Access to Museum Culture: the British Museum from 1753 to 1836

Access to Museum Culture: the British Museum from 1753 to 1836

By Derek Cash Occasional Paper number 133 ISBN 0 86159 133X © The Trustees of the British Museum 2002 Introduction The British Museum Defined The Trustees and Officers of the British Museum: Their Attitudes and Practices During the Eighteenth Century The Trustees and Officers of the British Museum: Their Attitudes and Practices During the Administration of Joseph Planta The Trustees and Officers of the British Museum: Their Attitudes and Practices From the Death of Planta to the Committee Hearings Analysis of the Readers Access to Other Museums and Libraries Access to the Museum and Reading Room: Public and Government Opinion to 1810 Access to the Museum: Public and Government Opinion, 1810-1836 Access to the British Museum Library: Public and Government Opinion, 1810-1836 Conclusions Bibliography

© Trustees of the British Museum

1

Chapter I Introduction

On 14 October 1814 a letter in The Times asked, "Is the [British Museum] Library to be for the use of those who keep the keys or for those who pay for the books? Is it to be public or private?" The writer was frustrated by his failure to obtain a Reading Room pass. Two years earlier, the Museum had stopped accepting recommendations for passes from anyone other than members of the Board of Trustees or officers. The question of how broad access should be, however, had been a topic of debate among the trustees and the public since the Museum's creation. According to Sir Hans Sloane, the Museum's founder, the collection was intended to glorify God and to benefit mankind. He did not want his books, manuscripts, and curiosities dispersed. So, upon his death in 1753, he offered it to the nation "for the use of the public." The British Museum Act (1753) stated that the museum collection was to be "preserved and maintained, not only for the Inspection and Entertainment of the Learned and the Curious, but for the General Use and Benefit of the Publick." The trustees were responsible for implementing this part of the act, but how were they to define the “Publick”. By the time the doors of the British Museum opened in 1759, the entrance policy revolved around the key issue of "who shall enter?" How the trustees defined “museum” and interpreted it in the day-to-day operations of the institution, and who gained entrance and who did not, are key questions in an analysis of access to the British Museum. The trustees applied a set of criteria based on education, behavior, and appearance to define the public. To obtain a ticket to tour the Museum one had to complete a form and return on another day to pick up the ticket, which narrowed the potential clientele to the literate. The procedure was designed to satisfy John Ward, a trustee, who was afraid that an indiscriminate

2

entrance policy would wreak havoc on the collections. In 1801 Sir Joseph Banks, another trustee, attempted to introduce a fee to keep the uneducated from entering, because he thought they did not know how to behave in a museum. By the time the Museum abolished the ticket system in 1810 and allowed anyone to enter, the trustees had already adopted other means to monitor access. The writer to The Times said that the readers in the library were friends of the officers and trustees. William Cobbett, M.P., said that the readers were loungers, while Henry Ellis, the Principal Librarian of the Museum, thought that too many clerks used the library. Who, then, were the readers? When the Museum first opened, three professions were predominant: clerics, physicians, and men of the law. Was there a noticeable change in occupations of the readers from 1759 to 1836, or did it remain professional and research-oriented? The trustees and officers maintained a list of the people who were issued tickets for the Reading Room. Many of the readers can be identified by profession or status, and, from this list, it is possible to formulate a description of the readers. An aspect of the clientele question that deserves examination, is the use of the word, “public”.

Even before the Museum opened, people referred to the institution as a public

museum. What exactly did they mean? Was the Museum public because the people paid for and supported it? The trustees acknowledged that, because the public helped pay for the Museum by a lottery, they should be allowed to visit the collections. As we examine the use of “public” we will see that, because the British Museum was a publicly supported institution, people believed that it was for everyone. Because access to the British Museum was difficult and limited, the public began to question the Museum's policies and demanded in newspapers and magazines that the trustees become more open and give an account of their practices and procedures. This strategy was in

3

accord with Jürgen Habermas's findings in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.1 After the rise of national and territorial states, according to Habermas, the monarch's court became an enclave within a society separating itself from the state. “Public” came to mean affairs related to state, and “private” referred to affairs outside state authority.2 As people found certain activities the object of public policy, educated persons came together to form a “public”,3 and through institutions such as salons, clubs, and the periodicals, they made public their criticisms of the state and compelled it to justify its actions. Much in the way that Habermas describes, the British public sought to alter access to the British Museum. The trustees set up access hedged with restrictions, and even those who entered were not wholly pleased. The “public” was unhappy, and there were numerous letters to the editor and articles in newspapers and magazines, including the Athenaeum, the Quarterly Review, the Westminster Review, the London Literary Gazette, and the Monthly Magazine. Some people thought that the Museum should be open more than three days a week and also open in August and September. It would make visits more convenient for foreigners and visitors who lived in the country. Others were angry that they needed a recommendation to use the Reading Room and claimed that the procedure excluded many educated people from the library. The criticism indicated that people were willing to question the policies of the British Museum and challenge the trustees to justify their decisions. In Parliament the Museum had friends who defended its policies and foes who were sympathetic to the visitors who suffered from difficulties in using the institution. As members of 1

Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere; An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. by Thomas Burger, with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989). Habermas's work was originally published in German in 1962. 2

Ibid., p. 11, 18.

3

The word `public' is used throughout the thesis, so in order to avoid confusion, whenever the word is used in Habermas's sense (that sphere outside the state that comes together to confront or question state authorities), then `public' will be used in quotes. All other uses will be without quotes.

4

Parliament became more aware of the British Museum’s operations, some expressed dissatisfaction with its service to the public. As grants from the government increased, many members questioned how the money was being used and why the Museum could not be open more often. As some M.P.s became more in tune with the “public”, the opinion in Parliament concerning greater access to the Museum became increasingly similar to the attitude of the “public”. At the two Select Committee hearings (1835, 1836) on the British Museum the Museum was forced to open its affairs to public scrutiny and to account for the way it operated. Interrogations revealed the M.P.s' opinions, allowed officers to discuss access to and to explain the purposes of the Museum, and permitted members of the public to voice criticisms of or defend the Museum's statutes. For more than thirty years the public and some members of Parliament had claimed that foreign institutions, especially those in Paris, were more accessible to the public. As a result of changes that had occurred during the French Revolution, visitors did not need tickets or recommendations to visit the Louvre or the French national library. At the Committee hearings, however, the Museum's officers defended the schedule as the most liberal in Europe. Even before the hearings, two Principal Librarians, Joseph Planta and Henry Ellis, stated that the British Museum was open more frequently than other comparable institutions. Because the officers were examining the number of hours the Museum was open, and critics were examining the admission procedures, they were focusing on different aspects of access to justify their points. Although historians have looked at different aspects of the Museum, there has been little written on the issue of access. In 1870 Edward Edwards wrote the first serious work about the Museum, Lives of the Founders of the British Museum. Edwards had been an assistant in the library from 1839 to 1850 and drew upon the information he learned during his tenure. The author's prime interest lay in the main benefactors and their gifts. Two years later Robert

5

Cowtan published Memories of the British Museum. He concentrated on the Museum library during his career as an assistant between 1835 and 1872. As the Museum became larger, other employees wrote about specific departments. G.F. Barwick's The Reading Room of the British Museum (1929) and Arundell Esdaile's The British Museum Library (1946) were two such examples. Barwick discussed the various changes to the Reading Room and discussed some of the notable people who used it. He supported the assertion that many female readers were admitted in pairs because there was doubt among the officers as to the propriety of a single female reader sitting alone among men. Esdaile gave a general history of the origin of the Museum and its development as a library. He provided a sketch of the difficulty that eighteenth-century readers encountered in borrowing or using books. More recent titles are J. Mordaunt Crook's The British Museum (1972) and Edward Miller's That Noble Cabinet (1973).

Crook, an architectural historian, emphasized the

construction and design of the Museum. He wrote a great deal about Sir Robert Smirke's Neoclassical edifice and the conception and design of the Round Reading Room. Crook focused very little on access, although he recited the operating times and the procedures for obtaining a ticket when the Museum first opened. He concluded that the policies reflected “the restricted horizons” of the trustees who distinguished between “the People and the Populace”. Miller's work was very comprehensive. He was especially interested in the character and personalities of the trustees and employees. Collection development was also an important topic, and Miller included information on numerous donors, important purchases, and collections the Museum failed to obtain. Access, however, was not a major theme, and Miller discussed the issue in a few brief passages. Like Crook, Miller noted the cumbersome restrictions when the Museum first opened. The “conditions of entry were bit by bit made easier,” although he provided very little detail concerning these changes. Miller quoted some of the blistering attacks

6

about access printed in The Times, and he attributed the harsh restrictions to the trustees' concern over the safety of the collection and to a lack of money to provide better protection. In A Social History of Museums: What the Visitors Thought (1975), Kenneth Hudson came closest to tackling questions about access and the public. Unfortunately for the historian the book largely failed to live up to the title's expectations. By covering too many museums Hudson often presented a sweeping view of the operation of museums and the public opinions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. He asserted that eighteenth-century museums were run by autocrats who did not listen to advice and measured success by the number of people who came through the turnstiles with little regard for what they thought about the museum.4 Hudson could have strengthened his argument and made it a more interesting study by concentrating on the administration of a few museums. Hudson explained the entrance rules for the British Museum. Among other things, “studious and curious persons” who wanted to see the collection had to apply for a ticket under a cumbersome procedure which Hudson concluded was “expressly calculated to keep the general public out.”5 Hudson did not explain the ideology behind the rules or provide a more detailed description of the “studious and curious”. The British Museum, moreover, had abolished the ticket system by the first decade of the nineteenth century, but Hudson failed to mention this change. As a result, the reader is left with an incomplete account of access to the Museum. Only briefly do Edwards, Cowtan, Barwick, Esdaile, Crook, Miller, and Hudson convey the difficulties of access to the British Museum. Except for their glances at the creation of the rules and a few public criticisms, we are ignorant of the views of the trustees and officers, the public, and the government. Judging from the public's criticisms in periodicals and the debates 4

Jersey:

Kenneth Hudson, A Social History of Museums: Humanities Press, 1975), p. 6-7.

5

Ibid., p. 9.

What the Visitors Thought (Atlantic Highlands, New

7

in Parliament, it is apparent that the issue of access to the British Museum was an important topic. The principle aim of this work, therefore, is to discuss and analyze the trustees' definition of a museum, the British Museum officers' perceptions of the Museum's purposes and functions, the creation and amending of the statutes on access, and the public and government response.

8

9

Chapter II The British Museum Defined

Many eighteenth-century philosophers and Enlightenment writers promoted the ideal of an equality of opportunity in learning. When museums like the British Museum were established in the eighteenth century, they were exclusive, elitist, and met the needs of a very small section of the public. Any idea of presenting the collections to the masses was regarded as odd. Autocrats ran the museums and saw entrance as a privilege and not as a right.1 Contemporary notions of access to the British Museum were grounded in the ideas that governed its foundation. Many eighteenth-century museums had their origins in the sixteenthcentury cabinet and gallery, whose collections included art, curiosities, and books. Sir Hans Sloane's cabinet of curiosities provided the bulk of the collection of the British Museum, and for a few years after it opened, people continued to refer to it as a “cabinet”. Sloane had a great number of objects crowded together,2 and he enjoyed showing them to curious travelers and scientists. When Parliament created the British Museum, however, a major transformation took place. A private collection was turned into a public museum under the control of a board of trustees. Sloane did not need to write policies because he was not working in a formal institution and did not need to be accountable to anyone. Although the British Museum Act (1753) provided a few guides, the emphasis was on statutes and rules as a national repository. As a result, we are confronted with two questions:

What were the circumstantial and physical

conditions pertaining to the creation of the British Museum, and how did the trustees define the

1Hudson, A Social History of Museums, p. 3-6. 2Germain Bazin, The Museum Age, trans. Jane van Nuis Cahill (Brussels:

Desser, 1967), p. 129.

10

extent of access? It is the purpose of the following two chapters to answer these questions by examining Sir Hans Sloane's will, the British Museum Act (1753), the trustees' reports during the formative years, 1753-1759, and the policies and patterns that developed. The idea of a national museum and library in England predated Sir Hans Sloane by almost 200 years. In 1556 Dr. John Dee vainly petitioned Queen Mary in a "supplication for the recovery and preservation of Antient Writers and Monuments," and "Articles . . . concerning the erecting of a Library without any charge to the Queen's Majestie."3

During the reign of

Elizabeth, Sir Robert Cotton, Sir John Doderidge, and Sir James Ley, wrote a petition to secure a charter to incorporate the Society of Antiquaries, to establish a library called the Library of Queen Elizabeth, and to be furnished with books and charters.4 The antiquarians were no more successful than Dee in the establishment of a library. A century later in 1697 Richard Bentley printed a proposal for refounding the royal library, which had fallen to decay and was improperly housed. He called for a new building, an established annual revenue by an act of Parliament, free access for foreigners, and for societies to hold conferences on matters of learning at the library.5 Forty years later, England's first national museum and library began with the ideas of Sir Hans Sloane. A former President of the Royal Society and physician to Queen Anne and King George I, Sloane was an antiquary and a natural scientist who had amassed a large collection of natural curiosities and books and manuscripts. The collection was well known among the 3British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Cotton MS Vitellius C. VII, f. 310, cited by Edward Trübner & Co., Edwards, Memoirs of Libraries: Including a Handbook of Library Economy, 2 vols. (London: 1859), 1: 418. See also William H. Sherman, John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1994). 4British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Cotton MS Faustina E.V., fols. 89-90, cited by Archaeologia: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity 1 (1770): iii-iv; Edwards, Memoirs of Libraries 1: 418-19; C.E. Wright, "The Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries and the Formation of the Cottonian Library," in The English Library Before 1700, ed. Francis Wormald and C.E. Wright (London: Athlone Press, 1958), p. 18990.

(London:

5[Richard Bentley], A Proposal for Building a Royal Library, and Establishing it by Act of Parliament [1697]).

11

English and other Europeans. In 1739 Sloane, who was 79 years old and realizing that his remaining years were few, wrote a will. A large section pertained to his friends and relatives. The instructions for the collection indicated the careful thought that he took in developing the collection, its purposes, how he wanted to ensure its security upon his death, and for whom it was intended. Whereas from my youth I have been a great observer and admirer of the wonderful power, wisdom and contrivance of the Almighty God, appearing in the works of his Creation; and have gathered together many things in my own travels or voyages, or had them from others, especially my ever honoured, late friend William Courten, Esq; who spent the greatest part of his life and estate in collecting such things, in and from most parts of the earth, which he left me at his death . . . And whereas I have made great additions of late years as well to my books, both printed as manuscript, and to my collections of natural and artificial curiosities, precious stones, books of dryed samples of plants, miniatures, drawings, prints, medals, and the like, with some paintings concerning them. . . . Now desiring very much that these things tending many ways to the manifestation of the glory of God, the confutation of atheism and its consequences, the use and improvement of physic, and other arts and sciences, and benefit of mankind, may remain together and not be separated, . . . where they may by the great confluence of people be of most use.6 He offered it to the king for £20,000. In a codicil of 26 December 1751 he wrote Having had from my youth a strong inclination to the study of plants, and all other productions of nature; and having through the course of many years with great labour and expense, gathered together whatever could be procured either in our own or foreign countries that was rare and curious; and being fully convinced that nothing tends more to raise our ideas of the power, wisdom, goodness, providence, and other perfections of the Deity, or more to the comfort and well being of his creatures than the enlargement of our knowledge in the works of nature, I do Will and desire that for the promoting of these noble ends, the glory of God, and the good of many, my collection in all its branches may be, if possible, kept and preserved together whole and intire . . . at, in, or about my manor house at Chelsea aforesaid, which consists of too great a variety to be particularly described. . . . To have and to hold to them and their successors or assigns for ever. . . . 6Sir Hans Sloane, The Will of Sir Hans Sloane, Bart. Deceased (London:

John Virtuoso, 1753), p. 2-3.

12

[The trustees were to] meet together from time to time as often as shall be thought fit, and there make, constitute and establish . . . such statutes, rules, and ordinances, and to make and appoint such officers and servants for the attending, managing, preserving, and continuing of my said musaeum, or collection. . . . .......... And I do hereby further request and desire, that the trustees hereby appointed . . . in promoting this my intention, and of perpetuating my said collection as afore mentioned . . . for making a provision or fund for maintaining and supporting the same for ever. . . . .......... And I do hereby declare, that it is my desire and intention, that my said musaeum or collection be preserved and kept . . . and that the same may be, from time to time, visited and seen by all persons desirous of seeing and viewing the same, under such statutes, directions, rules, and orders, as shall be made, from time to time, by the said trustees . . . that the same may be rendered as useful as possible, as will towards satisfying the desire of the curious, as for the improvement, knowledge and information of all persons. . . .7 Sloane regarded the collection as serving two basic functions, to glorify God and to benefit mankind. As we infer from the testimony, God was powerful, wise, good, divine, and perfect. In the preface to his book on the voyage to Jamaica, Sloane stated They [products of natural history] afford great Matter of Admiring the Power, Wisdom and Providence of Almighty God, in Creating, and Preserving the things he has created. There appears so much Contrivance, in the variety of Beings, preserv'd from the beginning of the World, that the more any Man searches, the more he will admire; and conclude them, very ignorant in the History of Nature, who say, they were the Productions of Chance.8 He may not have believed that he had to have samples of everything to reflect God's attributes, nor did he explicitly dictate it as a goal, but based on the statements in the will and the preface and the mammoth size of the collection, it was clear that he thought that the more one had, the more it proved God's reality. Also, according to Dr. H.A. Hagen, a nineteenth-century natural

7Ibid., p. 16-17, 19, 25-29. 8Sir Hans Sloane, A Voyage to the Islands Madera, Barbados, Nieves, S. Christophers and Jamaica, with the Natural History of the Herbs and Trees, Four-footed Beasts, Fishes, Birds, Insects, Reptiles, &c. of the Last of Those Islands, 2 vols. (London: 1707, 1725), 1: preface.

13

historian, "collections of objects of natural history are indispensable to the naturalist . . . as the study of natural history consists chiefly in comparison." Every description and observation is a comparative one, "and it is easily understood that richer and more complete collections help to a more complete study, a more perfect work."9

Achieving this broad goal required a large

collection. Sloane had been a physician to the governor of Jamaica for two years, and he collected many botanical specimens there. Sloane purchased James Petiver's natural history collection which contained plants from Bermuda and Jamaica, and as the will stated, William Courten collected things from most parts of the world. From his position and influence as President of the Royal Society and as a physician to the court, Sloane came into contact with professional and amateur scientists who shared samples of their collections. According to Sloane, as man studied and understood these natural curiosities, he could apply the knowledge for his comfort and benefit. Man recorded the achievements and saved samples of his works as reminders of past achievements. As a result, by the time of Sloane's demise, his collecting followed two patterns. The objects represented specimens of pure or natural, and applied or useful science and art, whereby they glorified God and benefited man and his understanding. Sloane ordered that the collection be made as useful as possible and for people to visit it. He had liberally granted permission to scientists, friends, and well-known people to view and to use the museum. He also allowed people to use it for free, which was not common among people who owned menageries. Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach visited the doctor in 1710, and Sloane was more than willing to show him around the house room by room and to talk about the collection. He accompanied each guest out of courtesy and also to assist the visitor who would not have known his way around or known where to find things. The detail that Uffenbach

9Dr H.A. Hagen, "The History of the Origin and Development of Museums," The American Naturalist, an Illustrated Magazine of Natural History 10 (1876): 80.

14

recorded indicates that this was not a rushed visit, for his host pulled out cabinets of insects, butterflies, agates, and gems and later served coffee while he showed his guest some books.10 Other visitors included John Evelyn in 1691, a young Benjamin Franklin in 1725, Linneas in 1736, Handel in 1740, and the Prince and Princess of Wales in 1748. There were times when Sloane lent material or gave samples and made the museum useful in other ways to help people. Ralph Thoresby left with a printed catalog and some Indian seeds.11 Edmond Halley wrote to his fellow member of the Royal Society to borrow again Michael Maestlin's Observations of the Comet of 1580.12 To the very end of his life Sloane made his collection useful, for when the trustees examined the inventory, they discovered that there were eleven people who had failed to return books from the library.13 The collection was worthy of the tribute that it was all encompassing. He left forty-nine volumes of catalogs whose contents revealed the breadth of his interests: coins, cameos, intaglios, rings, amulets, precious stones, metals, fishes, birds, eggs, quadrupeds, insects, antiquities, seals, pictures, mathematical instruments, vessels, agates, corals, sponges, serpents, crustaceans, plants, shells, crystals, fossils, bitumens, talcs, books, and manuscripts.14 In spite of the size of the collection, Sloane did not want it to remain static, nor to become a tribute simply to him.

Maintaining it as `Sloane's collection' would not have been an

unreasonable request. There was sufficient material for any person to research and collate in a

10Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach, London in 1710 From the Travels of Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach, trans. and ed. W.H. Quarrell and Margaret Mare (London: Faber & Faber Limited, 1934), p. 185-87. 11Ralph Thoresby, The Diary of Ralph Thoresby, F.R.S., ed. Rev. Joseph Hunter, 2 vols. (London: Colburn and Richard Bentley, 1830), 2: 341.

Henry

12Edmond Halley, Correspondence and Papers of Edmond Halley, ed. Eugene Fairfield MacPike (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932), p. 131. 13British Museum, Board of Trustees, General Meetings, Minutes 1 (2 February 1754): 14Ibid., p. 12-13.

15-16.

15

lifetime. Barthélemy Faujas de Saint-Fond, the French traveller, visited the British Museum in the 1790s and thought it was a pity that the collection had not remained in its pristine condition, because the additional objects distracted a person's attention.15 Sloane, however, was a man of vision, and he wanted the collection to grow and for the trustees to raise funds to support it. It is clear from the will that there were two principles governing his collecting: that the articles gathered should be rare and curious things from England and foreign countries, and that they should raise man's ideas of the Deity and increase his comfort and well-being. The instructions for collection development were deliberately non-specific. He believed that God created all works of nature, and anything that benefited mankind was useful. He did not want to confine the trustees to certain branches of the collection or to prevent their venturing into new areas. As the collection consisted of almost every conceivable aspect of art, science, and history, the potential for development was enormous. The trustees were free to exploit one or more fields or to develop all the branches of the museum. The idea of keeping the collection within the family had too many risks to suit Sloane's purposes. England had private collections and museums, but they depended on the owner's resources or the public's support for maintenance, and many were short lived or sold off. William Courten had bequeathed his collection to Sloane, and there was no assurance that Sloane's daughters would not be forced to liquidate their father's legacy. Although Sloane could have entailed the museum to his daughters to guarantee its security, it was not a consideration he took seriously.16 A national museum offered the possibility for larger numbers of visitors at a time, while the person who owned a personal collection would not have the facilities or resources

15Barthélemy Faujas de Saint-Fond, Travels in England, Scotland, and the Hebrides, 2 vols. (London: James Ridgway, 1799), 1: 86-87. 16I found no evidence in the will, Sloane's correspondence at the British Library, or in any biographies to indicate his daughters's feelings towards the collection or how they felt when it was not offered to them.

16

to allow access to a large number of people. In addition, the visitor to the private museum or collection was subject to the caprices of the owner. Sloane had been generous in showing off his objects and allowing students and scientists to use them, but he was under no obligation and could deny anyone he chose. It was a common lament among English artists and connoisseurs, such as Thomas Martyn and Benjamin West, that the great art collectors did not make their works more available to painters.17 Finally, to ensure the collection's safety and to guarantee his plans, Sloane offered the museum to the king for the public good for £20,000. Only a person of Sloane's stature and reputation could make a bequest of this kind and expect it to succeed. So confident was Sloane over the collection's scientific and educational value, that should the king decline the bequest, then the offer for the museum was to go in turn to the government and various institutions and scientific bodies. If all of them declined it, then the collection was not to revert to the daughters but was to be sold at auction. The heirs were to receive cash. Sloane knew that with the government's sanction and by following his guidelines he could ensure the security and usefulness of the collection forever. A board of trustees had the responsibility of creating rules and statutes to improve and develop the collection and of satisfying the public's desire to see and use it. The transformation of a large private collection into a national museum began when Sir Hans Sloane died on 11 January 1753. The British government took up the idea of a national museum with some reluctance. As chair of the executors, the Earl of Macclesfield presented a petition to King George II to purchase the legacy, but the king replied that he doubted if there was twenty thousand pounds in

17In his account of art collections in England, Martyn hoped that the nobility and gentry would make their collections available to the curious. [Thomas Martyn], The English Connoisseur, 2 vols. (Dublin: T & J. Whitehouse, 1767; republished ed., Farnborough, England: Gregg International Publishers Limited, 1968), 1: iv. At a lecture to the Royal Academy Benjamin West suggested that if noblemen opened their collections of paintings to students, there would be no necessity of studying art in foreign countries. The Times (14 December 1801), p. 3d.

17

the treasury.18 George II was not recognized as a champion for the arts and sciences and was probably not interested in having the collection. He was noted for the remark, "I hate bainting and boetry."19 Even so, he may have dismissed the offer as too expensive for an assortment of curiosities. Horace Walpole, one of the executors, harbored such sentiments in a letter (14 February 1753) to Sir Horace Mann. “He [Sloane] valued it [the museum] at fourscore thousand; and so would anybody who loves hippopotamuses, sharks with one ear, and spiders as big as geese! It is a rent-charge to keep the foetuses in spirits! You may believe that those who think money the most valuable of all curiosities, will not be purchasers.”20 After the rebuff from the king, the executors approached Parliament.

Although

Parliament did not whole-heartedly embrace the idea of purchasing the museum, at the same time it did not want to let such a valuable bequest slip through its hands. According to the terms of the will, the government had one year from Sloane's demise to buy the collection; otherwise, the offer was to go to the academies in St. Petersburg, Paris, Berlin, and Madrid where Sloane had held honorary memberships. The collection had an appraised value of £80,000, and it would have been a disgrace not to accept it at such a bargain price. The government proposed to have a lottery to finance the transaction instead of taking the money from the sinking fund. After a period of deliberation, Parliament voted and passed an `Act for the Purchase of the Museum, or Collection of Sir Hans Sloane, and of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts'. By virtue of the Act creating the British Museum, Sloane's legacy had grown to something larger. Parliament

18Horace Walpole, The Letters of Horace Walpole, Earl of Oxford: Including Numerous Letters Now First Published From the Original Manuscripts, 6 vols. (London: Richard Bentley, 1840), 2: 462.

(London:

19Henry Francis Taylor, The Taste of Angels: Hamish Hamilton, 1948), p. 445.

A History of Art Collecting From Rameses to Napoleon

20Walpole, The Letters of Horace Walpole, Earl of Orford, 2:

461-62.

18

added the Cotton Library, the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts, and the Edwards Library and the legacy to Sloane's original bequest. As the trustees' perceptions of the Museum were based in part on the intentions of the government, it is appropriate to examine the Act that connected the collection with the national institution that was given to the care of the trustees. The preamble to the Act reiterated Sloane's will concerning the collection and the intents. Parliament defended the purchase because it was worth the money, beneficial to mankind, and furthered science and manufacturing. And whereas all Arts and Sciences have a Connection with each other, and Discoveries in Natural Philosophy, and other Branches of speculative Knowledge, for the Advancement and Improvement whereof the said Museum or Collection was intended, do and may, in many Instances, give Help and Success to the most useful Experiments and Inventions.21 Whereas Sloane saw that the collection glorified God and benefited man, Parliament made no reference to God as one of the intentions of the collection. In the eighteenth century Parliament did not largely involve itself in issues of doctrine or the deity, but only in issues concerning a religion's perceived strength and its ability to maintain or subvert the balance of power and harmony and order in the kingdom.22 Many politicians markedly lacked religious feeling and were reticent on matters pertaining to God. They especially wanted to avoid the religio-political controversies of the seventeenth century.23

It would have been difficult to devise a plan

whereby God could have been glorified without writing an interpretation of God and bringing a religious context to the Museum.

21Great Britain, Laws, Statutes, etc., An Act for the Purchase of the Museum, or Collection of Sir Hans Sloane, and of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts; and for providing One General Repository for the better Reception and more convenient Use of the said Collections; and of the Cottonian Library, and of the Additions thereto, 1753, 26 Geo. 2, ch. 22. 22G.I.T. Machin, Politics and the Churches in Great Britain: 1977), p. 4.

1832 to 1868 (Oxford:

Clarendon Press,

23Ernest E. Best, Religion and Society in Transition: The Church and Social Change in England, 15601850, Text and Studies in Religion, v. 15 (New York: Edwin Mellin Press, 1982), p. 85-86.

19

As a result, Parliament placed emphasis on man and his thought and development. In fact, the Act went a step further by specifically noting that the Museum would lead to successful experiments and inventions, and one early visitor referred to the Museum as `England's temple of the sciences.'24

The empiricist methods of experiment and observation had become more

universal in science, and Sloane's collection could provide opportunities for such endeavors.25 Parliament did not deny the niche that pure art and science had, but the implied benefits for the applied arts and sciences gave the collection greater potential. Because the king had declined the offer and many in government thought it was an unnecessary expense, the collection had to appear profitable to science and man's way of life in the long run to justify the purchase. The additional British Museum collections were the Cotton Library, and the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts. From the 1590s until shortly before his demise in 1631 Sir Robert Cotton collected manuscripts, printed books, papers, parchments, and records for a library on the constitution in church and state. His son and grandson maintained and improved it by adding coins and medals and other curiosities. By an Act of William III, the library was vested in trustees for its preservation, though little was done to make it useful to the public and to secure its safety. During the reign of Queen Anne the government purchased the library, garden, and buildings for £4,500 and ordered the construction of a proper repository. The Act was not enforced, and Ashburnham House, where the collection was finally stored after having been at Cotton House and then Essex House, suffered a fire in 1731, and part of the collection was lost.26

24Marie Sophie von La Roche, Sophie in London, 1786: Being the Diary of Sophie v. la Roche, trans. with an introductory essay by Clare Williams, with a foreword by G.M. Trevelyan (London: Jonathan Cape, 1933), p. 107.

England:

25Paul Hazard, European Thought in the Penguin Books Ltd, 1965), p. 39-40, 147.

Eighteenth

26J. Mordaunt Crook, The British Museum (London:

Century,

trans.

J.

Allen Lane, 1972), p. 41.

Lewis

May

(Harmondsworth,

20

Arthur Edwards wanted to restore the library for public use and willed that after the death of Elizabeth Milles, if there remained £7,000 in his estate, it was to be used for the construction of a proper repository for the Cotton Library. If one should already be erected, then the money was to be used to purchase "Manuscripts, Books of Antiquities, ancient Coins, Medals, and other Curiosities, as might be worthy to increase and enlarge the said Library."27 He also left books and pictures to the Library. Since Edwards's demise in 1739, the government had done nothing to find a suitable repository for the Cotton Library, and as Elizabeth Milles was alive, the money remained in trust. By making the Cotton Library part of the British Museum, the government enriched and enlarged the Sloane bequest and relieved itself of a collection that it had let ruin. They also struck a bargain. The Act honored the first terms of Edwards's will by selecting an appropriate repository for the Museum, and although Elizabeth Milles would not die until 1769, the prospect of £7,000 proved lucrative for collection development. The last collection mentioned in the Act was the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts. Robert, Earl of Oxford and his son, Edward, formed a collection of books, prints, pamphlets, and manuscripts. After the death of the second earl in June 1741, his widow, Henrietta, sold all but the manuscripts in 1742 to Thomas Osborne, the bookseller at Gray's Inn, for £13,000. The sale included 50,000 printed books, 41,000 prints, and 350,000 pamphlets.28

The manuscripts

consisted of 8,000 volumes, chiefly on the history of Great Britain, the several families and counties, works of ancient and classical writers, tracts, and old charters.29 The second Earl of Oxford's daughter, the Duchess of Portland, agreed to sell the collection for £10,000 on the condition that the collection be kept together and properly housed, as an addition to the Cotton

27British Museum Act, 1753. 28Dictionary of National Biography, 1890 ed., s.v. "Edward Harley, second Earl of Oxford." 29General Meetings, Minutes 1 (2 February 1754):

17-18.

