CONSORT AND CUPOLA: PRINCE ALBERT, PANIZZI AND THE READING ROOM OF THE

C. J. WRIGHT

ON 25 October 1997 the round Reading Room of the British Museum closed its doors to readers for the last time. One hundred and forty years after it was opened Antonio Panizzi's most visible achievement ceased to serve the function for which it was erected, as the chief means of public access to the national collection of printed books. There can be, therefore, no more suitable moment to reflect on how and why this remarkable room came to be built and what this tells us in passing about both Panizzi and his contemporaries. Among these contemporaries not the least prominent was the Prince Consort and Panizzi, who, whatever his other faults, never undervalued himself, would surely consider it appropriate that he should be discussed in such exalted company. The domed room was, in fact, the seventh Reading Room to have existed at Bloomsbury and it replaced one that had been specially built only twenty years earlier on another part of the site.^ The relentless growth of the Museum's collections of books, antiquities and natural history specimens in the first half of the nineteenth century was mirrored by the transformation of the building that housed them. Under the guiding hand of the institution's architect Sir , the late seventeenth-century Montagu House, purchased in 1754 to house the year-old Museum, had by the middle of the nineteenth century metamorphosed in irregular stages into the monumental Greek Revival building that stands today. In the process it had enclosed a great central courtyard to which the public had no access and which was effectively unused. It was only natural, therefore, that when in mid century there was the need for yet more room it was on this courtyard that attention focused. Although the Antiquities Department was also hard pressed, the driving force behind the search for extra space was the Department of Printed Books. Under Panizzi (fig. i), who had been Keeper since 1837, this had entered a period of exponential growth. More books were being published throughout the world, and the Museum Library by enforcing copyright deposit and extensive foreign purchases was acquiring as well as aiming to acquire a greater proportion of these. In April 1852 Panizzi produced a rough sketch of a plan for placing in the courtyard a circular reading room surrounded by bookstacks.^ This was translated into a formal 176 Fig. I. Antonio Panizzi; British Library Archives

177 Fig. 2. Brunei's plan for the Great Exhibition building; The Exhibition of 1851^ p. 10: BL, Add. MS. 35255, f 262V proposal by Sydney Smirke who had succeeded as the museum's architect on the retirement of his brother. Sir Robert. It did not excite universal admiration. In the Quarterly Review John Wilson Croker famously said that it 'looks as if a gigantic birdcage were to be let down into the court of the Museum'.^ He proposed instead gaining more space for the institution by glazing over the central court. In one respect the Museum was fortunate. At the head of the Treasury and in control of the purse strings the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a confirmed bookman and polymath, William Ewart Gladstone. What is more Gladstone and Panizzi knew one another for in 1851 the latter had helped the former with his fulmination against the Italian Bourbons, A Letter to the Earl of Aberdeen on the State Prosecutions of the Neapolitan Government.'^ Gladstone does not seem to have entertained any doubt that something needed to be done. Faced with the rival proposals he wrote to Sir William Molesworth at the Office of Works: 'It appears to me that under these circumstances it would be well if you were to appoint a competent person to look into the subject and report which of these plans ought to be undertaken: or suggest some other. The need as respects the Library is represented to be most urgent. '^ The competent person turned out to be Sir , the architect of the Houses of Parliament. To Panizzi's wrath he favoured making more room for the books by moving all the archaeological exhibits into the central court, which was to be glazed over and renamed the 'Hall of Antiquities'.® The Trustees, however, persevered, and in 1854 Smirke prepared a revised scheme. This envisaged a much larger dome for the new reading room. Such a proposal was not entirely without architectural precedent. Brunei had unsuccessfully advocated an even larger dome as the centrepiece for the 1851 Great Exhibition building (fig. 2).^ Smirke's revised scheme was accepted and the first brick was laid in September 1854. Although largely screened from public view by the existing buildings of the Museum, to those in the know it soon became clear that a project of singular interest was under way. The architect himself thought 'The intricate and complex scaffolding, and the works in progress in the quadrangle now present an appearance so picturesque and, I 178 Fig. 3. The Reading Room under construction, circa June 1855: photograph by William Lake Price; British Museum, Central Archives. By kind permission of the British Museum think, so remarkable', that he was anxious that they be captured on photograph (fig. 3).