paris) in September,
1829, and found a vast body of charters which had formed the archives of
the mediæval Earls of Blois, together with many heraldic and
genealogical manuscripts chiefly relating to French families. But he
found hardly any manuscripts which bore, directly, upon English history
or affairs—the immediate object, it must be remembered, of the mission
given him by the Trustees.

[Sidenote: SIR HENRY ELLIS’S REPORT ON THE HISTORICAL MSS. AT POMARD.]

Immediately on his return to Paris, Sir Henry wrote thus to the
Archbishop of CANTERBURY:—‘The Collection is indeed a most extraordinary
one of its kind, and would be a treasure in the stores of the British
Museum, or of any other public Collection, though, perhaps, for a reason
which will presently appear, some of the Trustees may think a public
library of France would be its most appropriate repository. [Sidenote:
1829, September.] It is placed in two attics of the Chateau, of
considerable area—and I should say sixteen feet in height—in cartons (or
paste-board boxes), each two feet in length by one in depth and width.
Each carton contains some hundreds of charters, at least whenever I
examined them, and I made here and there my comparison with the
catalogue of from twenty to thirty cartons, all answering to the
catalogue and to the successive dates upon the outside of the boxes....
In one room there were above a hundred boxes piled up to the ceiling,
the lower ones of which, where I could get at them, were full of
instruments arranged as I have described. I counted also, in the same
room, near a hundred and fifty bundles, all of single articles, partly
piled up for want of room, and placed upon the floors. In the second
room I counted a hundred and forty-nine cartons piled up like the
former, and no ladder in the house to get at them. I did what I could
upon a pair of steps made of two thin boards fastened to two other
upright boards, but I had not even a safe pair of steps. Many of the
cartons in the second room contained collections of a comparatively
recent date, apparently the manuscripts of the Baron’s father. Some of
these were terriers of lands, others were marked “_Pays Étrangers_,”
“_Monumens Généalogiques_;” “_Pièces Historiques_;” “_Parlement_;”
“_Histoire de l’Église_.”’

‘Of the great collection of charters (and it appeared to me to be larger
than all the collection of charters at present in the British Museum put
together), I am bound to say that I believe them to have formed almost
the entire muniments of the Earls of BLOIS, containing whatever related
to their concern in the wars of Europe in the middle ages, to their
prædial possessions, their granting out of property and privileges,
sales, feudal or public acts, quittances of money for military services,
letters patents, expenses of household, and every act, material or
immaterial, likely to be found in the archives of one of the greatest
houses of England.

[Sidenote: PAUCITY OF ENGLISH DOCUMENTS IN THE ARCHIVES AT POMARD.]

‘I looked in vain, however, for anything illustrative of English
history, except in a single bundle, tied in paper, which seemed
unconnected with the cartons, and was not, as far as I could find, in
any of the MS. catalogues. This bundle was entitled, in a modern hand,
“Documens relatifs à l’occupation de la France par les Anglais, 1400.”
It consists of about one hundred vellum instruments, one or two, or
perhaps more, so far in the form of letters that they were official
announcements; such as the Duke of ORLEANS in England in 1437, that he
had obtained safe conducts for his Chancellor and Premier Écuyer
d’écurie. Amongst these are various orders of payment and acquittances
for money, and several relate to Charles, Duke of ORLEANS, whilst
prisoner in England after the fight of Agincourt. There is a payment to
the Earl of SUFFOLK; another to persons fighting against the English; a
payment for the deliverance of the Duc d’ANGOULEME whilst a prisoner in
England in 1412; various orders of John, Duke of BEDFORD, the Bastard of
Salisbury, the Duke of EXETER, &c., to persons in the care of military
posts under them; the Duke of BEDFORD concerning musters; HENRY THE
FIFTH’S acquittance to the parishioners of certain villages for payments
on account of the war; various grants of the same King for services in
the wars; a grant to Sir William BOURCHIER of the estates of the Earl of
EU, dated at Mantes in his seventh year; and an order for a confirmation
to be made out of the different grants of the Kings of England and Dukes
of Normandy to the House of Lepers at Dieppe.’

When Sir Henry ELLIS had completed at Pomard that rough examination of
the Collection which he thus described on his return to Paris, his first
inquiry of the owner was, of course, about price. M. de JOURSANVAULT was
embarrassed. To Sir Thomas CROFT he had already said that he hoped to
get sixty thousand francs. ELLIS had noticed, as the Baron drove him
from Beaune into the court-yard of the old chateau, that its appearance
denoted wealth in past rather than in present days, but he could hardly
have been prepared for the effect of altered circumstances in turning a
gentleman into a chapman. In the evening the anticipated sixty thousand
francs had grown into a hundred and ten thousand. Nor was this the only
demand. The Duke of WELLINGTON must use his credit at Paris to transform
the Baron into a Count (without any stipulation for an entailed estate
by way of ‘majorat’); and if the task should be beyond the powers even
of the conqueror of NAPOLEON, then M. de JOURSANVAULT was to receive,
from the English Government, authority to import into England five
hundred pipes of Beaune wine, grown upon his own estate, free of all
customs duties, and for his own profit.

Sir Henry (who with great good sense had already taken precaution that
his position at the British Museum should not be known to his host at
Pomard, in the hope of precluding any exaggeration of terms)
remonstrated against the burden of such a demand, but all entreaty was
vain. The Baron was bent on having—in addition to his £4400—either a
step in nobility, or, at the least, a handsome remission of customs
duty. The Trustees, in the end, declined to treat.


When it came to Sir Harris NICOLAS’S knowledge that ELLIS’S journey to
Pomard was apparently to have no result in the way of bringing
historical manuscripts into England, he felt angry as well as
disappointed. It was his earnest belief—whether right or wrong—that a
valuable occasion had been somewhat trifled with. He told the story,[25]
and treasured up the memory, and both the story and the narrator’s
personal reminiscences of the transaction had their share in bringing
about the parliamentary enquiry into the affairs of the British Museum.

[Sidenote: THE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY INTO MUSEUM AFFAIRS OF 1835 AND
           1836.]

Originally, and immediately, that inquiry was proposed to the House of
Commons by Mr. Benjamin HAWES, then M.P. for Lambeth, at the instance of
a Mr. John MILLARD, who had been employed, for some years, on an Index
of MSS., and whose employment (upon very good grounds) had been
discontinued. Sir Harris NICOLAS also brought his influence to bear. Mr.
HAWES, personally, had a very earnest intention to benefit the Public by
the inquiry. But his own pursuits in life were not such as to have given
him the literary qualifications necessary for conducting it. With not
less wisdom than modesty, when he had carried his motion for a Select
Committee, he waived his claim to its chairmanship. The Committee chose
for that office Mr. SOTHERON ESTCOURT. The burden of examination, on
behalf of the Trustees, was borne—it need not be said how ably—by men of
no less mark than Sir Robert Harry INGLIS and the late Earl of DERBY,
then Lord Stanley.

One of the best results of the appointment of that Committee of 1835–36
was the opportunity it gave to Mr. BABER and to Mr. PANIZZI of
advocating the claims of the National Library to largely increased
liberality on the part of Parliament. The latter, in particular, did it
with an earnestness, and with a vivacity and felicity of argument and of
illustration, which I believe won for him the respect of every person
who enjoyed (as I did) the pleasure of listening to his examination. I
do not think that anybody in that Committee Room of 1836 thought his
arguments a whit the weaker for being expressed by ‘a foreigner.’ But it
chances to be within my knowledge that pressure was put upon Mr. HAWES,
as a conspicuous member of the Committee, to induce him to put questions
to a certain witness with the view of enabling that witness to attack
the Trustees for appointing a foreigner to an important office in the
Museum. The ludicrous absurdity of an objection on that score—in
relation to a great establishment of Literature and Science—was not, it
seems, felt in those days as it would assuredly be felt in the present
day. The absurdity did not strike the mind of Mr. HAWES, but, to his
great credit, he steadfastly refused to admit of any impeachment in the
Committee of a choice which he believed had been most fitly made in all
other respects.[26]

It is more than probable that the ability which Mr. PANIZZI had
displayed in the Committee Room of the House of Commons, as well as the
zeal for our national honour which he had shown himself to possess, had
something to do in preparing the way for the promotion which awaited him
within a few months after Mr. HAWES’ Committee made its final report to
the House. But his labours in the Museum itself had certainly given
substantial and ample warrant for that promotion—under all the
circumstances of the case—as will be seen presently.

[Sidenote: MR. PANIZZI’S APPOINTMENT TO THE KEEPERSHIP OF PRINTED
           BOOKS.]

Amongst the duties entrusted to Mr. PANIZZI after his entrance (in 1831)
into the service of the Trustees as an extra Assistant-Librarian, was
the cataloguing of an extraordinary Collection of Tracts illustrative of
the History of the French Revolution. He had laboured on a difficult
task with great diligence and with uncommon ability. In 1835, a
Committee of Trustees reported, in the highest terms, on the performance
of his duties, and concluded their report with a recommendation which,
although the general body of Trustees did not act upon it, became the
occasion of a very eulogistic minute. Two years afterwards, the office
of Keeper of Printed Books became vacant by the resignation of the
Reverend Henry Hervey BABER, who had filled it, with great credit, from
the year 1802.

The office of Senior Assistant-Librarian in that Department was then
filled by another man of eminent literary distinction, the Reverend
Henry Francis CARY, who, as one of the best among the many English
translators of DANTE, is not likely to be soon forgotten amongst us. Not
a few Englishmen of the generation that is now passing away learnt in
his version to love DANTE, before they were able to read him in his
proper garb, and learnt too to love Italy, as CARY loved it, for DANTE’S
sake.

Mr. CARY was the grandson of Mordecai CARY, Bishop of Killaloe, and the
son of a Captain in the British Army, who at the time of Henry CARY’S
birth was quartered at Gibraltar, where the boy was born on the sixth of
December, 1772. [Sidenote: LIFE AND LITERARY LABOURS OF HENRY FRANCIS
CARY.] He was educated at Birmingham and at Christ Church, Oxford. It
was in his undergraduate days at Christ Church that he began to
translate the _Inferno_, although he did not publish his first volume
until he had entered his thirty-third year, and had established himself
in ‘the great wen’ as Reader at Berkeley Chapel (1805). CARY’S ‘_Dante_’
soon won its way to fame. Among other blessings it brought about his
life-long friendship with COLERIDGE and with the Coleridgian circle. He
now became an extensive contributor to the literary periodicals. In
1816, he was made Preacher at the Savoy. In 1825, he offered himself to
the Trustees of the British Museum as a candidate for the Keepership of
the Department of Antiquities in succession to Taylor COMBE. That office
was given, with great propriety, to Mr. Edward HAWKINS, who had assisted
Mr. COMBE, and had, in fact, replaced him during his illness. But Mr.
CARY had met with encouragement—especially from the Archbishop of
CANTERBURY—and kept a bright look-out for new vacancies. In May or June,
1826, he wrote to his father that he had learnt that the office of
Assistant-Librarian in the Department of Printed Books was vacant. It
had been, he added, held by a most respectable old clergyman of the name
of BEAN, and Mr. BEAN was just dead. Within a week or two, Mr. CARY was
appointed to be his successor. By a large circle of friends the
appointment was hailed as a fitting tribute to a most deserving man of
letters.

The homely rooms in the Court-yard of the Museum allotted to the
Assistant-Keeper of the Printed Book Department were soon the habitual
resort of a cluster of poets. The faces of COLERIDGE, ROGERS, Charles
LAMB,[27] and (during their occasional visits to London) those of
SOUTHEY and of WORDSWORTH, became, in those days, very familiar at the
gate of old Montagu House. COLERIDGE had always loved CARY, and when the
charms of long monologues, delivered at the Grove to devout listeners,
withheld him from visits, the correspondence between Highgate and
Bloomsbury became so frequent and so voluminous, that he is said to have
endeavoured to persuade Sir Francis FREELING that all correspondence to
or from the British Museum ought to be officially regarded as ‘On His
Majesty’s Service,’ and to be franked, to any weight, accordingly. But
those love-enlivened rooms were, in a very few years, to be darkly
clouded. CARY lost his wife on the twenty-second of November, 1832, and
almost immediately afterwards—so dreadful was the blow to him—‘a look of
mere childishness, approaching to a suspension of vitality, marked the
countenance which had but now beamed with intellect.’ [Sidenote: _Life
of H. F. Cary_, by his Son, vol. ii, p. 198.] Such are the words of his
fellow-mourner.

Part of Mr. CARY’S duties at the Museum now necessarily fell, for a few
months, to be discharged by Mr. PANIZZI, who, in the preceding year, had
been appointed next in office to CARY. The circumstances of that
appointment have been thus stated by the eminent Prelate who made it:—

[Sidenote: CIRCUMSTANCES OF MR. PANIZZI’S FIRST APPOINTMENT IN 1831.]

‘Mr. PANIZZI was entirely unknown to me, except by reputation. I
understood that he was a civilian who had come from Italy, and that he
was a man of great acquirements and talents, peculiarly well suited for
the British Museum. That was represented to me by several persons who
were not connected with the Museum, and it was strongly pressed by
several of the Trustees, who were of opinion that Mr. PANIZZI’S
appointment would be very advantageous for the institution. [Sidenote:
_Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the British
Museum_, 28 June, 1836, p. 433.]Considering the qualifications of that
gentleman, his knowledge of foreign languages, his eminent ability and
extensive attainments, I could not doubt the propriety of acceding to
their wishes.’

When that appointment was made, Mr. PANIZZI had already passed almost
ten years in England. [Sidenote: MR. PANIZZI’S EARLY CAREER AND HIS
LABOURS IN ENGLAND.] The greater part of them had been spent at
Liverpool, as a tutor in the language and literature of Italy. Born at
Brescello, in the Duchy of Modena, Mr. PANIZZI had been educated at
Reggio and at Parma; in the last-named University he had graduated as
LL.D. in 1818; and he had practised with distinction as an advocate.
Part of his leisure hours had been given to the study of bibliography,
and to the acquisition of a library. But he was an ardent aspirant for
the liberty of Italy, and, in 1820, narrowly escaped becoming one of its
many martyrs. After the unsuccessful rising of that year in Piedmont, he
was arrested at Cremona, but escaped from his prison. After his escape
he was sentenced to death. He sought a refuge first at Lugano, and
afterwards at Geneva. But his ability had made him a marked man.
Austrian spies dogged his steps, and appealed, by turns, to the
suspicions and to the fears of the local authorities. Presently it
seemed clear that England, alone, would afford, to the dreaded
‘conspirator’ for Italy, a secure abode. At Liverpool he acquired the
friendship successively of Ugo FOSCOLO, of ROSCOE, and of BROUGHAM. In
1828, he received and accepted the offer of the Professorship of Italian
Literature in the then London University, now ‘University College.’ In
1830, he began the publication of his admirable edition of the poems of
BOJARDO and ARIOSTO, which was completed in 1834.

[Sidenote: _Minutes of Evidence on the Constitution and Management of
           the British Museum_, 26 May, 1848, § 2764 (Report of 1850, p.
           114).]

When Mr. BABER announced, in March, 1837, his intention to resign his
Keepership, Mr. PANIZZI made no application for the office, but he wrote
to the Principal Trustees an expression of his hope that if, in the
event, ‘any appointment was to take place on account of Mr. BABER’S
resignation,’ his services would be borne in mind.

One of Mr. CARY’S earliest steps in the matter was to apply to his
friend and fellow-poet, Mr. Samuel ROGERS. ROGERS—to use his own
words—was one who had known CARY ‘in all weathers.’ His earnest
friendship induced him to write a letter of recommendation to the three
Principal Trustees. After he had sent in his recommendation, a genuine
conscientiousness—not the less truly characteristic of the man for all
that outward semblance of cynicism which frequently veiled it—prompted
him to think the matter over again. It occurred to him to doubt whether
he was really serving his old friend CARY by helping to put him in a
post for which failing vigour was but too obviously, though gradually,
unfitting him. His misgiving increased the more he turned the affair
over in his mind. He then wrote three letters (to the Archbishop,
Chancellor, and Speaker), recalling his recommendation, and stating his
reason. With the Speaker, ROGERS also conversed on the subject. Mr.
ABERCROMBY asked the poet: ‘What do you know about a Mr. PANIZZI, who
stands next to CARY?’ ‘PANIZZI,’ said ROGERS, ‘would serve you very
well.’ ‘To tell you the truth,’ rejoined the Speaker, ‘we think that, if
Mr. CARY is not appointed, PANIZZI will be the right man.’ At that time,
Mr. PANIZZI was not personally known either to the Speaker or to the
Chancellor.

I give these details, first, because they became, in after-days, a very
vital and influential part of the History of the British Museum. No
appointment was ever made during the whole of the hundred and fifteen
years which have elapsed betwixt the first organization of the
establishment in 1755 and the year in which I write (1870) that has had
such large influence upon its growth and its improvement; and, secondly,
because in a published life of the excellent man whose temporary
disappointment led to a great public benefit a passage appears which
(doubtless very unintentionally, but not the less seriously)
misrepresents the matter, and hints, mysteriously, at underhanded
influence, as though something had been done in the way of treachery to
CARY. ‘The Lord Chancellor and the Speaker,’ writes CARY’S biographer,
‘acting under information, _the source of which was probably known only
to them and their informant_, [Sidenote: _Life of Henry Francis Cary_,
vol. ii, p. 200.] resolved on passing him over, and appointing his
subordinate, Mr. PANIZZI, to the vacant place.’

These letters and conversations passed in the interval between the
announcement that there would be a vacancy in the Museum staff and its
actual occurrence. The Keepership became vacant on the twenty-fourth of
June. On that day Mr. CARY made his personal application to the
Archbishop. The Archbishop told him that objections were made to his
appointment. CARY, immediately after his return, told his
brother-officers BABER and PANIZZI what the Archbishop had communicated
to him. ‘Then,’ said Mr. PANIZZI, ‘the thing concerns me.’ ‘Yes,’
rejoined CARY, ‘certainly it does.’ They all knew that applications for
the vacant office from outsiders were talked of. Among these were the
late Reverend Ernest HAWKINS and the late Reverend Richard GARNETT (who
afterwards succeeded to the Assistant-Librarianship). And Mr. PANIZZI
then proceeded to say to Mr. CARY: ‘You will not, now, object to my
asking for the place myself, as there are these objections to you.’ CARY
replied, ‘Not at all.’ Instantly, and in CARY’S presence, Mr. PANIZZI
wrote thus to the Archbishop:—‘I hope your Grace will not deem it
presumptuous in me to beg respectfully of your Grace and the other
Principal Trustees to take my case into consideration, should they think
it necessary to depart from the usual system of regular promotion, on
appointing Mr. BABER’S successor. [Sidenote: Panizzi to the Archbishop
of Canterbury, 26 June, 1837 (_Minutes of Evidence of 1850_).] I venture
to say thus much, having been informed by Mr. CARY of the conversation
he has had the honour to have with your Grace.’ The writer gave his
letter into Mr. CARY’S hand, received his brother-officer’s immediate
approval, and had that approval, at a later hour of the day and after a
re-perusal of the letter, confirmed.

Within the walls of the Museum, the general feeling was so strongly in
favour of Mr. CARY’S appointment, despite all objection (and nothing can
be more natural than that it should be so—‘A fellow-feeling makes us
wondrous kind’), that the _public_ interest, in having an officer who
would use the appointment rather as a working-tool than as a reclining
staff, was, for the moment, lost sight of. Sir Henry ELLIS himself, when
asked to give a formal testimonial of Mr. PANIZZI’S qualifications to be
head of the Printed Book Department, answered: ‘If you told me that the
Bodleian Librarianship was vacant—or any other outside Librarianship
worth your having—you should have my heartiest recommendation. At
present, you must excuse me;’ or in words to that effect. Edward
HAWKINS, then Keeper of the Department of Antiquities, expressed himself
(in the hearing of the present writer) to like purpose, when asked what
his opinion was on a point which, at the moment, attracted not a little
attention in literary circles.[28]

CARY afterwards—and when it was too late to recall it—regretted his
assent to Mr. PANIZZI’S application. He applied again to the Archbishop,
and obtained something like a promise of support. He wrote several
letters to the Lord Chancellor. In one of these he (unconsciously, as it
seems) adduced a conclusive argument against his own appointment to the
office he sought. He wrote that, as he was informed, the objections of
his Lordship and of the Speaker were twofold: the one resting on his
age, and the other on the state of his health. He answered the
objections in these words:—‘My age, it is plain, might rather ask for me
that _alleviation of labour_ which, _in this as in other public offices,
is gained by promotion_ to a superior place, than call for a continuance
of the same laborious employment.’ [Sidenote: Cary to the Lord
Chancellor, 18 July, 1837 (_The Times_).] What must have been a Lord
Chancellor’s ruminations upon the ‘alleviation of labour’ which ‘a
superior place’ brings to a public servant, is a somewhat amusing
subject of conjecture.

It was with perfect honesty and integrity of purpose that Mr. CARY
adduced medical testimony of his fitness for continued but diminished
labours. He would have exerted himself to the best of his ability. But
it was a blemish in an excellent man that (under momentary irritation)
he twice permitted himself to reproach his competitor and colleague with
being ‘a foreigner.’

One would fain have hoped that our famous countryman Daniel DEFOE had, a
hundred years before, put all reproach and contumely on the score of a
man’s _not_ being a ‘true-born Englishman’ quite out of Court, in all
contentions concerning capabilities of public service. But, of all
places in the world, a MUSEUM is the queerest place in which to raise
petty questions of nationality. If it be at all worthy of its name, its
contents must have come from the four quarters of the globe. Men of
every race under Heaven must have worked hard to furnish it. It brings
together the plants of Australia; the minerals of Peru; the shells of
the far Pacific; the manuscripts which had been painfully compiled or
transcribed by twenty generations of labourers in every corner of
Europe, as well as in the monasteries of Africa and of the Eastern
Desert; and the sculptures and the printed books of every civilised
country in the world. And then it is proposed—when arrangements are to
be made for turning dead collections into living fountains of
knowledge—that the question asked shall be: _not_ ‘What is your capacity
to administer?’ but ‘Where were you born?’ I hope, and I believe, that
in later years Mr. CARY regretted that he had permitted a name so
deservedly honoured to endorse so poor a sophism.

Mr. Antonio PANIZZI received his appointment on the fifteenth of July,
1837. If he had worked hard to gain promotion, he worked double tides to
vindicate it. In the following month, Mr. CARY resigned his
Assistant-Librarianship. [Sidenote: PANIZZI’S APPOINTMENT AS KEEPER OF
THE PRINTED BOOKS, July, 1837.] He left the Museum with the hearty
respect and with the brotherly regrets of all his colleagues, without
any exception. Of him, it may very truly be said, he was a man much
beloved.

Nor was it otherwise with Mr. BABER. His public services began in old
Bodley towards the end of the year 1796, and they were so efficient as
to open to him, at the beginning of the present century, a subordinate
post in the British Museum, his claims to which he waived the instant
that he knew they would stand in the way of ELLIS, his early friend of
undergraduate days. He became Assistant-Librarian in 1807; Keeper of
Printed Books in 1812. He, too, was a man with no enemies. In literature
he won (before he was fifty) an enduring place by his edition of the
_Vetus Testamentum Græcum e Codice MS. Alexandrino ... descriptum_.

Of the amiability of character which distinguished Mr. BABER, not less
than did his scholarship, the present writer had more than common
experience. It was my fortune to make my first intimate acquaintance
(1835) with the affairs of the British Museum in the capacity of a
critic on that part of Mr. BABER’S discharge of his manifold functions
as Keeper which related to the increase of the Library, both by purchase
and by the operation of the Copyright Act. I criticised some of his
doings, and some of his omissions to do, with youthful presumption, and
with that self-confident half-knowledge which often leads a man more
astray, practically, than does sheer ignorance. So far from resenting
strictures, a few of which may have had some small validity and value,
while a good many were certainly plausible but shallow, he turned the
former to profit, and, so far from resenting the latter, repeatedly
evinced towards their author acts of courtesy and kindness. It was in
his company that I first explored—as we strode from beam to beam of the
unfinished flooring—the new Library rooms in which, long afterwards, I
was to perform my humble spell of work on the _Catalogue of the Printed
Books_; as he had performed his hard-by almost thirty years earlier.

Mr. BABER survived his retirement from his Keepership (in 1837) no less
than thirty-two years. He died, on the twenty-eighth of March, 1869, at
his rectory-house at Stretham, in the Isle of Ely, and in his 94th year.
He had then been F.R.S. for fifty-three years, and had survived his old
friend Sir Henry ELLIS by a few weeks. He served his parishioners in
Cambridgeshire, as he had served his country in London, with unremitting
zeal and punctual assiduity.


One of Mr. PANIZZI’S earliest employments in his new office of 1837 was
to make arrangements for the formidable task of transferring the whole
mass of the old Library from Montagu House to the new Building, but he
also did something immediately towards preparing the way for that
systematic enlargement of the Collection of Printed Books which he had
formerly and so earnestly pressed on the attention, not merely of the
Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1835–36, but of every
Statesman and Parliament-man whose ear he could gain, whether (in his
interlocutor’s opinion) in season or out of season. To use the
expression of the man who, at a later date, mainly helped him in that
task, Mr. PANIZZI’S leading thought, in regard to Public Libraries, was
that Paris must be surpassed. In common with others of us who, like
himself, had been examined before Mr. HAWES’ Committee on that subject,
he had brought into salient relief some points of superiority which
foreign countries possessed over Britain, but the ruling motive of the
unsavoury comparison was British improvement, not, most assuredly,
British discredit.

In the formidable business of the transfer of the bulk of the National
Library, Mr. PANIZZI received his best help from a man now just lost to
us, but whose memory will surely survive. Exactly six months after his
own appointment to the headship of his Department, he introduced into
the permanent service of the Trustees Mr. Thomas WATTS. [Sidenote: THE
LITERARY CAREER AND THE PUBLIC SERVICES OF THOMAS WATTS.] The readers of
such a volume as this will not, I imagine, think it to be a digression
if I here make some humble attempt to record what was achieved by my old
acquaintance—an acquaintance of almost one and thirty years’
standing—both in his varied literary labours and in his long and
fruitful service at the Museum.

Thomas WATTS was born in London in the year 1811. He was educated at a
private school in London, where he was very early noted for the
possession of three several qualities, one or other of which is found,
in a marked degree, in thousands of men and in tens of thousands of
precocious boys, but the union of all of which, whether in child or in
man, is rare indeed. Young WATTS evinced both an astonishing capacity
for acquiring languages—the most far remote from his native speech—and
an unusual readiness at English composition. He had also a knack for
turning off very neat little speeches and recitations. Before he was
fifteen, he could give good entertainment at a breaking up or a
‘speech-day.’ Before he was twenty, he had gained his footing as a
contributor to periodical literature.[29]

In the autumn of the year 1835, Mr. WATTS’ attention was attracted to
the publication of the _Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select
Committee on the British Museum_, the first portion of which had been
ordered to be printed, by the House of Commons, in the preceding August.
[Sidenote: WATTS’ EARLY INTEREST IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE BRITISH
MUSEUM.] He read the evidence with great interest, and ere long he wrote
(in 1836 and 1837) some valuable comments upon it, which embodied
several suggestions for the improvement of the Museum service, and for
making it increasedly accessible to the Public. More than two or three
of the suggestions so offered, he lived to carry out—long afterwards, by
his own exertions, and with the cordial approval of his superior
officer, Mr. PANIZZI—into practice, after he had himself entered into
the service of the Trustees as an Assistant in the Printed Book
Department.

But he chose a very unfortunate medium for his useful communications of
1836 and 1837. He printed them in the columns of the ‘_Mechanics’
Magazine_,’ where, for practical purposes, they were almost buried. Of
this fact I am able to give a small illustrative and personal instance.
Possibly, it may be thought to have some little biographical value, as a
trait of his character.

In both of the years above named Mr. WATTS did the present writer the
honour to make some remarks on his humble labours for the improvement of
the Museum in 1835 and 1836. Mr. WATTS’ remarks were very complimentary
and kind in their expression. But I never saw or heard of them, until
this year, 1870, after their writer had passed from the knowledge of the
many acquaintances and friends who, in common with myself, much esteemed
him, and who will ever honour his memory.

One of the communications which my late friend published in that
‘_Mechanics’ Magazine_’ contained two suggestions—made contingently, and
by way of alternative plans—for the enlargement of the Museum buildings.
Nearly eleven years afterwards (August, 1847), I unconsciously repeated
those very suggestions, amongst many others, in a pamphlet, entitled
_Public Libraries in London and Paris_. I was in complete ignorance that
my suggestions of 1847 were otherwise than entirely original. I thought
them wholly my own. Of the print which accompanied my pamphlet I give
the reader an exact fac-simile, errors included, on the opposite plate.
The print embodied very nearly the same thoughts, on the enlargement of
the library, which had been expressed, so long before, in the pages of
the ‘_Mechanics’ Magazine_.’ The first presented copy of that pamphlet
and print was given to my friend WATTS. I was then absent, far from
London, and I had presently the pleasure of receiving from him a long
letter, containing some criticisms and remarks on my publication. But
such was his modest reticence about his own prior performance, that the
letter contained no word or hint concerning the anticipation of my
alternative suggestions for the enlargement of the Library in his prior
publication. And, in the long interval between 1837 and 1847, I suppose
we had conversed about the improvement of the Museum, and about its
buildings, actual and prospective, some thirty or forty times, but (as I
have said) those valuable and thoughtful articles of his, printed in
1836–7—and making complimentary mention of my own labours, and of my
evidence given before Mr. HAWES’ Committee—never came within my
knowledge. No part of their contents was even mentioned to me. I saw
them, for the first time, in January, 1870. Very few men—within my range
of acquaintance—had so much dislike to talk of their performances, as
was manifested by Thomas WATTS. To this day, very much of what he did
for the Public is scarcely known even by those who (at one time or
other) enjoyed the pleasure, and the honour, of his friendship. He was
one of the men who ‘did good by stealth,’ and would have almost blushed
to find it fame.

[Illustration:

  _Plate Nº 2_


  SUGGESTIONS, MADE IN 1847.
  FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE LIBRARY OF THE
  BRITISH MUSEUM.

  BEING THE FAC-SIMILE OF A PLAN INSERTED IN A PAMPHLET (WRITTEN IN
    1846.)

  ENTITLED

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN LONDON AND PARIS.
]


[Sidenote: WATTS’ LABOURS FOR THE AUGMENTATION OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM
           LIBRARY.]

When Thomas WATTS entered the Museum, the immediate task entrusted to
him, onerous as it was, did not (for any long time) engross his
attention. In common with Mr. PANIZZI, his desire to increase the
Library, and to make London surpass Paris—‘_Paris must be surpassed_,’
are the words which close the best of those articles, printed in 1837,
to which I have just now referred—amounted to a positive passion. He did
not talk very much about it; but I fancy it occupied, not only his
waking thoughts, but his very dreams.

Mr. PANIZZI had not been at the head of his Department many weeks before
he began a Special Report to the Trustees, recommending a systematic
increase of the Collection of Printed Books.

In the autumn of 1837 he could hardly foresee that one of the attacks to
be made, in the after-years, upon those who had appointed him, or who
had promoted his appointment, for the crime of preferring ‘a foreigner’
to a high post in our National Museum, would be based upon the
foreigner’s neglect of English Literature. ‘An Italian Librarian,’ said
those profound logicians, ‘must, naturally and necessarily, swamp the
Library with Italian books. He can’t help doing it.’ But, strange as it
may have seemed to objectors of that calibre, this particular Italian
happened to be, not only a scholar—a ripe and good one—but a man of wide
sympathies, and of catholic tastes in literature. He was able himself to
enjoy SHAKESPEARE, not less thoroughly than he was able, by his critical
acumen, to increase other men’s enjoyment of ARIOSTO and of DANTE.

[Sidenote: SIR A. PANIZZI’S REPORT, IN OCTOBER, 1837, ON THE PROPER
           CHARACTERISTICS OF A NATIONAL LIBRARY FOR GREAT BRITAIN.]

In October, 1837, he wrote thus:—‘With respect to the purchase of books,
Mr. PANIZZI begs to lay before the Trustees the general principles by
which he will be guided, if not otherwise directed, in endeavouring to
answer the expectations and wishes of the Trustees and of the Public in
this respect. First, the attention of the Keeper of this emphatically
British Library ought to be directed, most particularly, to British
works, and to works relating to the British Empire; its religious,
political, and literary, as well as scientific history; its laws,
institutions, description, commerce, arts, &c. The rarer and more
expensive a work of this description is, the more indefatigable[30]
efforts ought to be made to secure it for the Library. Secondly, the old
and rare, as well as the critical, editions of ancient Classics, ought
never to be sought for in vain in this Collection. Nor ought good
comments, as also the best translations into modern languages, to be
wanting. Thirdly, with respect to foreign literature, arts, and
sciences, the Library ought to possess the best editions of standard
works for critical purposes or for use. The Public have, moreover, a
right to find, in their National Library, heavy as well as expensive
foreign works, such as _Literary Journals_; _Transactions of Societies_;
large Collections, historical or otherwise; complete series of
Newspapers; Collections of Laws, and their best interpreters.’ We have,
in this brief passage, the germ of the admirable Report on the National
Library, written on a far more extended scale, which was afterwards laid
before the Government, and, ultimately, before Parliament.

If this Report failed to lead, immediately (or, indeed, for a long time
to come), to the increased means of acquisition on which its writer’s
mind was so much bent, the fault did not lie in the Trustees. It lay
with the House of Commons, and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Sidenote: THE IMPEDIMENTS IN THE WAY OF IMPROVEMENT.]

It is hard to realise, in 1870, how entirely the effort for an adequate
improvement of the British Museum was an uphill task. Trustees like the
late Lord DERBY and the late Sir R. H. INGLIS were earnestly desirous to
carry out such recommendations as those of Mr. PANIZZI, but the
employment of urging them on the Ministry was an ungrateful one. In
those days of reforming-activity, although, in 1837, the average
radicals in ‘the House’ were not quite such devout believers in the
faith that a general overturn was the only road to a general millenium
as they had been in 1832, they were willing enough to listen to attacks
upon the managers of any public institution (no matter how crude were
the views of the assailants, or how lopsided their information), but
they were not half so ready to open the public purse-strings in order to
enable impugned managers or trustees to improve the institution
entrusted to them upon a worthy scale.

Three months after writing his Report of 1837, Mr. PANIZZI was enabled
to procure the official assistance of Mr. WATTS. The appointment
strengthened his hands, by giving to a man of extraordinary powers for
organization and government, the services of a man not less
extraordinary for his powers of accumulating and assimilating detail.
What each man characteristically possessed, was just the right
supplement to the special faculties of the other. But even such a happy
union of personal qualities would have failed to carry into effect the
large aspirations for the improvement of the Museum which both men,
severally and independently, had cherished (during many years), but for
one other circumstance. This was a merely incidental—one might say a
fortuitous—circumstance; but it proved very influential upon the
fortunes of the British Museum in the course of the years to come.
[Sidenote: See hereafter, Chap. V.] When Mr. PANIZZI began to be known
in London society—at first, very much by the instrumentality of the late
Mr. Thomas GRENVILLE, who, at an early period, had become warmly
attached to him—his acquaintance was eagerly cultivated. In this way he
obtained opportunities to preach his doctrine of increased public
support for our great national and educational institutions (his
advocacy was not limited within the four walls of the Museum) in the
ears of very valuable and powerful listeners. It was thought, now and
then, that he preached on that topic out of season as well as in season.
But the issue amply vindicated the zeal which prompted him to make the
pleasures of social intercourse subserve the performance of a public
trust. Few men, I imagine—holding the unostentatious post of a
librarianship—ever possessed so many social opportunities of the kind
here referred to, as were possessed by Mr. PANIZZI. And even those
listeners who may have thought him over-pertinacious, sometimes, in
pressing his convictions, must needs have carried away with them the
assurance that one public servant, at all events, did not regard his
duties as ‘irksome.’ They must have seen that this man’s heart was in
his official work.

So was it also in the instance of Mr. PANIZZI’S righthand man within the
Museum itself. Thomas WATTS was not gifted with powers of persuasive
argument. His address and manners did no sort of justice to the
intrinsic qualities, or to the true heart, of the man himself. To
strangers, they often gave a most inaccurate idea of his faculties and
character. Under the outward guise of a blunt-spoken farmer, there
dwelt, not only high scholarship, but a lofty sense—it would not be too
strong to say a passionate sense—of public duty. He had none of the
persuasive gifts of vivid talk. But he could preach forcibly, by
example. When he had made some way with the first task which was
assigned him, that of superintending the removal of the Library, and its
due ordering—in some of the details of which he was ably assisted,
almost from the outset, by Mr. George BULLEN (who, in January, 1838, was
first specially employed to retranscribe the press-marks or symbols of
the books, as they stood in old Montagu House, into the new equivalents
necessitated by their altered position in the new Library, in which
labour he was, in the April following, assisted by Mr. N. W. SIMONS)—and
had solved, by assiduous effort and self-denying labour, some of the
many difficulties which stood in the way of effecting that removal
without impeding, to any serious degree, the service of the Public
Reading-Room, he turned his attention, at Mr. PANIZZI’S instance, to
the—to him—far more grateful task of preparing lists of foreign books
for addition to the Library. For this task he evinced special qualities
and attainments which, I believe, were never surpassed, by any librarian
in the world; not even by an AUDIFFREDI, a VAN-PRAET, or a MAGLIABECHI.

[Sidenote: LINGUISTIC ATTAINMENTS OF THOMAS WATTS.]

Mr. WATTS’ earliest schoolfellows had marvelled at his faculty for
acquiring with great rapidity such a degree of familiarity with foreign
tongues, as gave him an amply sufficient master-key to their several
literatures. When yet very young, he showed a scholarly appreciation of
the right methods of setting to work. He studied languages in
groups—giving his whole mind to one group at a time, and then passing to
another. At an age when many men (far from being blockheads) are
painfully striving after a literary command of their mother-tongue,
young WATTS had showed himself to be master of two several clusters of
the great Indo-European family, and to have a very respectable
acquaintance with a third. When, as a youthful volunteer at the Museum,
he was fulfilling a request made to him by Mr. BABER, that he would
catalogue the Collection of Icelandic books given to the Public, half a
century before, by Sir Joseph BANKS, and also another parcel of Russian
books, which had been bought at his own recommendation, the reading of
Chinese literature was the labour of his hours of private study, and the
reading of Polish literature was the recreation of his hours of leisure.

What the feelings of an ambitious student of that strain would be when
officially instructed by his superior to take under his sole (or almost
sole) charge the duty of examining the Museum Catalogues, and of
obtaining from all parts of Europe and Asia, and from many parts of
America, other catalogues of every kind, in order to ascertain the
deficiencies of the Library, and to supply them, the reader can fancy.
The new assistant luxuriated in his office. Many of his suggestions were
periodically and earnestly supported with the Trustees by Mr. PANIZZI.
His labours were appreciated and often (to my personal knowledge) warmly
applauded by his superior officer.

[Sidenote: HIS LISTS OF MUSEUM DESIDERATA.]

He began with making lists of Russian books that were _desiderata_ in
the Museum Library; then of Hungarian; then of Dutch; then of French,
Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese; then of Chinese; then of Welsh; then
of the rapidly growing, but theretofore (at the Museum) much neglected,
literature of the Americas and the Indies.

I used, now and then, to watch him at his work, and to think that no man
could possibly be employed more entirely to his liking. Long after I
ceased to enjoy any opportunity of talking with him about his
employment, I used occasionally to hear that similar tasks occupied, not
infrequently, the hours of evening leisure as well as the hours of
official duty. Some who knew him more intimately than—of late years—it
was my privilege to know him, believe that his early death was in part
(humanly speaking) due to his passion for poring over catalogues and
other records of far-off literatures when worn-out nature needed to be
refreshed, and to be recreatively interested in quite other occupations.

During the last twenty years alone (1850–1869 inclusive) he cannot have
marked and recommended for purchase less than a hundred and fifty
thousand foreign works, and in order to their selection he must needs
have examined almost a million of book-titles, in at least eighteen
different languages.

When little more than half that last-named term of years had expired he
was able to write—in a Report which he addressed to Mr. PANIZZI in
February, 1861—that the common object of Keeper and Assistant-Keeper had
been, during almost a quarter of a century, to ‘bring together from all
quarters the useful, the elegant, and the curious literature of every
language; to unite with the best English Library in England, or the
world, the best Russian Library out of Russia, the best German out of
Germany, the best Spanish out of Spain, and so with every language from
Italian to Icelandic, from Polish to Portuguese. In five of the
languages in which it now claims this species of supremacy, in Russian,
Polish, Hungarian, Danish, and Swedish, I believe I may say that, with
the exception of perhaps fifty volumes, every book that has been
purchased by the Museum within the last three and twenty years has been
purchased at my suggestion. I have the pleasure of reflecting that every
future student of the less-known literatures of Europe will find riches
where I found poverty; though, of course, [Sidenote: Reports of 1861,
pp. 17, 18.] the collections in all these languages together form but a
small proportion of the vast accumulations that have been added to the
Library during your administration and that of your successor.’[31]

When the reader comes to add to his estimate of the amount of mental
labour thus briefly and modestly indicated by the man who performed it,
a thought of the further toil involved in the re-arrangement and careful
_classification_ of more than four hundred thousand volumes of books, in
all the literary languages of the world (without any exception), he will
have attained some rough idea of the public service which was crowded
into one man’s life; and that, as we all have now to regret, not a
protracted life. He will have, too, some degree of conception of the
amount of acquired knowledge which was taken from us when Thomas WATTS
was taken.

To his works of industry and of learning, the man we have lost added the
still better works of a kindly, benevolent heart. Many a struggling
student received at his hands both wise and loving counsel, and active
help. And his good deeds were not advertised. They would not now have
been spoken of, but for his loss—in the very thick of his labours for
the Public.

In a precious volume, which was first added to the manuscript stores of
the British Museum a little before Mr. WATTS’ death, there occurs the
rough jotting of a thought which is very apposite to our human and
natural reflections upon such an early removal from the scene of labour
as that just referred to. When somebody spoke to BACON of the death, in
the midst of duty and of mental vigour, of some good worker or other in
the vineyard of this world, almost three centuries ago, he made the
following entry in his private note-book:—‘Princes, when in jousts,
triumphs, or games of victory, men deserve crowns for their performance,
do not crown them below, where the deeds are performed, but call them
up. [Sidenote: Lord Bacon’s _Note-Book_ (MS. ADDIT. B. M.).] So doth God
by death.’


[Sidenote: OTHER LITERARY LABOURS OF THOMAS WATTS.]

But these several branches of public duty, onerous as they were, were
far from exhausting Mr. WATTS’ mental activity, either within the Museum
walls or outside of them. He was a frequent contributor to periodical
literature. To his pen the _Quarterly Review_ was indebted for an
excellent article on the _History of Cyclopædias_; the ATHENÆUM, for a
long series of papers on various topics of literary history and of
current literature, extending over many years; the various Cyclopædias
and Biographical Dictionaries successively edited by Mr. Charles KNIGHT,
for a long series of valuable notices, embracing the Language and
Literature of Hungary; those of Wales; and more than a hundred and
thirty brief biographical memoirs, distinguished alike for careful
research and for clear and vigorous expression. These biographies
relate, for the most part, to foreign men of letters. To the pages of
the _Transactions of the Philological Society_ he was a frequent
contributor. His Memoir on Hungarian Literature, first read to that
Society, procured him the distinction of a corresponding-membership of
the Hungarian Academy, and the distinction was enhanced by his being
elected on the same day with Lord MACAULAY.

Within the Museum itself two distinct and important departments of
official labour, both of which he filled with intelligence and zeal,
have yet to be indicated. [Sidenote: THE MUSEUM PRINTED BOOK CATALOGUE
OF 1839–1869, AND WATTS’ LABOURS IN RELATION TO IT.] In 1839, he took
part—with others—in framing an extensive code of ‘rules’ for the
re-compilation of the entire body of the Catalogues of Printed Books. In
May, 1857, he took charge of the Public Reading-Room, as Chief
Superintendent of the daily service.

It need hardly be said that the first-named task—that on the
Catalogues—was a labour of planning and shaping, not one of actual
execution. It was very important, however, in its effects on the public
economy of the Library, and it was the one only labour, as I believe,
performed by Mr. WATTS, whether severally or in conjunction with others,
which failed to give unmixed satisfaction to the general body of
readers. The _Minutes of Evidence_, taken by the Commissioners of
1848–1850, whilst they abound in expressions of public gratitude both to
Mr. PANIZZI and, next after him, to Mr. WATTS, contain a not less
remarkable abundance of criticisms, and of complaints, upon the plan
(not the execution) of the _Catalogue of Printed Books_ begun in 1839.
The subject is a dry one, but will repay some brief attention on the
reader’s part.

When Mr. PANIZZI became Keeper, he had (it will have been seen) to face
almost instantly, and abreast, three several tasks, each of which
entailed much labour upon himself, personally, as well as upon his
assistants. The third of them—this business of the Catalogue—proved to
be not the least onerous, and it was, assuredly, not the best rewarded
in the shape of its ultimate reception by those concerned more
immediately in its performance. I can speak with some sympathy on this
point, since it was as a temporary assistant in the preparation of this
formidable and keenly-criticised Catalogue, that the present writer
entered the service of the Trustees, in February, 1839.

[Sidenote: OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN OF THE MUSEUM PRINTED BOOK CATALOGUE
           (1839–1869).]

That some objections to the plan adopted in 1839 are well-grounded I
entirely believe. But the important point in this matter, for our
present purpose, is, not that the plan preferred was unobjectionable,
but that the utmost effort was used, at the time and under the
circumstances of the time, to prepare such a Catalogue as should meet
the fair requirements both of the Trustees and of the Readers. It is
within my recollection that, to effect this, Mr. PANIZZI laboured,
personally as well as in the way of super-intendance and direction, as
it has not often happened to me, in my time, to see men labour for the
Public. Assuredly to him promotion brought no lessening of toil in any
form.

In shaping the plan of the General Catalogue of 1839–1870 (for it is, at
this moment of writing, still in active progress), the course taken was
this:—A sort of committee of five persons was formed, each of whom
severally was to prepare, in rough draft, rules for the compilation of
the projected work, illustrated by copious examples. It was to be
entirely new, and to embrace every book contained in the Library up to
the close of the year 1838. The draft rules were then freely discussed
in joint committee, and wherever differences of opinion failed to be
reconciled upon conference, the majority of votes determined the
question. Such was Mr. PANIZZI’S anxiety to prepare the best Catalogue
for the Readers that was practicable, that he never insisted,
authoritatively, on his own view of any point whatever, which might be
in contention amongst us, when he stood in a minority. On all such
points, he voted upon an exact equality with his assistants. The rules
that were most called into question (before the Commissioners of
1848–1850) had been severally discussed and determined in this fair and
simple way. Beyond all doubt, some of the rules might now be largely
amended in the light of subsequent experience. But, when adopted, they
seemed to _all_ of us the best that were practicable under all the then
circumstances.

The committee thus formed consisted of Mr. PANIZZI himself, of Mr.
Thomas WATTS, of Mr. John Winter JONES (now Principal-Librarian), of Mr.
John Humffreys PARRY (now Mr. Serjeant PARRY), and of the writer of this
volume. The labour was much more arduous than the average run of readers
in a Public Library have any adequate conception of. It occupied several
months. It was pushed with such energy and industry, that many a time,
after we had all five worked together, till the light of the spring days
of 1839 failed us, we adjourned to work on—with the help of a sandwich
and a glass of Burgundy—in Mr. PANIZZI’S private apartment above the old
gate in the Court-yard. If the result of our joint labours had been
printed in the ordinary form of books, it would have made a substantial
octavo volume. The code has, no doubt, many faults and oversights, but,
be they what they may, it was a vast improvement upon former doings in
that direction; [Sidenote: See Mr. Panizzi’s evidence before the
Commissioners of 1848–9.] and not a little of it has been turned to
account, of late years, in the Public Libraries of France, of Germany,
and of America.

In the labours of this little house-committee my late friend took a very
large share. To Mr. PANIZZI, and to him, all their colleagues in the
task of 1839 will readily admit that the chief merit of what is good,
and the smallest part of the demerit of what may have been injudicious,
in the _Rules for the Compilation of the Catalogue of Printed Books_
(now before me) is incontestably due. My own experience in such matters,
in the spring of 1839, was small indeed. That of my friend PARRY was
even less. Mr. Winter JONES possessed, already, the advantage of a
thorough familiarity with the Library about to be catalogued, and also
an extensive and thorough general knowledge of books. Of Mr. PANIZZI’S
qualifications and attainments, for such a labour, it would be
supererogatory and idle to say a word more, except that he had
already—and single-handed—made so good a Catalogue of the fine Library
of the Royal Society that the meddling of half a dozen ‘revisers’ failed
to spoil it. But there is no impropriety in saying of Mr. WATTS, that he
so delighted in the labour in hand as to make it seem, to those who
worked with him, that he looked upon it in the light of a pleasant
recreation rather than in the light of a dry task.


But whatever the ultimate differences of opinion, amongst those
concerned in such a matter, about the merits of the Museum Catalogue,
begun in 1839, there was no difference at all, either in the House or
out of it, as to the conspicuous merits of his performance of every
subsequent duty. His stores of knowledge were put, with the utmost
readiness, at the service of all sorts of readers; and he was not less
admirable in the discharge of his office of Superintendent of the
Reading-Room than afterwards in the more prominent office of Keeper of
Printed Books—which he held little more than three years.

When Sir Henry ELLIS retired, in 1856, from the office of
Principal-Librarian, the Collection of Printed Books—which he had found,
on his accession to that office, extending to less than one hundred and
fifty thousand volumes—exceeded five hundred and twenty thousand
volumes. The annual number of Readers admitted had increased from about
seven hundred and fifty to nearly four thousand.

The one step which did more than aught else to promote this improvement
was the systematic survey of the then existing condition of the Printed
Library, in all the great departments of knowledge, which Mr. PANIZZI
set on foot in 1843, and embodied in a Memoir addressed to the Trustees,
on the first of January, 1845.

[Sidenote: MR. PANIZZI’S MEMOIR ON THE COLLECTION OF PRINTED BOOKS,
           1845.]

The principle on which this Memoir was compiled lay in the careful
comparison of the Museum Catalogues with the best special
bibliographies, and with the Catalogues of other Libraries. In
Jurisprudence, for example, the national collection was tested by the
_Bibliotheca Juridica_ of LIPENIUS, SENCKENBERG, and MADAHN; by the list
of law-books inserted in DUPIN’S edition of CAMUS’ _Lettres sur la
profession d’Avocat_, and by the _Bibliothèque diplomatique choisie_ of
MARTENS. In Political Economy, by BLANQUI’S list given in the _Histoire
de l’Economie politique en Europe_. The Mathematical section of the
Library was compared with ROGG’S _Handbuch der mathematischen
Literatur_. In British History, the _Bibliotheca Grenvilliana_, and the
_Catalogue of the Library of the Writers to the Signet_, were examined,
for those sections of the subject to which they were more particularly
applicable, and so on in the other departments. The facts thus elicited
were striking. It was shown that much had been done since 1836 to
augment almost every section of the Library; but that the deficiencies
were still of the most conspicuous sort. In a word, the statement
abundantly established the truth of the proposition that ‘the Collection
of Printed Books in the British Museum is not nearly so complete and
perfect as the National Library of Great Britain ought to be ...’ and it
then proceeded to discuss the further question: ‘By what means can the
collection be brought with all proper despatch to a state of as much
completeness and perfection as is attainable in such matters, and as the
public service may require?’

It was shown that no reliance could be placed upon donations, for the
filling up those gaps in the Library which were the special subject of
the Memoir. Rare and precious books might thus come, but not the widely
miscellaneous assemblage still needed. As to special grants for the
acquisition of entire collections, not one of ten such collections, it
was thought, would, under existing circumstances, be suitable for the
Museum. The Copyright-tax has no bearing, however rigidly enforced, save
on current British Literature. There remained, therefore, but one
adequate resource, that of annual Parliamentary grants, unfettered by
restrictions as to their application, and capable of being depended upon
for a considerable number of years to come. Purchases might thus be
organized in all parts of the world with foresight, system, and
continuity. In the letter addressed by the Trustees to the Treasury, it
was stated that, ‘for filling up the chasms which are so much to be
regretted, and some of which are distinctly set forth in the annexed
document, the Trustees think that a sum of not less than ten thousand a
year will be required for the next ten years,’ in addition to the usual
five thousand a year for the ordinary acquisitions of the Library.

The Lords of the Treasury were not willing to recommend to Parliament a
larger annual grant than ten thousand pounds, ‘for the purchase of books
of all descriptions,’ but so far they were disposed to proceed,
[Sidenote: _Treasury Minutes_, 1845.] ‘for some years to come;’ and they
strongly inculcated upon the Trustees ‘the necessity, during the
continuance of such grants, of postponing additions to the other
collections under their charge, which, however desirable in themselves,
are of subordinate importance to that of completing the Library.’


MANUSCRIPTS ADDED IN THE YEARS 1849, 1850.

In 1843, an important series of modern Historical MSS., relating more
especially to the South of Europe, was purchased from the RANUZZI family
of Bologna. The papers of the Brothers Laurence HYDE, Earl of Rochester,
and Henry HYDE, Earl of Clarendon, were also secured. Additions, too, of
considerable interest, were made to the theological and classical
sections of the MS. Department, by the purchase of many vellum MSS.,
ranging from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries. In 1849, the most
important acquisitions related to our British History. About three
hundred documents illustrative of the English Wars in France (1418 to
1450), nearly a hundred autograph letters of WILLIAM III, and an
extensive series of transcripts from the archives at the Hague, were
thus gathered for the future historian. In 1850, a curious series of
Stammbücker, three hundred and twenty in number, and in date extending
from 1554 to 1785, was obtained by purchase. These Albums, collectively,
contained more than twenty-seven thousand autographs of persons more or
less eminent in the various departments of human activity. Amongst them
is the signature of MILTON. The acquisitions of 1851 included some
Biblical MSS. of great curiosity; an extensive series of autograph
letters (chiefly from the Donnadieu Collection), and a large number of
papers relating to the affairs of the English Mint.

In the year last-named Sir Frederick MADDEN thus summed up the
accessions to his Department since the year 1836:

          ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
          │Volumes of Manuscripts                       9051│
          │Rolls of Maps, Pedigrees, &c.                 668│
          │Manuscripts on Reed, Bark, or other material  136│
          │Charters and Rolls                           6750│
          │Papyri                                         42│
          │Seals                                         442│
          └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

[Sidenote: TABULAR VIEW OF THE ACCESSIONS TO THE MSS. DEPARTMENT FROM
           1836–1851.]

And he adds:—‘If money had been forthcoming, the number of manuscripts
acquired during the last fifteen years might have been more than
doubled. The collections that have passed into other hands, namely, Sir
Robert CHAMBERS’ Sanscrit MSS.; Sir William OUSELEY’S Persian; BRUCE’S
Ethiopic and Arabic; MICHAEL’S Hebrew; LIBRI’S Italian, French, Latin,
and Miscellaneous; BARROIS’ French and Latin; as well as the Stowe
Collection of Anglo-Saxon, Irish, and English manuscripts, might all
have been so united. The liberality of the Treasury becomes very small
when compared with the expenditure of individuals. Lord ASHBURNHAM,
during the last ten years, has paid nearly as large a sum for MSS. as
has been expended on the National Collection since the Museum was first
founded.’

[Sidenote: GROWTH OF THE PRINTED DEPARTMENT UP TO 1851.]

The causes which at this period again tended somewhat to slacken the
growth of the Printed Collection have been glanced at already. But
during the fifteen years from 1836 to 1851, it had increased at the rate
of sixteen thousand volumes a year, on the average. When the estimates
of 1852 were under discussion, Mr. PANIZZI stated, ‘that till room is
provided, the deficiency must in a great measure continue, and new
[foreign] books only to a limited extent be purchased.’ The grant for
such purchases was therefore, in that year, limited to four thousand
pounds. In a subsequent report, Mr. PANIZZI added, ‘that he could not
but deeply regret the ill-consequences which must accrue by allowing old
deficiencies to continue, and new ones to accumulate.’ From the same
report may be gathered a precise view of the actual additions, from all
sources, during the quinquennium of 1846–1850. The increase in the
printed books, therefore, although it had not quite kept pace with Mr.
PANIZZI’S hopeful anticipations in 1852, had actually reached a larger
yearly average, during that last quinquennium, than was attained in the
like period from 1846 to 1850.