21

Library, and that it be named the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts after the family name.30 Parliament had merged three libraries and a financial legacy into a museum of natural and artificial curiosities, books, and manuscripts. The British Museum had become a museum and a library. The British Museum Act helped secure the idea that the British Museum was a national institution. Membership to the Board of Trustees came by family appointment,31 election, or by office. Of the forty-two member Board, nineteen were members by virtue of the position they held in government, and they were the important offices of the state.32 They had the potential for considerable legal and financial influence on the administration of the Museum. The officeholding trustees acted as a two-way system of accountability. Employees answered to them in their role as trustees, while as members of the government, they answered to the other members in Parliament on how revenue was spent, adherence to the Act, and the proper running and organization of the Museum. From their positions at Westminster they fostered the idea of a `national' museum. The Act defined the Museum by its collection, building, and purpose. The four named collections had stated or implied provisos that they remain intact and in a proper repository. Sloane requested that his museum be `kept and preserved together Whole and Intire'. The Acts of William and Anne and the legacy of Arthur Edwards were attempts to house properly and preserve the Cotton Library. The Duchess of Portland sold the Harleian manuscripts on the condition that they be kept together in a proper repository. Setting the sentimental reasons aside,

30British Museum Act, 1753. 31Two representatives of the Sloane, Cotton, and Harley families. 32Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Chancellor, Speaker of the House of Commons, Lord President of the Council, First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Privy Seal, Lord High Admiral, Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, the three Principal Secretaries of State, Bishop of London, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Chief Justice King's Bench, Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Justice Common Pleas, Attorney General, and Solicitor General.

22

such requests had definite implications. The will had given the trustees freedom to augment the collection, and the decisions and policies to implement it were theirs. Sloane and the Duchess of Portland knew that once they relinquished title, the state and administrators could preserve the Museum collections in a manner that benefited the whole at the expense of a legacy. It was not unusual for connoisseurs to sell one painting in order to buy another or to sell entire collections of books or gems to complete a series of sculpture. Also, the wealthier members of society owned homes in the country and in London, and some moved from place to place, and took their valuable possessions with them. Finally, families like the Earl of Oxford's sold items to raise income as fortunes declined, or because beneficiaries did not have the same appreciation for the objects as the ancestors who gathered them. The failure to house properly the Cotton Library was but one example of negligence and indifference on the part of trustees and caretakers. Sloane, Edwards, and the Duchess of Portland wanted the preservation and security of the collections forever, and the Act acknowledged the requests by authorizing that within the cities of London, Westminster, or the suburbs, one general repository was to be erected or provided, and Provided always, That the said Museum or Collection of Sir Hans Sloane in all its Branches, shall be kept and preserved together in the said General Repository whole and intire, and with proper Marks of Distinction. Provided also, That the said Harleian Collection of Manuscripts shall be kept together in the said General Repository, as an Addition to the Cottonian Library.33 Sloane's museum was in his manor house at Chelsea, and he requested that it be left there. It was his home and land, and there would be little to alter. It had been a monumental task moving everything to Chelsea in 1743, and as the collection had continued to grow, it would be simpler keeping it there. The government considered the house, but as they were adding the

33British Museum Act, 1753.

23

Cotton and Harleian libraries to Sloane's collection, and as there might be insufficient space or other difficulties, the Act authorized that the repository be located within London, Westminster, or the suburbs.34 The Act received the Royal Assent on 7 June 1753, and the British Museum came under the care and supervision of the trustees. The trustees held their first official meeting on 17 December 1753. They planned to meet on a quarterly basis as a `General Meeting' to handle more important business which required the guidance and advice of the three Principal Trustees (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker of the House). For day-to-day affairs or for work particularly assigned to them from the General Meeting, the trustees met from weekly to monthly as a `Committee' without the Principal Trustees. During the next five years the trustees spent time defining the purposes of the Museum and its intended clientele.

In The New World of Words (1706) Edward Phillips defined

`museum' as "a Study, or Library; also a College, or Publick Place for the Resort of Learned Men." A repository was "A Place where things are laid up and kept; especially a Building, or Room set a-part for keeping a Collection or natural and artificial Rarities."35 In Dictionarium Britannicum (1736) Nathan Bailey used the same meaning for `museum' but defined `repository' as "a storehouse or place where things are laid up."36 Finally, in Cyclopædia (1750) Ephraim Chambers stated that a museum was "any place set apart as a repository for things that have some immediate relation to the arts, or to the muses", while a repository was "a store-house or

34The executors found Sloane's house structurally unsound and not safe from fire and decided to look elsewhere. 35Edward Phillips, The New World of Words: or, Universal English Dictionary, 6th ed., s.v. "Museum," "Repository." 36Nathan Bailey, Dictionarium Britannicum: or a more Dictionary Than any Extant, 2nd ed., s.v. "Museum," "Repository."

Compleat

Universal

Etymological

English

24

place where things are laid-up, and kept."37 The definitions referred to a museum as a place and a repository as a building. The Act did not go to the trouble of defining `museum', although by using Sloane's will in the preamble, it provided a definition by accident. (Sloane gave, devised and bequeathed `all that his Collection or Museum' at his manor house.) As a church was the building and its members, and a library was the room and its books, so a museum was a building and the collection. The Act recognized the double meaning, albeit unintentionally, in the title, "An Act for the Purchase of the Museum, or Collection of Sir Hans Sloane, and of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts; and for providing one General Repository for the better Reception and more convenient Use of the Said Collections; and of the Cottonian Library, and of the Additions thereto." The trustees were confronted with the creation of a national museum that had no precedent in England. They thought it was important to analyze the history of the museum and of the word itself, so it would provide a context that would reflect their opinions on the goals and purposes. . . . The word Museum properly Signifies a Building dedicated to the Service of the Muses.--there were Several of these antiently in Greece and other Countries particularly at Alexandria which is described by Strabo, as assigned for the residence of Learned and Studious men, with a walk and Gallery furnished with Seats, belonging to it. It is said to have been founded by Ptolemey Philadelphus whose Celebrated Library was Deposited there, tho in after Ages it received large Indowments from Several of the Roman Emperors. But of later times the name Museum has been commonly applied to Signify any Repository of Natural and Artificial Curiosities, and that either with or without a Library.38

37Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, 6th ed., s.v. "Museum," "Repository." 38General Meetings, Minutes 1 (1 June 1754):

44.

25

The trustees clearly had the ideas of antiquity in mind when they drafted the definition. `Museum' was a Latin word borrowed from the Greek word `Mouseion' for the Muse's realm, and the atmosphere was as important as the concrete features. In Greece, museums were dedicated to the Muses, and to philosophical contemplation and discussion, literature and poetry, and advanced learning and research. Aristotle's lyceum and Plato's academy were museums. At Plato's academy there was an altar erected to the Muses at which sacrifices and festivals were celebrated, while speculation and research, particularly in mathematics, were the principal pursuits of the academy.39 Another famous museum was the institution at Alexandria founded by Ptolemy the First and not by his son, Philadelphus, as the trustees said.40 The museum at Alexandria had the features of the mouseion in Greece with a sanctuary and an altar and a priest as its head. As a body of scholars lived at the museum the emphasis was on religious and intellectual pursuits. There was a public room for discussions and lectures, an astronomy and a medical school, a botanical and zoological park, and a library of manuscripts and texts. Ptolemy collected books, agents bought works, and there were gifts. Agents searched ships in the harbor for books which were taken to the library, and the owner was compensated. Books were used for reference and research. The books and manuscripts were copied which preserved many works that might have been lost. Collections of art and other treasures were kept at temples and other public and private buildings.41 With the exception of the religious element, the trustees preserved the flavor of the mouseion at Alexandria by emphasizing a scholarly atmosphere and a pursuit of knowledge at

39Henry T. Rowell, "A Home for the Muses," Archaeology 19 (April 1966):

79.

40Ibid., p. 81. 41Dillon Ripley, The Sacred Grove: Essays on Museums (London: Victor Gollancz, Ltd., 1970), p. 2425; Alma Wittlin, The Museum: Its History and Its Tasks in Education (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited, Their History and Their Use, 3 vols. 1949), p. 1-2; Bazin, The Museum Age, p. 16; David Murray, Museums: (Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, 1904), 1: 1-2; Wallace Koehler, Class notes, Foundations of Information Studies, U. of Oklahoma, Tulsa, Okla., fall 1999.

26

the British Museum. In the definition they expanded the meaning of `museum' further. It was noted as a building and a collection.42 The trustees were men who knew or were related to Sloane and whose backgrounds included the government, the church, science, and literature. Some were collectors and owned or had access to libraries, and they appreciated the value of books and education. The Greek reference to a museum as a place for learned and studious men suited the trustees' expectations of the British Museum, so it was appropriate to depict ancient deities in the design of the seal. The seal was represented by the front of a building with the images of deities and their attributes which denoted the several parts of the collection, 1) Goddess of Tellus, representing the natural part of the earth, 2) Minerva, representing arts and sciences, 3) the Sun, symbol of Apollo, inventor of art and medicine, and 4) Apollo.43 According to Suetonius, Augustus had erected a temple to the honor of Apollo and furnished it with Greek and Latin books. The trustees presumed that any educated foreigner "might be Sufficiently informed both of the History of this Museum, and the General parts of which it consists" by looking at the seal.44 The seal, though, served the same purpose for Englishmen too. The use of the Greek deities for the seal and Latin for the inscription, `Sigillum Curatorum Musei Britannici ex Senatus Consulto Conditi 1753', and the motto, `Exergue, Bonarum Artium Cultoribus'45 were figures and text of classical culture that many in the middle classes and probably everyone in the working classes would not have any knowledge. The ability to translate and recognize such a 42For an indepth view of the architecture and construction of the British Museum, see J. Mordaunt Crook's The British Museum. 43General Meetings, Minutes 1 (1 June 1754):

44-45.

44Ibid., p. 45. 45British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke, Hardwicke Papers, Add. MS 36,269, fol. 161. "The Seal of the keepers [Trustees] of the British Museum founded by resolution of Parliament [literally the Senate] AD 1753". The motto - "To the cultivators of the good arts." The Trustees opted to not include `Exergue' in the motto. (I am indebted to Janet Wallace of the British Museum for her assistance)

27

sophisticated seal belonged "to the high end of the [literacy] range," for it "marked the gilded culmination of the most rarefied scholarly elite."46 A museum was a storehouse and a collection seen in the building and gods as represented on the seal, but it was also a place of learning and education. It was Sloane's desire that the collection be used for "the use and improvement of physic, and other arts and sciences, and benefit of mankind" and that it be for "the improvement, knowledge and information of all persons. . . ."47 The collection spanned time from creation (with the minerals and fossils) to the present (with printed books and biological specimens). The trustees, though, in designing the seal, chose characters from mythology to symbolize the branches of the collection and the Museum. The deities served a double purpose. They represented learning and education for the Muse, and they signified to the visitor an institution for scholarly purposes. Because the trustees interpreted the British Museum as a place for research, they accorded the facilities most readily to `learned and studious men'. At one of the earliest General Meetings (14 January 1754) the trustees established a committee to frame rules for visiting and inspecting the Museum. During the course of the three years that it took to devise the rules, they prepared a draft in 1755 that clearly indicated whom the Museum was for. In Order to prevent as much as possible persons of mean and low Degree and Rude or ill Behaviour from Intruding on such who were designed to have free Access to the Repository for the sake of Learning or Curiosity tending to the Advancement and Improvement of Natural Philosophy and other Branches of Speculative knowledge And in Order to render the said Repository of such Use to the Publick as by the Act for that purpose was meant and Intended That no person

46David Cressy, "Literacy in Context: Meaning and Measurement in Early Modern England," Consumption and the World of Goods, ed. John Brewer and Roy Porter (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 311-312. 47Sloane, The Will of Sir Hans Sloane, Bart. Deceased, p. 3, 28-29.

in

28

or persons whatsoever be admitted to Inspect or View the Collections but by a proper Authority from the Trustees. . . .48 The trustees followed the request that the collection should encourage applied science and art for the benefit of mankind and linked it to their idea that the Museum was a place for studious and learned men. If the collection was to be useful for advancing and improving knowledge, it required that the books, manuscripts, antiquities, scientific specimens, and the rest of the collection had to be seen and used. Twelve tickets were to be sent to every trustee the first Saturday in every month to give `to such persons as such Trustees shall think fit', and no one could see the collection without a ticket or by written order of the trustees.49 When the trustees referred to those people ‘who were designed to have free Access’, it was left solely to their discretion to make that determination. Honoring Sloane's wish to make the collection useful and staying in accordance with the Act of Parliament meant defining the public. The trustees expected thousands of visitors to tour the Museum each year. Parliament dictated that the Museum had to be open to the public, and as shall be seen in the next chapter, the trustees provided tours. For now, the important point is that `persons of mean and low Degree and Rude or ill Behaviour' had not assumed acceptable behavior standards to handle properly and use the collections. As a result, the trustees saw them as intruders, and they could not visit the Museum at all. If the unintelligent or unqualified had access to materials, they interrupted and hindered the studious from using them and discredited the Museum's intended purposes. Because the trustees already knew they could not employ many men, the illiterate would waste time with idle questions and prevent the employees from attending to the needs of the people for whom the Museum was created.

48British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Thomas Birch, A Collection of Papers Relating to the Establishment and Government of the British Museum, Add. MS 4,449, fol. 115. See also British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Dr John Ward, Papers Relating to the British Museum, Add. MS 6,179, fols. 63-65. 49Ibid.

29

In the following year (1756) or shortly thereafter, Gowin Knight, the Museum's first director, or Principal Librarian, as the trustees referred to the office, wrote a composition of the rules. As the officers did not establish policy, he probably took the rules from dictation at a trustees meeting. It bore a resemblance to the report from the previous year and began with the sentence, "Tho the principal Intention in founding the British Museum is for the Use of learned & studious men, as well natives as foreigners. . . ."50 The trustees elaborated on the rationale behind their decisions, as this report was more refined than the previous one. There could be no doubt about the Museum's purpose and the people they intended to serve. As the principal view & intention in founding the British Museum was to incourage [sic] & facilitate the Studies & Researches of learned Men from whose labour & application under such advantages as greater progress in the several Branches of useful51 Knowledge may be expected & thereby the good of the publick & the honour of the nation very much promoted. . . .52 Knight proceeded to list the regulations. Some were lined through completely, while others had crossed out sections with alterations written beneath or above in a different ink and handwriting. Presumably, there were other meetings, and someone else edited the paper.

The trustees

recommended that they, the Museum officers, fellows of the Royal and Antiquarian Societies, members of the Royal College of Physicians, and Greshams' professors be admitted to the library and manuscripts without any recommendation. If a person did not meet these qualifications and did not know a trustee, he could gain access by recommendations from any three persons who had a Reading Room ticket. They added

50Birch, A Collection of Papers Relating to the Establishment and Government of the British Museum, Add. MS 4,449, fols. 118-20. 51In this terminology, `useful' refers to the sciences and agriculture, but in a broader context `useful' included philosophy, theology, and commerce. M. Kay Flavell, "The Enlightened Reader and the New Industrial Towns: A Study of the Liverpool Library 1758-1790", The British Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 8 (1985): 17. 52Birch, A Collection of Papers Relating to the Establishment and Government of the British Museum, Add. MS 4,449, fols. 118-20.

30

By these Regulations no one, that can have any pretentions [sic] to come to read or consult the Books or MSS, can have any difficulty to acquire that priviledge, [sic] & none but improper persons can be excluded, for all, who have so little commerce with men of letters, as to be at a loss to get some of the Recommendations above required, or who have so little pretenssions [sic] to Literature as not to deserve them, are certainly of the last Class.53 As one could expect, the trustees were confirming the declaration that the Museum was for the learned, but the procedure was very exclusive. Half the trustees were members of Parliament, and almost all the members came from wealthy families. If a person were truly a man of letters and involved in breaking new grounds in knowledge or some course of research, the trustees assumed he would come into contact with fellow researchers in the arts and sciences. Having connections was paramount, and the trustees believed that under the proposed liberal terms, only the unqualified or fakes would be denied entrance. Such people could visit the Museum on tour with the rest of society. Relevant to the previous report, the trustees wrote a job description for the position of `Principal Librarian' with the intention of helping scholars in their research. The trustees dictated that the Principal Librarian should be studious and learned, a physician, one who had studied abroad so that he had learned another language, particularly French, have a knowledge of Latin, so that he could converse with native and foreign persons of learning, and be versed in mathematics.54 The applicant had to be as intelligent and adept as any of the readers. In an age before specialization, it was possible for the Museum to employ someone who was a generalist and expect him to become conversant in all aspects of the collection. They wanted the Principal Librarian to get to know those men who were very knowledgeable in the liberal arts and to set apart time "when they might meet at the Repository for their Studious Amusement which will

53Ibid. 54Ibid., fol. 108.

31

tend to promote the great design of the Museum." The trustees hoped that, after meeting with the Principal Librarian, these men would show "any Curious Inventions of Art where the Inventors might be sure of a Candid and proper Examination and afterwards with the Assistance of the Trustees as the Patrons of the Museum be encouraged according to their deserts and their Inventions properly made known for the Use and benefit of the publick."55 It is a curious notion that the trustees took their positions and the Museum's purposes to the point that they ventured to be patrons and advisers. The policy was not carried out, but we can see the intended results. The trustees had no way of knowing whether the Museum would be a success. If they could encourage or assist a student, and the mechanical or literary invention proved successful, it reflected favorably on the British Museum and promoted the great design of the Museum developing things for the benefit of the public. After three years of sporadic work on the statutes and rules, on 12 July 1757 the Committee submitted `STATUTES and RULES To be observed in the MANAGEMENT and USE OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM'. The key to the `Statutes and Rules' and how it related to the Museum, and who should use it, is in the second half of the preamble. . . . For altho it [British Museum] was chiefly designed for the use of learned and studious men, both natives and foreigners, in their researches into the several parts of knowledge; yet being founded at the expence [sic] of the public, it may be judged reasonable, that the advantages accruing from it should be rendered as general, as may be consistent with the several considerations above mentioned.56 The British Museum Act stated that the collection was for the ‘Use and Benefit of the Publick’. The trustees had always recognized that some accommodation was necessary for the people who wanted to see the collections. It was in their printed report that the Board came closest to

55Ibid. 56Ward, Papers Relating to the British Museum, Add. MS 6179, fol. 18.

32

articulating who the ‘publick’ were. The emphasis in the British Museum Act and the trustees' reports was on the learned and studious. The government and administrators banked on the tenet that access for them would prove beneficial to the public and the nation. From the evidence of the job description for the Principal Librarian, the expectations the trustees had for the visitors, and the contents of the Museum, the ‘publick’ were the highly educated.

The definition

excluded the illiterate and those tutored in a rudimentary education. Access for those people, it was judged, was warranted because they helped pay for the collection. In the report the trustees did not refer to the British Museum as a ‘public’ museum. The framework had been laid in the British Museum Act and reconfirmed and put into practice when the trustees wrote, "yet being founded at the expense of the public." When the Museum officially opened, the trustees let the general public visit the Museum, because they judged that the public would benefit from the experience. The trustees had already determined that the British Museum was a national institution for learning and the pursuit of knowledge. Now, the trustees had decided, that as a national institution, the British Museum should serve the general public, as well as the ‘learned and curious’ members of the public. For the time being, the trustees limited access to people they knew. Because of the arrangements going on, there was no time for large groups, and it was inconvenient to permit strangers to enter. The procedure garnered no criticism from the public, but it was a practice that was limited to ‘friends only’ of the trustees. With only the trustees granted the right to permit access, it was the strictest period in the Museum's history. The rest of the Museum's history involved a struggle to serve the chief clientele (the studious and learned) and to maintain the sanctity in light of claims and demands for greater access from those who fell outside the Museum's purposes and the trustees' definition of the public.

33

34

Chapter III The Trustees and Officers of the British Museum: Their Attitudes and Practices During the Eighteenth Century

At one of their first meetings (14 January 1754), the trustees of the British Museum formed a committee1 to frame rules for the public inspection of Sir Hans Sloane’s collection according to the Act of Parliament of 1753. From the beginning the trustees recognized the necessity of making the Museum available to the public and were not initially slack in the attempt to determine how it should be done. This meeting was one of many that considered the basic question: "Who shall enter and how?" When the Principal Trustees (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Lord Chancellor) hired employees, as the collections increased, and as more people requested tickets, the trustees and officers reevaluated and changed the rules for entrance. Just as important, the trustees' and the officers' attitudes and policies were questioned and opposed by both the public and themselves. Substantial thought and time went into the policies.

The trustees considered the

foundation and functions of the Museum, the public and the trustees’ obligations to serve them, the protection of the collection, and the importance of museum rules. By the nineteenth century access at the British Museum bore little resemblance to Kenneth Hudson's description of an eighteenth-century museum or the British Museum of 1759, while attitudes concerning access remained virtually unchanged. In April 1754 the trustees had agreed to purchase Montagu House, and the Committee for establishing statutes and rules began drawing up rules for visiting the Museum. In `Rules proposed for the custody and use of the British Museum' [1754] the Committee considered the 1

Duke of Argyle, Earl of Macclesfield, Earl of Northumberland, Lord Charles Cavendish, Lord Willoughby, Philip Yorke, Sir George Lyttleton, William Sotheby, Charles Grey, Dr Thomas Birch, Dr John Ward, William Watson, Duke of Portland, Earl of Oxford, Lord Cadogan, Hans Stanley, William Sloane, Samuel Burroughs, Thomas Hart, James West, Nicholas Harding. General Meetings, Minutes 1 (14 January 1754): 9-10.

34

35

practices of the Bodleian, Cambridge University, and Sion College Libraries, and the Ashmolean Museum. Strategies for access varied. The Bodleian was free for all graduates of the university upon taking an oath not to purloin or damage the books. Undergraduates and others could use the books `by leave of a congregation' and paying a small fee. All persons could transcribe from printed books or manuscripts, but no book could be removed from the library. Books had to be consulted and used there. The library was open during vacation time as well as during term, except on holy days, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., and between Lady Day and Michaelmas from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and from Michaelmas to Lady Day from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The library at the University of Cambridge was open to none below the degree of Master of Arts, except fellow commoners. The former took an oath not to abuse the liberty of using the library, "out of which they are permitted to borrow any book, under an obligation of returning it within a month."2 In reality, the conditions at Cambridge were slightly different from the statement in the trustees' report. The library regulations were a set of measures passed in 1748 and stated "that no Person be allowed the use of the Library but members of the University Senate, and Batchelors of Law and Physick." No undergraduates could use the library. Books were lent on a quarterly, not a monthly basis and had to be returned on or before the next of the four following days: Michaelmas-day, St Thomas-day, Lady-day, and Midsummer-day.3 The Sion College library was designed chiefly for the use of the clergy of London but was not confined to them. Any person, either clergy or laity, was permitted to study there by a recommendation from a minister of a church in London, upon payment of an admission fee of six shillings. The library was open from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. and from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Books were not to be lent, "but under the hand of a Governor; with the time expressed, when it 2

Ward, Papers Relating to the British Museum, Add. MS 6179, fol. 53-54.

3

David McKitterick, Cambridge University Library: (Cambridge: University Press, 1986), p. 222-23, 608-09.

A History, the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

35

36

was lent, and when it is to be returned, which is not to exceed one month: Nor is this grant to be made upon any common occasion; or beyond the limits where the Governors live, that is, the city and suburbs of London."4 The Committee wrote an analysis of the Ashmolean Museum in a separate paper, and while the paper cannot be found, the Ashmolean was examined for similar criteria, and based on R.F. Ovenell's history of the Museum, the rules can be listed. There was a fee for a single person of a shilling, while all others, irrespective of the size of the party, paid six pence each. The Museum kept the same hours as the Bodleian. The keepers attended to the visitor, and if the stay lasted more than two hours, the keeper could demand double fees. Persons who wanted to use the Museum library had to submit an Order signed by the Visitors [trustees], and for as long as he continued at the university, paid the keeper five shillings, and twelve pence to the sublibrarian. No member of the university under the degree of Bachelor of Arts was allowed to use the Museum library, nor were books to be lent.5 The Committee concluded that because the British Museum was "of a more general and extensive nature, than any other hitherto established for public use" that it needed particular rules for its management. The report had nineteen recommendations, six of which have a direct bearing on this study. The books and manuscripts were not to be lent or taken out, but transcripts could be taken, there was to be a catalog of the books and manuscripts, the collection was to be locked in cases and drawers with glass or wire over them, the British Museum was to be closed on holidays, one week after Christmas, Easter and Whitsuntide, and during August and September, and the Museum was to be open from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. between Lady Day and Michaelmas, and from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. between Michaelmas and Lady Day.

4

Ward, Papers Relating to the British Museum, Add. MS 6179, fol. 53-54.

5

R.F. Ovenell, The Ashmolean Museum, 1683-1894 (Oxford:

36

Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 88-89, 140-41.

The

37

Committee admitted that the plan was a sketch and needed to be perfected; nevertheless, they showed a concerted effort to be objective and thorough by studying comparable institutions and attempting to make similar and appropriate accommodations. The Committee wanted to let people walk through the house before the official opening, even while the officers were arranging things. In 1755 they took a serious look at who should be permitted to use the British Museum and devised sets of rules. They composed `Rules proposed to be Observed in making the Collections of proper Use to the Publick by way of Resolutions in a General Meeting of the Trustees'. The report set the criteria for determining who could have access. The introduction was the crux of the document and presented the members' biases. In Order to prevent as much as possible persons of Mean & low degree & rude or ill behaviour from intruding on such who were designed to have free Access to the Repository Viz. for the Sake of Learning or Curiosity tending to the Advancement & Improvement of Natural Philosophy & other Branches of Speculative knowledge & in Order to render the said Repository of such Use to the Publick as by the Act for that purpose was meant & Intended. That no person or persons whatsoever be admitted to inspect or View the Collections but by a proper Authority from the Trustees or one of them, or by their Order in General Meeting made for that purpose & under & Conformable to the further Rules hereafter mentioned. That all Learned That & Curious persons with leave of the Trustees as hereafter mentioned have free Access to View the Collections. . . .6 The Committee was very explicit in categorizing people into classes and associating values to the classes and determined that one should not infringe upon the other. What was at stake was behavior and social control. Adam Smith touched on the issue when he wrote that as soon as the laboring man came “into a great city, he is sunk in obscurity and darkness. His conduct is observed and attended to by nobody, and he is therefore very likely

6

Ward, Papers Relating to the British Museum, Add. MS 6179, fol. 63-65; Birch, A Collection of Papers Relating to the Establishment and Government of the British Museum, Add. MS 4449, fol. 115.

37

38

to neglect it himself, and to abandon himself to every sort of low profligacy and vice."7 London in the 1750s, and, indeed, throughout the century, was noted for its crime rate. Discretion, therefore, was not unreasonable. There were many articles, pamphlets, and reports on the increase in crime in the city, with robbery, house-breaking, and pickpockets the most noteworthy.8 The trustees were afraid of groups larger than they could manage or watch. From the same report they stipulated that no more than five persons be admitted at a time. "If more be admitted at a time the Officers Assistant cannot have a sufficient eye over them."9 The Board had an important charge from the government, the nation, and to the Sloane and Harley families to maintain the security of the Museum. The trustees thought that by keeping out people of `mean and low degree' they could protect the collection from theft and the Museum's reputation from ill repute. Any group of uncontrollable people had the potential of wreaking havoc and destruction on the Museum and the collections. Although the Licensing Act of 1751 was designed to make spirits harder to obtain, drunkenness remained a problem, and contemporaries noted it among the lower orders.10 The Museum itself was touched by the problem. The porter was severely reprimanded for being drunk on the job and failing to perform his duties and was threatened with being discharged if it happened again.11 The mob or crowd presented danger on a large scale. 7

Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations, ed. with an introduction, notes, marginal summary and an enlarged index by Edwin Cannan, 6th ed., 2 vols. (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1950), 2: 280. 8

George Rudé, Hanoverian London: 1714-1808 (London: Secker & Warburg, 1971), p. 96-97; Christopher Hibbert, London: the Biography of a City (London: Longmans, 1969), p. 154-58. 9

Ward, Papers Relating to the British Museum, Add. MS 6179, fol. 63-65.

10

Henry Fielding, The Works of Henry Fielding, Esq., vol. 10: An Enquiry into the Causes of the Late Increase of Robbers, &c. with some Proposals for Remedying this Growing Evil, ed. James P. Browne, a new ed. (London: Bickers and Sons, 1871); John Shebbeare, Letters on the English Nation, trans. from the original Italian, 2nd ed. with corrections, 2 vols. (London: 1756), 2: 6; Richard Phillips, Modern London: Being the History and Present State of the British Metropolis (London: C. Mercier and Co., 1804), p. 136; George Rudé, Paris and London in the 18th century (London: Wm. Collins Sons & Co. Ltd., 1970), p. 29. 11

British Museum, Board of Trustees, Committee Minutes 6 (1 April 1779):

38

1651.

39

The Trustees in trying to envisage how the lower classes might use the British Museum looked to the behavior of the people at the theatre, and thus they saw only riot and mayhem. The crowds were unruly and insulting to the performers and orchestra, and some theatres "had iron spikes along the front of the stage as a barrier against hostile spectators."12 There had been riots at the Haymarket Theatre in 1738, the Drury Lane in 1744 and 1755, and the Covent Garden in 1763, and the damage was expensive. In his objections over admitting common people to the Museum, John Ward, a trustee, alluded to the turbulence at theatres when he said that a constable or a guard "such as one as usually attends at the Playhouse" would be necessary.13 Protests and uproars erupted over many issues, and while damage to property was the usual result, injury and loss of life was not unusual. A small gathering of the `wrong sort' might lead to chaos and leave the Museum in ruins. The trustees singled out people from the inferior orders as potential trouble makers. In spite of the prejudices, such a view was hard to dismiss. Throughout the eighteenth century it was not uncommon for protesters to attack members of Parliament and other persons of authority or wealth and their property during times of social and industrial unrest. During the Gordon Riots Lord Sandwich sent a regiment of 600 soldiers to protect the Museum and for the defense of that part of the city.14 The Museum was not touched, but rioters destroyed churches, carriages, and homes with valuable contents, books, furniture, and paintings. The house of Lord Mansfield, a former trustee, in nearby Bloomsbury Square was burned to the ground, and Charles Townley, a Roman Catholic and a future trustee, almost lost

12

Rudé, Hanoverian London, p. 185. See also George Winchester Stone, Jr, The London Stage, 1747-1776, A Critical Introduction (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968), p. clxxxiv-clxxxvii; Hibbert, London, p. 174-76. 13

Ward, Papers Relating to the British Museum, Add. MS 6179, fol. 61-62.

14

British Museum, Central Archives, Original Letters and Papers 1 (8 June 1780): Minutes 7 (9 June 1780): 1714-15.

fol. 578; Committee

39

40

his collection of classical sculpture to the hands of the mob.15 After the third reading of the Corn Bill on 6 March 1815, crowds attacked the houses of known supporters of the bill including Lord Eldon and Lord Ellenborough, who were Museum trustees.16 On 7 March Henry Ellis wrote in his diary that he had "heard that the Lord Chancellor's House [a Principal Trustee] had been assailed by a mob, on account of the passing of the Corn Bill." He also noted that Mr. Meux's foreman's house on Great Russell Street had windows broken, and that the mob attacked Sir Joseph Banks' house. (Banks was an ex officio trustee.) As a result of the impending danger Lord Sidmouth sent fifty infantrymen that day to protect the Museum and requested measures for their accommodation.17 Over the years the trustees gained personal experience with people of `rude or ill behaviour', and tending to generalize from one member of a class to the other members, it confirmed the pre-conceived notion that the lower classes could be dangerous and were not suited for the Museum. After defining who should not have access, the Committee proceeded to consider who should. They maintained a policy that Sloane himself started, and their recommendations bore a strong resemblance to Sloane's will. They determined that the qualified applicant should be learned and curious and have the recommendation of a trustee. Sloane's desire had been that the collection should manifest the glory of God, confute atheism, be for "the use and improvement of physic, and other arts and sciences, and benefit of mankind", and that it "may be rendered as useful as possible, as well towards satisfying the desire of the curious, as for the improvement, knowledge and information of all persons. . . ."18 The practice of permitting scholars and people 15

Thomas Holcroft, Thomas Holcroft's a Plain and Succinct Narrative of the Gordon Riots London, 1780, ed. Garland Garvey Smith (Atlanta: Emory University Press, 1944), p. 26; Ann Hopley, "How They Buit the BM," The British Museum Society Bulletin no. 28 (July 1978): 17. 16

John Stevenson, Popular Disturbances in England:

17

1700-1870 (London:

Longman, 1979), p. 191.

British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Sir Henry Ellis, Diaries and memoranda, no. 1, Add. MS 36,653, fol. 31-33. 18

Sloane, The Will of Sir Hans Sloane, p. 3, 28-29.