^ At the beginning of June 1855 much of the scaffolding was removed and this gave an opportunity to display the extraordinary new works to distinguished visitors. Amongst those who came to see them were the highest in the land. Whenever he wanted anything done Panizzi never had any hesitation about going to the top. Before Queen Victoria's accession he had even toyed with the possibility that he might become the young Princess's Italian tutor.^ Of the court itself he harboured suspicions, the Italian nationahst fearing that the Queen and Prince Albert (fig. 4) were pro-Austrian.^*^ However, it could not be denied that the Prince was a keen amateur architect, who tried his hand at both Osborne and Balmoral, as well as a passionate proponent of public works of all kinds. In 1841 he had been appointed to the Fine Arts Commission overseeing the rebuilding of Parliament but his enthusiasm found its most 179 Fig. 4. Prince Albert; BL, Add. MS. 71934, f 8v influential expression in his chairing the Royal Commission which organized the Great Exhibition of 1851. On 12 June 1855 he came to inspect the new works at the Museum.^^ Perhaps taking advantage of this, on 18 June Sir Henry Ellis, the Principal Librarian, sent the Queen the photographs that had been taken of the new building under construction.^^ On the 23rd the Queen herself came with the Prince. They were received in the front hall by Sir Henry Ellis, Sir , the Keeper of Manuscripts, and Colonel, afterwards Sir Henry, Rawlinson, the famous Assyriologist. Rawlinson had just returned from a Museum-sponsored expedition to Mesopotamia and had created a stir on the 15th with a talk at the Royal Institution, attended by Prince Albert, on his researches in Babylonia.^^ The chief object of the visit was for him to show the Royal party some of the objects he had brought back, which the Queen was gratified to discover corroborated the accounts in Scripture. However, the Museum authorities were not going to allow her to leave without seeing the construction work. Madden, whose loathing of Panizzi means that he was a far from impartial observer, described the way the Keeper of Printed Books was soon monopohzing the royal couple: 'with his usual license "as a foreigner", [he] rudely shouldered every body out of place... To see this vulgar fellow walk & talk by the Queen's side, one could suppose him to be, at least, a near relation of the royal family, yet Prince Albert seemed to listen to his loud ungentlemanly speeches with interest, and shook hands with him, as if he were a friend! Alas! for a poor modest Englishman, who knows his place and keeps it!'^* Madden was left talking to the lady-in-waiting. The Queen's entry in her Journal would have confirmed his worst fears. He escaped mention. Instead she recorded, 'We walked

180 Fig. 5. Lord Lansdowne; BL, Add. MS. 72844, f 37V through the reading rooms, looked at drawings, & finally through the new building. Sir H. Ellis & Mr. Panizzi, a very amusing Italian Librarian met us there'.^^ That the Prince had been impressed by his first visit is evident from a letter (see figs. 6, 7) he had written from Buckingham Palace on 16 June to Lord Lansdowne: I went to see the new buildings at the British Museum the other day & admired very much the large construction in the inner quadrangle, there is only one anacronism [sic] which struck me so forcibly, that I think it my duty to mention it to you, as you may possibly yet get it remedied. I mean the windows, which are of a kind of Venetian Gothic whilest [sic] the whole Building is of the severest classical style! They should evidently be square & plain. They are now projected thus [sketch] & ought to be so [sketch] like throughout the building. As no more than the wooden frame of some have been put up, I trust it will not be impossible to have them changed, for it would be a great pity in a Museum^ which is to teach the History of the Arts & particularly of that of the Ancients, to teach false grammar I - In the inside of the Dome also I hear that the ribbs [sic] of the roof are to be shown, dissecting the Cupola thus [sketch]. I don't know of any good example for this & it would seem that generally the \grand/ effect of a Cupola has been produced by hiding the construction of the roof & making it stand out as a whole. Moreover if it was to be ornamented, as clearly it should, (by painting for instance) the subdivision in so many pannels [sic] would have an awkward appearance. You will forgive my plaguing you with this criticism, but as an old colleague at the Fine Arts Commission & one who takes a deep interest in the success of the great works undertaken in the Queen's reign, I felt morally compelled to address you on the subject.^^

Though the contents of this letter doubtless accurately conveyed the Prince's opinion, it is worth remarking that these sentiments would not have been unfamiliar to the Museum 181 /^. 6. Prince Albert to Lord Lansdowne, i6 June 1855, discussing the Reading Room windows; BL, Bowood Papers, Lans(3)/46