The report from which these figures are taken was made in furtherance of
the good and fruitful suggestion that a great Reading-Room should be
built within the inner quadrangle. Judging from the past, argued Mr.
PANIZZI, in June, 1852, ‘and supposing that for the next ten years from
seven thousand to seven thousand five hundred pounds will be spent in
the purchase of printed books, the increase ... would be at the average
of about twenty-seven thousand volumes a year, without taking into
consideration the chance of an extraordinary increase, owing to the
purchase or donation of any large collection. [Sidenote: See hereafter,
Chap. V.] It was owing to the splendid bequest of Mr. GRENVILLE that the
additions to the Collection in 1847 reached the enormous amount of more
than fifty-five thousand volumes. After the steady and regular addition
of about twenty-seven thousand volumes for ten years together, here
reckoned upon, the Collection of Printed Books in the British Museum
might defy comparison, and would approach, as near as seems practicable
in such matters, to a state of completeness. The increase for the ten
years next following might be fairly reduced to two thirds of the above
sum. [Sidenote: GROWTH OF THE PRINTED SECTION OF THE LIBRARY SINCE
1852.] At this rate, the collection of books, which has been more than
doubled during the last fifteen years, would be double of what it now is
in twenty years from the present time [1852].’ At the date of this
report the number of volumes was already upwards of four hundred and
seventy thousand. At the date at which I now write (January, 1870), the
number of volumes, as nearly as it can be calculated, has become one
million and six thousand. On the average, therefore, of the whole
period, the increase has been not less than thirty-one thousand five
hundred volumes in every year. The Collection was somewhat more than
doubled during the first fifteen years of Mr. PANIZZI’S Keepership.
During the next like term of years, when the department was partly under
the administration of Mr. PANIZZI, and partly under that of Mr. Winter
JONES, it was nearly doubled again. It follows that the anticipation
expressed in the _Report_ of 1852 has been much more than fulfilled.
Less than seventeen years of labour have achieved what was then expected
to be the work of twenty years.


If the other departments of the British Museum cannot show an equal
ratio of growth during the term now under review, it has not been from
lack of zeal, either in their heads or in the Trustees. Their progress,
too, was very great, although it is not capable of being so strikingly
and compendiously illustrated. It has also to be borne in mind that the
arrears, so to speak, of the Library, were relatively greater than those
of some other divisions of the Museum.

[Sidenote: PROGRESS OF THE NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS.]

At the commencement of Sir Henry ELLIS’S term of
Principal-Librarianship, the Natural-History Collections were partly
under the charge of Dr. LEACH, partly under that of Mr. Charles KÖNIG.
Both were officers of considerable scientific attainments. In the
instance of Dr. LEACH, certain peculiar eccentricities and crotchets
were mixed up in close union with undoubted learning and skill. In not a
few eminent naturalists a tendency to undervalue the achievements of
past days, and to exaggerate those of the day that is passing, has often
been noted. LEACH evinced this tendency in more ways than one. But a
favourite way of manifesting it led him many times into difficulties
with his neighbours. He despised the taxidermy of Sir Hans SLOANE’S age,
and made periodical bonfires of Sloanian specimens. These he was wont to
call his ‘cremations.’ In his time, the Gardens of the Museum were still
a favourite resort of the Bloomsburians, but the attraction of the
terraces and the fragrance of the shrubberies were sadly lessened when a
pungent odour of burning snakes was their accompaniment. The stronger
the complaints, however, the more apparent became Dr. LEACH’S attachment
to his favourite cremations.

[Sidenote: GEORGE MONTAGU; HIS LABOURS IN NATURAL HISTORY AND HIS
           ZOOLOGICAL MUSEUM.]

LEACH was the friend and correspondent of that eminent cultivator of the
classificatory sciences, Colonel George MONTAGU, of Lackham. Both of
them rank among the early members of the Linnæan Society, and it was
under LEACH’S editorship that MONTAGU’S latest contributions to the
Society’s _Transactions_ were published. [Sidenote: 1802–13.] MONTAGU’S
_Synopsis of British Birds_ marks an epoch in the annals of our local
ornithology, as does his treatise entitled _Testacea Britannica_ in
those of conchology. [Sidenote: 1803–9.] His contributions to the
National Collections were very liberal. But he did not care much for any
books save those that treated of natural history. In addition to a good
estate and a fine mansion, he had inherited from his brother a choice
old Library at Lackham, and a large cabinet of coins. These, I believe,
he turned to account as means of barter for books and specimens in his
favourite department of study. His love of the beauties of nature led
him to prefer an unpretending abode in Devon to his fine Wiltshire
house, and it was at Knowle that he died in August, 1815. His
Collections in Zoology were purchased by the Trustees, and were removed
from Knowle soon after his death. Scarcely any other purchase of like
value in the Natural-History Department was made for more than twenty
years afterwards. After the purchase of the Montagu Collection, the
growth of that department depended, as it had mainly depended before it,
on the acquisitions made for the Public by the several naturalists who
took part in the Voyages of Discovery or whose chance collections, made
in the course of ordinary duty, came to be at the disposal of the
British Admiralty.

Many of those naturalists were men of marked ability. Of necessity,
their explorations were attended with much curious adventure. To detail
their researches and vicissitudes would form—without much credit to the
writer—an interesting chapter, the materials of which are superabundant.
But, at present, it must needs be matter of hope, not of performance.


The distinctive progress of the Natural-History Collections, from
comparative and relative poverty, to a creditable place amongst rival
collections, connects itself pre-eminently with the labours of Dr. John
Edward GRAY, who will hereafter be remembered as the ablest keeper and
organizer those collections have hitherto had. Dr. GRAY is now (1870) in
the forty-sixth year of his public service at the British Museum, which
he entered as an Assistant, in 1824. He is widely known by his able
edition of GRIFFITHS’ _Animal Kingdom_, by his _Illustrations of Indian
Zoology_, by his account of the famous Derby Menagerie at Knowsley, and
by his _Manual of British Shells_; but his least ostensible publications
rank among the most conclusive proofs both of his ability and of his
zeal for the public service. Dr. GRAY has always advocated the
publication—to use Mr. CARLYLE’S words when under interrogatory by the
Museum Commissioners of 1848—of ‘all sorts of Catalogues.’ It is to him
that the Public owe the admirable helps to the study of natural history
which have been afforded by the long series of inventories, guides, and
nomenclators, the publication of which began, at his instance, in the
year 1844, and has been unceasingly pursued. A mere list of the various
printed synopses which have grown out of Dr. GRAY’S suggestion of 1844
would fill many such pages as that which the reader has now before him.
The consequence is, that in no department of the Museum can the student,
as yet, economise his time as he can economise it in the Natural-History
Department. _Printed_, not Manuscript, Catalogues mean time saved;
disappointment avoided; study fructified. No literary labour brings so
little of credit as does the work of the Catalogue-maker. None better
deserves the gratitude of scholars, as well as of the general mass of
visitors.


[Sidenote: STATE OF THE NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS OF THE MUSEUM IN
           1836.]

Dr. GRAY became Keeper of Zoology in 1840. Four years earlier, he had
given to Sir Benjamin HAWES’ Committee a striking account of the
condition of that department, illustrating it by comparisons with the
corresponding Collections in Paris, which may thus (not without
unavoidable injustice) be abridged:—The species of mammalia then in the
Museum were four hundred and five; the species of birds were two
thousand four hundred, illustrated by four thousand six hundred and
fifty-nine individual specimens. At that date, the latest accessible
data assigned to the Paris Collection about five hundred species of
mammals, and about two thousand three hundred species of birds,
illustrated by nearly six thousand specimens. The Museum series of birds
was almost equally rich in the orders, taken generally; but in
gallinaceous birds it was more than proportionately rich, a large number
of splendid examples having been received from India. In the birds of
Africa, of Brazil, and of Northern Europe, also, the Museum was already
exceptionally well-stored.

The special value of the Ornithological Collection undoubtedly showed
that it had been more elaborately cared for than had been some other
parts of natural history. But the extent and richness of the bird
gallery, even at this period, is not to be ascribed merely to a desire
to delight the eyes of a crowd of visitors. For scientific purposes, a
collection of birds must be more largely-planned and better filled than
a collection of mammals, or one of fish. In birds, the essential
characters of a considerable group of individual specimens may be
identical and their colours entirely different. [Sidenote: See _Minutes
of Evidence_, 1836, p. 238.] Besides the numerous diversities attendant
upon age and sex, the very date at which a bird is killed may produce
variations which have their interest for the scientific student.

The number of species of reptiles was in 1836 about six hundred,
illustrated by about one thousand three hundred specimens. This number
was much inferior to that of the Museum at Paris, but it exceeded by one
third the number of species in the Vienna Museum, [Sidenote: _Ibid._, p.
242 (Q. 2996–9).] and almost by one half the then number at Berlin.

The species of fish amounted to nearly a thousand, but this was hardly
the fourth of the great collection at Paris, although it probably
exceeded every other, or almost every other, Continental collection of
the same date. Of shells, the Museum number of species was four thousand
and twenty-five (exclusive of fossils), illustrated by about fifteen
thousand individuals. This number of species was at par with that of
Paris; much superior both to Berlin and to Leyden; but it was far from
representing positive—as distinguished from comparative—wealth. There
were already, in 1836, more than nine thousand known species of shells.

It was further shown in the evidence that, even under the arrangements
of 1836, the facilities of public access equalled those given at the
most liberal of the Continental Museums, and considerably exceeded those
which obtained at fully four-fifths of their number.

Among the many services rendered to the Museum by Dr. GRAY, one is of
too important a character to be passed over, even in a notice so brief
as this must needs be. [Sidenote: THE HARDWICKE BEQUEST OF ZOOLOGY.] The
large bequest in Zoology of Major-General HARDWICKE grew out of a
stipulation made by Dr. GRAY, when he undertook, at General HARDWICKE’S
request, the editorship of the _Illustrations of Indian Zoology_. A long
labour brought to the editor no pecuniary return, but it brought an
important collection to the British Public in the first instance, and
eventually a large augmentation of what had been originally given.


[Sidenote: GROWTH OF THE NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS OF THE MUSEUM.
           1836–49.]

In March, 1849, the course of inquiries pursued by Lord ELLESMERE’S
Commission led to a new review of the growth of the Natural-History
Collections, and more especially of the Zoology. It applied in
particular to the twelve or thirteen years which had then elapsed since
the prior inquiries of 1835–1836. The statement possesses much interest,
but it is occasionally deficient in that systematic and necessary
distinction between species and specimens which characterised the
evidence of 1836. In brief, however, it may be said, that in the eight
years extending between June, 1840, and June, 1848, twenty-nine thousand
five hundred and ninety-five _specimens_ of vertebrated animals were
added to the Museum galleries and storehouses. Of these, five thousand
seven hundred and ninety-seven were mammals; thirteen thousand four
hundred and fourteen were birds; four thousand one hundred and twelve
reptiles; and six thousand two hundred and seventy-two were fish. The
number of specimens of annulose animals added during the same period was
seventy-three thousand five hundred and sixty-three: and that of
mollusca and radiata, fifty-seven thousand six hundred and ten.

These large additions comprised extensive gatherings made by DYSON in
Venezuela, and in various parts of North America; by GARDINER and
CLAUSEN in Brazil; by GOSSE in Jamaica; by GOULD, GILBERT, and
STEPHENSON, in Australia and in New Zealand; by HARTWEG in Mexico; by
GOUDOT in Columbia; by VERREAUX and SMITH in South Africa; by FRAZER in
Tunis; and by BRIDGES in Chili and in some other parts of South America.

Of the splendid collections made by Mr. HODGSON in India, some more
detailed mention must be made hereafter.

[Sidenote: CHECK IN THE GROWTH OF NATURAL-HISTORY COLLECTIONS ON THE
           CONTINENT, 1845–1855.]

Meanwhile, on the Continent of Europe, political commotion had seriously
checked the due progress of scientific collections. Britain had been
making unwonted strides in the improvement of its Museum, at the very
time when most of the Continental States had allowed their fine Museums
to remain almost stationary. In mammals, birds, and shells, the British
Museum had placed itself in the first rank. Only in reptiles, fish, and
crustacea, could even Paris now claim superiority. Those classes had
there engaged for a long series of years the unremitting research and
labour of such naturalists as CUVIER, DUMERIL, VALENCIENNES, and
MILNE-EDWARDS; and their relative wealth of specimens it will be hard to
overtake. In insects, the Museum Collection vies with that of Paris in
point of extent, and excels it in point of arrangement.

Not less conspicuous had been the growth of the several Departments of
Antiquities. And this part of the story of the Museum teems with varied
interest. Within a period of less than thirty years, vast and
widely-distant cities, rich in works of art, have been literally
disinterred. In succession to the superb marbles of Athens, of
Phigaleia, and of Rome, some of the choicest sculptures and most curious
minor antiquities of Nineveh, of Calah, of Erech, of Ur-of-the-Chaldees,
of Babylon, of Xanthus, of Halicarnassus, of Cnidus, and of Carthage,
have come to London.

The growth of the subordinate Collections of Archæology has been
scarcely less remarkable. The series of ancient vases—to take but one
example—of which the research and liberality of Sir William HAMILTON
laid a good foundation almost a century ago, has come at length to
surpass its wealthiest compeers. Only a few years earlier, it ranked as
but the third, perhaps as but the fourth, among the great vase
collections of Europe. London, in that point of view, was below both
Naples and Paris, if not also below Munich. It now ranks above them all;
possessing two thousand six hundred vases, as against two thousand at
Paris, and two thousand one hundred at Naples.[32]

Another department, lying in part nearer home—that of British, Mediæval,
and Ethnological Antiquities—has been almost created by the labours of
the last twenty years. The ‘British’ Museum can no longer be said to be
a misnomer, as designating an establishment in which British Archæology
met with no elucidation.




                              CHAPTER III.
 INTRODUCTION TO BOOK III (_Continued_):—GROWTH, PROGRESS, AND INTERNAL
ECONOMY, OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM DURING THE PRINCIPAL-LIBRARIANSHIP OF SIR
                            ANTONIO PANIZZI.

  ‘Whatever be the judgment formed on [certain contested] points at
  issue, the Minutes of Evidence must be admitted to contain pregnant
  proofs of the acquirements and abilities, the manifestation of which
  in subordinate office led to Mr. Panizzi’s promotion to that which he
  now holds under circumstances which, in our opinion—formed on
  documentary evidence—did credit to the Principal Trustees of the
  day.’—REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO THE
  MANAGEMENT OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM (1850).

  ‘In consideration of the long and very valuable services of Mr.
  Panizzi, including not only his indefatigable labours as
  Principal-Librarian, but also the service which he rendered as
  architect of the new Reading-Room, the Trustees recommended that he
  should be allowed to retire on full salary after a discharge of his
  duties for thirty-four years.’

                      HANSARD’S _Parliamentary Debates_ (27 July, 1866).

  _The Museum Buildings.—The New Reading-Room and its History.—The House
      of Commons’ Committee of 1860:—Further Reorganization of the
      Departments—Summary of the Growth of the Collections in the years
      1856–1866, and of their increased Use and Enjoyment by the
      Public._


No question connected with the improvement of the British Museum has,
from time to time, more largely engrossed the attention, either of
Parliament or of the Public at large, than has the question of the
Buildings. On none have the divergences of opinion been greater, or the
expressions of dissatisfaction with the plans—or with the want of
plan—louder or more general.

Yet there is no doubt (amongst those, at least, who have had occasion to
examine the subject closely) that the architects of the new British
Museum—first Sir Robert SMIRKE, and then Mr. Sydney SMIRKE—have been
conspicuous for professional ability. Nor is there any doubt, anywhere,
that the Trustees of the Museum have bestowed diligent attention on the
plans submitted to them. They have been most anxious to discharge that
part of their duty to the Public with the same faithfulness which, on
the whole, has characterised their general fulfilment of the trust
committed to them. Why, it is natural to ask, has their success been so
unequal?

[Sidenote: CAUSES OF THE UNSATISFACTORINESS OF MANY PARTS OF THE NEW
           MUSEUM BUILDINGS.]

Without presuming upon the possession of competence to answer the
question with fulness, there is no undue confidence in offering a
partial reply. Part of their failure to satisfy the public expectations
has arisen from a laches in Parliament itself. At the critical time when
the character of the new buildings had practically to be decided,
parsimoniousness led, not only to construction piecemeal, but to the
piecemeal preparation of the designs themselves. Temporary makeshifts
took the place of foreseeing plans. And what may have sounded like
economy in 1830 has, in its necessary results, proved to be very much
like waste, long before 1870.

Had a comprehensive scheme of reconstruction been looked fully in the
face when, forty years ago, the new buildings began to be erected, three
fourths at most of the money which has been actually expended would have
sufficed for the erection of a Museum, far more satisfactory in its
architectural character, and affording at least one fourth more of
accommodation for the National Collections. The British Museum buildings
have afforded a salient instance of the truth of BURKE’S words: ‘Great
expense may be an essential part in true economy. Mere parsimony is
_not_ economy.’ But, in this instance, the fault is plainly in
Parliament, not in the Trustees of the establishment which has suffered.

The one happy exception to the general unsatisfactoriness of the new
buildings—as regards, not merely architectural beauty, but fitness of
plan, sufficiency of light, and adaptedness to purpose—is seen in the
new Reading-Room. [Sidenote: THE NEW READING-ROOM.] And the new
Reading-Room is, virtually, the production of an amateur architect. The
chief merits of its design belong, indubitably, to Sir Antonio PANIZZI.
The story of that part of the new building is worth the telling.

That some good result should be eventually derived from the large space
of ground within the inner quadrangle had been many times suggested. The
suggestion offered, in 1837, by Mr. Thomas WATTS was thus expressed in
his letter to the Editor of the _Mechanics Magazine_:—

[Sidenote: THE SUGGESTIONS FOR BUILDING ADDITIONAL LIBRARIES OF 1837 AND
           OF 1847.]

Mr. WATTS began by criticising, somewhat incisively, the architectural
skill which had constructed a vast quadrangle without providing it even
with the means of a free circulation of air. He pinned Sir Robert SMIRKE
on the horns of a dilemma. If, he argued, the architect looked to a
sanitary result, he had, in fact, provided a well of malaria. If he
contemplated a display of art, he had, by consenting to the abolition of
his northern portico, spoiled and destroyed all architectural effect.
‘The space,’ he proceeded to say, which has thus been wasted, ‘would
have afforded accommodation _for the whole Library_, much superior to
what is now proposed to afford it. A Reading-Room of ample dimensions
might have stood in the centre, and been surrounded, on all four sides,
with galleries for the books.’ Afterwards, when adverting to the great
expense which had been incurred upon the façades of the quadrangle, he
went on to say: ‘It might now seem barbarous to propose the filling up
of the square—as ought originally to have been done. [Sidenote:
_Mechanics’ Magazine_ (1837); vol. xxvi, pp. 295, seqq.] Perhaps the
best plan would be to design another range of building entirely [new?],
enclosing the present building on the eastern and northern sides as the
Elgin and other galleries do on the western. To do this, it would be
necessary to purchase and pull down one side of two streets,—Montagu
Street and Montagu Place.’ [Sidenote: _Ibid._]

[Sidenote: See Chap. ii of Book III, p. 566, and the accompanying
           fac-simile.]

As I have intimated already, this alternative project was unconsciously
reproduced, by the present writer, ten years later, without any idea
that it had been anticipated. But neither to the mind of the writer of
1837, nor to that of the writer of 1847, did the grand feature of
construction which, within another decade, has given to London a
splendid building as well as a most admirable Reading-Room, present
itself. The substantial merit, both of originally suggesting, and of (in
the main) eventually realising the actual building of 1857, belongs to
Antonio PANIZZI.

As to the claims on that score advanced by Mr. HOSKING, formerly
Professor of Architecture at King’s College, they apply to a plan wholly
different from the plan which was carried into execution.

Mr. HOSKING’S scheme was drawn up, for private circulation, in February,
1848 (thirteen months after the writing of my own pamphlet entitled
_Public Libraries in London and in Paris_, and more than six months
after its circulation in print), when it was first submitted to Lord
ELLESMERE’S Commission of Inquiry. It was first published (in _The
Builder_) in June, 1850. His object was to provide a grand central hall
for the Department of Antiquities.

When Mr. HOSKING called public attention to his design of 1848—in a
pamphlet entitled _Some Remarks upon the recent Addition of a
Reading-Room to the British Museum_—Mr. Sydney SMIRKE wrote to him
thus:—‘I recollect seeing your plans at a meeting of the Trustees, ...
shortly after you sent them [to Lord ELLESMERE]. 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 were so different.’[33]
[Sidenote: Sydney Smirke to William Hosking. (_Remarks_, &c.)] Whilst to
Mr. SMIRKE himself belongs the merit of practical execution, that of
design belongs no less unquestionably to PANIZZI.

Mr. PANIZZI himself preferred, at first, the plan of extending the
building on the eastern and northern sides. His suggestions had the
approval of the Commissioners of 1850. [Sidenote: THE NEW OR PANIZZI
READING-ROOM.] But the Government was slow to give power to the Trustees
to carry out the plan of their officer and the recommendation of the
Commissioners of Inquiry, by proposing the needful vote in a Committee
of Supply. Plan and Report alike lay dormant from the year 1850 to 1854.
It was then that, as a last resort, and as a measure of economy, by
avoiding all present necessity to buy more ground of the Duke of
BEDFORD, Mr. PANIZZI recommended the Trustees to build within the
quadrangle, and drew a sketch-plan, on which their architect reported
favourably. Sixty-one thousand pounds, by way of a first instalment, was
voted on the third of July, 1854. The present noble structure was
completed within three years from that day, and its total cost—including
the extensive series of book-galleries and rooms of various kinds,
subserving almost innumerable purposes—amounted in round numbers to a
hundred and fifty thousand pounds. It was thus only a little more than
the cost of the King’s Library, which accommodates eighty thousand
volumes of books and a Collection of Birds. The new Reading-Room and its
appendages can be made to accommodate, in addition to its three hundred
and more of readers, some million, or near it, of volumes, without
impediment to their fullest accessibility.

To describe by words a room which, in 1870, has become more or less
familiar, I suppose, to hundreds of thousands of Britons, and to a good
many thousands of foreigners, would now be superfluous. But it will not
be without advantage, perhaps, to show its character and appearance with
the simple brevity of woodcuts.

The following illustrative block-plan shows the general arrangement of
the Museum building at large, at the date of the erection of the new
Reading-Room.

[Sidenote: BLOCK-PLAN OF MUSEUM (1857), DISTINGUISHING THE LIBRARIES
           FROM THE GALLERIES OF ANTIQUITIES, &C.]

[Illustration:

  I. GENERAL BLOCK-PLAN OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM, AS IT WAS IN 1857.
]

The shaded part of the building itself shows the portions allotted to
the _Library_. The unshaded part is assigned, on the ground floor, to
the Department of _Antiquities_, and (speaking generally) on the floor
above—in common with the upper floors of the Library part—to the
Departments of _Natural History_. The ‘_Print Room_’ is shown on the
ground-plan between the Elgin Gallery and the north-western extremity of
the Department of Printed Books.

The next illustration shows, in detail, the ground-plan of the new
Reading-Room and of the adjacent book-galleries:—

[Illustration:

  II. GROUND-PLAN OF THE NEW OR ‘PANIZZI’ READING-ROOM, AND OF THE
    ADJACENT GALLERIES, 1857.
]

The general appearance of the interior of the Reading-Room may be shown
thus:—

[Illustration:

  III. INTERIOR VIEW OF THE NEW READING-ROOM, 1857.
]

Of course, the improvements thus effected did but solve a portion of the
difficulty felt, long before 1857, in accommodating the National
Collections upon any adequate scale, which should provide alike for
present claims and for future extension. This more effectual provision
became one of the most pressing questions with which both the Trustees
and their officers had now to deal. During the whole term of Sir A.
PANIZZI’S Principal-Librarianship this building question increased in
gravity and urgency, from year to year. Both the Trustees and the
Principal-Librarian were intent upon its solution. But the latter was
enforced, by failing health, to quit office, leaving the matter still
unsolved.

[Sidenote: PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY INTO PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT OF BRITISH
           MUSEUM IN 1860.]

Most of the little information on this part of the subject which, within
my present limits, it will be practicable for me to offer to the reader,
belongs, properly, to a subsequent chapter. But some brief notice must
be given here of the important inquiries, ‘how far, and in what way, it
may be desirable to find increased space for the extension and
arrangement of the various Collections of the British Museum, and the
best means of rendering them available for the promotion of Science and
Art,’ which were made, between the months of May and August of 1860, by
a Select Committee of the House of Commons.

The first question to be answered by the Committee of 1860 was this: Is
it expedient, or not, that the _Natural-History_ Collections should be
removed from Bloomsbury, to make room for the inevitable growth of the
Collections of _Antiquities_?

After an elaborate inquiry, spreading over three months, the Committee
reported thus:—‘The witnesses examined have, almost unanimously,
testified to the preference over the other Collections, with which the
Natural-History Collections are viewed by the ordinary and most numerous
frequenters of the Museum. This preference is easily accounted for; the
objects exhibited, especially the birds, from the beauty of their
plumage, are calculated to attract and amuse the spectators. [Sidenote:
THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 1860.] The eye has been
accustomed in many instances to the living specimens in the Zoological
Gardens, and cheap publications and prints have rendered their forms
more or less familiar. It is, indeed, easily intelligible that, while
for the full appreciation of works of archæological interest and
artistic excellence a special education must be necessary, the works of
Nature may be studied with interest and instruction by all persons of
ordinary intelligence. It appears, from evidence, that many of the
middle classes are in the habit of forming collections in various
branches of Natural History, and that many, even the working classes,
employ their holidays in the study of botany or geology, or in the
collection of insects obtained in the neighbourhood of London; that they
refer to the British Museum, in order to ascertain the proper
classification of the specimens thus obtained, and that want of leisure
alone restrains the further increase of this class of visitors. Your
Committee, in order to confirm their view of the peculiar popularity of
the Natural-History Collections, beg to refer to a return from the
Principal-Librarian, which shows the number of visitors in the several
public portions of the Museum, at the same hour of the day, during
fifteen open days, from the fifteenth of June to the eleventh of July,
1860. From this it appears that two thousand five hundred and
fifty-seven persons were in the Galleries of Antiquities at the given
hour, and one thousand and fifty-six in the King’s Library and MSS.
Rooms, while three thousand three hundred and seventy-eight were in the
Natural-History Galleries; showing an excess of two hundred and twenty
per cent. in the Natural-History Department over the King’s Library and
MSS. Rooms, and of thirty-three per cent. over the Galleries of
Antiquities, notwithstanding that the latter are of considerably greater
extent than the Galleries of Natural History. The evidence received by
your Committee induces the belief that the removal of these most popular
collections from their present central position to one less generally
accessible would excite much dissatisfaction, not merely among a large
portion of the inhabitants of the metropolis, but among the numerous
inhabitants of the country, who from time to time visit London by
railway, and to whom the proximity of the British Museum to most of the
railway termini, as compared with the distance of the localities to
which it has been proposed to transport such collections, is of great
practical importance. Similar evidence shows that the proposed removal
of those collections from the British Museum has excited grave and
general disapprobation in the scientific world. Your Committee cannot
here employ more forcible language than that made use of in a memorial
signed by one hundred and fourteen persons, including many eminent
promoters and cultivators of science in England, and presented to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1848. The following are their words:—“We
beg to add the expression of our opinion that the removal of the
Natural-History Collections from the site where they have been
established for upwards of a century, in the centre of London,
particularly if to any situation distant from that centre, would be
viewed by the mass of the inhabitants with extreme disfavour, it being a
well-known fact that by far the greater number of visitors to the Museum
consists of those who frequent the halls containing the Natural-History
Collections, while it is obvious that many of those persons who come
from the densely peopled districts of the eastern, northern, and
southern parts of London, would feel it very inconvenient to resort to
any distant locality.”’

[Sidenote: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMONS’ COMMITTEE OF 1860.]

After an elaborate examination into the nature and extent of those
enlargements which the present growth and probable increase of the
several Collections of Antiquities and of Natural History render
necessary, the Committee proceed thus:—

The ground immediately surrounding the Museum, says the reporter,
speaking of the adjacent streets to the east, west, and north,
‘comprises altogether about five and a half acres, valued by Mr. SMIRKE
at about two hundred and forty thousand pounds. As the proprietary
interest in all this ground belongs to a single owner, your Committee
are of opinion that it would be convenient, and possibly even a
profitable arrangement, for the State at once to purchase that interest,
and to receive the rents of the lessees in return for the capital
invested. The State would then have the power, whenever any further
extension of the Museum became necessary, to obtain possession of such
houses as might best suit the purpose in view.

‘Independently, however, of this larger suggestion, your Committee are
fully convinced, both from the uniform purport of the papers printed at
different times by the House of Commons, and from the statements of the
various witnesses whom they have now examined, that it is indispensable,
not merely to the appropriate exhibition of our unequalled National
Collections, but even to the avoidance of greater ultimate expense,
through alterations and re-arrangements, that sufficient space should be
immediately acquired in connexion with the British Museum, to meet the
requirements of the several departments which have been enumerated under
the last head, and that such space should throughout be adapted, by its
position, extent, and facilities of application, to the arrangement of
the collections on a comprehensive, and, therefore, probably permanent
system. They will now proceed to point out several sites, either on or
adjoining the present ground of the Museum, which seem to them to
present the greatest advantages for the accommodation of the respective
departments.’

[Sidenote: NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS.]

Although, the Committee proceed to say, the amount of space which, on
the foregoing estimate, would be requisite for the Natural-History
Collections is not so great as to involve the necessity of their removal
from the British Museum on that ground alone, your Committee,
nevertheless, attach so much weight to the arguments in favour of
preserving the various departments of the Museum from the risk of
collision with each other, that, should it be determined to provide new
space for Natural History in connexion with the Museum, they would make
it a primary object to isolate its collections, as far as possible, from
all others in the same locality. The chief part of the Natural-History
Collections is now on the upper floor, where they occupy, according to
the return of Mr. SMIRKE, in November, 1857, forty-eight thousand four
hundred and forty-two superficial feet. The remainder of that floor,
containing, exclusively of a small space not reckoned by Mr. SMIRKE,
twenty-one thousand five hundred and thirty-two feet, is occupied by
Antiquities. It appears to your Committee that if, by any adaptation of
ground to be acquired adjoining the Museum, adequate space should be
provided elsewhere for the Antiquities now on the upper floor, the most
expedient arrangement would be to appropriate the whole of that floor to
the Natural-History Collections. If this space proved insufficient for
all such collections, your Committee would then recommend that the newly
acquired portion should be applied exclusively to the Department of
Zoology; and that a sufficient portion of ground should be purchased on
the north side of the Museum as a site for galleries to provide for
Mineralogy, and thus also indirectly for Geology.

[Sidenote: PRINTS AND DRAWINGS.]

A convenient site for this department would, in the opinion of the
Committee, be provided by the suggested acquisition of additional ground
on the north side. A building might there be erected in continuation of
the present east wing of the Museum, to contain, on its upper floor, the
Mineralogical Collections, and on the lower the Prints and Drawings,
with adequate space both for their preservation and exhibition.

[Sidenote: ANTIQUITIES.]

In determining the site most suitable for the large additional
accommodation required for this department, the Committee thought it
most prudent that the Trustees of the Museum should be guided, partly by
the greater or less cost of purchasing the requisite amount of ground in
different directions, but chiefly by the greater or less fitness of the
different portions of ground for the best system of arrangement.


[Sidenote: INTERNAL ECONOMY:—REORGANIZATION AND SUBDIVISION OF
           DEPARTMENTS. 1856–66.]

In the same year in which Mr. PANIZZI became Principal-Librarian (1856),
one of the recommendations of Lord ELLESMERE’S Commission-Report of 1850
was carried into effect by the creation of the new office of
‘Superintendent of the Natural-History Departments.’ And the former
partial subdivision and reorganization of those departments was, in the
following year, carried further by the formation of a separate
Department of Mineralogy. In subsequent years, the old Department of
Antiquities was, like the Natural History, divided into four
departments, namely, (1) Greek and Roman Antiquities; (2) Oriental
Antiquities; (3) British and Mediæval Antiquities and Ethnography; (4)
Coins and Medals.

At present (1870), it may here be added, the entire Museum is divided
into twelve departments, comprising three several groups of four
sections to each. The Natural-History group being comprised of (1)
Zoology; (2) Palæontology; (3) Botany; (4) Mineralogy. The Literary
group comprising (1) Printed Books; (2) Manuscripts; (3) Prints and
Drawings; (4) Maps, Charts, Plans, and Topographical Drawings.
Experience has amply vindicated the wisdom of the principle of
subdivision. But it is probable that the principle has now been carried
as far as it can usefully work in practice.

Increased efficiency and rapidly growing collections brought with them
enlarged grants from Parliament. In the first year of Sir A. PANIZZI’S
Principal-Librarianship, the estimate put before the House of Commons
for the service of the year 1856–7 was sixty thousand pounds, as
compared with a grant for the service of the year immediately preceding
of fifty-six thousand one hundred and eighty pounds. In his last year of
office, the estimate for the service of the year 1866–67 amounted to one
hundred and two thousand seven hundred and forty-four pounds, against a
grant in the year preceding of ninety-eight thousand one hundred and
sixty-four pounds.

[Sidenote: STATISTICS OF PUBLIC ACCESS.]

There had also been, in that decade, a marked degree of increase—though
one of much fluctuation—in the number of visits, both to the General
Collections and, much more notably, to the Reading-Rooms and the
Galleries for Study. In 1856, the number of general visitors was three
hundred and sixty-one thousand seven hundred and fourteen; in 1866, it
was four hundred and eight thousand two hundred and seventy-nine. But in
the ‘Exhibition Year’ (1862), it had reached eight hundred and
ninety-five thousand and seventy-seven, which was itself little more
than one third of the exceptionally enormous number of visitors
recorded[34] in the year of the first of the great Industrial
Exhibitions (1851).

It was during Sir A. PANIZZI’S decade that the largest number of
visitors ever recorded to have entered the Museum within one day was
registered. This exceptional number occurred on the ‘Boxing Day’ of the
Londoners, 26th December, 1858, when more than forty-two thousand
visitors were admitted. Under the old system there had been a dread of
holiday crowds, and the largest number ever admitted on any one day,
prior to 1837, was between five thousand eight hundred and five thousand
nine hundred. That number had been looked upon as a marvel. On the
Easter Monday of 1837, twenty-three thousand nine hundred and
eighty-five were admitted. Neither then nor on the 1858 ‘Boxing Day’ was
any injury or disorderly conduct complained of.

The highest number of visits for study made to the Reading-Room, prior
to 1857, occurred in 1850, when the number was seventy-eight thousand
five hundred and thirty-three. The number in the year 1865 was one
hundred thousand two hundred and seventy-one, but in the interval it had
risen (1861) to one hundred and thirty thousand four hundred and ten.
For several years, between 1856 and 1866, the average number of visits
for study to the Galleries of Antiquities averaged about one thousand
nine hundred annually; those to the Print Room, about two thousand eight
hundred; those to the Coin and Medal Room, about one thousand nine
hundred.

The rapid growth of the Collection of Printed Books, more especially
between the years 1845–1865, which had, as we have seen, resulted from
the unremitting labours of Mr. PANIZZI, was well kept up, both under his
immediate successor, Mr. John Winter JONES, and (after Mr. JONES’
promotion to the Principal-Librarianship, towards the close of 1866) by
the next Keeper, Mr. WATTS. As is well known, the increase of the
Library is still more remarkable for the character of the additions
purchased than for their mere number. But recent years have afforded no
such instance of individual munificence in this department of the Museum
as that which will presently call for detailed notice when we record the
acquisition (in 1846) of the Grenville Library, nor could any such
instance, indeed, be reasonably looked for.

Sir Frederick MADDEN’S energetic researches and labours for the
improvement of the Collection of MSS. would well merit a fuller account
than it is here practicable to give of them. They have been
perseveringly and worthily continued by his successor, Mr. Edward
Augustus BOND, to whom students also owe the great and distinctive debt
of the commencement of an admirable “INDEX OF MATTERS” to the Collection
generally. No greater boon, in the way of Catalogues, was ever given
within the walls of the Museum, though, as yet, it is necessarily a
beginning only. The special labours of Dr. GRAY in that sphere, for the
Natural-History Collections, comprised the extended advantage of
printing and sale. Not less, I hope, will eventually be done for the
service of manuscript students. There is the desire to do it, and the
means must, sooner or later, follow.


The wonderful growth and development of the Collections of Antiquities
in recent years is the special subject of the next chapter. That growth
derives no small part of its permanent scientific interest and value
from the impressive way in which it illustrates the teachings of Holy
Scripture. _Some_ of the collections amassed in the British Museum have,
more than once, by dint of human vanity, been made to subserve a
laudation of the wonderful achievements of Man, rather than of the
power, wisdom, and goodness of God; but for the ebullitions of human
vanity there is extremely little room when a visitor stands beside the
sculptured memorials of that vast empire which ‘the cedars in the garden
of GOD could not hide,’ [Sidenote: Ezek. xxxi, 8 to 13. Comp. Habak. ii,
14.] which was ‘lifted up in the pride of its height,’ only to become a
marvel for desolation, so that upon its ruin ‘the fowls of the heaven
remain.’ When before our own eyes and ears the very stones cry out in
the wall, and the beams out of the timber answer them, the man vainest
of his science or of his philosophy must needs be led to ask himself:
‘What hath GOD wrought?’

Some very advanced men of science have become, of late, fond of
‘Sunday-evening Lectures’ _for the instruction of the working classes_.
That would be a tolerably impressive Sunday-evening Lecture which a
competent scholar could give in the Assyrian Gallery of the British
Museum.

Here, and now, the recent increase of the Department of Antiquities may
be wholly passed over. But to that part of the history of accessions
which bears upon the Natural-History Galleries some attention must needs
be given, by way of continuing our former brief epitome of the
improvements made between the years 1836 and 1850.


Of the state of the Department of Zoology, during the earlier part of
the decade now more immediately under review, a good and instructive
account was given in Professor OWEN’S Annual Report of 1861. Its most
material portions run thus:—

‘The proportion of the stuffed specimens of the class Mammalia,
exhibited in the glazed cases of the Southern Zoological Gallery and
Mammalian Saloon, is in good condition. [Sidenote: THE GROWTH OF THE
NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS. 1850–1861.] The stuffed specimens, which,
from their bulk, or from want of space in the cases, stand on the floor,
have suffered in a certain degree from exposure to the corrosive
smoke-dust of the metropolis, the effects of which cannot be wholly
prevented.’

The proportion, continues Mr. OWEN, of the Collection of Mammalia
consisting of skins preserved in boxes, the Osteological specimens,
including the horns and antlers, and the specimens kept in spirit, are
all in a good state of preservation. The unstuffed, Osteological and
bottled specimens are unexhibited and restricted in use, as at present
located, to scientific investigation and comparison; but it is with
difficulty that the special visitor for such purposes can now avail
himself of these materials, owing to their crowded accumulation in the
Basement Rooms in which they are stored.

‘The exhibited Collection of Birds is in a good state of preservation,
is conveniently arranged for public inspection, and is usefully and
instructively named and labelled. The interest manifested by visitors,
and the satisfaction generally expressed in regard to this gallery,
indicate the amount of public instruction and gratification which would
result from a corresponding serial arrangement and exposition of the
other classes of the animal kingdom.

‘The stuffed and exhibited selections from the classes of Reptilia and
Fishes, are in a very good state of preservation; they suffer less from
the requisite processes of cleaning than the classes covered by hair,
fur, or feathers.

‘Of these cold-blooded Vertebrates the proportion preserved in spirits
is much greater than in Mammals and Birds, and, consequently, through
the present allotment of space, the majority of the singular specific
forms of Reptiles and Fishes are excluded from public view. Upwards of
two thousand specimens in spirits of these classes have been added in
the past year to the previously crowded shelves of the basement
store-rooms, where access to any individual specimen is a matter of some
difficulty, if not hazard. Of the above additions, fourteen hundred and
fifty-six have accrued from the donation of the Secretary of State for
India in Council. The interest and novelty of the specimens have
constrained their acceptance, and the same reason has led to the
acquisition of many additions from other sources.

‘Amongst them deserve to be specified two specimens of that singular
snake, the _Herpeton tentaculatum_, known for a century past only by a
single discoloured example in the Paris Museum; those now in the stores
of the British Museum were acquired from Siam, and have served to enrich
Zoology with a complete knowledge of the species, through the
descriptions and figures by Dr. GÜNTHER.

‘The following may be also specified, namely, the burrowing Snake from
South Africa, _Uriechis microlepidotus_; a new genus of tree-snake,
_Herpetoreas_; a new genus, _Barycephalus_, of Saurian, from an altitude
in the Himalayas of fifteen thousand feet above the level of the sea;
also two new species of freshwater Tortoise, the _Emys Livingstonii_,
dedicated to its discoverer in Africa, and the _Emys Siamensis_. Among
the additions to the class of Fishes has been acquired a new genus,
_Hypsiptera_, of the Scomberoid family; with several new species,
including one, _Centrolophus Britannicus_, belonging to this country.

‘The specimens of the Molluscous classes showing the entire animal,
preserved in spirits, and stored in the basement room, are in good
condition. The entire class of _Tunicata_ is so preserved; also the
families or genera devoid of, or with rudimental, shells, in the other
Molluscous classes. A small proportion of such “naked” Mollusca, and the
soft parts of a few of the testaceous kinds, are represented by coloured
wax models in the exhibited series of shells arranged in the Bird
Gallery.

‘The whole of the exhibited collection is in an excellent state of
preservation. The system or scale on which the genera, species, and
local varieties of shells are exhibited, with their names and
localities, gives to the ordinary visitor a power of comparing his own
specimens, and, in most instances, of determining them, without the
necessity of special application to the keeper or assistant in the
department. The extent to which students and others avail themselves of
this facility of comparison, and the value attached to it, show that the
above principle and scale of exhibition of specimens are proper to be
adopted in a National Museum for public use.’

In the year following the presentation of this Report, Professor OWEN
made a more elaborate review, both of the condition and of the needs of
the Zoological Department, from which I gather broadly, and by
abridgement, the following striking results:—

The number of _species_ of Mammals possessed by the British Museum was a
little over two thousand, exemplified by about three thousand individual
specimens. In the year 1830, the number of _specimens_ had been about
one thousand three hundred and fifty; in 1850, it had risen to nearly
two thousand. It follows that, within thirty-two years, the number of
specimens in the Museum Collection had been somewhat more than doubled.
But still the number of _species_ adequately illustrated was only about
two thousand against three thousand five hundred species of Mammals
which are known, named, and have been more or less adequately described,
by zoologists.

Of Birds, about two thousand five hundred species were, in 1862,
exhibited in the galleries of the British Museum, and in its store-rooms
there were the skins of about four thousand two hundred species. The
number of species already known and described, in 1862, was not less
than eight thousand three hundred. And, it is hardly necessary to add,
vast explorations have since been undertaken, in the years which have
elapsed, or are now about to be undertaken in Africa, in Madagascar, in
Borneo, in New Guinea, and in many parts of Australia.

Of Fishes, the Museum contained, in 1862, about four thousand species.
These were then represented, by way of public exhibition, irrespectively
of the unexhibited stores, by about one thousand five hundred stuffed
specimens, illustrating about one thousand species. The total number of
recorded species, already at that date, amounted to more than eight
thousand.

Of Reptiles, little more than two hundred and fifty species were
publicly shown in the Museum Galleries, but its collections, unexhibited
for want of space, were already much larger. The number of known species
of _Reptilia_, in 1862, exceeded two thousand.

Coming to the Invertebrata, it appears that, in 1862, about ten thousand
species of molluscs, illustrated by about one hundred thousand specimen
shells, were publicly exhibited. [Sidenote: See, hereinafter, Chap. VI.]
This, it will be remembered, was anterior to the great accession of the
CUMING Collection, which already, in 1862, contained more than sixteen
thousand _species_—and is the finest and most complete series ever
brought together.

About forty-five thousand specimens of molluscs were, in 1862, stored in
the drawers of the galleries and other rooms, or in the vaults beneath.
These, on a rough computation, may have illustrated about four thousand
five hundred species.

Within the _two years only_, 1860–1862, the registered number of
specimens of Fossils was increased from one hundred and twenty thousand
to one hundred and fifty-three thousand, but of these it was found
possible to exhibit to the Public little more than fifty thousand
specimens.


[Sidenote: GROWTH OF THE MINERALOGICAL COLLECTIONS. 1858–1862.]

Coming to the Department of Mineralogy, we find that the registered
specimens had increased, within about four years, from fifteen thousand
to twenty-five thousand. This increase was mainly due to the acquisition
of the noble ALLAN-GREG Cabinet formed at Manchester. But large as this
increase is, the national importance of the Mineralogical Collections is
very far from being adequately represented by the existing state of the
Museum series, even after all the subsequent additions made between the
years 1862–1870. [Sidenote: Owen, _Report_, as above (1862).] A Museum
of Mineralogy worthy of England must eventually include five several and
independent collections. There must be (1) a Classificatory Collection,
for general purposes; (2) a Geometrical Collection, to show the
crystalline forms; (3) an Elementary Collection, to show the degrees of
lustre and the varieties of cleavage and of colour; (4) a Technological
Collection, to show the economic application of minerals—the importance
of which, to a commercial, manufacturing, and artistic country, can
hardly be exaggerated. Last of all, there is needed a special collection
of an ancillary kind; that, I mean, which has been called sometimes a
‘teratological’ collection, [Sidenote: (Ibid.)] sometimes a
‘pseudomorphic’ collection. Call it as you will, its object is
important. Such a series serves to show both the defective and the
excessive forms of minerals, and their transitional capacities. These
five several collections are, it will be seen, over and above that other
special Collection of Sky-stones or ‘Meteorites,’ which is already very
nobly represented in our National Museum.




                              CHAPTER IV.
ANOTHER GROUP OF ARCHÆOLOGISTS AND EXPLORERS.—THE SPOILS OF XANTHUS, OF
        BABYLON, OF NINEVEH, OF HALICARNASSUS, AND OF CARTHAGE.

  ‘She doted upon the Assyrians her neighbours, ... when she saw men
  pourtrayed upon the wall,—the images of the Chaldeans pourtrayed with
  vermilion, girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed
  attire upon their heads; all of them princes to look to, after the
  manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea.’

                                                   EZEKIEL xxiii, 12–15.

            ‘I do love these ancient ruins;
          We cannot tread upon them, but we set
          Our foot upon some reverend history.

                 ·       ·       ·       ·       ·

                            But all things have their end,
          Castles and cities (which have diseases like to men)
          Must have like death which we have.’
                              WEBSTER, _The Duchess of Malfi_.

  _The Libraries of the East.—The Monasteries of the Nitrian Desert, and
      their Explorers.—William_ CURETON _and his Labours on the MSS. of
      Nitria, and in other Departments of Oriental Literature.—The
      Researches in the Levant of Sir Charles_ FELLOWS, _of Mr._ LAYARD,
      _and of Mr. Charles_ NEWTON.—_Other conspicuous Augmentors of the
      Collection of Antiquities._


We have now to turn to that vast field of research and exploration, from
which the national Museum of Antiquities has derived an augmentation
that has sufficed to double, within twenty-five years, its previous
scientific and literary value to the Public. In this chapter we have to
tell of not a little romantic adventure; of remote and perilous
explorations and excavations; sometimes, of sharp conflicts between
English pertinacity and Oriental cunning; often, of great endurance of
hardship and privation in the endeavour at once to promote learning—the
world over—and to add some new and not unworthy entries on the long roll
of British achievement.

Two distinct groups of explorers have now to be recorded. The labours of
both groups carry us to the Levant. [Sidenote: THE LIBRARIES OF THE
EAST.] What has been done of late years by the searchers after
manuscripts, in their effort to recover some of the lost treasures of
the old Libraries of the East, will be most fairly appreciated by the
reader, if, before telling of the researches and the studies of CURZON,
TATTAM, CURETON, and their fellow-workers in Eastern manuscript
archæology, some brief prefatory notice be given of the earlier labours,
in the same field, of HUNTINGTON, BROWNE, and other travellers in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Mention must also be made of the
explorations of SONNINI and of ANDRÉOSSI.


[Sidenote: THE RESEARCHES OF ROBERT HUNTINGTON IN THE NITRIAN
           MONASTERIES;]

About the year 1680, Robert HUNTINGTON, afterwards Bishop of Raphoe,
visited the Monasteries of the Nitrian Desert, and made special and
eager research for the Syriac version of the _Epistles of St. Ignatius_,
of the existence of which there had been wide-spread belief amongst the
learned, since the time of Archbishop USSHER. But his quest was
fruitless, although, as it is now well known, a Syriac version of some
of those epistles did really exist in one of the monasteries which
HUNTINGTON visited. The monks, then as afterwards, were chary of showing
their MSS., very small as was the care they took of them. The only
manuscripts mentioned by HUNTINGTON, in recording his visits to three of
the principal communities—St. Mary Deipara, St. Macarius, and El
Baramous—are an _Old Testament_ in the Estrangelo character; two volumes
of Chrysostom in Coptic and Arabic; a Coptic Lectionary in four volumes;
and a _New Testament_ in Coptic and Arabic.

Towards the close of the following century, these monasteries received
the successive visits of SONNINI, of William George BROWNE, and of
General Count ANDRÉOSSI. [Sidenote: AND THOSE OF SONNINI, BROWNE, AND
OTHERS.] SONNINI says nothing of books. BROWNE saw but few—among them an
Arabo-Coptic _Lexicon_, the works of St. Gregory, and the _Old_ and _New
Testaments_ in Arabic—although he was told by the superior that they had
nearly eight hundred volumes, with none of which they would part.
[Sidenote: Browne, _Travels in Africa_, &c., p. 43.] General ANDRÉOSSI,
on the other hand, speaks slightingly of the books as merely ‘ascetic
works, ... some in Arabic, and some in Coptic, with an Arabic
translation in the margin;’ [Sidenote: Huntington, _Observations_ (repr.
in Ray’s Coll.).] but adds, ‘We brought away some of the latter class,
which appear to have a date of six centuries.’ This was in 1799.
[Sidenote: Andréossi, _Vallées des Lac de Nation_, pass.] BROWNE died in
1814; SONNINI DE MANONCOURT, in 1812; Count ANDRÉOSSI survived until
1828.

In the year 1827, the late Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND (then Lord PRUDHOE)
made more elaborate researches. His immediate object was a philological
one, his Lordship desiring to further Mr. TATTAM’S labours on a Coptic
and Arabic Dictionary. [Sidenote: Lord Prudhoe’s _Narrative_, &c., as
abridged in _Quarterly Review_, vol. lxxvii, pp. 45, seq.] Hearing that
‘Libraries were said to be preserved, both at the Baramous and Syrian
convents,’ he proceeded to El Baramous, accompanied by Mr. LINART, and
encamped outside the walls. ‘The monks in this convent,’ says the Duke,
‘about twelve in number, appeared poor and ignorant. They looked on us
with great jealousy, and denied having any books, except those in the
church, which they showed us.’ But having been judiciously mollified by
some little seductive present, on the next day, ‘in a moment of good
humour, they agreed to show us their Library. From it I selected a
certain number of Manuscripts, which, with the _Lexicon_ (_Selim_)
already mentioned, were carried into the monk’s room. A long
deliberation ensued, ... as to my offer to purchase them. Only one could
write, and at last it was agreed that he should copy the _Selim_, which
copy and the MSS. I had collected were to be mine, in exchange for a
fixed sum of dollars, to which I added a present of rice, coffee,
tobacco, and such other articles as I had to offer.’ After narrating the
acquisition of a few other MSS. at the Syrian convent, or Convent of St.
Mary Deipara, his Lordship proceeds:—‘These manuscripts I presented to
Mr. TATTAM, and gave him some account of the small room with its
trap-door, through which I descended, candle in hand, to examine the
manuscripts, where books, and parts of books, and scattered leaves, in
Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac, and Arabic, were lying in a mass, on which I
stood.... In appearance, it seemed as if, on some sudden emergency, the
whole Library had been thrown down this trap-door, and they had remained
undisturbed, in their dust and neglect, for some centuries.’

[Sidenote: THE RESEARCHES IN THE LEVANTINE MONASTERIES OF MR. CURZON.]

Ten years later, Mr. TATTAM himself continued these researches. But in
the interval they had been taken up by the energetic and accomplished
traveller Mr. Robert CURZON, to whose charming _Visits to the
Monasteries of the Levant_ it is mainly owing that a curious aspect of
monastic life, which theretofore had only interested a few scholars, has
become familiar to thousands of readers of all classes.

Mr. CURZON’S researches were much more thorough than those of any of his
predecessors. He was felicitous in his endeavours to win the good graces
of the monks, and seems often to have made his visits as pleasant to his
hosts as afterwards to his readers. But, how attractive soever, only one
of them has to be noticed in connexion with our present topic—that,
namely, to the Convent of the Syrians mentioned already. ‘I found,’ says
Mr. CURZON, ‘several Coptic MSS. lying on the floor, but some were
placed in niches in the stone wall. They were all on paper, except three
or four; one of them was a superb MS. of the Gospels, with a commentary
by one of the early fathers. Two others were doing duty as coverings to
large open pots or jars, which had contained preserves, long since
evaporated. On the floor I found a fine Coptic and Arabic Dictionary,
with which they refused to part.’ After a most graphic account of a
conversation with the Father Abbot—the talk being enlivened with many
cups of rosoglio—he proceeds to recount his visit to a ‘small closet,
vaulted with stone, which was filled to the depth of two feet or more
with loose leaves of Syriac MSS., which now form one of the chief
treasures of the British Museum.’ The collection thus ‘preserved’ was
that of the Coptic monks; the same monastery contained another which was
that of the Abyssinian monks. ‘The disposition of the manuscripts in the
Library,’ continues Mr. CURZON, ‘was very original.... The room was
about twenty-six feet long, twenty feet wide, and twelve feet high; the
roof was formed of the trunks of palm-trees. A wooden shelf was carried,
in the Egyptian style, around the walls, at the height of the top of the
door, ... underneath the shelf various long wooden pegs projected from
the wall, ... on which hung the Abyssinian MSS., of which this curious
Library was entirely composed. The books of Abyssinia are bound in the
usual way—sometimes in red leather, and sometimes in wooden boards, ...
they are then enclosed in a case, ... to which is attached a strap, ...
and by these straps the books are hung on the wooden pegs, three or four
on a peg, or more, if the books were small; their usual size was that of
a small, very thick quarto.... Almost all Abyssinian books are written
upon skins.... They have no cursive writing; each letter is therefore
painted, as it were, with the reed-pen.... Some manuscripts are adorned
with the quaintest and grimmest illustrations conceivable, ... and some
are worthy of being compared with the best specimens of caligraphy in
any language.’ Then follows an amusing account of the ‘higgling of the
monks,’ after a truly Abyssinian fashion, ending in the acquisition of
books, of the whole of which the travellers could not, by any packing or
stuffing, make their bags containable. ‘In this dreadful dilemma, ...
seeing that the quarto was the most imperfect, I abandoned it; and I
have now reason to believe, on seeing the manuscripts of the British
Museum, that this was the famous book, with the date of _A.D._ 411, the
most precious acquisition to any Library that has been made in modern
times, with the exception, as I conceive, of some in my own
Collection.... [Sidenote: Curzon, _Visits_, &c., as above.] This book,
which contains some lost works of Eusebius, has ... fallen into better
hands than mine.’

In the following year (1838), the Rev. Henry TATTAM (afterwards
Archdeacon of Bedford), in furtherance of the purpose which had
previously enlisted Lord PRUDHOE’S co-operation, set out upon his
expedition into Egypt. He arrived at Cairo in October, and in November
proceeded up the Nile as far as Esneh, visiting many monasteries, and
inspecting their Libraries, in most of which he only met with liturgies
and service-books. Sanobon was an exception, for there he found
eighty-two Coptic MSS., some of them very fine.

Continuing the narrative, we find that on the 12th of January they
started across the desert for the valley of the Natron Lakes, and
pitched their tent at a short distance from the Monastery of Macarius.
[Sidenote: Miss PLATT’S Journal (unpublished, but abridged in the
_Quarterly Review_, as above).] The monks told them that of these
convents there had once been, on the mountain and in the valley of
Nitria, no less than three hundred and sixty. Of fifty or thereabouts
the ruins, it is said, may still be seen. [Sidenote: RESEARCHES OF
ARCHDEACON TATTAM.] At the Convent of the Syrians, the Archdeacon was
received with much civility, not, however, unaccompanied by a sort of
cautious circumspection. After a look at the church, followed by the
indispensable pipes and coffee, the monks asked the cause to which they
were indebted for the honour of his visit. He told them discreetly that
it was his wish to see their books. ‘They replied that they had no more
than what he had seen in the church; upon which he told them plainly
that he knew they had.’ A conference ensued, and, on the next day, they
conducted him to the tower, and then into a dark vault, where he found a
great quantity of very old and valuable Syriac MSS. He selected six
quarto volumes, and took them to the superior’s room. He was next shown
a room in the tower, where he found a number of Coptic and Arabic MSS.,
principally liturgies, with a beautiful copy of the _Gospels_. He then
asked to see the rest. The monks looked surprised to find he knew of
others, and seemed at first disposed to deny that they had any more, but
at length produced the key of the apartment where the other books were
kept, and admitted him. After looking them over, he went to the
superior’s room, where all the priests were assembled, fifteen or
sixteen in number; one of them brought a Coptic and Arabic _Selim_, or
_Lexicon_, which Mr. TATTAM wished to purchase; they informed him they
could not part with it, ... but consented to make him a copy. He paid
for two of the Syriac MSS. he had placed in the superior’s room, for the
priests could not be persuaded to part with more.... The superior would
have sold the Dictionary, but was afraid, because the Patriarch had
written in it a curse upon any one who should take it away.’ [It was the
same volume which had been vainly coveted by Mr. CURZON, as well as by
several preceding travellers, and of which he tells us he ‘put it in one
of the niches of the wall, where it remained about two years, when it
was purchased and brought away for me by a gentleman at Cairo.’] ‘In the
Convent of El Baramous,’ continues Miss PLATT, ‘Mr. TATTAM found about
one hundred and fifty Coptic and Arabic liturgies, and a very large
Dictionary in both languages. In the tower is an apartment, with a
trap-door in the floor, opening into a dark hole, full of loose leaves
of Arabic and Coptic manuscripts.’ At the Monastery of Amba-Bichoi, Mr.
TATTAM saw a lofty vaulted room, so strewn with loose manuscripts as
scarcely to afford a glimpse of the floor on which they lay, ‘in some
places a quarter of a yard deep.’ At Macarius Convent a similar sight
presented itself, but of these Mr. TATTAM was permitted to carry off
about a hundred.