40

41

of rank to examine and use the collection and library demonstrated that he wanted the Museum to be used by people who could benefit and appreciate it. Another aspect of the introduction that related to the intellect of the individual was the phrase, `on such who were designed to have free Access'. The description applied to the people for whom the Museum was designed. Access to the British Museum was never based on a person's wealth, property ownership, or religion which were qualifications to the country's other privileges and institutions. The trustees hoped that scholars and other intelligent people would be the ones to apply. One's level of intelligence was not questioned, and there was never an examination one had to pass. A good education required wealth, and `the intelligent' were those members of the upper and middle classes, because formal education "was more a consequence than a precondition of a social status, which in turn was primarily determined by one's title to property. The educated strata were also the property owning ones."19 People from the lower orders may have learned to read, but their backgrounds usually precluded an opportunity to become men of letters or science. To use the collection one had to get permission from a trustee. If the curious person did not know a trustee, he attempted access through a friend who did. In a letter dated 2 January 1758 to Dr. Birch, William Martyn requested a ticket for a minister friend, and from Martyn's subsequent letters to Birch, networking became an effective means of getting a ticket.20 In fact, using friends to request access to the departmental libraries and special collections became a customary practice, although circumventing the rules was not a blank check.

The Board

members took their position and power seriously, and those unfortunate applicants who neither knew a trustee or had a friend who knew a trustee received letters similar to the one Lord

19

Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, p. 85.

20

British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Thomas Birch, Letters, Add. MS 4313, fol. 234.

41

42

Grenville sent to W.H. Hone (18 Oct. 1818) who wrote that he did not think himself "at liberty to exercise the privilege of personal recommendation, except in the cases of those individuals of whom I had, more or less directly, some personal knowledge, and this is the answer which I have felt myself compelled to make on former occasions, as on the present."21 The plight of many applicants and the strictness of the system were demonstrated a year and a half later when Mr. Planta, the Principal Librarian, submitted to the trustees a letter from Mr. Hone requesting permission to consult the library. They ordered that a letter be written stating "that whenever he shall have procured a Recommendation in conformity to the General Rules of the Establishment he will receive a Ticket of Admission to the Museum Reading Room."22 Hone got a Reading Room ticket sixteen days later by having submitted a recommendation from a Dr. Latham.23 While the officers arranged the collection and worked on the catalogs, there was a flurry of activity to frame the rules before the official opening. By 19 March 1757 the Committee announced that they had finished the plan for the Statutes and Rules and submitted them at the General Meeting, 7 May. The STATUTES and RULES to be observed in the MANAGEMENT and USE OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM, By order of the TRUSTEES was a detailed account of the hours, manner of admission, and a host of other statements for the supervision of the Museum. In the preamble the trustees expressed the Museum's priorities. This Museum being of a more general and extensive nature, than any other before established, may require some particular rules and restrictions for its management and security, suited to the manner of its institution. . . . For altho it [British Museum] was chiefly designed for the use of learned and studious men, both natives and foreigners, in their researches into the several parts of knowledge; yet being founded at the expence [sic] of the public, it may be judged

21

British Library, Department of Manuscripts, William Hone, Correspondence, Add. MS 40,120, fol. 106.

22

Committee Minutes 10 (13 May 1820):

23

2755.

British Museum, Board of Trustees, Admissions to Reading Room, 29 May 1820.

42

43

reasonable, that the advantages accruing from it should be rendered as general, as may be consistent with the several considerations above mentioned.24 The Museum would be open every day, except Saturday and Sunday, Christmas day, Easter, and Whitsunday and one week after, Good Friday, and any Thanksgiving or Fast days.25 The hours were 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. between September and April, and the same hours on Tuesday to Thursday from May to August, but on Monday and Friday, only from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. during those four months.26 To enter the Museum, a person applied for a ticket and gave his name, condition, and place of residence and the day and hour he wished to be admitted. There were not more than ten tickets for two groups of five each hour of admittance, and tours were given at 9, 10, 11, and 12 o'clock, and for the afternoons, 4 and 5 o'clock. If a tour was booked, the applicant could name some other day and hour. They lasted three hours, an hour in each department (Printed Books, Manuscripts, and Natural History) with the group staying together under the guidance of the officer. Such a small ratio of visitors to officer provided individual attention, but at the expense of delaying a person's admission. A person could visit the Museum as often as he pleased, but he had to reapply. Entrance was free, and servants and officers were not to take fees or rewards. Admittance for study required the permission of the trustees in a General Meeting or Committee Meeting, and entrance was for no longer than half a year without reapplication. Books, manuscripts, or other parts of the collection could not be lent, except under extraordinary circumstances. If a member of the tour wanted to see a book or other part of the collection, the officer could remove one item from the cases at a time for closer inspection.

24

Ward, Papers Relating to the British Museum, Add. MS 6179, fol. 18-25. references to the Statutes and Rules are from Ward's manuscript.

Unless otherwise stated, all

25

Fast days were King Charles I Martyrdom, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Gun-Powder Plot, and any other day ordered by the King. 26

They based the days and hours they were open on the practices of the Custom House and other public

offices.

43

44

Catalogs of the books, manuscripts and other parts of the collection were to be placed in the departments to which they related. Finally, any person who misbehaved and continued such behavior after being warned would be ordered to leave. His name would be placed in a book in the porters lodge with orders not to admit him in the future without permission from the trustees. In the preamble the trustees dispelled any possible doubt concerning the Museum's intended clientele: learned and studious men. The institution was created and designed for research; therefore, the rules and restrictions were `suited to the manner of its institution'. The people who used it for those purposes had top priority. Apparently, there was a change of thought, for up to this point there was no reference to allowing the non-studious to visit. In fact, references to the non-studious had been condescending, and the references emphasized keeping them out of the Museum. In an undated manuscript that was written about the same time as the Statutes and Rules and taken from a trustees' meeting, Gowan Knight wrote that as the foundation had been made at the public’s expense "it may be thought reasonable that it’s use should be made as general as possible, consistant [sic] with that principal Intention, the preservation, duration & security of the several parts of the Collection. . . ."27 The trustees recognized that the public had a right to see the Museum, because they had financed it through a lottery. Potential visitors for the tours had to complete an application in writing, so another requirement for access was the ability to read and write. The implications of literacy are very important for assessing who could use the British Museum. According to David Vincent’ studies on literacy in England from 1750 to 1914, in the 1750s about half the population was literate, with male illiteracy at 40% and female illiteracy at 60%, and half the English population could

27

Birch, A Collection of Papers Relating to the Establishment and Government of the British Museum, Add. MS 4449, fol. 118-20.

44

45

not write.28 In his study of illiteracy in England from 1750 to 1850 Roger Schofield created a table of illiteracy rates for a number of occupational groups from a sample of twenty three parishes. Like Vincent's research, Schofield concentrated on the ability to sign one's name. He argued that since the sixteenth century, school curricula had been phased so that reading was taught before writing and that with intermittent school attendance, large numbers of children left school having acquired some reading ability, but little or no ability to write. In the eighteenth century the number of people who could sign was fewer than the number who could read, but larger than the number who could write. As a result, Schofield said the ability to sign one's name gave a `middle-range' measure of literacy.29 In the Schofield table for the period 1754 to 1784, 0% of the gentry and professionals, and officials, and 5% of those in retail were illiterate. At the bottom of the table, 46% of husbandmen, 51% of people in construction and mining, and 59% of laborers and servants were illiterate.30 As a result, the people who would have found it the most difficult to obtain a ticket would have been the lower classes, because they were not capable of completing the application form. While the trustees excluded the illiterate and `wrong sorts' from the library through a process of recommendations, they impeded access to the gallery section by the proposed days and hours the Museum was open.

The Museum's hours were designed to suit scholars,

researchers, students, and other people whose responsibilities permitted them to attend during the day. Most people were at work during those hours. Many workers in the eighteenth century still maintained the customary holidays during Christmas, New Year, Easter, Whitsun, and Wakes

28

David Vincent, Literacy and Popular Culture: England 1750-1914, Cambridge Studies in Oral and Literate Culture, no. 19 (Cambridge: University Press, 1989), p. 1, 53. 29

Roger S. Schofield, "Dimensions of Illiteracy in England, 1750-1850," in Literacy and Social Development in the West: A Reader, ed. Harvey J. Graff (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 203. 30

Ibid., p. 211.

45

46

Week, but the Museum was closed on holidays and Saturdays.31 It was notorious that Saint Monday was a common observance among artisans and domestic outworkers; consequently, they could have attended as long as they could get the work done in the remaining days of the week, and if they could get a ticket for Monday.32 By the turn of the century most employers had broken the Saint Monday holiday and had established a regular working week.33 The trustees argued that the Museum needed to be closed on Saturdays for cleaning and that "no one, that can have any pretentions [sic] to come to read or consult the Books or MSS, can have any difficulty to acquire that priviledge, [sic] & none but improper persons can be excluded. . . ."34 Even for the worker who had a five-day workweek, it remained difficult to find time to visit the Museum. Laborers and office workers could have come in the evening, but Sir Hans Sloane did not permit lit fires in the rooms of the collection, and the trustees continued the practice. Fire was a frequent occurrence in London, and many of the early trustee minutes contained discussions on precautions, the proper implementation of stoves, and an adequate supply of water. As a result, with no provisions for artificial lighting in the public apartments, the Museum could stay open no later than 4:00 p.m. during the winter. John Ward was against appointing days for admitting everyone without distinction. As he saw it, the Museum was not for the lower classes. "I find nothing in the Act of Parliament, which countenances public days." The collections and the library were "for public use", but it was "explained by saying, that free access shall be given to this Repository to all studious and

31

Hugh Cunningham, Leisure in the Industrial Revolution, c. 1780-c. 1880 (New York: 1980), p. 57. 32

St Martin's Press,

Robert W. Malcolmson, Popular Recreations in English Society, 1700-1850 (Cambridge: Press, 1973), p. 94-95.

University

33

Cunningham, Leisure in the Industrial Revolution, p. 58.

34

Birch, A Collection of Papers Relating to the Establishment and Government of the British Museum, Add. MS 4449, fol. 118-20.

46

47

curious persons, . . . as the Trustees shall think fit."35 Ward argued that there were too few librarians to control people who could not "be kept within bounds" and who would insult the librarians and treat "with contempt & set at nought" any rules or directions given to them. If there were an open day, "no persons of superiour degree will care to come . . . so that this low Class with the lowest of all the Mobb, will make the Museum that day a place of division." Once the common people experienced this liberty, Ward feared it would be very difficult afterwards to deprive them of it. If, in spite of the warning, the Board permitted an open day, then there should be "a Committee of themselves attending with at least two Justices of the Peace, & the Constables of . . . Bloomsbury & . . . a Guard, Such as one as usually attends at the Playhouse & even after all this many Accidents must & will happen."36 With the exception of one occasion in 1764 when several persons got into the Museum and forced their way through the rooms despite the officers' endeavors to stop the intrusion, Ward's predictions of an unruly body of people were not fulfilled.37 Kenneth Hudson in A Social History of Museums briefly discussed the public that was suitable for access to an eighteenth-century museum, and like Mr. Ward's criteria, class and behavior were the basis for his definition. Dr. Mead of Great Ormond Street allowed students to copy his pictures every morning, and the doctor opened his house to members of the nobility, scientists, and philosophers for free, but Hudson said that there was no evidence that Mead considered admitting the public at large. Sir Ashton Lever placed a notice in newspapers that because he was "tired out with the insolence of the common People" who had visited his museum he would refuse "admittance to the lower class except they come provided with a ticket

35

Ward, Papers Relating to the British Museum, Add. MS 6179, fol. 8.

36

Ibid., fol. 61-62.

37

Committee Minutes 4 (3 February 1764):

906-07.

47

48

from some Gentleman or Lady of my acquaintance." In addition people of the lower class would not be admitted "during the time of Gentlemen and Ladies being in the Museum." Based on these two examples Hudson concluded that the lowest level for a museum public would have included the lower middle class, shopkeepers, clerks, minor civil servants, and aspiring and respectable artisans, because they would be literate and could be trusted to behave themselves.38 In The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere Jürgen Habermas provided another sociological interpretation of the public. When the authorities addressed their promulgations to the public (all subjects), they usually did not reach the ‘common man’, but at best to the ‘educated classes’, whom Habermas identified as the ‘bourgeois’. The ‘bourgeois’ were a reading public who occupied a central position within the public between the authorities and the common man. Habermas identified these educated people in the public as jurists, doctors, pastors, officers, professors, scholars, schoolteachers, scribes, merchants, bankers, entrepreneurs, and manufacturers.39 Ward's strategy of exclusion had to give way for compromises in which access on the ‘public days’ passed under greater scrutiny. The Museum aimed at controlling behavior by filtering the public.

After the trustees examined the Statutes and Rules, the Earl of

Macclesfield40 made alterations, so that when the Museum opened, they had the statutes reprinted. Ward had successfully persuaded the Board to his point of view, for while the new rules were the same, there was one noticeable exception. Visitors had to give the application to the porter before 9:00 a.m. or between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on some preceding day. He put the names in a register and gave it to the Principal Librarian every night, or an Under-Librarian

38

Hudson, A Social History of Museums, p. 25-26.

39

Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, p. 22-23.

40

Ward, Papers Relating to the British Museum, Add. MS 6179, fol. 59.

48

49

in his absence, to determine if they were proper for admittance. If the librarian found no objections, he instructed the porter to deliver tickets to them when they returned a second time.41 The new rule made it even harder to gain entrance, for persons went under a character check and had to make two trips to receive a ticket. This final amendment was an attempt to calm Ward's fear of unknown people congregating at the Museum, and it gave another dimension to the trustees' definition of the ‘public’. Raymond Williams examined the writing profession in the late eighteenth and early nineteeth century, and based on comments from Keats, Shelley, and Wordsworth about the public or the crowd, writers did not know most of their readers, and Williams concluded that the public were individuals who ‘seemed largely impersonal’ or were unknown.42 In The Fall of Public Man Richard Sennett looked at the shifts in the term, ‘the public’. In the seventeenth century the public referred to the theatrical audience in France and consisted of an elite group of people associated with court life and a small group of people whose origins were non-aristocratic and mercantile. By the eighteenth century in Paris and London ‘the public’ came to include bourgeois people, and because there were so many bourgeois in both cities, the public encompassed family and close friends, acquaintances and strangers. Sennett went on to say that as cities grew, coffeehouses, cafes, urban parks, and other places where strangers might regularly meet developed.43 The trustees had spent a great deal of time determining who should have access to the Museum. From the British Museum Act, Ward's critical remarks, and the final statutes, a general definition of the ‘public’ emerged. Like Habermas’ public, the trustees intended their public to 41

British Museum, Abstract of the Statutes and Rules Relating to the Inspection and Use of the British Museum (London: 1758); British Museum, Statutes and Rules, Relating to the Inspection and Use of the British Museum (London: R. and J. Dodsley, 1759), p. 9-10. 42

Raymond Williams, Culture and Society, 1780-1950 (New York:

43

Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man (New York:

Columbia University Press, 1958), p. 33.

Vintage Books, 1978), p. 16-17.

49

50

be educated, or, at least, literate. Both Sennett and Habermas referred to the ‘public’ as the bourgeois, and Hudson and Habermas listed bourgeois occupations for their ‘public’. With the Museum open short periods of time and closed in the evenings and on Saturdays, it would have been difficult for all but those people who were self-employed or in professional occupations to visit the Museum. Finally, the British Museum public was one that lay somewhere between the unknown publics in Williams’s and Sennett’s definitions and the public who visited Mead’s and Lever’s museums. The Principal Librarian did not have to know personally the applicants. He checked the lists for names of people who should not be granted access because of their behavior. After the British Museum opened, the trustees encouraged the officers to offer opinions and improvements on the procedures for showing it. Knight wrote to the trustees that some people could not wait until the next Committee meeting for a ticket to the Reading Room, and that the Principal Librarian should have permission to grant leave in such cases.44 At this time the Committee met fortnightly, while the trustees in a General Meeting met four times a year. The Committee backed Knight's request and recommended it at the General Meeting of 21 June, where it was deferred while the trustees studied the number of people who applied for and used the Reading Room. In the following year, on 19 June 1760, the trustees announced that the number of readers had not created any inconvenience and gave the Principal Librarian the authority to grant admission to the Reading Room when a Committee meeting had been cancelled, or if people were in the city for a short period or had a sudden need to consult material and it would be inconvenient to wait.45 The reader could use the Reading Room until the next meeting of the Committee, whereby he had to go through the normal procedure of submitting a request for a ticket. 44

Original Letters and Papers 1 (4 April 1759):

45

General Meetings, Minutes 2 (19 June 1760):

50

fol. 84.

328.

51

Dr. Maty recognized that there were inconveniences in guiding the tours and drew up a proposal dated 13 April, which was submitted to a General Meeting in June. He suggested that fifteen tickets be granted for the hours of 9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., and that the tours should last two hours but without any fixed time in any of the Departments. He stated that the advantages of the scheme were many. The number of visitors would be greater by five every day in the morning and by ten in the afternoon. Furthermore, the two hours wasted by patrons among "books or manuscripts which few care for, and most are highly disgusted with, will be for the greater part employed in seeing things, which are the chief, if not the only object of their curiosity." As a result, there would be fewer people who would be tempted to see the Museum two or three times, the officers would have more time for the business of the departments, and "the intermediate hours of ten or twelve may be given to Foreigners of eminence not at leisure to stay. . . ."46 The plan was double edged, for it increased the number of visitors, and it cut down the work the officers had to spend on the public. The trustees were not so receptive and accepted Maty’s proposal under consideration. They were looking at the statutes already in practice to determine if any alterations were necessary, and it took them two years to come to a decision. It was not until 30 March 1761 that they put the plan under a trial basis. Although the plan proved favorable, the trustees did not make it permanent until 26 June 1762. The Board was a body that would not be rushed, and any changes to policies would be a tedious drawn out affair. At the same time that the trustees had received Knight’s and Maty’s proposals, the Committee drew up an article to grant leave of proper persons to consult with the officers out of their usual touring hours to have a closer inspection of the collection.47 The following year the

46

Ibid., 2 (21 June 1759):

47

Ibid., 2 (7 April 1759):

263-66.

256.

51

52

trustees approved of the plan, at first according the privilege to foreigners but within a few days of printing the rules, amending the policy to allow natives to see the Museum out of ordinary times.48 Up to the time that the Museum opened, the statutes had not been tested, and no one could be sure of their practicality. Once the Museum opened, theory became practice, and the trustees and officers had to apply rules in the face of day-to-day operations. The trustees had established that readers could use one book or manuscript a day, and they had to make the request the day before. In less than a month after the Museum opened, Dr. Templeman, Keeper of the Reading Room, told the Committee that he may have gone against the letter of the statutes by sending for more books and manuscripts at once, if requested, but had not gone against the spirit thereof. His explanation bore the regard he held for service to the students. The reason for "acting thus was this, that it would have been very tedious to Gentlemen to have gone on in a different method agreeable to the Letter of the Statute." He listed seven manuscripts Dr. Lowth ordered for one day and stated that "it would have required as many days as there were Manuscripts to have proceeded according to the printed Statute." The readers must have been aware of Templeman's favors, for he concluded, "If the Committee shall approve his continuing to send for more than one Manuscript or Book in a day for each Gentleman, Yet he begs that they will limit the number, for otherwise it will be impossible to contain them . . . or for the Messenger to carry them. . . ."49 The Committee changed the rule from one to two books or manuscripts. Without shelfmarks the librarians had to familiarize themselves with the location of the material, which made retrieval a slow process. The Museum was already in debt and

48

The General Meetings, Minutes for 23 May 1760, p. 322 state that they had finished the rules. In Thomas Birch's manuscripts, Add. MS 4449, fol. 155 there is a copy of the printed rules with a penned notation, `received 16 June 1760'. Three days later the General Meetings, Minutes for 19 June 1760, p. 331-332 state the approval for the admission of natives. 49

Original Letters and Papers 1 (13 February 1759):

52

76-77.

53

could not consider hiring more employees. This incident demonstrated how unprepared the trustees were when they framed the rules and considered the students' needs. Although the rules were placed on the walls of the Museum, the students took advantage of the librarian's liberality. Templeman recognized the inconvenience of the rules and attempted to help the students, but the trustees perceived the results of unbridled book fetching and kept the number under check. For the rest of the century the statutes and rules on access remained virtually unchanged. Entrance remained free, and it was a unique feature to people accustomed to paying to enter exhibitions. Count Frederick Kielmansegge, who had come to England to attend George III's coronation, wrote, "Everybody can obtain a ticket, and receive permission to enter the Museum daily for some time to look over the books, and no servant or warder, etc., is allowed to receive a penny under penalty of dismissal."50 Twenty-five years later Sophie von La Roche was even more ecstatic. ". . . Just think of seeing so many useful things without its putting the connoisseur or the merely curious to the least expense, for all gratuities are strictly prohibited."51 Sylas Neville visited the Museum in April 1769 and wrote that it was "the property of the people of England, and to all the citizens who can be entertained by it. What a shame it is that other collections (also public property) are not equally accessible!"52 The Tower of London charged an entrance fee, and many English country houses were open to the public, and even when there was not a charge, it was frequently obligatory to tip the servants who showed the guests around. The Museum authorities occasionally published the rules in the press and magazines and included a notice that the establishment was free. Even so, authors and editors embraced the notion with enthusiasm. In A New History of London (1773) John Noorthouck extolled the 50

Count Frederick Kielmansegge, Diary of a Journey to England in the Years 1761-1762, trans. Countess Kielmansegg (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1902), p. 173. 51

La Roche, Sophie in London,

52

Sylas Neville, The Diary University Press, 1950), p. 68.

p. 110.

of Sylas

Neville, 1767-1788,

ed. Basil

Cozens-Hardy (London:

Oxford

53

54

institution for not charging the public, and in one case said that the British Museum is "for the free inspection of all curious and studious persons. . . ."53 The novelty of free access lingered for many years, for when The Times published a snippet about it, the Museum had been open for almost thirty years. ". . . The British Museum, the first cabinet of curiosities in the world, is free to the public, and not one farthing exacted for seeing all that it contains."54 There were, however, two serious instances when free access came into question, and the trustees had to consider charging people an entrance fee. The British Museum was never wellendowed, and since 1762 the trustees had petitioned Parliament biannually for grants. On 10 February 1774 a Mr. Harris presented to the House of Commons a petition from the British Museum requesting more funds. Mr. Turner and Sir Edward Astley objected to the way the Museum showed the curiosities, but Harris argued that it admitted as many people as conveniently could be allowed. General Conway proposed charging the public which would raise a fund for the Museum. A debate ensued, and Astley proposed that a committee should examine a more proper method of admitting persons.55 Three months later General Conway reported from the committee to the House. Dr. Maty, the Principal Librarian, informed the committee at the time he gave the evidence, that all the tickets were engaged for a week to come, and 300 more people were waiting. In the previous summer 2,000 people waited for admission and were not admitted within three months of the applications, and since 1759 there had not been one vacant day. There were seven officers to attend the tours, and according to the bye-laws, two officers attended each group. Maty cited

53

John Noorthouck, A New History of London, Including Westminster and Southwark (London: 1773), p. 379. See also p. 744 for his other comments.

R. Baldwin,

54

The Times (30 September 1788), p. 2a, b.

55

Sir Frederic Madden, [A Collection of Newspaper Cuttings, Views, etc. Relating to the British Museum, 1755-1870.] 4 vols., General History, fol. 21; The Craftsman; or SAY's Weekly Journal no. 810 (12 February 1774): 3; Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, Journal 34 (1772-74): 448-49.

54

55

numerous abuses to the system. The number of applications was considerable and caused delays, and many tickets were useless because people could not use them on the day they were intended. Combining persons of different ranks and interests in the tours was often disagreeable. The officers found it very difficult to attend to some of the `lower Kind of people' who in many cases, had behaved improperly. The officers were subjected to abuse by the large number of applicants who had to wait for tickets and accused them of partiality. The committee concluded that the problems arose from the length of time many persons were obliged to wait for admission on account of the great number of applications and the admittance of persons for free. They resolved that the trustees be permitted to charge admission on certain days of the week with some days and hours still allotted for admitting persons for free. While it was not necessarily a recommendation to keep people out, the plan was not intended to let everyone in as easily as before. The resolution failed by a vote of 53 to 56.56 Although the government did not pass an alternative means of access or financing, it compensated the Museum by increasing the grant from £2,000 to £3,000 in the following year. It was unfortunate for the hundreds who waited for tickets that Parliament did not seriously tackle the problem. The government barely financed the Museum's maintenance. There was not enough money for collection development or to consider permitting more people to enter. The trustees did not like asking for assistance, and it was with skill and strategy that they often timed their petition for the best chances of getting money from Parliament. The financial insecurity drove the trustees on 6 December 1783 to consider changing the mode of showing the Museum by charging and introducing the plan to Parliament.57 They examined the assets and expenditures and the number and quality of the persons who were admitted for the

56

House of Commons, Journal 34 (1772-74):

57

738-40.

General Meeting, Minutes 4 (6 December 1783):

856.

55

56

past three years. The average annual expenditure was £2,242 3s. 8d., and the deficiency came to £1,092 19s. 8d., and the number of visitors admitted "when all the Tickets that may be granted according to the subsisting regulations are taken out" was 12,000. Applications were heaviest in spring and summer, and in winter there were often too few applications to fill the slots. They also found that those who had lately been admitted "consisted chiefly of Mechanics and persons of the lower Class few of whom would probably have been at any expence [sic] to satisfy mere curiosity." It appeared that no dependence could be placed on the regularity of revenue by charging, and if the amount could be determined, it would bear but a small proportion of the deficiencies.58 When the Committee submitted the recommendation at the General Meeting, the trustees agreed and decided not to ask Parliament for permission to charge persons.59 The decision was based on improper analysis and incomplete data.

The British

Museum's expenditures were over £2,242. The Royal Academy receipts for 1780 were £3,069 1s. 0d., and the Leverian Museum earned £13,000 from February 1775 to February 1784, or about £1,300 a year, charging from 5s. 3d. to half a guinea.60 The trustees failed to note the public demand. It was true that in the winter there were fewer people, for the nine o'clock tours had often been cancelled from lack of applicants.61 Spring and summer were a different matter. In August 1776 Mr. Harper, a librarian at the Museum, wrote in a memorandum, "The applications of the Middle of April are not yet satisfied. The Persons applying are expected to send weekly to the Porter to know how nearly They are upon the List."62 As their calculations 58

Committee Minutes 7 (16 January 1784):

1856-58.

59

General Meetings, Minutes 4 (31 January 1784):

857-59.

60

Sidney C. Hutchison, The History of the Royal Academy: 1768-1968, with a foreward by Sir Thomas Monnington (London: Chapman & Hall, 1968), p. 67; W.H. Mullens, "Some Museums of Old London. I. The Leverian Museum," The Museums Journal 15 (1915): 126-27. 61

Committee Minutes 5 (17 June 1774):

62

1424-25.

British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Rev. Sir Richard Kaye, Note-Books, Add. MS 18,555, fol.

14-15.

56

57

indicated, the trustees planned to add a charge to the tickets but not to increase the number of visitors per day. If they had considered admitting an unlimited, or at least a larger number of people with the price of a ticket as the criteria for entrance, they might easily have earned enough to cover the £1,092 deficiency. In Maty's testimony to the committee, he said that combining persons of different ranks and interests in the tours was often disagreeable. The remark was indicative of some inside and outside the Museum who thought it would be better or would have preferred to keep the classes separate or that the lower classes not have access at all. According to Hugh Cunningham who researched leisure in the industrial revolution, public space was public in the sense that it was owned and belonged to everyone. In the later eighteenth century the wealthy tried to appropriate these public spaces for their own exclusive use, while at the same time, they frowned on public gatherings of the lower classes for whatever purpose.

Leisure became increasingly class-

bound.63 Ward had wanted to keep the lower orders out, and obviously, Maty harbored similar sentiments. Carl Philip Moritz, who visited in June 1782, noted that the Museum was for everyone but was not pleased with the company. "The visitors were of all classes and both sexes, including some of the lowest class; for, since the Museum is the property of the nation, everyone must be allowed the right of entry."64 The procedures for access to the galleries were geared to keep the illiterate and persons of bad character from entering. Once the trustees acknowledged that the public had a right to see the collection because they had paid for it, then, according to Cunningham, it was a domain that was subject to appropriation by the wealthy and upper classes. In spite of the wishes of Ward and Maty and the difficult procedures for access, the galleries remained open for all classes. In fact, the opposite 63

Cunningham, Leisure in the Industrial Revolution, p. 76.

64

Carl Philip Moritz, Journeys of a German in England in 1782, trans. and ed. Reginald Nettel (London: Jonathan Cape, 1965), p. 59.

57

58

of Cunningham's claim occurred, because as the trustees acknowledged in 1784, the majority of visitors "consisted chiefly of Mechanics and persons of the lower classes." From the beginning the ticket system had not been a thorough way of obtaining access. There were cases when people did not pick up tickets, and the officers and messengers had given them to people or relatives who had waited around for a chance, and the number of `no-shows' was enough for the porter to sell unclaimed tickets dishonestly.65 There were numerous citations to the officers, and especially to the porter, over letting people into the Museum contrary to procedure, and admonishing them to the point of dismissal to follow the orders. People who arrived with another person's ticket could enter, as long as they advised the officers to have the name changed, for it was the their job to turn away anyone that might presume to enter `under a fictitious Name or Character.'66 Originally, the trustees' intentions had been to keep improper people from entering, and a system that employed tickets was a way of monitoring access. But the statistics revealed that there were many people who could complete the rigorous procedure to get a ticket, and that the Museum could not meet the demand. By the first decade of the nineteenth century, many things had changed which helped contribute to a revamping of the statutes. The last of the originally elected trustees, the Hon. Philip Yorke died in 1790. The last two original officers, Dr. Charles Morton, the Principal Librarian, died in 1799 (and was replaced by the progressive Joseph Planta), and the Rev. Samuel Harper died in 1803. Members of Parliament took note of the statutes and criticized accessibility. Finally, the public had not proven to be destructive or unruly as some of the original trustees had feared. After the Gordon Riots and during the 1790s despite the threat of revolution, the public had remained orderly at the British Museum. It was time for a change. 65

Original Letters and Papers 1 (26 June 1760): fol. 123; British Library, Department of Manuscripts, British Museum Diaries and Registers, Add. MS 45868, fol. 3; Committee Minutes 5 (19 February 1773): 1368. 66

British Museum, Directions to Such as Apply for Tickets to See the British Museum, 1784.

58

59

Chapter IV The Trustees and Officers of the British Museum: Their Attitudes and Practices During the Administration of Joseph Planta

In early 1801 the Committee asked the officers to submit a proposal for a new method of admission. It was an opportunity to redefine the public. In a draft written by Sir Joseph Banks and in the report of Messrs. Planta, Harper, Gray, and Nares, there was conflict over the idea of charging entrance fees. Banks was in favor of the idea, and his reasons were based on the quality of the visitors who came to the Museum and the Museum's financial links and obligations to the state. He believed that persons of low education visited the Museum out of idle curiosity, and because they were in a tour with people who had prepared themselves by reading, that "the senseless questions of the former continually interrupt all rational communication between the officers & the latter descriptions of persons", and the officers could not handle fragile objects because they might be damaged or destroyed by "the rude hands of those who croud [sic] round him, claiming a right" to his attention which he could not deny.1 At that time, there was not a synopsis of the collection for visitors, some of the objects were not labeled, and many were arranged in crowded conditions. According to Alma Wittlin and her research on the presentation of objects in collections, the crowd's behavior at the British Museum would have been typical. "Without clues to the many strange things around them . . . people would rush around from one thing to another and hunt for meaning. They lacked in most cases not only a background of specific knowledge into which the new experiences could be fitted but all general education of a literate kind."2

1Original 2Alma p. 71.

Letters and Papers 2 (18 May 1801):

S. Wittlin, Museums:

fol. 745-47.

In Search of a Usable Future (Cambridge, Massachusetts:

MIT Press, 1970),

60

Banks' report provides a unique critique on the public’s behavior and the trustees’ and officers’ expectations. According to Michael Shapiro and his research on the public and the museum, as museum directors adopted codes of conduct in the nineteenth century "to the museum, a silence fell over the exhibition galleries."

Audiences learned to restrain their

emotions while they viewed objects in public places. "Exhibitions thus became textbooks in public civility . . . [with the visitor] avoiding modes of speech and conduct that intruded upon another's experience."3 It was the sort of behavior that Banks, Ward, and Maty yearned for in a visitor. It was a behavior, however, that many people were not accustomed to but what they later became conditioned to. The difference was between typical behavior and proper behavior, because they could not act the way they did on the street, in a park, at a fair, in the theatre, or at home.4 Instead of enlightening and elevating people, Banks said that the officers spent time protecting the collections and answering idle questions.