Trustees. The fact of the matter is that Panizzi had been engaged in guerilla warfare with Sydney Smirke on just these points. For once, Panizzi, who was used to getting his own way, looked as if he might be defeated. He had addressed the Trustees on 9 June 1855 and they had been unmoved. On the nth, the day before the Prince's first visit, Panizzi wrote to one of them, W. R. Hamilton, to argue his views again. 'What will the effect be,' he asked, 'after having passed through the magnificent entrance of the Museum, to enter a room lighted ... by arched windows ... so much at variance with everything else in the whole Museum?'^' As to the Cupola, he strongly objected to displaying the ribs which supported it, not least because it would render it impossible to ornament it.^^ It seems that when the Prince visited the Museum Panizzi had taken advantage of the opportunity to urge his views. At the very least, it is a case of great minds thinking alike. In approaching Lansdowne^^ (see fig. 5) the Prince, even if urged by the librarian, showed a shrewd grasp of the levers of power. Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, the 3rd Marquess, had first held high office as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Whig Ministry

182 . 7. Prince Albert to Lord Lansdowne, 16 June 1855, discussing the dome of the Reading Room; BL, Bowood Papers, Lans(3)/46

of 1806. The Queen had turned to him before all others on the resignation of Lord John Russell in 1852 and of Lord Aberdeen in February of this very year. He was presently in Palmerston's Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio, as he had been in Aberdeen's before it. He was also a force in the Museum. This was governed by its Trustees. Of these there were four categories: Official Trustees, who sat by virtue of their public office, the three Principal being the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons; Family Trustees, who represented families which had contributed major collections to the Museum; Elected Trustees, who were co- opted, which Lansdowne had been on i March 1827; and finally one representative of the Sovereign. This position had been vacant since the death of the Duke of Cambridge in 1850. In many ways this would have been an ideal role for Prince Albert and it seems surprising he never filled it. Although there were General Meetings of the Trustees, real power rested with a Standing Committee. Lansdowne, like Lord Aberdeen, was elected to this on I June 1850 and, also like Aberdeen, was elected a week later, on the 8th, to 183 the Sub-Committee on Buildings. Thus, at a vital period when the plans for the new Reading Room were being presented to government in the years 1852-4, two members of the Museum's Building Sub-Committee were the Prime Minister and a leading member of his Cabinet.'^^ On the 23 June a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Trustees at which Lansdowne was present referred 'consideration of the form of the Windows, and the interior surface of the Roof of the New Domed Room', which just happened to be the two issues the Prince and Panizzi had raised, to the Sub-Committee on Buildings.^^ Although it was their style which was proving contentious, the practical importance of the windows can scarcely be exaggerated. Until the first introduction of electric light in 1879^"^ the Reading Room was totally dependent on natural light from its twenty windows and the central lantern. The Buildings Sub-Committee met a week later on 30 June. Lord Seymour was in the chair and the other members present were Lansdowne, Lord Cawdor, Henry Hallam the historian, and W. R. Hamilton. They looked at the model of the Reading Room which Smirke had had made and then with him inspected the building works. As both the Prince's letter and Price's photograph (see fig. 3) reveal, the wooden frames of at least some of these were already in place. The model clearly shows they were intended to be rounded arches in the exterior brickwork (fig. 8). What the Committee now decided can be seen as a compromise. They asked Smirke to draw up a plan for a window which on the outside would be square but which inside presented the aspect of an arch divided into two subordinate arches. ^^ The next Standing Committee approved this, subject only to an estimate of the expense.^^ This estimate for the alterations that would be required, ^(^ 1,265, ^^s presented at the Standing Committee of 14 July.^^ In fact, what appeared a major change to the exterior of each window was far less dramatic than the alteration to the design of the internal frames, which the squaring of the exterior arch necessitated. While the Prince would have approved the former, the latter would have been less to his taste. Panizzi, also, was doubtless disgusted. The internal design - what Mordaunt Crook calls 'the Lombardic fenestration'^^ - was more Gothic, not less so. The light tracery of two arches with a circle above them was replaced with two arches divided by a much bolder central pillar with a moulded capital (fig. 9). Smirke noted, 'The present frames are almost wholly inapplicable, and the Columns, pilasters. Capitals, Arched heads, plinths &c are entirely new work.' As a result the changes to the internal windows were far more expensive than those to the exterior. 07 The Prince's comment on the decoration of the dome also echoed Panizzi's strongly held views. He had long been arguing vigorously for just such a scheme. On 12 August 1854 a report from him was read urging the Trustees to approve 'of the interior part of the Cupola over the new reading room being painted in a high art style suited to such a place ... This is a rare or rather unique opportunity which ought to be eagerly seized for encouraging that taste for the arts which is now so popular'.^^ The Trustees declined.