As the reader may well imagine, the charms of the Syriac MSS. had made
too deep an impression on Mr. TATTAM’S heart to admit of an easy
parting. Many were the longing, lingering looks, mentally directed
towards them. Almost at the moment of setting out on his return to
Cairo, he added four choice books to his previous spoils. In February,
he resolved to revisit the convents, and once more to ply his most
persuasive arguments. He was manfully seconded by his Egyptian servant,
MAHOMMED, whose favourite methods of negotiation much resembled those of
Mr. CURZON. ‘The Archdeacon soon returned,’ says Miss PLATT, ‘followed
by MAHOMMED and one of the Bedouins, bearing a large sack full of
splendid Syriac MSS. on vellum. They were safely deposited in the tent.’
At Amba-Bischoi a successful bargain was struck for an old _Pentateuch_
in Coptic and Arabic, and a beautiful Coptic _Evangeliary_. [Sidenote:
Platt’s Journal; abridged, as above.] On the next day, ‘Mahommed brought
from the priests a Soriana, a stupendous volume, beautifully written in
the Syriac characters, with a very old worm-eaten copy of the
_Pentateuch_ from Amba-Bischoi, exceedingly valuable, but not quite
perfect.’ The remainder of the story, or rather the greater part of what
remains, must here be more concisely told than in the words of the
reviewer.

The manuscripts which Mr. TATTAM has thus obtained, in due time arrived
in England. Such of them as were in the Syriac language were disposed of
to the Trustees of the British Museum.... Forty-nine manuscripts of
extreme antiquity, containing some valuable works long since supposed to
have perished, and versions of others written several centuries earlier
than any copies of the original texts now known to exist, constituted
such an addition as has been rarely, if ever, made at one time to any
Library. The collection of Syriac MSS. procured by Mr. RICH had already
made the Library of the British Museum conspicuous for this class of
literature; but the treasure of manuscripts from Egypt rendered it
superior to any in Europe.

From the accounts which Lord PRUDHOE, Mr. CURZON, and Mr. TATTAM had
given of their visits to the Monastery of the Syrians, it was evident
that but few of the manuscripts belonging to it had been removed since
the time of ASSEMANI; and probable that no less a number than nearly two
hundred volumes must be still remaining in the hands of the monks.
Moreover, from several notes in the manuscripts ... already brought to
England, it was certain that most of them must be of very considerable
antiquity.... In several of these notices, MOSES of Tecrit states that,
in the year 932, he brought into the convent from Mesopotamia about two
hundred and fifty volumes. As there was no evidence whatever to show
that even so many as one hundred of these MSS. had ever been taken away
(for those which were procured for the Papal Library by the two
ASSEMANI, added to those which Mr. CURZON and Mr. TATTAM had brought to
England, do not amount to that number), there was sufficient ground for
supposing that the Convent of the Syrians still possessed not fewer than
about one hundred and fifty volumes, which, at the latest, must have
been written before the tenth century. Application, accordingly, was
made by the Trustees to the Treasury; a sum was granted to enable them
to send again into Egypt, and Mr. TATTAM readily undertook the
commission. [Sidenote: TREASURY GRANT, IN 1841, FOR FURTHER RESEARCHES.]
The time was most opportune. Had much more delay been interposed, these
manuscripts, which, perhaps, constitute the greatest accession of
valuable literature which has been brought from the East into Europe
since the taking of Constantinople, [Sidenote: _Quart. Review_, as
before.] would, in all probability, have been now the pride of the
Imperial Library at Paris.

[Sidenote: MR. TATTAM’S EXPEDITION TO NITRIA IN 1842.]

Mr. TATTAM thought he could work most effectively through the influence
of a neighbouring Sheikh with the superior of the convent. By which
means he obtained, after some delays, a promise that all the Syriac MSS.
should be taken to the Sheikh’s house, and there bargained for. ‘My
servant,’ he says, ‘had taken ten men and eight donkeys from the
village; had conveyed them, and already bargained for them, which
bargain I confirmed. That night we carried our boxes, paper, and string,
and packed them all.... Before ten in the morning they were on their way
to Alexandria.’ But, as will be seen in the sequel, the monks were too
crafty for Mr. TATTAM to cope with.

[Sidenote: TISCHENDORF’S VISIT IN 1844.]

In 1844, TISCHENDORF visited the monasteries already explored by CURZON
and TATTAM. His account reproduces the old characteristics:—‘Manuscripts
heaped indiscriminately together, lying on the ground, or thrown into
large baskets, beneath masses of dust.... The excessive suspicion of
these monks renders it extremely difficult to induce them to produce
their MSS., in spite of the extreme penury which surrounds them.... But
much might yet be found to reward the labour of the searcher.’

In truth, the monks, poor and simple as they sometimes seemed to be, had
taken very sufficient care to keep enough of literary treasures in their
hands to reward ‘further researches.’ Nearly half of their collection
seems to have been withheld.

[Sidenote: PACHO’S NEGOTIATION FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE MSS. WITHHELD BY
           THE MONKS OF ST. MARY DEIPARA.]

A certain clever Mr. PACHO now entered on the scene as a negotiator for
the obtainment or recovery of the missing ‘treasures of the tombs.’ They
had been virtually purchased before, but the Lords of the Treasury very
wisely re-opened the public purse, and at length secured for the Nation
an inestimable possession. The new accession completed, or went far
towards completing, many MSS. which before were tantalizingly imperfect.
[Sidenote: See page 622, in this Chapter.] It supplied a second ancient
copy of the famous Ignatian _Epistles_ (_to St. Polycarp_, _to the
Ephesians_, and _to the Romans_); many fragments of palimpsest
manuscripts of great antiquity, and among them the greater part of St.
Luke’s _Gospel_ in Greek; and about four thousand lines of the _Iliad_,
written in a fine square uncial letter, apparently not later than the
sixth century. The total number of volumes thus added to the previous
Nitrian Collections were calculated, roundly, to be from a hundred and
forty to a hundred and fifty.


That the rich accession to our sacred literature, thus made amidst many
obstacles, should be turned speedily to public advantage, two conditions
had to be fulfilled. [Sidenote: WILLIAM CURETON AND HIS LABOURS IN
ORIENTAL LITERATURE.] Skilful labour had first to be employed in the
arrangement of a mass of fragments. Scholars competently prepared, by
previous studies in Oriental literature and more especially in Syriac,
must then get to work on their transcription, their gloss, and their
publication. It could scarcely have been expected, beforehand, that any
one man would be able to undertake both tasks, and to keep them, for
some years to come, well abreast. The fact, however, proved to be so.
The right man was already in the right place for the work that was to be
done.

The late William CURETON had entered the service of the Trustees of the
British Museum in 1837, at the age of twenty-nine, when he had been
already for about eight years in holy orders. He was a native of
Westbury, in Shropshire. His education, begun at Newport School, had
been matured at Christ Church, Oxford. He had been just about to enter
himself at Christ Church in the ordinary way, when his father died,
suddenly, leaving the family fortunes under considerable embarrassment.
CURETON, and a brother of his, showed the metal they were both made of,
by instantly changing their youthful plans. That the whole of the
diminished patrimony might be at their mother’s sole disposal, William
CURETON went to Oxford as a servitor. His brother, instead of waiting
for his expected commission in the Army, enlisted as a private dragoon.
And certainly, in the issue, neither of these young men lost any
‘dignity’—in any sense of that word—on account of the step so
unselfishly taken at their start in life.

William CURETON began his literary labours as a
Coadjutor-Under-Librarian in old Bodley. Dr. GAISFORD introduced him to
Dr. BANDINEL, in 1834, with the words:—‘I bring you a good son. He will
make a good librarian.’ It was at Oxford that he laid the substantial
foundation of his Oriental studies. After three years, he followed the
fashion already set him by some of the best and ablest officers the
Bodleian has ever had—ELLIS, BABER, and H. O. COXE, for example—by
transferring, for a time, his services from the great Library of Oxford
to that of London. [Sidenote: CURETON’S ENTRANCE INTO THE BRITISH
MUSEUM.] His first (or nearly his first) Museum task was to set to work
on the cataloguing of the Arabic and Persian MSS. In 1842, he began his
earliest Oriental publication (undertaken for the ‘Oriental Text
Society,’ to be mentioned presently), namely, AL SHARASTANI’S ‘_Book of
Religious and of Philosophical Sects_.’

At the British Museum, he became quite as notable for the amiability of
his character, and the genial frankness of his manners, as for his
scholarly attainments and his power of authorship. I have a vivid
recollection of my own introduction to him, in the February of 1839, and
of the impression made on me by his kindly and cordial greeting. When I
noted that pleasant face, which beamed with good nature as well as with
intellect, I instantly appreciated the force of the words used by my
introducer: ‘Let me make you known,’ said he, ‘to my father-confessor.’
I thought the choice to be obviously a felicitous one. Not less vivid is
my memory of the delight Mr. CURETON manifested on receiving, within the
Museum _vaults_, the first importation from the Nitrian Desert. The
sight of such a mass of torn, disorderly, and dirty fragments, would
have appalled many men not commonly afraid of labour, but to William
CURETON the scholarly ardour of discovery made the task, from the first,
a pleasure. When successive fresh arrivals gave new hope that many gaps
in the manuscripts of earliest importation would, in course of time, be
filled up, the laborious pleasure ripened into joy.

The collection, obtained by the long succession of labours already
narrated, reached the British Museum on the first of May, 1843. When the
cases were opened, very few indeed of the MSS. were perfect. [Sidenote:
FRAGMENTARY CONDITION OF THE SYRIAC MSS. IMPORTED IN 1843.] Nearly two
hundred volumes had been torn into separate leaves, and then mixed up
together, by blind chance and human stupidity. It was a perplexing
sight. But the eyes that looked on it belonged to a seeing head. Even
into a little chaos like this, almost hopeless as at the first glance it
seemed, the learning, assiduity, and patience of Mr. CURETON gradually
brought order. Of necessity, the task took a long time. First came the
separation of the fragments of different works, and then the arrangement
of the leaves into volumes, with no aid to pagination or catchwords.
With translations of extant Greek works, the collection of their
originals gave, of course, great help. But in a multitude of cases every
leaf had to be read and closely studied.

Within about eighteen months of the reception of the MSS., Mr. CURETON
had ascertained the number of volumes—reckoning books made up of
fragments, as well as complete works—to amount to three hundred and
seventeen, of which two hundred and forty-six were on vellum, and
seventy on paper; all in Syriac or Aramaic, except one volume of Coptic
fragments. With the forty-nine volumes previously acquired, an addition
was thus made to the MS. Department of the National Library of three
hundred and sixty-six volumes. Many of these volumes contain two, three,
or four distinct works, of different dates, bound together, so that
probably, in the whole, there were of manuscripts and parts of
manuscripts, upwards of one thousand, written in all parts of
Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt, and at periods which range from the year
411 to the year 1292. Of the specific character and contents of some of
the choicest of these MSS., mention will be made hereafter.

[Sidenote: DR. CURETON’S PUBLICATIONS IN SYRIAC, AND IN ARABIC
           LITERATURE.]

For several years, the labour on the Syriac fragments did but alternate
with that on the larger body of the Arabic MSS., a classed catalogue of
which Mr. CURETON published in 1846,—only a month or two after he had
contributed to the _Quarterly Review_ a deeply interesting and masterly
article on the Syriac discoveries. This paper was quickly followed by
his first edition of the _Three Epistles of St. Ignatius_ (I, to
Polycarp; II, to the Ephesians; III, to the Romans). In an able preface,
he contended that, of these genuine _Epistles_, all previous recensions
were, to a considerable extent, interpolated, garbled, and spurious; and
also that the other Ignatian _Epistles_, so-called, are entirely
supposititious. In the year 1870 it need hardly be said either that this
publication excited much controversy, or that competent opinion is still
divided on some parts of the subject. But on two points there has never
been any controversy whatever:—As an editor, William CURETON displayed
brilliant ability; as a student of theology, he was no less
distinguished by a single-minded search after truth. He was never one of
those noisy controversialists of whom Walter LANDOR once said, so
incisively,[35] that they were less angry with their opponents for
withstanding the truth, than for doubting their own claims to be the
channels and the champions of Truth. To his dying day, CURETON owned
himself to be a learner—even in Syriac.

Within three years of the publication of his _Ignatius_, CURETON gave to
the world his precious edition of the fragmentary _Festal Letters_ of
ATHANASIUS, which Richard BURGESS soon translated into English, and
LASSOW into German. [Sidenote: THE FOUNDATION OF THE ORIENTAL TEXT
SOCIETY.] The Syriac version was one of its editor’s earliest
discoveries amongst the spoils of the Nitrian monasteries, and it was
published at the cost of a new society, of which CURETON himself was the
main founder. For the old Oriental publication society[36] limited
itself, as its name imports, to the publication of translations. The new
one—the claims of which to liberal support CURETON was never weary of
vindicating—was expressly founded to print Oriental texts. This new body
had his strongest sympathies, but he co-operated zealously with the
‘Translation Fund’ as well as with the ‘Text Society,’

Among his other and early labours, was the publication of a Rabbinical
Comment on the _Book of Lamentations_, and of the Arabic text of EN
NASAFI’S _Pillar of the Creed of the Sunnites_ (‘Umdat Akidat ahl al
Sunnat wa al Tamaat’), both of which books were printed in 1843. After
1845, CURETON’S literary labours were almost exclusively devoted to that
Syriac field in which he was to be so large and so original a
discoverer. The first distinctively public recognition of his services
was his appointment as a Chaplain to the Queen, in 1847. Two years
afterwards, he was made a Canon of Westminster and Rector of St.
Margaret’s. Thenceforward, his energies were divided. The charms of
Syriac discovery were not permitted to obstruct the due performance of
the appropriate work of a parish priest; though it is much to be feared
that they were but too often permitted to interfere, more than a little,
with needful recreation and rest.

Among those of his parochial labours which demanded not a small amount
of self-sacrifice were the rebuilding and the improved organization of
the schools; [Sidenote: PAROCHIAL LABOURS.] the building of a district
church—St. Andrew’s—in Ashley Place; and the establishment of
Working-Class Lectures, upon a wise and far-seeing plan.

[Sidenote: FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO LITERATURE.]

In 1851, he gave to scholars the curious palimpsest fragments of HOMER
from a Nitrian manuscript (now ADDIT. MS., 17,210), and, two years
afterwards, the _Ecclesiastical History_ of JOHN, Bishop of Ephesus.
This was quickly translated into German by SCHÖNFEHLER, and into English
by Dr. R. Payne SMITH. [Sidenote: MS. ADDIT. 14,640. (B. M.)] Then came
the _Spicilegium Syriacum_, containing fragments of BARDESANES, of
MELITO of Sardes, and the inexpressibly precious fragments of an ancient
recension of the Syriac _Gospels_, believed by CURETON to be of the
fifth century, and offering considerable and most interesting
divergences from the Peshito version.

In a preface to these evangelical fragments of the fifth century, their
editor contends that they constitute a far more faithful representation
of the true Hebrew text than does the Peshito recension, and that the
remark holds good, in a more especial degree, of the _Gospel of St.
Matthew_. This publication appeared in 1858.

[Sidenote: LABOUR AND ITS REWARDS IN FRESH LABOURS.]

Enough has been said of these untiring labours to make it quite
intelligible, even to readers the most unfamiliar with Oriental studies,
that their author had become already a celebrity throughout learned
Europe. As early as in 1855, the Institute of France welcomed Dr.
CURETON, as one of their corresponding members, in succession to his old
master, GAISFORD, of Christ Church. In 1859, the Queen conferred on him
a distinction, which was especially appropriate and dear to his
feelings. He became ‘Royal Trustee’ of that Museum which he had so
zealously served as an Assistant-Keeper of the MSS., up to the date of
his appointment to his Westminster parish and canonry. No fitter
nomination was ever made. Unhappily, he was not to be spared very long
to fill a function so congenial.

Yet one other distinction, and also one other and most honourable
labour, were to be his, before another illustrious victim was to be
added to the long list of public losses inflicted on the country at
large by the gross mismanagement, and more particularly by what is
called—sardonically, I suppose—the ‘economy’ of our British railways.
CURETON’S life too, like some score of other lives dear to literature or
to science, was to be sacrificed under the car of our railway
Juggernaut.

In 1861, he published, from another Nitrian manuscript, EUSEBIUS’
_History of the Martyrs in Palestine_. [Sidenote: THE REMOVAL, AND ITS
CIRCUMSTANCES.] Early in 1863, he succeeded the late Beriah BOTFIELD in
the Chair of the Oriental Translation Fund. On the twenty-ninth of May,
of the same year, a railway ‘accident’ inflicted upon him such cruel
injuries as entailed a protracted and painful illness of twelve months,
and ended—to our loss, but to his great gain—in his lamented death, on
the seventeenth of June, 1864.

He died where he was born, and was buried with his fathers. The writer
of these poor memorial lines upon an admirable man well remembers the
delight he used to express (thirty years ago) whenever it was in his
power to revisit his birthplace, and knows that the delight was shared
with the humblest of its inhabitants. Dr. CURETON was one of those
genuine men who (in the true and best sense of the words) are not
respecters of persons. He had a frank, not a condescending, salutation
for the lowliest acquaintances of youthful days. And those lowliest were
not among the least glad to see his face again at his holiday-visits;
nor were they among the least sorrowful to see it, when it bore the
fatal, but now to most of us quite familiar, traces of victimism to the
mammon-cult of our railway directors.


[Sidenote: THE ARCHÆOLOGICAL EXPLORATIONS IN THE LEVANT.]

Just as we have to go very far back indeed in the history of the
Manuscript Department of the British Museum, in order to find an
accession quite as notable as are—taking them as a whole—the manuscripts
of the Nitrian monasteries, so have we also to do in the history of the
several Departments of Antiquities, in order to find any parallel to the
acquisitions of monuments of art and archæology made during the thirty
years between 1840 and 1870. In point of _variety_ of interest, in
truth, there is no parallel at all to be found.

In archæology, however—as in scientific discovery, or in mechanical
invention—every great burst of new light will be seen, if we look
closely enough, to have had its remote precursive gleams, howsoever
faint or howsoever little noticed they may have been.

Austen Henry LAYARD, for example, is a most veritable ‘discoverer.’
Nevertheless, the researches of LAYARD link themselves with those of
Claudius RICH, and with the still earlier glimpses, and the mere
note-book jottings, of Carsten NIEBUHR, as well as with the explorations
of LAYARD’S contemporary and most able French fellow-investigator,
Monsieur BOTTA. In like manner, Nathan DAVIS is the undoubted
disinterrer of old Carthage, but the previous labours of the Italian
canon and archæologist SPANO, of Cagliari, and those of the French
geographers DE DREUX and DUREAU DE LA MALLE, imperfect as they all were,
helped to put him upon the quest which was destined to receive so rich a
reward.

It is obvious, therefore, that a tolerably satisfactory account of the
researches of the renowned archæologists mentioned at the head of this
chapter must be prefaced with some notices of much earlier and much less
successful labours than theirs; and a thorough account would need
greatly more than that. But, at present, I cannot hope to give either
the one or the other. Rapid glances at the recent investigations are all
that, for the moment, are permitted me, and for the perfunctory manner
of these I shall have to make not a little demand on the reader’s
indulgence. The subject-matter is rich enough to claim a volume to
itself; nor would the story be found to lack well-sustained and varied
interest, even if retold at large.

The first inquiries and explorations in _Lycia_ of Sir Charles FELLOWS
began several years earlier than those in _Assyria_ of Mr. Austen
LAYARD, but an intelligible narrative of what LAYARD did, in 1845, must
needs start with a notice, be it ever so brief, of what BOTTA had been
doing in 1842. The Lycian excavations were also effectively begun in
1842. They were, in fact, contemporaneous with the first excavations at
Nineveh. I begin, therefore, with the closely-linked labours of BOTTA
and of LAYARD, prefacing them with a glance at the previous pursuits and
aims in life of our distinguished fellow-countryman.

[Sidenote: AUSTEN HENRY LAYARD AND HIS EARLY CAREER.]

Austen Henry LAYARD is an Englishman, notwithstanding his birth in Paris
(5th of March, 1817), and his descent from one of the many Huguenot
families who (in one sense) do honour to France for their sufferings for
conscience sake, and who (in many more senses than one) do honour to
England by the way in which zealous and persevering exertions in the
service of their adopted country have enabled them to pluck the flowers
of fame, or of distinction, from amidst the sharp thorns of adversity.
Austen LAYARD is the grandson of the honoured Dr. LAYARD, Dean of
Bristol, and he began active life, whilst yet very young, in a
solicitor’s office in the City of London. But he had scarcely reached
twenty-two years of age before family circumstances enabled him to
gratify a strong passion for Eastern travel. Archæology had no share, at
first, in the attractions which the Levant presented to his youthful
enterprise. But a fervid nature, a good education, and a wonderful power
of self-adaptation to new social circumstances, made the mind of the
young traveller a fitting seedplot for antiquarian knowledge, whenever
the opportunity of acquiring it should come.

[Sidenote: THE JOURNEY THROUGH ASIA MINOR AND SYRIA IN 1839–1840.]

To a man of that stamp it would be impossible that he should tread near
those ancient ruins, every stone of which must needs connect itself with
some ‘reverend history’ or other—when the discerning eye should at
length pore upon it and ponder it—without the ambition stirring within
him to make at least an earnest attempt to explore and to decipher. To
this particular man and his companion in travel, Fortune was propitious,
by dint of her very parsimony. As he says himself: ‘No experienced
dragoman measured our distances or appointed our stations. We were
honoured with no conversations by pashas, nor did we seek any civilities
from governors. We neither drew tears nor curses from the villagers by
seizing their horses, or searching their houses for provisions;
[Sidenote: _Nineveh and its Remains_ (1849), vol. i, p. 2.] their
welcome was sincere; their scanty fare was placed before us; we ate, and
came, and went in peace.’

It was almost thirty years ago—about the middle of April, 1840—that Mr.
LAYARD looked upon those vast ruins on the east bank of the Tigris,
opposite Mósul, which include the now famous mounds of Konyunjik and of
Nebbi Yunus. Having gazed on them with an incipient longing—even then—to
explore them thoroughly, he and his companion rode into the desert, and
looked with new wonder at the great mound of Kàlàh Sherghat, the site of
which is by some geographers identified with the Assur of the book
Genesis.[37] After that hasty and tantalising visit, in the spring of
1840, LAYARD did not again see Mósul until the summer of 1842, when he
was again travelling Tatar, and hurrying to Constantinople. In the
interval, he had often thought of his early purpose, and had talked of
it to many travellers. [Sidenote: BOTTA’S FIRST DISCOVERIES.] Now, in
1842, he heard that what he had hitherto been able only to contemplate,
as the wished-for task of the future, Monsieur BOTTA, the new French
Consul at Mósul, had, for some months, been actually working upon;
although, as yet, with very small success. Our countryman encouraged the
French Consul in his undertaking, and presently learned that by him the
first real monument of old Assyria had been uncovered. This primary
discovery was not made at Kouyunjik, but at Khorsabad, near the river
Khauser, many miles away from the place at which the first French
excavations had been made, early in 1842.

The delighted emotions of Monsieur BOTTA, when he found himself, very
suddenly, standing in a chamber in which—to all probability—no man had
stood since the Fall of Nineveh, and saw that the chamber was lined with
sculptured slabs of ‘gypsum-marble’ or alabaster, full of historic
scenes from the wars and triumphs of Assyria, a reader can better
imagine than a writer can describe. BOTTA himself rather indicates than
depicts them, in the deeply interesting letters which he speedily
addressed to his friend MOHL at Paris (and which by MOHL were not less
promptly published in the _Journal Asiatique_, to be within a month or
two pondered and wondered over by almost every archæologist in Europe).
The delight, and also the surprise, were enhanced when the discoverer
saw that almost every slab had a line of wedge-shaped characters carved
above it, giving hope of history in legible inscriptions, as well as
history in ruins. For, unhappily, nearly all the sculptures _first_
discovered at Khorsabad were fractured. The durability of the Assyrian
style of building had brought about the defacement of the sculptured
records. The walls were formed of blocks of gypsum, backed and lined, so
to speak, with enormous masses of clay. When the weight of such large
earth-banks pressed down upon the sculptured slabs, these were thrust
from their place. Many that were still in position, when first seen,
fell, or crumbled, as the explorer was looking at them. He had to
shore-up and underpin, as he went on; and to do this by unpractised
hands. Else, the more diligent his excavations, the more destructive
they would have been of the very end he had in view.

LAYARD was at Constantinople when the news came of M. BOTTA’S increasing
successes. His detention there had been unexpected, as well as
unavoidable. But he wrote to England without delay. He had a foresight
that BOTTA would not lack encouragement in France. He felt no unworthy
jealousy on account of the fact that it was a Frenchman who was now
disinterring historic treasures of a hitherto unexampled kind, and who
was rapidly securing historic fame for himself.[38] Mr. LAYARD knew—few
men just then knew more fully—that in all matters of learning and of
discovery the gains of France are the gains of the world. [Sidenote:
LAYARD’S OVERTURES TO THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.] For the staunchest of
John Bulls amongst us must acknowledge that in the arts of scientific
dissemination and exposition a Frenchman (other things being equal) has
usually twice the expertness of an Englishman. But he was naturally
desirous that France should not have _all_ the glory of Assyrian
discovery. What, then, was the reception with which his first overtures
were met? ‘With a single exception,’ in the person of his London
correspondent, ‘no one,’ he tells us, ‘in England’ ... [Sidenote:
_Nineveh and its Remains_, vol. i, p. 10.] ‘seemed inclined to assist or
take any interest in such an undertaking.’

What, on the other hand, were the encouragements given to the French
explorer by the Government and the Nation of France? They were large;
they were ungrudgingly given; and they were instantaneously sent. In Mr.
LAYARD’S words: ‘The recommendation was attended to with that readiness
and munificence which [has] almost invariably distinguished the French
Government in undertakings of this nature. [Sidenote: LIBERAL AID
EXTENDED TO M. BOTTA BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT.] Ample funds to meet the
cost of extensive excavations were at once assigned to M. BOTTA, and an
artist of acknowledged skill was placed under his orders, to draw such
parts of the monuments discovered as could not be preserved or removed.’
Who will wonder that at first it seemed as though France would carry off
all the stakes, and England have no place at all in the archæological
race?

[Sidenote: CONTRASTS:—ENGLAND AND FRANCE.]

Mr. LAYARD, however, was otherwise minded. And he found, presently, a
powerful helper in the person of the British Ambassador at
Constantinople, Sir Stratford CANNING (now Lord Stratford de Redcliffe).
Had it not been for the union, in that ambassador, of a large intellect,
a liberal mind, and a strong will, and also for the _absence_, in him,
of that shrinking from extra-official responsibilities which in so many
able men has often emasculated their ability, Mr. LAYARD’S efforts,
earnest and unremitting as they were, would assuredly have been foiled.

The reader will perceive that for what was achieved, in 1845 and in the
subsequent years, on the banks of the Tigris, the British public owe a
debt of gratitude to Lord STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE, the encourager of the
enterprise, as well as to Mr. LAYARD, its originator.

But neither does this fact, nor does the like of it, five years earlier,
in the help given by Lord PONSONBY to the Lycian researches of Sir
Charles FELLOWS, invalidate or weaken the remark I have ventured to make
(on pages 348; 381, of the present volume, and elsewhere) about the
discreditable and long-continued apathy of our Foreign Office in matters
of art and literature; especially if we compare on that head British
practice with French practice. Perhaps, at first blush, it might be
thought somewhat presumptuous, in a private person, to remark so freely
on what seem to him the shortcomings of statesmen. But it has to be
borne in mind that, in such cases as this, outspoken criticism is rather
the expression of known public opinion, than of mere individual
judgment. The one writer, how humble soever, is very often the
mouthpiece of the thoughts of many minds. Nor is other warrant for such
criticism lacking.

_Three years_ after beginning his excavations at Nimroud, Mr. LAYARD
himself wrote thus (from Cheltenham):—‘It is to be regretted that proper
steps have not been taken for the transport to England of the sculptures
discovered at Nineveh. Those which have already reached this country,
and (it is to be feared) those which are now on their way, have
consequently suffered _unnecessary_ injury; ... yet, ... [Sidenote:
_Nineveh and its Remains_, vol. i, p. xiii.] they are almost the only
remains of a great city and of a great nation.’

Part of the injury now observable in the Assyrian sculptures of the
British Museum was, of course, inseparable from circumstances attending
the discovery. Besides the injury already spoken of—from the pressure of
the earth-banks—all the low-reliefs of one great palace had suffered
from intense heat. From this cause, Mr. LAYARD’S experiences recall, in
one particular, the impressive accounts we have all read of the opening
of ancient tombs in Egypt and in Italy. The fortunate excavator suddenly
beheld a kingly personage, in fashion as he lived. The royal forehead
was still encircled by a regal crown. The fingers were decked with
rings; the hand, mayhap, grasped a sceptre. But whilst the discoverer
was still gazing in the first flush of admiration, the countenance
changed; the ornaments crumbled; the sceptre and the hand that held it
alike became dust. So it was, at times, at Nimroud. Some of the calcined
slabs presented, for a moment, their story in its integrity. Presently,
they fell into fragments.

[Sidenote: MIXED NATURE OF THE CAUSES OF THE MUTILATIONS OBSERVABLE IN
           THE MUSEUM SCULPTURES FROM ASSYRIA.]

None the less, when the reader goes into the Kouyunjik Gallery; looks at
the sculptures from SENNACHERIB’S palace; observes the innumerable
‘joinings,’ and then glances at his official ‘_Guide_’ (which tells him,
at page 85, ‘many single slabs reached this country in three hundred or
four hundred pieces’), he is bound for truth’s sake to remember that,
whilst some of the breakage is ascribable to the action of fire at the
time of the Fall of Nineveh, another portion of it is ascribable to the
want or absence of action, on the part of some worthy officials in the
public service of Britain, just twenty-five centuries afterwards.


With Sir Stratford CANNING’S help, and with the still better help of his
own courage and readiness of resource, Mr. LAYARD surmounted most of the
obstacles which lay in his path. There was a rich variety of them. To
quote but a tithe of his encounters with Candian pashas, Turcoman
navvies, Abou-Salman visitors, and Mósul cadis and muftis, would ensure
the reader’s amusement beyond all doubt; but the temptation must be
overcome. Happily, the original books are well known, though the
anecdotes are more than racy enough to bear quotation and requotation.

[Sidenote: LAYARD’S FIRST DISCOVERY, 28th Nov., 1845.]

Two incidents of the first explorations (1845–46) must needs be told.
The earliest discovery was made on the twenty-eighth of November. The
indications of having approached, at length, a chamber lined with
sculpture, rejoiced the Arab labourers not less than it rejoiced their
employer. They kept on digging long after the hour at which they were
accustomed to strike work. The slab first uncovered was a battle-scene.
War chariots drawn by splendidly equipped horses contained three
warriors apiece, in full career. The chief of them (beardless) was
clothed in complete mail, ‘and wore a pointed helmet on his head, from
the sides of which fell lappets covering the ears, the lower part of the
face, and the neck. The left hand (the arm being extended) grasped a bow
at full stretch; whilst the right, drawing the string to the ear, held
an arrow ready to be discharged. A second warrior urged, with reins and
whip, three horses to the utmost of their speed.... A third, without
helmet and with flowing hair and beard, held a shield for the defence of
the principal figure. Under the horses’ feet, and scattered about, were
the conquered, wounded by the arrows of the conquerors. I observed with
surprise the elegance and richness of the ornaments, the faithful and
delicate delineation of the limbs and muscles, both in the men and
horses, and the knowledge of art displayed in the grouping of the
figures and the general composition. [Sidenote: _Nineveh and its
Remains_ (1849), vol. i, p. 41.] In all these respects, as well as in
costume, this sculpture appeared to me, not only to differ from, but to
surpass, the bas-reliefs of Khorsabad.’

Thus cheered, the work of digging went on with fresh vigour, and in new
directions. Parts of a building which had suffered from decay, not from
fire, were at length uncovered. Slabs of still greater beauty were
disclosed. ‘I now thought,’ says the explorer, ‘I had discovered the
earliest palace of Nimroud.’

On the morning after the discovery of these new and more choice
sculptures—middle of February, 1846—Mr. LAYARD rode away from the mound
to a distant Arab encampment—wisely cultivating, as was his manner, a
good understanding with a ticklish sort of neighbours. Two early Arabs,
from this camp, had already paid a morning visit to the mound. They
hastened back at a racing pace. Before they could well pull up their
horses, or regain their own Oriental composure, the riders shouted at
sight of Layard: ‘Hasten, O Bey, to the diggers. They have found great
NIMROD himself. Wallah! it is wonderful, but it is true! We have seen
him with our eyes.’

The ‘Bey’ did not wait for lucid explanations; but urged his horse to
emulate the speed with which the grateful, though mysterious, tidings
had been brought to him. No sooner had he entered the new trench at the
mound, than he saw a splendidly sculptured head, the form of which
assured him at a glance that it must belong to a winged bull or lion
like to those of Persepolis and of Khorsabad. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, p.
65.] Its preservation was perfect, its features sharply cut. [Sidenote:
1846, February.] The Arab workmen stood looking at it with intent and
fear-expressing eyes—but with open palms. The first word that came from
their lips begged a ‘back-sheesh,’ in honour of the auspicious occasion.
The terror of one of them, only, had led him to scamper at full speed to
his tent, that he might hide himself from the frightful monster whose
aspect seemed to threaten vengeance on those rash men who had dared to
disturb his long repose, in the bowels of the earth.

Scarcely had Mr. LAYARD glanced at ‘NIMROD’ before he found that more
than half the tribe whose encampment he had just left had followed hard
at his heels. They were headed by their Sheikh. It would be difficult to
depict, in few words, the conflict of their feelings. Admiration,
terror, anger, had each a part in the emotion which was evinced, no less
in their gestures than in their words. ‘There is no God but GOD, and
MAHOMED is his prophet! [Sidenote: _Ibid._, p. 66.] This is not the work
of men’s hands, but of those infidel giants whom the Prophet—peace be
with him!—has said, that “they were higher than the tallest date-tree.”
This is one of the idols which NOAH—peace be with him!—cursed before the
Flood.’ Such were the words of Sheikh ABD-UR-RAHMAN himself. He showed
great reluctance, at first, to enter the trench. But when once in, he
examined the image with great and continued earnestness. All his
followers echoed his verdict.

But the townspeople of Mósul were more difficult to deal with. The Cadi
called a meeting of the Mufti and the Ulema, to discuss the most
effectual protest against such an atrocious violation of the Koran as
that committed by the unbelieving explorer and his mercenary labourers.
Their notions about NIMROD were very vague. Some thought him to have
been an ancient true-believer; others had a strong misgiving that he,
like his unearther, was but an infidel. They were all clear that the
digging must be stopped. [Sidenote: _Nineveh and its Remains_; passim.]
It tasked all Mr. LAYARD’S skill, experience, and force of character, to
surmount these new difficulties. When they had been at length
overcome—with the brilliant results known now to most Englishmen—he had
to face the enormous difficulties of transport. The great human-headed
lions he was obliged to leave in their original position. A multitude of
smaller sculptures (many of them reduced in bulk by sawing) were safely
brought to England. The first arrivals came in 1847.[39] In 1849 and in
1850, the excavations in the mounds first opened were vigorously
resumed, and new researches were made in several directions. Early in
1850, the explorers buckled to the task of removing the lions. That
chapter in Mr. LAYARD’S familiar narrative is not the least interesting
one.

The explorations partially interrupted in 1847 were resumed in 1849.
[Sidenote: _Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon_ (1853), pp.
162, 163; 201–209; seqq. Dec., 1849.] From the October of that year
until April, 1851, they were carried on with even more than the old
energy, for the means and appliances were more ample, and the
encouragements drawn from success followed each other in far quicker
succession.

The suspension had been but partial, for Mr. Hormuzd RASSAM, then
British Vice-Consul at Mósul, had been empowered to keep a few men still
digging at Kouyunjik. He had there unearthed several new sculpture-lined
chambers of no small interest. But at Nimroud nothing worthy of mention
had been done during LAYARD’S absence. That was now his first object.
[Sidenote: 1849, Oct. and Nov.] Kouyunjik, however, for a long time gave
the best yield.

In December the south-east façade of the Kouyunjik Palace was uncovered.
It was found to be a hundred and eighty feet in length, and contained,
among other sculptures, ten colossal bulls and six human figures. The
accompanying inscriptions contained the early annals of SENNACHERIB, and
of his wars with MERODACH BALADAN.[40]

Presently, the labours on the north-west palace at Nimroud were also
richly rewarded. The somewhat higher antiquity of that building, as
compared with the homogeneous structures of Kouyunjik and Khorsabad, had
already impressed itself with the force of conviction on Mr. LAYARD’S
individual mind. The fact now became manifest to all eyes that had the
capacity to see.

These Nimroud monuments belong,—according to the opinion of the best
archæologists,—most of them, to the eighth, some of them, however, to
the earlier part of the seventh centuries _B.C._ They now occupy the
most central of the Assyrian Galleries in the British Museum. The
monuments of Kouyunjik and of Khorsabad are probably but little anterior
to the supposed date (625 _B.C._) of the destruction of Nineveh. These
are exhibited in galleries adjacent to the ‘Nimroud Central Saloon.’ To
describe only a few of them in connection with the interesting
circumstances of their respective disclosures would demand another
chapter. A word or two, however, must be given to one among the earlier
discoveries (October, 1846), and to one among the latest of those made
(in the spring of 1851), whilst Mr. LAYARD himself remained in the
neighbourhood of Mósul.

[Sidenote: DISCOVERY OF THE BLACK-MARBLE OBELISK, 1846, October (found
           in centre of the great mound).]

At Nimroud many trenches had, in those early days, been opened
unprofitably. Mr. LAYARD doubted whether he ought to carry them further.
Half inclined to cease, in this direction, he resolved, finally, that he
would not abandon a cutting on which so much money and toil had been
spent, until the result of yet another day’s work was shown. [Sidenote:
_Nineveh and its Remains_, vol. i, p. 345. (1849 edit.)] ‘I mounted my
horse,’ he says—to ride into Mósul—‘but had scarcely left the mound when
a corner of black marble was uncovered, lying on the very edge of the
trench.’ It was part of an obelisk seven feet high, lying about ten feet
below the surface. Its top was cut into three gradines, covered with
wedge-shaped inscriptions. Beneath the gradines were five tiers of
sculpture in low-relief, continued on all sides. Between every two tiers
of sculpture ran a line of inscription. Beneath the five tiers, the
unsculptured surface was covered with inscriptions. These, as subsequent
researches have shown, contain the Annals of SHALMANESER, King of
Assyria, during thirty-one years towards the close of the ninth century
before our Lord. The tributaries of the great monarch are seen in long
procession, bearing their offerings. In the appended cuneiform record of
these tributaries are mentioned JEHU, ‘of the House of OMRI,’ and his
contemporary HAZAEL, King of Syria. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, 346.] Well may
the proud discoverer call his trophy a ‘precious relic.’


We now leap over more than four eventful years. Mr. LAYARD is about to
exchange the often anxious but always glorious toils of the successful
archæologist, for the not less anxious and very often exceedingly
inglorious toils of the politician. He will also henceforth have to
exchange many a pleasant morning ride and many a peaceful evening
‘tobacco-parliament’ with Arabs of the Desert, for turbulent discussions
with metropolitan electors, and humble obeisances in order to win their
sweet voices. Just before he leaves Mósul come some new unearthings of
Assyrian sculpture, to add to the welcome tidings he will carry into
England.

[Sidenote: THE DISCOVERIES AT KOUYUNJIK OF THE SPRING OF 1851.]

He found, he tells us—in one of the closing chapters of his latest
book—that to the north of the great centre-hall four new chambers, full
of sculpture, had been discovered. On the walls of a grand gallery,
ninety-six feet by twenty-three, was represented the return of an
Assyrian army from a campaign in which they had won loads of spoil and a
long array of prisoners. The captured fighting men wore a sort of
Phrygian bonnet reversed, short tunics, and broad belts. The women had
long tresses and fringed robes. [Sidenote: _Discoveries at Nineveh and
Babylon_ (edit. 1853), pp. 582–584.] Sometimes they rode on mules or
were drawn—by men as well as by mules—in chariots. The captives were the
men and women of Susiana. The victor was SENNACHERIB.


In several subsequent years—1853, 1854, 1855, when most Englishmen were
intently acting, or beholding with suspended breath, the great drama in
the Crimea—a famous compatriot was continuing the task so nobly
initiated by Austen LAYARD. Sir Henry RAWLINSON (made by this time
Consul-General at Baghdad) carried on new excavations, both at Nimroud
and at Kouyunjik. In these he was ably assisted by Mr. W. K. LOFTUS, as
well as by Mr. Hormuzd RASSAM, the helper and early friend of LAYARD,
and (in the later stages) by Mr. TAYLOR. Another obelisk, with portions
of a third and fourth; thirty-four slabs sculptured in low-relief; one
statue in the round; and a multitude of smaller objects, illustrating
with wonderful diversity and minuteness the manners and customs, the
modes of life and of thought, as well as the wars and conquests, the
luxury and the cruelty, of the old Assyrians, were among the treasures
which, by the collective labour of these distinguished explorers, were
sent into Britain. [Sidenote: EARLY LABOURERS ON THE DECIPHERING OF
CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS.] Another ‘recension,’ so to speak, of the early
Annals of SENNACHERIB, King of Assyria, inscribed upon a cylinder, was
not the least interesting of the monuments found under the direction of
Sir Henry RAWLINSON, whose name had already won its station—many years
before his consulship at Baghdad—beside those of GROTEFEND, of BURNOUF
and of LASSEN, in the roll of those scientific investigators by whose
closet labours the researches and long gropings of the RICHES, the
BOTTAS, and the LAYARDS, were destined to be interpreted, illustrated,
and fructified for the world of readers at large.

For it is not the least interesting fact in this particular and most
richly-yielding field of Assyrian archæology—that several men in
Germany;—more than one man in France;—and one man, at least, in Persia,
had been working simultaneously, but entirely without concert, at those
hard and, for a time, almost barren studies which were eventually to
supply a master-key to vast libraries of inscriptions brought to light
after an entombment of twenty-five hundred years.


[Sidenote: THE TRAVELS AND RESEARCHES OF SIR CHARLES FELLOWS IN LYCIA.]

Scarcely smaller than the debt of gratitude which Britain owes to Mr.
LAYARD and to Lord STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE, for the Marbles and other
antiquities of Assyria, is the debt which she owes to the late Sir
Charles FELLOWS for those of Lycia. Nor ought it to be passed over
without remark that the admirably productive mission to the Levant of
Mr. Charles NEWTON seems to have grown, in germ, out of the applications
made at Constantinople on behalf of Sir Charles FELLOWS. In that merit
he has but a very small share. The merit of the Lycian discoveries is
all his own. He has now gone from amongst us,—like most of the
benefactors whose public services have been recorded in this volume. How
inadequate the record; how insufficient for the task the chronicler; no
one will be so painfully conscious, as is the man whose hand—in the
absence of a better hand—has here attempted the narrative. The Museum
story has been long. What remains to be said must needs be put more
briefly. But because Sir Charles FELLOWS has been so lately removed from
the land he served with so much zeal and ability, I shall still venture
to claim the indulgence of my readers for a somewhat detailed account of
the work done in Lycia, and of the man who did it.

[Sidenote: THE ANALOGIES AND THE CONTRASTS BETWEEN FELLOWS AND LAYARD.]

In one respect, it was with Charles FELLOWS as with Austen LAYARD. A
youthful passion for foreign travel, and what grew out of that, lifted
each of them from obscurity into prominence. But LAYARD achieved fame at
a much earlier age than did Sir Charles FELLOWS. Sir Charles was almost
forty before his name came at all before the Public. LAYARD was already
a personage at eight and twenty. This small circumstantial difference
between the fortune of two men whose pursuits in life were, for a time,
so much alike, deserves to be kept in mind, on this account: Sir Charles
lived scarcely long enough to see any fair appreciation of what he had
accomplished. Even those whose political sympathies incline them to a
belief that Mr. LAYARD’S _official_ services will never suffice to
console Englishmen for the interruption of his archæological services,
hope that he may live long enough to enjoy a rich reward for the latter
in their yearly-increasing estimation by his countrymen at large. They
will delight to see the fervid member for Southwark utterly eclipsed in
the fame of the great discoverer of long-entombed Assyria.


[Sidenote: THE TRAVELS IN ASIA MINOR, AND WHAT GREW THEREOUT.]

Sir Charles FELLOWS was the son of Mr. John FELLOWS, of Nottingham. He
was born in 1799. In the year 1837, he set out upon a long tour in Asia
Minor. Archæological discovery no more formed any part of a preconcerted
plan in Mr. FELLOWS’ case than it did, two or three years afterwards, in
Mr. LAYARD’S. Both were led to undertake their respective explorations
in a way that (for want of a more appropriate word) we are all
accustomed to call ‘accidental.’

In February, 1838, he found himself at Smyrna. After a good deal of
observation of men and manners, he betook himself to an inspection of
the buildings. [Sidenote: _Journal written during an Excursion in Asia
Minor_, pp. 8, seqq. (edit. 1852).] He soon found that not a little of
the modern Smyrna was built out of the ruins of the Smyrna of the old
world. Busts, columns, entablatures, of white marble and of ancient
workmanship, were everywhere visible, in close admixture with the
recently-quarried building-stone of the country and the period. But not
only had the old marbles been built into the new edifices; they had been
turned into tombstones. Certain Jews, of an enterprising and practical
turn of mind, had bought, in block, a whole hill-full of venerable
marbles, in order to have an inexhaustible supply of new tombstones
close at hand. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, p. 9.] In another part of the suburbs
of the town, the walls of a large corn-field turned out, on close
examination, to be built of thin and flat stones, of which the inner
surface was formed of richly-patterned mosaic, black, white, and red.
From that day, the traveller, wheresoever he journeyed, was a
scrutinising archæologist. And the traveller, thus equipped for his
work, was busied, two months afterwards, in exploring that most
interesting part of Asia Minor (a part now called ‘Anadhouly’), which
includes Lydia, Mysia, Bithynia, Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycia, Pamphylia, and
Caria; and much of which was never before trodden—so far as is known,
and the knowledge referred to is that of the best geographers in
England, discussing this matter expressly, at a meeting of the
Geographical Society—by the feet of any European.[41]

[Sidenote: THE EXPLORATIONS IN ANTIPHELLUS AND ITS VICINITY. 1838,
           April.]

On the eighteenth of April, Mr. FELLOWS found himself in the
romantically beautiful, but rugged and barren, neighbourhood of
Antiphellus. The ancient town of that name possessed a theatre, and a
multitude of temples, grandly placed on a far-outjutting promontory. For
miles around, the rocks and the ravines were strewn with marble
fragments. The face of the cliff, which, on one side, overhangs the
town, was seen to be deeply indented with rock-tombs, richly adorned.
They contained sarcophagi of a special form. The lid of each of them
bore a rude resemblance to a pointed arch. It sounds at first almost
grotesquely, in the ear of a reader of Mr. FELLOWS’ _Journal_ of 1839,
to hear him speak of Lycian tombs as ‘Elizabethan’ in their
architecture. But, in the sense intended, the term is strictly apposite.
[Sidenote: _Journal of an Excursion_, &c., as above, p. 164.] If the
reader will but glance at one of Mr. FELLOWS’ many beautiful plates of
those rock-tombs, he will see at once that they look not unlike the
stone-mullioned windows of our own Tudor age.


But the discovery which eclipsed all Mr. FELLOWS’ previous researches
was that of the ancient capital of Lycia—Xanthus. Next in importance to
that was his disinterment of Tlos. He saw the ruins of other and, in
their day, famous towns. It was plain that he had now before him a fine
opening to add to the stores of human knowledge in some of its grandest
departments—artistic, historical, biblical. But, in 1838, he had not the
most ordinary appliances of minute research. He went back to England;
found (as LAYARD was also destined to find, very shortly afterwards)
only a very little encouragement, at official hands; much more than a
little, however, in his own reflections and foresight. [Sidenote:
FURTHER DISCOVERIES IN THE VALLEY OF THE XANTHUS, AND IN OTHER PARTS OF
LYCIA; 1840–42.] In 1839, he went back to Lycia, taking with him George
SCHARF, then carefully described as ‘a young English artist,’ now widely
known as an eminent archæologist. FELLOWS explored. SCHARF drew. Early
in 1840, ten Lycian cities were added to the previous discoveries. Each
of them contained many precious works of ancient art.

In order to effectual excavation, and in order also to the safety of
what was found from destruction by Turkish barbarities, the Sultan’s
firman was essential. The difficulties were much like those which, as I
have had occasion to show in ‘Book Second,’ lay in the path of Lord
ELGIN, under similar circumstances, more than forty years earlier. By
Lord PONSONBY’S zealous efforts, they were at length surmounted.
[Sidenote: See Book II, chap. 2; pp. 382, seqq.] At the earnest instance
of the Museum Trustees, the Government at home seconded the exertions of
their ambassador at Constantinople; and this combination of endeavour
made that feasible which the best energies of Sir Charles FELLOWS,
single handed, must have utterly failed to secure.

The reader will not, I incline to think, regard as an instance of
overmuch detail, if I here add—for instructive comparison with the terms
of the official letter procured by Lord ELGIN—the words in which RIFAAT
Pasha, in June, 1841, describes the antiquities, the removal whereof was
to be graciously permitted. In 1800, Lord ELGIN (after enormous labour)
was empowered to ‘take away any pieces of stone, from the Temples of the
Idols, with old inscriptions or figures thereon.’ Now—in 1841—the
‘pieces of stone’ are described as ‘antique remains and rare objects.’
The schoolmaster, it will be seen, had been at work at Constantinople.

[Sidenote: THE RESEARCHES AT CADYANDA, PINARA, &C.]

The explorations at Cadyanda, at Pinara, and at Sidyma, richly merit the
reader’s attention, as an essential part of our present subject. But
happily Sir Charles FELLOWS’ books are both accessible and popular. Here
we must hasten on to Xanthus, and Sir Charles’ story must now be told in
his own expressive and graphic words:

[Sidenote: THE EXCAVATIONS AT XANTHUS.]

‘Xanthus certainly possesses some of the earliest Archaic sculpture in
Asia Minor, and this connected with the most beautiful of its monuments,
and illustrated by the language of Lycia. These sculptures to which I
refer must be the work of the sixth or seventh centuries before the
Christian era, but I have not seen an instance of these remains having
been despoiled for the rebuilding of walls; and yet the decidedly more
modern works of a later people are used as materials in repairing the
walls around the back of the city and upon the Acropolis; many of these
have Greek inscriptions, with names common among the Romans. The whole
of the sculpture is Greek, fine, bold, and simple, bespeaking an early
age of that people. No sign whatever is seen of the works of the
Byzantines or Christians.

‘To lay down a plan of the town is impossible, the whole being concealed
by trees; but walls of the finest kind, Cyclopean blended with the
Greek, as well as the beautifully squared stones of a lighter kind, are
seen in every direction; several gateways also, with their paved roads,
still exist. I observed on my first visit that the temples have been
very numerous, and, from their position along the brow of the cliff,
must have combined with nature to form one of the most beautiful of
cities. The extent I now find is much greater than I had imagined, and
its tombs extend over miles of country I had not before seen. The
beautiful gothic-formed sarcophagus-tomb, with chariots and horses upon
its roof, of which I have before spoken and have given a sketch of a
battle-scene upon the side, accompanied with a Lycian inscription, is
again a chief object of my admiration amidst the ruins of this city. Of
the ends of this monument I did not before show drawings, but gave a
full description. Beneath the rocks, at the back of the city, is a
sarcophagus of the same kind, and almost as beautifully sculptured; but
this has been thrown down, and the lid now lies half-buried in the
earth. Its hog’s-mane is sculptured with a spirited battle-scene. Many
Greek inscriptions upon pedestals are built into the walls, which may
throw some light upon the history of the city; they are mostly funereal,
and belong to an age and people quite distinct from those of the many
fine Lycian remains.

‘Two of my days have been spent in the tedious, but, I trust, useful
occupation, of copying the Lycian inscription from the obelisk I
mentioned in my former volume that I had seen: this will be of service
to the philologist. Having, with the assistance of a ladder, ascended to
a level with the top of the monument, I discovered a curious fact: the
characters cut upon the upper portion are larger and wider apart than
those on the lower, thus counteracting the effect of diminution by
distance, as seen from the ground. As the letters are beautifully cut, I
have taken several impressions from them, to obtain fac-similes. By this
inscription I hope to fix the type of an alphabet, which will be much
simplified, as I find upon the various tombs about the town great
varieties, though of a trifling nature, in the forms of each letter;
these varieties have hitherto been considered as different characters.
This long public inscription will establish the form of all the letters
of an alphabet, one form only being used throughout for each letter: if
this should be deciphered, it may be the means of adding information to
history. The inscription exceeds two hundred and fifty lines.

‘It is to be regretted that the obelisk is not perfect; time or an
earthquake has split off the upper part, which lies at its foot. Two
sides of this portion only remain, with inscriptions which I could copy;
the upper surface being without any, and the lower facing the ground:
its weight of many tons rendered it immoveable. I had the earth
excavated from the obelisk itself, and came to the base, or probably the
upper part of a flight of steps, as in the other obelisk-monuments of a
similar construction. The characters upon the north-west side are cut in
a finer and bolder style than on the others, and appear to be the most
ancient. Should any difference of date occur on this monument, I should
decide that this is the commencement or original inscription upon it.

‘This, which I must consider as a very important monument, appears to
have on the north-east side a portion of its inscription in the early
Greek language; the letters are comparatively ill cut, and extremely
difficult at such an elevation to decipher; seizing favourable
opportunities for the light, I have done my best to copy it faithfully,
and glean from it that the subject is funereal, and that it relates to a
king of Lycia; the mode of inscription makes the monument itself speak,
being written in the first person. Very near to this stands the
monument, similar in form, which I described in my last Journal as being
near the theatre, and upon which remained the singular bas-reliefs of
which I gave sketches. [Sidenote: _Journal of an Excursion in Asia
Minor_, &c. (2nd Edit.), Appendix.] On closer examination I find these
to be far more interesting and ancient than I had before deemed them.
They are in very low-relief, resembling in that respect the Persepolitan
or Egyptian bas-reliefs.

‘I have received,’ continues Sir Charles FELLOWS, ‘from Mr. Benjamin
GIBSON of Rome a letter in reference to these bas-reliefs: his
interpretation of this mysterious subject appears far the best that I
have yet heard; and from finding the district to have been in all
probability the burial-place of the kings, it becomes the more
interesting. Mr. GIBSON writes—“The winged figures on the corners of the
tomb you have discovered in Lycia, represented flying away with
children, may with every probability be well supposed to have a
reference to the story of the Harpies flying away with the daughters of
King PANDARUS. This fable we find related by HOMER in the _Odyssey_,
lib. xx, where they are stated to be left orphans, and the gods as
endowing them with various gifts. Juno gives them prudence, Minerva
instructs them in the art of the loom, Diana confers on them tallness of
person, and lastly Venus flies up to Jupiter to provide becoming
husbands for them; in the mean time, the orphans being thus left
unprotected, the Harpies come and ‘snatch the unguarded charge away.’
STRABO tells us that PANDARUS was King of Lycia, and was worshipped
particularly at Pinara. This tomb becomes thus very interesting; which,
if it be not the tomb of PANDARUS, shows that the story was prevalent in
Lycia, and that the great author of the _Iliad_ derived it from that
source. With this clue, we have no difficulty in recognising Juno on the
peculiar chair assigned to that goddess, and on the same side is Venus
and her attendants; upon another is probably represented Diana,
recognised by the hound. The seated gods are less easily distinguished.
[Sidenote: _Travels and Researches in Asia Minor_, pp. 336–340.] In the
Harpies, at the four corners of the tomb, we have the illustration of
those beings as described by the classic writers.”’