The visitors were not willfully

destructive but simply did not know any better. Banks continued the debate by disputing the long term claim that because the people paid for the Museum they were entitled to a free use of it. "The Royal Academy was built with Money taken out of the consolidated Fund, & consequently raised by Taxes levied on the people"; however, no one thought the public had a right to free entrance but thought the Academy’s expenses should be defrayed by those who visited it. On the other hand, it was lottery money, and not a tax, that purchased the British Museum, an institution "highly interesting to the learned" and "proper for the instruction not of those who learn only, but of those who teach the knowledge of" natural history.

3Michael Steven Shapiro, "The Public and the Museum," in The Museum, a Reference Guide, ed. Michael Steven Shapiro with the assistance of Louis Ward Kemp (New York: Greenwood Press, 1990), p. 236. 4Erving Goffman, Relations in Public, Microstudies of the Public Order (New York: 1971), p. 240.

Basic Books, Inc.,

61

Banks' evidence was slightly misleading. The Royal Academy had been supported by Royal munificence. Initially, it had been intended that "the Public may naturally expect the Liberty of being admitted without any Expence," [sic] and such was the members' desire, but they had to take money for admittance to prevent the exhibition rooms from being filled with improper persons to the "exclusion of those for whom the Exhibition is apparently intended."5 By separating the lower classes from the rest of society, the Royal Academy had done what Banks hoped to accomplish. The receipts from admittance paid the expenses, and the king made up the differences until the Academy was self-sufficient. Banks might argue that people's taxes paid the king's salary, and therefore, they were paying for the support of the Royal Academy, but taxes supported it in a very indirect way. He concluded that because taxes maintained the Museum, if another means could be found, it was to the advantage of the public to charge those who wanted to satisfy their curiosity with a visit to the Museum. He firmly reassured the trustees that no charge should be levied on those who used the Reading Room or who had need to consult the collection more closely.6 Sir Joseph Banks (1743-1820) was a botanist who had studied natural history at Oxford. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in May 1766, and in that summer he went with his friend, Lieutenant Phipps, to Newfoundland to collect plants. Banks obtained permission to accompany Cook's expedition around the world on the Endeavour in 1768 and returned to England in 1771. Banks collected many botanical, zoological, and other specimens from the lands they explored. In 1772 he made a voyage to Iceland where he collected further specimens and manuscripts. He was chosen to succeed Sir John Pringle as President of the Royal Society in 1778, and he served in that capacity for forty-two years, longer than anyone else. As President

5Royal

Academy of Arts, The Exhibition of the Royal Academy, MDCCLXIX.

6Original

Letters and Papers 2 (18 May 1801):

fol. 745-47.

The First, "Advertisement."

62

of the Royal Society, he was an ex officio trustee and was a generous donor and an active member of the Board, especially on matters concerning the Natural History Department. It is not surprising that such a man should have studied the visitors and the manner of the tours and to have been irritated by factors that distorted the prime function of the Museum. He also may have taken note of the staff's complaints that work was interrupted by the tours. The trustees showed Banks' draft to Planta and the under-librarians, who responded with a statement on it.

The British Museum's access policies were liberal compared to other

institutions. Very few foreign museums7 established by public authority charged a tax for entrance, and if the British Museum adopted the plan, its reputation would suffer. The officers did not counter Banks' plan with an alternative, because they could not devise any better mode than the one in practice. Should the Board accept Banks’ plan, the officers suggested that it be publicly declared that the new mode was introduced to remove the great difficulty in the present method of obtaining admission and that the collected money would pay for additional attendants.8 As in previous cases concerning the statutes, the trustees did not make an immediate decision.

They did not want to offend an influential member, and they were without an

alternative plan. It was the dilemma of the British Museum - how to be open to the public but let students and librarians be free from interruption. In May 1801 the trustees began considering several measures for improving the Museum and in March 1802 asked Planta to make a plan of changes or additions he thought were necessary. This time, Planta was prepared and submitted a report that called for a simplification of the application procedures and an increase in the number

7see Helmut Seling, "The Genesis of the Museum," The Architectural Review 141 (February 1967): 103-14 for a list of foreign museums and their admission policies. The opening hours were clearly not as liberal as the British Museum's. 8Original

Letters and Papers 2 (22 May 1801):

fol. 749-50.

63

of visitors. These two key elements were the agenda for Planta's reform movement throughout the decade. The report called for three attendants, as proposed at the General Meeting of 3 June 1801, to help the officers with attending the tours. Planta claimed that living habits had altered since the establishment of the Museum; therefore, it would be more accommodating to the public to change the opening hours from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and to discontinue opening the Museum on Monday and Friday afternoons during the summer. Finally, selling tickets might alleviate the inconveniences of the present system, but many people might think it was derogatory to the dignity of the Museum. Planta suggested a middle course "to allow persons to take, gratis, on their first application, such of the vacant tickets as may suit them; the list they produce being first inspected, and signed, by the principal Librarian, or in his absence, by the Secretary, or the Officer in waiting."9 Under the rules of 1759, visitors had to apply for tickets on one day and pick them up on another. When demand was excessive, and the Principal Librarian fell behind in examining the lists, the visitors witnessed a backlog in issued tickets, as demonstrated in the spring and summer of the mid-1770s. The new procedure greatly simplified access by eliminating the necessity of making two trips to the Museum, because people could apply and receive tickets on the same day. Before, in the case of Ward, the Board was faced with a trustee who attempted to limit access. In that case they compromised. In Banks' case, the Board said, `No' to limiting access and agreed with Planta's plan and adopted it into resolution. The printed rules as they appeared in January 1803 were, with a few modifications, identical to Planta's report. There were, however, two additions. Visitors were to apply at the Office for Issuing Tickets and to submit the name of each person, not exceeding twelve with

9General

Meetings, Minutes 4 (8 May 1802):

955-56.

64

descriptions and place of abode. Previously, it had been part of the statutes that each applicant apply directly for a ticket. Under the new procedure, one person could apply on behalf of up to a dozen people. The trustees had redefined the public, because the alteration permitted more illiterate people to see the Museum, as it required only one educated member in the group who could complete the list for everyone. It was an important change in attitudes, but considering the Museum’s emphasis on knowledge and learning and Banks’ critical remarks, the procedure was tempered by a sobering fact. There was a warning meant to satisfy those members of the Board and staff who might have thought that the new rules would invite the wrong sorts. "It is expected that Persons who visit the Museum be decent and orderly in their Appearance and Behaviour; the officers being instructed to refuse Admission to, or to cause to withdraw, any one who shall disregard this Caution.--Past Experience has shown the Necessity of this Injunction."10 It was nothing new to print statements on the public’s behavior, former copies of the statutes had similar statements, but a thorough examination of the trustees’ minutes, original letters and papers, diaries, and manuscripts failed to produce any evidence that would indicate what, if anything, the public had done to warrant the injunction. The examination of a person’s character was the domain of the Principal Librarian or attending officer, and once inside the Museum the officers had the responsibility of policing the visitors. The wording of the new dictum gave the officers more criteria by which to judge the public. Persons had to be decent in appearance and behavior. The trustees did not define ‘appearance’, but assumed that, based on the instructions, people would come to the British Museum in an appropriate fashion according to the dignity of the institution. Under the old system the applicant had two opportunities to become acquainted with how the trustees expected

10Original

Letters and Papers 2 (14 January 1803):

fol. 760.

65

him to dress when he applied and when he picked up the ticket. He could have seen people entering and leaving, and the porter might have advised him, especially if he were dressed inappropriately. Under the new procedure, the warning was necessary, because the public included visitors who were from the lower classes, and the opportunity to prepare for proper dress had been abolished now that people could enter on the spot. Cleanliness and the suitability of one’s attire were paramount. Although soldiers and sailors had little difficulty entering, an individual dressed in livery was denied entrance.11 The dictum that the visitor must be decent in appearance is a prime example of how the trustees molded museum behavior. There were certain standards of appearance for the museum visitor that the trustees intended to create and enforce. With the exception of the Ashmolean, the trustees had few comparable guidelines, and they could have settled for any state of apparel. The statement was vague, and although it did not advocate formal dressing, as Planta later put it, no one "would be pleased to find himself seated near the filth & Rags of St Giles's. . . ."12 The work clothes of the soldiers and sailors could transcend the work place and enable them to merge into gatherings at the Museum.13 There were certain clothes and appearances, albeit not clearly defined, that suited the demands of the occasion of a visit to the Museum, and the clothes for the man in livery downgraded the dignity of the Museum. A hiccup developed in the system when the trustees discovered that certain people were monopolizing the tickets. Over the next two-and-a-half years the trustees initiated revisions to solve the problem and at the same time to let more people enter. The Museum was to be open on

11The Times (1 March 1832), p. 5b. For a description of the importance of dress in English society, Penguin Books, 1982), see J.H. Plumb, gen. ed., The Pelican History of Britain (Harmondsworth, England: English Society in the Eighteenth Century, by Roy Porter, p. 166. 12Original

Letters and Papers 3, fol. 1160-61.

13Erving Goffman, Behavior in Public Places, Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings (New York: Free Press, 1963), p. 205.

66

Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and people were to apply by signing one's name and residence. Five companies of no more than fifteen people were to be admitted every hour on the hour between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Should more than fifteen people apply at any particular hour, the late comers up to a maximum of fifteen, would be allowed to write their names for an extra tour for the same day at 2:00 p.m.14 For any additional people the directing officer would give them tickets for Tuesday or Thursday for one of three extra tours.15 Children under ten years of age were not admitted. It was a most notable change, for before 1804 people under eighteen were not permitted, except into the garden. Lowering the age of admission reflected a change of attitude towards youth and the perceptions of the Museum. The trustees voted to make the revisions of 1804 and 1805 permanent at a meeting on 3 June 1805.16 At first glance the new statutes might seem less accommodating to the public than the ones for 1803. The trustees had reduced the number of open days to three, but in reality they increased the number of people who could visit the museum by increasing the number of tours. The increase came in the form of a second tour at 2:00 and three additional ones each on Tuesday and Thursday should the need arise. By these modifications the trustees raised the maximum number who could visit in a week from 180 in 1803 to 360 in 1805, an increase of 100 per cent. The trustees intended to have more visitors on the open days, but it made the Museum more crowded, and the public interfered with students who had come to work with the officers and the collections more closely.

The trustees continued to see the research side of the

14Great Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Papers (Commons), 1805, vol. 3, "Papers Respecting the Admission to the British Museum, &c.," p. 343. 15Great Museum: 1807."

Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Papers (Commons), 1807, vol. 2, "Regulations of the British With an Account of the Number of Persons Admitted to View the Museum, in the Years 1805, 1806, and

16General

Meetings, Minutes 4 (3 June 1805):

976.

67

institution, and a potentially free day from visitors on Tuesday and Thursday provided the officers with more time to work on the catalogs and arranging the collections, and it allowed the students to use the collections without distraction. As the trustees stated, they wanted to stop tickets from being monopolized. Anyone could apply for up to a dozen tickets by simply providing the names and addresses of twelve people. Very quickly, a few people could have the Museum perpetually booked, and if they were dishonest, they could sell the tickets to people who could not come at another time. To check the practices, the trustees reintroduced the policy of having people signing for themselves. Up to this time the statutes for the Reading Room had remained intact. An applicant submitted a recommendation from a trustee or an officer where it would be considered at the next Board meeting. The Sub-Committee modified the rule in 1804 to make access to the Reading Room easier for more people. Applicants had to "specify their descriptions and places of abode; and as it might be dangerous, in so populous a metropolis as London, to admit perfect strangers, it is expected that every one who applies, if not known to any trustee or officer, should produce a recommendation from some person of known and approved character."17 The British Museum library had been accessible to natives and foreigners upon submission of an endorsed recommendation. Even so, it was a restricted library, for people had to know one of the 8 officers or 42 trustees, and it must have been very difficult, if not impossible, for people to become acquainted well enough with one who could have recommended them. Rev. G. G. Stonestreet was irritated that although "I had a brother-in-law residing in Bedford-square, and I was myself residing in Gower-street, although a clergyman, a graduate of the University of

17"Papers Respecting the Admission to the British Museum, &c.," p. 346; British Museum, Acts and Votes of Parliament, Statutes and Rules, and Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum (London: Cox, Son, and Baylis, 1808), p. 117.

68

Cambridge, and resident upon the spot, still all those circumstances did not prevail against the rule of the Museum," and he had to procure a recommendation from a trustee or an officer.18 The potential for access to the Reading Room under the new procedure was much greater, because it eliminated the necessity of direct acquaintance and introduced third party recommendations.

The officers took advantage of the opportunities and helped applicants

whenever they could. In response to John Burke who did not have a recommendation, Henry Ellis wrote, "In Your Case there is a Gentleman residing at Brompton whom you probably know, Mr. Jordan the Editor of the Literary Gazette, whose testimonial will be satisfactory."19 It did not eliminate the need for a recommendation, and the trustees remained strict on that point. In 1806 and again in 1809 the Board issued orders to the officers that applications must be accompanied by letters of recommendation, and the Board had the officers advise all persons of the regulations on that point.20 Upon the completion of the Gallery of Antiquities, the trustees introduced a set of regulations for the admission to view them. In February 1807 the trustees formed a SubCommittee to create a draft of regulations for the gallery.21 Until the gallery was completed there had been no hurry to formulate anything. By the following February the trustees asked the Sub-Committee to begin meeting and to have Benjamin West, President of the Royal Academy, attend to contribute on the most convenient regulations and times. Concurrently, the trustees

18Great Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Papers (Commons), 1836, vol. 10, "Report from the Select Committee appointed in the following Season to consider the same subject," par. 5170. 19British

Museum, Central Archives, Officers' Reports 14 (11 June 1831):

20Committee

Minutes 8 (26 June 1806):

fol. 2896.

2286; General Meetings, Minutes 5 (13 May 1809):

1063.

21The Earl of Hardwicke, Lord St Helens, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Hans Sloane, Mr Rose, the Marquis of Stafford, Sir Joseph Banks, Sir George Cornewall, and Francis Annesley, General Meetings, Minutes 5 (28 February 1807): 1009.

69

asked Planta to come up with a plan to encompass the admission of visitors and artists to the gallery and to comment on the arrangement for admission to the Museum. Within five days Planta finished the plan. Although it was highly likely that he had been thinking about alterations to the statutes, it was a testimony to his diligence and dedication that he finished so quickly. The trustees usually took a year or longer to create plans and reports. Planta was sensitive to the public and recognized the failures in the current mode of access, and the report indicated the Principal Librarian's sincere efforts to make the Museum more accessible. The demand for tickets and the inconvenience of obtaining them, as well as, events at French museums prompted a change to the statutes, and Planta tailored the report to address and solve the problems. To ensure the plan's successful implementation, he interspersed the report with examples of the current system's faults, and built up the advantages of the proposals, and if adopted, how they could be implemented. The introduction alluded to the public’s demands for easier access with the phrase, "the public will be satisfied with nothing short of immediate free admission such as they are told is allowed at Paris".22

There had been grievances about the

difficulty of access to the British Museum compared to museums in Paris. M.P.s had debated the differences, and critics had noted the situation in Paris and complained about the procedure at the British Museum in publications.23 During the Peace of Amiens tourists went to the Louvre, and when they returned to England, they told impressive accounts of the large crowds that attended and that visitors did not need to apply for a ticket. Under the current mode at the British Museum, if a person wanted to be assured of a ticket for the day, he had to apply "at so early an

22Original Letters and Papers 2 (18 February 1808): references to Planta's report are from this citation.

fol. 865-68, and unless otherwise noted, all

23Parliamentary Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time 3 (12 February 1805): (13 February 1805), p. 1a, (8 July 1805), p. 3a; The Monthly Magazine 30 (1 Oct. 1810): 238.

410; The Times

70

hour as 10 in the morning, the Book being often filled in less than half an hour." Planta hoped to alleviate the problem in two ways. Daily attendance could be increased from 360 to 480, and by arranging simultaneously conducted tours, the waiting period for visitors to go on tour would be reduced from as long as four hours, to fewer than two. The report called for the Museum's being open every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. Wednesdays were reserved for select groups, either brought by a trustee or admitted by an order of the Principal Librarian. Planta increased the number of daily tours to eight with no more than fifteen persons in each. The first tour started at 11:00 a.m., and the others followed in succession as fast as there were attendants to conduct them, leaving a sufficient interval for the preceding tour to clear the first two rooms. With tours on their heels, it must have been an assembly line with the guides working to get the job completed as fast as possible.

An

American, Louis Simond, was vitriolic and did not like the arrangement. "We had no time allowed to examine any thing; our conductor, pushed on without minding questions. . . ."24 Seven years earlier Banks had submitted the idea of charging people in order to keep the poorly educated out of the Museum, because their conduct irritated him. Also, with numerous groups, there was apprehension over theft and damage to the collections. Planta was confronted with a dilemma. How could he create greater access for an unknown public, some of whom would be of the rude and mean sorts, and at the same time monitor their behavior and protect the collection and stifle any criticism or fear among the trustees? He recommended that five men, ‘who may be called Warders’ should be stationed in different parts of the Museum to prevent loitering and mischief.

He thought that they should be chosen from among the Chelsea

pensioners, especially non-commissioned officers, because they were well trained to discipline

24Louis Simond, An American in Regency England: The Journal of a Tour in 1810-1811, ed. with an introduction and notes by Christopher Hibbert (London: Robert Maxwell, 1968), p. 44.

71

and order.

Their uniforms and their veteran appearance would give them a degree of

respectability, and even the loss of a limb would not disqualify them for the position. He had put the proposals under scrutiny, considered any objections, and answered them with a solution, so that the report could stand the best chances of approval. While the trustees had time to consider the report, the Sub-Committee met from February through May and with the Council of the Royal Academy devised regulations for the Gallery of Antiquities. The Sub-Committee agreed with the Council's recommendations and made some minor alterations and additions. Students would be admitted by a ticket from the President and Council of the Royal Academy every day in August and September except on Wednesday and Saturday. A maximum of twenty students could attend the gallery at a time, and the members of the Royal Academy could have access to the gallery at all admissible times, "upon application to the principal Librarian or to the Senior Under Librarian in Residence."25 The trustees had turned the Gallery of Antiquities into a setting for a very small public. Whereas people could hope to get a Reading Room ticket through their own or a friend's acquaintance with a trustee or officer, access to the Gallery was confined to Royal Academy members and students. It was the difference between a position that anyone could theoretically strive to achieve and one that contained a finite number of participants. Neither the trustees nor the Academicians gave any thought to artists or students who were not Academy members. The one advantage all artists had over readers was that the Gallery was open to everyone on the public days, which silenced criticism among artists and other visitors. After all the time and work to formulate the statutes, it was ironic that the procedures should fall into abeyance soon after approval. Planta wrote that the Royal Academicians had not

25Committee Minutes 9 (27 February 1808): March 1808): 51-52; 4 (10 May 1808): 56-57.

2359-60; Royal Academy of Arts, Council, Minutes 4 (16

72

availed themselves of the regulation in favor of their pupils, and many students had sent applications directly to the Principal Librarian. Planta proposed that the artists be admitted in the same manner as in the Reading Room, and the trustees approved.26 Because it was necessary to alter the statutes for the Gallery, at the following General Meeting (10 February 1810) the trustees asked Planta to report on the effects of the current rules for admission and whether the regulations could be improved.

The result was the most

revolutionary to date, and it resulted in statutes which, with minor variations, remained in effect throughout the rest of the period under study. The report called for the Museum to be open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, except Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun weeks, on Thanksgiving and Fast Days, and during August and September. It also stated "that all persons of decent appearance without limitation of numbers," could apply on those days between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and after signing their names and place of residence, "be immediately admitted into the first Room of the Upper Floor." All the rooms, except for the Reading Rooms, were ‘thrown open’, and visitors were allowed to tarry in them and in the Gallery of Antiquities for any length of time. Tuesdays and Thursdays were for ‘select companies’ of the trustees or the Principal Librarian, but they had to be accompanied by an officer or an attendant. Eight persons were appointed as extra-attendants, and the officers in waiting, at least twice a day, were to walk through the rooms to see that the attendants were at their proper station and that order was maintained.27 Planta did away with the ticket system and virtually redefined the public, because he opened the Museum to anyone. It was on this foundation that the Museum, different from the

26Officers'

Reports 1 (11 November 1809):

27Committee

Minutes 9 (10 March 1810):

fol. 226; General Meetings, Minutes 5 (9 December 1809):

1067-69.

76.

2439-40; General Meetings, Minutes 5 (24 March 1810):

1074-

73

Museum of the eighteenth century, struggled toward a new interpretation of access. A difference between the two was that the new rules presupposed and fostered a diffusion of the classes and greater trust in the public’s conduct. As he did not suggest that the officers examine the list of names before permitting entrance, the evidence suggests that it was possible for illiterate people to see the Museum, if they had someone who could sign for them. (By the early 1830s the procedure had become even simpler, and people gave one name from their party and the number in the party.28) The lists were used more for statistics, but should an incident arise, the staff would have the perpetrator's name and address. Formerly, the tours had lasted two hours, and the group was under the supervision of an attendant who guided them through a labyrinth from which there was no deviation. Visitors now had up to six hours, and they could come and go throughout the building on their own as they pleased. They could even see the institution more than once in the same day as long as they arrived before 2:00 p.m. It was a significant change of view from the 1760s when visitors who ran about the rooms incurred the fear and a warning from the trustees. By 1810 the 480 daily visitors had demonstrated that the public had adopted a suitable conduct, and the clusters of visitors in the rooms had not resulted in chaos. The trustees had backed away from mistrusting the public as a mob. Since 1801 the Board had moved in direct contradiction to Banks’ proposal and supported and encouraged Planta’s goals. Nonetheless, no one knew for sure the outcome of introducing such latitude, and even Planta had reservations. In addition to introducing eight more attendants to keep order, to watch for theft, and to prevent damage, he had the officers patrol the rooms. If there were problems in the system, or if there were a lack of order, the officers could correct or report on it, and if the Principal Librarian could not solve the problem, he could request the trustees to modify the

28Officers'

Reports 15 (13 July 1833):

fol. 3383.

74

procedures, or if necessary, revert to the guided tours. Not only were the collections on display, but so were the people who attended. With Monday, Wednesday, and Friday designed for unlimited numbers, Tuesdays and Thursdays were reserved for friends of the trustees and important people, especially foreigners, who wanted to see the collections without the noise and crowds that were present on the open days. In addition, people who could not wait until an open day could request a tour on a Tuesday or Thursday. As the trustees pressed for the completion of the catalogs and the collection arrangements, the officers increasingly found interruptions from the private tours time consuming and a nuisance.29 One of the best accounts of the increased accessibility came from Charles Shaw of the Western Literary & Scientific Institution, when in 1835 he requested a catalog of the library and wrote, "Tho' it is a digression from the material subject, I cannot but express my surprize [sic] in passing through the Reading Room to have seen such numbers congregated, as I recollect in 1800, or 1801, being personally introduced by Mr. Planta (to whom I was known) that from that period to the early part of 1805, we seldom met more than four or five together."30 In the same year Sir Henry Ellis, the Principal Librarian, wrote to the trustees for some hall chairs. "The Crowds on some of the late hot-days have amounted to almost 5000 : and the want of a few Chairs in the Hall has been felt."31 It was a considerable difference from the forty-five visitors a day who entered in 1802.

29For examples of when the private tours created inconveniences to the staff see Officers' Reports 4 (10 May 1817): fol. 973, 12 (20 June 1829): fol. 2489, 12 (14 November 1829): fol. 2532. 30Original 31Ibid.,

Letters and Papers 12 (15 April 1835).

12 (20 June 1835).

75

In spite of the accomplishments in letting more people enter the Museum and the Reading Room, in 1814 the British Museum came under considerable attack from three letters to the editor in The Times.32 They criticized the closure during August and September, because it made it difficult for people, especially foreigners, who could not arrange to see the Museum another time.

Furthermore, they said that the statutes for a Reading Room ticket were

unreasonable, and the library should be made more accessible like the one in Paris. Planta came to the defense of the Museum and submitted to the trustees a statement of facts to disprove the writers. According to the statutes if persons could not come during the usual times of admission, they could apply to the principal officer in residence, "and every individual belonging to the House can vouch that a great number not only of Foreigners, but also of His Majesty's subjects were admitted during the last Vacation by the means above mention'd." The library was not closed during August and September but during Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide weeks. (It had been policy since 1759 that while the Museum was closed for the two months, the library remained open.) Nor was it true that admission to the Reading Room could only be obtained by a recommendation of a trustee, for the directions clearly stated that the librarians were allowed to recommend applicants. In the document Planta digressed and added a footnote on the procedure. "Mr. Planta cannot mention it officially, but he may intimate that he has never scrupled to recommend Applicants who, upon enquiry, appeared to him to be entitled to the privilege, but who happened not to be acquainted with any Trustee or Officer," and if the trustees checked the list of readers, "the greatest Number of Admissions Stand in his Name." Planta saw the limits of taking a literal interpretation of the statutes, and that the Reading Room public was a body who were qualified by ‘need’ more than by intimacy with a museum official. The trustees apparently agreed, or at

32The

Times (8 September 1814), p. 2e, (9 September 1814), p. 2b, (14 October 1814), p. 2d.

76

least looked the other way, because they made no objection to Planta. It was a situation, though, they did not want to make formal or to advertise. As to the idea of an unlimited admissions policy, Planta contended that no one "would be pleased to find himself seated near the filth & Rags of St. Giles’s; or the more specious appearance frequently assumed by Swindlers & perhaps even Robbers." In addition, the interior design of the Reading Room would not permit a long table down the middle of a gallery to provide a close inspection over a great number of readers; therefore, a degree of caution was necessary in the mode of admission.

The lower classes in England "in the fervour of

independence, pride themselves in shewing a disdain of Order, & in doing essential mischief for which we have no means of obtaining immediate redress." Planta stated that there had been three cases of minor damage to the collections within the last few months. The summer vacation was necessary for cleaning the Museum and the collections because of the sooty atmosphere, and there was a large brewery in the vicinity. The four attendants were hardly sufficient to dust, clean, and rearrange the collections in the two months.33 Within two weeks of the report, the Board received a request from Mr. Hargrave for the private use of a room to consult the library which was formerly his own, and which the government had purchased in 1813 for £8,000. The Board must have been severely wounded by the editorials in The Times, because Hargrave's request prompted the trustees themselves to consider the increased facilities given to the public "and directed the following Minutes to be entered upon their Proceedings." It was not the first time that adverse publicity had been voiced in a public forum. Since the beginning of the century newspapers, magazines, and M.P.s had criticized the management and procedures at the Museum. It was, though, the first time that the trustees seriously considered the accusations and were forced to respond. The trustees "have for

33Original

Letters and Papers 3, fol. 1160-61.

77

a long time past endeavoured to increase the facilities allowed to the Public for inspecting every part of the British Museum", and for the last four years the number of visitors had been from 25,000 to 30,000 annually. They had been restrained from allowing a general admission "by no other consideration than the security of the Collections" and "the means of paying a sufficient number of Attendants for this purpose." They claimed that they had always been desirous of giving the utmost access to persons who used the Reading Room. It was the distribution and size of the rooms that prevented the accommodation of a large number of people in one room. More reading rooms could not be provided without incurring a large expense in wiring the book-cases in the rooms that might be used for reading purposes and paying additional attendants for supplying books. The officers had executed their duties according to the trustees' intentions and had given the most liberal admission to all visitors and readers according to the rules. They concluded "that whenever it shall be the pleasure of Parliament to supply the Means requisite for affording more extensive accommodation to the Public, the Trustees will make immediate Arrangements for giving them the fullest effect."34 It was an ironic conclusion, because more than half the Board members were M.P.s, most of whom were members of the cabinet. It was an error of judgment that the trustees did not publish Planta's or their own observations to refute the charges.

There was hostility against the Museum, and a clear

statement of facts could have muted critics and rallied support. The trustees had never been called to account for themselves in such a concentrated (3 articles in 5 weeks) and vitriolic manner.

True, ten years earlier the trustees in Parliament defended the Museum against

accusations from other M.P.s, but the Museum was a national institution founded by an Act of Parliament, the budget was submitted annually, and major collection purchases and legislation concerning the disposal of items and taxes on bequests had gone through Parliament. To begin

34General

Meetings, Minutes 5 (10 December 1814):

1131-32.

78

discussing trustee meetings and policies in the press would have been unheard of. The trustees were responsible to the government and not to the public. Rebutting the editorials, when M.P.s had not asked for an accounting, would have weakened the Board's authority to control the Museum, could have forced the trustees to answer publicly future criticisms or demands, and, in spite of the damage done by the power of the editorials, it would have meant rule by public opinion. The trustees remained resolutely quiet when the press leveled charges against it. Why then, should they go to the trouble of formulating an answer that was not going to be published? If there were an enquiry, and for future reference against any additional accusations, the trustees would have a ready answer. Also, a written record would be of help to later trustees and show that they had considered the matter. The Reading Rooms had been a topic of discontent over the years.

Readers had

complained of the cold, the dust, and the crowded seating. As soon as new rooms were added or walls were removed to grant more space, the seating became just as crowded. The trustees did not deny Reading Room tickets on the basis that there were too many readers. The allusion to lack of accommodation was a reference to readers having to wait for a space to sit and not to the denial of a ticket. More space would permit more readers at one time, but it would require more attendants which the Museum could not afford. Writers to The Times had complained of the limited access, and one specifically charged that the books were not stolen from the national library in Paris, "and how much less likely are they to be solen [sic] here, where the national character is certainly not less that of decided honesty?"35 It was a broad claim that with greater access, nothing was stolen from the Paris library. Planta and the trustees replied that restrictions were necessary because not everyone

35The Times (14 October 1814), p. 2d. 1825), p. 4a for other writers' complaints.

See also The Times (10 October 1823), p. 2c, (18 November

79

could be trusted. In the statutes for 1805, they stated why the references were necessary, `as it might be dangerous, in so populous a metropolis as London, to admit perfect strangers.' When Parliament created the British Museum, the government gave the trustees a charge to maintain the collection. It involved not only preservation, but protection from destruction and theft. From the beginning the trustees took precautions to carry out the responsibility. At least one officer had to be in residence at all times. Readers and visitors had to be approved in one form or another, and once they entered the Museum, the officers guided them on the tours and watched them while they read. Most of the collection was in glass cases, and because the tours included the Departments of Printed Books and Manuscripts, the book cases had wire casing. If the group wanted to examine a book or an object more closely, the officer could remove one item at a time. Readers were permitted no more than two books or manuscripts at a time. Because theft and destruction were in the back of the trustees' minds, emphasis lay on keeping the wrong sorts from entering the Museum to prevent harm from coming to the collection. From 1759 to the end of the century, there were numerous resolutions, orders, and warnings on the admission of people according to the statutes. People were kept out, and the numbers in the tours were kept small. Before the statutes were changed in 1803 there were fewer than 12,000 people visiting the Museum and no more than 160 using the Reading Room annually with very few cases of theft or destruction to the collection.36 With the easing of restrictions in the first decade of the nineteenth century, more people entered the Museum. The trustees countered the increase with more attendants. Unfortunately for everyone concerned, with so many efforts at making the Museum more accessible, a theft of

36Original Letters and Papers, "Account of the Number of Persons Admitted to a Sight of the British Museum in each Month from the 1st January 1805 inclusive to the 27th of June 1807," 2: fol. 860*-860**; Great Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Papers (Commons), 1808, vol. 6, p. 41, "Regulations concerning the British Museum, Since the 29th of June 1807."

80

intense magnitude occurred that forced the officers to rethink whom they recommended for a ticket. On 21 June 1806 Mr. Woodburn, a print seller, wrote to the trustees that over the past month to six weeks he had purchased seven prints from Mr. Deighton. Dealers had been looking at Cracherode's collection, comparing it with his catalog, and noticed the Museum did not have all of them. They thought it was possible the prints never came when the collection was bequeathed in 1799, but they were suspicious. When Woodburn showed a Mr. De Clausen the prints, he recognized them as part of the Cracherode Collection. The trustees investigated the charge, and Deighton confessed to having stolen over one hundred prints, many of which were Rembrandts, and selling them to dealers and collectors. He admitted that he met William Beloe, the Keeper of Printed Books, in 1794 under the guise of improving his profession as a print dealer and maintained the friendship to further the crime. He sold the first print in May 1795 and had stolen works from the Cracherode Collection over a period of 6 to 24 months earlier.37 Deighton helped the Museum recover 112 prints of Rembrandt, 19 prints of Albert Durer, and 7 portraits. Many of the Dutch school etchings were pillaged, but a great part were recovered. The value of the recovered Rembrandts was estimated at £400 with about 30 to 40 works still missing, and Deighton spent £375 of his own money to get various articles returned.38 Beloe was fired for his negligence, while Deighton was not charged. There was no up-to-date catalog, so no one could be sure how many works had been stolen in spite of Deighton's claims.