^^ However, the drawing up of the agreement between the building contractors and the Board of Works occasioned a delay. This gave Panizzi an opportunity to try 184 Fig. 8. Model of the Reading Room, showing the windows as originally designed; British Library Archives again. On 14 October the Trustees considered another report from him not only suggesting that the interior of the cupola be painted by eminent artists but that 'preparations should be made by the Architect whilst the Building is being erected for the purpose of placing marble Statues between the windows of the Cupola'.^** It would make the new reading room, he assured the Trustees, 'a monument second to none in Europe for magnificence and splendour'.^^ Though the Trustees refused to proceed with such a scheme, Panizzi did not entirely give up hope and the appearance it might have presented can be judged from a possible treatment commissioned in 1858 from Alfred Stevens.^^ The artist is best remembered today for a previous commission for the Museum, the Stevens Lion. Now engraved on the glass entrance doors of the Museum, it had originally served to ornament the low railings that prevented the hoi polloi from relieving themselves against the piers of the Museum's main gates. Stevens had spent the years 1833 to 1842 in Italy steeping himself in the work of the great masters of the Renaissance and a commission for the Museum dome clearly appealed to him. He later produced a scheme, also unexecuted, for 185 Fig. g. Sydney Smirke's plans for the compartments of the dome, showing (left) the original design for the windows and (right) the revised design and the proposed gilding; British Museum, Central Archives. By kind permission of the British Museum

i86 Fig. 10. Stevens's scheme for the interior of the dome; Hugh Stannus, Alfred Stevens and his work (, 1891), pi. xl. BL, 1759.b.20 repainting the interior of the dome of St Paul's.^^ At the British Museum Stevens intended to devote each bay of the dome to different branches of man's achievments. The ovals, which are eleven feet high by seven feet six inches wide, would have displayed symbolic figures. In the illustration (fig. 10; see also fig. 8) can be seen Painting, with to the right Poetry, Chemistry, and Physics, and to the left Jurisprudence, Theology, and Mathematics. Below each ellipse was a canopy supported by putti, probably based on those on each side of the prophets in the Sistine Chapel. These canopies framed suitable representatives of each discipline. Those under the figure of Painting were Titian, Michaelangelo, and Raphael.^^ The decision of the Trustees not to pursue such a scheme in itself posed a problem. If the dome was not to have figurative painting, how was it to be decorated ? Smirke was concerned that 'the expanse of plain surface presented by this hemisphere is so vast that, without considerable care the effect may be oppressive and heavy. '^^ He proposed to counter this by using very light tints - chiefly a pale blue^^ - and by breaking the surface 187 with many panels and mouldings. He showed Hamilton his plans to interrupt the great triangles between the ribs with ovals and the slightly nervous trustee, who approved this idea, wrote apologetically to Panizzi to explain that 'I have ventured upon an Opinion, different from yours in reference to a creation of your genius. '^' Even Smirke himself, however, was not wholly satisfied. 'Still the effect will be faint and perhaps feeble... I [have] found it absolutely impossible to give pictorial effect to so large an expanse of plain tint.' As a result he had come to the conclusion that the only way to compensate for the absence of richly coloured decorations was to gild the mouldings inside the dome, especially the ribs which Prince Albert and Panizzi found so objectionable. This would have a number of advantages. The richness of the gilding would unify the space, diminishing the contrast between the light colour of the dome and the much darker hues of the booklined walls that supported it. It was also the colour best designed to stand up to the London climate. A coating of grime might diminish its brightness but would only add to the richness of its aspect. He estimated that the cost of such gilding would not exceed ^£5,000.^^ It might be thought that this was a truly enormous sum to expend on such decoration. The total cost of the whole project was only £120,000, and the sum provided in the estimates for something as vital as the innovatory heating and ventilation systems had only been ;(^4,ooo. Indeed, the successful tender for these, that of G. & G. Haden of Trowbridge, had only come to ^(^2,600 ios.^^ However, this would be to underestimate the Victorian flair for public relations.'*'^ Though the details remain obscure, it is obvious Smirke had powerful allies. These included Sir Charles Eastlake, Director of the National Gallery and, as President of the Royal Academy, an Official Trustee from 1850 to 1865. Far more significant, though, was The Times^ which weighed in with a dramatic leader:

London is a colourless metropolis. It is like a landscape in sepia... Everything matches; the houses are black, or whity-brown; the streets dirty, the sky semi-opaque, and the clothing of the passengers dark and dusky. The very women contribute little relief to the eye ... the general hue of things in this metropolis is that which the ancient poets assigned to Hades, and which produced so dreary an impression on its occupants.