[Sidenote: MANY SUBSEQUENT DISCOVERIES; (THE DETAILS HERE NECESSARILY
           PASSED OVER).]

Every lateral excursion made by Sir C. FELLOWS, and by his companions in
travel, added to his collection rich works of sculpture, and not a few
of them added many varied and most interesting minor antiquities. But I
must needs resist all temptation to enlarge on that head, though the
temptation is great. The twentieth and subsequent chapters of the book
itself (I refer to the _collective_ but abridged ‘_Travels and
Researches in Asia Minor_’ of 1852) will abundantly repay the reader who
is disposed to turn to them—whether it be for a renewed or for a new
reading.

[Sidenote: THE DIFFICULTIES OF TRANSPORT. Jan., 1842.]

When the task of removal had to be undertaken, difficulties of transport
were found, under certain then existing circumstances, to be graver
obstacles than had been Turkish prejudice or Turkish apathy at an
earlier stage of the business. The maritime part of the duty had been
entrusted to Captain GRAVES, of H.M. Ship _Beacon_. The captain left his
ship at Smyrna; sailed with FELLOWS for the Xanthus, in a steam-packet;
but omitted to provide himself with the needful flat-bottomed boats.
[Sidenote: 1841, February.] When they reached the site of the marbles
which were to be carried away, Captain GRAVES said he would not have any
of the stores taken down the river; that stores must be obtained from
Malta; and that he would take all hands away from the diggings at the
beginning of March. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, pp. 440, seqq.] The reader may
imagine the reflections of the eager discoverer at this sudden
check,—coming, as it did, at the very beginning of the burst.

He took a solitary walk of many hours, he tells us, before he could
resolve upon his course of action. He saw before him, to use his own
words, ‘a mine of treasure.’ He had willing hands to work it; ample
firmans to stave off opposition; nothing deficient save boats and
tackle. A year might possibly pass in awaiting them from Malta; and,
meanwhile, the ignorance of the peasantry, the indiscreet curiosity of
travellers, or the sudden growth of political complications, might
destroy the enterprise irrecoverably.

He resolved, in his perplexity, to construct by his own exertions tackle
that would suffice for the removal to the coast; got native help in
addition to the willing efforts—however unscientific—of the honest
sailors of the _Beacon_; succeeded in getting a portion of the precious
objects of his quest to the waterside, before the arrival of the ship;
and got them also strongly cased up. Then he sailed with GRAVES for
Malta. The worthy captain resigned the honourable task—to him so
unwelcome—into the hands of Admiral Sir Edward OWEN. A new expedition
started from Malta at the end of April, and brought away seventy-eight
cases of sculpture in June; leaving the splendid but too heavy
‘winged-chariot-tomb’—so called by its discoverer in one place, and
elsewhere called ‘horse-tomb,’ but since ascertained to be the tomb of a
Lycian satrap named PAIAFA; [Sidenote: ARRIVAL IN ENGLAND OF THE FIRST
SERIES OF XANTHIAN MARBLES. DEC., 1841.] it is adorned with figures of
Glaucus, or perhaps of Sarpedon, in a four-horse chariot—until next
year. The seventy-eight cases were brought to England by the Queen’s
ship _Cambridge_ in the following December.

On the fourteenth of May, 1842, the Trustees of the British Museum thus
recorded their sense of Mr. FELLOWS’ public services:—‘The Trustees
desire to express their sense of Mr. FELLOWS’ public spirit, in
voluntarily undertaking to lend to so distant an expedition the
assistance of his local knowledge and personal co-operation. They have
viewed with great satisfaction the decision and energy evinced by Mr.
FELLOWS in proceeding from Smyrna to Constantinople, and obtaining the
necessary authority for the removal of the marbles; as well as his
judicious directions at Xanthus, by which the most desirable of the
valuable monuments of antiquity formerly brought to light by him,
together with several others, of scarcely less interest, [Sidenote:
_Minutes of the Trustees of the British Museum_; 14 May, 1842. (Appendix
to Fellows).] now for the first time discovered and excavated, have been
placed in safety, and—as the Trustees have every reason to hope—secured
for the National Museum.’

This hope was more than realised. It shows the energy of FELLOWS, that
the expedition to Lycia of 1841 was his _third_ expedition. In 1846 he
made a fourth. It was rich in discovery; but I fear somewhat exhausting
to the strength of the explorer. He lived a good many years, it is true,
after his return to England; but how easily he yielded when a sudden
attack of illness came, I shall have the pain of showing presently.

In the interval between his third and fourth journeys to Lycia, FELLOWS
married a fellow-townswoman, Mary, the only daughter of Francis HART, of
Nottingham, but she survived the marriage only two years. A year after
her death he married the widow of William KNIGHT, of Oatlands, in Herts.
On his final return from Lycia he was knighted, as a token (and it was
but a slender one) of the public gratitude for his services. At the
close of October, 1860, a sudden attack of pleurisy invaded a toilworn
frame. On the eighth of the following month he died, at his house in
Montagu Place, London, in the sixty-first year of his age.


[Sidenote: DATE AND CHARACTER OF THE MONUMENTS IN THE ‘LYCIAN GALLERY.’]

Taken broadly, the sculptures of Lycia may be described as works which
range, in date, from the sixth century before our Lord to almost as many
centuries—if we take the minor antiquities into account—after the
commencement of the Christian era. Some of them rank, therefore, amongst
the earliest _original_ monuments of Greek art which the British Museum
possesses; and date immediately after the _casts_ of the sculptures of
Selinus and of Ægina.

On some of the myths and on the habits of Lycian life there has been a
sharp controversy, of the merits of which I am very incompetent to
speak. Narrower and narrower as my limits are becoming, I yet feel it
due to a public benefactor, who can no longer speak for himself
otherwise than by his works, that in these waning pages he should be
permitted to supply at least a part of his own explanatory comments upon
the story of his discoveries. It is one of enchaining interest to the
students of classical antiquity.

The famous ‘Harpy Tomb,’ thinks Sir Charles FELLOWS, is to be enumerated
as among the most ancient of the remaining works of the ‘Tramilæ,’ or
‘Termilæ,’ mentioned both by HERODOTUS and by STEPHEN of Byzantium, as
well as on the Xanthian obelisk or _stele_, now called the ‘Inscribed
Monument,’ and numbered ‘141’ in the Lycian Gallery of the Museum.

[Sidenote: FELLOWS’ ACCOUNT OF THE LYCIAN MARBLES.]

Sir Charles FELLOWS proceeds to say that ‘the shaft, frieze, and cap of
this monument, weighing more than a hundred tons, has been by an
earthquake moved upon its pedestal eighteen inches towards the
north-east, throwing to the ground two stones of the frieze towards the
south-west: in this state I found it in 1838. In 1841 the eight stones
of this frieze were placed in the Museum. The only similar art which I
know in Europe is in the Albani Villa near Rome. This slab is described
by WINCKELMANN as being of earlier workmanship than that of Etruria. I
shall not dwell upon these works, as they were found _in sitû_, and will
therefore be as well understood in England as if seen at Xanthus. I may
draw attention to the blue, red, and other colours still remaining upon
them. The subject also being that of the family of King PANDARUS, it
should ever be borne in mind that this monument stood in the metropolis
of Lycia, and within twelve miles of the city of Pinara, where we are
told that PANDARUS was deified. This and the neighbouring tombs stood
there prior to the building of the theatre, which is probably of Greek
workmanship. The usual form of this structure must have been partially
sacrificed on account of these monuments, as the seats rising in the
circles above the diazoma have abruptly ceased on the western side, and
have not been continued towards the proscenium. Near to one of the
vomitories in the south-eastern bend of the diazoma is a similar
monument to the Harpy Tomb, which has had the capstone and bas-reliefs
removed, and the shaft built over by the theatre. Upon one of its sides
is a short Lycian inscription, and a few words referring to its repair
remain upon another side in the Greek character.

‘Not far from these stands the inscribed stele, which is of the highest
interest; of this, which is too heavy and too much mutilated to allow,
without great labour, of its removal to the Museum, I have had casts
taken in plaster. From my publications you would learn that a portion of
the top of this [monument], weighing several tons, had been split off by
the shocks of earthquakes: of this I have also had casts taken. In
excavating around the monument on the south-west, and in the opposite
direction to which the top had split off, I found the capstone had been
thrown which had surmounted bas-reliefs; also two fragments of a
bas-relief, but I think too high to have been placed upon this stele:
they are the work of the same age, and are now placed in the Museum. The
most important discovery here was of the upper angles broken from the
monument, and having upon them the inscription on each side, thus
perfecting, as far as they extend, the beginnings and ends of the upper
lines of the inscription; these original stones I have brought home,
being useless and insecure, if left in fragments with the monument. The
exact form of the letters of the Greek portion of this inscription,
compared with many others of which I shall speak, will do much to fix a
date to these works.

‘Upon the point of rock on the north-west side of the Acropolis is a
fine Cyclopean basement, which has probably been surmounted by a similar
monument to those of which I have spoken. No trace is found of any of
its fragments; and from its position, shocks in the same direction as
those which have destroyed the others would have thrown this down the
perpendicular cliff into the river which flows about three hundred feet
beneath.

‘The masses of Cyclopean foundations traced around and upon the
Acropolis, have been too much worked in, and converted to the use of an
after people to ascertain their original form: they certainly have not
been continuous, forming a wall or defence for the Acropolis; indeed,
its natural position would render this superfluous, the cliffs on the
south and west are inaccessible. I observe that most of the forms are
referable to vast pedestals or stoas for large monuments; and from their
individual positions at various elevations, and upon angles and points,
I believe that the Acropolis has been covered with the ornamented
monuments of this early people. The walls and basements of these
separate buildings have since been united by strong lines formed of the
old materials, the most ready for the purpose, and all put together with
a very excellent cement, of which I have brought away specimens. A wall
of this formation, facing the south-west, attracted my attention in
1838, by displaying some sculptured animals and chariots built as
material into its front. This wall we have, with great labour, owing to
the hardness of the cement, entirely removed; behind a portion of it we
found a fine Cyclopean wall, which had slightly inclined over from the
weight of earth behind; the casing which we have removed strengthened
it, and, connecting the old buildings with others, formed a line of
fortification, probably in Roman times. From the great size of the
blocks used in constructing this wall, from the similarity of the stone,
as well as from the sculpture traceable upon almost the whole of them, I
conclude that they must have been the ruins of monuments in the
immediate neighbourhood; basements for such are on either side. The
works found here are entirely those of the early people; and I may
extend this remark to all found upon the Acropolis. The architectural
fragments, many specimens of which I bring away, are all Lycian, and
would form monuments imitative of wooden constructions—beam-ends, ties,
mortices, and cornices, similar to the tombs shown in the drawings, but
double the size in point of scale to any now existing; bearing this in
mind, I do not think it improbable that the sculptures representing a
chariot procession have filled the panels on either side; should this be
the case we have nearly the whole complete. The cornice and borders of
these strongly corroborate this idea. We have four somewhat triangular
stones, with sitting sphinxes upon each; these would complete the two
gable ends in similar form and spirit of device to the generality of the
tombs of this people. There is also an angle-stone, interesting from its
sculpture, and from its style and subject blending these works with the
age of the “Harpy Tomb.”

‘To continue with the works of the early inhabitants: We must next
notice the tombs at the foot of the rocky heights at the south-eastern
parts of the city: of these the most beautiful are the kind having
Gothic-formed tops; these can be seen in the various drawings. The
structure generally consists of a base or pedestal which has contained
bodies, the _Platas_, surmounted by a plinth or solid mass of stone,
which is often sculptured; above this is a sarcophagus, generally
imitative of a wood-formed cabinet, the principal receptacle for the
bodies, the _Soros_; upon this is placed a Gothic lid, sometimes highly
ornamented with sculpture, which also served as a place of sepulture,
probably the _Isostæ_. From one of these, in which the lower parts were
cut out of the solid rock, and the top had fallen and been destroyed, I
have had casts taken, as the subject is intimately connected with the
frieze of the wild animals on the Acropolis. On this tomb, the
inscription is cut in the language of the early people. Not far distant
from this is a tomb which, from the sculpture upon it, I distinguish as
the “Chimæra-Tomb.” The lid of this, which I found in 1840, is perfect,
but had been thrown to the ground by the effect of earthquakes; the
chamber from off which it had slidden was inclining towards the lid;
beneath the chamber a few stones forming the foundation and step (in the
same block) are alone to be found. There is here no trace of the first
two stories, and from the rock approaching the surface of the ground I
found no depth of earth for research. Upon the chamber of this tomb is a
Lycian inscription, of which I have casts, in order that they may be
used in reconstructing the monument in the Museum. The other tomb of
this character, and by far the most highly ornamented, was the tomb of
PAIAFA, and I call it, from its sculpture, the “Winged-Chariot-Tomb.” In
finding this monument, in 1838, I observed that each part had been much
shaken and split by earthquake, but no portion was wanting except a
fragment from the north corner. This monument combines matters of great
interest, showing in itself specimens of the architecture, sculpture,
and language. I have stated that this style of monument is peculiar to
Lycia; and I now add, from the knowledge derived from my research in
that country, that Lycia contains none but these two of this ornamental
description. These differ in minor points, making the possession of each
highly desirable, and I am glad that these will be placed in our
National Museum. The tombs of Telmessus, Antiphellus, and Limyra, are
similar in construction, but have not the sculptured tops and other
ornamental finishings seen in these.

‘Upon the Acropolis, and fallen into a bath, we found a pedestal having
sculptured upon the side a god and goddess within a temple, in excellent
preservation. On the opposite side of the pedestal is a very singular
subject, which, had not certain points both of execution, material, and
position occurred, I should have attributed to the Byzantine age.
Amongst many other animals, the object of chase to a hunter is seen much
mutilated: this may have been the representation of a novel idea of the
Chimæra: the hind quarters of a goat remain, with a snake for its tail.
It is greatly to be regretted that the other fragments could not be
found. On observing in the ground some very ancient forms of the Greek
letters, differing from all others found so commonly here, cut upon a
slab of marble, I had it taken up, and was delighted to find that it was
a pedestal, with a Lycian inscription upon the other side; this will be
valuable, as showing the form of the Greek characters in use at the age
of the language of Lycia. This same type is seen in all the bilingual
inscriptions, of which we have only casts.

‘Of another pedestal at Tlos I have taken casts, which will be valued
from the subjects of the bas-reliefs. The pedestal of one stone was
formed of two cubes, a small one upon a larger. The fourth side of the
upper one was not sculptured. One slab of the larger cube represents in
bas-relief a view of the Acropolis of Tlos, the Troas of these early
people: probably the hero whose deeds were by this monument
commemorated, and whose name occurs twice upon it, was engaged in the
defence or capture of the city. At Tlos I also found cut in the rock of
the Acropolis a tomb with an Ionic portico. [Sidenote: _Note._—The plans
referred to are appended to the first edition of Sir C. Fellows’ book.]
Within this are represented a panelled and ornamented door, and several
sculptured devices and animals, as shown in the drawings and plans. On
the side, and within the portico, is a very early bas-relief of
Bellerophon upon Pegasus, and probably a chimæra beneath the horse; but
this portion of the sculpture is unfinished, and the rock beneath is
left rough; the columns of the portico are only blocked out from the
rock. Of the bas-relief of Bellerophon I have casts, and the full detail
of the colouring which now remains upon the figures. This is probably
the earliest sculpture which we have obtained. From Cadyanda I have
casts of parts of a beautiful tomb, which is so much in ruins, and
shaken into fragments, that I could not even take casts of the whole of
the sculptures that remain. The roof or lid is wanting. The tomb now
consists of a chamber in imitation of a wooden structure, and in the
panels is sculpture; surmounting this is a smaller solid block, or
plinth, also sculptured, but the upper part is wanting. These
bas-reliefs, of which I show many drawings in my ‘Lycia,’ derive great
additional interest from several of the figures having near them names
inscribed in two languages—the Greek and the Lycian. The casts of these,
I doubt not, will be valued as important illustrations. From Myra I have
casts of the whole of the figures ornamenting one of the rock-tombs.
Three of these subjects from within the Portico retain so much of their
original painting that I have had the casts coloured on the spot as
fac-similes, and a portion of the paint is preserved for chemical
examination. There are from this tomb eleven figures the size of life.
Of the inscriptions of this people I have made many copies; I have had
casts of one long one from the large Gothic-formed tomb at Antiphellus,
also of the bilingual inscription from the same place, and of another
from Levisse, near the ancient Telmessus.

‘Of the age of the next works of which I must speak, and which are a
large portion of the collection from Xanthus, I have great difficulty in
forming an opinion. The whole were found around a basement which stands
on the edge of a cliff to the south-east of the ancient Acropolis. The
monument which stood upon this stoa has been thrown down by earthquake,
almost the whole of its ruins falling towards the north-west. These
works are of a people quite distinct from the preceding, both in their
architecture, sculpture, and language: these are purely Greek. On
carefully examining the whole of the architectural members of which I
have specimens selected (some retaining coloured patterns upon them), as
well as the position in which each of the various parts were thrown, I
have, in my own mind, reconstructed the building, the whole of which was
of Parian marble, and highly finished. The monument which I suppose to
have crowned this basement has been either a magnificent tomb, or a
monument erected as a memorial of a great victory. In reforming this, I
require the whole of the parts that we have found, and none are wanting
except two stones of the larger frieze, and the fragments of the
statues. The art of this sculpture is Greek, but the subjects show many
peculiarities and links to the earlier works found in Lycia. The frieze,
representing the taking refuge within a city, and the sally out of its
walls upon the besiegers, has many points of this character. The city
represented is an ancient Lycian city, and has within its walls the
stele, or monument known alone in Xanthus. The city is upon a rock;
women are seen upon the walls. The costume of the men is a longer and
thinner garment than is seen in the Attic Greeks. The shields of the
chiefs are curtained. The saddle-cloth of the jaded horse entering the
city is precisely like the one upon the Pegasus of Bellerophon, and the
conqueror and judge is an Eastern chief, with the umbrella, the emblem
of Oriental royalty, held over him. The body-guard and conquering party
of the chief are Greek soldiers. Many of these peculiarities are also
seen in the larger frieze, and also in the style of the lions and
statues. The form of the building, which alone I can reconcile with the
remains, is a Carian monument of the Ionic order. Bearing in mind all
these points, I am strongly inclined to attribute this work to the
mercenaries from Æolia and Ionia, brought down by HARPAGUS to conquer
the inhabitants of Xanthus, whom they are said to have utterly
destroyed. This monument may have been the tomb of a chief, or erected
as a memorial of the conquest of the city by HARPAGUS. No inscription
has been found, or it might probably have thrown some light upon the
date of this work. In the immediate neighbourhood were found the other
friezes, representing hunting-scenes, a battle, offerings of various
kinds and by different nations, funeral feasts, and several statues
which are of the same date.’ Sir Charles then concludes thus:—

‘The whole of the remaining works now to be traced amidst the ruins of
Xanthus are decidedly of a late date; scarcely any are to be attributed
to a period preceding the Christian era, and to that age I cannot
conceive the works just noticed to have belonged. A triumphal arch or
gateway of the city at the foot of the cliff of which I have spoken has
upon it a Greek inscription, showing it to have been erected in the
reign of VESPASIAN, _A.D._ 80: from this arch are the metopes and
triglyphs now in the Museum. [Sidenote: _Travels and Researches in Asia
Minor_, pp. 429, 430 (1852).] Through this is a pavement of flagstones
leading towards the theatre. To this age I should attribute the theatre,
agora, and most of the buildings which I have called Greek, and which
are marked red upon the plan. To this people belong the immense quantity
of mosaic pavements which have existed in all parts of the city. Almost
all the small pebbles in the fields are the débris of these works. In
many places we have found patterns remaining which are of coarse
execution, but Greek in design.’


[Sidenote: THE MARBLES OF HALICARNASSUS, OF CNIDUS, AND OF BRANCHIDÆ.]

The not a whit less interesting discoveries at Halicarnassus and
elsewhere, made chiefly in the years 1856, 1857, and 1858, by Mr.
Charles NEWTON, now claim attention, but my present notice of them can
be but very inadequate to the worth of the subject. They as richly
deserve a full record as do the explorations of LAYARD or those of
FELLOWS.

The earliest, in arrival, of the Halicarnassian Marbles were procured by
our Ambassador at Constantinople (then Sir Stratford CANNING, now) Lord
STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE. These first-received marbles comprise twelve
slabs, sculptured with the combats of Greeks and Amazons in low-relief;
and were removed from the walls of the mediæval castle of Budrum, in the
year 1846, with the permission, of course, of the Sublime Porte. It is a
tribute all the stronger to the energy of Lord STRATFORD to find another
man of energy writing, in 1841: ‘I would not have been a party to the
asking what—to all who have seen them’ (namely, the Marbles of
Halicarnassus, built into the inner walls of Budrum Castle)—‘must be
considered as an unreasonable request.’ [Sidenote: _Travels and
Researches in Asia Minor_, pp. 429, 430 (1852).] It took, it is true,
five years for Lord STRATFORD to overcome the obstacle which to Mr.
FELLOWS seemed, in 1841, quite insuperable.

[Sidenote: THE MISSION TO THE LEVANT OF MR. CHARLES NEWTON. 1856–58.]

In 1856, and expressly in order to a thorough exploration of the site of
Halicarnassus, and of other promising parts of the Levant, Mr. Charles
NEWTON, then one of the ablest of the officers of the Department of
Antiquities (whose loss at the Museum, even for three or four years, was
not very easily replaceable), accepted the office of British Vice-Consul
at Mitylene. In 1857, he discovered four additional slabs (similar to
those received from the Ambassador), on the site of the world-famous
mausoleum itself; several colossal statues, and portions of such;
together with a multitude of architectural fragments of almost every
conceivable kind; columns—mostly broken into many portions—with their
bases, capitals, and entablatures, in sufficient quantity and diversity
to warrant a faithful restoration of the ancient building by a competent
hand.

From Didyme (near Miletus), from Cnidus, and from Branchidæ, many fine
archaic figures in the round; some colossal lions; and an enormous
number of fragments both of sculpture and of architecture; with many
minor antiquities, various in character and in material, were
successively sent to England. Mr. Charles NEWTON’S narrative of his
adventures at Budrum, and at several of the other places of his sojourn
and excavations, is very graphic. Some portions of it are worthy to be
placed side by side with the best chapters of the earlier narrative of
the explorations and travelling experiences of LAYARD.

Of the most famous trophy of Mr. NEWTON’S first mission to the East—the
mausoleum built by Queen ARTEMISIA—the discoverer has himself more
recently given this brief and striking descriptive account:—

[Sidenote: THE TOMB OF MAUSOLUS AT HALICARNASSUS.]

This monument, writes Mr. NEWTON, in 1869, was erected ‘to contain the
remains of MAUSOLUS, Prince of Caria, about _B.C._ 352. It consisted of
a lofty basement, on which stood an oblong Ionic edifice, surrounded by
thirty-six Ionic columns, and surmounted by a pyramid of twenty-four
steps. [Sidenote: _Guide to the Department of Antiquities_, &c., pp. 74,
75.] The whole structure, a hundred and forty feet in height, was
crowned by a chariot-group in white marble, in which probably stood
MAUSOLUS himself, represented after his translation to the world of
demigods and heroes. The peristyle edifice which supported the pyramids
was encircled by a frieze, richly sculptured in high-relief,’ and so on.
The frieze thus mentioned is that of which the twelve slabs were, as
already mentioned, given by Lord STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE in 1846, four
exhumed by NEWTON himself in 1857, and one more purchased from the
Marchese SERRA, of Genoa, in 1865. This piecemeal acquisition of the
principal frieze, by dint of researches spread over twenty years, is not
the least curious of the facts pertaining to the story. But the annals
of the Museum comprise ten or twelve similar instances of ultimate
reunion, after long scattering, of the parts of one whole. They tell of
manuscripts (made perfect after the lapse of a century, it may be) as
well as of sculptures, thus toilsomely recovered.

But the Greco-Amazonian battle-frieze was not the only frieze of the
famous mausoleum. The external walls of the ‘cella’ had two other
friezes, of which Mr. NEWTON succeeded in recovering several fragments,
some of them of much interest. And the mausoleum was profusely adorned
with sculptures in the round as well as with the richly carved figures
in relief, both high and low, which encircled (in all probability) the
very basement, as well as the peristyle and the cella portions of this
marvellous structure. Lions in watchful attitudes (‘lions guardant,’ in
heraldic phrase) stood here and there, and the fragments of these which
have been recovered testify to their variety of scale, as well as to
their number. The names of five famous sculptors of the later Athenian
school—SCOPAS, LEOCHARES, BRYAXIS, TIMOTHEUS, PYTHIOS—who were employed
upon the decoration of the tomb itself, or upon the chariot-group, have
been recorded, and it would seem that each of four of these had one side
of the tomb specially assigned to him. ‘The material of the sculpture
was Parian marble, and the whole structure was richly ornamented with
colour. [Sidenote: Newton, in _Guide_, as above, p. 74; and _Travels and
Discoveries in the Levant_, vol. ii, pp. 108–137; and passim.] The tomb
of MAUSOLUS was of the class called by the Greeks _heröon_, and so
greatly excelled all other sepulchral monuments in size, beauty of
design, and richness of decoration, that it was reckoned one of the
“Seven Wonders of the World.”’

While LAYARD was unearthing Nineveh; FELLOWS bringing into the light of
day the long-lost cities of Lycia; and Charles NEWTON restoring, before
men’s eyes, this funereal marvel of the ancient world, which had long
been known (in effect) only by dim memories and traditions; [Sidenote:
THE EXPLORATIONS OF NATHAN DAVIS AT CARTHAGE AND UTICA.] Dr. Nathan
DAVIS, in his turn, was exhuming Carthage and Utica. All these
distinguished men were labouring, in common, for the enrichment of our
National Museum, within a period of some twenty years. Three of them may
be said to have been busied (in one way or other) with their
self-denying tasks contemporaneously.[42] If we take into the account
the variety, as well as the intrinsic worth, of the additions thus made
to human knowledge; above all, if we duly estimate the value of those
links of connection between things human and things divine, which are
the most essential characteristic of some of the best of these
acquisitions, it may well be said that the annals of no museum in the
world can boast of such an enrichment as this, by the efforts of the
travellers and the archæologists of one generation. And all of these
explorers are—in one sense or other—Britons.

On one incidental point, I have to express a hope that the reader will
pardon what he may be momentarily inclined to think an over-iteration of
remark. If I have really adverted somewhat too frequently to the
connection which many of these rich archæological acquisitions, of
1842–1861, present between the annals of man and the Book of GOD, I have
this to plead, in extenuation: Certain writers pass over that connection
so hurriedly as almost to lose sight of it. And we live in an age in
which some of our own countrymen—some of those among us to whom the
Creator has been most bounteous in the bestowal of the glorious gifts of
mind and genius—have even spoken of our best of all literary possessions
as ‘Jew-Records,’ and ‘Hebrew old-clothes.’ Those particular
expressions, indeed, were employed long before the arrival of the
Assyrian Marbles. But I think I have seen them quoted since.


[Sidenote: THE SPOILS OF CARTHAGE AND UTICA.]

Among the spoils of Carthage and of Utica which we owe to Dr. Nathan
DAVIS, are many rich mosaic pavements, of the second and third centuries
of our era, and a multitude of Phœnician and Carthaginian inscriptions,
extending in date over several centuries. And it must be added that many
of the antiquities, and more especially of the mosaics, excavated under
Dr. DAVIS’S instructions at Utica, were found to possess greater beauty,
and a more varied interest, than most of those which were disinterred by
him from amidst the ruins of Carthage. Many of these, like some of the
choice treasures of Nineveh, are, in a sense, still buried—for want of
room at the British Museum adequately to display them. The reader may
yet, but too fitly, conceive of some of them as piteously crying out (in
1870, as in 1860)—

   ‘Here have ye piled us together, and left us in cruel confusion,
   Each one pressing his fellow, and each one shading his brother;
   None in a fitting abode, in the life-giving play of the sunshine;
   Here in disorder we lie, like desolate bones in a charnel.’


[Sidenote: OTHER CONSPICUOUS AUGMENTORS OF THE GALLERIES OF
           ANTIQUITIES.]

Many other liberal benefactors to the several Archæological Departments
of the Museum deserve record in this chapter. But the record must needs
be a mere catalogue, not a narrative; and even the catalogue will be an
abridged one.

Foremost among the discoverers of valuable remains of Greek antiquity,
subsequent to most of those which have now been detailed, are to be
mentioned Mr. George DENNIS, who explored Sicily in 1862 and subsequent
years; and Captain T. A. B. SPRATT, who travelled over Lycia and the
adjacent countries, following in the footsteps of Sir Charles FELLOWS,
[Sidenote: Spratt and Forbes’ _Travels in Lycia, Mityas, and the
Cibyrates_ (2 vols; 1847), passim.] and who enjoyed the advantage of the
company and co-operation of two able and estimable fellow-travellers,
Edward FORBES and Edward Thomas DANIELL, both of whom, like their
honoured precursor in Lycian exploration, have been many years lost to
us.

The antiquities collected in Sicily by DENNIS, at the national cost,
were chiefly from the tombs. They included very many beautiful Greek
vases, a collection of archaic terracottas, and other minor
antiquities.[43] Some of the marbles discovered by SPRATT are of the
Macedonian period, and probably productions of the school of Pergamus.

At Camerus and elsewhere, in the island of Rhodes, important excavations
were carried on by Messrs. BILIOTTI and SALZMANN. These also were
effected at the public charge. [Sidenote: _Reports of British Museum_;
1864, and subsequent years.] In the course of them nearly three hundred
tombs were opened, and many choicely painted fictile vases of the best
period of Greek ceramography were found. Those researches at Rhodes were
the work of the years 1862, 1863, and 1864. In 1865, the excavations at
Halicarnassus were resumed by order of the Trustees, and under the
direction of the same explorers, and with valuable results. In 1864, an
important purchase of Greek and Roman statues, and of the sculptures
from the Farnese Collection at Rome, was made. In the following year
came an extensive series of antiquities from the famous Collection of
the late Count POURTALÈS. Of the precious objects obtained by the
researches of Mr. Consul WOOD, at Ephesus, in the same and subsequent
years, a brief notice will be found in Chapter VI.




                               CHAPTER V.
                 THE FOUNDER OF THE GRENVILLE LIBRARY.

         ‘He was a scholar, and a ripe and good one,
       Exceeding wise, fairspoken, and persuading;
       Crabbed, mayhap, to them that loved him not;
       But to those men that sought him, sweet as Summer.’—
                                                   _Henry VIII._

  ‘If a man be not permitted to change his political opinions—when he
  has arrived at years of discretion—he must be born a SOLOMON.’—

  W. F. HOOK, _Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury_, (vol. viii, p.
     237).

  _The_ GRENVILLES _and their Influence on the Political Aspect of the
      Georgian Reigns.—The Public and Literary Life of the Right
      Honourable Thomas_ GRENVILLE.—_History of the_ GRENVILLE
      _Library_.


It was the singular fortune of Thomas GRENVILLE to belong to a family
which has given almost half a score of ministers to England; to possess
in himself large diplomatic ability; and to have been gifted—his
political opponents themselves being judges—with considerable talents
for administration; and yet, in the course of a life protracted to more
than ninety years, to have been an _active_ diplomatist during less than
one year, and to have been a Minister of State less than half a year. It
is true that he was of that happy temperament which both enables and
tempts a man to carve out delightful occupation for himself. He had,
too, those rarely combined gifts of taste, fortune, and public spirit,
which inspire their possessor with the will, and confer upon him the
power, to make his personal enjoyments largely contribute (both in his
own time and after it) to the enjoyments of his fellow-countrymen. It
might be true, therefore, to say that Thomas GRENVILLE was the happier
and the better for his exclusion, during almost forty-nine-fiftieths of
his long life, from the public service. [Sidenote: WHAT WAS IT THAT KEPT
THOMAS GRENVILLE ALOOF FROM POLITICAL OFFICE?] But it can hardly be rash
to say that England must needs have been somewhat the worse for that
exclusion.

Nor was it altogether a self-imposed exclusion. There was among its
causes a curious conjunction of outward accidents and of philosophic
self-resignation to their results. Untoward chances abroad twice broke
off the foreign embassies of this eminent man. Unforeseen political
complications amongst Whigs and semi-Whigs twice deprived him of cabinet
office at home. But, no doubt, neither shipwreck at sea nor party
intrigue on land would have been potent enough to keep Thomas GRENVILLE
out of high State employment, but for the personal fastidiousness which
withheld him from stretching out his hand, with any eagerness, to grasp
it.

[Sidenote: THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE OF THE GRENVILLE FAMILY; ITS DURATION
           AND ITS PECULIAR CHARACTERISTICS.]

It would, perhaps, be hard to lay the finger on any one family recorded
in the ‘_British Peerage_’ which so long and so largely influenced our
political history, in the Georgian era of it, as did that of GRENVILLE.
During the century (speaking roundly) which began with the suppression
of the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745, and ended with the Repeal of the Corn
Laws, GRENVILLES are continually prominent in every important political
struggle. The personal influence and (for lack of a plainer word) the
characteristic ‘idiosyncrasy’ of individual GRENVILLES notoriously
shaped, or materially helped to shape, several measures that have had
world-wide results. But perhaps the most curious feature in their
political history as a family is this: At almost every great crisis in
affairs one GRENVILLE, of ability and prominence, is seen in tolerably
active opposition to the rest of the GRENVILLES. In the political
history of the man who forms the subject of this brief memoir the family
peculiarity, it will be seen, came out saliently.


The political GRENVILLES were offshoots of an old stock which, in the
days of eld, were richer in gallant soldiers than in peace-loving
publicists. The old GRENVILLES dealt many a shrewd swordthrust for
England by land and by sea, in the Tudor times, and earlier. The younger
branch has been rich in statesmen and rich in scholars. Not a few of
them have shone equally and at once in either path of labour.

[Sidenote: PARENTAGE AND EARLY LIFE OF THOMAS GRENVILLE.]

Thomas GRENVILLE was the second son of the Minister of GEORGE THE THIRD,
George GRENVILLE,—himself the second son of Richard GRENVILLE, of
Wotton, and of Hester TEMPLE (co-heiress of Richard TEMPLE, Lord Cobham,
and herself created Countess TEMPLE in 1749). He was born on the
thirty-first of December, 1755, and entered Parliament soon after
attaining his majority. In the House of Commons he voted and acted as a
follower of Lord ROCKINGHAM and a comrade of Charles FOX, in opposition
to the other GRENVILLES and the ‘Grenvillite’ party. Had the famous
India Bill of FOX’S ministry been carried into a law, Thomas GRENVILLE,
it was understood, would have been the first Governor-General of India
under its rule.

[Sidenote: HIS SHORT DIPLOMATIC CAREER.]

His first entrance into the diplomatic service was made in 1782. His
mission was to Paris. Its purpose, to negotiate with Benjamin FRANKLIN a
treaty of peace with America. [Sidenote: See above, Book II, Chap. III,
page 431.] The circumstances beneath the influence of which it was
undertaken I have had occasion to advert to, already, in the notice of
Lord SHELBURNE. It is needless to return to them now.

Thomas GRENVILLE’S union in the double negotiation with Mr. OSWALD
(instructed by SHELBURNE, it will be remembered, as GRENVILLE was by
FOX) proved to be very distasteful to him. From the beginning it boded
ill to the success of the mission. As early as the 4th of June, 1782, we
find Mr. GRENVILLE writing to FOX [Sidenote: THE MISSION TO PARIS,
1782–3.] thus:—‘I entreat you earnestly to see the impossibility of my
assisting you under this contrariety.... I cannot fight a daily battle
with Mr. OSWALD and his Secretary.[44] [Sidenote: T. Grenville to Fox;
4th June, 1782.] It would be neither for the advantage of the business,
for your interest, or for your credit or mine; and, even if it was, _I_
could not do it.’

The then existing arrangements of the Secretaryship of State gave the
control of a negotiation with _France_ to one Secretary, and of a
negotiation with _America_ to the other. The reader has but to call to
mind the well-known political relationship between FOX and SHELBURNE in
1782, to gain a fully sufficient key to the consequent diplomatic
relationship between OSWALD and Thomas GRENVILLE, when thus engaged in
carrying on, abreast, a double mission at the Court of Paris. [Sidenote:
Comp. also same to same, June 16. (_Court and Cabinets_ of Geo. III, pp.
36–51.)] To add to the obvious embroilment, OSWALD had shortly before
received from Benjamin FRANKLIN a suggestion that Britain should
‘spontaneously’ cede Canada, in order to enable his astute countrymen at
home the better to compensate both the plundered Royalists and those
among the victorious opponents of those Royalists who had, from time to
time, sustained any damage at the hands of the British armies.

The most earnest entreaties, from many quarters, were used to induce
GRENVILLE to remain at Paris. His political friends, and his family
connections, were, on that point, alike urgent. But all entreaties were
in vain. When the news reached him of Lord ROCKINGHAM’S death, and of
the break-up in the Cabinet which followed, his decision was, if
possible, more decided. He still clave to FOX, while his brother, Lord
TEMPLE, accepted from SHELBURNE the Lieutenancy of Ireland. A Lordship
of the Treasury or the Irish Secretaryship was by turns pressed upon Mr.
GRENVILLE by Lord TEMPLE with an earnestness which may be called
passionate. [Sidenote: Lord Temple to T. Grenville, 12th July.] ‘Let me
hope,’ said he, ‘that you will feel that satisfaction that every [other]
member of my family most earnestly feels at my acceptance of the
Lieutenancy of Ireland.... I conjure you, by everything that you prize
nearest and dearest to your heart; by the joy I have ever felt in your
welfare; by the interest I have ever taken in your uneasiness; weigh
well your determination; it decides the complexion of my future
hours.... I have staked my happiness upon this cast.’ The resolve of
Thomas GRENVILLE to adhere to the position he had taken was the cause of
a family estrangement which endured for many years. But the more a
reader, familiar with the annals of the time (and especially if he be
also familiar with the personal history of Lord TEMPLE before and
after), may study Lord TEMPLE’S letters of 1782, the less he is likely
to wonder that the peculiar line of argument they develope failed to
attain the aim they had in view. The vein that runs through them is
plainly that of personal ambition; not of an adherence—at any cost—to a
sincere conviction, whether right or wrong, of public duty. Such a line
of argument was, at no time, the line likely to commend itself to Thomas
GRENVILLE. Both his virtues, and what by many politicians will be
regarded as his weaknesses, alike armed him against obvious appeals to
mere self-interest or self-aggrandisement.

One result—and the not unanticipated result—of the family estrangement
of 1782 was that, two years later, Mr. GRENVILLE found himself to have
no longer the command of a seat in Parliament. [Sidenote: THE WITHDRAWAL
FROM PARLIAMENT, 1784–90.] For four years to come he gave most of his
leisure to a pursuit which he loved much better—as far as personal taste
was concerned—namely, to the resumption of his systematic studies in
classical literature. But in 1790 he was elected a burgess for the town
of Aldborough. Thenceforward, and for a good many years, politics again
shared his time with literature, and with those social claims and duties
to which no man of his day was more keenly alive.

In 1795 a second diplomatic mission was offered to him, and it was
accepted. In the interval, another and more lasting change had come
across his career in Parliament. He was one of the many ‘Foxites’ who
utterly disapproved the course which their old leader adopted in regard
to the French Revolution and to the rising passion to glorify and to
imitate it at home. To the ‘Man of the People’ (as he was very
fancifully called), the English countershock to the French overturn was,
in one sense, specially fatal. It ripened peculiar, though hitherto in
some degree latent, weaknesses. And with these, when they became
salient, Thomas GRENVILLE had really as little fellow-feeling as had
Edmund BURKE. Alike both men now supported PITT, with whom, as
experience increased and judgment matured, they both had always had
intrinsically far more in common. And among the results of the new
political relationships came a restoration of family harmony. George
GRENVILLE became PITT’S Foreign Secretary; Thomas GRENVILLE became
PITT’S Minister to the Court of Berlin. One year later, he again sat in
Parliament for Buckingham.

The mission to Berlin was first impeded by a threatened shipwreck among
icebergs at sea, and, when that impediment had been with difficulty
overcome, the journey was again and more seriously obstructed by an
actual shipwreck upon the coast of Flanders. [Sidenote: THE MISSION TO
BERLIN, 1795.] Mr. GRENVILLE’S life was exposed to imminent danger.
After a desperate effort, he succeeded in saving his despatches and in
scrambling to land. But he saved nothing else; and the inevitable delay
enabled the French Directory to send SIÈYES to Berlin, in advance of the
ambassador of Britain. The able and versatile Frenchman made the best of
his priority. Mr. GRENVILLE was not found wanting in exertion, any more
than in ability. But in the then posture of affairs the advantage in
point of time, proved to be an advantage which no skill of fence could
afterwards recover. Hence it was that the mission of 1795 became
practically an abortive mission. With it ended the ambassador’s
diplomatic career.

[Sidenote: THE CABINET OF 1806.]

Almost equally brief was his subsequent actively official career in
England. On the formation of Lord GRENVILLE’S Cabinet (February, 1806),
no office was taken by the Premier’s next brother. But on the death of
FOX, six months later, he became First Lord of the Admiralty. That
office he held until the formation of the Tory Government, in the month
of April, 1807. It was too brief a term to give him any adequate
opportunity of really evincing his administrative powers. And during
almost forty remaining years of life he never took office again,
contenting himself with that now nominal function (conferred on him in
the year 1800), [Sidenote: THE ‘CHIEF-JUSTICESHIP IN EYRE,’ SOUTH OF
TRENT. 1800–1845.] the ‘Chief-Justiceship in Eyre, to the south of the
river Trent,’ of the profits of which, as will be seen presently, he
made a noble use. That office in Eyre had once been a function of real
gravity and potency. It was still a surviving link between the feudal
England of the Henrys and the Edwards, on the one hand, and the
industrial England of the Georges on the other. Under a king who could
govern, as well as reign, the ‘Chief-Justiceship in Eyre’ might have
shown itself, in one particular, to possess a real and precious vitality
still. By possibility, the sports of twelfth century and chase-loving
monarchs might have been made to alleviate the toils, to brighten the
leisure, and to lengthen the lives, of nineteenth-century and
hard-toiling artisans. [Sidenote: THE CHIEF-JUSTICESHIP IN EYRE, AND
WHAT MIGHT HAVE COME OF ITS PERPETUATION.] For in exerting the still
_legal_ powers (long dormant, but not abolished) of the forest
justiceship, a potent check might have been provided against the
profligate, although now common, abuse of the powers entrusted by
Parliament to the Board of Woods and Forests. No new legislation was
wanted to save many splendid tracts of forest land (over which the Crown
then—and as well in 1845, as in 1800—possessed what might have been
indestructible ‘forestal rights’), for public enjoyment for ever.
Existing laws would have sufficed. But no blame on this score lies at
the charge of the then Chief Justice in Eyre. Had Mr. GRENVILLE, for
example, ever conceived the idea of using the Forest Laws to preserve
for the English people, we will say, Epping Forest, or any other like
sylvan tract on this side of Trent, as a ‘People’s Park’ for ever, he
would have been laughed at as a Quixote. If Parliament in 1870 is fast
becoming alive to the misconduct of those ‘Commissioners’ who have dealt
with the Forestal rights of the Crown exactly in the spirit of the
pettiest of village shopkeepers, rather than in the spirit of Ministers
of State, there was in Mr. GRENVILLE’S time scarcely the faintest
whisper of any such conviction of public duty in regard to that matter.
Not one Member of Parliament, I think, had ever (at that time) pointed
out the gross hypocrisy, as well as the folly, of _selling_ by the hands
of one public board and for a few pounds hundreds of acres of ancient
and lovely woodlands, and then presently _buying_, by the hands of
another public board, acres of dreary and almost unimprovable barrenness
by the expenditure of several thousands of pounds, in order to provide
new recreation grounds for ‘public enjoyment!’

Of that forestal Chief-Justiceship Mr. GRENVILLE was the last holder.
The office had been established by WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR. It was
abolished by Queen VICTORIA. One of the chief pursuits of those forty
years of retirement which ensued to the founder of the Grenville
Library, upon the breaking up of the Grenville Administration of 1806,
was book-buying and book-reading. ‘A great part of my Library’—so wrote
Mr. GRENVILLE, in 1845—‘has been purchased by the profits of a sinecure
office given me by the Public.’ If that sinecure was not and, under the
then circumstances, could not have been by its holder’s action or
foresight, made the means of preserving for public enjoyment such of the
ancient forests as, early in this century, were still intact in beauty,
and also lay near to crowded and more or less unhealthy towns, it was at
least made the means of giving to the nation a garden for the mind. ‘I
feel it,’ continued Mr. GRENVILLE, in his document of 1845, [Sidenote:
_Will of the Rt. Hon. T. Grenville_; Oct., 1845.] ‘to be a debt and a
duty that I should acknowledge my obligation by giving the Library so
acquired to the BRITISH MUSEUM for the use of the Public.’

[Sidenote: MR. T. GRENVILLE’S INTERCOURSE WITH, AND ESTEEM FOR, SIR A.
           PANIZZI.]

I have had occasion, already, to mention that many years before his
death Mr. GRENVILLE formed a very high estimate of the eminent
attainments and still more eminent public services of Sir A. PANIZZI. No
man had a better opportunity of knowing, intimately, the merits of the
then Assistant-Keeper of the printed portion of our National Library.
Mr. GRENVILLE showed his estimate in a conclusive and very
characteristic way. [Sidenote: _Minutes of Inquiry_, &c., 1848, and
subsequent years, pp. 141, seqq.] He had earnestly supported (in the
year 1835) the proposal of a Sub-committee of Trustees that Mr.
PANIZZI’S early services—more especially in relation to the cataloguing
of what are known, at the Museum, as ‘the French Tracts,’ but also as to
other labours—should be substantially recognised by an improvement of
his salary. At a larger meeting, the recommendation of the smaller
sub-committee was cordially adopted in the honorary point of view, but
was set virtually aside, in respect to the ‘honorarium,’ That latter
step Mr. GRENVILLE so resented that he rose from the table, and never
sat at a Trustee meeting again. [Sidenote: _Minutes of Evidence_, as
above.] He many times afterwards visited the Museum; and I well remember
the impression made upon my own mind by his noble appearance, at almost
ninety years of age, on one of the latest of those visits—not very long
before his death. But in the Committee Room he never once sat, during
the last eleven years of his life.

[Sidenote: CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MARKED THE GIFT TO THE NATION OF THE
           GRENVILLE LIBRARY.]

The fact being so, Readers unfamiliar with the ‘blue-books’ will learn
without surprise that a conversation between Mr. GRENVILLE and Mr.
PANIZZI, in Hamilton Place, was the prelude to his noble public gift of
1846. That conversation took place in the autumn of 1845. [Sidenote:
Ibid.; and comp. p. 780 of the _Minutes_ of 1849.] He, in the course of
it, assured Mr. PANIZZI (by that time at the head of the Printed Book
Department) of his settled purpose, and evinced a desire that his
Library should be preserved apart from the mass of the National
Collection. He then remarked, ‘You will have a great many duplicate
books, and you will sell them,’ speaking in a tone of inquiry. ‘No,’
replied PANIZZI, the ‘Trustees will never sell books that are given to
them.’ Mr. GRENVILLE rejoined with an evident relief of mind, ‘Well, so
much the better.’ Long afterwards, when visiting Mr. PANIZZI in his
private study, he asked the question—‘Where are you going to put my
books? I see your rooms are already full.’ He was taken to the long,
capacious, but certainly not very sightly, ‘slip,’ contrived by Sir R.
SMIRKE on the eastern outskirt of the noble King’s Library. [Sidenote:
See the Plan, hereafter.] ‘Well,’ was the Keeper’s reply, ‘if we can’t
do better, we will put them _here_; and, as you see, my room is close
by. Here, for a time, they will at least be under my own eye,’ The good
and generous book-lover went away with a smile on his genial face, well
assured that his books would be gratefully cared for.


[Sidenote: THE RECEPTION AT THE MUSEUM OF THE GRENVILLE COLLECTION.]

Mr. GRENVILLE died on the 17th of December, 1846. On the day of his
death it chanced that the present writer was engaged on a review-article
about the history of the Museum Library. Ere many days were past it was
his pleasant task to add a paragraph—the first that was written on the
subject—respecting the new gift to the Public. But an accident delayed
the publication of that article until the following summer.

Meanwhile, the final day of the reception of the books—a dreary, snowy
day of the close of February—was, to us of the Museum Library, a sort of
holiday within-doors. Very little work was done that day; but many
choice rarities in literature, and some in art, were eagerly examined.
All who survive will remember it as I do. To lovers of books, such a day
was like a glimpse of summer sunshine interposed in the thick of winter.


To tell what little can here be told of the history and character of the
Grenville Library in other words than in those well-considered and
appropriate words which were employed by the man who had had so much
delightful intercourse with the Collector himself, and to whom belongs a
part of the merit of the gift, would be an impertinence. [Sidenote:
PANIZZI’S ACCOUNT OF SOME OF THE CHOICEST BOOKS IN THE GRENVILLE
LIBRARY.] In his report on the accessions of the year 1847, Mr. PANIZZI
wrote thus:—‘It would naturally be expected that one of the editors of
the “Adelphi _Homer_” would lose no opportunity of collecting the best
and rarest editions of the Prince of Poets. ÆSOP, a favourite author of
Mr. GRENVILLE, occurs in his Library in its rarest forms; there is no
doubt that the series of editions of this author in that Library is
unrivalled. The great admiration which Mr. GRENVILLE felt for Cardinal
XIMENES, even more on account of the splendid edition of the Polyglot
_Bible_ which that prelate caused to be printed at Alcala, than of his
public character, made him look upon the acquisition of the _Moschus_, a
book of extreme rarity, as a piece of good fortune. Among the extremely
rare editions of the Latin Classics, in which the Grenville Library
abounds, the unique complete copy of AZZOGUIDI’S first edition of _Ovid_
is a gem well deserving particular notice, and was considered on the
whole, by Mr. GRENVILLE himself, the boast of his collection. The Aldine
_Virgil_ of 1505, the rarest of the Aldine editions of this poet, is the
more welcome to the Museum as it serves to supply a lacuna; the copy
mentioned in the Catalogue of the Royal Collection not having been
transferred to the National Library.

‘The rarest editions of English Poets claimed and obtained the special
attention of Mr. GRENVILLE. Hence we find him possessing not only the
first and second edition of CHAUCER’S _Canterbury Tales_ by CAXTON, but
the only copy known of an hitherto undiscovered edition of the same work
printed in 1498, by WYNKYN DE WORDE. Of SHAKESPEARE’S collected Dramatic
Works, the Grenville Library contains a copy of the first edition,
which, if not the finest known, is at all events surpassed by none. His
strong religious feelings and his sincere attachment to the Established
Church, as well as his knowledge and mastery of the English language,
concurred in making him eager to possess the earliest as well as the
rarest editions of the translations of the Scriptures in the vernacular
tongue. [Sidenote: Panizzi’s _Report_, in the _Annual Returns_ of 1847,
passim.] He succeeded to a great extent; but what deserves particular
mention is the only known fragment of the _New Testament_ in English,
translated by TYNDALE and ROY, which was in the press of QUENTELL, at
Cologne, in 1525, when the translators were obliged to interrupt the
printing, and fly to escape persecution.

‘The History of the British Empire, and whatever could illustrate any of
its different portions, were the subject of Mr. GRENVILLE’S unremitting
research, and he allowed nothing to escape him deserving to be
preserved, however rare and expensive. Hence his collection of works on
the Divorce of HENRY VIII; that of Voyages and Travels, either by
Englishmen, or to countries at some time more or less connected with
England, or possessed by her; that of contemporary works on the
gathering, advance, and defeat of the “Invincible Armada;” and that of
writings on Ireland;—are more numerous, more valuable, and more
interesting, than in any other collection ever made by any person on the
same subjects. Among the Voyages and Travels, the collections of DE BRY
and HULSIUS are the finest in the world; no other Library can boast of
four such fine books as the copies of HARIOT’S _Virginia_, in Latin,
German, French, and English, of the DE BRY series. And it was fitting
that in Mr. GRENVILLE’S Library should be found one of the only two
copies known of the first edition of this work, printed in London in
1588, wherein an account is given of a colony which had been founded by
his family namesake. Sir Richard GRENVILLE.

‘Conversant with the Language and Literature of Spain, as well as with
that of Italy, the works of imagination by writers of those two
countries are better represented in his Library than in any other out of
Spain and Italy; in some branches better even than in any single Library
in the countries themselves. No Italian collection can boast of such a
splendid series of early editions of ARIOSTO’S _Orlando_, one of Mr.
GRENVILLE’S favourite authors, nor, indeed, of such choice Romance
Poems. The copy of the first edition of ARIOSTO is not to be matched for
beauty; of that of Rome, 1533, even the existence was hitherto unknown.
A perfect copy of the first complete edition of the _Morgante Maggiore_,
of 1482, was also not known to exist before Mr. GRENVILLE succeeded in
procuring his. Among the Spanish Romances, the copy of that of _Tirant
lo Blanch_, printed at Valencia, in 1490, is as fine, as clean, and as
white, as when it first issued from the press; and no second copy of
this edition of a work professedly translated from English into
Portuguese, and thence into Valencian, is known to exist except in the
Library of the Sapienza, at Rome.

‘But where there is nothing common, it is almost depreciating a
collection to enumerate a few articles as rare. It is a marked feature
of this Library, that Mr. GRENVILLE did not collect mere bibliographical
rarities. He never aimed at having a complete set of the editions from
the press of CAXTON or ALDUS; but _Chaucer_ and _Gower_ by CAXTON were
readily purchased, as well as other works which were desirable on other
accounts, besides that of having issued from the press of that printer;
and, when possible, select copies were procured. Some of the rarest, and
these the finest, Aldine editions were purchased by him, for the same
reasons. The _Horæ_ in Greek, printed by ALDUS in 16º, in 1497, is a
volume which, from its language, size, and rarity, is of the greatest
importance for the literary and religious history of the time when it
was printed. It is therefore in Mr. GRENVILLE’S Library. The _Virgil_ of
1501 is not only an elegant book, but it is the first book printed with
that peculiar _Italic_, known as Aldine, and the first volume which
ALDUS printed, “_forma enchiridii_,” as he called it, being expressly
adapted to give poor scholars the means of purchasing for a small sum
the works of the classical writers. This also is, therefore, among Mr.
GRENVILLE’S books; and of one of the two editions of _Virgil_, both
dated the same year, 1514, he purchased a large paper copy, because it
was the more correct of the two.

‘It was the merit of the work, the elegance of the volume, the “genuine”
condition of the copy, &c., which together determined Mr. GRENVILLE to
purchase books printed on vellum, of which he collected nearly a
hundred. He paid a very large sum for a copy of the Furioso of 1532, not
because it was “on ugly vellum,” as he very properly designated it, but
because, knowing the importance of such an edition of such a work, and
never having succeeded in procuring it on paper, he would rather have it
on expensive terms and “ugly vellum,” than not at all.

‘By the bequest of Mr. GRENVILLE’S Library, the collection of books
printed on vellum now at the Museum, and comprising those formerly
presented by GEORGE II, GEORGE III, and Mr. CRACHERODE, is believed to
surpass that of any other National Library, except the King’s Library at
Paris, of which VAN PRAET justly speaks with pride, and all foreign
competent and intelligent judges with envy and admiration. In justice to
the Grenville Library, the list of all its vellum books ought to be here
inserted. As this cannot be done, some only of the most remarkable shall
be mentioned. These are—the Greek _Anthology_ of 1494; the _Book of
Hawking_ of JULIANA BERNERS of 1496; the first edition of the _Bible_,
known as the “Mazarine Bible,” printed at Mentz about 1454; the Aldine
_Dante_ of 1502; the first _Rationale_ of DURANDUS of 1459; the first
edition of FISHER _On the Psalms_, of 1508; the Aldine _Horace_,
_Juvenal_, _Martial_, and _Petrarca_, of 1501; the _Livy_ of 1469; the
_Primer of Salisbury_, printed in Paris in 1531; the _Psalter_ of 1457,
which supplies the place of the one now at Windsor, which belonged to
the Royal Collection before it was transferred to the British Museum;
the _Sforziada_, by SIMONETA, of 1490, a most splendid volume even in so
splendid a Library; the _Theuerdank_ of 1517; the _Aulus Gellius_ and
the _Vitruvius_ of Giunta, printed in 1515, &c. &c. Of this identical
copy of _Vitruvius_, formerly Mr. DENT’S, the author of the
_Bibliographical Decameron_ wrote, “Let the enthusiastic admirers of a
genuine vellum Junta—of the amplest size and in spotless
condition—resort to the choice cabinet of Mr. DENT for such a copy of
this edition of Vitruvius and Frontinus.” [Sidenote: Panizzi’s _Report
to Parliament_, as above.] The _Aulus Gellius_ is in its original state,
exactly as it was when presented to LORENZO DE’ MEDICI, afterwards Duke
of Urbino, to whom the edition was dedicated.’