The trustees had the prints methodically arranged, bound in volumes,

stamped as the property of the British Museum, and hired Thomas Philipe to make a

37Original 38Ibid.,

Letters and Papers 2 (21 June 1806):

2 (13 December 1806):

fol. 841*-44.

fol. 802-07, 820-22.

81

catalogue.39 Also, because Beloe had been taken in by Deighton, the trustees subsequently ordered that all applications for renewal of a ticket to the Reading Room must state when the permission was first granted and on whose recommendation.40 [emphasis added] Six years later (November 1812) Henry Ellis, Under Librarian of the Department of Manuscripts, reported to the Committee that a volume in the Harleian Collection had been missing for some time. A month later when he reported that it could not be found, the trustees ordered a list of the names of the persons using the Reading Room with the dates of their first admission and by whom recommended. [emphasis added] They added that until further notice no recommendations be accepted unless from a trustee or an officer.41 In the case of the manuscript and in the one of the stolen prints, the trustees considered the people who recommended the readers. When the writer to The Times grumbled about the necessity of a recommendation and the difficulty in getting permission to use the library, the complaint fell upon men who had witnessed a colleague lose a job because he had been deceived by a reader. Twenty years later, Josiah Forshall, head of the Department of Manuscripts, stated that "if a single manuscript were to be lost, through any want of care, I should have to make it good, if it could be made good, or to pay its estimated value; and therefore, for my own sake as well as for the sake of the public, I of course exercise great caution."42 Planta had broadened access, but the officers realized that they had to be very prudent over whom they recommended.

39Ibid.,

2 (3 July 1806):

40Committee 41Ibid., 42"Report par. 4422.

fol. 829-30; General Meetings, Minutes 5 (20 December 1806):

Minutes 8 (14 March 1807):

9 (14 November 1812):

1003-04.

2315.

2535; 9 (12 December 1812):

2535-36.

from the Select Committee appointed in the following Season to consider the same subject,"

82

As a result of Planta’s alterations to access policies, he redefined the Museum public. Many more people could visit the Museum. He lowered the age of admission to ten. Because there were no applications to complete, the illiterate could visit the Museum. Banks had intended to keep the poorly educated from entering the Museum, because their conduct irritated him. The trustees rejected the idea, but the Museum adopted ways to mold museum behavior. Visitors were warned to dress appropriately for the institution. The Museum hired warders to monitor the visitors, and the officers walked through the galleries to see that all was well. As a result, Planta disproved Ward’s prediction of an unruly mob creating havoc, because no destruction occurred after the visitors were permitted to roam the galleries freely.

83

Chapter V The Trustees and Officers of the British Museum: Their Attitudes and Practices From the Death of Planta to the Committee Hearings

As the evidence has indicated, Joseph Planta was fairly even-handed about access. He worked diligently on the statutes to ease the procedures, and he admitted to having given temporary passes to people he did not know until they could produce a recommendation from someone else. He based the decision on the conversation he had with them. Planta's successor, Henry Ellis, continued the practice, but while Planta was progressive, Ellis preferred the status quo. He did not want a redefinition of the public that would enlarge the number of readers. Ellis, who had been an officer since 1805 and served as Principal Librarian from 1827 to 1856, was a very cautious and reactionary man. He became concerned that the Museum’s original purposes were becoming distorted by the variety of readers and Parliament's attempts to make access greater. He wanted a public that was more intimate, so the possibility of theft at the Museum and admitting someone of bad character were measures Ellis used for defining the museum public. A year after becoming Principal Librarian, Ellis asked the secretary to tell the trustees that he had declined admitting Harrison Denniss upon the recommendation of the Rev. Edward Edwards, who had used the Reading Room for the past three years, because he did not know Edwards. Ellis went on to say, "I have sent over to Chelsea and have reason to think that the person recommended is respectable: but . . . it would be highly imprudent in me to receive recommendations from Readers of whom nothing more is known than that they study there." Ellis proceeded to justify the decision. A Mr. Barron had used the Reading Room from 1823 up to the last few months, and Ellis had "received his recommendation of one or two persons but he has since been sentenced to seven years transportation as a Swindler." A woman who had

84

studied for a year or two in the Reading Room had her recommendation withdrawn a few months ago by the person who gave it, because she had been a robber in a private dwelling-house, "yet she had ventured to recommend another person to me for a Reading Ticket."1 The trustees praised Ellis' caution and had the secretary advise Denniss on that point.2 (It was certainly in Ellis' favor to inundate the message with stories of convicted criminals but who never stole from the library.) In the end the trustees granted the ticket without having Denniss submit another recommendation, and the praise for Ellis and the rigorous system became tarnished. The efforts to screen the Reading Room from unsuitable applicants did not stop with the recommendations. The Chief Attendant of the Reading Room had the responsibility to make himself acquainted with the persons admitted, so he could, according to Ellis, "detect interlopers, attempts of persons to creep in without Tickets being far from infrequent. . . ."3 The entire system must have been at times very hard on the employees. They had little input on the formation of the rules but had to enforce them and to endure criticism from the press, the government, and frustrated applicants. Even Ellis, who was very zealous in the responsibilities, was not sheltered and had to endure the public’s discontent. The Principal Librarian could grant readers temporary passes which were valid until the next Board meeting where they would consider the application. Frequently, he turned people away who wanted to use the library but did not have the credentials. Ellis tried to rewrite the Chief Attendant’s job description to have him "go out and ascertain the respectability of Persons who apply for Reading-Tickets, who give References to or bring Recommendations from persons who though they may be respectable are

1Original 2Committee

Letters and Papers 6 (12 December 1828).

Minutes 11 (13 December 1828):

3136-37; Original Letters and Papers 6 (16 December 1828).

3Officers' Reports 13 (29 April 1830): fol. 8. (For a humorous account of one who crept in without a ticket see Washington Irving's "The Art of Book Making," in The Sketch of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent. (1820), p. 149-65.)

85

entirely unknown:

under which circumstances the Applicants are referred (rarely without

discontent) to the production of further testimonials." Ellis thought it would "allay the rancour of Persons, who, however courteously received, are disappointed if delayed till another Recommendation comes."4 If the trustees had agreed, the Chief Attendant would have filtered the applicants, so that Ellis would have seen the qualified ones and would have been spared the tension of turning away the unqualified ones. Early in the Museum's history, if readers had removed objects but returned them, there would be no serious consequences if they could convince the authorities that it was done by accident or by a misunderstanding. Even as late as 1821 a Mr. Yarnold claimed to have accidentally taken home a manuscript on the basis of bad vision, and Planta and Ellis accepted the account.5 Ten years later, Ellis, who was in charge of the Museum and was concerned about the increase in theft, was not as forgiving and set about making such incidents examples to the public. He reported that an artist had taken home a bronze statue to draw it there. Although Ellis did not think the student was dishonest, "the Ease with which access is now had to every part of the Museum requires any such abduction as is here complained of to be marked by very strong reprobation, lest so bad an Example should be followed by other persons." Based on the report, the trustees withdrew the artist's permission "to pursue his professional occupations" inside the Museum.6 A few years later, a reader lost his ticket because he was caught returning a book he had removed.

Ellis relayed the incident to the trustees and informed them of who had

recommended the student (Mr. Roe, M.P. for Cashel), and clearly indicated his indignation at the kind of readers using the library. "Sir H. Ellis has to observe that whenever an occurrence of this

4Ibid.,

fol. 9.

5Ibid.,

8 (11 June 1825):

6Ibid.,

13 (10 December 1831):

fol. 1895-96.

fol. 2963; Committee Minutes 11 (10 December 1831):

3418.

86

kind has taken place it has been uniformly with Novel Readers; never with persons who come upon sober researches."7 As other cases occurred, Ellis became more derogatory towards the perpetrator and critical of the readers and the statutes. An attendant found a missing book in a pawnbroker's shop, and Ellis had him buy it and inquire where it came from, who pawned it, and if others had been pledged. When the pawnbroker claimed that he had received the book honestly and that the claim ticket was destroyed, Ellis sent the attendant with a police officer back to the pawnshop to examine all the books at the shop, but none from the Museum were found. Ellis was satisfied with the pawnbroker's honesty but commented acidly, "Our Readers have very greatly increased in numbers: and I think there is an occasional diminution in the respectability. Perhaps, instead of Dexter [the pawnbroker] we may, presently, find a Sinister among the Pawnbrokers, and that may lead to greater discovery than we have been able to make today."8 Henry Baber, head of the Department of Printed Books, was far calmer over the affair.

Based on Ellis'

recommendation, when the trustees directed him to report on the number of missing books within the last ten years, the number was forty, and Baber thought the majority would eventually show up in the wrong presses and shelves.9 The relationship between theft and Ellis’ concepts of a museum public and access reached a climax in the summer of 1835. Since 1807 a sergeants guard had been stationed at the Museum for protection. On 1 July the sergeant of the guard sent Ellis two language dictionaries, valued at two shillings, belonging to the King's Library which had been found in one of the soldier's caps. Ellis had the soldier arrested where he was committed to trial, convicted, and

7Original 8Ibid.,

Letters and Papers 11 (6 May 1834).

12 [22 September 1834?].

9Committee

See also Officers' Reports 16 (11 October 1834):

Minutes 11 (8 November 1834):

fol. 3701.

3886; Officers' Reports 16 (8 November 1834):

fol. 3728.

87

sentenced to six months imprisonment.10

The Principal Librarian's comments were a

justification of all that he had done and a chilling warning to anyone who might consider stealing from the Museum. "Sir H. Ellis thinks the publicity which has been given to this occurrence may eventually be of service to the Museum; as one or two suspicious appearances have been of late noticed: and the public Visitors are now so numerous as to have amounted on one day in last Week to 6138."11 The case involving the soldier was climatic in another way, because it indicated a double standard between theft and punishment and the classes who used the Museum. In 1779 a Mr. Brooke confessed to having torn and cut several pieces from the Harleian Manuscripts, but because he returned the pieces, the trustees did not pursue the matter.12 Deighton was not prosecuted for the theft of prints, and nor were Mr. Yarnold for taking home the manuscript, the artist who took home the bronze, or the student who took home the book. The significance of the cases lies in the fact that the perpetrators were people who had recommendations to use the Reading or Print Room or the Gallery of Antiquities. They were students or researchers. The soldier who stole the dictionaries was prosecuted and sent to prison. He was not a student who was recommended by someone, nor was he let off lightly with a firm warning like the students. The books were worth 2 shillings versus Deighton's £400 prints, so monetary value was not a contributing factor. Consequently, the procedures taken against the soldier were based on class. In many letters and reports Ellis referred to the growing number of unsavory types who attended the library. With broader, straighter streets and the popularity of the collections, there had been a rise in ticket holders and visitors since the beginning of the century, and it was in the

10Committee

Minutes 11 (1 August 1835):

11Officers'

Reports 17 (11 July 1835):

12Committee

Minutes 6 (9 July 1779):

4036.

fol. 3967.

1663.

88

large attendances that Ellis feared the worst. The public had become an unidentifiable mass where there could be little intimacy between the officers and the visitors. There were many visitors whose presence caused no threat to the Museum. It was the ‘suspicious appearances’ that alarmed Ellis. He did not elaborate, and the people may not have been threats in themselves, but their acts left Ellis not knowing what they were thinking or their purposes, and therefore not trustful of them.13 While Ellis had to worry about the problems that came with a larger attendance, he had to contend with pressure for greater access, which could alter the purpose of the Museum and establish a new kind of public. In consequence of a debate in the House of Commons on 8 March 1830, the Board of Trustees asked the Principal Librarian to study the practicability of extending the hours of admission to the Museum and the Reading Rooms during those months of the year with longer daylight hours, because they were "under the impression that it would be more consistent to that portion of the Public whose attendance in the Reading Rooms is most frequent."14 Ellis recommended that the Museum remain open until 5:00 p.m. from 1 March to 1 October. He thought the plan could work by having the officers work in rota during the extra hour, and paying the attendants the same rate per hour for the extra hour. The M.P., Henry Bankes, had suggested that the Reading Rooms stay open until 6:00 p.m. from 1 March to 1 October, but on 9 March Ellis examined the rooms at 6:00 p.m. and found them too dark because the windows were too high. Ellis was against keeping the Reading Rooms open so late for other reasons too. "Readers who come to a Library like that of the Museum, are men who do not use one, but many, and sometimes multitudes of Books at the same time." There would not be

13Goffman, Relations in Public, examination of people's conduct in public. 14Committee

p.

Minutes 11 (27 March 1830):

306.

See

3234-35.

the

entire

chapter

`Normal

Appearances'

for

an

89

enough time to replace the books for the people who arrived at 10:00 the following morning, which would create inconvenience for the readers and confusion for the attendants. Furthermore, the attendants would have to be paid for two hours extra work closing at 6:00 p.m., instead of for one hour closing at 5:00 p.m. Ellis went as far as applying sympathy and guilt to win the argument when he stated that the attendant in the Reading Room was old and that working eight hours would injure his health. He advised the trustees to study the hours of the great public foreign libraries. "They, like our own, are Libraries of Research and Reference, not Libraries for idle and desultory reading."15 Ellis provided statistics of European libraries to back the claim that the British Museum should not stay open till 6:00 p.m. The Vatican Library was closed from Christmas Eve until mid-January, one or two weeks at Carnival, Holy Week and Easter Week, a few days or perhaps the whole week at Whitsuntide, mid-September until Martinmass, all great festival days, anniversaries of the Pope's election and coronation, and Sundays. On open days the hours were 9:00 a.m. to noon. The Imperial Library in Vienna was open during the summer from 9:00 a.m. to noon and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and during the winter from 9:00 a.m. to noon and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. It was closed on Sundays, other festivals, and vacation times. The Royal Library in Paris was open from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., except Sundays, festivals, and a vacation from 1 September through 16 October. The Royal Library in Berlin was open from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. from 1 April through the end of September, and from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. from 1 October until 31 March.16 Ellis' report successfully persuaded the trustees, and they ordered that the

15Officers' 16Ibid.,

Reports 13 (13 March 1830):

fol. 2612-13.

fol. 2609-11.

90

hours be changed to 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. from 1 March until 1 October commencing 25 March.17 As soon as the readers heard about the alteration in the opening hours, ninety-two of them signed a petition asking the trustees to rescind the order. In the petition they stated that the majority of readers were constant in attendance, that they came early, and that they were engaged in research that could not be prosecuted elsewhere. To them, the extra hour in the morning was more beneficial when the spirits and mind were fresh than an extra one at the end of the day when they would be tired. It was the occasional reader, they claimed, who came late and to him only would this change be convenient. At present it took half an hour from the noise of entrants, of taking seats, and the delay of book delivery before the readers could begin study. By the change to 11:00 a.m., it would be 11:30 a.m. and half the day gone before any work could commence. It was unreasonable to have different opening times for summer and winter. They cited that public offices, places of business, and public libraries in Britain and the rest of Europe were open by 10:00 a.m. By the change the student would either lose an hour, or remain until 5:00 p.m., "whereby that time for exercise and recreation which is essential to health, before Dinner, will be lost."18 When Mr. Hannay, the leader, advised the Principal Librarian of the discontent among the readers, Ellis asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to suspend the new time change while he studied the problem. Before he had been approached, Ellis had taken statistics for the number of different people who came to the rooms, and the data tended to corroborate the readers' demands.19

17General

Meetings, Minutes 6 (13 March 1830):

18Original 19Officers'

1361-62.

Letters and Papers 7 (26 March 1830).

Reports 13 (27 March 1830):

fol. 2631.

91

Hours

Mar. 15

10 to 11 11 to 12 12 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 Totals

22 19 36 18 17 4 116

16

17

18

19

31 27 25 26 14 8 111

18 21 29 23 12 12 115

30 19 21 22 14 4 110

26 25 29 11 14 6 111

Average 25 22 28 20 14 7 112

After talking with some readers Ellis relayed to the trustees that many would prefer the Reading Room to be open at 9:00 a.m. and continue to 4:00 p.m., and "that the clamour for late hours has chiefly originated with some Office-Clerks."20 The statistics were quite impressive, but to an extent they were misleading. The tallies were for the number of people who came to the rooms, not the number who were abiding in them at the beginning of the hour and when the library closed. The petitioners stated that if the closing hour were changed to 5:00 p.m., they would either lose an hour or have to stay and lose an hour of exercise and recreation. From this statement it was evident that many remained at the library until 4:00 p.m. The last hour of the day had the smallest number of entrants, and compared to the earlier hours it would indicate that there would be fewer people if the closing hour were extended to 5:00 p.m. To an extent, the supposition had validity, for the times people went to the library depended on life style, transportation, and convenience, but it is also important to consider the nature of the library. The petitioners were readers who spent several hours a day at the library, and, as they said, it took about thirty minutes to receive the first books.21 A serious researcher who arrived at the Museum an hour before closing could not expect to accomplish much. If it were late in the day,

20Ibid. 21Original

Letters and Papers 7 (26 March 1830).

92

many would forgo a visit until the following day. As a result, the last hour, no matter when it was, would have the smallest number of readers. It was not surprising that Ellis, who had originally been in favor of the change to 5:00 p.m., sided with the readers when he discovered that it was office-clerks who had wanted the later closing hours. Novel readers and office-clerks may have had the same rights of access, but as Ellis' remarks and previous actions indicated, the library had been intended for scholarly purposes. He thought clerks intruded on people who used the Museum for important research. When the trustees received the petition and Ellis' report, they ordered that the Reading Rooms should continue to open at 10:00 a.m. The trustees had wanted to make the Reading Room as accommodating as possible to a larger public, so under pressure from Parliament the trustees tackled the problem from a different perspective. In the spring of 1831 they asked Ellis to study the necessary arrangements for opening the library on Saturdays. Not only might it help alleviate crowding on weekdays, it would pay tribute to the office clerks and others who had lost the battle to have later hours. Ellis consulted with Henry Baber, the head of the Department of Printed Books, who stated that he would need four additional attendants to get and return books. The readers placed reservations for books, and the attendants got them on Saturdays, and Baber claimed that if the library were open on Saturdays, the attendants would have to fetch books back and forth daily. Because they would not have time to return everything on Saturdays as before, it would create a backlog of work, and the students would murmur because they had to wait longer. Also, the attendants would have to devote time to the library on Saturdays, and he would lose considerable man hours in the Department of Printed Books.22

22Officers'

Reports 14 (13 April 1831):

fol. 2847.

93

Baber had an ally in Ellis, who did not favor opening the library for similar reasons. He cited the increasing number of students and the number of books that had to be restored at the end of the week. It was vital to have Saturdays free. On some days 150 readers had been present in the course of the day, and if three or five volumes were allowed per person, he asked the trustees to imagine the work that occurred replacing things for the ensuing week. Should the trustees consider a Saturday opening to be indispensable, Ellis said that the chief attendant in the Reading Room would have to work six days a week and be paid extra for the sixth day. There were three under-attendants who already worked on Saturdays, and from the transfer of employees two more would have to be hired for Printed Books and one for Manuscripts. "In short, it will be found upon minute Enquiry, that the advantages to be gained by Students in having the Reading Room of the Museum open upon Saturdays, are by no means commensurate with the Inconvenience which will be occasioned to the service and arrangements of the House as they regard the Printed-Books and Manuscript Departments."23 In spite of Baber's and Ellis' apprehensions the trustees went ahead with the idea and ordered that the library be opened at the same hours on Saturdays throughout the year as the other weekdays.24 The effects of opening an additional day demonstrated how useful but ill equipped the library was to satisfy the public, for by the end of the year, Ellis and the trustees were again discussing the lack of accommodation. Opening the Reading Room on Saturday was a victory for greater access for those whose work prevented their coming at other times. It also showed how the research minded were favored over the other classes, for the Museum remained closed to the public on Saturdays. In line with the Museum's original goals, the trustees had favored the readers and artists over the

23Ibid., 24General

14 (16 April 1831):

fol. 2841-42.

Meetings, Minutes 6 (25 April 1831):

1388.

94

general public. There were now six days to use the library, while the public had three days for the Museum. Also, with the exception of the three holiday weeks, the library was open year round, while the Museum was closed an additional two months for the summer holidays. It was a time to give the staff vacation leave, but it was ironic that in the busiest time of the year the Museum was closed. July and October had the highest attendance records, and there had been critical articles citing the inconvenience to vacationers, especially foreigners, who found the Museum closed when they came to London in August and September. The trustees took notice, and in April 1833 ordered that the Museum "should not close before the 1st September, and should be reopened on the 1st October in every year."25 In the first half of the 1830s people had been grumbling about the management of the British Museum. The building program begun in the 1820s for the King's Library and other additional space had been expensive and was still not completed, and there had been accusations of improper storage of the collections.26 Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas had published a scathing attack on Sir Henry Ellis' lack of appreciation of the Baron de Joursanvault collection of manuscripts and the Museum's failure to purchase it.27 John Millard, who had been fired from the Department of Manuscripts for inefficiency, had made enough noise over the affair to attract the attention of some M.P.s. As a result, in 1835 Parliament set up a committee to investigate the condition, operations, and management of the British Museum, and because they were not satisfied with the evidence, they held another set of hearings in 1836.

They interrogated

witnesses on a variety of topics, but it is the questions to the staff relative to access, the Museum’s purposes, and the public that are pertinent here. 25Committee

Minutes 12 (20 April 1833):

26Edinburgh

Review, or Critical Journal 38 (May 1823):

3592.

379-98.

27Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas, Observations on the State of Historical Literature, and on the Society of Antiquaries, and Other Institutions for its Advancement in England (London: William Pickering, 1830).

95

The Committee directed most of the questions on access to Sir Henry Ellis and Josiah Forshall, head of the Department of Manuscripts and secretary to the trustees. Part of the investigation involved answering straight forward questions to the rules of access that could have been found by looking at any of the numerous publications or the statutes on the Museum’s walls. Many questions and answers required clarification, however, and in cases when witnesses were badgered, and the policies were criticized, the elaboration they provided gave insights into the officers’ opinions on the public and the rationale for the statutes. Ellis had a clearly articulated definition for the British Museum library, which offered him the opportunity to relate it to his concept of the public. "A public library is a place of consultation and reference; it ought not to be a receptacle for mere idle readers."28 Ellis illustrated what he meant by the term ‘public’ library when he described the procedures at the Paris library. Readers were not sent romances, plays, frivolous literature, or political pamphlets except by special favor from the conservators, and then, only for declared purposes of historical or particular research. "That regulation shows the distinction which is very properly made at Paris between a public and what we call a circulating library." To Ellis librarianship at the British Museum meant assisting research and aiding those who were more professionally devoted to knowledge, writing, and compiling works.29 When the Committee suggested having the library remain open until 8:00 p.m., Ellis objected on two grounds. He recited the clamor that was raised in 1830 when the trustees tried keeping the library open till 5:00 p.m. Researchers preferred coming early in the day, and a different class of readers, such as lawyers' and merchants' clerks and readers of light literature, would come in the

28Great Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Papers (Commons), 1835, vol. 7, "Report from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Condition, Management and Affairs of the British Museum," par. 249. 29Ibid.,

par. 1314, 2507.

96

evening hours. They were "a class I conceive the Museum library was not intended for, at least, not for their principal accommodation", and a circulating library could provide the books they needed.30 When the readers at the British Museum became a more diffuse body in the 1820s and 1830s, the class distinction or intellectual status of the readers became less distinct. Because the library stood to lose some of its prestige and value, Ellis drew distinctions between readers and reading habits. He categorized readers by who they were (clerks vs. researchers) and what they read (novels and light literature vs. scholarly works). He attempted to maintain a way of reading that would break the threat that the newer kinds of readers with their frivolous literature imposed on the library. He sided with the petitioners in 1830 to have the hours returned to 10 to 4 o'clock, he was against opening the library on Saturdays, and as he testified at the hearings, he was firmly against opening the Reading Room in the evenings. Ellis testified that the British Museum had two private days set aside for artists to draw from the sculptures. He drew the line for opening the Museum to the public five days a week, because of the impossibility of making drawings, and "the utility of the Museum would be materially injured if the public were admitted on what are called the private days."31 On open days, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, the artist had to yield to the public, and when it was crowded, it was impossible to commence with any drawing, because they often had to position themselves in the center of the room to work, and they would not be able to place the drawing stands where they wanted. The Committee questioned Ellis on the necessity of closing the Museum to the public on Saturdays and holiday weeks, and a confrontation of wills took place when Ellis' fear and

30Ibid.,

par. 1313-14.

31Ibid.,

par. 251-54.

97

contempt of the lower classes spilled into the testimony. Since its opening, the Museum had been cleaned daily before opening hours, but it was necessary to give it a thorough cleaning on Saturdays.

The condition of London's smoky atmosphere and rainy climate and the dust

discharged from the Museum's heaters produced dirt and grime. When the Committee suggested altering the work by closing the Museum on a weekday and opening it on Saturdays, Ellis defended the practice with statistics that showed that Saturday had the fewest number of readers.32 He drew the conclusion and convinced the Committee that Saturday would have the fewest number of visitors if the Museum were opened on that day, so it was the best day for cleaning. They failed to note that the kind of persons who came on weekdays were researchers, students, and professionals. They could afford not to come on Saturday, especially if they had spent all week at the library. In later testimony he offered the same explanation for the necessity of cleaning the Museum thoroughly during the holiday weeks and added that during the Easter week, the staff collated and arranged one or two year's supply of newspapers for binding. The Committee was not satisfied and asked if it was "a sufficient reason for excluding the public at a time when so large a portion of the people are at leisure?" Ellis thought the most mischievous portion of the population was about at such a time, and when asked if problems would arise even with sufficient attendants, he replied, "Yes, I think the vulgar class would crowd into the Museum." He did not think that improving the vulgar class was one of the Museum's greatest objects.33 His attitude hit a nerve with the Committee, who examined him not only to extract information, but to condemn his opinions as well.

32Ibid.,

par. 255, 257, 259-62.

33Ibid.,

par. 1319-22.

98

Are there not more people about whom you should be anxious to instruct and amuse during those holidays than at any other portion of the year?--I think the more important class of the population (as far as we are concerned) would be discontented at such a change as the former question contemplates. [changing the week's cleaning to another time of the year] Will you describe what you mean by the more important part of the population?--People of a higher grade would hardly wish to come to the Museum at the same time with sailors from the dock-yards and girls whom they might bring with them. I do not think such people would gain any improvement from the sight of our collections.34 The Committee could not coerce Ellis to relinquish his circular argument. For Ellis there were too many `wrong sorts' using the library and entering the Museum. As a result, there was an increased rate in theft. To combat the trend and to keep the Museum on its original path, Ellis did not initiate or champion changes in access policies. The British Museum had been under heavy fire for being exclusive, and Ellis' attitude confirmed the unflattering picture, so the Committee was anxious to determine the mood of the officers and their interpretations of the Museum's function and access. The Rev. Josiah Forshall was the next witness. To him the library must be confined to persons of literary or scientific pursuits who had some serious purpose in coming to consult the collections; therefore, it was sufficiently open for the purposes for which it was designed, a library of research. He rebutted the charge that it was difficult for people who were engaged in morning occupations with the answer that it was not a library of education.35 Although the British Museum had the reference material, the library was intended for people who were able to spend long periods of time reading and researching, which would include students and serious scholars, and not necessarily for those people whose occupations made the use of the British Museum an occasional necessity to pop in to get quick answers to questions. Like Ellis, Forshall saw the Museum as a research

34Ibid.,

par. 1328-30.

35Ibid.,

par. 1288-89.

99

institution, but he was in direct contradiction with Ellis' view that the vulgar classes received no benefit from the Museum. "I have always looked upon the Museum as the great national storehouse of materials for literature, art and science, and that its chief object is to assist persons engaged in any of these pursuits; but it is also important as a place of innocent and instructive amusement for the population of the metropolis; and I think it confers some other not inconsiderable benefits upon the public."36 Forshall’s view of the public was broader than Ellis’, for in this case ‘population’ and ‘public’ meant populace. While Ellis did not want the ‘vulgar classes’ to visit the Museum, George Samouelle took the initiative and stood up for them. Samouelle was not an officer but an employee who was hired to work specifically with the entomology collection. Samouelle responded that he was pleased with the public’s general good feeling exhibited on all occasions.

Police officers,

soldiers, sailors, artillery men, livery-servants, and mechanics visited the Museum, their conduct was good, and the `ignorant' were brought into awe by what they saw. Since his employment in 1821 there had been only two panes of glass broken by visitors, and in both cases it was accidental.37 The testimony counteracted any assumptions that the public was unruly and destructive. With a sufficient number of attendants to monitor the public, Samouelle thought it would be beneficial to open on holidays for those who could not visit at another time. He did not expect any mischief to occur with the large crowds as long as the intoxicated were kept out. People who had more free time could come another day, while the holidays were the only opportunities for a large number of people to visit the Museum.38 Ellis' view of a museum

36Ibid.,

par. 612.

37Ibid.,

par. 3915-16.

38Ibid.,

par. 3917, 3919-23.

100

public was more restrictive, because he shuddered to think that those who would attend on the holidays would likely drive the middle and upper classes away. Samouelle’s concept of a museum public as a mixture of classes comes closest to reflecting Richard Sennett’s definition of the public which included a relatively wide diversity of people who were strangers and who might regularly meet in places such as coffeehouses, urban parks, and theatres.39 John E. Gray was an officer in the zoological branch of the Department of Natural History, and his opinions echoed Samouelle’s. He had no reason to complain of the public’s conduct, and with a greater number of attendants, it would be an advantage to the public to let them attend on the holidays, because many could see the collections at no other time. Even so, Gray did not want to be bothered with triflers and idlers. He regarded himself and the collections as being at the disposal of men of science for research and consultation and did "not encourage those, (of whom there are too many), who come often on the most trivial occasions, and occupy the time of the officers with frivolous questions."40 Henry Josi was the last Museum employee introduced to the Committee. As Keeper for the Department of Prints and Drawings, the members were especially keen to question him on access to the Department, and whether there had been complaints. The Print Room had about six or seven artists and students a day with an occasional amateur, but he was not in favor of granting the public greater access to the prints, because he did not think it was difficult getting a letter of introduction, and foreigners would have access through their consuls or ambassadors.41 Josi answered that there had been complaints during the last two years, because Mr. Ottley’s (the

39Sennett,

The Fall of Public Man, p. 17.

40"Report from the Select Committee appointed in the following Season to consider the same subject," par. 2501, 2511-12, 2694. 41Ibid.,

par. 5252-53.

101

former keeper) bad health prevented his attending, and the keys could not be entrusted to a ‘common assistant’.

Since he had been appointed, Josi believed there had been no more

complaints.42 The Committee had questioned the Museum’s purposes and how the institution could best serve the public. The Museum had gone through considerable change since its foundation. Access had been simplified to the Museum, and readers could use third party recommendations to obtain a ticket. The officers and trustees were confronted with a reassessment of who should be allowed to use the Museum. The officers agreed that the Museum’s primary function was to further knowledge and learning. They differed over the extent it should serve the public. Ellis preferred keeping the institution and the statutes designed for the scholarly only, while the other officers were more inclined to make alterations to let a broader spectrum use the Museum. The opinions represented the established and an alternative view towards the British Museum. Henry Ellis wanted a ‘known’ and respectable public. From the time he assumed the position of Principal Librarian to the Committee hearings, he did not initiate or encourage changes to access policies. When the trustees planned to close the Museum at 5:00, Ellis sided with the ninety-two petitioners to stop the action. When the trustees planned to open the library on Saturdays, Ellis tried, but failed to talk them out of the idea. His motives were based on the Museum's purpose to further knowledge, and he assumed that the Museum was not for the vulgar class or novel readers. The large crowds at the Museum frightened Ellis. They could not be easily watched, and he said that some of the visitors acted suspiciously. The Reading Room public included clerks and novel readers, and Ellis thought that there was a diminished respectability among the readers. As a result, Ellis was against any changes that would make

42Ibid.,

par. 5231-32.

102

access easier for the vulgar classes or for people who would use the library for purposes other than serious research.

103

Chapter VI Analysis of the Readers

From the beginning Sir Hans Sloane, Parliament, and the trustees had intended to make the British Museum accessible for public use. Exactly who visited the museum is unknown. The application registers for the tours were not saved. The officers, however, kept the lists of people for whom Reading Room tickets were issued.1

Throughout the Museum’s history the

administration maintained a policy of admitting anyone who could produce the proper credentials. Both Raymond Williams’ and Richard Sennett’s definition of the public in its widest sense included individuals who seemed largely impersonal or were unknown. The Reading Room public was more personal and included close friends and acquaintances of the trustees and officers. The ‘public’ chafed at this definition and the procedures for obtaining access. They argued for an easier form of access that required less intimacy with the trustees and officers but would permit more people in professions or who were in engaged in historical or literary works to use the library. As occupations and position in society were a key argument for one’s use of the library, it is the purpose to examine the people who had access to the Reading Room to determine the Reading Room public. The diaries and admission books varied in the quantity of information. Not all surnames included a Christian name, but all were preceded by a title, such as ‘Mr.’, ‘Dr.’, ‘Rev.’, ‘Lieut.’, or ‘Mrs.’. Some names were recorded with initials. We can assume that these were men, because women were entered as ‘Miss’ or ‘Mrs.’. Further identification was assisted by the inclusion of street and/or city addresses, and by 1820 a person’s residence was routinely noted.