Never before can such hyperbole have been expended on the interior decoration of a public building even if it were, as The Times put it, 'one of the finest rooms and unquestionably the very best dome in the world'. However, as the leader claimed, it was true that in classical or mediaeval times, the room would have been richly decorated, as also it would have been if erected in any European capital other than London: 'there would not be a square inch left without gold or colour.' As an example of the cheerless emptiness that would otherwise result it cited Sir John Soane's rotunda at the Bank of England. The five thousand pounds that gilding would cost it called a 'paltry' sum, little more than 4% of the total expenditure. In short, it would be nothing less than a national disgrace were the interior of the dome not to be gilded. The fact that this piece appeared on 7 May 1856, the day before Smirke formally recommended gilding to the Trustees, and that it used very similar arguments - as Smirke was to do, it stressed that the use of gold was, in fact, economical given the pollution in the London atmosphere - strongly suggests that a campaign was being mounted by the great and the good in favour of the proposal. On Saturday io May 1856 the Standing Committee to which the Sub- Committee's choice of pale blue as the principal colour for the dome had been reported was followed on by a General Meeting of the Trustees with Lord Aberdeen in the chair. This formally accepted Smirke's proposal for gilding the dome and instructed the Principal Librarian to approach the Treasury. On 31 May, James Wilson, the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, apprised the Trustees tbat their request to expend a sum not exceeding ^£5,000 on gilding the mouldings had been approved.*^ Certainly, there is evidence of royal interest for on 6 June Sir George Cornewall Lewis, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote to Col. Charles Phipps, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, asking him to tell Prince Albert that the Treasury had agreed to fund the Trustees' request for gilding.*^ The next day the Standing Committee of Trustees asked Smirke to draw up plans for the gilding^^ and three weeks later Smirke presented his drawings and the Trustees and he went to the Reading Room to consider his scheme. They instructed him, before he proceeded any further, to approach Michael Faraday 'for his advice upon the nature of the substratum and the best mode of securing gold of proper thickness and quality'.'*^ Faraday, Director of the Royal Institution and the leading expert on electro-magnetism, was the Museum's constant recourse in all questions of a scientific nature. The year before he had been consulted over the snow ledge Smirke was constructing round the outside of the dome to prevent winter avalanches plummeting through the glass roofs of the surrounding bookstacks. The architect had become concerned that in the event of a sudden thaw some of the large body of water that might accumulate would seep down from the ledge into the bookstacks and proposed to use asphalt to provide a watertight seal.^^ Some, doubtless well-intentioned, commentators at once claimed that the asphalt might catch light and spread the fire to other parts of the building. Faraday was able to reassure the Trustees that there was absolutely no danger of this.*^ He was also consulted over lightning conductors for the dome.*' On the question of gilding, however, he was unable to help. Returning the samples of gold leaf Smirke had sent him, he said his knowledge was too theoretical to judge of its merits and advised the architect to consult the jury which had awarded the prize for gold-beating at the Great Exhibition of 1851. Smirke accordingly wrote to H. T. Hope, the Deputy-Chairman of that jury, to ask who might assist.*^ Having taken advice, the Trustees decided that much of the work should be undertaken 'not with gold leaf containing the usual alloy of copper but with leaf beaten out of pure gold', although the inferior sort could be employed on less visible surfaces. The gilding itself should be carried out by Baker & Co., the contractors for the building since their scaffolding was already in place and ready for the painting of the dome. Smirke applied to five London goldbeaters for their prices. The lowest tender was received from Edmund Smith Marshall of 31, John Street, Fitzroy Square.^^ On 27 September the Board of Works authorized acceptance of the tender.^" 189 While the Reading Room rose in the world, so did its creator. By early 1856 Sir Henry Ellis, the Museum's Principal Librarian, what today would be called the Director, was preparing to retire. In March 1856, after vigorous lobbying,^^ Panizzi was appointed to succeed him. It was, therefore, as head of the whole institution that Panizzi had the satisfaction of supervising the final stages of the great work. By the end of Spring 1857 these were nearing completion and Prince Albert agreed to be the Guest of Honour at the official opening on Saturday 2 May.^^ Sadly it was not to be. On 30 April the death occurred of the Queen's aunt, the Duchess of Gloucester, the last surviving child of George III. As a consequence the Court went into mourning and the Prince was debarred from attending.^^ The Reception at 2 p.m. on the 2nd had to go ahead without him. Sir Frederic Madden, the Keeper of Manuscripts, could not bring himself to attend but heard via a Trustee that there were about thirty carriage loads of guests, that ices were served and all the visitors had left by half past three.^* Panizzi had spared no effort to please his guests, the ladies amongst whom were presented with bouquets. The new room opened to readers on 18 May. The Trustees, who had had a penny guide to the Reading Room printed,^^ decided that the general public should be admitted to see it from the 8th to the iGth"^^ but Prince Albert asked that the public's admission be deferred until Saturday the 9th, since the 8th was the day of the Duchess's funeral.^' In fact, the Trustees instructed that the whole Museum be closed that day as a mark of respect. Such was public interest in the marvellous new room that, though 62,000 visited in the week before it opened to readers, the public had to be admitted each day after it closed to readers until 15 August.^^ Of course, not everyone was impressed. The notoriously jaundiced Madden indignantly refused to sing Panizzi's praises 'on account of this gilded Dome, which has cost £150,000, and which I maintain, is utterly unfitted for the real purpose of study. It is a monstrous example of the abuse of influence to expend such a sum, when a sixth part would have provided rooms much more suitable for Readers. '^^ The public mood was, however, much better caught by The Times, when it declared of the national library: 'now in sumptuous accommodation for readers we surpass every similar institution in the world. The completion of the new reading-room is an era in the reign of Victoria.'^^ That, indeed, has been the verdict of history, for the new room, which Panizzi projected, Smirke perfected and Victorian technology erected, was soon to become the most famous Reading Room in the world.