                              CHAPTER VI.
  OTHER BENEFACTORS OF RECENT DAYS.—CREATION OF THE NEW DEPARTMENT OF
           BRITISH AND MEDIÆVAL ANTIQUITIES AND ETHNOGRAPHY.

  ‘Amidst tablets and stones, inscribed with the straight and angular
  characters of the Runic alphabet, and similar articles which the
  vulgar might have connected with the exercise of the forbidden
  arts, ... were disposed, in great order, several of those curious
  stone axes, formed of green granite, which are often found in these
  Islands.... There were, moreover, to be seen amid the strange
  collection stone sacrificial knives ... and the brazen implements
  called Celts, the purpose of which has troubled the repose of so many
  antiquaries.’—_The Pirate_, c. xxviii.

  ‘A Museum of Antiquities—not of one People or period only, but of all
  races and all times—exhibits a vast comparative scheme of the material
  productions of man. We are thus enabled to follow the progress of the
  Fine and Useful Arts, contemporaneously through a long period of time,
  tracing their several lines backwards till they converge at one
  vanishing point of the unknown Past.’—

                             C. T. NEWTON (_Letter to Col. Mure_, 1853).

  _Scantiness of the Notices of some Contributors to the Natural-History
      Collections, and its cause.—The Duke of_ BLACAS _and his Museum of
      Greek and Roman Antiquities.—Hugh_ CUMING _and his Travels and
      Collections in South America.—John_ RUTTER CHORLEY, _and his
      Collection of Spanish Plays and Spanish Poetry.—George_ WITT _and
      his Collections illustrative of the History of Obscure
      Superstitions.—The Ethnographical Museum of Henry_ CHRISTY, _and
      its History.—Colonial Archæologists and British Consuls: The
      History of the_ WOODHOUSE _Collection, and of its transmittal to
      the British Museum.—Lord_ NAPIER _and the acquisition of the
      Abyssinian MSS. added in 1868.—The Travels of_ VON SIEBOLD _in
      Japan, and the gathering of his Japanese Library.—Felix_ SLADE
      _and his Bequests, Artistic and Archæological_.


No reader of this volume will, in the course of its perusal, have become
more sensible than is its author of a want of due _proportion_, in those
notices which have occasionally been given of some eminent naturalists
who have conspicuously contributed to the public collections, as
compared with the notices of those many archæologists and book-gatherers
who, in common with the naturalists, have been fellow-workers towards
the building up of our National Museum. [Sidenote: THE INADEQUACY OF THE
NOTICES OF NATURALISTS IN THIS VOLUME, AND ITS CAUSE.] I feel, too, that
my own ignorance of natural history is no excuse at all for so imperfect
a filling-out of the plan which the title-page itself of this volume
implies. I feel this all the more strongly, because I dissent entirely
from those views which tend to depreciate the importance of the
scientific collections, in order (very superfluously) to enhance that of
the literary and artistic collections. Far from looking at the splendid
Galleries of mammals, or of birds, or of plants, as mere collections of
‘book-plates,’ gathered for the ‘illustration’ of the National Library,
or from sharing the opinion that the books and the antiquities, alone,
are ‘what may be called the permanent departments of the British Museum’
(to quote, literally, the words of a publication[45] issued whilst this
sheet is going to press, words which seem somewhat rashly—considering
whence they come—to prejudge a question of national scope, and one which
it assuredly belongs alone _to Parliament_ to settle), I regard these
scientific collections as possessing, in common with the others, the
highest educational value, and as also possessing, even a little beyond
some of the others, a special claim, it may be, upon the respect of
Englishmen.

That speciality of claim seems to me to accrue from the fact, that two
of the early FOUNDERS, and one of the most conspicuous subsequent
BENEFACTORS of the Museum, were pre-eminently Naturalists. Such was
COURTEN. Such was SLOANE. Such was Sir Joseph BANKS. I shall have erred
greatly in my estimate of the regard habitually paid by a British
Parliament to the memory of the eminent benefactors of Britain, if, in
the issue, it do not become apparent that such a consideration as this
will weigh heavily with those who will shortly—and after due
deliberation and debate—have to decide pending questions in relation to
the enlargement and to the still further improvement of the British
Museum.

Be that however as it ultimately shall prove to be, if the Public should
honour this volume with a favourable reception, it will be its author’s
endeavour (in a second edition) to supplement, by the knowledge and
co-operation of others, the ignorance and the deficiencies of which he
is very conscious in himself.


[Sidenote: THE FORMATION OF THE NEW DEPARTMENT OF BRITISH AND MEDIÆVAL
           ANTIQUITIES.]

In resuming the notices connected with the now truly magnificent
Collection of Antiquities, we have to glance at the organizing of a new
‘Department’ in the Museum. During at least two generations it has been,
from time to time, remarked—with some surprise as well as censure—that
the ‘British’ Museum contained no ‘British’ Antiquities. Sometimes this
criticism has been put much too strongly, as when, for example, one of
the recent biographers of WEDGWOOD thus wrote (in 1866, but referring
also to a period then ninety years distant). ‘At that date, _as at
present_, everything native to the soil, or produced by the races who
had lived and died upon it, was repudiated by those who were the rulers
of the National Collection.’ [Sidenote: Meteyard, _Life of Josiah
Wedgwood_, vol. ii, p. 162.] At that time, assuredly, there were already
in the Museum a good many British beasts, British birds, and British
books;—no inconsiderable part of the ‘productions’ of our soil and of
the races born and nurtured upon it.

But, within a few months after the appearance of the criticism I have
quoted, all ground for its repetition was removed by the formation of
the ‘Department of British and Mediæval Antiquities and Ethnography.’ It
is thus organized, in six separate sections:—

       § I. British Antiquities anterior to the Roman period.

        II. Roman Antiquities found in Britain.

       III. Anglo-Saxon Antiquities.

        IV. Mediæval sculpture, carving, paintings, metal work, enamels,
              pottery, glass, stone ware; and implements of various
              kinds, and of various material.

         V. Costumes, weapons, accoutrements, tools, furniture,
              industrial productions, &c.—both ancient and modern—of
              non-European races.

        VI. Pre-historic Antiquities.[46]

To the enrichment of the fourth section of this new department of the
Museum (in a small degree), as well as (much more largely) to that of
the Classical Collections, the choice treasures gathered in France
during two generations by successive Dukes of BLACAS largely
contributed.

[Sidenote: THE BLACAS MUSEUM AND ITS FOUNDERS, 1815–1860.]

The first of these Dukes, Peter Lewis John Casimir de BLACAS, was born
at Aulps in the year 1770. He was of a family which has been conspicuous
in Provence from the beginning of the Crusades. Attaining manhood just
at the eve of the Revolution, the Duke followed the French princes into
exile, and warmly attached himself to LEWIS THE EIGHTEENTH, to whom, in
after years, he became the minister of predilection, as distinguished
from that monarch’s many ministers of constraint. He had, in his own
day, the reputation of being a courtier; but seems to have been, in
truth, an honest, frank, and outspeaking adviser. One saying of his
depicts quite plainly the nature of the man, and also the nature of the
work he had to do:—“If you want to defend your Crown, you musn’t run
away from your Kingdom.” Those words were spoken in 1815; and, as we all
know, were spoken in vain.

A statesman of that stamp—one who does _not_ watch and chronicle the
shiftings of popular opinion, in order to know with certainty what are
his own opinions, or in order to shape his own political
‘principles’—rarely enjoys popularity. DE BLACAS became so little
popular at home, that the King was forced to send him, for many years,
abroad. At Rome, he negotiated the Concordat (1817–19); at Naples, he
advised an amnesty (1822), together with other measures, some of which
were too wise for the latitude. In the interval between his two
residences at the Court of Naples, he took part in the Congress of
Laybach.

[Sidenote: FORMATION OF THE BLACAS MUSEUM.]

The opportunities afforded by diplomacy in Italy and in other countries
were turned to intellectual and archæological, as well as to political,
account. He imitated the example of HAMILTON and of ELGIN, and that of a
crowd of his own countrymen, long anterior to either. Since his son’s
death, the British Museum has, by purchase, entered into his
archæological labours almost as largely—in their way and measure—as it
has inherited the treasures of its own enlightened ambassadors at Naples
and at Constantinople.

The Duke died at Goeritz in 1839. Nine years earlier, he had advised
CHARLES X against the measures which precipitated that king into ruin;
and when the obstinate monarch had to pay the sure penalty of neglecting
good advice, the giver of it voluntarily took his share of the
infliction. He offered to attend CHARLES into exile in 1830, as he had
attended him forty years before, when in the flush of youth. He lies
buried at the King’s feet, in the Church of the Franciscans at Goeritz—

                    ‘He that can endure
             To follow, in exile, his fallen Lord,
             Doth conquer them that did his master conquer,
             And earns his place i’ the story.’

[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE BLACAS COLLECTION.]

The late Duke of BLACAS augmented his father’s collections by many
purchases of great extent and value. His special predilection was for
coins and gems. In that department the combined museum of father and son
soon came to rank as the finest known collection, belonging to an
individual possessor. It includes seven hundred and forty-eight ancient
and classical cameos and intaglios, and two hundred and three others
which are either mediæval, oriental, or modern. The most precious
portion of the STROZZI cabinet passed into it, as did also a choice part
of the collections, respectively, of BARTH and of DE LA TURBIE. The
Blacas Museum is also eminently rich in vases and paintings of various
kinds; in sculptures, on every variety of material; in terracottas, and
in ancient glass. Its ‘silver toilet service’ of a Christian Roman lady
of the fifth century, named PROJECTA, has been made famous throughout
Europe by the descriptive accounts which have appeared from the pen of
VISCONTI and from that of LABARTE. The casket is richly chased with
figure-subjects. Among them are seen figures of Venus and Cupid; of the
lady herself and of her bridegroom, SECUNDUS. Roman bridesmaids, of
indubitable flesh and blood, are mingled with the more unsubstantial
forms of Nereids, riding upon Tritons.


[Sidenote: HUGH CUMING; HIS TRAVELS AND HIS COLLECTIONS, IN AMERICA AND
           ELSEWHERE, 1791.]

Of the men devoted, in our own day, to the enchaining pursuits of
Natural History, few better deserve a competent biographer than does
Hugh CUMING, whose career, in its relation to the Museum history, has an
additional interest for us from the circumstance that his course in life
was partly shaped by his having attracted, in childhood, the notice of
another worthy naturalist and public benefactor, [Sidenote: See page
376.] Colonel George MONTAGU, of Lackham.

Young CUMING’S childish fondness for picking up shells and gathering
plants attracted Colonel MONTAGU’S notice about the time that the boy
was apprenticed to a sailmaker, living not far from the boy’s native
village, West Alvington, in Devon. The elder naturalist fostered the
nascent passion of his young and humble imitator, and the trade of
sailmaking brought CUMING, whilst still a boy, into contact with
sailors. The benevolent and Nature-loving Colonel told the youngster
some of the fairy tales of science; the tars spun yarns for him about
the marvels of foreign parts. A few, and very few, years of work at his
trade at home were followed by a voyage to South America. At Valparaiso
he resumed his handicraft, but only as a step (by aid of frugality and
foresight) towards saving enough of money to enable him to devote his
whole being to conchology and to botany. Seven years of work under this
inspiring ambition, seem to have enabled the man of five-and-thirty to
retire from business, and to build himself a yacht. But his was to be no
lounging yachtman’s life; it was rather to resemble the life of an A.B.
before the mast. The year 1827 was spent in toiling and dredging, to
good purpose, amongst the islands of the South Pacific. When he returned
to Valparaiso, the retired sailmaker found that he had won fame, as well
as many precious rarities in conchology and botany. The Chilian
Government gave him special privileges and useful credentials. He then
devoted two years to the thorough exploration of the coasts extending
from Chiloë to the Gulf of Conchagua. [Sidenote: _Athenæum_ of 1865;
_Returns presented to Parliament_, v. y.] He botanized in plains,
marshes and woods; he turned over shingle, and explored the crannies of
the cliffs, with the patient endurance of a Californian gold-digger, and
was much happier in his companions. In 1831, he returned to England,
with a modest but assured livelihood, and with inexhaustible treasures
in shells and plants, of which multitudes were theretofore unseen and
unknown in Europe.

The year 1831 was a happy epoch for a conchologist. The Zoological
Society had just gained a firm footing. BRODERIP and SOWERBY were ready
to exhibit and to describe the rich shells of the Pacific. Richard OWEN
was eager to anatomize the molluscs, and to write their biography. Some
of the novelties brought over by CUMING in 1831 were still yielding new
information thirty years afterwards; probably are yielding it still.

In 1835, Mr. CUMING returned to America. He devoted four years to an
exhaustive survey of the natural history—more especially, but far from
exclusively, the conchology and the botany—of the Philippine group of
islands, of Malacca, Singapore, and St. Helena.

CUMING was fitted for his work not more by his scientific ardour and his
patient toil-bearing, than by his amiable character. He loved children.
His manner was so attractive to them that in some places to which he
travelled a schoolful of children were extemporised into botanic
missionaries. The joyous band would turn out for a holiday, and would
spend the whole of it in searching for the plants, the shells, and the
insects, with the general forms and appearances of which the promoter
and rewarder of their voluntary labours had previously familiarised
them. He returned to England with such a collection of shells as no
previous investigator had brought home; and with about one hundred and
thirty thousand specimens of dried plants, besides many curious
specimens in other departments.

[Sidenote: R. Owen, _On a National Museum of Natural History_, pp. 53,
           seqq.]

His collections had been a London marvel before he set out on his third
voyage of discovery. He then possessed, I believe, almost sixteen
thousand _species_, and they were regarded as a near approximation to a
perfect collection, according to the knowledge of the time. [Sidenote:
Comp. _Athenæum_ as above, and the Museum returns of 1865 and subsequent
years.] If the writer of the able notice of him which the _Athenæum_
published immediately after his death was rightly informed, CUMING
nearly doubled that number by the results of his final voyage, and by
those of subsequent purchases made in Europe.

Very naturally, strenuous efforts were made to ensure the perpetuity of
this noble collection during its owner’s lifetime. The history of those
efforts still deserves to be told, and for more than one reason. But it
cannot be told here. This inadequate notice of a most estimable man must
close with the few words which, three years ago, closed Professor OWEN’S
annual _Report on the Progress of the Zoological Portion of the British
Museum_. ‘The discoveries and labours of Mr. Hugh CUMING,’ he then
wrote, ‘do honour to his country; the fruition of them by Naturalists of
all countries now depends mainly _on the acquisition of the space
required for the due arrangement, exhibition—facility of access and
comparison—of the rarities which the Nation has acquired_.’ And then he
adds a small individual instance, as a passing illustration of the value
of Mr. CUMING’S life-long pursuit—‘Among the choicer rarities, ...
brought from the Philippines in 1840, was a specimen of siliceous sponge
(described and figured in the _Transactions of the Zoological Society_),
known as _Euplectella Aspergillum_.’ Up to the date of Mr. CUMING’S
death (tenth August, 1865), this specimen—of what, for non-zoological
readers, may be likened to a sort of coral of rare beauty—brought over
in 1840, was unique. [Sidenote: _Transactions_, &c., vol. iii, p. 203.]
In the year next after the discoverer’s death, _many_ fine and curious
specimens were sent from the Philippines. The solitary explorer of 1839
had at length been followed by a school of explorers. Such men as CUMING
live after their death, and hence the marvellous increase, within a very
few years, in our knowledge of Nature, and of GOD’S bounty to the world
he made.


[Sidenote: J. R. CHORLEY AND HIS COLLECTION OF THE SPANISH POETS AND
           DRAMATISTS.]

By a man who did but little in literature, although he possessed
attainments which, in some respects, seem to have surpassed those of a
good many men whose lucubrations have had much publicity and vogue, a
valuable addition was made a few years ago, by bequest, to the Museum
Library, both in the printed and manuscript departments. [Sidenote:
_Will of Mr. Rutter Chorley_, 1866.] Mr. John Rutter CHORLEY had
collected about two hundred volumes of the Spanish poetry and drama, and
had enriched them with manuscript notes, bibliographical and critical.
He had also prepared chronological tables of the dramatists—writing them
in Spanish, of which he was a master—together with an account of their
respective works. He had, I think, contemplated, at some future time,
the preparation of some such book on the Spanish theatre as that
published by Mr. TICKNOR, many years ago, on Spanish literature at
large. Whether the appearance of TICKNOR’S valuable book deterred Mr.
CHORLEY from prosecuting his purpose, I know not. Probably he was one of
the many men the very extent of whose knowledge inspires a
fastidiousness which prompts them to keep on increasing their private
store, and to defer, almost until death overtakes them, the drawing from
that store for the Public. If there may really, by some dim possibility,
have been here and there an inglorious HAMPDEN, or a mute SHAKESPEARE,
it is very certain that there have been, in literary history and in like
departments of human study, many an unknown DISRAELI, many a Tom WARTON,
brimful of knowledge about poets and poetry, who never could have lived
long enough to put to public use the materials he had laboriously
brought together.


[Sidenote: GEORGE WITT AND HIS COLLECTIONS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE HISTORY
           OF SUPERSTITIONS.]

Of another Collector, whose pursuits lay at an opposite pole to those of
Mr. CHORLEY, it would not be edifying to say very much in these pages.
Some among the collections illustrative of the history of obscure
superstitions (to quote the polite euphuism of one of the Museum
_Returns_ to Parliament) partake, in a degree, of the peculiar
associations which connect themselves with the bare name of a place at
which some few of them were really found—that too famous retreat of the
Emperor TIBERIUS. Others of them, however, possess a real archæological
value from a different point of view. All, no doubt, are
characteristically illustrative, more or less, of the doings ‘in the
dark places of the earth,’ and may point a moral, howsoever little
fitted to adorn a tale.

Mr. George WITT, F.R.S., the collector of these curiosities of human
error, was a surgeon who had lived much in Australia, and who, on his
return from the Colonies, had retired to a provincial town in England,
where, at first, he amused his leisure by gathering a small museum of
natural history. Of that collection I remember to have seen a printed
catalogue, but I imagine that he sold it in his lifetime, as no part of
his objects of natural history came, with his other and much more
eccentric museum, to the augmentation of the public stores. Towards the
close of his life he lived in London, and used to amuse himself by
exhibiting, and by lecturing upon, what he regarded as the more racy
portion of his later collections. He chose (I am told) the hour of
eleven o’clock on Sunday morning for such peculiar expositions, but I do
not think that _these_ ‘Sunday Lectures’ were regarded, either by the
man who gave them or by his auditors, as especially fitted for ‘the
instruction of the working classes.’


[Sidenote: THE CHRISTY MUSEUM AND ITS FOUNDER’S HISTORY.]

Of a very different calibre to Mr. George WITT was the donor of the
noble Museum of Ethnography which, _for want of room at Bloomsbury_,
still occupies the late donor’s dwelling-house, almost two miles off. It
is not too much to say of Henry CHRISTY, that he was both an illustrious
man of science and an eminent Christian. The man whose fame as a
searcher into antiquity is spread alike over Europe and America, is also
remembered in many Irish cabins as one who was willing to spend,
lavishly, his health and strength, as well as his money, in lifting up,
from squalid beds of straw and filth, poor creatures stricken at once
with famine and with fever, and so stricken as sometimes to have almost
lost the semblance of humanity. He is also remembered by Algerian
peasants, by West African negroes, and by Canadian Indians for like
deeds of beneficence. When Prussian insolence and Prussian barbarity
struck down Danes who were defending hearth and home, CHRISTY was again
the open-handed benefactor of the oppressed. When Turks were, in like
manner, beating down by sheer brute force the Druses of Syria, Henry
CHRISTY was relieving the distressed and the down-trodden in the East,
with no less liberality than he had evinced a little while before in
relieving them in the North of Europe.

The time which works of good-samaritanism such as these left unoccupied
was given to a vast series—or rather to a succession of series—of
explorations which have had already a noble result, and which will yield
more and more fruit for many a year to come. The scene of them embraced
Mexico, the United States, British America, Denmark, and several
Departments of Southern and Western France. Their period reached from
1860—when he had just entered the fiftieth year of his age—almost to the
day of his lamented and sudden death in the May of 1865. His able and
beloved friend and fellow-worker LARTET was with him in the Allier, when
the fatal illness struck him, at the age of fifty-four. It will be
pardoned me, I trust, if in this connection I quote, once again, those
thoughtful words, out of the private note-book of Lord BACON, which I
applied in a former chapter to another and more recent public
loss—‘Princes, ... when men deserve crowns for their performances, do
not crown them below, where the deeds are performed, but call them up.
So doth GOD, by death.’


[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE CHRISTY MUSEUM.]

The little that need here be added as to the nature and extent of Mr.
CHRISTY’S gift to the Public, will be best said in the words of the
present able Curator of the Collection, Mr. A. W. FRANKS. But it should
be first premised that the posthumous gift was only the continuation of
a long series of gifts, which embraced the Museums, not of England
alone, but those of Northern and of Southern Europe, and (as I think)
some of those of America:—

[Sidenote: ANCIENT EUROPE AND PART OF NORTH AMERICA.]

Among the most important contents of the CHRISTY Museum is a collection
of stone implements from the Drift. They are the most ancient remains of
human industry hitherto discovered; they include a remarkably fine
series from St. Acheul, near Amiens. Antiquities found in the Caves of
Dordogne, were excavated by Mr. CHRISTY and M. LARTET, at the expense of
the former. This collection is very extensive, and includes a number of
drawings on reindeer bone and horn, probably some of the most ancient
works of art that have been preserved. [Sidenote: Franks’ _Report on
Christy Museum_ (abridged).] It would have been still more extensive,
had it not been known that Mr. CHRISTY intended to present the unique
specimens to the French Museum, an intention which the Trustees under
his Will have felt bound to fulfil. The Museum includes many ancient
stone implements found on the surface, in England and Ireland, France,
Belgium, and Denmark. The last of these is a remarkable collection, and
includes a good series from the Danish Kitchenmiddens. A few specimens
from Italy are also to be found; a valuable collection from the caves at
Gibraltar; and specimens from the Swiss Lakes. For convenience, a case
of ancient stone implements from Asia has been placed in this room, as
well as the more modern implements, dresses, and weapons of the
Esquimaux of America and Asia, and of the maritime tribes of the
North-West Coast of America. These furnish striking illustrations of the
remains found in the Caves of Dordogne, and prove that, while the
climate was similar to that of the northern countries in question, the
inhabitants of that part of France must have resembled the Esquimaux in
their habits and implements.

[Sidenote: AFRICA AND ASIA.]

The African Collection is very extensive, and supplies a lacuna in the
collections of the British Museum, where there are few objects from this
continent. The same may be said of the series from the Asiatic Islands.
The collection from Asia proper is not very numerous; the races now
occupying that continent being generally in a more advanced state of
civilization than that which especially interested Mr. CHRISTY.
Attention should, however, be called to two valuable relics from China;
an Imperial State Seal carved in jade, and a set of tablets of the same
material, on which has been engraved a poem by the Emperor KIEN-LUNG.

[Sidenote: MELANESIA AND POLYNESIA.]

The Polynesian Room contains a valuable collection of weapons,
ornaments, and dresses, both from the islands inhabited by the black
races of the Pacific, and from those of Polynesia proper. Many of the
specimens are of interest, as belonging to a state of culture which has
now completely changed, and as illustrating manners and customs that
have disappeared before the commerce and the teaching of Europeans.

[Sidenote: ASIA.]

In the ‘Asian Room’ are placed the larger objects from the Pacific, such
as spears, clubs, and paddles. The collection of spears is very large
and interesting.

[Sidenote: AUSTRALIA AND PART OF NORTH AMERICA.]

The Australian Collection is very complete, and it would not be easy to
replace it, inasmuch as the native races are dwindling in most parts of
that continent.

[Sidenote: NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA.]

The American department in chief includes antiquities and recent
implements and dresses from the North American Indians; ancient Carib
implements; and recent collections from British Guiana, and other parts
of South America. The most valuable part of the contents of this room is
the collection of Mexican antiquities, which is not only extensive, but
includes some specimens of great rarity. Among them should be especially
mentioned the following:—An axe of Avanturine jade, carved into the form
of a human figure; a remarkable knife of white chalcedony; a sacrificial
collar formed of a hard green stone; a squatting figure, of good
execution, sculptured out of a volcanic rock; and three remarkable
specimens coated with polished stones. The latter consist of a wooden
mask covered with a mosaic of blue stones, presumed to be turquoises,
but more probably a rare form of amazon-stone; a human skull made into a
mask, and coated with obsidian and the blue stone mentioned above; and a
knife with a blade of flint, and with a wooden handle, sculptured to
represent a Mexican divinity, and encrusted with obsidian, coral,
malachite, and other precious materials. [Sidenote: Franks’ _Report_, as
above.] There is also a small but choice collection of Peruvian pottery.

A catalogue of the collection was privately printed by Mr. CHRISTY in
1862; but it embraces only a small part of the present collection. A
more extended catalogue is in preparation.

It is due to accuracy to add that the aspect of the rooms devoted to the
CHRISTY Museum in Victoria Street, and the facilities of study which
they afford, are utterly unsatisfactory to real students. They are
adapted only to holiday sightseers, who look and go, and but to very
small groups, indeed, even of them.

Every praise is due both to the Trustees and to their officer, for
having done their best, under strait and lamentable limitations, the
_removal_ of which is the duty of Parliament and of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, not that of the Trustees. Under the Premiership of such
an eminent scholar and writer as Mr. GLADSTONE, humbler students of
history and of literature would fain hope that a long-standing reproach
will speedily be removed; but his ministerial surroundings are
unfriendly to such anticipations. After words which we have recently
heard, _from the Treasury Bench itself_, about Public Parks, there is
only scanty ground for hope that much improvement can, under existing
circumstances, be looked for in respect to Public Museums.

At all events, the condition, as to space, of the CHRISTY Museum in
Victoria Street, no less than the condition, in that respect, of
portions of the general Museum of Antiquities at Bloomsbury itself—and
of nearly all our splendid national collections in Natural History—gives
tenfold importance to that question of speedy enlargement or efficient
reconstruction which it will be my duty rather to state, than to
discuss, in the next chapter. [Sidenote: THE STATE OF THE CHRISTY
COLLECTION VIEWED IN ITS BEARINGS UPON THE QUESTION OF MUSEUM
RECONSTRUCTION.] It will be my earnest aim to state it with
impartiality, and, for the most part, in better words than my own.


[Sidenote: THE ARCHÆOLOGICAL BEQUEST OF JAMES WOODHOUSE, OF CORFU.]

Next in importance—but next at a long interval—to the accessions which
the Nation owes to the munificence of Henry CHRISTY, comes the bequest
of Mr. James WOODHOUSE, of Corfu, the circumstances attendant upon which
have much singularity.

It is only of late years (speaking comparatively) that British Consuls
have become at all notable as collectors of antiquities. But when once
the new fashion was set, it spread rapidly, and it may now be hoped that
there will be as little lack of continuance as of speed. In Chapter V, I
had to mention (though very inadequately to the worth of their labours)
several Consuls in the Levant, who have eminently distinguished
themselves in augmenting our National Museum. But in this chapter the
reader must be introduced to a Consul who rather obstructed than
promoted a worthy public object.

James WOODHOUSE was a British subject engaged in commerce, who had
resided for many years at Corfu (where for a time he had filled the
office of Government Secretary), and who consoled his self-imposed exile
by collecting a cabinet of coins, which eventually became one of great
value, and also an extensive museum of miscellaneous, but chiefly of
Greek, antiquities. Repeatedly, during his lifetime, he announced his
desire and purpose to perpetuate his collection by giving it to the
British Museum. When his health failed, he began to superintend in
person the packing up of the most valuable portions of his museum; but
illness grew upon him, and he was forced to leave off his preparations
abruptly.

A delicate circumstance connected with his family circle seems to have
combined with this regretted interruption, by increasing illness, of his
precautionary measures and intentions (the secure fulfilling of which
lay near his heart), to make him uneasy and anxious. [Sidenote: THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WOODHOUSE BEQUEST.] He sent for a legal friend, Dr.
ZAMBELLI; told him of his plans, and also of his fears that they might
be—in the event of his sudden death, and he felt that death was fast
coming—obstructed. ZAMBELLI told him that the person to whom his purpose
and wishes ought to be communicated, without delay, was undoubtedly the
British Consul-General, Mr. SAUNDERS. In joint communication with both
of them, a deed of gift was prepared. ‘Having been engaged,’ said the
donor, ‘in numismatic pursuits, ... and being desirous that the
Collection of Coins _and other Antiquities_ so formed by me, should be
dedicated to national purposes, I give,’ and so on. No inventory,
however, had been made when the donor died, on the twenty-sixth of
February, 1866. Before WOODHOUSE’S death, Mr. Consul-General SAUNDERS
put a guard round the house; and, immediately after the event, sent away
all the household, taking official possession of the whole of the
effects, in the manner usual in cases of undoubted _intestacy_.[47] He
then, according to his own statement, set about ‘selecting such
portions’ of Mr. WOODHOUSE’S property as ‘seemed’ (to him and to a
clerical friend of the collector) ‘_suitable_ for the British Museum.’

Most naturally, when the intelligence came to the Museum, it was thought
by the Trustees that Mr. SAUNDERS had both very seriously exceeded, and
very gravely fallen short of, his obvious official duty. ‘Selection’ was
felt to have been superfluous in respect to any and every item, of every
kind, belonging to the donor’s museum. Just as plainly, the instant
forwarding of the whole, on the other hand, was a peremptory obligation
upon the British Consul.

Eventually (and by the zealous exertions of Sir A. PANIZZI and of Mr.
Charles NEWTON, respectively, on behalf of the Trustees) conclusive
evidence was placed before Lord STANLEY (the now Earl of DERBY, and
then, it will be remembered, Foreign Secretary of State) that Mr.
Consul-General SAUNDERS had divided the Woodhouse antiquities into _two_
portions, and had then proceeded to allot the smaller portion to the
British Museum, and the larger to the ‘heirs-at-law’ of the deceased.
Nor is it yet quite certain that such division was _all_ the division
that occurred.

After long inquiries and much correspondence—as well between the Foreign
Office and the Queen’s Advocate, as between the Trustees and their
officers on the one hand, and various persons at Corfu, including, of
course, the Consul-General himself, on the other—Lord STANLEY touched
the point of the affair with characteristic keenness when he wrote, in
his despatch to Mr. SAUNDERS of the seventh of January, 1867: ‘Your
neglect to _make an Inventory_ of the effects of the deceased has been
the main cause of the doubts which have been felt as to the propriety of
your conduct in this matter, and of the inquiry which has been the
consequence of those doubts.’

But that neglect was then incurable. And, subsequently to the despatch
thus worded, further inquiry has but made the omission more regrettable.
The making of the Inventory had been pressed on Mr. SAUNDERS’ attention
at the time of the Collector’s death.


[Sidenote: Newton; in _Returns to Parliament_, of the year 1866.]

That part of the WOODHOUSE Museum which came to England in 1866 included
a very interesting Collection of Greek Coins, chiefly from Corcyra,
Western Greece, and the Greek islands; an extensive series of rings and
other personal ornaments; some ancient glass; a few medallions; a few
sculptures, in marble, of doubtful antiquity; and last, but far indeed
from being least acceptable, a most beautiful head of Athené in cameo,
cut on a sardonyx. [Sidenote: Vischer, _Archaeologische Beiträge aus
Griechenland_, p. 2.] It was thought by the antiquary VISCHER—who saw
this fine cameo about the year 1854—that it represents the head of
PHIDIAS’ famous statue in gold and ivory, and therefore had a common
origin with the jasper intaglio so often praised by archæologists who
have seen the Imperial Cabinet at Vienna.


[Sidenote: LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA, AND THE ADDITIONS TO THE MUSEUM OF
           THE ANTIQUITIES AND MSS. OF ABYSSINIA, 1867–8.]

Some of my readers will remember that although war, and the calamities
which commonly accompany it, have often devastated museums and
libraries, it has occasionally enriched them. Sometimes by sheer
plunder, as under CATHARINE of Russia and the marshals of her predatory
armies. Sometimes by acts of genuine beneficence and public spirit, as
in Ireland under BLOUNT (afterwards Earl of Devonshire); and, again,
under the great Protector. Lord NAPIER adds his honoured name to the
small category of the soldiers who have justifiably turned victorious
arms to the profit of learning, and the enrichment of honestly built-up
national collections. I cannot, however, but regard as utterly unworthy
of the British arms and name certain acquisitions which were incidental
to that campaign. ‘Mr. HOLMES, the officer attached to the Abyssinian
Expedition by the Trustees of the British Museum’—I quote exactly and
literally from the ‘_Accounts and Estimates_’ of last year
(1869)—‘collected ... among other objects, a silver chalice and a paten
bearing Æthiopic inscriptions, showing them to have been given to
various churches by King THEODORE.’

[Sidenote: THE COLLECTION OF SACRAMENTAL PLATE IN ABYSSINIA.]

I am certain to be uncontradicted when I assert, that neither the
Trustees of the British Museum, nor Lord NAPIER of Magdala, instructed
Mr. HOLMES to take from Christian churches in Abyssinia their
sacramental plate, or their processional crosses.

It is a far pleasanter task to praise the diligence with which Mr.
HOLMES executed the Commission really given him by the Trustees. He
collected many specimens of Abyssinian art and industry which were fit
contributions to the National Museum. [Sidenote: THE COLLECTION OF
ABYSSINIAN MSS.] In like manner, Lord NAPIER authorised the collection,
partly by officers under his command, and partly by the researches of
Mr. HOLMES, of a series of Abyssinian Manuscripts, extending to three
hundred and thirty-nine volumes. These were given to the Museum by the
then Secretary of State for India.


[Sidenote: THE SLADE BEQUEST.]

In the same year with the Abyssinian spoils, came a noble addition to
the Art Collections of the Museum by the bequest of the late Felix
SLADE, and a rich addition to the Library, by the purchase of the
Japanese books collected by the late Dr. VON SIEBOLD, during the later
of his two visits to Japan, a country which he so largely contributed to
make well known to the rest of the world.

Felix SLADE was the younger son of Robert SLADE, in his day a well-known
Proctor in Doctors’ Commons. Mr. William SLADE, elder brother of Felix,
had inherited the valuable estate of Halsteads in Lonsdale (Yorkshire),
under the will of the last male-heir of that family, and on his early
death he was succeeded by his brother, the benefactor.

Truly a ‘benefactor.’ To purposes of public charity he bequeathed not
less than seven thousand pounds, and bequeathed that sum with wise
forethought, and with Christian generality of view. He founded and
munificently endowed Professorships of Art at each of the ancient
Universities, and at University College in London. To the British Museum
he gave the splendid bequest about to be described, which had been
selected with exquisite taste, knowledge and judgment, and which, under
such rare conditions of purchase, had cost him more than twenty-five
thousand pounds. [Sidenote: THE SLADE MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITIES. 1869.] I
describe it in the precise words—chiefly from the pen of one of his
Executors—which are used in the Return to Parliament of 1869:—‘The
collection of glass and other antiquities bequeathed to the Nation by
the late Felix SLADE, Esq., F.S.A., includes about nine hundred and
fifty specimens of ancient glass, selected with care, so as to represent
most of the phases through which the art of glass-working has passed.
Collected in the first instance with a view to artistic beauty alone,
the series has been since gradually enriched with historical specimens,
as well as with curiosities of manufacture, so as to illustrate the
history of glass in all its branches.

‘Of early Egyptian glass there are not many examples in the collection;
one of some interest is a case for holding the _stibium_, used by the
Egyptian ladies for the eye, and which is in the form of a papyrus
sceptre. The later productions of Egypt are represented by some very
minute specimens of mosaic glass, formed of slender filaments of various
colours fused together, and cut into transverse sections.

‘To the Phœnicians have been attributed the making of many little vases
of peculiar form and ornamentation that are met with, not unfrequently,
in tombs on the shores of the Mediterranean. They are of brilliant
colours, with zigzag decoration, and exhibit the same technical
peculiarities, so that they must have been derived from one centre of
fabrication. Of these vases there is a considerable series, showing most
of the varieties of form and colour that are known.

‘The collection is especially rich in vessels moulded into singular
shapes, found principally in Syria and the neighbouring islands, and
which were probably produced in the workshops of Sidon, but at a later
time; possibly as late as the Roman dominion. The Museum Collections
were previously very ill provided with such specimens. To the same date
must belong a vase handle, stamped with the name of ARTAS the Sidonian,
in Greek and Latin characters.

‘Of Roman glass there is a great variety, as might be expected from the
skill shown in glass-making during the Imperial times of Rome.
[Sidenote: A. W. Franks, _Account of Slade Museum_, in the Parliamentary
Returns of 1869.] Large vases were not especially sought after by Mr.
SLADE, but two fine cinerary urns may be noticed, remarkable not only
for their form, but for the beautiful iridescent colours with which time
has clothed them. There is also a very fine amber-coloured ewer, with
blue filaments round the neck, which was found in the Greek Archipelago;
an elegant jug or bottle with diagonal flutings, found at Barnwell, near
Cambridge, and a brown bottle, splashed with opaque white, from Germany.
Of cut glass, an art which it was formerly denied that the Romans
possessed, there are good examples; such, for instance, is a boat-shaped
vase of deep emerald hue, and of the same make apparently as the Sacro
Catino of Genoa; a bowl cut into facets, found near Merseburg, in
Germany; and a cup, similarly decorated, found near Cambridge. The last
two specimens are of a brilliant clear white, imitating rock crystal, a
variety of glass much esteemed by the Romans. Several vessels found in
Germany are remarkable for having patterns in coloured glass, trailed as
it were over the surface. There are two very fine bowls of millefiori
glass, one of them with patches of gold, and very numerous polished
fragments illustrating the great variety and taste shown by the ancients
in such vessels. Two vases exhibit designs in intaglio; one of them, a
subject with figures; the other, a bowl found near Merseburg, exhibits
the story of Diana and Actæon; the goddess is kneeling at a pool of
water in a grotto; Actæon is looking on, and a reflection of his head
with sprouting horns may be distinguished in the water at the goddess’s
feet; to prevent any mistake, the names of the personages, in Greek, are
added. This bowl may be of a late date, probably early Byzantine. Of
vases decorated in cameo, fragments alone are to be found in the
collection; but as only four entire vases are known, this is not
surprising. One of the fragments seems to be part of a large panel which
has represented buildings, &c., and has on it remains of a Greek
inscription. There are several glass cameos and intaglios, the
representatives of original gems that have long since been lost; one of
the cameos is a head of AUGUSTUS; another represents an Egyptian
princess; whilst among the intaglios are several of great excellence; of
these should particularly be noticed a blue paste representing Achilles
wounded in the heel, and crouching down behind his rich shield, a gem
worthy of the best period of Greek art. One of the rarest specimens in
the collection is a circular medallion of glass, on which is painted a
gryphon; the colours appear to be burnt in, and it is therefore a
genuine specimen of ancient painting on glass, of which but three other
instances are known.

‘In the fourth and fifth century it was the habit to ornament the
bottoms of bowls and cups with designs in gold, either fixed to the
surface or enclosed between two layers of glass. These specimens have
generally been found in the Catacombs of Rome; but two or three have
been found at Cologne, one of which is in the collection. It is the
remains of a disc of considerable size, with a central design, now
destroyed; around are eight compartments, with subjects from the Old and
New Testaments: Moses striking the Rock, the History of Jonah, Daniel in
the Lions’ Den, the Fiery Furnace, the Sacrifice of Isaac, the Nativity,
and the Paralytic Man; of these, the Nativity is a very rare
representation.

‘Of glass of a Teutonic origin there is but one specimen in the
collection, a tumbler of peculiar form, from a cemetery at Selzen, in
Rhenish Hesse. Like other glasses of the time, it is so made that it
cannot be put down until it has been emptied, and thus testifies to the
convivial habits of the Teutons.

‘Of early Byzantine glass but little is known; the bowl with Diana and
Actæon, already noticed, is very probably of that period; and a
Byzantine cameo with the head of CHRIST should be mentioned.

‘Of glass of the middle ages, from the West of Europe, but little or
nothing has been preserved save the exquisite painted glass in
cathedrals and churches. Of the Eastern glass of the same period several
specimens are in the collection. Among these is a very beautiful bottle,
probably of the thirteenth century, decorated with a minute pattern of
birds; a lamp of large size, made in Syria to hang in a mosque, bears
the name of SHEIKHOO, a man of great wealth and importance in Egypt and
Syria, who died in 1356, after building a mosque at Cairo.

‘To a later period of the Eastern glass works may be referred an ewer of
a sapphire blue, resplendent with gold arabesques, and several other
richly decorated pieces, all made in Persia.

‘Venice for many centuries held the foremost place among the makers of
glass. Enriched, to begin with, by her very extensive trade in beads,
she received gladly the Byzantine workers in glass, who had been driven
out of Constantinople by the Turks. Henceforward the variety of her
glass wares increased, and must have brought much profit. The earliest
glass vases which can with certainty be referred to Venice are of the
fifteenth century; of these, a large covered cup with gilt ribs is
remarkable for its early date and size. The two finest specimens are,
however, two goblets richly enameled; one of them is blue, with a
triumph of Venus; the other green, with two portraits. These were the
choicest specimens in the DEBRUGE and SOLTYKOFF Collections
successively, and were obtained by Mr. SLADE, for upwards of four
hundred pounds, at the sale of the latter collection. Among other
enameled specimens may be noticed three shallow bowls, or dishes, with
heraldic devices: one has the arms of Pope LEO X, 1513–1521; another
those of LEONARDO LOREDANO, Doge of Venice, 1501–1521; and the third the
arms of FABRIZIO CARETTO, Grand Master of the Order of St. John of
Jerusalem, 1513–1521.

‘The blown glasses of Venice are numerous and well selected, exhibiting
great beauty of outline and variety of design. Among them should be
especially remarked, a very tall covered cup, surmounted with a winged
serpent, from the BERNAL Collection; and two drinking glasses, with
enameled flowers forming the stems.

‘The coloured vases display most of the hues made at Venice; ruby,
purple, green, and blue, as well as an opalescent white and an opaque
white, the latter often diversified with splashes of other colours. To
these may be added various imitations of agate, avanturine, &c.
[Sidenote: Franks, as above.] Another peculiar fabric of Venice is well
illustrated, the frosted glass belonging generally to an early period.

‘In the production of millefiori glass the Venetians did not equal the
ancients, either in harmony of colour or variety of design. The rosettes
were formed of sections of canes, such as were employed in making beads.
The specimens of this glass are rare, but there are not less than seven
pieces so ornamented in the collection.

‘Of lace glass, one of the most remarkable productions of Venice, and
which nowhere has been carried to such perfection, there are many fine
specimens, both in form and delicacy of pattern, as there are likewise
of the variety called reticelle. Among the latter is a tall covered cup
with snakes on the cover and in the stem; there should also be noticed a
drinking glass, in the stem of which is enclosed a half sequin of the
Doge FRANCESCO MOLINO, 1647.

‘Of unquestionably ancient French glass but few specimens are known.
This adds much to the value of a goblet in the collection, with enameled
portrait of Jehan BOUCAU and his wife Antoinette, made about 1530.

‘German glass is fully represented: the earlier specimens are richly
decorated with enamel, chiefly heraldic devices; they are dated 1571,
1572, &c. A few are painted like window glass, and among them is a
cylindrical cup, dated 1662, on which is depicted the procession at the
christening of MAXIMILIAN EMMANUEL, afterwards Elector of Bavaria. The
later German specimens are engraved, and some of them by artists of
note. Of ruby glass, another production for which Germany was famed,
there are good specimens; one bears the cypher of JOHN GEORGE IV,
Elector of Saxony, another that of FREDERICK THE FIRST. KUNCKEL, to whom
these glasses are attributed, was successively in the service of both
princes.

‘Though glass was early made in Flanders, the most ancient specimens in
the collection under this head have been regarded as Venetian glasses
decorated in the Low Countries. If made at Venice, they must, from
certain peculiarities of form, have been designed for the Flemish and
Dutch markets. The ornaments are etched, and contain allusions to the
political events of the country: for instance, the arms of the seventeen
provinces chained to those of Spain, and dated 1655; a portrait of
PHILIP IV; WILLIAM II of Orange; his wife, MARY OF ENGLAND; OLDEN
BARNEVELDT, &c. Some of the later specimens are engraved on the lathe in
a very ornamental manner, and others delicately stippled. One of the
latter bears the name of F. GREENWOOD, and others are attributed to
WOLF.

‘In English glass the collection is not rich, the difficulty of
identifying such specimens being very great; some of them are referred
to the works at Bristol, which produced ornamental glass about a century
ago.

‘Some valuable additions to the collection of glass have been received
from the Executors of Mr. SLADE, purchased by them out of funds set
aside for the purpose. They are nineteen in number, and among them may
be especially noticed a very fine Oriental bottle with elaborate
patterns in gold and enamel, together with figures of huntsmen, &c. It
may be referred to the fourteenth century, and was formerly in the
possession of a noble family at Wurzburg. Two specimens of Chinese
glass, dated in the reign of the Emperor KIEN-LUNG, 1736–1796; and
several ancient Flemish and Dutch glasses.

[Sidenote: Franks, as above.]

‘By the acquisition of the SLADE Collection the series of ancient and
more recent glass in the British Museum has probably become more
extensive, as well as more instructive, than any other public collection
of the kind, and it will afford ample materials for study both to the
artist and the antiquary.

‘In addition to his collection of glass, Mr. SLADE has bequeathed to the
Museum a small series of carvings in ivory and metal work, from Japan,
which are full of the humour and quaintness which characterise the art
of that country.

‘He has likewise bequeathed to the Museum such of the miscellaneous
works of art in his possession as should be selected by one of his
Executors, Mr. FRANKS. The objects so selected are not numerous, but
include some valuable additions to the National Collection.

‘Among them may be noticed the following:—Two very beautiful Greek
painted vases, œnochoæ with red figures of a fine style; these were two
of the gems of the DURAND and HOPE Collections successively; also a fine
tazza, with red figures very well drawn, formerly in the ROGERS
Collection. Two red bowls of the so-called Samian ware, with ornaments
in relief; one of them was discovered near Capua, the other is believed
to have been found in Germany; an antique hand, in rock crystal, of
which a drawing by Santo BARTOLI is preserved in the Royal Library at
Windsor, and a small Roman vase of onyx; a panel, probably from a book
cover, a fine example of German enamel of the twelfth century, from the
PREAUX Collection; a very fine flask-shaped vase of Italian majolica,
probably of Urbino ware, and representing battle scenes; three elegant
ewers, one of them made at Nevers, another of Avignon ware, and the
third probably Venetian—all three are rare specimens; an oval plate of
niello work on silver, and a silver plate engraved in the style of
CRISPIN DE PASSE; three early specimens of stamped leather work,
commonly termed cuirbouilli; [Sidenote: Franks, as above.] a tile from
the Alhambra, but probably belonging to the restorations made to that
building in the sixteenth century.

‘The value of Mr. SLADE’S bequest is considerably increased by a very
detailed and profusely illustrated catalogue of the Collection which,
having been prepared during his lifetime, will be completed and
distributed, according to his directions.

‘Since the CRACHERODE bequest, which formed the nucleus of the British
Museum Print Collections, no acquisition of the kind approaches the
bequest of Mr. SLADE in rare and choice specimens of etchings and
engravings, wherein nearly every artist of distinction is represented.
The collection comprises rare specimens of impressions from Nielli and
prints of the School of Baldini; fine examples of some of the best
productions of Andrea Mantegna, Zoan Andrea Vavassori, Girolamo Mocetto,
Giovanni Battista del Porto, Jean Duvet, Marc Antonio, with his scholars
and followers, the master of the year 1466; [Sidenote: G. W. Reid, in
Parliamentary Returns of 1869.] Martin Schongauer, Israel van Meckenen,
Albert Dürer, Lucas van Leyden, Hans Burgmair, Lucas Cranach, Matheus
Zazinger, the Behams, Rembrandt, Vandyck, Adrian Ostade, Paul Potter,
Karl du Jardin, Jan Both, N. Berghem, Agostino Caracci, Wenceslaus
Hollar, Cornelius Visscher, Crispin and Simon de Passe, S. à Bolswert,
Houbraken, L. Vorsterman, Jacques Callot, Claude Mellan, Nanteuil,
George Wille, Faithorne, Hogarth, L. A. B. Desnoyers, F. Forster, Sir R.
Strange, William Woollett, Porporati, Pefetti, Pietro Anderloni, Raphael
Morghen, Giuseppe Longhi, Garavaglio, and others. There are also some
rare English portraits and book-illustrations.

[Sidenote: THE SPECIMENS OF PRINTING AND BINDING IN THE SLADE
           COLLECTION.]

‘The specimens of binding from the SLADE Collection (now placed in the
Printed Book Department), continues the Report of 1869, are twenty-three
in number, chiefly of foreign execution, and afford examples of the
style of PADELOUP, DUSSEUIL, DEROME, and other eminent binders. One of
the volumes, an edition of PAULUS ÆMYLIUS, _De gestis Francorum_ (Paris,
1555, 8vo), is a beautiful specimen of the French style of the period,
with the sides and back richly ornamented in the Grolier manner. An
Italian translation of the works of Horace (Venice, 1581, 4to), is of
French execution, richly tooled, and bears the arms of HENRY III of
France. A folio volume of the _Reformation der Stadt Nürnberg_
(Frankfort, 1566), which is a magnificent specimen of contemporary
German binding, formerly belonged to the Emperor MAXIMILIAN THE SECOND,
whose arms are painted on the elegantly goffered gilt edges. An edition
of PTOLEMY’S _Geographicæ Narrationis libri octo_ (Lyons, 1541, fol.)
affords a fine illustration of the Italian style of about that date. The
copy of a French translation of XENOPHON’S _Cyropædia_, by Jacques de
VINTEMILLE (Paris, 1547, 4to), appears to have been bound for King
EDWARD VI, of England, whose arms and cypher are on the sides, while the
rose is five times worked in gold on the back. [Sidenote: T. Watts, in
_Returns_, as above.] A volume of Bishop HALL’S _Contemplations on the
Old Testament_ (London, 1626, 8vo), in olive morocco contemporary
English binding, has the Royal arms in the centre of the sides, and
appears to have been the dedication copy of King CHARLES THE FIRST.’ It
is proposed, concludes the _Report_, to exhibit some of the most
beautiful specimens comprised in Mr. SLADE’S valuable donation, in one
of the select cases in the King’s Library.

Mr. SLADE also bequeathed three thousand pounds for the augmentation, by
his Executors, of his Collection of Ancient Glass, and five thousand
pounds to be by them expended in the restoration of the parish church of
Thornton-in-Lonsdale.


[Sidenote: VON SIEBOLD AND HIS JAPANESE COLLECTIONS OF 1823–8.]

Philip VON SIEBOLD was born at Wurtzburg, in February, 1796, and in the
university of that town he received his education. He adopted the
profession of medicine, but devoted himself largely to the study of
natural history. In the joint capacity of physician and naturalist, he
accompanied the Dutch Embassy to Japan in the year 1823. He was a true
lover of humanity, as well as a lover of science. Many Japanese students
were taught by him both the curative arts, and the passion for doing
good to their fellow-men, which ought to be the condition of their
exercise and practice. He won the respect of the Japanese, but his
ardent pursuit of knowledge brought him into great peril.

In 1828 he was about to return to Europe, laden with scientific
treasures, when he was suddenly seized and imprisoned for having
procured access to an official map of the Empire, in order to improve
his knowledge of its topography. His imprisonment lasted thirteen
months. At last he was liberated, and ordered to do what he was just
about to do when arrested. (SIEBOLD, says his biographer, _kam mit der
Verbannung davon_.) But his banishment was not perpetual. In 1859, he
returned. He won favour and employment from the then Tycoon. He returned
to his birthplace in 1862, and died there in October, 1866.

Of his second library, Mr. WATTS wrote thus:—‘The collection of Japanese
books was one of two formed by Dr. VON SIEBOLD during his residence in,
and visits to, Japan. The first of these collections, which is now at
Leyden, and of which a catalogue was published in 1845, was long
considered as beyond comparison the finest of its kind out of Japan and
China; but the second, now in the Museum, is much superior. That at
Leyden comprises five hundred and twenty-five works, that in London one
thousand and eighty-eight works, in three thousand four hundred and
forty-one volumes. It contains specimens of every class of literature:
cyclopædias, histories, law-books, political pamphlets, novels, plays,
poetry, works on science, on antiquities, on female costume, on cookery,
on carpentry, and on dancing. It abounds in works illustrative of the
topography of Japan, as, for instance, one, in twenty volumes, on the
secular capital Yeddo, and two, in eleven volumes, on the religious
capital Miaco; collections of views of Yeddo and of the volcano
Fusiyama, &c. &c. There are also several dictionaries of European
languages, testifying to the eagerness with which the Japanese now
pursue that study. The Museum was already in possession of a second
edition of an English dictionary published at Yeddo in 1866, in which
the lexicographer, HORI TATSNOSKAY, observes in the preface, “As the
study of the English language is now becoming general in our country, we
have had for some time the desire to publish a pocket dictionary of the
English and Japanese languages, as an assistance to our scholars,” and
adds that the first edition is “entirely sold out.” These dictionaries
may now assist Europeans to study the language of Japan, and it is
believed that the Japanese Library now in the Museum will afford
unequalled opportunities for the study of its literature.’

This was the last sentence in the last official report which Mr. WATTS
lived to write, for the purpose of being laid before Parliament. He died
on the ninth of September, 1869, at the age of fifty-nine. His post was
not filled up until the end of December, when he was succeeded by Mr.
William Brenchley RYE, who was then Senior Assistant-Keeper in the
Department of Printed Books. Mr. RYE is well known in literature. He has
edited, with great ability, several works of early travel for the useful
‘Hakluyt Society,’—an employment which he has often shared with his
friends and Museum colleagues Messrs. Winter JONES and Richard Henry
MAJOR, and with like honourable distinction in its performance. More
recently, he has increased his reputation by a book which has been
largely read, and which well deserves its popularity—_England as seen by
Foreigners_. This work was published in 1865.




                              CHAPTER VII.
                     RECONSTRUCTORS AND PROJECTORS.

  ‘What do we, as a nation, care about books? How much do you think we
  spend altogether on our Libraries, public or private, as compared with
  what we spend on our horses? If a man spends lavishly on his Library,
  you call him mad,—a Bibliomaniac. But you never call any one a
  Horse-maniac, though men ruin themselves every day by their losses,
  and you do not hear of people ruining themselves by their books. Or,
  to go lower still, how much do you think the contents of the
  bookshelves of the United Kingdom, public and private, would fetch, as
  compared with the contents of its wine-cellars.’—

                                 RUSKIN, _Sesame and Lilies_, pp. 75–77.

  _The various Projects and Plans proposed, at different times, for the
      Severance, the Partial Dispersion, and the Rearrangement, of the
      several integral Collections which at present form_ ‘The British
      Museum.’


[Sidenote: GROSLEY’S IDEA OF SEVERING THE MUSEUM COLLECTIONS, 1765.]

The first reconstructor, in imagination, of the British Museum on the
plan of severing the literature from the scientific collections, was a
speculative and clever Frenchman, Peter John GROSLEY, who visited it
within less than six years of its being first opened to public
inspection. GROSLEY expressed great admiration for much that he saw, and
he also criticised some of the arrangements that seemed to him
defective, with freedom but with courtesy. Some of my readers will
probably think that he hit a real blot, at that time, when he said: ‘The
Printed Books are the weakest part of this immense collection. The
building cannot contain such a Library as England can form and ought to
form for the ornament of its capital. It has a building quite ready in
the “Banquetting-House” [at Whitehall], and that building could be
enlarged from time to time as occasion might require.’

Other writers, at various periods, have advocated the severance of
collections which seemed to them too multifarious to admit of full,
natural, and equable development, in common. There is perhaps no
apparent reason, on the surface, why a great Nation should not be able
to enlarge the most varied public collections as effectively, and as
impartially, within one building, as within half a dozen buildings. Nor
does there seem to be any necessary connection between the wise and
liberal government of public collections, and their severance or
division into many buildings, rather than their combination within a
single structure. Nevertheless it is certain that many thinkers have, by
some process or other, reached the conclusion that severance would
favour improvement.

[Sidenote: MR. WATTS’ PROPOSITION FOR THE SEVERANCE OF THE MUSEUM
           COLLECTIONS, 1837.]

Seventy years after GROSLEY wrote, Thomas WATTS revived the proposition
of dividing the contents of the British Museum, but he revived it in a
new form. His idea was to remove the Antiquities and to retain at
Montagu House both the Libraries and the Natural History Collections.
‘The pictures have been removed,’ wrote Mr. WATTS in 1837, ‘why should
not the statues follow? The collections at the Museum would then remain
of an entirely homogeneous character. It would be exclusively devoted to
conveying literary information; while the collection at the National
Gallery would have for its object to refine and cultivate the taste.’