1The British Library, Department of Manuscripts, and the British Museum, Central Archives have records for 1759-June 1810, 1820-1836. The records from 1759 until the 1770s were also recorded in the Committee Minutes, and had some names not found in the diaries.

104

Finally, in a few cases, the officers listed the reader’s place of employment instead of an address, or provided the occupation in addition to an address. The entry, ‘Mr Hartstinct, Islington, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United Provinces to the Circle of Lower Saxony and the Hans Towns’ provides far more information about the man and the readership than the simple, but not unusual entry, ‘Mr Baker’. As a result, many of the statistics are not complete, so should be treated with a degree of caution. A good guideline is to consider quantities as the maximum number that could be accounted for or traced. To say that there were thirteen clerics among the readers in 1800 should be interpreted as the maximum that could be determined. With the number of untraceable people, it is possible that the number could be higher. In any case with the amount of data the statistics provide, they offer an opportunity for categorization. By 1836 there were more than 2,000 reader’s tickets issued. With so many people to examine for one year it would not be feasible for as large a period as 1759-1836 to cover every year. The coverage was scaled to include the years 1759, the last year of each decade from 1770 to 1830, and 1836. As the lists became longer, further refinement became necessary beginning with 1800 which covered the period January through July. For 1810 through 1836, two months, January and June or July were used. The names and any accompanying information were checked against entries in biographical dictionaries for more detail on the person's life. Additional readers were identified by matching names with authors in the OCLC data base system and the British Library Catalogue and looking for information in the author’s book (title page, preface, text) to confirm that the author and the reader were the same person. In 1759 there were 135 readers. There were 17 clerics, 19 doctors, and 18 who were reverend doctors making a total of 54. Of the 19 who were doctors only, at least eight were physicians or surgeons, and one, William Blackstone, was traced to a law professorship at Oxford. The other ten remain unknown. Many of the clerics achieved outstanding posts later in life.

Charles Lyttleton, John Ross, John Douglas, Robert Lowth, and John Green became

105

bishops, while the Bishop of Norwich was a reader in 1759. Jeremiah Milles did not achieve lawn sleeves, but his uncle was Bishop of Waterford and Lismore, and his father-in-law was Archbishop Potter. Also among the 1759 readers were three knights, two lords, and two earls. Seven of the readers were graduates or faculty from Oxford, and sixteen were from Cambridge. From the number of men who had the title `reverend' or `doctor', the number of Oxbridge men must have been higher.

The British Museum attracted foreign academics as well.

Jean-Christophe

Hennings, a professor at Kiel, and Godefroy Achenwell, a German economist at the University of Goettingue, had tickets. After clerics, government employees, law, and law-related positions accounted for the next sizable group with a total of 15. There were five attorneys and one judge, while the other occupations varied. There were three readers who were, or had been, members of Parliament. The Earl of Egmont had been elected to the House of Commons in 1741, received the earldom in 1748, and was appointed to the Privy Council in 1755. John Pitt was serving as M.P. for Dorchester when he received the ticket, while Isaac Browne had been elected an M.P. in 1744 and again in 1747. Among Daniel Wray's accomplishments was a position as deputy teller of the exchequer. Isaac Netto was a notary public, Edward Capell was a Deputy Inspector of Plays, and James Burrow was a legal reporter. Stephen Leake was deputy lieutenant of the Tower Hamlets, while his son, John, was commissioner for auditing the public accounts. Together with Thomas Sheriff, the three men were at the Herald’s office. Their professions paid early tribute to the significance of the British Museum for researchers in emblems, coats of arms, numismatics, and genealogies. There were other readers whose occupations did not fall into any of the above categories. David Hume was a philosopher and historian, Richard Putteney was a botanist, William Massey was a writer and translator, Timothy Cunningham was an author and compiler of legal and

106

antiquarian books, John Talbot Dillon was a critic and historical writer, Jared Leigh and Mr. Errhet were artists, and Mr. Channing was an apothecary. A final tie that linked many of the readers was club membership. There were twelve readers who were members of the Royal Society, and eight who were members of the Society of Antiquaries. Daniel Wray, Jeremiah Milles, William Burrell, William Stukeley, and Stephen Martin Leake, Jr. were members of both societies. It is clear, then, that in 1759, use of the Reading Room at the British Museum was firmly in the hands of the propertied and educated. For the period 1770-1810 there were 333 readers. Of this number 156 can be identified by occupation.2 Of the 333 readers there were 113, or 1 in 3, who were clerics, physicians or had the title `doctor', or lawyers or law students. They would have fit in very well with the librarians who served them, because, with the exception of Joseph Planta (1773-1827) and John Obadiah Justamond (1773-78), all the librarians in the period 1765-1803 were either clerics or physicians. The other groups of readers included 12 artists, architects, and writers, 13 men who worked for offices of state or were military officers, 9 antiquarians or historians, and 9 miscellaneous occupations. Like the librarians, many of the readers came from a university background. Almost all the librarians hired between 1765 and 1805 were members of the Royal Society and/or the Society of Antiquaries, but among the readers there were 16 men who were members of either society. In spite of the small number of members, a large number of the identified readers had identical educational and professional backgrounds as the librarians. There were 47 readers who published works after they visited the Reading Room, and 23 of the `authors' were clerics, physicians, or lawyers.

2This number does not include the 7 members of the nobility, all of whom were from France, except Baron de Scheffer who was from Poland.

107

Who were these men? Among the clerics there were Westley Hall (1770), who had been a pupil of John Wesley, Gottlob Christian Storr (1770), the Protestant theologan of Stuttgart who visited the library with his brother, Gottlob Conrad Storr, Samuel Ayscough (1780) who was hired as an assistant librarian for the Museum in 1787, and Peter Elmsley (1800) who was a printer for the Royal Society. Not all the clerics can be identified in as much detail as the men listed above, but from the information the officers recorded, enough can be determined to demonstrate a diverse background. For example, in 1790 Reverend Smirinoff was the chaplain to the Russian envoy, Reverends Evans and James Dallaway were at Oxford colleges, John Duncombe was from Hereford, Reverend Wintle was the chaplain to the late Archbishop of Canterbury, Reverend Wright was the Secretary to the Society of Antiquaries, John Pridden was the curate of St. Brides, Fleet Street, Daniel Lysons was curate of Putney, and John Moore, the rector of St. Michaels, Bassishaw, helped Benjamin Kennicott (1759) in collating the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. Richard Palwhele, although a minister, was also the author of Renton of Devonshire. Among the lawyers the list included Andrew Coltee Ducarel (1770) who was a doctor of civil law. Ducarel's life had interwoven with the history of the British Museum. In 1729 at the age of 16 he was under Sir Hans Sloane's care for three months because he had lost an eye. In 1755 he applied but failed to get a library position at the Museum. In 1770 he was working on the records at the State Paper Office in Whitehall with two other men, Sir Joseph Ayloffe, an attorney, and Thomas Astle, who had passes to the library. Astle had a prior link to the Museum, when, in 1759, he was hired temporarily to make an index for the Harleian manuscripts. In 1764 a royal commission had been created to superintend methodizing the records at the Office at Whitehall, and in view of the fact that the three men received their passes on the same day, the research at the library must have been related to the commission.

108

Other attorneys included John Reeves (1780) who was the king's printer and served as a commissioner of bankruptcy in 1780. Richard Paul Jodrell (1780) was a lawyer who later served as an M.P. from 1790-92 and 1794-96 but was better known for his work as a classical scholar and dramatist. Because he inherited wealth, George Mason (1780) hardly practiced law but pursued his taste for letters and landscape gardening. Oliver Cromwell (1790) was a descendant and biographer of the Protector. Sir John Coxe Hippisley (1800), although a lawyer, spent much of his time in political activities. He was an M.P. (1790-96) and worked as a negotiator at the Vatican for the English government (1792-96). He negotiated the marriage of the Duke of Würtemburg with the Princess Royal and was knighted for the efforts (1796). Among the physicians were some notable men who were not native Englishmen. Dr. John Frederick Gmelin (1770) was from Tubingen and came to the library with his brother, Christian Gottlob Gmelin. George Fordyce (1780) had studied at the University of Aberdeen and attended medical school at the University of Edinburgh. After he moved to London in 1759 he lectured on chemistry and medicine. Charles William Quin (1780) was an Irishman of King's and Queen's College of Physicians and was Physician General of His Majesty's Army in Ireland and of the Royal Hospital for Invalids near Dublin. John Moore (1790) attended Glasgow University and had served as a doctor for the army. He knew Smollet, attended William Hunter's lectures, and traveled with the Duke of Hamilton for five years.

Quin and Moore were two

readers who had served with the army, and there were four more military officers, as well as other readers whose positions were state related. Sir John Irwin (1780) was a general and the son of a general. He was made commander-in-chief in Ireland in 1775, and he served as an M.P. (1762-1783). Captain Thomas Davies (1780) rose to the rank of Major General in the Royal Artillery by the end of the century. Colonel Bellew (1780) was a member of the 1st Regiment of Guards. In 1800 Colonel Wright and Lieutenant Napier had tickets to the Reading Room. In addition to Sir John Irwin and Sir John Coxe Hippisley who were M.P.s, Philip Yorke (1780)

109

was an M.P. from 1774-81, and George Ellis (1800) accompanied Lord Malmesbury to the Hague in 1784 and was employed in diplomatic business there, and in 1796 was elected M.P. for Seaford. Finally, Mons. Marhard (1770) was the Hessian Minister, Mons. Tocquot (1790) was an avocat au Parliament de Nanci, and Mr. Hartstinct (1800) was the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United Provinces to the Circle of Lower Saxony and the Hans Towns. As it has been noted, the trustees wrote that the principal intention of the British Museum was "for the Use of learned & studious men, as well natives, as foreigners. . . ."3 For each of the five years under study in the period 1770-1810 there were foreigners who used the Reading Room. Although they came from Manheim, Geneva, Turin, Prague, Upsala, and other cities, the overwhelming majority came from France. Among the readers in 1790 were Chevalier Gorman, Mr. Walkinter, Mons. de Mercy, and Mons. Tocquot who were from France. Throughout the decade the Reading Room lists included several names beginning with `Abbé', `Count', `Monsieur', or names of French extraction. By 1800 there was a greater influx of Frenchmen. The revolution had forced the Abbé de Tressan to move to Italy, Germany, Russia, and finally to England. In the period from January through July, ten tickets were issued to French noblemen and émigrés.4 The proportion was even more striking, for 71 tickets were issued in the seven month period, giving the French a 1 in 7 ratio among readers. Numerous artists, architects, writers, and historians used the library. George Saunders (1790) was an architect who in 1790 published A Treatise on Theatres. Henry Edridge (1790) was a miniature painter who had studied at the Royal Academy, and Valentine Green (1790) was

3Birch, A Collection of Papers Relating to the Establishment and Government of the British Museum, Add. MS 4,449, fols. 118-119. 4Baron de Recourt, Vicomte de Segonzae, Marquis de Marcournay, Marquis de la Gallissoniere, Abbé de Tressan, Comte de Mariniere, L'Abbé Danicourt, Mons. L'Abbé Gautier, Bishop of Angoulesme, and L'Abbé Le Pointe. In addition there were three names of French extraction in the list, Mr R. Rosseau, Mr de Rochechouart, and Alexander La Borde. Because the officers did not use the French title `monsieur' but used `mister', I am hesitant to assume they were were French by nationality and have not included them with the ten people above.

110

a mezzotint engraver to the king. In 1800 the portrait painter, Ozias Humphry, R.A., and in 1810 the Irish painter, Adam Buck, were issued tickets to the Reading Room. The year 1770 saw the admission of the historian, Edward Gibbon, who had attended Oxford and whose father had been an M.P. (1734-47). Nine years later Gibbon wrote about his disappointment with the lack of public libraries in London, and that many historians had to buy the works they needed, if booksellers could find them.5 The historian, David MacPherson, obtained a pass in 1790 and another one in 1800. Henry Sampson Woodfall (1790) printed The Public Advertiser and had been in and out of court on charges of libel against the king (1770) and Burke (1784) and for publishing a handbill expressing satisfaction at Admiral Keppel's acquittal (1779). John Payne Collier (1810) was a reporter for The Times and later for the Morning Chronicle. In 1849 he testified at Parliamentary hearings and advocated a printed rather than a manuscript catalogue for the British Museum library. Samuel Johnson's biographer, James Boswell, was issued a ticket in 1790. Thomas Park (1810) worked as an editor of other people's material, including the poets, William Shenstone and Robert Burns. There were readers whose wealth made it unnecessary to have a profession. Topham Beauclerk was the wealthy grandson of the Duke of St. Albans and the son-in-law of the Duke of Marlborough and received a ticket in 1770 and another one in 1780. At the other end of the spectrum were the shopkeepers, clerks, minor civil servants, and aspiring, respectable artisans whom Kenneth Hudson stated were at the lowest level of a potential museum public in the eighteenth century.6 In 1780 Mr. Leroux, a watchmaker of Charing Cross, and in 1800 Owen Jones, a furrier on Thames Street, received Reading Room tickets. Nothing more is known about

5Edward Gibbon, The Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbons, Esq. With Memoirs of His Life and Writings, Composed by Himself, Vol. 4, Classical and Critical, With occasional notes and narrative by the Right Honourable John, Lord Sheffield, a new edition, with considerable additions (London: John Murray, 1814), p. 591-92. 6Hudson,

A Social History of Museums, p. 26.

111

Mr. Leroux than the information the librarian wrote in the Reading Room diary. Mr. Jones, however, founded the Gwyneddigion Society of London in 1770 for the study of Welsh literature and archaeology, and in 1789 he published a collection of the poems of Davydd ab Gwilym. Although Jones's background indicated an interest in scholarly endeavors, he was a businessman, and Leroux was an artisan. The year 1820 is significant for studying the readers. During the preceding six years there had been criticism about access and agitation for change. From 1804 to 1812 readers could gain access from the recommendation of someone who knew an officer or trustee. The change in 1812 prompted letters to The Times and to the trustees from men who assumed that their occupation, such as medicine or law, or their position in society should justify a ticket. In The Times `A Citizen' wrote that the library was closed to all but a privileged class.7 In 1821, the M.P., Thomas Lennard, said that there was a son of an eminent professor at Geneva who wanted to examine the manuscripts of Rousseau's works but could not obtain the necessary recommendation.8

With so much criticism about people who could not gain access, it is

important, therefore, to determine the Reading Room public. In 1820 there were 112 readers for January and July, and there was a noticeable breadth of professions and diversity of backgrounds. Ten readers were clerics including the Rev. George Thackeray who was the Provost of King’s College, Cambridge and had been chaplain in ordinary to George III.

The Rev. Stephen Clissold was a writer on trade and in 1820 published

Considerations on the Trade, Manufactures, and Commerce of the British Empire. There were eleven lawyers. Thomas Amyot, an attorney, was also the private secretary to Mr. Windham, the war and colonial minister. Charles Butler was called to the bar in 1791, and because of changes

7The

Times (14 October 1814), p. 2d.

8Parliamentary

Debates new series 5 (11 April 1821):

155.

112

in the law he was the first Catholic barrister since 1688. Sir Alexander Croke was a lawyer who held judgeship in vice-admiralty court in Halifax, Nova Scotia from 1801-1815.

Samuel

Heywood was a sergeant-at-law and Welsh judge. Sir Christopher Robinson was an admiralty lawyer who was an M.P. There were two other M.P.s, Alexander Boswell, the oldest son of James Boswell, and Daniel Gurney. There were fewer artists, writers, and men of science, and although they were not as diverse as the lawyers, they were just as accomplished. John James Chalon and Alfred Edward Chalon were brothers who studied at the Royal Academy. John was a landscape and genre painter, and Alfred was a portrait painter. Alfred went on to become an Associate Royal Academician (A.R.A.) in 1812 and a Royal Academician (R.A.) in 1816. Bartholomew Howlett was a draftsman and engraver, and Henry Bone was an enamel painter to the Prince of Wales (1800), A.R.A. (1801), R.A. (1811), enamel painter to George III (1801), and later to George IV and William IV. The writers included men of fiction and non-fiction. Charles Mills was a historical writer. Sharon Turner was a historian who wrote History of England from the Earliest Period to the Norman Conquest, and Washington Irving was known for his literary classics. Irving later became the U.S. minister to Spain. Edward Griffith had been a solicitor and a Master in the court of common pleas, but after 1820 he did a lot of work for the Zoological and Linnean Societies. William Hasledine Pepys was an inventor and the founder of the Askesian Society. He was a member of the Royal Society and the Mineralogical Society, treasurer of the Geological Society (1811), and president of the Royal Institution (1816). There were miscellaneous groups of readers whose occupations gave greater dimension to the readership. Captain Vitch was a member of the Royal Engineers, and Captain Porvys was a member of the Coldstream Guards. George Blyth was a comptroller of army accounts and the Duke of Kent's secretary. Thomas Curson Hansard, the printer of the Parliamentary Debates had

113

a ticket, as did John Britton, the topographer. Britton and John Payne Collier (above) also had tickets in 1810. One group of readers who did not use the library in large numbers was women. Of the 333 readers in the period 1770-1810, there were 3 women. Mrs. Hooke of Great Queen Street received her pass in 1770, and Anne Paulet and Mrs. Haistrock received their passes in 1780. The statutes did not deny access on the basis of sex, and the first women to use the Reading Room were Lady Mary Carr and Lady Ann Monson in 1762. In 1820 there were five women readers. Women were a small minority representing fewer than 1% of the readers from 1770 to 1810 and rising to 4.6% for two months in 1820. The statistics for 1820 gain a different perspective when certain facts are taken into consideration. All five women received the tickets in July. The time of year may have explained why there were no female applicants for January. Four of the women were not married. Finally, four of the women were not `independent'. In other words, they had not applied for tickets by themselves. Mary and Anne Power received tickets at the same time as their brother or father, John Power, all of whom resided at 44 Lime Street. Mr. and Miss Baker of Northampton were listed on the same line (brothers, fathers, and sons were recorded on separate lines). James Pulham of 28 Kenton Street had a pass for January, but when he renewed it in July, Mrs. Pulham was listed with him. Had he married? The sole female listed by herself was Angeline Walford. The British Museum rules did not discriminate according to sex, but the number and characteristics of the women readers, and the way they were registered, indicated that they may have been using the library for joint ventures with another family member or that a family member was supervising them. After 1822 readers could obtain tickets to the library from recommendations by people who knew an officer or trustee. For January and July 1830 there were 290 people who received

114

Reading Room tickets.9 The person who kept the Reading Room lists recorded the name of the referee after the reader's address for 90 readers. Of this total all but 8 of the referees were people who were neither employees nor trustees of the British Museum.10 (It is quite likely that the other 200 people were recommended by officers or trustees, because in earlier times when only an officer or trustee could give recommendations, as a rule the lists did not record the referee's name.) With at least 82 readers who were recommended by people other than officers or trustees, more than 1 in 4 members of the Reading Room public were not friends or acquaintances of the officers or trustees.

This minority of readers resembled Raymond

Williams’s definition of the public as unknown readers or the crowd. In March 1830 there was a row over the opening and closing hours of the library. Ellis claimed that the clerks who used the library had been the ones to instigate the change. Based on the petitioners' remark that these readers seldom came to the library, presumably the clerks were not scholars or men in holy orders but were officers in charge of the general conduct of a business or subordinate employees in offices or shops who kept accounts, made copies of documents and other mechanical work of correspondence.11

Although many of the

professionals or wealthier readers had, or went on to obtain fame in some aspect and were written about in biographies and dictionaries, the clerks were not so fortunate, so determining the number of clerks at the library is tenuous at best. The Museum officers occasionally recorded the reader's place of employment next to the name. W.B. Rooke worked in the Comptrollers Office at the Stamp Office, Joseph Foss Dessiou was at the Admiralty Office, J.H. Rich was at 9George Jeremy, Stedman Whitwell, John Phillips, Dr Thomas Orger, and George Knapp received tickets for both months and have been counted once. 10John E. Gray, an officer, recommended 4, Davies Gilbert, President of the Royal Society, recommended 2, the Lord Chief Justice recommended 1, and Sir Henry Halford, President of the College of Physicians, recommended 1. Charles Watkin Williams Wynn, M.P., recommended Benjamin Thorpe, and Thomas Spring-Rice, M.P., recommended Mr [Craufurd Tait] Ramage, but neither man was a trustee. 11The

Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989), s.v. "Clerk."

115

the Exchequer Office, and John Henry Marsh had `Bray & Warren's Office' penned next to his name. Lord Clements was at the Foreign Office, but a member of the aristocracy would not have been an office clerk. For that matter, it cannot be stated that the other four men were clerks, but their offices kept hours similar to the Museum's. The officers recorded the Rev. J.B. Deane as a merchant and Richard Taylor as a printer, and although they were not clerks, their work must have kept them busy during part of the day. Among the professional occupations there were 29 clerics, 17 attorneys and an additional 14 readers whose address was the Inns of Court or Chancery, 14 people who went by the title of `Dr.' or surgeon12 (6 of whom have been identified as physicians), and 12 people in the military. Among this group of professionals were the Rev. Ebenezer Henderson, a missionary who formed the first congregational church in Sweden (1811), superintended a translation of the New Testament into Icelandic, and established the Danish Bible Society (1814). Octavius Winslow was a Baptist minister from Brooklyn, New York. Thomas Babington Macaulay was a nonpracticing attorney better known for his contributions to the Edinburgh Review. He received a Reading Room ticket in January and in February became an M.P. Lt. Col. Joseph Bouchette and his son, Robert, had tickets. The father was Surveyor General of Lower Canada and in 1831 published The British Dominions in North America; or a Topographical and Statistical Description of the Provinces of Lower and Upper Canada ... (1831). Sir Richard Downes Jackson was a major general who in 1839 was appointed commander-in-chief of the forces in British North America and served as administrator of the government of Canada three brief periods from 1839-1842. Major North Ludlow Beamish was a military writer, and Captain William Nugent Glascock wrote novels. 12Gilbert Burnett was not listed by title but was a surgeon and is included in the total. Richard Brinsley Hinds (1812-1847) was the surgeon attached to the expedition of H.M.S. Sulphur which went around the world (1836-42). Because he was 18 at the time he received the ticket, he was not a physician, and I have not counted him among the total. Dr Christopher Irving and Dr William Henry Crook had the degree, `LL.D.' and are not among the 14.

116

Among the other occupations there were 3 teachers, tutors, and lecturers, 3 painters and engravers, 3 historians, a phrenologist, and an architect. Anthony Panizzi had been a faculty of law at the University of Parma, came to England in the mid-1820s, and in 1828 procured an Italian professorship at University College. In April 1831 he began employment at the British Museum and became Principal Librarian in 1856. Richard Cleasby was a philologist who wrote An Icelandic-English Dictionary. He was in England from 14 June-17 August 1830 and received his ticket in July. Samuel Curtis was a florist who owned the Botanical Magazine. Richard Taylor, the printer (above), was also a naturalist, a member of the Linnean and Astronomical Societies, and co-editor of the Philosophical Magazine. John Phillips was another man of science. He was Keeper of York Museum (1824-1840) and wrote A Guide to Geology (1834) and Treatise on Geology (1837). It was common for readers to renew a Reading Room ticket. A family that had a long history at the library were the Townsends. In 1790 Francis Townshend [sic], a Windsor Herald, had a ticket. In January 1810 Francis Townsend, Jr. of the College of Heralds had one. In July 1830 Francis Townsend and his son, T.P. Townsend, both of whom were of the Heralds College, had tickets to the Reading Room. In a period of 40 years a father, son, and grandson used the library, and for the endeavors Francis, Jr. published Calendar of Knights (1828) and Catalogue of Knights From 1660 to 1760 (1833). Francis, Jr. also recommended Will Nicholson, Jr., who received a ticket in January. In 1833 the M.P., William Cobbett, complained that the country gentleman, who seldom came to London, should not be taxed to support the British Museum, and "the man who worked in the fields, at a distance from London, could not come" to visit the British Museum. Sir Charles Burrell replied that, as soon as railroads to and from the metropolis were completed,

117

people from distant parts would come to London to visit the Museum.13 There were 528 readers for January and July 1836, and at least 4614 (8.71%) were not normally resident in London.15 In 1830 there were 19 readers (6.5%) who were non-resident. Although non-residents composed a small minority of readers, Burrell's prediction was accurate, for the numbers were growing. There were readers from Munich, New York, Saxony, India, France, and Sweden. Within Great Britain most of the non-resident readers came from Oxford or Cambridge, but there were others from Dorset, Kent, Hampshire, Norfolk, Essex, Worcestershire, and Lancashire, and from such cities as Coventry, Exeter, Durham, Leeds, Bedford, and Leicester. Jacob and Joseph Busk were from nearby Cheshunt, while John Walker was from Elgin, Scotland. One of the purposes of the British Museum was to further knowledge for the benefit of mankind. In 1834 a reader complained, that because the Museum had been closed for "10 days' holyday," it prevented him from earning his wages, because he earned a living from literary labor.16

There were numerous other members of the Reading Room public whose work

depended on material at the Museum. William Smith Ellis used heraldic devices from Greek vases for the plates in The Antiquities of Heraldry. Arthur West Haddan used the Museum’s Vatican transcripts for Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and Ireland. E.H. Lindo used the Harleian manuscripts for A Jewish Calendar for Sixty-Four Years. The Rev. H.J.B. Nicholson used the Cottonian manuscripts for The Abbey of Saint Alban.

13Hansard's

Parliamentary Debates third series 20 (14 August 1833):

617-620.

14The figures are based on the addresses from the Reading Room lists, except for Dr Bureaud Riofrey from France, Rev. G[eorge] C[ecil] Renouard from Swanscombe, Dr Leuis Loewe from Silesia, and John Duer from New York. There were numerous readers with foreign surnames, but there is no way to know if they were nonresidents without more information. Part of the problem of determining which readers lived outside London is that they were occasionally listed by an address in London and not where the reader was actually from, so 46 is a conservative figure. 15Any

place inside Middlesex.

16The

Times (20 May 1834), p. 3a.

I also considered Kew in Surrey and Walworth as part of London.

118

Charles Bucke used the Sloane manuscripts for The Book of Human Character. Robert Poole Styles used the Cole manuscripts for The History and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of Pershore. In the preface to George Roberts's The History and Antiquities of the Borough of Lyme Regis and Charmouth there was an acknowledgment that he visited "the library of the British Museum, on several occasions."17 John William Burgon in The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham and William H. Morley in Description of a Planis Pheric Astrolabe ... thanked the librarians for the assistance they rendered which made the completion of their works possible.

Since the time it had been founded, numerous readers had used the Museum's

resources, and as this brief list indicates, the Reading Room public included people whose livelihood depended on the material at the British Museum. One of the most notable features of the Reading Room clientele was the presence of Oxbridge fellows and graduates. After its establishment in 1827 London University proved to be a formidable rival to England's two premier universities at the British Museum library. For January and July 1836, twenty people were traced to Cambridge and Oxford, and seven were linked to London University. The comparison, however, becomes more significant when it is noted that, of the twenty, eleven were former students, and nine were current fellows and students.18 All seven men from London University were still at the institution as faculty and students. The readers' ties with education, though, were not limited to these three institutions. Edwin Abbott was with the Philological School, William Hunt was with the Central National School, John Marshall was at the Royal Military Academy, Joseph Means was a Latin lecturer at

17George Roberts, The History and Antiquities of the Borough of Lyme Regis and Charmouth (London: Samuel Bagster, 1834), p. xi. 18James Wood's entry was recorded in July `(B.A.), University of Cambridge'. He presumably applied for a ticket as soon as he graduated; therefore, I have chosen to count him as a person with former ties to the university.

119

the City Literary Institute, and Dr. Klein Grant was a lecturer of Therapeutics at the North London School of Medicine. There were 27 people with the title `Dr.' or `M.D.' or who had the occupation `surgeon' listed by the name. James Kennedy, Alexander Ure, William Bedford Kesteven, and William Bloxam were physicians but had no title ascribed to their names. John Duvance George was a medical student, which brought the total to 32 with 22 of the men confirmed as physicians.19 The legal profession was well represented too with 19 attorneys/law students. The number was probably much higher, for there were another 21 readers whose address was Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn, or the Temple or Inner Temple. Of course, primacy of clerics remained pronounced with 60 readers and 1 divinity student. Other less numerous professions and occupations were that of artist and architect and people employed in offices. There were six artists and four architects. William Bardwell was an architect who wrote Temples, Ancient and Modern (1837). Walter Henry Watts, who had exhibited at the Royal Academy (1808-1830) and was miniature painter to Princess Charlotte (1816), was also a journalist. He had worked as a parliamentary reporter for the Morning Post (1803) and later joined the Morning Chronicle (1813). Watts's dual career was not atypical for the time. In fact, throughout the second half of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, many of the readers had more than one career or were noted for more than one claim to fame. There were numerous state and private office employees. John Doutty worked in the Store Keeper Department of the Admiralty, Robert Lemon was employed at the State Paper Office where he discovered an original portrait of Milton in 1826, Mr. Weale was at the Office

19Thomas Steel was recommended by Robert Thomson, a confirmed physician, and Dr Willan was recommended by Richard Eastcolt, a confirmed physician; therefore, I have counted Steel and Willan as physicians. Dr Leuis Loewe had a Ph.D. from the University of Berlin, and he is not counted among the group.

120

of Woods, Thomas Haslam was a member of the Lord Chancellor's Office, Mr. W. Wilkins was an articled clerk in a Mr. Scadding's office, Mr. Forrest worked for the Morning Advertiser, and W.W.E. Wynne worked at the India Board. Anthony St. John Baker had been the consul general in the United States from 1816 to 1832, and William Saunders Sebright Lascelles was an M.P. from 1820-32 and again from 1837-51.

Samuel Birch later became Keeper of Oriental

Antiquities at the Museum, and John Kesson worked at the Museum (1838-1857) as an attendant and temporary transcriber in the library. The admissions lists revealed the readers, where they resided, who recommended them, and if the reader had previous tickets. Sometimes, the officers included the person's occupation or nationality. On a few occasions the information revealed the status of the readers. For the Rev. Gilbert Franckland Lewis the officers noted that he was the son of the Poor Law Commissioner, and for W.C. Young they wrote that he was the son of the M.P. for Tynemouth. They recorded Charles Smith as the son-in-law of John Thomas Smith formerly of the British Museum, and Joseph Slater as the grandson of the late James Bean.20 Unlike the number of non-resident readers which grew from 1830 to 1836, there was no increase in women readers. In 1830 and in 1836 there were 13 women readers, but whereas in 1830 women comprised 4.48% (13/290) of the Reading Room public, in 1836 they comprised 2.46% (13/528) of the public. Clerics, doctors, and lawyers comprised over 100 readers, and when we add the military personnel, academics and students, and men in other research endeavors, there appears to have been a sizable number of professional men using the library. With the exception of Emma Roberts, an author who wrote Memoirs of the Royal Houses of York and Lancaster (1827) and Scenes and Characteristics of Hindostan (1835), the other 12

20John 1826.

Thomas Smith, Keeper of Prints, 1816-1833, and James Bean, Department of Printed Books, 1812-

121

women's occupations (if they had one outside the home) or reasons for using the library remain a mystery. Women were barred from many occupations; therefore, the possibility of entering a field that might call for the use of a research library was very limited and would account for the small number of women readers. Although the British Museum had light literature, for women who wanted to read fiction, the numerous circulating libraries in London could have met those purposes. Both Jürgen Habermas and Kenneth Hudson defined the public in sociological terms. According to Habermas the public were the educated classes, which included jurists, doctors, pastors, officers, and professors, while Hudson’s definition went as far as to include the lower middle class, shopkeepers, clerks, minor civil servants, and artisans. For the period from 1759 to 1810 the overwhelming majority of identified readers were men who were among Habermas’ educated classes. Over half the readers in 1759 and one third the readers in the period 17701810 were doctors, clerics, or lawyers. This high proportion of men in three professions with the ties of a university background and Royal Society and Society of Antiquaries membership indicates that the reading room public was a highly educated, and somewhat homogenous body. The similarities in backgrounds created a public that not only had ties to each other but mirrored the backgrounds of the librarians who served them. Kenneth Hudson stated that the lowest level of a museum public would have been shopkeepers, clerks, minor civil servants, and artisans.