A version of this paper was delivered at the Museum secretariat; to John Hopson, the British Commemoration of the bicentenary of Panizzi's Library Archivist, and to P. R. Harris, the doyen of birth held by the Friends of the British Library at all historians of the British Museum Library. Much the British Museum and British Library, 16 Sept. ofthe material I quote they first drew to my attention 1997. I would like to express my gratitude to all and I have relied heavily on their expertise, those who have so generously assisted with its i See P. R. Harris, The Reading Room (London, preparation; to Lady de Bellaigue, Registrar of the 1979)- For Sir Robert Smirke's proposal for the Royal Archives at Windsor; to Janet Wallace, the north wing ofthe Museum, including the sixth British Museum Archivist, Christopher Date, the Reading Room, see his report to the Trustees, 18 Deputy Archivist, and Stephen Corri, ofthe British Mar. 1833; British Museum, Central Archives 190 [hereafter BM, CA:], CE4/10 [Original Papers], Exhibition of 1851. The Palace of Industry: A no. 10. Extracts from the Museum archives are Brief History of its origin and progress... printed by kind permission ofthe Trustees ofthe (London, 1851): BL, Add. MS. 35255* British Museum. For a definitive account ofthe ff. 257-280. For the history of such structures, Museum's Library Departments, see P. R. see Crook, The British Museum, pp. 163-77. Harris, The History of the British Museum 8 Letter of 22 Mar. 1855 to Sir Henry Ellis: BM, Library (London, forthcoming [1998]). The best CA: CE4/52 [Original Papers], no. 168. Both general architectural history of the institution is Smirke and Panizzi wanted photographs taken at J. Mordaunt Crook, The British Museum intervals of the progress of the work but the (London, 1972). A detailed account of the Trustees did not accede to this request: Standing construction of various parts of the Museum Committee Minutes, 23 June 1855; CE3/26 from 1815, when it first came under the Office of 8853; see also the formal notification of this by Works, until the middle of the century is Ellis to Panizzi: BL, Archives, DH/1/15, provided by Mordaunt Crook in the section on unfoliated (23 June 1855). The photographs 'The British Museum', in H. Colvin (General which were taken were the work of William Lake Ed.), The History ofthe King's Works, Vol. VI, Price, as Roger Fenton, the Museum's usual 1782-1851, ed. by J. Mordaunt Crook and M. photographer, was in the Crimea. For this and H. Port (London, 1973). For brief references to the early history of photography at the Museum, the Museum after this date, see M. H. Port, see Christopher Date, 'Photographer on the Imperial London. Civil Government Building in roof, British Museum Magazine, no. Ixi (Sum- London i8so-igi5 (New Haven and London, mer 1989), pp. ia-i2. 1995). The development of the institution is 9 Miller, Prince of Librarians, pp. 91-2 and p. 96 described in Edward Miller, That Noble Cabinet: A History ofthe British Museum (London, 1973). n. 45- For an account of Panizzi's personal and public 10 Ibid., p. 262. life, see Louis Fagan, The Life of Sir Anthony 11 He had first visited the Egyptian Gallery, Panizzi, K.C.B. (London, 1880) and Edward Piccadilly, to see the painting of 'The Battle of Miller, Prince of Librarians. The Life and Times the Alma' by Coomans: The Times, 13 June of Antonio Panizzi of the British Museum 1855, p. 8. (London, 1967). 12 Letter of acknowledgement from C. B. Phipps, 21 June 1855; BM,CA: CE4/52 [Original 2 This is reproduced in A List of the Books of Papers], no. 295 (b). Reference in the Reading Room, with an in- 13 Queen Victoria's Journal (see n. 15 below), 15 troduction by (London, 1859) June 1855, and The Times, 16 June 1855, and again by Harris, The Reading Room, p. 12. p. 9. 3 Quarterly Review, xcii (Dec. 1852), pp. 157-82. 14 See Sir Frederic Madden's Journal, 23 June 4 Miller, Prince of Librarians, p. 243. 