It was not by any oversight that Mr. WATTS spoke of the ‘homogeneity’ of
Manuscripts, Printed Books, and Natural-History Collections. He (at the
time) meant what he said. [Sidenote: Watts, in _Mechanics’ Magazine_,
vol. xxvi, pp. 295, seqq.] But I doubt if the naturalists would feel
flattered by the reason which he gives in illustration of his opinion.
‘The various curiosities accumulated at the Museum might be considered,’
he continues, ‘as a vast assemblage of _book-plates_, serving to
illustrate and elucidate the literature of the Library.’

Be that as it may, the idea of removing either the Antiquities or the
Printed Books has long ceased to be mooted. All who now advocate
severance advise, I think, that the Natural History Collections should
be removed, and none other than those. But hitherto the idea of
severance, in any shape, has been uniformly repudiated both by Royal
Commissions of Inquiry, and by Parliamentary Committees. The question,
however, is sure to be revived, and that speedily. Ere long it must
needs receive a final parliamentary solution—aye or no.


In this chapter I shall endeavour to state,—and as I hope with
impartiality,—the main reasons which have been severally adduced, both
by those who advocate a severance, and by those who recommend the
continuance of the existing union of all the varied and vast Collections
now at Bloomsbury. There can be no better introduction of the subject
than that which will be afforded by putting before the reader, on the
one hand, a detailed and well-considered plan which contemplated the
maintenance of the Museum as it is; and, on the other, the elaborate
report in favour of transferring the scientific collections to a new
site,—in order to gain ample space at Bloomsbury for a great Museum of
Literature and Archæology, such as should be in every point of view
worthy of the British Empire,—which was approved of by a Treasury Minute
more than eight years ago.


Of the several schemes and projects of extension which rest on the
twofold basis of (1) the retention at Bloomsbury of nearly all the
existing collections, with ample space for their prospective increase,
and (2) such an effective internal re-arrangement of the collections
themselves as would greatly increase the public facilities of access and
study, none better deserves the attention of the reader than that which
was submitted in the first instance to the Trustees of the British
Museum, and subsequently to Parliament (in 1860) by Mr. Edmund OLDFIELD,
then a Senior Assistant in the Department of Antiquities, entrusted (in
succession to Mr. C. T. NEWTON, on his proceeding to Greece) with the
charge of the Greek and Roman Galleries. By this plan it is proposed to
erect on the west side of the Museum a new range of Galleries for Greek
and Roman Antiquities. The façade in Charlotte Street—prolonged to the
house No. 4 in Bedford Square—would extend to about 440 feet in length,
with an usual depth of 140, increased at the southern extremity to 190
feet. This new range would provide for the whole of the present Greek,
Roman, Phœnician, and Etruscan Antiquities, and for considerable
augmentations. To Assyrian Antiquities would be assigned the present
Elgin Gallery, the ‘Mausoleum Room,’ and the ‘Hellenic Room,’ together
with two other rooms—gained in part by new adaptations of space
comprised within the existing buildings. [Sidenote: MR. OLDFIELD’S
PROJECT OF RECONSTRUCTION OF THE GALLERIES OF ANTIQUITIES (1858–1860).]
The rooms now devoted to the Antiquities of Kouyunjik and Nimroud would
then be applied to the reception of Egyptian Antiquities, together with
a room to be constructed on the site of the present principal staircase.
The Lycian Gallery would retain its site, with an enlargement westward.
I quote Mr. OLDFIELD’S own descriptive account of his project, in full,
from the Appendix to the _Minutes of Evidence_ of 1860.

[Sidenote: ENTRANCE HALL.]

  I. _Entrance Hall._—On the north side is a staircase, such as
  suggested by Mr. PANIZZI, forming the access to the galleries of
  Natural History.

[Sidenote: PRIVATE ROOM FOR SCULPTURES.]

  II. Room for the first reception, unpacking, and examination of
  sculptures, the consideration of such as are offered for purchase, the
  cleaning and repairing of marbles and mosaics, and storing of
  pedestals, mason’s apparatus, and machinery, &c.

[Sidenote: FIRST EGYPTIAN ROOM.]

  III. _First Egyptian Room._—The present two staircases, and the wall
  at the east end of the Assyrian Transept being removed, a handsome
  entrance would be obtained to the galleries of Antiquities. The room
  would be about seventy-six feet by thirty-five, and though not very
  well lighted, might suffice for the monuments of the first twelve
  dynasties of Egypt, at present in the northern vestibule and lobby,
  which have no very artistic character.

[Sidenote: SECOND EGYPTIAN ROOM.]

  IV. _Second Egyptian Room._—The monuments of the Eighteenth Dynasty
  would here commence. Terminating the vista from the north would be the
  head of Thothmes III, more advantageously seen than in its present
  position, where it stands in front of a doorway, and exposed to a
  cross light.

[Sidenote: THIRD EGYPTIAN ROOM.]

  V. _Third Egyptian Room._—For smaller remains of the same period. The
  alcoves should be removed, and a door opened on the north side.

[Sidenote: FOURTH EGYPTIAN ROOM.]

  VI. _Fourth Egyptian Room._—To remedy the darkness of this room, an
  opening should be made in the ceiling, inclosed by a balustrade in the
  room above (_v._ Plan of Upper Floor), and covered with glass; whilst
  the roof of this upper room should be lightened, at least in the
  central compartment, by substituting glass for its present heavy
  ceiling. The small space thus sacrificed in the floor of the upper
  room would be a less serious loss than the virtual uselessness of so
  large an apartment below. With the proposed improvement in the
  lighting, the Fourth Egyptian Room would be well adapted for the
  colossal monuments of Amenophis III; without it, the room could hardly
  serve for any purpose but a passage.

[Sidenote: FIFTH EGYPTIAN ROOM.]

  VII. _Fifth Egyptian Room._—In the middle would be arranged, in two
  rows, the remaining sculptures of the Eighteenth and part of those of
  the Nineteenth Dynasty. In the recesses between the pilasters might be
  fixed wall-cases, which would rather improve than impair the
  architectural effect of the room, and for which the light is well
  adapted, the rays from the opposite windows striking sufficiently low
  to obviate the shadow occasioned by shelves in rooms lighted from
  above. Such cases would contain small objects from the Egyptian
  collection now on the Upper Floor.

[Sidenote: SIXTH EGYPTIAN ROOM.]

  VIII. _Sixth Egyptian Room._—This room, originally ill lighted, has
  been further darkened by the new Reading-Room, erected within a few
  yards of its windows. If, however, an opening were made in the ceiling
  (as proposed for Room VI), and if the roof of the room above were
  somewhat modified, light might be thrown both on the magnificent bust
  of Rameses II and on the east wall of the room. The middle window in
  that wall, which furnishes no available light, might then be blocked
  up; and before it might stand the cast from the head of the colossus
  at Abousimbul, now placed over a door in the northern vestibule, but
  which ought, in any re-arrangement, to be united with the other
  monuments of Rameses II, and which would finely terminate the vista,
  looking from the west.

[Sidenote: SEVENTH EGYPTIAN ROOM.]

  IX. _Seventh Egyptian Room._—Here would be the sculptures, both of the
  native dynasties posterior to the Nineteenth, and of the Ptolemaic and
  Roman periods, which at present occupy the southern Egyptian Gallery.
  In the recesses between the pilasters might be wall-cases.

[Sidenote: EIGHTH EGYPTIAN ROOM.]

  X. _Eighth Egyptian Room._—This, and the two succeeding rooms, would
  be appropriated to smaller Egyptian remains. The light on the western
  side of these rooms falls so nearly vertically, from the overshadowing
  mass of building adjoining, that wall-cases would have their contents
  completely thrown into shade by the shelves, or by the tops of the
  cases. Objects in the middle of the room, on the other hand, would be
  in uninterrupted light. It is, therefore, proposed to place against
  the walls inscribed tablets, which are best seen under an acutely
  striking light; painted plaster friezes, which, from their strong
  colours and coarse execution, do not require much light; and framed
  papyri, which are liable to injury from exposure to powerful light.
  Along the centre of the room would be arranged mummies, and mummy
  cases, in glass frames, with table-cases for scarabæi, and other small
  objects, which are most conveniently exhibited on flat or sloping
  surfaces.

[Sidenote: NINTH EGYPTIAN ROOM.]

  XI. _Ninth Egyptian Room._—The thoroughfare is here too great for
  objects to be conveniently arranged in the centre; but the walls might
  be occupied as in the preceding room.

[Sidenote: TENTH EGYPTIAN ROOM.]

  XII. _Tenth Egyptian Room._—To be arranged similarly to the Eighth.

[Sidenote: SUMMARY OF ACCOMMODATION FOR EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES.]

  SUMMARY of the Accommodation provided in the plan for EGYPTIAN
  ANTIQUITIES:—

  1. The large sculptures would gain Rooms III, IV, and VI, in lieu of
  the northern vestibule.

  2. The inscribed tablets, which at present occupy the recesses of
  Rooms VII, VIII, IX, containing four hundred and twenty-two linear
  feet of wall-space, and the walls of the northern vestibule,
  containing about eighty feet, or altogether about five hundred and two
  feet, would share with the framed papyri and painted plaster friezes
  the walls of Rooms III, IV, V, VI, VIII, X, XI, XII, containing
  altogether about nine hundred and sixty feet.

  3. The mummies, overcrowded in a room containing two thousand and
  fourteen square feet of available open space, and the coffins in the
  present ‘Egyptian Ante-room,’ would be arranged, with several table
  cases, in Rooms X and XII, containing altogether about four thousand
  and eighty square feet.

  4. The small objects, now in wall-cases extending to two hundred and
  thirty-seven feet of linear measurement, and in three table-cases,
  would be arranged in wall-cases, extending to three hundred and
  eighty-three feet, and in several table-cases, of which the exact
  extent cannot be fixed.

  The additional space here provided for large Egyptian sculptures is
  not so much needed for the present as is the case in some other
  series; but the greater comparative difficulty of moving objects so
  bulky makes it advisable to secure, as far as possible, the permanence
  of any re-arrangement, by leaving room for the probable incorporations
  of future years. The accommodation provided for smaller objects is
  little more than they already require for advantageous display.

[Sidenote: FIRST ASSYRIAN ROOM.]

  XIII. _First Assyrian or Nimroud Room._—This room, on the site of the
  basement room, would be formed by demolishing the small room, with the
  adjoining students’ room and staircase; by extending over their site
  the glass roof of room; by throwing a floor, on a continuous level
  with those of the adjoining galleries, and supported upon iron
  pillars, over so much of room as is coloured brown in the plan; and by
  carrying up thin partitions from this floor to the glass roof, so as
  to inclose a new apartment. This apartment would, at the south end,
  extend across the whole breadth of room, but elsewhere it would be
  limited to a central space, nineteen feet wide, corresponding to the
  present central compartment of room, so as to leave open an area of
  ten feet wide on each side. The open areas would serve to light both
  the whole room below, of which the central portion would be partially
  obscured by the new structure, and also the rooms in the adjoining
  basements, which, though no longer used for exhibition, might be
  serviceable for other subordinate purposes. In one of the open areas
  might be a private staircase to the basement. Room XIII would be
  considerably loftier than the present ‘Nimroud Side Gallery,’ and it
  would contain two thousand nine hundred and seventy superficial feet,
  and three hundred and fourteen linear feet of wall-space, instead of
  two thousand one hundred and seventy-six superficial feet, and two
  hundred and seventy-eight feet of wall-space. In this new room would
  be placed the earliest of the Assyrian monuments, those of
  Sardanapalus I; at the south end those found in the two small temples
  at Nimroud, including the colossal lion, the arched monolith and
  altar, and the mythological figures from a doorway; in the northern
  portion, the sculptures from the North-west Palace at Nimroud,
  including the small winged lion and bull, now in room.

[Sidenote: SECOND ASSYRIAN ROOM.]

  XIV. _Second Assyrian Room._—This would contain a continuation of the
  series from Nimroud. On the west side the colossal winged lions now in
  the western compartment of the Assyrian Transept, which would complete
  the monuments of Sardanapalus I; in other parts of the room, the few
  but important sculptures of Divanubara, Shammaz-Phal, and Pul, now
  somewhat scattered for want of the requisite accommodation in room,
  but for which there would here be ample space, and an advantageous
  light.

[Sidenote: THIRD ASSYRIAN ROOM.]

  XV. A proposed new room, to be entitled the _Third Assyrian or
  Khorsabad Room_, the Assistant-Keeper’s study being removed, and
  accommodation being provided for him elsewhere. The room might be
  forty-seven feet by forty, about the same height as XIV, and similarly
  lighted by a central skylight; beneath it would be a basement room for
  the uses of the establishment. Room XV would contain, first, the
  bas-reliefs of Tiglathpileser II from the South-west edifice of
  Nimroud; and secondly, the Khorsabad collection, or monuments of
  Sargina, which is next in chronological order to the Nimroud
  collection. The two colossal bulls of Sargina are marked in the plan
  as facing each other, an arrangement common at Khorsabad. Deducting
  space for the bulls, upwards of eighty linear feet of wall-surface
  would remain in the room, which is considerably more than the
  bas-reliefs of Tiglathpileser and Sargina require. The new building
  would necessarily obscure some of the windows of the adjoining
  basement, but this is of minor importance; and the evil might be
  diminished on the western and southern side, by leaving open spaces in
  the floor behind each of the colossal bulls. Between the bulls would
  be a passage to

[Sidenote: FOURTH ASSYRIAN ROOM.]

  XVI. _Fourth Assyrian or Sennacherib Room._—Here would be the first
  part of the collection discovered at Koyunjik, the monuments of
  Sennacherib, now inconveniently divided, and arranged partly in the
  ‘Koyunjik Gallery,’ and partly in the ‘Assyrian Basement Room.’ These
  monuments consist, almost entirely, of bas-reliefs, extending as at
  present arranged, to about three hundred and fifty-one feet (two
  hundred and eight on the ground floor, and one hundred and forty-three
  in the basement). In a lofty and wide room, however, such as XVI, an
  upper row of bas-reliefs might be introduced over many of the smaller
  slabs, now arranged in a single row only; by this means the sculptures
  of Sennacherib might all be included on the east, west, and north
  sides of the room, containing three hundred and seventeen linear feet
  of wall-space, leaving the south side, or twenty-seven feet, for
  sculptures of Sardanapalus III, the last monarch of the Assyrian
  series. In the centre of the room would be glass cases for the
  numerous tablets, cylinders, and other small objects of this
  collection, which it is most instructive to exhibit in connection with
  the sculptures. The only architectural alteration desirable in the
  room would be to open skylights in the lateral portion of the roof,
  and to close those in the central, in order to obtain a sharper light,
  upon the principle so successfully adopted in the present ‘Nimroud
  Side Gallery.’

[Sidenote: FIFTH ASSYRIAN ROOM.]

  XVII. _Fifth Assyrian Room._—Here would be the continuation of the
  monuments of Sardanapalus III, which conclude the Assyrian department;
  they are at present divided like those of Sennacherib, and part
  exhibited in the ‘Koyunjik Gallery,’ part in the basement room;
  altogether they now extend to three hundred and seventy-three feet;
  but as the greater part might, in Room XVII, be very well arranged in
  double rows, and some of those in single rows might, without injury,
  be less widely spread, two hundred and twenty-five feet would suffice
  for their exhibition; of this space twenty-seven feet would be
  supplied by Room XVI, and the remainder by XVII. The centre of the
  room should be appropriated as the preceding, and the lighting
  similarly modified.

[Sidenote: SUMMARY OF ACCOMMODATION FOR ASSYRIAN ANTIQUITIES.]

 ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
 │   SUMMARY OF THE ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED IN THE PLAN FOR ASSYRIAN    │
 │                            ANTIQUITIES.                             │
 ├──────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────┤
 │ _Amount of Wall-space now in use │_Amount of Wall-space in the Plan │
 │    for Assyrian Bas-reliefs._    │    for Assyrian Bas-reliefs._    │
 │                           │Linear│                           │Linear│
 │                           │feet. │                           │feet. │
 │Nimroud Side Gallery       │   278│Room XIII                  │   314│
 │Nimroud Central Saloon     │    82│Room  XIV                  │    95│
 │Assyrian Transept          │   125│Room   XV                  │   145│
 │Koyunjik Gallery           │   242│Room  XVI                  │   344│
 │Assyrian Basement Room     │   243│Room XVII                  │   199│
 │                           │   ———│                           │ —————│
 │                           │   970│                           │ 1,097│
 │Bas-reliefs in the middle  │      │                           │      │
 │  of Basement Room         │   254│                           │      │
 │                           │ —————│                           │      │
 │                           │ 1,224│                           │      │
 └───────────────────────────┴──────┴───────────────────────────┴──────┘

  It thus appears that the wall-space provided in the plan, though one
  hundred and twenty-seven feet more than the wall-space in the existing
  rooms, falls short by one hundred and twenty-seven feet of the total
  linear extent of the bas-reliefs, as now arranged. In lieu, however,
  of placing slabs in the middle of a gallery, as is done in the
  basement room, and as it would likewise be possible to do in XVI or
  XVII, it is thought better, in these last rooms, to provide the
  additional space by simply carrying up the slabs to a greater height.

  The space for central cases for small objects, which is at present
  four thousand and eighty square feet in rooms would be eight thousand
  one hundred and seventy square feet in Rooms XVI and XVII, an amount
  so abundant as to supersede the necessity for any wall-cases.

  The accommodation here provided for Assyrian antiquities is little
  more in quantity, though much better in quality, than the present. But
  this is nearly the only branch of the archæological collections to
  which there seems little probability of future additions. If, contrary
  to expectation, any such should be made, a supplemental room might be
  built on the vacant space to the north of the Assyrian galleries.

[Sidenote: PERSIAN ROOM.]

  XVIII. _Persian Room._—The sculptures to be here exhibited, which are
  all bas-reliefs, would probably not occupy more than half the
  wall-space, which is forty-seven linear feet. They belong chiefly to
  the sixth century, B.C., and properly therefore succeed the Assyrian,
  which range from the tenth to the seventh century, B.C.

[Sidenote: LYCIAN GALLERY.]

  XIX. _Lycian Gallery._—It is intended to reserve this room for the
  monuments peculiarly characteristic of Lycia, and to transfer to the
  Greek galleries those in which the Greek element is predominant; such
  as, particularly, the sculptures of the Ionic trophy monument or
  _heroum_ from Xanthus, now scattered over the room, and, if necessary,
  the casts from the rock tomb at Myra. This would leave abundant space
  for the purely Lycian remains. The harpy tomb, of which the
  bas-reliefs furnish a very important illustration of archaic Greek
  art, might best be placed in an isolated position near the entrance to
  the Greek galleries, where it would be favourably lighted and
  conspicuously seen. Its present place might be filled by the rude
  sarcophagus with sculptures of lions. The lighting of the Lycian room,
  which is very defective, should be improved by an alteration in the
  roof; but it is thought better not to enter into the details of such
  alteration in the present paper.

[Sidenote: FIRST GREEK ROOM.]

  XX. _First Greek or Inscription Room._—The room beneath this being
  supposed to be withdrawn from exhibition, the staircase at the west
  end should be separated by a partition, and entered through a private
  door. All Greek inscriptions, except the sepulchral, and such as are
  engraved on architectural or sculptural monuments, would be here
  collected.

  At this point the new buildings commence with—

[Sidenote: SECOND GREEK ROOM.]

  XXI. _Second Greek or Branchidæ Room_, thirty feet by twenty-four.—The
  height both of this and the four succeeding rooms should be about
  twenty feet. This would contain the earliest Greek sculptures, of
  which the principal are those procured by Mr. NEWTON from Branchidæ.
  The ten seated statues would be arranged on each side, as in the
  ‘Sacred Way’ at that place, and the recumbent inscribed lion and the
  sphinx placed at the end of the room.

[Sidenote: THIRD GREEK ROOM.]

  XXII. _Third Greek Room_, twenty-four feet by seventeen.—This would
  contain other archaic works, including the casts from Selinus.

[Sidenote: FOURTH GREEK ROOM.]

  XXIII. _Fourth Greek or Æginetan Room_, thirty-eight feet by
  twenty-four.—Here would be fixed, in two recesses, the restorations of
  the two pedimental groups from Ægina, which are exactly of the length
  of this room, and which might be placed at a more convenient level for
  examination than their present elevated position in room.

[Sidenote: FIFTH GREEK ROOM.]

  XXIV. _Fifth Greek Room_, seventeen feet by twenty-four.—On a
  pedestal, facing the great Greek gallery, might stand the semi-archaic
  Apollo, from Byzantium.

[Sidenote: SIXTH GREEK ROOM.]

  XXV. _Sixth Greek or Phigaleian Room_, thirty-eight feet by
  twenty-four.—Here would be the casts from the Temple of Theseus, and
  the sculptures and casts from the Temple of Wingless Victory, both of
  the middle of the fifth century, B.C.; also the Phigaleian collection,
  which is a somewhat later production of the same school. The friezes,
  arranged in two rows, would just fill the room.

[Sidenote: SEVENTH GREEK ROOM.]

  XXVI. _Seventh Greek or Parthenon Room._—Here would commence the grand
  suite of galleries for large sculptures, of which the general breadth
  would be forty-two feet, and the height from thirty to thirty-five
  feet. By its side would run a secondary suite, twenty feet wide, and
  from fifteen to twenty feet high, for minor specimens, of which the
  interest generally is rather archæological than artistic. These latter
  objects are both more conveniently classified, and more favourably
  seen, in small rooms; if placed in large galleries, beside grand
  monumental works, they lose importance themselves, whilst they fritter
  away the effect of what is really more valuable. The Seventh Greek
  Room, which is two hundred and forty-one feet long, would contain only
  the remains of the Parthenon; which might be arranged as indicated in
  the Plan, so as at once to keep the pedimental groups and the frieze
  from interfering with each other, and to distinguish, more accurately
  than is now done, the original connection or disconnection of the
  several slabs of the frieze. As we possess the entire frieze from the
  east end of the temple, and casts of the entire frieze from the west,
  these two are here arranged opposite each other, towards the middle of
  the two side walls of the room. On either side are the slabs from the
  north and south flanks of the temple, which are mostly disconnected.
  In front of the casts from the west is a proposed full-sized model of
  part of the entablature, supported by one original and five restored
  capitals, with the upper parts of their shafts, and incorporating ten
  of the metopes, so as to explain their original combination with the
  architecture. The total height of this model might be about eighteen
  feet. The metopes not included in it should be attached to the wall
  opposite, over the frieze. The finest of the pedimental groups would
  face the grand entrance from the Lycian Gallery, through which the
  whole might be seen in one view, from any distance less than
  forty-eight feet. If it were desired to retain the two small models of
  the Parthenon in the room, they might stand near the south end.

[Sidenote: EIGHTH GREEK ROOM.]

  XXVII. _Eighth Greek or Erechtheum Room_, sixty-five feet by
  twenty-six, for monuments of the era between Phidias and Scopas, of
  which the principal are the remains of the Erechtheum.

[Sidenote: NINTH GREEK ROOM.]

  XXVIII. _Ninth Greek, or Mausoleum Room_, one hundred and twenty feet
  in length, forty-two in breadth, and eighty across the transept.—Here
  would be, 1. The marbles procured by Lord STRATFORD and Mr. NEWTON,
  from the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus; in the west transept, the group
  from the _quadriga_, and in the southern part of the room the other
  important sculptural and architectural remains of the building,
  including the frieze. 2. In the east transept, the colossal lion from
  Cnidus, with a few other sculptures of the same school. 3. In the
  northern part of the room, the Xanthian Ionic monument, here placed
  for comparison with the remains of the Mausoleum. The whole upper
  portion of this monument, commencing with the higher of the two
  friezes which surrounded the original base, might be reconstructed,
  though not restored, and would form a striking termination to the
  vista through the galleries. The lower frieze might be arranged
  against the adjoining walls of the room.

[Sidenote: TENTH GREEK ROOM.]

  XXIX. _Tenth Greek Room._—Having thus passed through the great
  monumental series of Greek sculptures in chronological order, the
  visitor would return south by the side rooms, containing minor remains
  of the same school. The Tenth Greek Room would be forty-two feet by
  twenty, and would contain the latest of the smaller sculptures.

[Sidenote: ELEVENTH GREEK ROOM.]

  XXX. _Eleventh Greek Room_, thirty-three feet by twenty.—This should
  be appropriated to the small fragments from the Mausoleum, which would
  thus be in immediate connection with its larger sculptures, without
  impairing their grandeur of effect.

[Sidenote: TWELFTH AND THIRTEENTH GREEK ROOMS.]

  XXXI, XXXII. _Twelfth and Thirteenth Greek Rooms_, together one
  hundred and thirty-five feet in length and twenty in breadth.—The
  exact position of the wall separating these rooms might be reserved
  till the arrangement of their contents was settled. In one might be
  architectural fragments, from buildings not represented in the large
  galleries; in the other, small tablets, votive offerings, altars, and
  other minor sculptures.

[Sidenote: FOURTEENTH GREEK ROOM.]

  XXXIII. _Fourteenth Greek or Sepulchral Room_, ninety-three feet by
  eighteen.—Here would be all the Greek sepulchral monuments now in the
  basement. The casts from the sculptured tomb at Myra, of which the
  style is more Greek than Lycian, might also be here placed, as
  indicated in the plan, in case it should be thought desirable to
  remove them from the Lycian Room, though the expediency of this
  transfer may perhaps be doubted. Wherever placed, these casts ought to
  be so put together as to explain the true arrangement of the
  originals.

  [Then follows a Summary of the Accommodation provided in the Plan for
  Greek Sculptures, amounting to a superficial area of twenty-seven
  thousand four hundred and ten square feet, and to two thousand one
  hundred and ninety-one lineal feet of wall-space.]

[Sidenote: ETRUSCAN ROOM.]

  XXXIV. _Etruscan Room._—The next parallel on the ground floor would be
  devoted to the monuments of ancient Italy. The earliest are the
  Etruscan, which, being altogether taken from tombs, would properly be
  placed adjacent, on the one side to the Greek, on the other to the
  Roman, sepulchral collections. The principal portion of the Etruscan
  Room would be fifty-five feet by forty, with additional recesses at
  the south end, the whole about twenty feet high. Two rows of pilasters
  would divide the room into three compartments, the central for the
  gangway, the other two to be fitted up as a series of tombs, of which
  the sides would be formed of the mural restorations, with fac-similes
  of paintings from Corneto and Vulci. Within these restored tombs would
  be such sarcophagi as we possess, found in the tombs themselves. The
  fac-similes of the painted roofs of two of the tombs might be fixed
  above them, at such a height as not to obstruct the light. In the
  central compartment, which contains six shallow recesses between the
  pilasters, might be monuments from various tombs other than those here
  restored.

  XXXV. _Staircase Room_, forty feet by thirty, and of the same height
  as the three united stories of the western galleries.—Four successive
  flights of steps would be required to reach each floor. The landings
  between the first and second, and between the third and fourth
  flights, might each be supported by Caryatid or Atlantic figures,
  which would give the whole composition an ornamental effect, as seen
  from the east side. Beneath one side of this staircase might be a
  private one leading to the western basement.

  To the north is another private staircase, conducting to the basement
  under the Greek galleries. The adjoining passage leads to—

[Sidenote: FIRST GRÆCO-ROMAN ROOM.]

  XXXVI. _First Græco-Roman Room._—The Etruscan monuments are succeeded
  chronologically by the Græco-Roman, here placed so as to adjoin the
  galleries both of Greek and of Roman art. In accordance with the
  character of Græco-Roman sculpture, the apartments containing it
  should be somewhat ornamentally constructed and arranged, as in the
  great continental museums, where works of this class form the staple
  of the collections. The position of the principal objects in all this
  series of rooms is marked in the plan, without distinguishing them
  individually, as none are of such a character as to require any
  special architectural provision. The first room is one hundred and six
  feet by twenty-six, exclusive of the alcoves. Its height need not, for
  the display of statuary, exceed twenty feet; but if, for architectural
  effect, a vaulted ceiling is preferred, the height must be increased.
  In the Braccio Nuovo, in the Vatican Museum, which is probably the
  finest gallery of this kind in Europe, and has a cylindrical vault,
  with a central skylight, the proportion of height to breadth is about
  thirty-seven feet to twenty-seven; but in the darker climate of London
  the height should not, if possible, exceed the breadth.

[Sidenote: SECOND GRÆCO-ROMAN ROOM.]

  XXXVII. _Second Græco-Roman Room, or Rotunda_, sixty feet in diameter,
  and about sixty feet high in the centre, being surmounted by a
  hemispherical dome.—This room is, with slight variations, and on a
  somewhat smaller scale, a copy of the Rotunda in the Museum of Berlin,
  an apartment universally admired for its architectural beauty, and
  only defective as a hall for sculpture from the unnecessary smallness
  of the central skylight. The entablature over the columns would
  support a gallery, opening into the first floor of the western
  buildings.

[Sidenote: THIRD GRÆCO-ROMAN ROOM.]

  XXXVIII. _Third Græco-Roman Room_, similar to the first, but only one
  hundred and one feet long, exclusive of the northern alcove.

  The spaces between the lateral alcoves on the east side of the First
  and Third Græco-Roman Rooms might either be covered with glass, or
  left open for ventilation, though the second arrangement would involve
  a provision for the drainage below.

[Sidenote: SUMMARY OF ACCOMMODATION FOR GRÆCO-ROMAN SCULPTURES.]

  The amount of accommodation for Græco-Roman sculptures cannot, from
  the form of the rooms, be stated with the same exactness as that for
  the Greek. Exclusive of the alcoves, there would be in the—

        ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────┐
        │                 │Superficial Area.│    Length of    │
        │                 │                 │   Wall-space.   │
        │First Galley     │2,756   square   │  180   linear   │
        │                 │         feet.   │         feet.   │
        │Third Gallery    │2,626      „     │  152      „     │
        │                 │—————            │  ———            │
        │                 │5,382      „     │  332      „     │
        └─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┘

  The Rotunda would not have available space in proportion to its size.
  Twelve statues or busts between the columns, and perhaps a large
  sculpture in the centre, would be the natural complement of the room.
  The wall-space behind the columns would not be available for
  sculpture. The total accommodation in the three rooms would amply
  suffice for our present collection, even somewhat enlarged. [Sidenote:
  MEANS OF FUTURE ENLARGEMENT.] As it increased, however, further space
  might be obtained by erecting in the first and third rooms transverse
  walls, opposite the alcoves in the Roman galleries, thus subdividing
  the first room into three principal compartments, with a small lobby
  at each end, and the third into three compartments (of which the most
  northern would need some modification), with a lobby at the south end.
  The doorways through these walls might be twelve feet wide, so as to
  preserve the continuous appearance of the suite; and they would still
  leave one hundred and twelve feet of additional wall-space in the
  first room, and eighty-four in the third. The lighting would be
  somewhat improved by such an alteration.

[Sidenote: WESTERN GALLERIES.]

  The last suite of galleries on the ground floor would contain the
  Roman and Phœnician remains. To avoid any obscuration from the houses
  on the west side of Charlotte Street, the windows should be as high in
  the wall as possible, and as broad as architectural propriety would
  admit, whilst the rooms should be not less than twenty-five feet high.

[Sidenote: FIRST ROMAN ROOM.]

  XXXIX. _First Roman Room_, one hundred and ten feet by twenty-eight,
  exclusive of the alcoves.—It would contain mosaics, including those
  from Carthage, and miscellaneous sculptures, altars, architectural
  fragments, &c.; the mosaics indifferently placed on all sides of the
  room, the sculptures on the east side and against the two end walls.

[Sidenote: HALL.]

  XL. _Hall_, fifty-six feet by seventeen.—Here might be an entrance
  from Charlotte Street, which on many occasions would furnish a
  convenient relief to the principal entrance to the Museum. It would
  open immediately into the Rotunda, and through the vista beyond would
  be seen, in the distance, the cast of the colossal head from
  Abousimbul. Within the two abutments of the Rotunda would be recesses
  for the attendants to sell catalogues, receive umbrellas, &c.

[Sidenote: SECOND ROMAN ROOM.]

  XLI. _Second Roman or Iconographical Room_, fifty-four feet by
  twenty-eight, without the alcoves.—This would contain the series of
  portrait statues and busts, in chronological order. The west, or dark
  side of the room, could only be used for very inferior sculptures.

[Sidenote: THIRD ROMAN ROOM.]

  XLII. _Third (or Anglo-) Roman Room_, the same size as the preceding,
  for Roman monuments found in this country. The rude character of many
  would admit of placing them on the west side.

[Sidenote: FOURTH ROMAN ROOM.]

  XLIII. _Fourth Roman or Sepulchral Room_, eighty-two feet by
  twenty-six, containing Roman sarcophagi for which the west side might
  be partially available, and sepulchral cippi, and inscriptions. At the
  north-east angle would be a Columbarium, twenty-three feet by
  fourteen, fitted up like that in the present Sepulchral Basement Room,
  but with the advantage of a skylight.

  [Then follows a Summary of Accommodation provided in the plan for
  Roman Sculptures, amounting to a superficial area (without alcoves) of
  eight thousand five hundred and fifty-eight square feet, and seven
  hundred and seventeen linear feet of wall-space.]

[Sidenote: MEANS OF FUTURE ENLARGEMENT.]

  The first three rooms, when their contents sufficiently increased,
  would admit of an easy alteration, which would not merely increase the
  wall-space, but much improve the lighting, by simply inserting
  transverse walls between each window. Against these walls the
  sculptures would have a true side light, whilst those against the east
  wall would be protected from double lights. It may even be doubted
  whether such an arrangement should not be adopted in the first
  instance, without waiting till the additional accommodation is
  actually required.

[Sidenote: PHŒNICIAN ROOM.]

  XLIV. _Phœnician Room_, twenty-six feet square.—Here would be the
  _stelæ_ and bas-reliefs from Carthage and its vicinity, with the few
  Punic inscriptions which we possess. The room contains six hundred and
  seventy-six superficial feet, and eighty-eight of wall-space.

[Sidenote: SUPPLEMENTAL ROOM.]

  XLV. A similar room to the preceding, which, in case of necessity,
  might serve for extending the Phœnician collection. In the mean time
  it might perhaps be used for exhibiting such miscellaneous inferior
  sculptures as could be advantageously weeded from the regular series,
  though circumstances might temporarily prevent their removal from the
  Museum. In such case it might be entitled ‘Supplemental Room.’

  In accordance with a suggestion made in the Committee now sitting, the
  writer has added to the new buildings proposed in his plan another
  story, or second floor, over the first. The advantage of this is, that
  it would provide for objects which it might be more costly or
  inconvenient to accommodate elsewhere. But it involves necessarily two
  evils: [Sidenote: PLAN OF UPPER FLOORS. ADVANTAGES AND EVILS OF A
  SECOND STORY.] 1. That the height of the second floor, involving an
  ascent of perhaps nearly one hundred steps (though this is not more
  than is common in continental museums), might excite complaint in
  English visitors. 2. That so lofty a building, by excluding all
  oblique rays from the east side of the Græco-Roman galleries, would
  make the light on the statues and busts there placed somewhat too
  vertical.

[Sidenote: COLLECTIONS RETAINED OR REMOVED.]

  With regard to the collections to be provided for on the upper floors,
  it is here assumed, though of course without any express authority,
  that Ethnography and Oriental Antiquities would be removed from the
  Museum, and better accommodated elsewhere. The British and Mediæval
  Collections, however, are supposed to be retained; if they are
  removed, a modification of this plan must in consequence be made.

[Sidenote: FIRST FLOOR OR NEW BUILDINGS FOR ANTIQUITIES; ITS
           CONSTRUCTION.]

  The apartments should all be about eighteen feet high, the windows of
  the same breadth as those below, but, except in the Terracotta Room,
  only about eight feet high, and as near the ceiling as possible. On
  the east side should be corresponding windows, so that each wall would
  be illuminated; for cross lights, though so injurious to sculptures,
  are generally desirable for galleries filled with wall-cases. All the
  windows should have ground glass, to prevent injury to the collections
  from the sun.

[Sidenote: VASE GALLERY.]

  1. _Vase Gallery._—Two hundred and twenty-two feet long, the southern
  half twenty-six feet wide, and the northern twenty-eight feet. The
  wall-cases should be about eight feet high, like those in our First
  Vase Room; and the transverse projections, flanked by pilasters, would
  be only of the same height, so as not to shut out the view of the
  upper part of the gallery; having glass on each side, they would serve
  for vases with double paintings, such as we now exhibit only in dwarf
  central cases. The most important vases should stand isolated on
  tables, or pedestals, on each side the gangway; as in the present
  arrangement of the Temple Collection. [Sidenote: ITS ACCOMMODATION.]
  Although the superficial area of this gallery (five thousand nine
  hundred and ninety-two feet) is little more than a third greater than
  that occupied by vases in the present buildings (four thousand three
  hundred and twenty-one feet), the amount of accommodation it would
  afford is nearly double. For the present wall-cases, eight feet high,
  extend to one hundred and forty-six feet of linear measurement; those
  ten feet high will, when the collection is fully arranged, extend to
  eighty-four feet; the whole therefore may be reckoned as equivalent to
  two hundred and fifty-one feet of cases, eight feet high. The total
  extent, however, of such wall-cases in the proposed gallery is four
  hundred and fifty-five feet. The projections also, with the tables and
  pedestals, may safely be estimated as providing twice the
  accommodation for vases painted on both sides which is now furnished
  by the dwarf central cases, besides exhibiting them much more
  conveniently. It should be added that the vases would be better
  lighted than at present; whilst the length and comparative openness of
  the gallery would produce a more striking impression on the passing
  visitor.

[Sidenote: PROPOSED ETRUSCAN APARTMENT.]

  The accommodation here provided being so ample, it might be desirable
  to appropriate one compartment of the gallery to an exclusively
  Etruscan Collection, comprising not merely the pottery of the
  Etruscans, properly so called, but that for which they were really
  more distinguished in ancient times, their bronze and other metal
  work.

[Sidenote: TERRACOTTA ROOM.]

  2. _Terracotta Room._—Fifty-six feet by seventeen. As no windows could
  be made on the east side, there should be no cases on the west; but
  the western windows, which do not correspond with the others of this
  story, should extend from near the ceiling to four or five feet from
  the floor. A sloping case might then be placed in each window, for
  lamps and other small objects, requiring a strong light. Against the
  east wall should be cases for vases, and other large objects.

[Sidenote: GALLERY OF ROTUNDA.]

  3. _Gallery of the Rotunda._—From one hundred and eighty to one
  hundred and ninety feet in circumference, and about nine feet wide.
  The powerful light from the centre of the dome would be favourable to
  terracotta statuettes and bas-reliefs, which could all be contained in
  shallow wall-cases, that would not materially narrow the gangway.[48]
  The Townley Collection of bas-reliefs, now in the Second Vase Room,
  might be arranged in panels all round, so as to produce a decorative
  effect, agreeable to their original destination.

[Sidenote: ACCOMMODATION FOR TERRACOTTAS.]

  The entire space provided in these two rooms is much more than our
  terracottas can absolutely require; but this will facilitate an
  ornamental arrangement of the collection, appropriate to the character
  of the larger room. The small spaces between the Rotunda and the main
  building would serve for closets.

[Sidenote: GLASS ROOM.]

  4. _Glass Room_, twenty-eight feet by twenty-six.—The fittings proper
  for glass being different from those of terracottas, it is desirable
  to give it a separate room. This should be similarly arranged to the
  Vase Gallery, with wall-cases eight feet high, and table-cases in the
  centre.

[Sidenote: BRONZE GALLERY. ITS ACCOMMODATION.]

  5. _Bronze Gallery_, three apartments united; together eighty-two feet
  by twenty-eight.—As the advantage of a skylight for the bronze
  statuettes is necessarily sacrificed by the adoption of an upper
  floor, it would be best to place them, as far as possible, against
  each side of the transverse projections, separating those sides by
  internal partitions, and employing some contrivance to protect the
  bronzes from the cross light of the further windows, an arrangement
  possible with small objects in glass cases, though not with large
  statuary. In the middle of the gallery might be table-cases, placed
  longitudinally, or important objects on pedestals. The increase of
  accommodation in the Bronze Gallery, as in the Vase Gallery, is more
  than proportionate to the increase of space. Though the superficial
  area is only two thousand two hundred and ninety-six feet, in lieu of
  our present quantity, two thousand and twenty-one, the extent of
  wall-cases, which now is only one hundred and thirty-eight feet,
  would, even allowing doorways of twelve feet wide between each of
  these compartments, be increased to two hundred and fifty feet,
  equivalent, after allowing for the difference in height of the cases,
  to two hundred feet. This, if the Etruscan bronzes were transferred as
  already suggested, would liberally provide for the Greek and Roman
  Collection.

[Sidenote: SECOND FLOOR OF NEW BUILDINGS FOR ANTIQUITIES.]

  Each room should be fifteen to eighteen feet high; the windows
  exclusively on the east side, and extending from the ceiling to four
  or five feet from the floor. As the aspect is nearly N.E., the sun
  could not be injurious, and the glass of the windows, therefore, had
  better be unground.

[Sidenote: BRITISH ROOMS.]

  1. _British Rooms_, each twenty-seven feet by twenty-six.—That which
  adjoins the staircase (and, if necessary, those on each side), should
  be lighted from the roof, and have wall-cases all round, with a
  separate case in the centre. The other rooms should have wall-cases on
  the west side, and shallower cases against the transverse walls. Two
  long table-cases in each room might extend from the windows to a line
  with the doorway.

[Sidenote: MEDIÆVAL ROOMS.]

[Sidenote: SUMMARY OF ACCOMMODATION FOR BRITISH AND MEDIÆVAL.]

  2. _Mediæval Rooms_, each twenty-eight feet by twenty-seven, and
  similarly arranged to the British.—Though the entire superficial area
  in the British and Mediæval Rooms is only five thousand and
  seventy-two feet, in lieu of four thousand and forty-six, the amount
  in the present building, yet the wall-space is four hundred and
  sixty-six feet, instead of only two hundred and ninety-seven, and the
  cases, having no windows above, might, if necessary, be made ten feet
  high, like the present. The gain in table-cases would be much greater.
  In lieu of six, there would be twelve, each sixteen or eighteen feet
  long, instead of ten; whilst the central case in the room adjoining
  the staircase might be at least as capacious as the large separate
  case in the present British and Mediæval Room. The lighting would
  throughout be more advantageous for these collections than at present;
  and the rooms, from the character of the windows, might be bright
  instead of gloomy.

[Sidenote: GEM ROOM.]

  3. _Gem Room._—As the contents of this and the succeeding room have
  more or less intrinsic value, an iron door might be placed at the end
  of the Mediæval Gallery, to be open only when the public are admitted
  to the Museum. The Gem Room, twenty-eight feet by twenty-seven, would
  be fitted like the preceding. The gems would occupy the table-cases,
  which would accommodate a far larger collection than ours, and would
  exhibit them in the best possible light for such objects. In the
  wall-cases might be displayed the gold and silver ornaments, which
  would have much more space than as now arranged, though in a room only
  of the same size.

[Sidenote: COIN AND MEDAL GALLERY.]

  4. _Coin and Medal Gallery_, fifty-six feet by seventeen.—As the dome
  of the Rotunda would only rise a few feet above the floor of this
  gallery, and would, from its curvature, recede to a distance of
  several feet, windows on the east side would be quite unobstructed. In
  each might stand a table-case, six or seven feet long, on which would
  be exhibited, under glass, a series of coins and medals which, though
  not the most valuable of our collection in the eyes of a numismatist,
  would suffice to give the public an interesting and instructive view
  of the monetary art. In the drawers of these cases might be kept the
  moulds and casts of the Coin Collection. Against the side walls might
  be upright cases, or frames, for extending the exhibition; but the
  walls facing the windows, having a front light, would be unsuitable
  for coins or medals, and must be employed for some other purpose.

[Sidenote: PRIVATE ROOMS OF COIN DEPARTMENT.]

  5. The rooms which remain would be a private suite for the Coin
  Department. The present rooms of that department are arranged in an
  order the reverse of what is best for security and convenience, the
  coins being kept in an outer room, which must be passed in going
  either to the Keeper’s study, or to the Ornament Room, a room open to
  all persons merely on application. In the accompanying plan the
  contents of the Ornament Room have been transferred to the Gem Room;
  and the Keeper’s study is placed near the beginning of the private
  suite.

[Sidenote: OUTER COIN ROOM.]

  _Outer Coin Room_, twenty-eight feet by twenty-seven, for the freer
  exhibition of coins to properly introduced persons, for the use of
  artists copying coins or other minute objects, and all other purposes
  now served by the Medal Room, except the custody of the collection,
  and work of the department.

[Sidenote: INNER COIN ROOM.]

  _Inner Coin Room_, fifty-five feet by twenty-eight, secured by a
  strong iron door, of which the Keeper, Assistant-Keeper, and
  Principal-Librarian, would alone have keys.—In this room, to which
  none but the departmental staff would be admitted, the coins and
  medals would be preserved, arranged, and catalogued; they would be
  carried hence by the officers into the Outer Room when required for
  inspection. The room is somewhat more than half as large again as the
  present Medal Room; and as the absence of visitors, and of the
  barriers their presence now requires, would leave the whole space
  free, there would be ample accommodation for any probable enlargement
  of the collection. The library of the department might be arranged
  partly in this, partly in the Outer Room.

  Of the apartments reserved as private, two are placed at the south end
  of the first and second floors, and each of these might, if necessary,
  be subdivided into two small studies, each twenty-six feet by
  thirteen, for the use either of officers or students. [Sidenote:
  PRIVATE ROOMS IN PLAN. OTHERS SUGGESTED.] Private rooms are, however,
  required on the ground floor, to replace the female students’ room,
  and the Assistant-Keeper’s study, proposed to be removed for the new
  Nimroud and Khorsabad Galleries. The most effectual provision for
  these and other wants would be one which has been suggested during the
  present inquiry, namely, to transfer to the Department of Antiquities
  the several rooms now occupied as the Trustees’ Room and adjoining
  offices, and to remove the official establishment to new rooms to be
  erected on the east side of the Museum. Should this be found
  impracticable, the present Insect Room, and adjoining studies, might,
  in the event of the transfer of this part of the Zoological Department
  to the upper floor, furnish the required accommodation. In default of
  both these alternatives, rooms might be constructed north of the new
  Assyrian Galleries, though, in the opinion of the writer, this ground
  should only be built over as a last resort.

[Sidenote: USE OF BASEMENT.]

  The basement, both of the old and new buildings, would, though
  unfitted for exhibition, and shut up from the public, be more or less
  available for workshops, storing-places, retiring-rooms, &c. No part
  of the existing basement would be made altogether useless, though the
  rooms under the present Greek Galleries would all be somewhat
  darkened. [Sidenote: LIGHTING OF BASEMENT.] The basement under the new
  buildings may, with reference to lighting, be divided into three
  classes:—1. The rooms under the first six or small Greek Rooms, the
  south end of the Etruscan Room, and the north end of the Greek
  Galleries, would all have ordinary windows, and be better lighted than
  any part of the basement now used for the purposes mentioned. 2. The
  rooms under the Roman Galleries, which would also have windows, would
  be less well lighted than the preceding, being some feet below the
  level of Charlotte Street, and being further somewhat obscured by the
  grating over the area, and the parapet to screen it from passengers in
  the street, which would both probably be thought necessary. 3. The
  basement under the Græco-Roman, and greater part of the small Greek
  Galleries, would receive a partial light from the openings between
  them. To increase this, however, and to furnish the only light to the
  basement under the Fourteenth Greek Room, and the apartments adjoining
  its west side, panels of strong glass or open metal work might be
  inserted at convenient places in the various floors, and serve rather
  as an ornament to them. With the aid of some such arrangement, the
  last-mentioned portions of the basement would serve as storing-rooms;
  in default of it, they could merely be available for any apparatus
  used in heating or ventilation.

  [Then follows a General Summary of Additional Space provided for the
  Collections of Antiquities, amounting to a net addition of forty-one
  thousand nine hundred and fifty-six square feet of superficial area.]

[Sidenote: SUMMARY OF SPACE FOR ANTIQUITIES.]

  This is somewhat less than the additional space demanded in the
  estimate supplied to the Committee by Mr. HAWKINS; but it supposes the
  removal of the Oriental and Ethnographical Collections, which Mr.
  HAWKINS, when considering only the existing department, and not the
  question of its modification, included in its contents.

[Sidenote: EXTRA SPACE.]

  In addition, however, to the space provided for the collections, the
  new buildings would comprise about eight thousand six hundred feet on
  the three principal floors, for studies, closets, staircases, &c.

[Sidenote: SPACE IN BASEMENT.]

  The space in the basement it is unnecessary to estimate in detail,
  being manifestly superabundant for its purpose.

[Sidenote: SPACE TRANSFERRED TO NATURAL HISTORY.]

  The Plan of the Upper Floors shows the accommodation which might be
  provided, upon the present scheme, for the Departments of Natural
  History, by transferring to them the galleries and studies on that
  floor now occupied by Antiquities, and constructing an upper room on
  the site of the staircase, to unite the Central Saloon (Return 379,
  Plan 18, No. 1), into which the new principal staircase would conduct,
  with the galleries so transferred. The apportionment of the space
  amongst the different collections of Natural History must be left to
  more competent authorities than the present writer. He may, however,
  add a few words on the general character of the apartments
  comprehended in the transfer. [Sidenote: PUBLIC GALLERIES.] The public
  galleries are similar to the present Zoological Galleries, not merely
  in their structure, but in their fittings. The wall-cases, therefore,
  might be available, without alteration, for the new collections; and
  the central cases might either be retained for Natural History, or
  removed to the new upper floors for Antiquities, as was found more
  convenient. [Sidenote: STUDIES FOR OFFICERS AND STUDENTS.] The present
  Medal and Ornament Rooms might serve for the use of students, whilst
  the four private studies numbered 6, 7, 10, and 10 in Plan 18, would
  be used by the officers. [Sidenote: SUGGESTION FOR INCREASING THOSE
  FOR STUDENTS.] The rooms for students might, if necessary, be further
  increased by a trifling alteration, in the event of the official
  establishment being transferred to the east of the Museum. In place of
  the closet adjoining the Medal Room, a private staircase might descend
  by a few steps to the entresol below, the whole of which might then be
  made an appendage to the upper, instead of the lower floor, and would
  furnish two convenient rooms for students, over those numbered 4 and 6
  in Plan 17. The same staircase, falling in with one already existing
  between the entresol and Secretary’s Office, would supply a private
  communication between the upper and lower floors, in lieu of that
  abolished for the construction of the First Egyptian Room (III, 69).

[Sidenote: SUMMARY OF SPACE FOR NATURAL HISTORY.]

  The total area of the apartments transferred to Natural History may be
  summarily stated thus:—

   ┌──────────────────────────────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┐
   │                                  │         │ Without │  With   │
   │                                  │         │Entresol.│Entresol.│
   ├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┤
   │Public Galleries:                 │         │         │         │
   │  Present Galleries of Antiquities│   19,185│         │         │
   │  Proposed room over III (69)     │    2,660│         │         │
   ├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┤
   │                                  │         │   21,845│   21,845│
   │Students’ Working Rooms           │         │    1,749│    3,168│
   │Officers’ Studies                 │         │      868│      868│
   │Closets, Passages, and Staircase  │         │      936│    1,557│
   ├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┤
   │          Total addition          │         │   25,398│   27,438│
   └──────────────────────────────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┘

[Sidenote: CONVENIENCE OF GIVING IT A DISTINCT FLOOR.]

  Independently of the increased accommodation, the advantage of
  acquiring for Natural History the exclusive possession of the upper
  floor is obvious and unquestionable, though the gain is not limited to
  that department. By separating its galleries entirely from those of
  Antiquities, the practical superintendence of each would be
  simplified; one department would no longer be a necessary thoroughfare
  to another; the confusion of ideas experienced by ordinary visitors
  from the juxtaposition of collections so incongruous would be avoided;
  and as each department would have a separate entrance, a facility
  would be given for varying their periods or regulations of admission,
  as the circumstances of each might at any time require; considerations
  which must hereafter acquire increasing weight in proportion to the
  increasing magnitude of the Museum.

[Sidenote: ESTIMATE OF APPROXIMATE EXPENSE.]

  The ground immediately round the Museum, on the average of its three
  sides, is valued in the Report of the Special Committee of Trustees
  (twenty-sixth November, 1859), at about forty-three thousand five
  hundred pounds per acre. [Sidenote: EXPENSE OF GROUND.] The houses in
  Charlotte Street are inferior in character to those on the other two
  sides, and might doubtless be purchased at a proportionately less
  price; but the writer, being anxious to err only on the safe side,
  assumes the average price as necessary. The ground proposed to be
  taken is about four hundred and fifty feet long, by a breadth
  generally of one hundred and fifty feet, but at the south end not
  exceeding one hundred and ten feet; so that the total area is about
  sixty-four thousand seven hundred square feet, or somewhat less than
  an acre and a half. The price, therefore, may be set down at
  sixty-five thousand pounds.

  Buildings are estimated in the same report to cost about two pounds
  per square foot, reckoned upon the total internal area of the
  principal floors, without the basement. This calculation is founded on
  buildings consisting of a basement, a ground floor, and one upper
  floor. [Sidenote: OF BUILDINGS.] The buildings proposed by the writer
  are in one respect more costly than these, as their basements bear a
  larger proportion to those floors on which the cost is calculated. But
  in two other respects they are more economical:—1. Because they
  include, in one part, a second floor, which swells the space from
  which the expense is calculated, without involving any addition to the
  basement. 2. Because some of the galleries on the ground floor are not
  really separate buildings, but parts of a single block of buildings,
  subdivided merely by partition walls. On the whole, therefore, the
  estimate of two pounds per foot seems the safest basis of calculation.

  Now the quantity of internal area or floor space in the proposed new
  buildings is—

           ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
           │For the collections          71,760 square feet.│
           │For studies, staircases, &c.  8,600      „      │
           │                             ______             │
           │Total                        80,360      „      │
           └────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

  This gives, therefore, one hundred and sixty thousand seven hundred
  and twenty pounds for buildings, which, added to sixty-five thousand
  pounds for ground, would amount to two hundred and twenty-five
  thousand seven hundred and twenty pounds. A further sum must be added
  for alterations of the existing building, particularly for the removal
  and reconstruction of the staircase, and the formation of the two
  rooms described as III (69) and XIII (15). Assuming the expense of
  these alterations, quite conjecturally, at ten thousand pounds, the
  total cost would be two hundred and thirty-five thousand seven hundred
  and twenty pounds. The largeness of the valuation allowed for the
  ground gives reason to believe that the actual expense of ground and
  buildings would not exceed, and might probably fall short of, this
  estimate.

[Sidenote: MEANS OF FUTURE EXTENSION.]

  [In concluding his remarks on this plan of reconstruction, Mr.
  OLDFIELD points out that if ever hereafter further extensions should
  be required, they might be obtained without material disturbance of
  the proposed galleries. [Sidenote: _Appendix to Minutes of Evidence_,
  1860, pp. 245, _ad fin_.] For Antiquities, one or more additional
  houses might be purchased either in Bedford Square, commencing with
  No. 4, or in Charlotte Street, commencing with No. 3. The former would
  be required for the prolongation of the Greek, Græco-Roman, or Roman
  Galleries; the latter for the Etruscan or Phœnician. For the minor
  collections on the upper floors either side would be equally
  appropriate. If further space were needed for Natural History,
  galleries might be built as suggested by Professor MASKELYNE,
  extending either northwards to Montague Place, or eastwards to
  Montague Street, as found convenient.]

To the clear and forcible exposition of his plan, thus given by its
framer in the paper submitted to the Committee of 1860, many further
elucidations were added in evidence. But enough has already been quoted
for the perfect intelligibility of the plans so proposed for the
sanction of the Trustees and of Parliament. [Sidenote: _Minutes of
Evidence_, June, 1860, Q. 2034, p. 143.] ‘I think,’ said Mr. OLDFIELD,
when questioned, in the Committee, as to the extent of provision _for
the probable future_ requirements of the Museum, ‘the proper mode is to
secure so much space as will at least meet those demands which are
likely to occur during the construction of the building; and then, above
all, to adopt a system of construction which would at any future time
admit of an extension, without derangement of that which now exists, and
so would obviate the very great expense and inconvenience which has
hitherto occurred from alterations and reconstructions.’

In reporting upon this plan, originally framed in 1858, the Committee of
1860, after comparing with it two other but only partial plans of
extension and re-arrangement, prepared respectively by Mr. Sydney SMIRKE
and by Mr. Nevil STORY-MASKELYNE, observe: ‘Your Committee have reason
to think that if any of these plans were adopted—involving the
[immediate] purchase of not more than two acres of land, with the
[immediately] requisite buildings and alterations—the cost would not
exceed three hundred thousand pounds. If, however, only this limited
portion of land should be at once acquired, it is probable that the
price of what remains would be enhanced. If the whole were to be
purchased, as your Committee have already recommended, the cost above
stated would be, of course, increased.’

The recommendation here referred to has been already quoted in a
preceding chapter, together with a statement of the grounds on which it
was based.

[Sidenote: See Chap. III of Book III.]