The presence of Mr. Leroux, the

watchmaker, and Mr. Jones, the furrier, confirm Hudson’s thesis. A large number of readers could not be identified according to occupation, but the small number of artists, architects, printers, reporters, and writers in the library shows that the Reading Room public was not limited exclusively to the propertied or professional classes. Because of changes to the procedures the Reading Room public of the 1820s and 1830s assumed a different definition of ‘public’. At 21 per cent clerics, physicians, and lawyers

122

remained the largest occupational group among readers in 1836, though, this triad of occupations was not as preeminent as it once was. Artists, writers, men of science, military personnel, and professors had been identified as readers since the Museum opened, but the presence of people in the library who were employed in officers or as clerks in the 1830s indicated that Hudson's lower middle class was a part, albeit a small one, of the Reading Room public. All the readers in the period 1759-1800 knew an officer or a trustee in order to get a Reading Room ticket. They were a ‘known’ public. By 1830 a large proportion of readers, 1 in 4, were members of an ‘unknown’ public, because they were recommended by someone other than a trustee or officer. They were what Raymond Williams called the ‘crowd’ and Richard Sennett called the ‘stranger’. In 1836 the Reading Room public was principally a London-based professional male constituency. Non-resident readers, although a growing number in the 1830s, constituted fewer than 10 per cent of the readers. Women’s presence in the library in the eighteenth century was so small that it was hardly negligible. In 1820 and 1830 the number of women was slightly less than 5 per cent, and in 1836 it dropped to fewer than 3 per cent. The statistics were low, but they demonstrated that by 1820 women remained a constant part of the Reading Room public.

123

Chapter VII Access to Other Museums and Libraries

M.P.s and members of the public criticized the British Museum’s access policies and referred to what was seemingly better access to other national institutions. Critics noted that one did not need a ticket to visit the Louvre, and ‘A Citizen’ wrote in The Times that access to the French national library was far easier than at the British Museum. According to Planta, however, the British Museum’s access policies were liberal compared to other institutions. Later, in 1830 Ellis submitted to the trustees a list of days and hours that European libraries were open to show that they were open fewer days and fewer hours each day than the British Museum. Based on this information the British Museum ranked among the leaders for ease of access, and its policies made Britain look good among its rivals on the Continent. To vindicate the Museum the officers and other witnesses testified at the Committee hearings that access to the British Museum was better than at any other European national institution.

While Baber was discussing the

Museum’s hours of service, he stated, "The reading-room is open more than any other readingroom in the world."1 The witnesses assumed that there were no other institutions that could surpass the British Museum’s access services. Were they correct? How difficult would it have been to use another museum or library? Critics pointed to one aspect of a foreign institution’s access policies, such as no tickets at the Louvre or no recommendations at the French national library, and by comparing it with the British Museum’s practices, made the British Museum look less favorable. Such a myopic view failed to consider all of the foreign institution’s policies and the changes in access over a broad time period. The British Museum trustees and officers dealt with many 1"Report from the Select Committee appointed in the following Season to consider the same subject," par. 2082, 4728.

124

issues pertaining to access, and they concerned whether to charge a fee, the hours and days of service, the number of books and manuscripts a reader could have, lending material, and Reading Room recommendations. It is the purpose in this section to analyze the statutes of other national museums and libraries to demonstrate that the British Museum was among the vanguard for access. When critics and M.P.s made references to access in other countries, they usually cited conditions in Paris; therefore, greater emphasis will be on access in Paris. The history of the Louvre Museum had its origins as a private collection to the French kings. One could visit Versailles during the reign of Louis XIV and see the paintings in the palace and the gardens provided one was carrying a sword and wearing a plumed hat.2 Under Louis XV life at court became more private, and many paintings were housed in other quarters or lent to individuals, so it was not nearly so easy for artists or visitors to see the king's collection. This lack of access provoked criticism, and in 1744 an anonymous petition to the Director des Bâtiments deplored the dispersal and demanded that the paintings be exhibited in the Galerie des Ambassadeurs in the Tuileries. Three years later Lafont de Saint Yenre printed a pamphlet entitled Réflexions sur quelques causes de l’état de la peinture en France, and in 1749 he published L’Ombre du Grand Colbert, le Louvre et la Villes de Paris. In these works the author stated that masterpieces had great value and that artists could benefit by studying them; however, "although no expense was spared in the forming of his Majesty’s cabinet, today the paintings are hidden away in badly lighted rooms at Versailles, unknown or unexciting to strangers, owing to the impossibility of seeing them."3

2Bazin, 3Ibid., (London:

The Museum Age, p. 150.

p. 151; Germain Bazin, The Louvre, trans. from the French by M.I. Martin, new revised edition Thames and Hudson, 1979), p. 45-46.

125

In order to escape further criticism, and under the influence of Madame de Pompadour,4 Louis XV had 110 paintings and drawings put on exhibition at the Palais du Luxembourg beginning October 1750. The exhibition could be visited Wednesday and Saturday except for public holidays every week for three hours in the morning from October to April and in the afternoon in August and September.5 It was the first free public picture gallery in France. In spite of the fact that there were catalogs, the exhibition was intended for the connoisseur. According to Bailly, keeper of the king’s paintings, there were a few drawings which "were left unnumbered and unlabeled in order to give enlightened amateurs the privilege of deciding on authorship."6 In 1788 the Luxembourg Palace was given to the Comte de Provence, and the exhibition was closed in the following year. Madame de Pompadeur wanted to transform the grande gallerie of the Louvre into a museum of the principal paintings of the royal collection, but her enemies at court thwarted the plans. Louis XVI revised the idea in the 1770s and 1780s and had Count d’Angeviller draw up plans for acquisition of paintings and renovation of the building. Before the work was completed the Revolution broke out. To this point the French had an inconsistent and very limited access to the royal collection. Visitors to the British Museum had to apply for a ticket; otherwise, access to the British Museum was on more liberal terms, because it was open five days a week for ten months a year. Although the Luxembourg opened nine years before the British Museum, there were no more exhibitions after 1779.

4Taylor,

The Taste of Angels, p. 371; Wittlin, Museums, p. 83.

5Bazin, The Museum Age, p. 151; Cecil Gould, Trophy of Conquest; the Musée Napoléon and the Creation of the Louvre (London: Faber and Faber, 1985), p. 19-20. 6Bazin,

The Museum Age, p. 151.

126

Under the Revolution various directorships and commissions carried out the plan to open a museum in the Louvre. The collection consisted of the royal collection, confiscated church property, and property of the émigrés. The museum opened to the public on 10 August 1793, and the crowds on the public days were so large, that they attracted prostitutes. Less than three years after the Louvre opened, in the spring of 1796 the Grande Galerie was shut for structural repairs and did not completely reopen until 1801. The Salon was used for display purposes. The Grande Galerie was again closed in sections from 1804 to 1810 when skylights and pillars were installed. Alterations reached a climax when the entire picture gallery was closed for eighteen months from 1808 to 1810.7 During the brief Peace of Amiens numerous British tourists went to the Louvre, and the accounts of access reached England. Visitors and students had to submit their passports to the porter, but unlike procedures at the British Museum, visitors did not need to apply for a ticket.8 As a result, on some days there were as many as five thousand visitors.9 Joseph Farington, who was a member of the Royal Academy, wrote in his diary about visits to the Louvre that he, Benjamin West, Arthur Martin Shee, Robert Smirke, Sir Francis Baring, Sir Abraham Hume, and many others made. On one occasion Farington visited the museum, and it was so crowded "that it appeared to smoke with dust, which caused us to go to the interior part of the Gallery which is not yet open to the general view."10 Maria Edgeworth noted that part of the crowds included

7Gould,

Trophy of Conquest, p. 80, 103.

8Henry Redhead Yorke, France in Eighteen Hundred and Two; Described in a Series of Contemporary Letters, ed. and revised with a biographical appendix by J.A.C. Sykes and an introduction by Richard Davey (London: William and Heinemann, 1906), p. 157; Sir John Carr, The Stranger in France; or, a Tour From Devonshire to Paris, 2nd ed. (London: J. Johnson, 1807), p. 155-56. 9Edward P. Alexander, Museum Masters, Their Museums and Their Influence (Nashville, Tenn.: Association for State and Local History, 1983), p. 94.

American

10Joseph Farington, The Diary of Joseph Farington, ed. Kenneth Garlick and Angus MacIntyre, vol. V, August 1801-March 1803 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), p. 1863.

127

"common market women and persons certainly not above the rank of cobblers," and Sir John Carr wrote about the "sun-browned rugged plebeian" who contemplated the paintings in front of him.11 Certainly, more people could visit the Louvre than could visit the British Museum, which boasted a maximum of 480 visitors a week. People in Britain noted the differences between museums in Paris and wanted to know why the British Museum could not be as accessible. The trustees and officers regarded the Museum as a research institution and designed the statutes to accommodate scholars and students, while the Louvre appeared to be a museum for all the people based on the large number of visitors. In spite of the French spirit of liberty, equality, and fraternity, though, the commissioners of the Louvre were just as guilty as the British Museum trustees for designing statutes that suited a specific clientele. Under the new French calendar artists, special entrants, and foreigners were admitted to the Louvre the first five days of the decade, the next two days were for cleaning, and the public had the last three.12 The museum issued permits to the artists for six months, and the number of artists was limited to one hundred. Farington’s escape to the interior part of the gallery indicated that, in addition to private days, artists and people of influence got to see collections hidden from view while the museum was renovated. Like the Luxembourg Palace exhibitions, the paintings in the Louvre did not have labels. Evidently, the commissioners intended the Louvre to serve the interests of the artists, for those visitors who were unfamiliar with paintings and sculpture would not have known the artist, the title of the work, the history, or the subject without purchasing a catalog.

11Maria Edgeworth, Maria Edgeworth in France and Switzerland; Selections from the Edgeworth Family Letters, ed. Christina Colvin (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), p. 51; Carr, The Stranger in France, p. 156. 12Bazin, The Museum Age, p. 171; Bazin, The Louvre, p. 55-56; Gould, Trophy of Conquest, p. 26; Rev. John Chetwode Eustace, A Letter From Paris, to George Petre, Esq. (London: J. Mawman, 1814), p. 47.

128

The Louvre’s collection had grown immensely from Napoleon’s conquests and the requisition of art from defeated nations. The paintings and sculptures were put on display as military trophies. Like the British Museum, the Louvre did not have adequate space to display properly everything, so the gallery walls were crowded with canvases. Mary Berry wrote that the more she visited the museum, the more it astonished her. As a result, she learned to concentrate on one picture instead of looking at several.13 Martin Archer Shee, future president of the Royal Academy, wrote that the arrangement of the works of art was "quite embarrassing. All is confusion and astonishment: the eye is dazzled and bewildered, wandering from side to side--from picture to picture. . . ."14 As Arthur Melton stated in an article on environmental design, that with so many visitors crowding the galleries and with so many works demanding attention, it would have indeed been very difficult for the untutored visitor to be educated easily.15 After the Napoleonic era and the reform of the calendar to a seven day week, access to the Louvre was modified, and the public had very little opportunity to visit. The museum was open 10:00 to 4:00. Artists and foreigners had access on the four private days, which were Tuesday to Friday. The public had access on Sundays only,16 so that in spite of the advances that the Louvre had made at the end of the previous century, the museum had actually stepped backward by the 1830s. The British Museum, which had lagged behind the Louvre with a ticket service, could boast of almost uninterrupted service since 1759 and was now available to the general public more frequently (3 days a week) than the Louvre. 13Gould,

Trophy of Conquest, p. 84.

14Ibid. 15See Arthur Melton, "Visitor Behavior in Museums: Human Factors 14 (1972): 393-403.

Some Early Research in Environmental Design,"

16"Report from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Condition, Management and Affairs of the British Museum," par. 251, 1332.

129

Louis XIII founded the Jardin des Plantes in Paris in 1626. For a long time the Jardin was a large park for the cultivation of medicinal plants, but after the Revolution and the fall of the king, the Jardin grew to include a menagerie and a cabinet of natural history. The collection had 7,000 labeled specimens, and there were some complaints that there were too many zoological and mineralogical specimens on display.17

The hours that the natural history

galleries were open fluctuated over the years, but the open days, Tuesday and Friday, remained the same. By 1830 the galleries were open from 3:00 to 6:00 in the summer, and from 3:00 to dark in the winter. Students and special visitors applied for a card and could enter on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday from 11:00 to 2:00. The menagerie and garden, but not the botanic galleries, were open to the public every day from 11:00 to 6:00 in the summer and until 3:00 in the winter.18 Except for collections which were not on view, the visitor to the British Museum had access to all the natural history galleries in the Museum. The Bibliothèque du Roi had its beginnings as a library for the French kings. Through the years many of the more notable collections of books and manuscripts were procured through various means. With the Ordonnance de Montpellier (1537) the library became the first in the world to receive the ‘right of deposit’ of one copy of each book printed in France. Housed at Blois, then at Fontainebleau, the library moved to Paris in the second half of the sixteenth century. In 1692 the Abbé de Louvois, the royal librarian, opened the collection to scholars on two days a week, although the policy lapsed a few years later.19

17Edward (London:

Planta, A New Picture of Paris; or, the Stranger's Guide to the French Metropolis, 16th ed. Samuel Leigh, 1831), p. 344, 348.

18Paul Lemoine, "National Museum of Natural History (Le Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle) Paris," 4; "Report from the Select Committee Natural History Magazine, trans. from the original French, 5 (1935): appointed to inquire into the Condition, Management, and Affairs of the British Museum," Appendix, p. 525; "Report from the Select Committee appointed in the following Season to consider the same subject," par. 3139; Planta, A New Picture of Paris, p. 352. 19Anthony Hobson, Great Libraries (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1970), p. 126-130; Arundell Esdaile, National Libraries of the World: Their History, Administration and Public Services, 2nd ed., revised by F.J. Hill (London: The Library Association, 1957), p. 50-52.

130

In 1720 the Abbé Bignon, the king’s librarian, received the king's permission to move the library to the Mazarin Palace on the rue de Richelieu. At the same time Bignon obtained permission to open the library "to all scholars of all nations on the days and hours which will be regulated by His Majesty’s librarian, and to the public once a week."20 Remodeling began in 1726 and after work was finished in 1735, the decree took affect. The library was open on Tuesday and Saturday from 11:00 to 1:00, and by 1784 the hours had been extended to three hours a day.21 A month before the revolution Arthur Young of the Royal Society visited the library and estimated that there were sixty or seventy people present.22 The British Museum was open five days a week for six hours a day, but the library had far fewer readers. During the revolutionary and Napoleonic period, the library became more accessible to the reader. Joseph Basile Bernard Van Praet, a Belgian bibliographer, who had begun work at the library in 1784, became the keeper in 1794. He opened the library to students for nine days in every decade for four hours daily, and to visitors for three days in every like period for the same number of hours. A recommendation was not necessary, and the library lent books and manuscripts to foreigners if they applied to the minister of the interior and were recommended by their ambassadors. Years later at the Committee hearings (1836) Mr. Hannay, a reader at the British Museum and the Bibliothèque du Roi and the spokesman for the ninety-two petitioners (1830), testified that because of the large number of thefts, the library was having to reconsider

20Roger (Princeton:

Chartier, The Cultural Uses of Print in Early Princeton University Press, 1987), p. 207.

21Chartier, The Cultural Uses Bibliotheque Nationale. Second Paper: Continental Excursions; or, Tours into (London: F.C. & J. Rivington, 1809) 1: 22Arthur p. 107.

Modern France, trans. Lydia

G.

Cochrane

of Print in Early Modern France, p. 205; Theodore W. Koch, "The Administration," Library Journal 39 (1914): 426; Thomas Pennington, France, Switzerland and Germany, in 1782, 1787, and 1789, 2 vols. 158.

Young, Travels, During the Years 1787, 1788, and 1789 (Bury St Edmunds:

J. Rackman, 1792),

131

its policy.23 Although anyone could use the library, to discourage the poor from lounging the library was not heated in the winter.24 The library was closed for one month every year for inventory and cleaning.25 By the 1830s the Bibliothèque du Roi was open every day from 10:00 to 3:00, except on Sundays and festivities, for 15 days at Easter and from 1 September to 15 October. Readers could have one book at a time, and the librarians had the right to censor material. Readers could not have romances, plays, light and frivolous literature, and political pamphlets without stating to the librarian the purpose for such articles, which usually had to be for historical or other scholarly purposes.26 With the exception of needing a recommendation, readers at the British Museum had far greater access. The library was open more days and for more hours in the day, there was no limit to the number of books a person could have, and the librarians did not censor material. For the rest of Europe museums and libraries followed similar historical patterns of gradually increasing access, but with few exceptions, they did not surpass the British Museum. The art museum at the Belvedere Palace in Vienna had its origins in the royal art collections of the Austrian emperors. During the eighteenth century groups of travelers paid twelve guilders to the custodian of the collection for a guided tour at the Stallburg.27 Joseph II had the collection

23Louis Tronchet, Picture of Paris; Being a Complete Guide to all the Public Buildings and Curiosities in that Metropolis, 6th ed. (London: Sherwood, Neely, and Jones, [1820?]), p. 144; "Report from the Select Committee appointed in the following Season to consider the same subject," par. 5127-28. 24J. Pinkerton, Recollections of Paris, in the Years 1802-3-4-5, 2 vols. (London: Rees, & Orme, 1806) 1: 54-55. 25Edwards,

Memoirs of Libraries, 2:

Longman, Hurst,

275.

26"Report from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Condition, Management and Affairs of the British Museum," par. 247, 249, 250, Appendix, p. 526; Planta, A New Picture of Paris, p. 378-79. 27Neils von Holst, Creators Collectors and Connoisseurs, trans. Brian Battershaw, with an introduction by Herbert Read (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1967), p. 204.

132

moved to the Belvedere and in 1792 opened it to anyone ‘with clean shoes’ for free on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.28 The action brought protests from the custodians who lost a source of revenue. People who worked outdoors and others who could not afford ‘clean shoes’ would have had difficulty gaining access, and among those who visited the collection artists claimed that "waiters’ helpers and the lowest types of women . . . disturbed the silent contemplation of the works of art."29 In spite of the complaints, the emperor’s policy remained intact. Simply because the museum was open to people other than artists did not deter the administrators from advocating an idealistic purpose for the collection. In 1778 Chancellor Kaunitz commissioned Chrétien de Mechel for the arrangement of the paintings and the catalogue. Mechel made clear the intentions of the museum in the preface of the catalog when he compared the collection to a rich library that was intended for instruction more than for fleeting pleasure. The catalogs had asterisks to indicate important paintings and instructions on how to look at them.30 The Imperial Library of Vienna was founded during the reign of Frederick III in 1440. Through the generosity of the emperors and the care of the librarians, the collection grew. In 1575 Maximilian II appointed Hugo Blotius as the librarian, and during his tenure, the library secured the right of legal deposit. Scholars had access to the collection, and because there was no space to consult books on the premises, the emperor allowed Blotius to lend material. In 1726 Charles VI made the library more accessible when he made it open to everyone with a recommendation except "idiots, servants, idlers, chatterboxes and casual strollers."31

28Bazin,

The Museum Age, p. 159; Seling, "The Genesis of the Museum," p. 105.

29Holst,

Creators Collectors and Connoisseurs, p. 204-205.

30Ibid.,

p. 207.

31Hobson,

Great Libraries, p. 148.

With

133

service from 9:00 to 12:00, the library was hardly open. Johann Kaspar Riesbeck, who visited in 1785, said that he usually saw about twenty-four readers, and the Rev. Thomas Dibden, who visited in 1818, said the library would hold thirty comfortably but saw forty readers, some of whom had to stand.32 By the 1830s the Imperial Library was open during the summer from 9:00 to 12:00 and 3:00 to 6:00, and during the winter from 9:00 to 12:00 and 2:00 to 4:00, except for Sundays, other festivals, and the month of August. The librarians censored books requested by readers to prevent the Reading Room from being used for elementary education or amusement purposes. Finally, books could be lent to Chancellors of State, other official persons, or anyone ‘of known position’ on the personal responsibility of the chief librarian.33 The policy was far different from procedures at the British Museum. Ellis resented the novel readers who used the library, but there was nothing he could do about it. As long as a prospective reader produced a valid recommendation, a person could gain access to the British Museum library in spite of his profession or intentions. The Vatican Museums were the result of the accumulation of collections and the patronage of artists for many centuries. Clement XI (1700-1721) was particularly interested in archaeology and an avid collector of coins, inscriptions, and antiquities, and Clement XII (17301740) bought Cardinal Albani’s collection of portrait busts in 1734. Hadrian VI (1522-1523), who was uninterested in Renaissance art, closed the Belvedere to the public, and it remained so for two hundred years, and the museum of Julius II had a sign by the entrance warning the

32Edwards, Memoirs of Libraries, 2: 393; Thomas Frognall Dibdin, A Bibliographical Antiquarian and Picturesque Tour in France and Germany, 3 vols. (London: Shakspeare Press, 1821) 3: 450. 33Edwards, Memoirs of Libraries, 2: 399; "Report from the Select Committee appointed in the following Season to consider the same subject," Appendix, p. 578; Officers' Reports 13 (13 March 1830): fol. 2613.

134

"profane" to keep away.34 It is evident from reports and descriptions, however, that with an appropriate introduction a person could get in.35 By the first half of the eighteenth century the popes took a different view towards access and allowed people to see the papal paintings in the Quirinal Palace on prescribed days. In 1734 Clement XII opened the Capitoline Museum of antiquities, and in 1773 Pius VI opened the Museo Pio-Clementine. The statues, busts, and fragments were unlabelled, and access was haphazard. The Pio-Clementine was under the supervision of a guardian, and according to Johann Jacob Volkmann, the German traveller, once the tour had started, the door was shut, and one could either wait for hours for the guardian to return or give up and leave.36 By the 1830s access had become formalized. The Museum was open to the public on Monday and Thursday the fifth hour before sunset, and remained open for four hours.

For a fee admittance could be gained on other days by application to the

custodian.37 The Vatican Library dates to the Middle Ages, and the institution’s significance lies in its priceless collection of manuscripts. For years the library had been open to scholars who needed to consult it. The volumes were chained to the desks on which they rested, but occasionally manuscripts were lent to prominent individuals, bishops, and prelates. Because many items were not returned, the Vatican introduced a rule in 1480 that required a pledge for borrowed material. Subsequent popes introduced more restrictions. Sixtus V (1585-90) banned loans altogether, and

34Wittlin, (New York:

The Museum, p. 122-23; Vatican Museums, Rome, with a preface by Deoclécio Redig de Campos Newsweek, 1968), p. 9.

35Evelyn

visited in 1645.

36Wittlin,

Museums, p. 98; Bazin, The Museum Age, p. 167.

37Mariana Starke, Travels in Europe, For the Use of Travellers on the Continent, and Likewise in the Island of Sicily, 9th ed. (Paris: A. and W. Galignani and Co., 1839), p. 200.

135

Paul V had the desks removed in 1613. During the Reformation the collections were normally closed to Protestants.38 By the nineteenth century access to the Vatican Library "reached extreme limits. Readers were not allowed to consult indexes or catalogues and had only a small ill-lit room to work in."39 Because of the contents some manuscripts were marked on the back with a small black cross, because the works were "not deemed advisable to place at the disposal of all scholars indiscriminately." If a reader requested such a manuscript, the attendant had to consult with the Prefect who made the decision whether the manuscript could be given to the reader.40 The number of days the library was closed was another indication of how limited access was. The library was closed from Christmas Eve to mid-January, a week or two at Carnival, Holy Week, and Easter week, from a few days to a week at Whitsuntide, from mid-September to Martinmas, festival days, anniversaries of the pope’s election and coronation, and Sundays. On the open days the hours were from 9:00 to noon.41 The access conditions must have been very harsh for the scholar who had to consult a large quantity of material at the Vatican Library. The Prussian royal collection did not become part of a national museum until the nineteenth century. The collection, though, was available for viewing much earlier. Towards the end of the reign of Frederick the Great (1740-1786) pupils of the Academy of Art were occasionally allowed to study paintings in the royal palace in Berlin. In 1790 Frederick William II officially decreed that native and foreign artists could have free access to the paintings and art

38Theodore Wesley Koch, "The Vatican Library, An Historical Sketch" in The Vatican Library (Jersey City, New Jersey: Snead and Company, 1929), p. 28; Hobson, Great Libraries, p. 79-80. 39Hobson,

Great Libraries, p. 81.

40Paul Maria Baumgarten, "The Vatican Library," in The Vatican, Its History--Its Treasures, ed. Ernesto Begni (New York: Letters and Arts Publishing Co., 1914), p. 455. 41Officers'

Reports 13 (13 March 1830):

fol. 2612.

136

objects. The gallery was to be for artists "what the public libraries are for scholars, namely treasures for public use."42 In 1797 Frederick William III had plans drawn up to create a public museum, but nothing concrete was done for many years because of the Napoleonic Wars and finances. For many years the collection was shown publicly in the Academy of Arts daily.43 In 1823 the king commissioned Friedrich Schinkel, Professor of Architecture in Berlin, to build an art museum, and the Altes Museum was ready to open to the public in 1830. According to Schinkel and G.F. Waagen, the museum director, the purpose of the museum was "to awaken in the public the sense of fine art as one of the most important branches of human civilization. . . ." After this purpose came the interests of artists and scholars to study and the acquisition of information on the history of art.44 It was open from 10:00 to 4:00 in the summer and 10:00 to 3:00 in the winter. Although the hours were slightly shorter in the winter, the public was compensated, because the museum was open on Sunday and did not exclude the public for student days.45 Berlin, which had been decades behind London and other European capitals in creating an art museum for the general public, had surpassed its rivals by making the Altes Museum one of the most accessible institutions. The King's Library at Berlin became a public library in 1661 when Frederick William (1640-1688) of Prussia opened his private collection to the public. In 1699 the legal deposit system was adopted for copies of each book published in Prussia. Under Frederick William I

42Rüdiger Klessmann, The Berlin Gallery, trans. from the German by D.J.S. Thomson (London: Hudson, 1971), p. 21. 43Seling,

Thames and

"The Genesis of the Museum," p. 113.

44Ibid. 45Great Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Papers (Commons), 1835, vol. 5, "Report from the Select Committee on Arts and Manufactures," par. 87-92.

137

(1713-1740) regulations were made that allowed privy councillors, members of learned societies, such as the Societät der Wissenschaften, and other privileged persons to borrow material, but Frederick the Great revoked the privilege. Throughout the eighteenth century the Prussian monarchs played a direct role in the management of the library. They provided the income and made all the purchases. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars direct participation of the king ceased, and the Dept. of Culture and the chief librarian assumed responsibility over financial and purchasing matters. The library was housed in the top room of the palace where it remained until 1780 when Frederick the Great built a new royal library.

In 1819 a periodical room was added with

admission to professors and teachers, but students were excluded. At this time the library was open from 9:00 to 12:00 and 2:00 to 4:00 on Monday, Thursday, and Friday. By the 1830s the hours had been severely reduced. From 1 April through the end of September the library was open from 2 to 5 o'clock, and from 1 October to 31 March the hours were from 2 to 4 o'clock.46 The Imperial Public Library of St. Petersburg was a much more recent institution compared to other European national libraries. Throughout much of the eighteenth century the capital of Russia had too few government bureaucrats and too few educational institutions in the city to warrant such a library, and members of the nobility had their own libraries and would not have entered a public library.47 Plans for a national library were submitted to Catherine the Great in 1766, but nothing occurred until 1794 when Russian armies captured Warsaw and confiscated the Polish national library as the property of the Russian government. Numerous volumes were destroyed, lost, or stolen in the transport and shortly after the arrival of the library

46Officers' Reports 13 (March 1830), fol. 2613; Esdaile, National Libraries of the World, p. 98-102; Guide de Berlin, de Potsdam et des Environs ou Description Abrégée des Choses Remarquables qui s'y Trouvent, troisième ed. (Berlin: Chez Frédéderic Nicolai, 1813), p. 223. 47Theodore W. Koch, "The Imperial Public Library, St. Petersburg. Library Journal 40 (1915): 5.

First Paper:

The Foundation,"

138

in St. Petersburg, but there remained 262,640 volumes and 24,574 prints.48 From the beginning Russia’s national library was larger than the British Museum. Catherine the Great approved money to construct a new library building. Progress with the building and cataloging and arranging were slow, and with Napoleon’s invasion, the official opening was not until 2 January 1814. The library was open to readers who gave "their title or calling [card]" on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday (except for holidays) from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the summer and until 8:00 p.m. in the winter. Material was occasionally lent, and special permission was necessary to examine manuscripts.49 Under the direction of Aleksei Olenin (1811-43) the library served scholarly purposes. To this end, the statutes were published in Russian, French, German, and Latin. In 1814 Olenin prohibited the reading of newspapers in the library, and at the same time he instructed the staff to restrict material with "morally harmful" content, especially fiction, to readers. Light literature, he thought, could be found in clubs and elsewhere. Eventually such material could not be given out without special permission. Finally, political works that the government censored were kept in a special room in the library and could be examined "only with good cause stated in a written application."50 The Brussels Museum of Natural History had access that was very similar to that of the British Museum. It was open three days a week (Sunday, Monday, Thursday) from 10:00 to 4:00, and foreigners could be admitted on other days by paying a gratuity to the porter. The British Museum was closed in September, but the Brussels Museum was closed during the

48Mary Stuart, Aristocrat-Librarian in Service to the Tsar; Aleksei Nikolaevich Olenin and the Imperial Public Library, East European Monographs, no. CCXI (Boulder, Colorado: East European Monographs, 1986), p. 33. 49Ibid.,

p. 135; Koch, "The Imperial Public Library, St. Petersburg," p. 23.

50Theodore W. Koch, "The Imperial Public Library, St. Petersburg. Second Paper: The Story of a Hundred Years," Library Journal 40 (1915): 93; Stuart, Aristocrat-Librarian in Service to the Tsar, p. 136-37.

139

months of August and September.51 The natural history museums in other European cities (Leyden, Dresden, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Copenhagen, Vienna, Turin, and St. Petersburg) were generally open fewer days and for fewer hours than either the British Museum or the Brussels Museum, and some of the museums required an entrance fee.52 Other national libraries, such as the Frankfurt Stadt Bibliothek, the Danish King’s Library in Copenhagen, and the Swedish Royal Library, had access practices that were similar to the other European national libraries. All three were open to the public, but the royal library in Copenhagen was restricted to respectable householders or strangers introduced by such. Under certain provisions the libraries lent material. Finally, the national libraries in Denmark and Sweden were open three hours a day, five days a week, while the Frankfurt library was open for two hours on two days and one hour on two days a week.53 As the evidence has indicated, there were several aspects to access policies in the national museums and libraries in Europe. Compared to the institutions in Europe the British Museum was among the vanguard for providing access to the public. Institutions in Paris may have appeared to be for everyone after the revolution, but like the British Museum, access reflected a preference towards the educated and artists. Although very poor, common people could enter the Louvre without a ticket, the museum was open for them at first, 3 days in 10, and by the 1830s it was 1 day a week. The other days were reserved for artists. By 1810 at the British Museum the uneducated could enter without a ticket 3 days a week. The Bibliothèque du Roi did not require a recommendation, but by not providing heat in the winter, and by censoring light literature, the

51"Report

from the Select Committee appointed in the following Season to consider the same subject,"

par. 3140.

52Ibid. 53"Report from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Condition, Management and Affairs of the British Museum," appendix, p. 483, 493, 500.

140

library discouraged all but serious scholars and students from attending. By the 1830s the library in Paris was open 5 hours a day and closed for 6 weeks in the summer and 2 weeks at Easter, so that access at the British Museum was far better for the reader. The other national libraries and museums of Europe had access policies that were far less favorable to the public and to the student compared to the British Museum. Some of the art collections were reserved for artists, required tips on closed days, or had prescribed clothing in order to gain access. Many of the libraries had strict censorship policies, and access was based on one’s position or rank in society. With the exception of the Altes Museum the British Museum surpassed the other European institutions in the hours of service, and it was equal or surpassed all other institutions in permitting people to enter and use the library.