1855 (BL, MS. Facs. *ioi2/3o). The original is 5 Letter, 17 May 1853; Pubhc Record Office Oxford, , MS. Eng. hist. c. [hereafter P.R.O.], WORK 17/3/1, f. 7; a 140-182. Extracts are printed by kind permission formal request to the same effect was made by ofthe Bodleian Library. This neglect must have the Treasury on 28 May 1853. been especially distressing to Madden as he and 6 See his printed report of 7 July 1853 in P.R.O., his wife had been guests at a State Ball at WORK 17/3/1. For Panizzi's response and Buckingham Palace a few weeks earlier and related material, see BM, CA: 'Miscellaneous 'received very gracious bows from the Queen & Papers', Box G. The cross-sections of the two Prince, on passing before them'; Journal, i June rival structures, Panizzi's and Barry's, are shown 1855- in fig. 2 of Denis V. Reidy, 'Some hitherto 15 Royal Archives, Queen Victoria's Journal, 23 June unpublished Panizziana from Italy', British 1855. The Journal now exists only in the form of Library Journal, v (1979), p. 40. The extremely a transcript made by Princess Beatrice. I am complicated roofline of Panizzi's proposed struc- indebted for this reference to Lady de Bellaigue, ture is dwarfed by the great glass conservatory the Registrar ofthe Royal Archives. All material roof envisaged by Barry. from the Royal Archives is printed by gracious 7 This was to have had a diameter of 200 feet: The permission of Her Majesty The Queen. 191 16 BL, Bowood Papers, Lans(3)/46. Some punctu- Standing Committee Minutes, 14 July 1855: ation has been supplied. Papers of the ist, CE3/27 8869. 3rd and 5th Marquesses of Lansdowne were 28 Panizzi's draft is dated 10 Aug. 1854. BL, acquired by the British Library from the family Archives, DH/1/14 (Panizzi Papers), f 347. archive at Bowood House in 1996 with the 29 Their decision was conveyed formally by Ellis. generous assistance of the National Heritage Ibid., f. 357; see also Standing Committee Memorial Fund. They have not yet been minutes: BM,CA: CE3/26 8731. allocated Additional Manuscript numbers. 30 Ellis's formal communication of the Trustees' 17 Fagan, op. cit., vol. i, p. 364. decision to Panizzi, 14 Oct. 1854: BL, Archives, 18 Ibid., vol. i, p. 363. DH/1/14, f. 425. About the painting they made 19 On Lansdowne's private as opposed to public no comment but asked for Smirke's opinion life, see Doreen Slatter, 'The Third Marquess of about the placing of statues. Lansdowne and his Family at Bowood, 31 Panizzi's draft, 12 Oct. 1854: BL, Archives, 1810-40', Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural DH/1/14, f. 4i8v. History Magazine, lxxxv (1992), pp. 130-5. 32 See K. R. Towndrow, Alfred Stevens (London, 20 The full list of the Buildings Sub-Committee at 1939), pp. 146-7. However, this treatment had this period was Lords Lansdowne, Aberdeen, necessarily to incorporate Smirke's mouldings in Seymour and Cawdor, Henry Hallam and W. R. the dome. For the date, see also Hugh Stannus, Hamilton. See British Aluseum. List of the Alfred Stevens and his Work (London, 1891), p. Trustees, of the Standing Committee, and Sub- 22. Committees and of the Establishment of the 33 K. R. Towndrow, op. cit, pp. 184-8 and pi. 35 Museum Generally ...12 May 1855 (London, facing p. 188. 1855). The close links between Trustees and 34 Hugh Stannus, op. cit., p. 22. The offer by a government is shown by Lansdowne's letter to disciple of Stevens, Sigismund Goetze, to Sir Henry Ellis of [1853 ?], ' I am afraid I forgot decorate the Cupola in the early twentieth to mention in my note yesterday even[in]g that century was declined; see Mordaunt Crook, The Mr. Gladstone wished to see Sir C. Barry's British Museum, pp. 189 (illustration), 190. report & estimate & Mr. S. Smirke's estimate. If 35 Letter to A. Panizzi, 8 May 1856; BM,CA: there are not copies, you might I think send him CE4/54 [Original Papers], no. 64. the originals, requesting [him] to return them in 36 The precise colour was laid before a meeting of that case immediately.'; BL, Add. MS. 41312, the Standing Committee, ioMay i856;BM,CA: f- 305- CE3/27, 8988, having, after some discussion at 21 BM,CA: Standing Committee Minutes, CE3/ the Standing Committee, 26 April 1856; 26, 8857. BM,CA: CE3/27, 8986, been approved by the 22 See P. R. Harris, The Reading Room, pp. 23-4, Sub-Committee on Buildings, i May; BM,CA: and A. Prescott, 'The Panizzi touch: Panizzi's CE7/2 928. The specimen is pr^erved as successors as Principal Librarian', British Li- BM,CA: CE4/54 [Original Papers], no. 72. brary Journal, xxiii (1997), p. 208 below. 37 W. R. Hamilton to A. Panizzi, 23 May 1855; 23 BM,CA: Sub-Committee Minutes CE7/2 895. Add. MS. 36717, f. 113. 