The only additional elucidation, on this head, which it seems necessary
to give may be found in a passage of the evidence of one of the
Trustees, Sir Roderick MURCHISON, who, in 1858, with other eminent men
of science, presented a Memorial to the then Chancellor of the
Exchequer, praying that the British Museum might _not_ be dismembered by
any transference of the Natural History Collections to another locality.
After saying: ‘I entirely coincide still in every opinion that was
expressed in that Memorial, and I have since seen additional and
stronger reasons for wishing that [its prayer] should be supported,’ Sir
Roderick added: ‘When it was brought before us [that is, before a
Sub-Committee of Trustees] in evidence, that if we were largely to
extend the British Museum at once _in sitû_, and that as large a
building were to be made _in sitû_ as might be made at Kensington, we
then learned that the expense would be greater. But I have since seen
good grounds to believe that by purchasing the ground rents or the land,
to north, east, or west, of the Museum, according to a plan which I
believe has now been prepared and laid before the members of the
Committee [referring to that of Mr. OLDFIELD, just described], and
availing ourselves of the gradual[49] power of enlargement ...
[Sidenote: _Minutes of Evidence_, 1860, Q. 1243–1250, pp. 102, 103.] the
Nation would be put to a much less expense for several years to come,
and would in the end realise all those objects which it is the aim[50]
of men of science to obtain.’

The chief alternative plan is based on the transference of the Natural
History Collections to an entirely new site, and on the devotion to the
uses of the Literary and Archæological Departments of the Museum of the
whole of the space so freed from the scientific departments.

[Sidenote: PLAN FOR THE TRANSFERENCE OF THE NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS
           TO KENSINGTON (OR ELSEWHERE). 1861–62.]

The Committee of 1860 condemned this plan in the main (but only, as it
seems, by a single voice upon a division), but what that Committee had
under consideration was only the first form into which the plan of
separation had been shaped. At the end of the year 1861 and beginning of
1862, that plan was again brought before a Sub-Committee of the
Trustees, at the express instance of the Lords of Her Majesty’s
Treasury, and it was thus reported upon:—

[Sidenote: REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE OF TRUSTEES, Jan., 1862.]

  Your Committee, to whom it has been referred to consider the best
  manner of carrying into effect the Treasury Minute of the thirteenth
  of November, 1861, and the Resolution passed at the special general
  meeting of the third of December of the same year, have unanimously
  agreed to the following report:[51]—

[Sidenote: MINUTE OF TREASURY.]

  The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury state in that
  Minute, ‘That, in their judgment, some of the collections ought to be
  removed from the present buildings, and that they will be prepared to
  make proposals at the proper time to the Royal Commissioners of the
  Exhibition of 1851, with a view to the provision, on the estate of the
  Commissioners, of space and buildings, which shall be adequate to
  receive in particular, at first the Mineralogical, Geological, and
  Palæontological Collections, and ultimately, in case it shall be
  thought desirable, all those of the Natural History Departments.’
  Their Lordships, after having invited the Trustees to prosecute the
  further examination of the question, continue as follows:—‘It will
  have to be considered what other or minor branches of the collections
  may, with propriety or advantage, be removed to other sites, or even
  made over, if in any case it might seem proper, to other
  establishments.’

  Your Committee have, therefore, thought it their duty at the outset to
  examine whether all the Natural History Collections, viz. the
  Zoological and Botanical, in addition to the Geological,
  Palæontological, and Mineralogical, specified in the Treasury Minute,
  might with propriety and advantage be removed from the present British
  Museum buildings. [Sidenote: ALL COLLECTIONS OF NATURAL HISTORY TO BE
  REMOVED.] The importance, as regards science, of preserving together
  all objects of Natural History, was forcibly urged by Sir R.
  MURCHISON, at the special general meeting of the third of December. In
  a Memorial laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1858, and
  signed by more than one hundred and twenty eminent promoters and
  cultivators of science,[52] it was represented ‘that as the chief end
  and aim of natural history is to demonstrate the harmony which
  pervades the whole, and the unity of principle, which bespeaks the
  unity of the Creative Cause, it is essential that the different
  classes of natural objects should be preserved in juxtaposition under
  the roof of one great building.’ Your Committee concur in this
  opinion, and they have come to the conclusion that it is essential to
  the advantage of science and of the collections which are to remain in
  Bloomsbury, that the removal of all the objects of Natural History
  should take place, and, as far as practicable, should be
  simultaneously effected.

[Sidenote: BOTANY.]

  With regard to Botany, it is a question whether the existence of the
  Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew does not suggest an exception as to the
  place to which the British Museum Botanical Collection should be
  removed, reserving a small series for the illustration of fossil
  Botany, in connexion with Palæontology.

  It is to be kept in view that the removal of the Palæontology,
  Geology, and Mineralogy, would leave unoccupied only two very
  inconveniently placed rooms in the basement, besides the north half of
  the north gallery on the upper floor (about four hundred feet in
  length, by thirty-six in width); whereas the recently imported marbles
  from Halicarnassus, Cnidus, Geronta, and Cyrene, fill completely the
  space under the colonnade, extending to about five hundred and forty
  feet in length. Nor can your Committee omit to add, that should the
  removal of the Botany and Zoology be delayed, the final and systematic
  arrangement of the collections which are to remain must be equally
  delayed; while, if any portions of these were removed to other
  situations in the Museum, or their final transfer postponed, many of
  the objects retained would have again to be shifted for the sake of
  congruity and economy of space.

  It is, therefore, recommended by your Committee, that all the Natural
  History Collections be speedily and simultaneously removed.

[Sidenote: ETHNOLOGICAL COLLECTION TO BE REMOVED.]

  Together with these the Ethnological Collection ought to be provided
  for elsewhere. Most of the objects which it contains have no affinity
  with those which are contained in the other parts of the Museum, nor
  is the collection worthy of this country for its extent, nor yet,
  owing to its exceptional character, is it brought together in a
  methodical and instructive manner. Occupying but a secondary place in
  the British Museum, it cannot obtain either the space or the attention
  which it might obtain, were it not surrounded and cast into the shade
  by a vast number of splendid and interesting objects which have
  irresistible claims to preference. Mr. HAWKINS was of opinion, ‘that
  if Ethnography be retained,’ it would be necessary to quadruple the
  space for its exhibition. The Select Committee in their report (p.
  vii), state that ‘they have received evidence from every witness
  examined on this subject in favour of the removal of the
  Ethnographical Collection.’ If it were to be retained, an area of ten
  thousand feet (same report, p. xi) would be required. Your Committee
  cannot, therefore, hesitate to recommend the removal of the
  Ethnographical Collection to a fitter place. [Sidenote: PORTRAITS.]
  Nor can they hesitate in proposing the removal, from the present
  Ornithological Gallery, of the Collection of Portraits hanging on the
  walls above the presses containing the stuffed birds. Those paintings
  having no connexion with the objects for the preservation of which the
  Museum was founded, would never have been placed there had there been
  a National Portrait Gallery in existence for their reception.

[Sidenote: SPACE LEFT VACANT.]

  The following is a detailed statement of the space which would be left
  vacant in various parts of the Museum by the removal of the above
  collections....

Then follows an enumeration, first, of the space left vacant by the
removal of the Geological, Palæontological, and Mineralogical
Collections, amounting in the whole to an area of twenty thousand one
hundred and thirty-five feet; secondly, of the space left vacant by the
removal of the Zoological Collection, amounting to an area of
thirty-five thousand four hundred and twenty-eight feet; thirdly, of the
space left vacant by the removal of the Botanical Collection, amounting
to five thousand nine hundred feet; and, finally, of the space left
vacant by the removal of the Ethnological Collection, namely, a room on
the south side of the upper floor, marked ‘3’ on the plan, ninety-four
feet by twenty-four, giving an area of two thousand two hundred and
fifty-six feet; and giving, in the whole, an aggregate area of
sixty-five thousand and seventy-nine feet.

[Sidenote: TREASURY MINUTE; ALTERATION OF PRESENT BUILDING.]

Having enumerated the collections which might, with propriety and
advantage, be removed from the British Museum, and stated the extent of
new accommodation which would consequently be gained for other
collections, the Committee proceeded to consider, in the words of the
Treasury Minute, ‘the two important questions—first, of such final
enlargement and alterations of the present buildings as the site may
still admit, and as may be conducive to the best arrangement of the
interior; secondly, of the redistribution of the augmented space among
the several collections that are to remain permanently at the Museum,
among which, of course, my Lords give the chief place to the Library
Departments and the Antiquities.’

The Committee, agreeing with their Lordships that the chief claims in
the redistribution of the augmented space are those of the Antiquities
and of the Library Departments, then proceed to say that—

  They have thought themselves bound also to pay attention to certain
  other important purposes, to which a portion of the space to be
  obtained by alterations within and by building on some remaining spots
  of unoccupied ground, might be beneficially applied.

[Sidenote: TRUSTEES’ OFFICES.]

  Your Committee have, in the first place, had their attention drawn to
  that part of the existing buildings appropriated to the administrative
  department of the Museum. The want of space for clerks, for Museum
  publications, for stationery, for the archives of the Trust, for
  papers of all descriptions, for the transaction of business with
  officers and servants of the Trustees, and with tradesmen, as well as
  the want of a waiting-room for strangers of all ranks who have to
  attend on the Trustees, or wish to have interviews with their chief
  officer or any of the persons attached to his office, is the cause of
  great embarrassment and discomfort. To which is to be added the
  inconvenience caused by the unsuitable arrangement of the rooms, which
  renders those who occupy them liable to perpetual interruptions.
  Moreover, by the strict rule forbidding the admission of artificial
  light into the Museum, the period of available working time is
  occasionally much abridged. Another site must be found for this
  department; there are no means of providing on its present site
  against the evils above mentioned.

  In the next place, your Committee have taken into consideration the
  absolute necessity of providing for the exhibition of specimens of
  coins and medals, always intended by the Trustees, but never carried
  into effect for want of space. [Sidenote: EXHIBITION OF COINS AND
  MEDALS.] And not only a selection of coins and medals, but also one of
  gems, cameos, and valuable ornaments, should be exhibited to Museum
  visitors. The want of room for such a purpose is the source of great
  trouble and inconvenience. The present Medal Room is much too confined
  even for the arrangement and preservation of its contents, and for
  such accommodation of its officers as is necessary to enable them to
  perform properly their duties. Moreover, as visitors cannot be
  indiscriminately admitted to the Ornament Room, still less to the
  Medal Room, such of them as do not take the proper steps for gaining
  access to those rooms are debarred from seeing even specimens of
  objects which acquire a peculiar interest in proportion to the
  strictness with which they are guarded. The general visitors should
  have an opportunity of satisfying their laudable curiosity by seeing a
  good selection of coins, just as they can at the present time see
  interesting specimens of manuscripts and printed books; scholars and
  persons who have special reasons for examining coins leisurely and
  minutely, ought to have the means of doing so comfortably under proper
  regulations, and in a separate room, in the same manner as readers are
  allowed to use books; but no stranger should be admitted into the room
  where the Collection of Coins and Medals is preserved unless in rare
  and exceptional cases, and always in the presence of the
  Principal-Librarian, or the keeper of the department.

[Sidenote: EXHIBITION OR PRINTS AND DRAWINGS.]

  In the third place, your Committee, being aware of the importance of
  space for the due exhibition of prints and drawings, and of the
  repeated complaints of the keeper of that department, who cannot find
  room wherein to arrange the collection so as to have it safely
  preserved as well as readily accessible, have given their best
  attention to those complaints. Most of the inconveniences which are
  felt by visitors, as well as by Museum officers, in the existing Medal
  Room, are equally felt in the existing Print Room; and many of the
  wants which it is suggested should be provided for to make the
  Collection of Coins and Medals as useful and instructive as it ought
  to be in a great national institution, are wants against which
  provision must be made in order to render equally useful and
  instructive the Collection of Prints and Drawings. These wants are
  ample space for classing, arranging, and preserving the bulk of the
  collection, as well as ample space wherein to exhibit, for the
  amusement and instruction of the public generally, such a selection of
  prints and drawings as may be calculated to give a general notion of
  both arts from their infancy to comparatively modern times, in various
  countries, and according to the style of the most celebrated masters.
  Studies should likewise be provided for the keeper, and also for an
  assistant-keeper, in this department, as well as accommodation for
  artists who come to copy or study critically any of the objects, or
  classes of objects, forming part of this collection, and for those who
  come for the purpose of researches requiring less minute attention,
  and who desire to see a variety of prints and drawings in succession.

[Sidenote: BINDERS’ SHOPS.]

  In the fourth place, your Committee have taken into consideration the
  want of space for carrying on the binding of the Museum books. The
  Collection of Manuscripts, and, much more, that of Printed Books, have
  of late years been increasing with unexampled rapidity; but the
  bookbinders’ accommodation has not been increased in a corresponding
  ratio. The damage caused, particularly to new books, placed unbound in
  the readers’ hands, may well be conceived; and the Trustees were
  compelled, by the necessity of the case, to sanction an expedient of
  doubtful legality, by allowing a large number of books, which in case
  of misfortune might be easily replaced at a comparatively small
  outlay, to be taken out of the Museum to be bound in a house
  immediately opposite to it, hired by the bookbinder. Your Committee
  think that such an arrangement, avowedly a temporary one, ought not to
  continue a moment longer than is unavoidable; and that adequate
  provision should be made as speedily as possible within the Museum
  premises for binding all books belonging to the Trust.

[Sidenote: ALTERATIONS AND REDISTRIBUTION OF SPACE GENERALLY.]

  Your Committee will now proceed to consider the questions of the final
  enlargement and alterations of the present buildings, and of the
  redistribution of the augmented space for the several purposes above
  mentioned. In making the following proposals, your Committee have kept
  in view the principle that it would not be advisable for the Trustees
  to appropriate specifically to particular objects any particular
  space. They will, therefore, as much as possible, confine themselves
  to stating how the augmented space should be generally redistributed
  among the remaining collections, giving the chief place to the
  Antiquities and Library; the arrangement of the particular objects or
  classes of objects should rest on the responsibility of the head of
  each department, who would in due time submit his views to the
  Trustees. Your Committee also wish it to be clearly understood that
  the structural details herein suggested or implied, must be considered
  liable to such modifications as the farther development of the scheme
  may require.

[Illustration:

  BRITISH MUSEUM.

  PLAN OF THE GROUND FLOOR.
]

[Sidenote: NEW STAIRCASES.]

  In the building as now arranged, the principal staircase (No. 69 on
  the plan of the ground floor) is situated on the left in the Entrance
  Hall (No. 2); opposite to the entrance is the corridor (No. 80)
  leading to the Reading-Room; east and west of that corridor, between
  the main building and the new Library, there is an area (No. 70 and
  79) about thirty feet wide unoccupied. It has long been suggested that
  the principal staircase should be removed from No. 69, and that two
  staircases be erected on the area 70 and 79, one on each side of No.
  80. The hall entrance (No. 2) would be lighted by the skylight already
  existing in the roof, and by a corresponding opening to be made in the
  upper floor. The site of the principal staircase, No. 69, would be
  occupied by a large room, seventy-five feet by thirty-five, giving an
  area of two thousand six hundred and twenty-five feet, exactly like
  the one opposite to it (No. 58) in height as in every other respect,
  with a floor on a level with the rest of the building.

[Sidenote: PRESENT ROMAN GALLERY.]

  There are blank windows on the north side of the principal staircase
  that would have to be cut through to light the new room, and
  additional light could be admitted if necessary. On the south of the
  projected new room is a narrow room, ninety-four feet by twenty-four
  (No. 3), designated as the Roman Gallery, the light of which is very
  defective, especially on the side of the windows opening under the
  front colonnade. The Collections of Antiquities contain some large
  objects, more interesting archæologically than artistically, for which
  light on each side of them is very desirable. If the wall now
  separating the staircase from No. 3 were removed, and pilasters or
  columns substituted (the upper part of that wall in the floor above
  might likewise be removed if desirable), a room ninety-four feet by
  sixty, giving an area of five thousand six hundred and forty feet,
  admirably adapted for antiquities of this kind, would be obtained.

[Sidenote: TRUSTEES’ PRESENT OFFICES.]

  At the western extremity of the Roman Gallery (No. 3), and turning
  southward, are the Trustees’ room (No. 4), two rooms for clerks (No. 5
  and 6), and the study of the Principal-Librarian (No. 7). It is
  proposed to remove all the partition walls inside the space occupied
  by No. 4, 6, and 5, and by the corridor on the east of No. 4, and to
  open windows on the west side at the same height, and uniform with
  those in the gallery No. 17, of which this part of the building would
  then be a continuation, opening a communication like that on the
  corresponding side on the east (between No. 56 and 63). The Egyptian
  Gallery might thus be extended to the total length of four hundred and
  sixty-five feet.

[Sidenote: NEW BUILDINGS ON NO. 11.]

  By removing the corridor and study No. 7, as well as the projection on
  the north side of the house now occupied by Mr. CARPENTER, so far west
  as the point at which it would intersect a prolongation to the south
  of the west wall of the first Elgin Room, a plot of unoccupied ground,
  one hundred feet by seventy-five, might be turned to great advantage.
  The interior arrangement of this newly acquired space would depend on
  the purposes to which the Trustees should think fit to apply it:
  whether, for instance, it might be advisable to throw into it the
  third Græco-Roman Saloon (No. 10), which is now by common consent too
  narrow, or whether the western part of that plot of ground had not
  better be set out as a continuation of the Elgin Room, which should be
  carried through the end of the above room (No. 10) and of the Lycian
  Room (No. 13). Before finally deciding this point it would be
  imperative to determine what is to be done with the Lycian Room, which
  is in an unfinished state, because it neither is nor ever was large
  enough for the collection for which it was intended; whilst, on the
  other hand, it contains objects which ought never to have been placed
  there, and which ought to be removed. [Sidenote: SPACE ACQUIRED (NO.
  4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13).] Until the keeper of the department has
  before him a correct plan of all the space which he may eventually
  have at his disposal, and until he has well considered how the objects
  to be placed ought to be arranged, he cannot give a decided opinion
  upon any scheme for building on the plot now under consideration. For
  the present purpose it is enough to say that the Trustees’ room and
  those annexed (No. 4, 5, and 6), giving an area of about two thousand
  nine hundred and fifty feet on the ground floor, and a large piece of
  ground, one hundred feet by seventy-five, may be beneficially applied
  to the Department of Antiquities.

[Sidenote: BUILDINGS ON NO. 31 AND 32, AND ALTERATION OF PRESENT PRINT
           ROOM.]

  No. 14 and 18 are the two Elgin Rooms, containing the finest reliques
  of Greek art in existence, which have remained unarranged for years,
  owing to the difficulties which the space hitherto available presented
  for their definitive arrangement, and to the uncertainty of the final
  appropriation of the space No. 31. It seems, however, to be generally
  admitted that on the unoccupied plot of ground, No. 31, a continuation
  of the second Elgin Room should be erected of the same width, to
  include the Print Room, the floor of which should be lowered to the
  general level of the Museum ground floor, and its width extended
  westward about seven feet. Another gallery might thus be formed
  altogether four hundred and seventy-five feet long and thirty-seven
  wide. Should it not extend farther than the southern extremity of the
  first Elgin Room (No. 14), its length would be three hundred and
  thirty feet. The plot of ground, No. 32, ought also to be applied to
  the accommodation of Antiquities. The study No. 23 should be done away
  with. [Sidenote: ALTERATION OF STAIRCASE, NO. 27.] The two lower
  flights of the N.W. staircase, No. 27, should be taken down and
  reconstructed in No. 26 and 36, with the necessary alterations to
  reconnect them with the two upper flights, which would remain as they
  are now. The studies No. 28, and passage No. 29, should be cleared
  away, as well as those above them, together with the lower part of the
  western wall of No. 27, the southern wall of that space being
  continued to No. 30, thus forming a passage or gallery, about
  twenty-two feet wide, for communication between the Northern Egyptian
  Gallery and the new gallery to be erected at the north of the Elgin
  Rooms. From the new passage thus formed there should be an opening on
  the south side, and a flight of steps to descend to the gallery which
  is to be built on No. 32. There would be room under the new staircase,
  in the space No. 36, to form an additional study for the Printed Book
  Department, where it is much wanted. Upon No. 32, a gallery should be
  erected from the basement, like the Assyrian Gallery, No. 15, to both
  of which access might be had by two handsome staircases, descending
  north and south of No. 19, from which it is taken for granted the
  Phigaleian Marbles and other objects, now there, would be removed, the
  central space being applied to better purposes.

[Illustration:

  BRITISH MUSEUM.

  PLAN OF THE GROUND FLOOR.
  WITH THE
  PROPOSED ALTERATIONS.
]

  It does not appear to your Committee that any farther accommodation
  for Antiquities can be procured on the ground floor, without
  interfering with rooms now appropriated to the Library.

[Sidenote: NEW GALLERY ON NO. 32, LIKE ONE NOW ON NO. 13.]

  On the north side of the upper floor, all that portion marked 21, 32,
  31, 30, 29, 33, 28, and 27, on the plan of that floor, now occupied by
  Geology, Palæontology, and Mineralogy, should be transferred to the
  Antiquities. It would be desirable to remove the two studies, marked
  21, at the western extremity of that floor, and to add so much more
  space to the gallery for exhibition.

[Sidenote: SPACE FOR ANTIQUITIES ON NORTH UPPER FLOOR.]

  But before proceeding farther, your Committee wish to make one or two
  remarks on the advantages which all the galleries on the upper floor
  offer for the exhibition of Antiquities, even of considerable size and
  weight, were any of the space on this floor wanted for such objects.
  [Sidenote: FITNESS OF UPPER FLOOR FOR SUCH PURPOSES.] With respect to
  light, as all these galleries may, if requisite, be lighted by
  skylights (those on the east and west being so already), they will so
  far meet with the approbation of those who are considered judges of
  the kind of light peculiarly required for the exhibition of
  sculptures. The size of the rooms gives ample space for the public
  exhibition of Antiquities, including statues, not much less than
  life-size, if necessary; whilst the galleries, though lofty, will not
  dwarf them. Competent critics have pronounced that it is a mistake to
  suppose that all sculptures look better in magnificent rooms. The
  solidity of the Museum building, throughout, leaves no doubt of its
  upper floor being strong enough to receive ordinary marble statues,
  not to speak of busts and smaller objects. The floor of the western
  end of the northern gallery, marked No. 21 and 32 on the plan, offers
  extra solidity, as it rests on substantial walls at intervals of
  twelve feet from each other. Your Committee have been assured by their
  architect that a mass of marble, weighing several tons, might be
  safely deposited on any part of that floor.

[Sidenote: STUDIES.]

  With respect to the northernmost central portion (No. 33) of the
  gallery now under consideration, it could not be better applied than
  to studies for the officers of the Department of Antiquities. Five
  such studies might be formed therein, each eighteen feet by sixteen,
  opening on a corridor six feet wide and eighty-four long, in which
  might be kept the Departmental Collection of Books for the common
  daily use of the occupiers of those studies.

  The whole of the eastern side of the upper floor, including rooms 35
  to 40 (all Zoology), together with the rooms marked 41 (Zoology), 42,
  43 (Botany), 1 (Zoology), 2 (the site of the principal staircase, as
  well as the smaller staircase on the west of it), and finally No. 3
  (Ethnography), should be transferred to the Departments of
  Antiquities; subject to the consideration whether the rooms No. 42 and
  43 might not be reserved for the Department of Manuscripts, if at any
  time required. Space is wanted, not only for Antiquities now
  unprovided with any accommodation, but also for the display of future
  additions, and for the better arrangement of what is now
  unsatisfactorily exhibited, either too far from the eye or in dark
  corners. [Sidenote: SPACE FOR ANTIQUITIES ON THE EAST AND SOUTH UPPER
  FLOORS.] A large number of objects, to be seen as they ought to be,
  must be spread over twice the space which they fill at present; a
  great many more, now placed where they cannot be seen at all, ought to
  be removed to more suitable situations. [Sidenote: WEST SIDE OF UPPER
  FLOOR TO REMAIN FOR ANTIQUITIES.] The whole of the west side—that is,
  rooms 9 to 15—would continue to be applied to the exhibition of
  Antiquities; it is not, however, to be assumed that the objects now
  there would necessarily be left where they are, nor yet that, for
  instance, Egyptian Antiquities should necessarily occupy the same
  galleries which they occupy at present. From room No. 14 must be
  removed either the Egyptian Antiquities now in it, or the Temple
  Collection, which was placed there from absolute necessity, there
  being no other space whatever where it could be exhibited. The British
  and Mediæval Collections would probably have to be removed to some
  other part of the upper floor, now occupied, or which it is now
  proposed should be occupied, by Antiquities, where the transition
  would be less abrupt than from Egyptian to Mediæval.

[Sidenote: EXHIBITION OF COINS AND MEDALS.]

  As before suggested, space should be set apart for the exhibition of
  Coins and Medals, besides that which is required for their safe
  custody, arrangement, and study. Your Committee will presently state
  how the latter ought to be provided for. As to the public exhibition
  of coins, the three rooms, 8, 5, and 4, in which the coins, medals,
  gems, &c., are now kept, would be admirably adapted for the purpose,
  after the internal partition walls are removed. It would be desirable
  to preserve the two rooms, 6 and 7, the one as a study for an
  assistant, who should be always at hand to give information connected
  with the coins exhibited close by, and to answer such questions as
  would not require reference to the general collection; the other as a
  waiting-room, to which a stranger might be more safely and freely
  admitted, on the understanding that nothing valuable be kept in it,
  whilst admission to the assistant’s room should be much more sparingly
  granted. An obvious reason for applying this part of the premises to
  the above purpose is, that it is provided with special doors, windows,
  and locks, for the safety of the present contents. And as the objects
  which it is proposed should be therein exhibited would be of some
  considerable value, advantage should be taken of the existing
  arrangements for their security. It is to be noted that this
  exhibition would not interfere with the arrangement of any Collection
  of Antiquities, with none of which could the coins and medals properly
  mix, although so nearly allied to them.

[Illustration:

  BRITISH MUSEUM.

  PLAN OF THE UPPER FLOOR.
]

  The corresponding part of the upper floor on the south-east corner,
  No. 44 and 45, is perfectly well adapted for the exhibition of prints
  and drawings. As to space for the arrangement and preservation of the
  prints and drawings, for the tranquil examination and study of them,
  for the studies of the officers, &c., your Committee will presently
  lay before you their views.

[Sidenote: EXHIBITION OF PRINTS AND DRAWINGS.]

  Your Committee have endeavoured to show how far a portion of the new
  accommodation to be gained by removing the Natural History and
  Ethnographical Collections, by alterations within the now existing
  buildings, and by building on some remaining spots of unoccupied
  ground, may with propriety and advantage be applied to the Departments
  of Oriental, Mediæval, and Classical Antiquities, of the Coins and
  Medals, and of the Prints and Drawings; your Committee will now show
  what part of that accommodation might be made available for Printed
  Books and Manuscripts.

[Sidenote: PRINTED BOOKS.]

  When the erection of the new Library and Reading-Room was suggested,
  it was stated that that Library would hold eight hundred thousand
  volumes; that is, the annual increase for forty years, calculating
  that increase at twenty thousand volumes. But the annual increase has
  been, during the last five years, at the rate of upwards of thirty
  thousand volumes, and during the last four years at the rate of about
  thirty-five thousand, which number, however, is ultimately reduced by
  the practice of binding two or more volumes of the same work in one;
  while, on the other hand, the new building will certainly contain two
  hundred thousand volumes more than it was originally estimated to
  hold; so that if the present rate of increase continues, as it ought,
  the new Library will be full in about twenty-five years from this
  date. It was necessary to say thus much, as a notion seems prevalent
  that a great deal more was promised when that building was suggested,
  and that the number of books, which that new Library can hold, may
  reach an almost fabulous quantity, and the space be sufficient for an
  extravagant number of years.

[Sidenote: ROOMS IN BASEMENT TRANSFERRED TO PRINTED BOOKS.]

  The rooms on the basement floor of the north side, both marked 15 on
  the plan of that floor, and now occupied by Geology, cannot be
  otherwise appropriated than to the Department of Printed Books; the
  same is to be said of the seven small rooms, marked 17, now used for
  Geology, as well as of rooms 18 and 19 on the east side, now used for
  Zoology; all these rooms are immediately under the Department of
  Printed Books, and naturally belong to it. The rooms marked 13, 14,
  and 16, from west to east, were formerly appropriated to the
  Department of Printed Books, to which they should now be restored.
  When the first importation of Halicarnassian Antiquities took place,
  they were deposited temporarily in these rooms, as no other space
  whatever could be found in which to shelter and unpack them. In this
  space are now arranged the Inscriptions, which have had to be removed
  from under the colonnade to make room for the Marbles recently arrived
  from Cyrene. Appropriate space for the Inscriptions will be found
  without difficulty in the Department of Antiquities, enlarged
  according to the foregoing suggestions, or, at all events, in the
  basement, either now existing or to be built under the galleries for
  Antiquities on the west side of the Museum, where sufficient light may
  be procured for objects like these, which are of no great interest to
  sightseers, and therefore need not be publicly exhibited; enough that
  they be easily accessible to the small number of antiquarians and
  scholars who may wish to examine them.

[Sidenote: PART OF NORTH GALLERY IN UPPER FLOOR TO PRINTED BOOKS.]

  The north galleries on the upper floor are divided lengthways, from
  east to west, into two portions; that now containing Zoological
  Collections (No. 22 to 26) can be advantageously appropriated to the
  Department of Printed Books when required. The volumes placed there
  can be easily lowered down and returned through a hoisting apparatus
  to be placed at either the south-east or south-west corner of No. 24,
  immediately above No. 41 on the ground floor—the nearest point of any
  in the main Library to the Reading-Room. By these various alterations
  space would be provided for about two hundred and fifty thousand
  printed volumes, in addition to that which still remains available in
  that department, from which, however, space for about fifty thousand
  volumes would have to be deducted, as will be presently shown.

[Sidenote: WANT OF SPACE IN DEPARTMENT OF MANUSCRIPTS.]

  Although there is now space remaining in the Department of Manuscripts
  for the accommodation of twelve thousand volumes, and although the
  annual average increase of manuscript volumes may be safely reckoned
  at less than six hundred and fifty, your Committee have, nevertheless,
  felt that prospective increased accommodation should now be provided,
  not only for the Collection of Manuscripts, but still more for artists
  and readers who have occasion to refer to select manuscripts, as well
  as for assistants, of whom two, together with one attendant and eight
  readers, are pent up in a space of thirty feet by twenty-three,
  crowded with tables, chairs, &c., which scarcely allow room for moving
  from one place to another or for access to the officers’ study on each
  side. The Head of the Department of Manuscripts has recently
  represented to the Trustees his want of six assistants; but he has, at
  the same time, been obliged to state that, if appointed, he should not
  know where to place them. The Trustees have complied with his request,
  to the extent of granting two new assistants; and he will experience
  great difficulty in placing the two who are to be appointed. Add to
  this, the interruption to which each of these persons is unavoidably
  liable from each of the others in the performance of his duties and
  occupations, owing chiefly to the narrow space in which they are
  confined.

[Illustration:

  BRITISH MUSEUM.

  PLAN OF THE UPPER FLOOR WITH THE PROPOSED ALTERATIONS.
]

  On account of its locality, the Department of Manuscripts cannot
  derive any direct advantage from the removal of the Natural History
  Collections; no space which will thus become vacant can be rendered
  available for the purpose of remedying the inconveniences here stated.
  As, however, the Department of Printed Books obtains the additional
  accommodation before mentioned, a portion of the space now occupied by
  Printed Books, very conveniently situated to supply the wants of the
  Department of Manuscripts, ought to be transferred to this department.

[Sidenote: SPACE TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM PRINTED BOOKS TO MANUSCRIPTS.]

  It is, therefore, proposed that the study, marked No. 57 on the ground
  floor plan, be removed to the north end of No. 55, now occupied by
  Printed Books, and that the site of No. 55 be attached to the
  Department of Manuscripts. In that gallery, one hundred and fifteen by
  eighteen, excellent accommodation, with abundance of light, would be
  found for twenty thousand manuscript volumes—for fifteen students at
  least (this number is ample if admission be strictly and _bonâ fide_
  limited to the class of persons for whom it is intended) at separate
  seats, each having a table space of two feet and a half in depth and
  four in length,—and for ten assistants or more, admirably placed for
  superintendence. The area of the eastern recess of No. 56 would then
  be quite clear, and available for the exhibition of manuscripts, like
  the western recess in the same room. And when as large an exhibition
  of manuscripts as the space permits is accessible to the public (and
  still more accommodation for this exhibition might be found in the
  present Department of Manuscripts), the same restrictions as have been
  suggested with respect to coins and to prints ought to be imposed on
  the handling of select manuscripts.

  It now remains to find space wherein to provide proper accommodation
  for the binder, as well as for the Trustees’ offices, for the
  Collection of Prints and for the Collection of Coins.

[Sidenote: BUILDINGS IN THE GARDEN ATTACHED TO PRINCIPAL-LIBRARIAN’S
           HOUSE.]

  On the east side of the roadway parallel to the Department of
  Manuscripts, there is a piece of ground extending to Montague Street
  on the east, to the house No. 30, in that same street towards the
  north, and to the Principal-Librarian’s house on the south. On a
  portion of this ground stands an old building, now partly appropriated
  to the binder and partly used as a guard-house; the remainder forms
  the garden attached to the residence of the Principal-Librarian. It
  appears to your Committee that by substituting a new building for the
  one existing, and by building on the greater part of the garden, ample
  accommodation will be found for what is wanted. Your Committee cannot
  abstain from mentioning that this great sacrifice of personal
  convenience on the part of the Principal-Librarian was suggested and
  brought under their notice by that officer himself.

  It was some years ago suggested by the Government that the military
  guard might be dispensed with at the Museum; at times when the
  services of the army were pressingly required, it was felt that
  soldiers might be more usefully employed than in being kept for mere
  show at the Museum. It was, however, thought that on removing the
  military guard, better provision should be made for the safety of the
  Museum.

[Sidenote: MILITARY GUARD DISCONTINUED.]

Then follow various details of minor consequence; to which succeed an
enumeration of the additional space gained for the Collections of
Printed Books, Manuscripts, Prints and Drawings, Antiquities, Coins and
Medals, as well as for offices, store-rooms, bookbinders’ shops, &c., by
the proposed alterations, as respects each of the several Departments of
Printed Books, Manuscripts, and Antiquities; and a summary of the whole,
from which it appears that the additional space gained by the Department
of Printed Books amounts to an area of seventeen thousand eight hundred
and three square feet; that the additional space gained by the
Department of Antiquities amounts to sixty-seven thousand six hundred
and ninety-two square feet; and, finally, that the additional space
gained by the Department of Manuscripts amounts to three thousand four
hundred and thirty square feet.

 ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
 │                           RECAPITULATION.                           │
 ├───────────────────────────────┬───────┬─────────┬──────────┬────────┤
 │                               │Present│Proposed │ Proposed │Proposed│
 │                               │Space. │Addition.│Deduction.│ Total. │
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │        PRINTED BOOKS.         │       │         │          │        │
 │Basement                       │ 33,998│   14,667│          │  48,665│
 │Ground floor                   │ 83,748│         │     2,070│  81,678│
 │Upper floor                    │       │    5,206│          │   5,206│
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │                               │117,746│   19,873│     2,070│ 135,549│
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │         MANUSCRIPTS.          │       │         │          │        │
 │Basement                       │    210│    1,360│          │   1,570│
 │Ground floor                   │ 12,968│    2,070│          │  15,038│
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │                               │ 13,178│    3,430│          │  16,608│
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │         ANTIQUITIES.          │       │         │          │        │
 │Basement                       │ 33,868│   16,036│     6,767│  43,137│
 │Ground floor                   │ 39,334│   13,775│          │  53,109│
 │Upper floor              21,532│       │         │          │        │
 │   Less Coins and Medals  2,950│       │         │          │        │
 │                         ——————│ 18,582│   44,648│          │  63,230│
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │                               │ 91,784│   74,459│     6,767│ 159,476│
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │       COINS AND MEDALS.       │       │         │          │        │
 │Upper floor                    │  2,950│         │          │        │
 │New building                   │       │    4,950│          │        │
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │                               │  2,950│    4,950│          │   7,900│
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │     PRINTS AND DRAWINGS.      │       │         │          │        │
 │Upper floor                    │  2,600│    3,204│     2,600│        │
 │New building                   │       │    4,950│          │        │
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │                               │  2,600│    8,154│     2,600│   8,154│
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │   COMMITTEE ROOM, OFFICES,    │       │         │          │        │
 │          STORES, &C.          │       │         │          │        │
 │Basement                       │  1,290│         │     1,290│        │
 │Ground floor                   │  3,565│         │     3,565│        │
 │Upper floor                    │  1,869│         │     1,869│        │
 │New Building (Basement)        │       │    5,400│          │        │
 │New Building (Ground)          │       │    4,950│          │        │
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │                               │  6,724│   10,350│     6,724│  10,350│
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │           BINDERS.            │       │         │          │        │
 │Basement                       │  1,360│         │     1,360│        │
 │Detached building              │  3,179│         │     3,179│        │
 │New building                   │       │    7,760│          │        │
 ├───────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤
 │                               │  4,539│    7,760│     4,539│   7,760│
 └───────────────────────────────┴───────┴─────────┴──────────┴────────┘

  Your Committee, proceeds the Report, do not think it necessary to give
  the particulars of the accommodation which the unappropriated portions
  of the basement floor would afford for the preservation of moulds, as
  well as for the formatore, for making and preserving casts of statues
  and other large objects, as well as of gems and seals, and also for
  providing such decent and suitable conveniences as the health and
  comfort of the thousands who visit the Museum absolutely require.

[Sidenote: FUTURE USE OF BASEMENT.]

  It is, perhaps, unnecessary to do more than simply to remind the
  Trustees that the want of space at the Museum has been felt and has
  been urged on the Government for several years past, and that during
  the last four or five years the additions to the Collections of
  Antiquities have been so rapid and so numerous, as to render it
  impossible to do more than provide for them temporary shelter at a
  considerable expense, and to the great disfigurement of the noble
  façade which entitles the Museum to claim rank among the most
  classical buildings of modern times. [Sidenote: URGENCY OF BUILDING AT
  ONCE.] Should the above proposals of your Committee meet with the
  approbation of the Trustees and the sanction of the Government, they
  ought to be carried into effect without delay. The Government would,
  doubtless, lose no time in providing a proper building for the
  reception of such collections as are to be removed from the Museum;
  until this removal has taken place, no redistribution of the vacated
  space can be undertaken; but the new structures proposed to be erected
  on ground now unoccupied ought to be proceeded with at once, that they
  might be rendered available as speedily as possible.

[Sidenote: WHAT TO BE FIRST PUT IN HAND.]

  Your Committee are of opinion that the new building facing Montague
  Street, the building for the bookbinder, the building intended to be
  erected on the ground now vacant between the Elgin Room and the Print
  Room, and the construction of the new principal staircases, should be
  commenced immediately. The building intended to be erected on the
  vacant ground on the west of the Trustees’ Room (No. 11 on the plan),
  must, necessarily, be postponed for awhile. The alterations which
  might and ought to be rapidly completed, are those which will be
  required on the east side of the King’s Library (No. 55 and 57), to
  transfer the gallery to the Department of MSS. from that of Printed
  Books.

[Sidenote: COMMITTEE OF TRUSTEES TO BE APPOINTED.]

  The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury state that ‘they
  will be prepared to enter upon the details of these questions in
  communication with the Trustees, and even, if it should be desired, to
  offer suggestions upon them.’ Your Committee are of opinion that the
  proffered assistance should be at once accepted; and that in order to
  derive all possible advantage from that assistance a small Committee
  of Trustees should be appointed to carry on the necessary
  communications with the Treasury, either verbally or otherwise, and to
  consider with their Lordships all suggestions that might be offered
  respecting the points touched upon in this Report, and their details.
  This Committee would be similar to that which the Trustees requested
  the Treasury to appoint, by letter of the twentieth of June, 1829, and
  which was afterwards appointed by the Trustees themselves, with the
  approbation of their Lordships, to direct and superintend, not only
  the works then in progress, but those to be afterwards undertaken.

On the tenth of February, 1862—after the communication of this Report to
each of the Trustees individually—the recommendations of the
Sub-Committee were unanimously approved, at a Special General Meeting of
the Trustees, at which twenty-four members of the Board were present.
[Sidenote: _Correspondence Relating to the British Museum_, No. 97 of
Session 1862.] After the adoption of the plans thus accepted, another
Sub-Committee of Trustees was appointed to confer with the Treasury in
order to their realisation.


Before Parliament, this plan of severance and of re-arrangement—after
some modifications of detail which are too unimportant for remark—was
supported, in 1862, with the whole influence of the Government. But it
failed to win any adequate amount either of parliamentary or of public
favour. Some men doubted if the estimated saving, as between building at
Bloomsbury and building at Kensington, would or could be realized.
Others denied that the evils or inconveniences attendant upon severance
would be compensated by any adequate gain on other points. [Sidenote:
THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE OF 1862.] The popularity of the Natural History
Collections; the facilities of access to Great Russell Street; the
weighty—though far from unanimous—expressions of opinion from eminent
men of science in favour of continuance and enlargement, rather than of
severance and removal; all these and other objections were raised, and
were more or less dwelt upon, both in the House of Commons and in
scientific circles out of doors, scarcely less entitled to discuss a
national question of this kind. The Commons eventually decided against
the project by their vote of the 19th May, 1862.

Substantially,—and in spite of small subsequent additions from time to
time to the buildings at Bloomsbury—the question of 1862 is still the
question of 1870. As I have said, it has been my object to state that
question rather than to discuss it.

Should it seem, after full examination, that good government may be
better maintained, and adequate space for growth be efficiently
provided, by enlarging the existing Museum, would it be worthy of
Britain to allow the additional expenditure of a few scores of thousands
of pounds—an expenditure which would be spread over the taxation of many
years—to preponderate in the final vote of Parliament over larger and
more enduring considerations?

In the session of 1866 Mr. Spencer WALPOLE spoke thus: ‘You must either
determine to separate the Collections now in the Museum, or buy more
land in Bloomsbury.... I have always been for keeping them together. I
am, however, perfectly willing to take either course, provided you do
not heap those stores one on another—as at present,’ (July, 1866)—‘in
such a manner as to render them really not so available as they ought to
be to those who wish to make them objects of study.’ Few men are so well
entitled to speak, authoritatively, on the question—because few have
given such an amount of time and labour to its consideration.

By every available and legitimate expression of opinion the Trustees
have acted in the spirit of this remark, made almost four years since,
by one of the most eminent of their number. The words are,
unfortunately, as apposite in March, 1870, as they were in July, 1866.


                                THE END.




                             GENERAL INDEX.


 Abbot, George, Archbishop of Canterbury, 66, 70

 Abercorn, Earl of. _See_ Hamilton

 Abercromby, Sir Ralph, 548

 Abyssinia, MSS., brought from, 707

 Accessibility, Public, of the British Museum, Successive changes in the
    Regulations and Statistics of the, 323, 336, 338, 339, 341, 368,
    520, 599

 Adair, Sir Robert, 373

 Æginæ, Vases and other Antiquities brought from, 386 _seqq._

 Africa, Pre-historic and Ethnographical Collections from, 699 _seqq._

 Agarde, Arthur, and Sir Robert Cotton, 85, 86

 Albemarle, Duchess of. _See_ Monk

 Albums, Series of German, 457

 Alexandria, Sarcophagus from, 365 _seqq._

 Allan-Greg Cabinet of Minerals, 606

 Almanzi, Joseph, Hebrew Library of, 42

 Amadei, Victor, Marbles from the Collection of, 372

 Amba-Bichoi, Biblical MSS. from the Monastery of, 615 _seqq._

 America, Pre-historic and Ethnographical Collections from, 699 _seqq._

 Anadhouly, Exploration by Sir Charles Fellows of, 644

 _Ancient Marbles in the British Museum, Description of the_, 372
    _seqq._

 Anderson, Edmund (of Eyworth and Stratton), 132

 Andréossi, Anthony Francis, Count, Researches in the Monasteries of
    Nitria of, 610

 Angouleme, Duke of, 539

 Anne, Queen of England, 207 _seqq._

 Anne of Denmark, Queen Consort of James I, 153, 156, 166

 Ansse de Villoisin, John Baptist, G. d’, 455

 Antiphellus, Researches of Sir Charles Fellows at, 644

 _Antiquités Étrusques, &c._, 352 _seqq._

 Apotheosis of Homer, 401

 Arcadia, Archæological Explorations in, 397 _seqq._

 Argos, Vases and other Antiquities from, 386

 Artas of Sidon, Ancient glasswork of, 709 _seqq._

 Artemisia, Ancient Sculptures from the Mausoleum built by, 664 _seqq._

 Arundel, Earl of. _See_ Fitzalan

 Arundel, Earl of. _See_ Howard

 Arundelian Library, 198 _seqq._

 Arundelian Marbles, 197 _seqq._

 Ashburnham House, Fire at, 140

 Askew, Anthony, 472

 Assemani, Joseph Simon, and Stephen Evode, obtain, for the Vatican,
    Syriac MSS. from the Monastery of the Syrians, 617

 Assyrian Antiquities, First beginning of the Collection of, 401;
   Account of the Discoveries by Mr. Layard and his successors of, 629
      _seqq._

 Athanasius, Saint, Syriac Version of the Festal Letters of, 623

 Athens, Researches of Lord Elgin at, their History and Results, 381
    _seqq._

 Aublet, John Baptist Christopher Fusée d’, Botanical Collection of, 509


                                   B.

 Baber, Rev. Henry Hervey, M.A., Services of, in the Department of
    Printed Books, 532, _seqq._, 542;
   Death of, 553

 Bacon, Francis, Viscount St. Alban’s, is assisted by Sir R. Cotton in
    his endeavour to frame an acceptable measure for a union with
    Scotland, 57

 Bankes, George, 441

 Banks-Hodgkenson, J., 488

 Banks, Sir Joseph, Bart., P.R.S., Notices of the Life, Travels,
    Labours, and Benefactions of, 335, 480–489, 497–501, 509;
   His Correspondence with Sir William Hamilton on Volcanic Eruptions,
      354 _seqq._

 Banks, Mrs. S. S., Bequest of, 27

 Barbadoes, Notices of the Early History of the Island of, and of the
    attempts at plantation there made by William Courten and others, 251
    _seqq._, 261 _seqq._;
   Botanizing Expedition of Sir Hans Sloane at, 278

 Barberini (or Portland) Vase, History of the, 461

 Barbier, Anthony Alexander, 455

 Barbier, Eugene Auguste, 452

 Barlow, Hugh, 349

 Barnard, Sir Frederick Augusta, Labours of, as Royal Librarian, 468,
    472;
   Johnson’s Letter to him on the Collection of Books, _ib._

 Barrington, Shute, Bishop of Durham, 420

 Barth Cabinet of Gems, 691

 Battely, William, 240

 Bean, Rev. James, M.A., 544

 Beattie, James, LL.D., Conversation with King George III of, 475

 Beauclerc, Topham, 425

 Beaumont, Sir George, Bart., Bequest of a Gallery of Pictures to the
    British Museum by, 30, 460

 Bentinck Papers, 457

 Bentley, Richard, D.D., Royal Librarianship of, 140, 169

 Berkeley, Mary, 345

 Berlin Museum, 579

 Bernard, Sir John, 299

 Beroldingen Fossils, 26

 Bethel, Slingsby, 299

 Biblical MSS. of the Nitrian Monasteries, 610 _seqq._

 Biliotti and Salzmann, Messrs., Archæological Researches of, in the
    Island of Rhodes, 669

 Birch, Thos., D.D., Services of, as an early Trustee, 415 _seqq._;
   his bequests, 415

 Blacas, P. L. J. Casimir de, Duke of Blacas, Museum of, 689 _seqq._

 Blagrove, Major, 408

 Blois, Earls of, Archives, now at Pomard, of the, 536 _seqq._

 Bodley, Sir Thomas, and Sir R. Cotton, 332

 Bolingbroke, Henry, Viscount. _See_ St. John

 Bolton, Edmund, 84

 Bonaparte, Lucien, Prince of Canino, Acquisition of part of the
    Collection of Vases formed by, 35

 Bond, Edward Augustus, 600

 Bonpland, M., 455

 Borell, H. P., Collection of Greek and Roman Coins made by, 34

 Borough, Sir John, 195

 Bosset, Colonel de, Collection of Greek Coins made by, 25, 400

 Botanical Collections, 267, 269, 277 _seqq._, 283, 295, 492 _seqq._,
    507

 Botanical Collections in France, 260 _seqq._, 500

 Botanical Collections in Germany and Italy, 267

 Botanical Studies in England, Notice of the rise and progress of, 259
    _seqq._

 Botanic Gardens at Chelsea, 275, 293, 297

 Botanic Garden at Paris, 500

 Botta, P. E., Assyrian Researches of, 616;
   his first and brilliant discoveries at Khorsabad, 629;
   his genial and liberal co-operation with Layard, 631, _foot-note_

 Boudaen, Peter, 255

 Bourchier, Sir William, 539

 Bowood in Wiltshire, Lord Shelburne’s improvements at, 428

 Bowring, J., Entomological Collection of, 51

 Boyle, Robert, 275

 Branchidæ, Ancient Sculpture brought by C. T. Newton from, 664

 Brander, Gustavus, Gift of the ‘Solander Fossils,’ by, 21, 333

 Briasson’s Correspondence with Sir H. Sloane respecting a French
    version of the _Natural History of Jamaica_, 289

 Bridges’ Zoological Collections made in South America, 581

 Bridgewater, Francis Henry, Earl of. _See_ Egerton

 Brienne, Henry Lewis de Lomenie de, Count. _See_ Lomenie

 Brindley, James, 447

 British and Mediæval Antiquities and Ethnography, Formation of the new
    Department of, 688

 British Museum, Chronological Epitome of the principal incidents in the
    formation, enlargement, and growth of the successive Collections
    which constitute the, 6–47

 Brocas, Elizabeth, 52

 Brocas, William, 52

 Bröndsted, Peter Olave, 399

 Brougham, Henry, Lord Brougham and Vaux, 547

 Brown, Robert, F.R.S., Keeper of Botany, Services of, 507, 508

 Browne, William George, Researches in the Nitrian Monasteries of, 610

 Bruce, Agnes, of Conington in Huntingdonshire, 49

 Bruce, Thomas, Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, Archæological Explorations
    at Athens and in various other parts of Greece, 381–396;
   Notices of his Life and Public Career, _ib._, 400, 411;
   the controversy as to the archæological and artistical value of the
      Elgin Marbles, 411 _seqq._;
   other national results of Lord Elgin’s Embassy and Public Spirit, 439

 Bruchmann’s Fossils, 39

 Bruni d’Entrecasteaux, Joseph Anthony, 500

 Bryant, Jacob, 479

 Bryaxis, Ancient Sculptures by, 665

 Buchan, Mr., a Naturalist engaged in the Voyage of Banks and Cook, 493

 Buckingham House and its History, 318

 Buckland, William, D.D., 449

 Budrum (the ancient Halicarnassus), Explorations of C. T. Newton and
    other Archæologists at, 663 _seqq._

 Burckhardt, John Lewis, Travels and Researches in Africa of, 404

 Burlamachi, Philip, 250

 Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop of Salisbury, 133, 211

 Burney, Charles, D.D., Notices of the Life, Labours, and Literary
    Character of, with Notices of his Manuscript and Printed
    Collections, 435–438; 440 _seqq._

 Burney, Frances (afterwards Mme. d’Arblay), 475, 503

 Burnouf, M., Researches on Assyrian Palæography of, 641

 Bute, Earl of. _See_ Stuart

 Byres, James, 372

 Byron, George Gordon, Lord Byron, Autograph MSS. of, 458;
   Notice of the recent slander on the fame of, _ib._


                                   C.

 Cadogan, Charles Sloane, 297

 Cadogan, Lord, 300, 304

 Cadyanda, Casts of Rock-Tombs at, 660

 Cæsar Papers, 426

 Calah (of _Genesis_) Conjectural identification of, 629

 Calvert, Sir William, 299

 Camden, William, Friendship of Sir Robert Cotton, and, 52, 53;
   their joint labours on the _Britannia_, 54;
   their archæological tour in the north of England, _ib._;
   other joint labours and friendly intercourse, 87, 98

 _Campi Phlegræi_, 350

 Canino, Lucien Bonaparte, Prince of, and his Collection of Greek Vases,
    35

 Canning, Stratford, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, encourages liberally
    the researches of Layard, 632;
   procures from Halicarnassus the primary specimens of the sculptures
      of the Mausoleum and presents them to the Nation, 663

 Canova, Anthony, Opinion on the Elgin Marbles of, 455

 Caraffa, Carlo, MSS. of, 457

 Carew, George, 261 _seqq._

 Carleton, Dudley, Lord Dorchester, 65, 176

 Carlisle, James, Earl of. _See_ Hay.