24 7 July 1855; BM,CA: CE3/26 8859-60. 38 BM,CA: CE4/54 [Original Papers], no. 64. 25 BM,CA: CE3/27 8869. 39 S. Smirke to j. W. Pbilipps, Office of Works, 17 26 The British Museum, p. 187. Mar. 1855; P.R.O., WORKS 17/2/2, f. 6. 27 The estimate per window for making its head 40 For a revealing example of the way Panizzi square was ^£7.18.0 and for the extra glazing himself used the periodical press, see Barbara required £7.8.0; for the alteration ofthe interior McCrimmon, 'Public relations, Panizzi-style', windows the estimate per window was ;^4i.i9.o British Library Journal, xx (1994), pp- 214-21; and for the extra glazing £(i (BM,CA: CE4/53 for Bond and Thompson and the press, see A. [Original Papers], no. 32. A further ;^i48 in toto Prescott, 'The Panizzi touch: Panizzi's suc- was spent on the substitution of ground for cessors as Principal Librarian', p. 209 below. rough plate glass and j(^ioo on designing the new 41 BM,CA: CE4/54 [Original Papers], no. 118; in windows; Smirke's estimate, 8 Dec. 1855): reply to Panizzi's letter of 14 May 1856. Wilson CE4/53 [Origmal Papers], no. 184; see also was Financial Secretary from 5 Jan. 1853 to 2

192 Mar. 1858; see J. C. Sainty, Treasury Officials appointment, he intimated that at the suggestion i66o-i8jo (London, 1972), p. 159. of the three Principal Trustees with reference to 42 Windsor, RA, PP Vic A172. I am indebted to reforms recommended by the 1850 Royal Com- Lady de Bellaigue for this reference. mission, it was to be subject to any changes in 43 Standing Committee, 7 June 1856; BM,CA: duties and emoluments enacted by Parliament; CE3/27 9013. Add. MS. 36717, f. 349. This limitation had 44 Standing Commitee, 28 June 1856; BM,CA: been conveyed to the Queen by the Home CE3/27 9043. Secretary Sir George Grey, 3 Mar. 1856; 45 Smirke memorandum, 13 Oct. 1855; BM,CA: Windsor, RA, B15/18. As Panizzi had under- CE4/53 [Original Papers], no. 121. stood the 1850 Royal Commission to recommend 46 Letter of 4 Dec. 1855 to Sir Roderick Murchison, the abolition of the office, he was greatly originally enclosed in Murchison's letter of 6 concerned. Since Grey's letter to Panizzi begins Dec. to Sir Henry Ellis; BM,CA: CE4/53 'Pray let me know what Act of Parliament it is [Original Papers], nos. 177, 182a. that regulates your appointm[en]t', it is possibly 47 Memorandum of W. Dennison to Sir Henry this controversy to which it relates. Ellis, 7 Dec. 1855: BM,CA: CE4/53 [Original 52 The formal invitations were dated 18 April 1857: Papers], no. 183; Standing Committee, 9 Aug. see that to the Trustee W. R. Hamilton, BL, 1856: CE3/27 9067. Add. MS. 50132, f. 82; less formal invitations 48 BM,CA: CE4/54 [Original Papers], no. 299. had been sent to the Keepers dated 17 April: see Letter of Smirke to Panizzi, 16 Aug. 1856. Madden's Journal; BL, MS. Facs. *ioi2/32. 49 Smirke to Sir Benjamin Hall, afterwards Lord 53 C. B. Phipps to Panizzi, 30 Apr. 1857: BM,CA: Llanover, Chief Commissioner of Works, 20 CE4/56 [Original Papers], no. 280a. Sept. 1856; P.R.O., WORKS 17/3/1, f 327. 54 Madden's Journal, 2 May 1857. 50 See Smirke to Panizzi, 22 Dec. 1856; P.R.O., 55 Presumably this was British Museum, New WORKS 17/3/1, f. 335- Reading-Room and Libraries. With a plan. 5r Among those Panizzi approached was Prince (London: John Murray, 1857). It was a reprint Albert; see Fagan, vol. ii, p. 12. Fagan prints of most of a description which had appeared in here a letter to the librarian from the Prince's The Times, 21 Apr. 1857, p. 9. Copies are now- Private Secretary, Gen. C. Grey, informing him printed book pressmark Cup.407.m.17., and, that 'The Prince will not lose sight of this matter in the Dept. of MSS., Add. MS. 50132, till a decision is come to'. He reads the date of ff. 158-165V. this as 3 Jan. 1856 and understands it as the 56 Standing Committee minute, 11 April 1857; Prince's reply to this approach. However, the BM,CA: CE3/27, 9183. letter, now Add. MS. 36717, f. 523, appears to be 57 C. B. Phipps to Panizzi, i May 1857: BM,CA: dated 3 July 1856 and may concern another CE4/56 [Original Papers], no. 298. matter. When Horatio Waddington, the Per- 58 P. R. Harris, The Reading Room, p. 17. manent Under-Secretary at the Home Office, 59 Madden's Journal, 17 Apr. 1857. wrote, 5 Mar. 1856, to inform Panizzi of his 60 21 Apr. 1857, p. 9.