 _Carmina Quadragesimalia_ of 1748, Oxford, 418

 Carr, Robert, Earl of Somerset, Political connection between Sir Robert
    Cotton and, 66 _seqq._;
   Somerset’s intercourse with the Court of Spain, 69;
   His alleged complicity in the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, 31
      _seqq._

 Carr, Frances, Countess of Somerset, 66 _seqq._

 Carteret, Lady Sophia, 424

 Carthage, Explorations on the site of ancient, and their results, 666
    _seqq._

 Cary, Henry Francis, Notice of the Literary Life and Museum Service of,
    532;
   circumstances attendant on his Candidature for the Keepership of
      Printed Books in 1837, 543 _seqq._

 Casaubon, Isaac, 167

 Casier, Margaret, 249

 Casley, David, Services of, as Deputy Royal Librarian, 140, 144

 Castile, Earls of, 56

 Catharine, Empress of Russia, 407

 _Catalogue of the Anglo-Gallic Coins_, 522

 _Catalogue of the Printed Books_, 523, 533, 566 _seqq._

 Cautley, Major, Fossils collected in the Himalayas, by, 39

 Cavendish, Mary, Duchess of Portland, 462

 Caxton, William, Series of the productions of the press of, 476–478,
    681–683

 Cecil, William, Lord Burghley, 427

 Cecil, Robert, Earl of Salisbury, 88, 162

 Chaloner, Sir Thomas, 158, 159

 Chamberlain, John, 176

 Charles I, King of England, 68, 91, 94, 98, 101, 124, 331

 Charles II, King of England, 260

 Charles X, King of France, 691

 Charlett, Arthur, 236, 283

 Chelsea, Botanic Garden at, 275, 293, 297

 Chelsea, Manor House of, and its History, 294 _seqq._

 Children, John George, 532

 Chimæra-Tomb from Lycia, 658

 Chinese Books, Hull’s Collection of, 461

 Chinese Antiquities and Curiosities, 700

 Choiseul Gouffier, M. G. A. L. de, Count, Archæological Researches in
    Greece of, 384

 Chorley, J. Rutter, Collection of Spanish Dramatic Poetry formed and
    bequeathed by, 695 _seqq._

 Christy, Henry, Notices of the Life, Beneficence, and Archæological
    explorations of, 697 _seqq._;
   his Collections and their bequest to the Public, 699 _seqq._, 701

 Churchill, John, Duke of Marlborough, 209 _seqq._

 Clarke, Edward Daniel, LL.D., and the Sarcophagus from Alexandria, 366;
   MS. of the Greek Orators obtained by him at Constantinople, 439

 Clayton’s Herbarium, 509

 Cnidus, Ancient Sculpture brought by C. T. Newton from, 664 _seqq._

 Cockerell, Charles Robert, Researches in Phigaleia of, 397

 _Codex Alexandrinus_, 167, 170

 Coinage of the Realm, Collections by Sir Joseph Banks, on the, 508

 Coins, Medals, and Gems, Collection of, 139, 201, 271, 295, 303, 412,
    417, 421, 443, 705

 Coke, Sir Edward, 80, 82, 149

 Coke, Thomas, Earl of Leicester, 372

 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 545

 Combe, Taylor, 392, 399

 Conington, in Huntingdonshire, 49

 Constable, Alice, 132

 Constantinople, Early Researches for Greek Marbles and MSS. at, 191
    _seqq._

 Conway, Sir Edward, 184

 Conyers, John, 259

 Cook, Captain James, 334

 Corinth, Vases and other Antiquities brought from, 386 _seqq._

 Cotton, Sir John, 135, 139

 Cotton, Sir John, Great-grandson of the Founder, Donor of the Cotton
    Library and Antiquities, 134, 306

 Cotton, John, Grandson of the Founder, 133

 Cotton, Robert (of Gedding, Cambridgeshire), 139

 Cotton, Sir Robert (of Hatley St. George, in Cambridgeshire), 139

 Cotton, Sir Robert Bruce, Descent and Pedigree of, 50
   1570–1585. His education and early friendships, 52
   1587–98. Commencement and growth of his library and museum, 53
   1599. His archæological tour in the North of England with Camden, and
      his share in the composition of the _Britannia_, 54;
     is employed by the Queen to prepare a tractate on the precedency of
        England over Spain, 55;
     analysis of that treatise, _ib._
   1603. Writes a _Discourse on King James’ descent from the Saxon
      Kings_, 56;
     is knighted, _ib._;
     and returned to Parliament for Huntingdonshire, but takes little
        part in its debates, 57;
     accepts a prominent share in the labour of Committees, _ib._;
     and carries on an extensive correspondence both literary and
        political, _ib._;
     acquires for his Library a mass of State Papers, 58;
     petitions Queen Elizabeth for the establishment of a National and
        Public Library for England, _ib._;
     inference which is obviously deducible thence in relation to the
        charge that Sir R. Cotton was an embezzler of Public Records,
        59.
   1607. Receives an address from the Corporation of London, praying him
      to restore certain documents alleged to belong to the City
      Chamber, _ib._
   1608. Proposes to the King certain reforms in the naval
      administration of the country, 62;
     and obtains Letters Patent, creating a commission of Naval Inquiry,
        63;
     takes a leading part in the labours of the Commission, and prepares
        its report, 63.
   1609. His _Report on the Crown Revenues_, and his Memorials on the
      necessity for a reform in the royal expenditure, 64.
   1611. Proposes to the King the creation of a new hereditary
      dignity—the Baronetage of England, 65;
     receives that dignity, but is dissatisfied with the mode in which
        his idea is worked out, 66.
   1613–15. Nature of his political connection and intercourse with the
      Earl of Somerset, 67;
     his alleged share in carrying on negotiations with Gondomar, in
        relation to the projected match with Spain, 68.
   1615. He receives a visit from Gondomar, in which that ambassador
      introduces himself as a lover of antiquities desirous to view the
      Cottonian Library, _ib._;
     is charged with the communication of State Papers to Gondomar, 69;
     returns the Spanish ambassador’s visit, 70, 71;
     Gondomar’s account of what passed at their several interviews,
        _ib._;
     notices of Mr. S. R. Gardiner’s comments on and deductions from
        that account, 72 _note_;
     is entrusted by Somerset with the temporary care of certain jewels
        of the Crown, 75;
     and is consulted by him with reference to the drafting of a royal
        pardon to be passed under the Great Seal, 77;
     writes a Letter to Prince Charles (afterwards King Charles I), in
        relation to foreign affairs and in praise of warlike exercises,
        79;
     is accused of communicating papers and secrets of State to the
        Spanish Ambassador, 79;
     proceedings taken against him thereupon, 80 _seqq._
   1616, June. Is liberated, 83;
     and receives a pardon under the Great Seal, _ib._;
     his conduct and his literary labours in retirement, 84 _seqq._;
     instances of the liberality with which he communicates his
        knowledge and his manuscripts, 87, 88.
   1616–23. His share in the labours which resulted in the ‘Petition of
      Right,’ 89.
   1624, April. His _Remonstrance of the Treaties of Amity and Marriage
      with Austria and Spain_ 91;
     his advice on the prosecution of the Spanish Ambassadors, and
        Report addressed to Buckingham, 92.
   1625, August. Speech ascribed to him in the Parliament held at
      Oxford, 93;
     its eulogy on the political conduct of Somerset, 96;
     the friendly intercourse between Cotton and Sir Symonds d’Ewes, 97
        _seqq._.
   1626. The scene at Cotton House on occasion of the Coronation of
      Charles I, 99;
     his conduct in 1626 and subsequent years, as an unofficial adviser
        of the Crown, 101 _seqq._;
     his opinions on Coinage, and on the management of the Royal Mint,
        103 _seqq._
   1628, Jan. Appears at the Privy Council Board, and delivers a
      Discourse advising the immediate calling of a Parliament, 106;
     but has no seat in that Parliament, _ib._
   1629, November. Is accused of circulating a _Proposition to bridle
      Parliaments_, written by Sir Robert Dudley, 107 _seqq._;
     History of that production, 110 _seqq._;
     Sir Robert’s Library is placed under seal, and remains so until his
        death, 107, 117, _seqq._;
     intercourse between Ben Jonson and Cotton, 116.
   1630. Decline of Cotton’s health, and his correspondence with Dr.
      Frodsham, 118;
     his visit to Amphyllis Ferrers, and the plot to obtain money from
        him, 120 _seqq._;
     the proceedings in the Court of Star Chamber thereon, _ib._
   1631. Illness, 123;
     Conferences with Dr. Oldisworth and with Bishop Williams, 124;
     death, 125.

 Cotton, Sir Thomas, Bart., 125, 127, 129, 131, 161

 Cotton, Thomas, 49, 118

 Cotton, William, 49, 53

 _Cottoni Posthuma_, 91 _seqq._ and _foot-note_

 Courten, Peter, 250

 Courten, Sir Peter, 254

 Courten, Sir William, Bart., 251, 256, 260, 267

 Courten, William (I), 249

 Courten, William (II), 257

 Courten, William, Founder of the Sloane Museum:
   1642, March. Birth and Parentage, 259
   1656. Benefaction to the Tradescant Museum, _ib._
   1657? Residence at Montpelier, 260
   1662. Contention with George Carew respecting the administration of
      the Estates of Sir William Courten, 262 _seqq._
   1663, July. Presents a petition to King Charles II, 263;
     but subsequently enters into a compromise with Carew, _ib._;
     and retires to Fawsley, 264
   1670. Relinquishes his family name and returns to Montpelier, whence
      he makes many Continental tours and extensive Collections both in
      Natural History and in Antiquities, 267 _seqq._
   1684? Returns to England, 268;
     establishes his museum in the Middle Temple, 269;
     his correspondence with Sloane, _ib._
   1686. Account of a Visit to Courten’s Museum by John Evelyn, 270
   1695. Another Account of a like visit by Ralph Thoresby, 271
   1695–1701. His closing years, 272
   1702, March. Death and monumental inscription, 273

 Cracherode, Clayton Mordaunt, Notices of the Life and of the Literary
    and Archæological Collections of, 417–421;
   his Bequests to the Nation, 421

 Craven, Keppel, Bequest of, 38

 Croft, Sir Thomas Elmsley, 536

 Croizet’s Fossil Mammalia collected in Auvergne, 37

 Crommelinck, Peter, 249

 Cromwell, Oliver, 90

 Cromwell, Sir Oliver, 56

 Cromwell, Thomas, Earl of Essex, 370

 Cuming, Hugh, Notices of the Life, Travels, and Collections in Natural
    History of, 692 _seqq._

 Cureton, William, Early labours in Bodley’s Library of, 619;
   becomes Assistant-Keeper of MSS. in the British Museum, and devotes
      himself to the Oriental Department, 620;
   his labours on the MSS. from the Monasteries of Nitria, 621;
   and his account of the discoveries there made, given in the
      _Quarterly Review_ of 1846, 622;
   publishes a Syriac version of the _Festal Letters_ of St. Athanasius,
      623;
   his _Spicilegium Syriacum_, 624;
   other publications and labours, literary and parochial, _ib._;
   is made a Royal Trustee, _ib._;
   publishes the _Martyrs in Palestine_ of Eusebius, 625;
   his lamented death, _ib._

 Cuvier, George, 455

 Cyrene, Archæological Researches at, 40


                                   D.

 Da Costa, Solomon, 328 _seqq._

 Daniell, Edward Thomas, Researches in Lycia of, 668

 Davis, Nathan, Explorations on the site of Ancient Carthage made by,
    and their results, 666 _seqq._

 Davy, Sir Humphrey, 508

 Debruge Collection, Specimens of Ancient Glass now in the British
    Museum formerly in the, 712

 Dee, John, 58

 De Foe, Daniel, 208

 Delessert, Benjamin, 587

 Dendy, Sergeant, 131

 Dennis, George, Archæological Explorations in Sicily of, 668

 Denon, Vivant, 362

 _Description of the Ancient Marbles in the British Museum_, 522 _seqq._

 _Description of the Terra Cottas in the British Museum_, 522

 Des Hayes, M., Tertiary Fossils collected in France by, 38

 Dethick, William, 52

 D’Ewes, Adrian, 237

 D’Ewes, Sir Symonds, Notices of the Researches, the Political Career,
    and the Antiquarian Collections of, 82, 83, 91, 97–99, 133, 237

 D’Hancarville, J. B., 372, 375

 Didyme, Ancient Sculpture brought from, 664

 Digby, John, Earl of Bristol, 69

 Dordogne, Exploration of the Caves of, and its results, 699

 Doubleday, John, 463

 Downing, Frances, 134

 Downing, Sir George, 134, 262

 Drawings, Collections of, 310, 408, 421

 Dreux, M. de, Researches on the site of Ancient Carthage carried on by,
    626

 Dryander, Jonas, 509

 Dudley, Edmund, 113

 Dudley, Sir Robert, and the _Proposition to bridle the Impertinency of
    Parliaments_, 110

 Dugdale, Sir William, 435

 Durand Collection of Vases, 715

 Dureau de La Malle, Researches on the site of Ancient Carthage of, 626

 Dutertre, M., 362

 Dyson, Mr., Zoological Collections made in Venezuela by, 581


                                   E.

 Edmonds, Mr., 59

 Edward VI, King of England, 64

 Edwards, Major Arthur, Bequest in augmentation of the Cottonian
    Library, made by, 142, 305;
   this Bequest was, for a long period after the foundation of the
      Museum, the mainstay of its Library, 443 and _foot-note_

 Edwards, George, 301

 Egerton, Francis, Earl of Ellesmere, 597

 Egerton, Francis Henry, Earl of Bridgewater, Notices of the Life,
    Character, and Testamentary Benefactions of, 446–455

 Egerton, Francis, Duke of Bridgewater, K.G., 446

 Egerton, Lady Katharine, 257

 Egyptian Antiquities, Early History of the Collection of, 347 _seqq._,
    362 _seqq._

 Egyptian Glass in the Slade Collection, 708

 Elgin, Thomas, Earl of. _See_ BRUCE

 Eliot, Sir John, 56, 90, 93, 94, 96, 101

 Elizabeth, Queen of England, 51, 103, 157

 Ellesmere, Francis, Earl of. _See_ EGERTON

 Ellis, Sir Henry, Notice of the Literary Labours and Public Services
    of, 524–534, 549, 569

 Elmsley, Thomas, 419

 Empson, James, 304, 322

 _Epistles of St. Ignatius_, Syriac Version of, 609

 Erskine, William, Oriental MSS. of, 42

 Esquimaux Collections made and bequeathed by Henry Christy, 699 _seqq._

 Estcourt, T. B. Sotheron, 541

 Ethnography and British and Mediæval Antiquities, Organization of the
    Department of, 688

 Etruria in Staffordshire, Debt to the Hamilton Vases of the Porcelain
    Works established at, 353

 _Evangeliary of King Ethelstan_, 98

 Evelyn, John, 196, 201, 270


                                   F.

 Farmer, Richard, 476

 Fellows, Sir Charles, Early Life and Travels of, 642;
   his researches in Lycia and other parts of Asia, and his excavations
      of ancient marbles, 644 _seqq._;
   his death, 653;
   his views of the date and archæological character of the Lycian
      Marbles, 654 _seqq._

 Fenwick, Sir John, 206

 Fermor, Sir William, 199

 Ferrers, Amphyllis, 120

 Fitzalan, Henry, Earl of Arundel, 172

 Fleetwood, Sir Robert, 254

 Forbes, Edward, Researches in Lycia, of, 668

 Forshall, Rev. Josiah, 141, 532

 Foscarini, Anthony, 179

 Foscolo, Hugh, 547

 Fossils, Collections of, 22, 26, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 333

 Fox, Charles James, 673 _seqq._

 Fox, Henry, Lord Holland, 310, 423

 Foxe, John, 325

 _Fragmenta Scenica Græca_, 441 and _foot-note_

 France, State Papers and other MSS. relating to the history of, 456,
    572

 France, Notice of the early and persistent efforts for the acquisition
    for public use of the treasures of Learning and Art made by the
    Statesmen of, 348

 Franklin, Benjamin, 672, 673

 Franks, A. W., Account of some of the choice specimens in the Christy
    Collection by, 698 _seqq._;
   and of those in the Slade Collection, 708 _seqq._

 Fraser, Mr., Zoological Collections made in Tunis by, 581

 Frattochi (the ancient Bovillæ), Discovery of Ancient Sculpture at, 401

 Frederick, Prince of Wales, 294

 Fusée d’Aublet, J. B. C., 509

 Fynes Clinton, Henry, Candidature for the Principal-Librarianship of
    the Museum of, 533


                                   G.

 Gaisford, Thomas, 620, 624

 Galloway, Patrick, 155

 Gardiner, S. R., Notice of the account of the intercourse between Sir
    R. Cotton and the Count of Gondomar given by, 52, 72, 146

 Gardiner, Mr., Zoological Collections made in Brazil by, 581

 Garnett, Rev. Richard, 549

 Garrick, David, 415

 Gaston, Duke of Orleans, 270

 Gautier, Abbé, 221

 George III, King of Great Britain, Gift to the Nation of the Thomason
    Library by, 330;
   his Political Intercourse with Lord Shelburne, 430 _seqq._;
   his Literary tastes and Character, 465 _seqq._;
   Formation of his Library, 469;
   his Conversations with Johnson and with Beattie, 474 _seqq._;
   Pains taken by him in forming a series of the early productions of
      the English Press, 477 _seqq._;
   Circumstances which attended the Gift of his Library to the Nation,
      482 _seqq._

 George IV, King of Great Britain, 465, 482 _seqq._

 German Albums, series of, 457

 German Glass in the Slade Collection, Early, 713

 Gibbons, Grinling, 273

 Gibson, Benjamin, Remarks of, on the Lycian Marbles discovered by Sir
    C. Fellows, 649

 Gilbert, Mr., Zoological Collections made in Australia and New Zealand
    by, 581

 Ginguené, Peter Lewis, Library of, 442, 455

 Glass, Slade Collection of Ancient, 708 _seqq._

 Goade, Dr., 193

 Godolphin, Sydney, Earl of Godolphin, 211

 Goldsmith, Oliver, 425

 Gondomar, Diego de Sarmiento, Count of, Intercourse of Sir R. Cotton
    with, 68, 80, 81, 95, 102, 146

 Gorges, Ferdinando, 187

 Gosse, P. H., Zoological Collections made in Jamaica by, 581

 Goudot, M., Zoological Collections made in Columbia by, 581

 Gough, Richard, 529

 Gould, John, Zoological Collections made in Australia and in New
    Zealand by, 381

 Graves, Captain, 651

 Gray, John Edward, F.R.S., Public Services of, 577 _seqq._;
   his _Illustrations of Indian Zoology_, _ib._;
   Catalogues and Synopses of the Natural History Collections originated
      by, 578;
   Evidence on the comparative state of those Collections in 1836 and in
      1849, 579 _seqq._

 Greek and Roman Marbles, History of the Collection of, 372 _seqq._

 Greek Coins, Collection of, 412, 705

 Greek Manuscripts, Researches in the 17th century for the Collection
    of, 199 _seqq._

 Greek Marbles, Early Researches in the Levant for the acquisition of,
    189 _seqq._

 Gregg, William, 210

 Grenville, Thomas, Notices of the Political Life of, 670 _seqq._;
   on his retirement from politics he devotes himself to literary and
      social pursuits, and collects his Library, 677 _seqq._;
   its character, 678, 681;
   his Conversation with Sir A. Panizzi as to its destination, 679

 Grenville, Richard, Marquess of Buckingham, 674 _seqq._

 Greville, Charles, 356, 459

 Grey, Lady Jane, 113, 477

 Grey, Henry, Earl of Kent, 254

 Grey, Henry, Duke of Kent, 446

 Grey, Lady Anna Sophia, 446

 Grey, Thomas, Earl of Stamford, 241

 Gronovius, John Frederick, Herbarium of, 509

 Grosley, Peter John, Account of the early condition and regulations of
    the British Museum by, 337

 Grotefend, George Frederick, 641

 Guenther, Dr., 603

 Guiscard, Anthony de, 217


                                   H.

 Haeberlein Fossils, 40

 Halicarnassian Marbles, 663 _seqq._

 Haller von Hallerstein, Charles, 397

 Halley, Edmund, 276

 Hamilton, Gavin, 372, 374, 376, 406

 Hamilton, Sir William, Notices of the Diplomatic Career, the scientific
    researches, the archæological and artistic Collections of, 347–360;
   his promotion of the explorations of Lord Elgin, 382;
   he brings to England the Barberini or Portland Vase, 459

 Hamilton, Lady, 356, 358

 Hamilton, William Richard, 399

 Hampden, John, 300

 Hanbury, William, 137, 139

 Hancarville, J. B. d’, 352

 Harcourt, Simon, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, 225

 Hardiman, John, 456

 Harding Prints and Drawings, 36

 Hardy, Sir Thomas Duffus, 529

 Hardwicke, Major-General, Bequest of Zoological Collections by, 580

 Hargrave, Francis, Library of, 435

 Harley, Sir Edward, 204, 234

 Harley, Robert, Earl of Oxford, a Trustee of the Cotton Library under
    the Act of 1700, 139;
   Parentage and Descent of, 203;
   his first public appearance on occasion of the Revolution of 1688,
      204;
   his Parliamentary and Official Career, 205 _seqq._;
   his Secretaryship of State, 207;
   he protects De Foe, 208;
   the crime of William Gregg and the use made of it by Harley’s
      enemies, 210;
   his dismissal from the Secretaryship, 211;
   he intrigues against the Godolphin Ministry, 212;
   becomes Chancellor of the Exchequer, 213;
   his friendship with Swift, 214;
   Guiscard’s attempt on his life and its results, 217;
   he becomes Lord High Treasurer, 219;
   his intercourse with the ‘October Club,’ 220;
   and with the Jacobite exiles, 221 _seqq._;
   his intercourse with George the First, 229;
   his impeachment, 230;
   and trial, 232;
   returns to Parliament, 233;
   his Domestic Life, 234;
   the History of his Library, 235, 477 _seqq._;
   its Acquisition by Parliament, 242;
   extracts from the Stuart Papers illustrative of the intercourse of
      Lord Oxford with the Jacobites subsequently to the Accession of
      George I, 242 _seqq._

 Harley, Edward, Earl of Oxford, 241, 307

 Harpagus, Monuments of the Conquest of Xanthus by, 662

 Harpy Tomb, or Pandarus-Tomb, brought from Xanthus, 649, 654

 Hartweg, Mr., Zoological Collections made in Mexico by, 581

 Hawes, Sir Benjamin, 544

 Hawkins, Edward, 43, 532

 Hawkins, Ernest, 549

 Hawkins, Thomas, 34

 Hawley, Sir Henry, 507

 Hays’ Egyptian Antiquities, 45

 Heber, Richard, 483

 Hebrew Books, Collections of, 42, 329

 Henrietta Maria, Queen Consort of Charles I, 186

 Henry III, King of England, 79

 Henry V, King of England, 79

 Henry VII, King of England, 113

 Henry VIII, King of England, 54

 Henry, Prince of Wales, Life and Character, 153 _seqq._;
   his intercourse with Ralegh and his influence upon Naval Affairs,
      160;
   his purchase of Lord Lumley’s Library, 162;
   the projects for his marriage, 164;
   his death, 166;
   union of his Library with that at Whitehall, 167;
   subsequent history of the Royal Library until its incorporation with
      the British Museum, 168 _seqq._

 Heralds’ College, Arundelian MSS. at the, 202

 Herbert, Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, 235

 Herbert, Elizabeth, 134

 Herbert, Lord Chief Justice, 278

 Herculaneum, Explorations at, 353

 Hickes, Sir Michael, 426

 Hickes, Sir William, 426

 Hill, Sir John, 322

 Hoare, Sir Richard Colt, Benefactions of, 459

 Hoeck, J. van, 240

 Holles Bentinck, Margaret, Duchess of Portland, 242

 Holles, Thomas, 347

 Holwell Carr, William, Bequest of Pictures to the British Museum by, 30

 Homer, Palimpsest Fragments of, found amongst the MSS. from the Nitrian
    Monasteries, 624

 Honeywood, Elizabeth, 133

 Hope Collection of Vases, 715

 Hornemann, Frederick, 504

 Horsley, Samuel, Bishop of St. Asaph, 506

 Hosking, William, 586

 Howard, Henry, Earl of Northampton, 64, 66, 81, 113

 Howard, Margaret, 132

 Howard, Lady Philippa, 370

 Howard, Philip, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, 163, 174

 Howard, Thomas, Earl of Arundel, Surrey, and Norfolk, Correspondence
    with Sir R. Cotton of, 87;
   his early life and his career at Court, 174 _seqq._;
   beginnings of his extensive Collections in literature, art, and
      archæology, 177;
   his quarrel with Lord Spencer, _ib._;
   the adventure of his wife at Venice and its consequences, 179;
   his imprisonment by Charles I, 183 _seqq._;
   his efforts in Colonization, 186;
   his withdrawal from England, and death, 188;
   character and history of the Arundelian Collections, 189 _seqq._

 Howard, Henry, Duke of Norfolk, 197, 199

 Howell, James, 52, 94, 101

 Hubert, Robert, 259

 Hugessen, Dorothea, 503

 Hugessen, William Weston, 503

 Hull, John Fowler, 460

 Humboldt, William von, 455, 501

 Huntington, Robert, Bishop of Raphoe, 609

 Hutchinson, General Lord, 362, 367

 Hutton, William, 340

 Hyde, Edward, Earl of Clarendon, 265

 Hyde, Lawrence, Earl of Rochester, 572


                                   I.

 Icelandic Books, 497

 Ignatius, St., Nitrian MSS. of the Epistles of, 609 _seqq._

 Inglis, Sir Robert Harry, 542

 Institute of Egypt, 362 _seqq._

 Institute of France, 505

 Irish Manuscripts, Collections of, 456, 457

 Italian Topography, Collection of, 460


                                   J.

 Jackson, Cyril, 422

 Jacquier, M., 509

 James I, King of England, &c., 49, 65, 69, 73, 85, 86, 87, 103, 111,
    131, 154

 James Stuart, Prince of Wales (called ‘The Old Pretender’), 221
    _seqq._, 244, 245

 James, Richard, 114 _seqq._

 Japanese Books, 718 _seqq._

 Jenkins, Thomas, 372, 376, 377

 Jenkinson, Robert Banks, Earl of Liverpool, 483

 Johnson, Samuel, 242, 469, 470, 471, 473, 475

 Jolles, Sir John, 59

 Jones, John Winter, 568, 575, 600

 Jones, Inigo, 163

 Jonson, Benjamin, 116

 _Journal Britannique_, 343

 Joursanvault, Baron de, 536 _seqq._

 Junius, Francis, 199

 Jussieu, Bernard de, 289


                                   K.

 Kaye, John, Bishop of Lincoln, 441

 Kennet, White, Bishop of Peterborough, 427

 Khorsabad and Kouyunjik, Discoveries at, 629 _seqq._

 King, Dr. William, 286

 Knatchbull, Sir Edward, 507

 Knight, Gowin, 321, 342

 Knight, Richard Payne, Notices of the Public and Literary Life, the
    Collections, the Writings, and the Benefactions of, 401–412, 460;
   his opinions and his Parliamentary Evidence on the Elgin Marbles,
      389, 411 _seqq._

 Knightley, Sir Richard, 254

 Kokscharow Minerals, 42

 König, Charles, 532, 575


                                   L.

 La Billardière, M. de, Botanical and other Collections of, 500

 Lambarde, William, 52

 Lambe, Dr., 87

 Lansdowne Manuscripts, 526 _seqq._

 Lansdowne, William, Marquess of. _See_ PETTY-FITZMAURICE

 Lartet, M., 699 _seqq._

 La Turbie Gems, 691

 Laud, Archbishop, 151

 Laurenzano Collection, Marbles formerly in the, 373 _seqq._

 La Vallière, Duke of, 472

 Layard, Austen Henry, Notices of the Travels, the Archæological
    Researches and Collections of, 627 _seqq._

 Leach, Dr., 573

 Leheup, Peter, and his dealings with the Foundation-Lottery of the
    British Museum, 309, 340

 Lemery, Nicholas, 275

 Le Neve, Peter, 435

 Lennox, Esme, Duke of. _See_ STUART

 Leochares, Sculptures of, 665

 Lerma, Duke of, 71

 Lethieullier, Pitt, 347

 Lethieullier, Smart, 347

 Lethieullier, William, 347

 Levant Manuscripts, Early Researches for the Acquisition of, 609
    _seqq._

 Lever, Sir Ashton, 339

 Ley, James, Earl of Marlborough, 53

 Leyden, Natural History Museum of, 579

 Limyra, Tombs of, 658

 Linart, M., Visit to the Monasteries of the Nitrian Desert of, 610

 Lincolnshire, Collections for, 435

 Lind, Dr., 495

 Linkh, James, 397

 Linnæus, Charles, 509

 Lisle, William, 87

 Lloyd, William, Bishop of Lichfield, 236

 Locke, John, 267

 Lomenie, Henry de, Count of Brienne, Manuscripts of, 235

 Long, Charles, Lord Farnborough, 456, 483

 Loureiro, John de, Herbarium of, 509

 Lucar, Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, 167

 Lumley, John, Lord Lumley, Library of, 162

 Lusieri, John Baptist, 382

 Lycian Marbles, 645 _seqq._

 Lyttelton, Sir Edward, 254

 Lyttelton, Sir Thomas, 206


                                   M.

 Macclesfield, Earl of. _See_ PARKER

 Madden, Sir Frederick, 122, 141, 523

 Magna Græcia, Antiquities from, 351 _seqq._

 Major, Richard Henry, 471

 Manchester, Henry, Earl of. _See_ MONTAGU

 Manuscript Collections, 242, 303, 304, 426, 455, 460, 461, 485, 523,
    616–624, 707

 Map and Chart Collections, 471

 Marsden’s Collections of Oriental Coins, 35

 Maty, Matthew, 322, 342

 Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, Sculptures of the, 664 _seqq._

 Mausoleum and Cinerary Urns, 522

 Maynwaring, Roger, 87

 Menou, General, and the Egyptian Antiquities collected by the French
    Explorers, 363

 Menzies, Archibald, 334

 Merret, Christopher, 290

 Mewtas, Thomas, 117

 Millard, John, 541

 Mineralogical Collections, 459, 510, 521

 _Minutes of Evidence before Select Committee on the British Museum_ of
    1835–36, 555, 558;
   —_before the Royal Commissioners of 1848–50_, 566

 Moll, Baron von, 413

 Mommsen, Tycho, MSS. of, 457

 Monck Mason, Henry, MSS. of, 457

 Monk, Christopher, Duke of Albemarle, 270

 Montagu, Colonel George, Collections in Zoology of, and his public
    benefaction, 459, 576, 692

 Montagu, John, Earl of Sandwich, 489

 Montagu, Ralph, Duke of Montagu, 319

 Montagu House and its history, 319, 324

 Monticelli’s Minerals, 521

 Morghens, Raphael, Prints of, 36

 Moritz, Charles, 338

 Morrison, Robert, Chinese Library of, 37

 Morton, Dr. Charles, 322, 344, 519

 Mouncey, John, 250

 _Museum Tradescantianum_, 259

 Musgrave, Sir William, Benefactions of, 416

 Myra, Casts of Rock-Tombs at, 660


                                   N.

 Napier of Magdala, Lord, Efforts for the collection of Abyssinian MSS.
    and Antiquities during the late Campaign made by, 703 _seqq._

 Napoleon and the Institute of Cairo, 366;
   his plans for the acquisition of the Marbles of the Parthenon, 384

 Natural History Collections, Propositions which have been made for the
    removal of the, 513, 594 _seqq._, 744 _seqq._

 _Natural History of Jamaica_, 289 _seqq._

 Nelson, Horatio, Lord Nelson, 356, 359, 361

 Neville, Sir Henry, 55

 Newton, Adam, 157

 Newton, Charles Thomas, Researches for Antiquities at Halicarnassus,
    Branchidæ, Cnidus, &c., of, 663 _seqq._;
   his labours in respect to the Woodhouse Collection, 704

 Newton, Sir Isaac, 499

 Nice, Daniel, Museum of, 195

 Nicolas, Sir Harris, 535, 541

 Nimeguen, Discovery of Ancient Bronzes near, 409

 Nimroud, Excavations of Mr. Layard and his Successors at, 629 _seqq._

 Nitrian Monasteries, Account of the successive researches for MSS. in
    the Libraries of the, 609 _seqq._

 Norgate, Edward, 195

 Northampton, Henry, Earl of. _See_ HOWARD


                                   O.

 Oldisworth, William, 124

 Onslow, Arthur, 306

 Orsini, Flavio, MSS. of, 457

 Osborne, Sir John, 240

 Oswald, James, 673

 Ouseley, Sir Gore, 461, 509

 Overbury, Sir Thomas, 67, 81, 82, 83

 Owen, Admiral Sir Edward, 651

 Owen, Richard, on the growth and progress of the Zoological
    Collections, 602, 694;
   on the state, classification, and requirements of the Collection of
      Minerals, 606.


                                   P.

 Pacho, Mr., negotiates the transfer from the Monastery of St. Mary
    Deipara of a residuary Collection of Syrian MSS. previously
    withheld, 618

 Paiafa, Xanthian tomb of, 652, 658

 Palmer, Sir Geoffrey, 263

 Pandarus, Lycian Marbles illustrative of the Legend of, 654

 Panizzi, Sir Antonio, 485, 523, 543, 546, 552, 558, 559, 560, 563, 567,
    570, 704;
   his influence on the bequest of the Grenville Library, 678 _seqq._;
   his designs and labours for the construction of the New Reading-Room,
      586 _seqq._;
   his account of the choice books in the Grenville Collection, 681
      _seqq._;
   testimony borne in Parliament in 1866 to his public services, 583

 Papin, Dionysius, 276

 Paramythia (in Epirus), Discovery of ancient Bronzes at, 407

 Paris and London Museums compared, 579, 581

 Parker, George, Earl of Macclesfield, 299, 304

 Parker, Matthew, Archbishop of Canterbury, 58

 Parry, John Humffreys, 568

 Paynell, Robert, 241

 Pelham, Henry, 307, 309

 Pell, John, 427

 Pennant, Thomas, 496

 Percy, Algernon, Duke of Northumberland, 610

 Perez, Anthony, 457

 Persepolitan Marbles, 461

 Persian MSS., 456, 459

 Peters, Hugh, 168

 Petiver, James, 290

 Pett, Phineas, 161

 Petty, William, 191, 193

 Petty-Fitzmaurice, William, Marquess of Lansdowne, 426 _seqq._, 672

 Petyt, William, 435

 Phigaleia, Marbles of, 396 _seqq._

 Phœnician Glass, 708

 Piaggi, Anthony, 358

 Pierre-Luisit (Pays-de-Bugey), Discovery of ancient Sculpture at, 407

 Pindar, Sir Paul, 260, 267

 Pinelli Library, 438

 Pirckheimer Library, 195

 Pitton de Tournefort, Joseph, 267

 Planta, Andrew, 517

 Planta, Joseph, Notices of the Life, Literary Works, and Public
    Services of, 517 _seqq._

 Portland Vase, History of the, 461 _seqq._

 Pourtalès Collection of Antiquities, 669

 _Proposition to bridle the Impertinency of Parliaments_, 100


                                   R.

 Ralegh, Sir Walter, 87, 113, 147, 160, 161, 187

 Ratcliffe, John, 476

 Rawlinson, Sir Henry, 641

 Ray, John, 275, 282

 Reid, George William, on Prints in the Slade Collection, 716

 Rich, Claudius James, 459, 616

 Robartes, John, Earl of Radnor, 241

 Roberts, Edward, 25

 Roe, Sir Thomas, Researches in the Levant of, 167, 192 _seqq._

 Rosetta Inscription, 365 _seqq._

 Royal Academy of Arts, 471

 Royal Society, 284 _seqq._, 498 _seqq._

 Russell, John, Duke of Bedford, 524

 Rycaut, Sir Paul, 427

 Rye, William Brenchley, 719

 Rymer, Thomas, 328


                                   S.

 Saint-John, Henry, Viscount Bolingbroke, 212 _seqq._, 309

 Saint-John, Oliver, 110, 114

 Salisbury, Earl of. _See_ CECIL

 Salway, Richard, 268

 Sancroft, William, Archbishop of Canterbury, 235

 Saunders, Dr. Sedgwick, on certain MSS. in the Cotton Collection, 151

 Saunders, William, 703 _seqq._

 Scharf, George, 645

 Scopas, Sculptures of, 665

 Segar, Sir William, 435

 Seguier, Peter, 235, 240

 Selden, John, 97, 130, 131, 419

 Sennacherib, Sculptural Monuments of, 633, 640 _seqq._

 Serra, Marquess (of Genoa), 665

 Seymour, Edward, Duke of Somerset, 64, 211

 Sheepshanks, John, 35

 Sicily, Archæological Researches in, 668

 Siebold, Philip Francis von, Travels and Researches in Japan of, 717
    _seqq._;
   his Japanese Libraries, 718

 Slade, Felix, Collections and Bequests of, 707 _seqq._

 Sloane, Sir Hans:
   1660–1677–1683. Parentage, and early education in Ireland, 274
   1678. Studies Chemistry, Botany, and Medicine in London, 275
   1683. Goes to France to prosecute his professional and scientific
      education, _ib._
   1684. Commences his medical career in London, 276
   1687. Proceeds to the West Indies as Physician to the
      Governor-General and to the Fleet, and during that Voyage begins
      the formation of his Museum, 278 _seqq._
   1689. Returns to England with extensive Collections, 281
   1693. Becomes Secretary of the Royal Society, 282
   1696. Publishes his first scientific work, _ib._
   1690 to 1727. Resumes the publication of the suspended _Philosophical
      Transactions_, 284;
     Discussions between Sloane and Woodward, 286;
     Enumeration of the honours and distinctions conferred upon him, 287
   1708. Publishes the first volume of the _Natural History of Jamaica_,
      288
   1710–18. Incorporation of the Collections of Plukenet, Petiver, and
      others, with Sloane’s Museum, 290;
     his extensive correspondence and charities, 291
   1741. Retires to his Manor House at Chelsea, 293
   1748. Visit to the Sloane Museum of the Prince and Princess of Wales,
      294
   1748–9. Last Will and Codicils, 296 _seqq._;
     declining years and death, 300;
     Comparative Synoptical Table of his Museum in 1725 and in 1753,
        303;
     its acquisition by Parliament and its public establishment, in
        1753, 304 _seqq._

 Smirke, Sir Robert, 584 _seqq._

 Smirke, Sydney, 587 _seqq._, 596

 Smith and Porcher, Explorations at Cyrene of Messrs., 40

 Smith, Joseph, 469

 Smith, Robert, 59

 Smith, Dr. Thomas, 142

 Smith, Sir Thomas, 235

 Solander, Daniel Charles, 491

 Soltikoff Collection, 712

 Somers, John, Lord Somers, 139

 Somerset, Earl of. _See_ CARR

 Somerville, Lord, 480

 Sonnini de Manoncourt, Charles N. S., Researches in the Nitrian
    Monasteries of, 610

 Spanish MSS., 456

 Spanish Poetry and Drama, Chorley Collection of, 695

 Spano (Canon), of Cagliari, 626

 Spencer, Charles, Earl of Sunderland, 239

 _Specimens of Ancient Sculpture_, 735 _seqq._, 410

 Spelman, Sir Henry, 124

 Spratt, T. A. B., Researches in Lycia of, 668

 Stephen, James Francis, 38

 Strozzi Gems, 691

 Stuart, Esme, Duke of Lennox, 71, 182

 Suffolk, Thomas, Earl of. _See_ HOWARD

 Swift, Jonathan, 214 _seqq._


                                   T.

 Tattam, Henry, Researches in the Nitrian Monasteries of, 613

 Theyer, Charles and John, 168

 Thomason, George, 331

 Thoresby, John, Visit to Courten’s Museum of, 270

 Tischendorf’s Visit to the Nitrian Monasteries, 618

 Towneley, Charles, Birth and Ancestry of, 369;
   his Continental Education and Travels, 370;
   History of his Collection of Ancient Sculpture, 372 _seqq._;
   his return to Italy and further enlargement of his Gallery, 377
      _seqq._;
   its testamentary disposal, and subsequent acquisition by Parliament,
      379

 Tradescant’s Museum, 259

 Tyrwhitt, Thomas, Benefactions of, 417


                                   U.

 Utica, Archæological Researches at, 666 _seqq._


                                   V.

 Vase Collections, Notices of the growth and extent of the, 351, 386
    _seqq._

 Villiers, George, Duke of Buckingham, 68, 73, 84, 85, 86, 91, 99, 100,
    116

 Vincent, Augustine, 87

 Vossius, Gerard John, 235


                                   W.

 Wake, Sir Isaac, 195

 Walker, Sir Edward, 176

 Walpole, Horace, Earl of Orford, 309, 310, 322, 405, 415, 426, 429

 Wanley, Humphrey, 143, 235, 236, 238, 240, 241, 427

 Warburton, John, 240, 435

 Warburton, William, Bishop of Gloucester, 457

 Ward, Dr. John, 336, 347, 519

 Watts, Thomas, Notice of the Literary Life and Public Services of, 554
    _seqq._;
   his remarks on the new buildings of the Museum, 585 _seqq._;
   his account of the specimens of Bookbinding in the Slade Collection,
      716;
   and of the Japanese Library of P. F. von Siebold, 719

 Watson-Wentworth, Charles, Marquis of Rockingham, 429

 Webb, Philip Carteret, 426

 Wedgwood, Josiah, 358

 Wendeborn, Frederick, 338, 485

 Wentworth, Thomas, Earl of Strafford, 111, 186

 Wesenham Family, 49

 West, James, 427, 476

 Whitaker, Lawrence, 117

 Whitelocke, Bulstrode, 168

 Wilbraham, Roger, 409

 Williams, John, Archbishop of York, 87, 124

 Witt, George, 696

 Wood, Antiquarian explorations at Ephesus of Mr. Consul, 669

 Woodhouse, James, Museum of Antiquities formed at Corfu by, 702;
   its bequest to the Public, and the circumstances attendant thereon,
      703 _seqq._

 Woodward, Dr. John, 259, 286

 Wotton, Sir Henry, 179, 181


                                   X.

 Xanthus and its sculptured monuments, Discovery by Sir C. Fellows of,
    645 _seqq._


                                   Y.

 Yelverton, Sir Henry, 178

 Young, Arthur, 480

 Young, Patrick, 167

 Young, Thomas, 367


              PRINTED BY J. E. ADLARD, BARTHOLOMEW CLOSE.

-----

Footnote 1:

          “Or must I, as a wit, with learned air
          Like Doctor Dibdin, to Tom Payne’s repair,
          Meet Cyril Jackson and mild Cracherode there?
          ‘Hold!’ cries Tom Payne, ‘that margin let me measure,
          And rate the separate value of the treasure’
          Eager they gaze. ‘Well, Sirs, the feat is done.
          Cracherode’s _Poetæ Principes_ have won!’”
                              Mathias, _Pursuits of Literature_.

Footnote 2:

  Loakes had been purchased from the last owner of the Archdall family
  by Henry, Earl of Shelburne. Earl William (first Marquess of
  Lansdowne) eventually sold it to the ancestor of the present Lord
  Carrington.

Footnote 3:

  See, hereafter, in life of T. Grenville, Book III, c. 2.

Footnote 4:

  This famous speech was delivered on the 5th of March, 1778. ‘_Then_,’
  said Lord Shelburne, after denouncing measures which would sever the
  Colonies from the Kingdom, ‘the sun of Great Britain is set. We shall
  be no more a powerful or even a respectable people.’—_Parliamentary
  Debates_, vol. xix, col. 850.

Footnote 5:

  More than one of Burney’s scholars was accustomed to speak feelingly
  on the topic of ancient school ‘discipline’ when any passing incident
  led the talk in that direction in after life.

Footnote 6:

  This small fact in classical bibliography is remarkable enough to call
  for some particular exemplifications, beyond those given in the text,
  on a former page. Of the three greatest Greek dramatists, Burney had
  315 editions against 75 in the Library of the British Museum. Of Homer
  he had 87 against 45; of Aristophanes, 74 against 23; of Demosthenes,
  50 against 18; and of the _Anthologia_, 30 against 19.

Footnote 7:

  It was also from the Edwards fund that the whole costs of the Oriental
  MSS. of Halhed, and of the Minerals of Hatchett, together with those
  of several other early and important acquisitions, were defrayed. That
  fund, in truth, was the mainstay of the Museum during the years of
  parliamentary parsimony.

Footnote 8:

  Of these four thousand pounds, two thousand three hundred and
  forty-five pounds seem to have been expended in Printed Books; the
  remainder, probably, in Manuscripts.

Footnote 9:

  To give but one example: Samuel Burder—the author of the excellent
  work, so illustrative of Biblical literature, entitled _Oriental
  Customs_—states, in his MS. correspondence now before me, that the
  _only_ effective reward given to him, in the course of his long
  labours, was given by Lord Bridgewater. The book above mentioned was
  ‘successful,’ ‘but,’ he says, ‘the booksellers, as usual, reaped the
  harvest,’ not the author. It is—shall I say?—an amusing comment on
  this latter clause, to find that in one of his letters to Lord
  Bridgewater, Burder states that the person who took the most kindly
  notice of his literary labours, next after Lord Bridgewater himself,
  was—the Emperor of Russia (Alexander I).

Footnote 10:

  These form the Egerton MSS. 215 to 262 inclusive.

Footnote 11:

  Horace Walpole, at this sale, purchased the fine MS., with drawings by
  Julio Clovio, which was long an ornament of the villa at Strawberry
  Hill, and also a choice cameo of Jupiter Serapis, for which he gave a
  hundred and seventy-three pounds. He preferred, he said, either of
  them to the vase. So, at least, he fancied when he found it
  unattainable. ‘I am glad,’ he wrote to Conway (18 June, 1786), ‘that
  Sir Joshua saw no more excellence in the _Jupiter_ than in the Clovio,
  or the Duke, I suppose, would have purchased it as he did the Vase—for
  £1000. I told Sir William and the late Duchess—when I never thought
  that it would be mine—that I would rather have the head than the
  vase.’

Footnote 12:

  Lord Harcourt resigned his office of Governor to the Prince at the
  beginning of December, 1752. Scott, then the Prince’s tutor, was
  recommended to his office by Bolingbroke. The Bishop of Peterborough’s
  appointment as Preceptor was made in January, 1753. Among the books
  complained of, the _Histoire de la Grande Bretagne_ of Father Orléans,
  and the _Introduction à la vie du Roi Henri IV_ of another Jesuit,
  Father Péréfixe, are said to have been included. Another and more
  famous book, which was much in Prince George’s hands in his early
  years, was also obnoxious to the Whigs—Bolingbroke’s _Idea of a
  Patriot King_. But it would scarcely have been prudent in the
  malcontents to have put a work which (whatever its faults) ranks, to
  some extent, among our English classics, in the same expurgatory, or
  prohibitory, index with the books of Orléans and of Péréfixe. If
  George the Third got some harm out of Lord Bolingbroke’s book, he
  probably obtained also some good. Pure Whiggism—pure but not
  simple—has never been noted for any discriminating tolerance of
  spirit. And, in 1752, it was furious at the prospect that the
  continuance of its long domination was imperilled.

Footnote 13:

  The mansion for which the Trustees of the British Museum had been
  asked to give £30,000 was sold, five years afterwards, to the King for
  £20,000. It was purchased for the Queen as a jointure-house in lieu of
  her proper mansion, Somerset House, then devoted to public purposes.
  All the royal princes and princesses were born in Buckingham House,
  except George IV, and one, perhaps, of the younger children.

Footnote 14:

  The story, I observe, has been endorsed in Mr. Blades’ excellent _Life
  of Caxton_ (see part 2, p. 268), but it is undoubtedly a distortion or
  exaggeration of some chance occurrence. No such series could have been
  formed otherwise than, in the main, by systematic research.

Footnote 15:

  _Edinburgh Weekly Journal_, Feb. 1820. The article is reprinted in
  _Miscellaneous Prose Works_, Edition of 1841, vol. ii, p. 184.

Footnote 16:

  ‘Ralph Robinson’ is the name signed to the communications to the
  _Annals of Agriculture_, but they are dated from Windsor. (See
  _Annals_, vol. vii, 1787.)

Footnote 17:

  Curiously enough, three volumes of the Georgian MSS. had belonged to
  Sir Hans Sloane, and had, in some unexplained way, come to be
  separated from the bulk of his Collection. They now rejoined their old
  companions in Great Russell Street.

Footnote 18:

  See, before, p. 339.

Footnote 19:

  John Montagu, fourth Earl of Sandwich (1729–1792).

Footnote 20:

  Solander, who was afterwards to be so intimately connected with the
  Banksian Collections, had been for some years in this country when he
  was selected by Banks to be one of his companions in the voyage of
  _The Endeavour_. He was born in Sweden, in the year 1736. He came to
  England in July, 1760. He succeeded Dr. Maty, as Under-Librarian of
  the British Museum, in 1773, when Maty was made Principal-Librarian.
  At that date he had already served the Trustees for many years as one
  of their Assistant-Librarians.

Footnote 21:

  See Book I, c. 6.

Footnote 22:

  Bishop Horsley certainly forgot the ever-memorable words which he had
  so often read—Matt. v, 44—when he, a prelate, signed himself
  ‘Misogallus.’

Footnote 23:

  Morton died at eighty-three; Planta, at eighty-four; Ellis, at
  ninety-two. Morton, as we have seen, was known to Sir Hans Sloane.
  Sloane was already a noted man in the days of Charles the Second; and
  he also lived to be ninety-two. The joint lives of Sloane, Morton, and
  Ellis extended over nearly two hundred and ten years.

Footnote 24:

  I do not make this statement without ample warrant. When preparing,
  under Lord Romilly’s direction, my humble contribution of the lost
  _Liber de Hyda_ to the series of _Chronicles and Memorials_, I had
  competent occasion to test the _Monasticon_ of 1813–1824, and found it
  to teem with errors and oversights in that part of it which I had then
  to do with. I had had other occasions to study it somewhat closely
  twenty years before, and with like result. At the interval of twenty
  years, one could hardly stumble twice upon exceptionally ill-edited
  portions of such a book. For the new ‘Dugdale,’ thus truthfully
  characterised, subscribers paid a hundred and thirty pounds for small
  paper, two hundred and sixty pounds for large paper, copies; and the
  number of subscribers was considerable. So much for the ‘We must
  retrench’ of the publishers.

Footnote 25:

  After stating that Mr. Ellis had made needless proclamation at Paris
  of the object of his journey, Sir Harris Nicolas proceeds thus:—‘Not
  contented with this injudicious and useless development of the objects
  in view, the learned gentleman himself pompously announced wherever he
  went that he was the “Chief Librarian of the British Museum,” sent
  specially to treat for these manuscripts, thus making a public affair
  of what should have been kept private. The effect of this folly may
  easily be imagined. Long before the “Chief Librarian” reached Pomard,
  the French newspapers expressed their indignation that historical
  muniments should be sold to the British Government, inferring that
  England must be anxious to possess the records in question, when the
  purchase of them was made an official business.

  ‘The effect of all this parade upon the owner of the manuscripts was a
  natural one; he fancied he had erred in his estimate of their value,
  and that, as they seemed to be objects of national importance to
  another Government, he resolved to make that Government pay at a much
  higher rate, for what they manifested such extraordinary anxiety to
  obtain, than a private individual. On the “Chief Librarian’s” arrival
  at Pomard, he discovered that the Baron could speak little English;
  and the Baron, as he has since asserted, discovered that the “Chief
  Librarian” could speak less French; hence it was with great difficulty
  that the latter could understand that the Baron had become so
  enlightened about his treasures as to expect, not merely double the
  price he originally asked for them, but as our Government had
  interfered on the subject, he wished it to advance one step further,
  by inducing his Most Christian Majesty to raise his Barony into a
  Comté. Such terms were out of the question; and after spending two or
  three hours only in examining the Collection, but which required at
  least as many weeks, the “Chief Librarian” returned to England _re
  infecta_, and made his report to the Trustees, who refused to purchase
  the Collection, but offered to buy a few documents, which the owner,
  of course, declined. Thus, highly valuable documents are lost to the
  Museum and to the country, in consequence, solely and entirely, of the
  absurd measures adopted for their acquisition.’—NICOLAS, _Observations
  on the State of Historical Literature in England_, pp. 78–80. My long
  and observant acquaintance with Sir H. Nicolas justifies me in adding
  to this extract—in which there are such obvious exaggerations of
  statement—that I am convinced he was writing from insufficient and
  inaccurate information. He was incapable of wilful misstatement.

Footnote 26:

  I was myself present at an interview (in Lambeth), when the most
  urgent influence was used with Mr. Hawes to induce him to attack Mr.
  Panizzi’s original appointment as an ‘Assistant-Librarian’; and I
  heard him express a strong approval of it, on the ground of the
  obvious qualifications and abilities of the individual officer—though
  himself sharing the opinion that in such appointments Englishmen
  should have the preference.

Footnote 27:

  It was in the old rooms in the Court-yard of Montagu House that
  Charles Lamb enjoyed the last, I think, of his ‘dinings-out.’ A few
  days after his final visit (November, 1834) the hand of Death was
  already upon him. Cary, before writing the well-known epitaph, wrote
  some other graceful and touching lines on his old friend. They were
  occasioned by finding, in a volume lent to Lamb by Cary, Lamb’s
  bookmark, against a page which told of the death of Sydney. They begin
  thus:—

                ‘So should it be, my gentle friend,
                 Thy leaf last closed at Sydney’s end;
                 Thou too, like Sydney, wouldst have given
                 The water, thirsting, and near Heaven.’

Footnote 28:

  It is necessary that I should state, with precision, the sources of
  the information conveyed in the text. I rely, chiefly, on three
  several sources, one of which is publicly accessible. My main
  knowledge of the matter rests (first) upon the _Minutes of Evidence_
  taken by Lord Ellesmere’s Commission of 1848–1850; (secondly) upon
  conversations with the late Mr. Edward Hawkins, held in July and
  August, 1837, not long after the appearance of Mr. Cary’s letter in
  _The Times_; (thirdly) upon a conversation, on the same subject, with
  which I was honoured by Sir Henry Ellis in 1839.

Footnote 29:

  I believe that his earliest contribution consisted of some articles
  entitled ‘Notes of a Reader,’ published in 1830, in a periodical (long
  since defunct) called _The Spirit of Literature_. These were written
  and printed long before Mr. Watts became a correspondent of the
  _Mechanics’ Magazine_, as mentioned in the text.

Footnote 30:

  In _Minutes of Evidence_ (page 596) printed erroneously
  ‘_reasonable_.’ To the brief extract, for which alone I can here
  afford space, were appended, in the original Report, many pertinent
  amplifications and illustrations. Some of these are given in the
  _Minutes of Evidence_ above referred to.

Footnote 31:

  The ‘successor’ referred to is Mr. Winter Jones, then Keeper of
  Printed Books, now Principal-Librarian of the British Museum.

Footnote 32:

  Birch, _Ancient Pottery_, vol. i, pp. 209, 210.

Footnote 33:

  If the question of mere hints and analogies in construction were to be
  followed out to its issues, the result, I feel assured, would in no
  degree tend to strengthen the contention of Mr. Hosking’s pamphlet.
  Something like a first germ of the mere ground-plan of the new
  Reading-Room may, perhaps, be found in M. Benjamin Delessert’s _Projet
  d’une Bibliothèque circulaire_, printed, at Paris, as far back as the
  year 1835, when the question of reconstructing the then ‘Royal,’ now
  ‘Imperial Library,’ was under discussion in the French Chambers. ‘I
  propose,’ says Delessert, ‘to place the officers and the readers in
  the centre of a vast rotunda, whence branch off eight principal
  galleries, the walls of which form diverging radii ... and _have
  book-cases on both sides_,’ &c. His plan may be thus shown, in small.
  The differences, it will be seen, between this sketch and Mr.
  Panizzi’s sketch of 1854, are greater than are the resemblances.

[Illustration]

Footnote 34:

  Namely, two millions five hundred and twenty-seven thousand two
  hundred and sixteen visits, which _included_ seventy-eight thousand
  two hundred and eleven visits to the Reading-Room for study.

Footnote 35:

  In—unless a memory more than thirty years old deceive me—that noble
  masterpiece of English prose, the ‘_Citation of Shakespeare for
  Deer-stealing_’ (1835).

Footnote 36:

  The Oriental Translation Fund.

Footnote 37:

  Comp. ‘Asshur builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and
  _Calah_.’—_Gen._ x, 11. Mr. Layard quotes this passage, in _Nineveh
  and its Remains_ (vol. i, p. 4, edit. 1849), and seems to identify
  ‘Kalah Sherghat’ as retaining its ancient name.

Footnote 38:

  Nor was there any petty or unworthy jealousy in the distinguished
  French explorer. ‘During the entire period of his excavations,’ writes
  Mr. Layard, ‘M. Botta regularly sent me, not only his [own]
  descriptions, but copies of the inscriptions, without exacting any
  promise as to the use I might make of them. That there are few who
  would have acted thus liberally, those who have been engaged in a
  search after Antiquities in the East will not be inclined to
  deny.’—_Nineveh and its Remains_, vol. i, p. 14.

Footnote 39:

  It is a slight blemish in Mr. Layard’s otherwise admirable books that
  they are loose in the handling of dates. It is sometimes necessary to
  turn over hundreds of pages in order to be sure of the year in which a
  particular excavation was made, or in which an interesting incident
  occurred. Sometimes, again, there is an actual conflict of dates, _e.
  g._ _Discoveries in the Ruins_, &c. (1853), p. 3, ‘After my departure
  from Mósul in 1847,’ and again, p. 66, ‘On my return to Europe in
  1847;’ but at p. 162, we read: ‘Having been carefully covered up with
  earth, previous to my departure in 1848, they [the lions] had been
  preserved,’ &c. I mention this simply because it is possible that
  error may thus, once or twice, have crept into the marginal dates
  given above, though pains has been taken about these.

Footnote 40:

  The Berodach-Baladan of 2 Kings, xx, 12, who ‘sent letters and a
  present unto Hezekiah, when he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick.’

Footnote 41:

  And in which not a few readers will be sure to feel all the more
  interest, because of its sacred associations, when they call to mind
  those first-century travels of certain famous travellers who, ‘after
  they had passed throughout Pisidia, came to Pamphylia, and ... when
  they had gone through Phrygia, ... and were come to Mysia, assayed to
  go into Bythinia, but the Spirit suffered them not;’—having work for
  them to do in another quarter.

Footnote 42:

  I shall not, I trust, be suspected of a want of gratitude for the
  eminent and most praiseworthy efforts of Mr. Davis—one of the many
  Americans who have returned, with liberal profuseness, the reciprocal
  obligations which _all_ Americans owe to Britain (for their ancestry,
  and also for the noble interchange of benefits between parent and
  offspring, prior to 1776; if for nought else), if I venture to remark
  that the above-written passage in the text has been inserted somewhat
  hesitatingly, as far as it concerns the _date_ of the Carthaginian
  explorations. No index; no summary; no marginal dates; conflicting and
  obscure dates, when any dates appear anywhere; no introduction, which
  introduces anything; scarcely any divarication of personal knowledge
  and experiences, from borrowed knowledge and experiences; such are
  some of the difficulties which await the student of _Carthage and her
  Remains_. Yet the book is full of deep interest; its author is, none
  the less, a benefactor to Britain, and to the world.

Footnote 43:

  These were given to the Museum by Lord Russell, as Secretary of State
  for Foreign Affairs. Lord Russell was one of the earliest of the
  Foreign Secretaries who began a new epoch, in this department of
  public duty, by setting new official precedents of regard and
  forethought for the augmentation of the national collections.

Footnote 44:

  Meaning Lord Shelburne. See, heretofore, pp. 431–433.

Footnote 45:

  ‘_A Handy-Book of the British Museum, for Every-day Readers._’ 1870
  (Cassell and Co.).

Footnote 46:

  See the notice, hereafter, of the Christy Museum.

Footnote 47:

  This, I think, has been clearly shown by the correspondence laid
  before Parliament. The reader is referred to the papers of the session
  of 1867, entitled _Correspondence as to the Woodhouse Collection of
  Antiquities_, printed by order of Lord Derby, as Foreign Secretary.

Footnote 48:

  In the accompanying Plan (of the Parliamentary Report, 1860),
  pilasters of unnecessary size have been inadvertently introduced into
  this gallery, reducing both the extent of the wall-cases, and the
  breadth of the gangway, in a manner never intended.

Footnote 49:

  Printed by oversight ‘general’ in the _Minutes of Evidence_.

Footnote 50:

  Printed ‘object’ in _Minutes of Evidence_, as above.

Footnote 51:

  It is to this Report of 1862 that the accompanying lithographic
  fac-similes of the original illustrative plans belong. Two of them
  show the then existing arrangements of the principal floors; the other
  two show the then proposed alterations and re-arrangements.

Footnote 52:

  Parliamentary Return, No. 456, of the Session 1858.

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




                          TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES


 1. The Table of Contents is in Part I.
 2. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in
      spelling.
 3. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
 4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.