141

Chapter VIII Access to the Museum and Reading Room: Public and Government Opinion to 1810

For the diary entry of 21 October 1814 Henry Ellis wrote, "Saw Mr. Quin who gave me a Note to the Editor of the Times; with whom I had a long Conference on the Subject of the two Letters in his Newspaper concerning the Museum. A spirit of hostility appears to be raised against us."1 The two letters and the one Quin showed Ellis levied charges against the Museum for access policies that the writers thought were too harsh and unreasonable. Although the ‘spirit of hostility’ seemed especially sharp because there were three letters published within two months, it was not the first time that the public had complained. From the beginning visitors had comments about the Museum. At first the opinions were personal, reserved for a diary or a letter. Gradually, as prospective visitors encountered difficulties gaining access, the comments became more vocal or public and were expressed in newspapers and magazines. The writers assumed that the British Museum had been created for everyone and that the government supported it with tax payers’ money. The British Museum Act secured the public’s right to visit the Museum, but it was left to the trustees to interpret the Act and implement procedures. The policies were a cornerstone for the management, so that who and how people entered and used it was not left to caprice. For Ellis the letters to The Times were an indication that in spite of the Museum’s attempts, there remained people who were dissatisfied with the rules. One of the letters concerned the Reading Room, but the other two picked on the exclusion of the public during the summer holiday. The trustees had abolished the ticket system four years earlier, and the relatively static number of

1Ellis,

Diaries and Memoranda, no. 2, Add. MS 36653, fol. 48-49.

142

people who had visited the Museum before 1810 had been dramatically increasing since the change. In spite of the numbers, twenty years later some members of Parliament were just as dissatisfied when the Museum was open, and when the government held hearings on the British Museum, one of the major concerns was access. As a result, it is the purpose of this and the following two chapters to examine the public’s and the government’s response to access to the British Museum, to see their perceptions of a public museum and who it was for, to trace the attempts to make the ‘secret’ activities and affairs at the British Museum more open or public by making the trustees more accountable to Parliament and the public, and to see whether public opinion had an effect on policy. In The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere Jürgen Habermas stated that by the eighteenth century in Great Britain, France, and Prussia private people (those who were separate from the court and the powers of the state) had "come together to form a public . . . to compel public authority to legitimate itself" and to engage them in a debate over the spheres they regulated.2 The public became reasoning subjects, and as the receiver of regulations from above, they were the ruling authorities’ adversary.3 This concept of a ‘public’ is supported in the evidence relating to access at the British Museum. Up to the beginning of the Regency, many of the remarks about access to the Museum were personal, reserved for a diary or a letter, sometimes a memoir, and intended for a very small audience who would read about it at a later date. While the author might have felt strongly about access when he or she penned his or her thoughts, access was not the subject of the work but was buried in the larger record. If the book were a description of the Museum, the author concentrated on the collections.4 Any remarks on

2Habermas, 3Ibid.,

The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, p. 25, 27.

p. 26.

4A View of the British Museum: or, a Regular Account Relating What is Most Remarkable and Curious to Be Seen There (1760); Alexander Thomson, Letters on the British Museum (London: J. Dodsley, 1767); John and

143

access were passing comments addressed at no one in particular and were not demands to anyone for change. The documentation up to 1810 basically concerns how one gained access, and a greater portion of the evidence relates to the ‘museum’ as opposed to the ‘library’ section of the British Museum. After 1810, when Planta completely abolished the ticket system, there was also a noticeable increase in criticism of the Museum. In a notable refinement of Habermas’s work, Roger Chartier in The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution attributed the plethora of public opinion to institutions that permitted debate - salons, cafés, clubs, but particularly the large number of periodicals, and the topics were "subjected to no limit, and no domain was to be forbidden."5 In far more cases than not, the authors and speakers addressed access as the sole topic of commentary and debate to be read or heard almost immediately with a demand or an approval to a specific audience (trustees, librarians, or the government). The evidence of the British Museum is more evenly divided between comments on the ‘museum’ which pertain mostly to when a person could enter the Museum, and the ‘library’ or Reading Room and how a person obtained a ticket. As the evidence falls into convenient patterns, the first chapter will pertain to opinions up to 1810, and the analysis of the period after 1810 will be broken into chapters focusing on access to the Museum and to the Reading Room. For the better part of fifty years, people had to apply for a free ticket to visit the British Museum. The process required the visitor to apply on one day and to return on another to find out the date of the tour. People saw the collection by a guided tour. An analysis of this

Andrew Van Rymsdyck, Museum Britannicum, Being an Exhibition of a Great Variety of Antiquities and Natural Curiosities, Belonging to that Noble and Magnificent Cabinet, the British Museum (London: I. Moore, 1778).

5Roger Chartier, The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1991), p. 21-22.

144

procedure will reveal attitudes towards the system and perceptions of the British Museum as a national system. In the early years the officers felt their way on the day-to-day procedures. The trustees recognized that the statutes and practices might be improved so they invited the officers to submit comments. During this time, on 20 April 1761 J. Hutchins wrote to a trustee, Sir George Lyttelton, concerning a Reading Room ticket. He found that according to the rules, he needed "to have Leave from a general Meeting of the Trustees, or of the Standing Committee. Should those Meetings not happen Weekly, I may be detained too long to no Purpose, is it then possible to Remove this hindrance by any Application or Recomendation, [sic] previous to my coming to town?"6 It was one of the first expressions of `discontent' over access submitted to the trustees. The results, however, were different from Hutchins's anticipation, because in the previous June, the Board had voted to give the Principal Librarian the right to admit people for the same reasons mentioned in Hutchins's letter. It was a problem of bad communication, for the trustees' minutes for 9 June 1761 stated that directions for applications had been printed "in order to prevent improper applications and unexpected disappointments."7 It was not surprising that Hutchins was ignorant about the procedures. Advertising of the Museum and among businesses in the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries was hardly conducted in newspapers or journals. Normal business, including the advertisement of the British Museum, relied mostly on word of mouth.8 The trustees displayed the statutes inside the Museum and occasionally published the statutes in periodicals like The Gentleman's Magazine and The Daily Advertiser, but they placed nothing outside the walls. At that time the

6British

Library, Department of Manuscripts, Sir George Lyttelton, Correspondence, St. 754, fol. 89.

7General

Meetings, Minutes 2 (19 June 1760):

8Habermas,

328, 2 (9 June 1761):

354.

The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, p. 190.

145

Museum was surrounded by a high brick wall, and prospective visitors had to ask the porter at the gate for permission to see the statutes.9

So, from the beginning the British Museum

represented a secret institution which required a ‘public’ to demand an account or explanation on procedures and trustees’ decisions. Advertising the opening hours was a persistent problem and indicated that the Museum was not prepared to rectify the public’s inaccurate anticipation of a visit. By the end of the century, Noel Desenfans, who called for the British Museum to become an art museum, lamented, "But as many are ignorant of the mode of application [to the British Museum], and few are certain whether in a month they will not have more serious engagements. . . ."10 By the public’s response little if anything had changed by the 1830s. John Whitehead wrote to Sir Charles Long, a trustee, complaining about the porter’s rude behavior during the Easter recess. He had asked to see the Museum but was told it was not open for the week. When Whitehead answered that he did not know, the porter replied, "All the world know it for there are thousands of Books sent out from there every year."11 The porter was referring to the synopsis which had a list of the statutes and was sold in bookshops.

The porter was reprimanded, but his

mannerisms were not the problem. After the incident, the trustees had a sign with the hours put up outside the gates, but for no apparent reason it was taken down. Another visitor came directly to the point in a letter to the editor in The True Sun. "Instead of there being a large board, or two, placed in front of the building informing the public when and at what times it is open, and what kinds of persons are admissible, there is no information whatever - all is a dead blank."12 9Noorthouck,

A New History of London, Including Westminster and Southwark, p. 744.

10Noel Desenfans, A Plan, Preceded by a Short Review of the Fine Arts, to Preserve Among Us, and Transmit to Posterity, the Portraits of the most Distinguished Characters of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Since his Majesty's Accession to the Throne (London: Sampson Low, 1799), p. 34. 11Original 12The

Letters and Papers 6 (6 April 1826):

True Sun (25 July 1834), p. 2d.

fol. 2147-48.

146

Desenfans noted that it took a month to get a ticket. By the nature of the system there was bound to be a delay, and by comparison to other visitors' stories, the comment indicated that the system was taking longer. The earliest account of the British Museum is found in the correspondence of Thomas Gray, who visited the Museum in April 1759 and received a Reading Room ticket 20 July. In a letter (10 April 1759) to a friend, Mason, he wrote, "[If] you would see it, you must send a fortnight beforehand, it is so crowded."13 The Museum had been open for three months and already there was a two week waiting list for a ticket. By the time of Samuel Curwen’s visit in 1776, it took a fortnight to three weeks,14 Carl Philip Moritz, who visited in 1782, said that it took two weeks,15 and Desenfans in 1799 said it took a month. Charles W. Peale, the founder of one of the first American museums in Philadelphia in 1786, delivered a lecture at the University of Pennsylvania in 1800 where he said, "The trouble to obtain a sight of the British Museum, (although it has been encreasing [sic] in valuable articles, and supported at very great expense for a series of years,) renders it of less value to the public, than a private collection belonging to Mr. Parkerson, called the Leverian Museum. . . ."16 In some instances visitors received immediate access. On one occasion Moritz, and on three occasions (1775, 1776, and 1780) Curwen went to the Museum without a ticket in hand, and entered either that day or the next. It was not the norm to be so fortunate, because both men

13Thomas Gray, Correspondence of Thomas Gray, ed. Paget Toynbee and Leonard Whibley, 3 vols. (Oxford: University Press, 1935; Reprinted ed. with corrections and additions by H.W. Starr, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 2: 620. 14Samuel Curwen, The Journal of Samuel Curwen, Loyalist, ed. Andrew Oliver, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), 1: 170. 15Moritz,

Journeys of a German in England in 1782, p. 59.

16Charles W. Peale, Discourse Introductory to a Course of Lectures on the Science of Nature, Delivered in the Hall of the University of Pennsylvania, Nov. 8, 1800 (Philadelphia: 1800), p. 20-21. Peale was an artist who studied in London from February 1767 until the spring of 1769. Although there is no evidence that he visited the British Museum, he must have heard about it while he was there and received additional news after he returned to the American colonies, because Mr Lever did not open his museum in London until February 1775.

147

acknowledged relief at not having to wait the customary number of weeks. Twice, Curwen's good fortune was the result of people who failed to show up for tickets. On the third occasion he appealed to Dr. Harper, the under-librarian, who referred him to the porter for a ticket.17 Moritz had made the acquaintance of Rev. Charles Woide, an assistant librarian, who enabled him to jump the queue. At the other extreme was the four month waiting list that occurred in 1776 mentioned in Chapter III. As Curwen gained immediate access on a visit in June 1776 during the midst of the backlog, it was a phenomenon that deserves greater analysis. In August 1776 Harper had written that the April applications had not been satisfied and that people were to check weekly to see where they were on the list. If Harper's account was true, then how was Curwen able to enter on a first application in June? The answer can be found in his response to the first ticket, “some who had given in their names neglecting to appear.” By this time people had to apply three weeks in advance for a ticket, but if on the appointed day they could not attend or did not pick up the ticket, it was given to people like Curwen who happened to show up when there was a vacancy. Also, if people who had applied in April could not attend on the first appointed time but kept reapplying, then within a few weeks the number of new applicants compounded with the number who were reapplying would mushroom by August. However long or inconvenient the access process was, people wanted to visit the Museum. As the Countess of Bute wrote to Wilhelmina Tichborne, "I wish to see nothing in L[ondon] but her selfe [?] and the musæum."18 The trustees acknowledged that when leading the tours, the officers were to explain the objects in the rooms to the people, but from the

17Curwen,

The Journal of Samuel Curwen, 2:

688.

18Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, The Complete Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, ed. Robert Halsband, vol. III, 1752-1762 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), p. 210.

148

beginning the tours were not capable of educating or satisfying many people's curiosity.19 There was not enough time to see everything in two hours, the groups were rushed from room to room, and there were no guidebooks. In the preface to The General Contents of the British Museum Edmund Powlett wrote that "the Time allowed to view it was Short, and the Rooms so numerous, that it was impossible, without some kind of Directory, to form a proper Idea of the Particulars", and that it was impossible for the officers "to gratify every particular Person's Curiosity."20 As Powlett admitted, his book did not give an account of everything but gave general remarks on a few things. Although the book ran into a second edition, it was sold at bookshops and not at the Museum, and not everyone knew of it. Carl Philip Moritz, who visited the Museum in June 1782, had Wendeborn's guidebook, and to the scornful astonishment of the librarian, when the rest of the tour saw that he "had this book they gathered round me and I taught these English . . . what they might see in their own museum!"21 After Pierre Grosley visited in 1772, he suggested that instead of a catalog or guidebook, that the librarians and other learned men be stationed in all the apartments so they could answer any questions.22 Another idea arose in the London Magazine when the author commented that slips of paper with descriptions should be placed on every article. The author confessed that it was the tour guide's job to answer questions, but "if he is inclined, [emphasis added] and able to give you proper information" he could never answer all the questions, nor did the author want to

19British Museum, Department of Manuscripts, Dr John Ward, British Museum Statutes and Rules, 1756, Add. MS 42,852, f. 2. 20[Edmund Powlett], The General Contents of the British Museum: Dodsley, 1761), p. ix-x. 21Moritz,

With Remarks (London:

R. and J.

Journeys of a German in England in 1782, p. 59.

22Pierre Jean Grosley, A Tour to London: or, New Observations on England, and its Inhabitants, trans. Thomas Nugent, 3 vols. (Dublin: J. Exshaw, E. Lynch, J. Williams, R. Moncrieffe, T. Walker, and C. Jenkin, 1772), 2: 176.

149

monopolize the guide.23 By the late 1780s Friedrich Wendeborn's account of the Museum indicated that little had changed.

He knew of no complete or satisfactory catalog of the

collections, "but it were to be wished, that the public might soon be in possession of one. . . ." He also wanted labels in legible handwriting attached to the objects at an appropriate height, so the "curiosity of strangers . . . might be gratified, and their questions answered, without giving unnecessary trouble to the gentlemen who attend the company."24 In the accounts the authors couched their unhappiness in civil phrases like, `it were to be wished' and other similar rhetoric. Without appearing combative they criticized the Museum and hoped it would provide more information on the specimens. One individual who refused to appease the Museum and offered one of the most disappointing accounts of a visit was William Hutton of Birmingham. For many years he had wanted to see the British Museum and refused to leave London without fulfilling the wish. Hutton came across a man who had a ticket for the next day and sold it for "less than two shillings." When he arrived on 7 December 1784, there were about ten in the group. "We began to move pretty fast, when I asked with some surprize, whether there were none to inform us what the curiosities were as we went on?" The librarian replied that it would be impossible to talk about everything, and that the names were written on many of the items. Hutton nor anyone else in the company asked anything more but followed in haste and in whispers. "It grieved me to think how much I lost for want of a little information." Further down he wrote, "I went out much about as wise as I went in," and the disappointment turned to anger as he recounted the time, money, and humor the visit had cost him. As for the librarian Hutton commented, "I am sorry to rate our conductor at the British Museum, a little

23London

Magazine (October 1776):

548-49.

24Gebhardt Friedrich August Wendeborn, A View of England Towards the Close of the Eighteenth Century, trans. the author, 2 vols. (Dublin: William Sleater, 1791), 1: 226.

150

below a common prostitute, and rank him with a private sentinel." Hutton concluded the account by vowing not to return unless he had a friend or guidebook to explain what he saw.25 It took the Museum more than twenty years to provide the guidebook Hutton and the other visitors yearned for, and it was a combination of circumstances, most notably the public’s outcry, that prompted the trustees to have a guide printed. According to Joseph Planta, ". . . the Synopsis of the Contents of the Museum has been completed. As the public called loudly for such a guide especially through the Gallery of Antiquities, Mr. Planta, although he had not an opportunity of receiving the directions of the Trustees, ventured however, . . . to allow Copies to be sold by the Messenger."26 As Hutton put it, the Museum suffered from two faults. There was no one or no reference to explain the curiosities, and the tour moved too fast. The librarian had two hours to show the library, manuscripts, and rooms packed with scientific and ethnological specimens and antiquities. With bad labeling and a reluctant guide, it would be a taxing experience for anyone attempting to consume everything he saw, and the tour would naturally appear to be moving too fast. Moritz said that he went through the natural curiosities section in one hour. "So quickly was I conducted through this museum, however, that I saw merely the rooms, glass cases and book repositories: not the true British Museum."27 Sophie von La Roche commented favorably on her guide, Dr. Woide, who moved them a little slower, but she said they "had no time to visit the nature exhibits" (scientific specimens). She attempted to give a full account of the things she saw, but lamented, "There is hardly time enough amidst a swarm of foreigners to take note of

25William

Hutton, A Journey From Birmingham to London (Birmingham:

186-97.

26Officers' 27Moritz,

Reports 1 (12 November 1808):

fol. 137.

Journeys of a German in England in 1782, p. 59.

Pearson and Rollason, 1785), p.

151

everything one would like to see."28 When she visited a second time she wrote, ". . . I left the museum with its myriad wonders sadly, as I should have liked to become acquainted with it all in a leisurely way. . . ."29 Curwen, who also commented favorably on his guide, Dr. Gifford, was not satisfied after a third visit and wrote, "The almost unnumbered curiosities in natural as well as artificial way coming fast upon me confounded memory, latter destroying the traces of former by the quickness of the transition."30 He concluded that he would need another visit which he accomplished in May 1781. Benjamin Silliman, a chemistry lecturer at Yale University, was in England in 1805 and 1806 and thought the manuscript collection was the highlight of the Museum, "but the rapid manner in which they hurried us through the different apartments did not allow me time to examine many of these."31 Another American, Louis Simond, despised the guide. ". . . Our conductor, pushed on without minding questions, or unable to answer them, but treating the company with double entendres and witticisms on various subjects of natural history, in a style of vulgarity and impudence which I should not have expected to have met in this place, and in this country."32 Simond attended the Museum when the tours were probably at their worst. The procedure had eight tours daily with the first at 11:00 a.m. and the others following in succession as fast as there were attendants to conduct them. Before the last bastions to restricted access, the ticket and the guided tour, came to an end, a visitor to the Museum in the summer of 1810 published an account in The Monthly

28La

Roche, Sophie in London, 1786, p. 104, 110.

29Ibid., 30Curwen,

p. 157-158.

The Journal of Samuel Curwen, 2:

690.

31Benjamin Silliman, A Journal of Travels in England, Holland, and Scotland, and of Two Passages Over the Atlantic, in the Years 1805 and 1806, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Boston: T.B. Wait and Co., 1812), 1: 184, 288. 32Simond,

An American in Regency England, p. 44.

152

Magazine. The article has significance, because the author, who went under the pseudonym `Inquilinus', introduced the problems that potential students and researchers incurred, and his solution suggested a museum public. According to Inquilinus, when he visited the Museum a few years earlier, it took "the greater part of two or three days in getting admission . . . and then was hurried through the rooms" in a manner that made it impossible to study the objects.33 On a second visit he and a companion arrived at 11:00 a.m. but had to wait until 1:00 p.m. for the earliest available tour. Once inside the Museum and to his surprise he discovered that nothing had changed. Before he had the time to view all the mineral specimens, the attendant told him that it was time to go to the next room, and so he had to remain with the group. Inquilinus claimed that the experience proved that the defects needed to be remedied, because the British Museum was ‘a public institution, supported by the nation.’ Inquilinus thought the greatest evil at the Museum was the limited time to view the collections. According to him they were allowed twenty minutes in each room. His bitterness led to philosophizing on the role of the institution in relation to the student. The Museum was of little use if it was not subservient to those who used it. He was aware that properly introduced students could come to the Museum at other times, but he asked, ". . . How many humble students of Nature are there that never can be so introduced," and he thought the procedure should not be necessary, because taxes supported the institution.34 As a solution he suggested that "every decently-dressed male and female above the age of twelve" be admitted to any part of the Museum with unrestrained access and unlimited time. Inquilinus indicated a similarity of thought with the Museum over who the public was, for with the exception of ages (the British Museum allowed people above the age ten to enter) the concepts were identical. The public was

33The

Monthly Magazine 30 (1 Oct. 1810):

34Ibid.

237.

153

unknown people who were watched by warders but were trusted to behave themselves in a large group setting. Many of the visitors who commented on their visit left no record as to what, if anything, they anticipated from a visit. From those accounts that survive, many people left the British Museum not completely satisfied. Those, like Hutton and Inquilinus, who attended with a specific purpose, were even more disappointed.

There was a failure to satiate the public

curiosity or to educate visitors to their satisfaction. These visitors were not given enough time to look and not enough information about the specimens. Evidently, Sir Joseph Banks’ statement about the visitors was not wholly accurate, because the museum public was trying to find meaning in what they were looking at. Banks accused persons of low education of asking senseless questions and the better educated of coming prepared. The evidence, though, indicates that many of the better educated were not always prepared for a visit and tried to ask questions. The reason for senseless or numerous questions was answered by the visitors themselves. The objects were not properly labeled, there was not a guidebook, and the tours moved too quickly. In addition people of all levels were amazed and fascinated by the numerous different objects that were housed in one location. It is unknown whether the educated visitors asked reasonable or senseless questions, but it is clear from the London Magazine, Hutton, and Simond that some of the librarians and attendants did not like answering questions. The better educated suffered from the same sort of frustration that affected those people who were not prepared, and based on Moritz’s account, the visitors would have hovered around anyone who could provide information about the objects they saw. There were few references from students about access to the library or private studies with the collections. Richard Gough wrote in the preface to British Topography that access to

154

the library was `on the most liberal plan',35 and Thomas Pennant wrote in the preface to Synopsis of Quadrupeds that from the British Museum "placed as it is under the direction of Gentlemen as much distinguished for their politeness as their love of science, my access to its contents, has been rendered, at all fit times, so easy, as to put this Work under singular obligations to them."36

The evidence, though, indicates that readers, like visitors to the

Museum, were more concerned with service than with procedures, and the biggest problem was truancy among staff. In 1774 and in 1778 readers complained of the superintendent's nonattendance. The trustees devised a plan and divided the time spent in the room between the superintendent and the three assistant librarians.37 In spite of what was a good attempt, in 1790 Isaac D'Israeli did not think the service was so good. "I often sate [sic] between the Abbé de la Rue and Pinkerton, between Norman antiquity and Scottish history. There we were, little attended to, musing in silence and oblivion; for sometimes we had to wait a day or two till the volumes, so eagerly demanded, slowly appeared."38 There was general dissatisfaction from the librarians over the system, because the time spent in the library diminished the time spent with the collections. When non-attendance of the librarians was brought to the attention of the trustees in 1801, the problem eventually came to a solution when the Board adopted Planta's idea of hiring three attendants to help the librarians in the Reading Room.39

35Richard

Gough, British Topography, 2 vols. (London:

T. Payne and Son, and J. Nichols, 1780), 1:

xlvii.

36Thomas

Pennant, Synopsis of Quadrupeds (Chester:

37Committee Minutes 5 (4 February 1774): (18 February 1774): fol. 281. 38Isaac

J. Monk, 1771), p. x.

1400, 6 (15 May 1778):

D'Israeli, The Illustrator Illustrated (London:

39General Meetings, Minutes 4 (3 June 1801): attendants were hired with the statute changes in 1803.

1614; Original Letters and Papers 1

Edward Moxon, 1838), p. 5.

949; Committee Minutes 8 (12 June 1801):

2212.

The

155

There was one service for readers that the trustees rendered that was in stark contrast to the difficulty that visitors encountered when they visited the Museum. Based on the British Museum Act (1753) and a rule enacted by the trustees in 1757,40 the Museum did not permit the removal of the collection for personal use, except in court cases, and visitors and students had to examine the material on the premises.

Yet, there were petitions to remove books and

manuscripts, and the trustees were not consistent in adhering to policy. In 1763 Dr. Benjamin Kennicot of Oxford, a reader at the Museum since 1759, submitted a request to borrow small portions of Hebrew manuscripts, because the men helping him collate could not come to London. The University of Aberdeen and three colleges at Cambridge had lent manuscripts, and Kennicot was willing to place a security. The trustees granted the request on a £500 bond for one year. He made similar requests in 1765 and 1767, and the trustees permitted him to take twelve manuscripts, six at a time for two years under bonds of £500. Samaritan Pentateuch Manuscript from the Cotton Library.41

In 1773 he borrowed the There were other cases of

readers42 who had borrowed material, but not all requests were granted, and by the 1790s the trustees adopted a stricter practice and began denying everyone the privilege to remove material. In view of this double standard for readers and the general public and the privilege of borrowing, and in light of the fact that when the general public was caught in acts of theft, they were prosecuted while the readers were not, the trustees defined the museum public and Reading Room public by the treatment they received.

40Ward, Papers Relating to the British Museum, Add. MS 6179, fol. 24.

1773): 59.

41General Meetings, Minutes 2 (26 February 1763): 444-48; 3 (30 September 1773): 705, 3 (4 December 707; British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Charles Morton, Diary, Add. MS 45871, fol. 50-51, 58-

42Dr Hunt borrowed twenty five manuscripts of Dr Hyde, Dr Charles Burney borrowed Dr. Indway's Collection of English Church Music, and Dr Robert Holmes borrowed manuscripts of the Psalms and the Arundelian and Pachomian Manuscripts. Committee Minutes 5 (18 January 1771): 1282, 7 (23 December 1785): 1919; General Meetings, Minutes 4 (22 May 1790): 896.

156

By the beginning of the first decade of the nineteenth century Joseph Planta under the trustees' blessing embarked on an era of reform. For almost fifteen years he altered the statutes to make the institution more accessible and to eliminate the difficulties of the older system. At the same time it was no coincidence that people began asserting a public right of access to the British Museum. In 1810 the nation had been at war with France for almost twenty years, and the financial burden had been heavy. Higher taxes and a greater expenditure on the Museum emphasized to the people that they supported the institution. During the truce with France in 1802 numerous tourists flocked to Paris and returned to tell how one did not need a ticket to enter the Louvre and that one could remain all day. Inquilinus wrote, "Surely the people of England have a right to expect, that their access to a collection to which they have paid for and support, should not be clogged with difficulties which the French do not experience in surveying the treasures which their Emperor has stolen."43 In 1805 Parliament voted to buy the Townley sculptures for £20,000, and the expense induced a citizen to criticize access at the Museum. ‘Acastus’, as he signed himself, wrote a well-structured letter to The Times in which he chastised the government for burying its head in the sand on the issue of greater access for the public. Acastus believed that the government should wield more influence and use money as a lever to force the Museum to be more open. Acastus, though, heaped a large portion of the blame on the government. They had spent £20,000 for the Townley sculptures without considering the benefit to anyone. The British Museum placed "the curiosities in a situation where the public, whose undoubted property they then become, can seldom obtain a sight of them, and then attended with unpleasant circumstances." It astonished him that Parliament thought its obligations ended by placing the objects inside the Museum. He wanted more action and greater interest in the institution's

43The

Monthly Magazine 30 (1 Oct. 1810):

238.

157

affairs. For too long the government had rubber stamped the petitions without asking for greater facility in return. He proposed some changes that would render "the British Museum what it originally was designed to be -- an institution both honourable and useful to the country at large."44 While Planta was modernizing the statutes, the costs for operating the institution were beginning to rise. Throughout the eighteenth century Parliament had provided biannual grants of £2,000 to £3,500, and until the nineteenth century M.P.s' opinions were hardly mentioned. According to Nicholas Pearson in The State and the Visual Arts, the British Museum was ambiguously related to Parliament and the Crown. "It was an official body, a national authority, it had a public role and public functions," but it was not recognized as a full government-funded body. It had no regular budget from the government, and employees were not government employees.45 Originally, the British Museum had a forty-two member Board of Trustees, and nineteen were on the Board by virtue of their office as bishops or members of the Cabinet. In addition, the Board had fifteen elected trustees, and some were members of Parliament. By virtue of this fact M.P.s had the opportunity to question the government and trustees about access and to demand an accounting of the Museum's practices. In the earliest recorded sessions that have references to access, when the government discussed the subject, access had not been the original subject of the debate. The intent of the topic had been money or finances. In 1777 the trustees submitted a petition for a grant but before it was sent to the Committee of Supply, John Wilkes offered a long discourse on the Museum. According to him it was expedient that the trustees should adequately fulfill and

44The

Times (8 July 1805), p. 3a.

45Nicholas M. Pearson, The State and the Visual Arts: A Discussion of State Intervention in the Visual Arts in Britain, 1760-1981 (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1982), p. 10.

158

extend the purposes of the institution. "It is a general complaint, that the British Museum is not sufficiently accessible to the public. This must necessarily happen from the deficiency of their revenues.

The Trustees cannot pay a proper number of officers and attendants." As the

Committee of Supply planned to consider this topic of finances, Wilkes expounded on an enlarged idea to incorporate paintings in the Museum and to enlarge the library. The Vatican and the French King's library had immense collections and were "both open at stated times, with every proper accommodation, to all strangers," but London had no large public library. As for art, "The kings of France and Spain permit their subjects and strangers the view of all the pictures in their collections," but the Raphael cartoons which were purchased with public money and put on view to the public since King William's reign, were now "secreted from the public eye." They were a national treasure, not private property. Wilkes proposed that an art gallery should be built at the British Museum, that Parliament buy the Walpole Collection and grant a sum for the Museum to buy valuable editions for the library, and that the copyright act be strengthened.46 When Edmund Burke attempted to amend Sir Grey Cooper’s motion from a grant of £3,000 to £5,000 as a trial and thus permit the trustees to make the Museum more accessible, the motion failed to pass, 74 to 60. Wilkes’ debate is interesting, for throughout the rest of the period to 1836, he was one of the few in Parliament who recognized that the Museum’s budget was not sufficient to make the institution more accessible. Future M.P.s examined the submitted petitions and assumed there was always enough for the Museum to be more accessible or to be open longer hours. Wilkes did not look at it this way, and by understanding the Museum’s state of accounts, recognized that more money had to be forthcoming if anything radical were to be expected. Wilkes used

46Parliamentary 189-92.

History of England, From the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 19 (28 April 1777):

159

nationalism and the notion that a public museum was financed by the taxpayer for a defense of his design. The Vatican, France, and Spain had libraries and art galleries whereby natives and foreigners had permission to see and use them. Because the king had an income of a million a year, Wilkes thought that George III’s Raphael cartoons at Hampton Court should be reopened to the public. Later, the public and the government applied the same logic to the British Museum with the cries, ‘It is public because the citizens paid for it’ and ‘It is against the spirit of the nation to keep a public museum exclusive.’ The next recorded debate on access occurred in 1804, and once again it was finances that sparked the affair. After the king donated the antiquities taken from the defeated French armies in Egypt, the trustees petitioned Parliament for £16,000 to house appropriately the collection which was stored in a shed. George Rose,47 M.P. for Christchurch, introduced the petition, and during the discussions on how the money should be spent, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, the Whig M.P. who paid special attention to finance, squeezed in a comment about access. Though not opposed to the grant he "thought, that if such a liberal grant were afforded, the public ought in return to have greater facility of access to the curiosities which the museum contained."48 No one made a remark, but on the following day, Rose, who had obviously done some homework, stood to defend the Museum's policies and silence the critics. The trustees had done everything possible to accommodate the public, and Rose rattled off a list of the rules to back the claim. He added, "that 75 persons might be admitted per day and that even those who applied in the morning might be admitted in the course of the same day."49 As far as he was concerned, the 47As an intimate friend and faithful follower of William Pitt, Rose was among a small group of colleagues and experts in the ranks of government on whom Pitt called regularly or intermittently. For the other men Pitt sought out see John Erhman, The Younger Pitt: The Years of Acclaim (London: Constable, 1969), p. 324. 48Parliamentary

Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time 2 (2 July 1804):

902.

49Not everyone was as fortunate. Benjamin Silliman's first visit was 12 June 1805 and after repeated attempts to see the Museum again, he was not successful until 31 July.

160

Museum appeared adequate to satisfy the public.50 It was a brilliant response to refute the charge with impressive statistics. Two years earlier forty-five people a day saw the Museum, but now it could boast of seventy-five people a day. Five years earlier Desenfans had also claimed that it took a month to get a ticket. The opportunity to apply and enter the same day was certainly an improvement and something to be proud of.

For the next twenty-five years

increasing attendance figures were the trustees' defense against criticism about access. Rose’s pat comeback to Sheridan rankled some members of the House, for six days later when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, William Pitt, moved that £8,000 be granted to the trustees for the building, the opposition counterattacked. George Johnstone, M.P. for Hedon, accused Rose of not being thoroughly honest and withholding the date that the regulations had been introduced, 8 June, a month earlier. Rose denied the accusation and claimed that he had stated when the new regulations had taken place.51 Before the advent of modern shorthand, dictation was subject to a higher degree of error. Sometimes the speaker himself provided the printer or clerk with the actual words, and even then what he wrote may not be what he uttered.52 The Parliamentary Debates did not record Rose's having said a date, and the coverage in The Times was even smaller. Whether Rose provided a date was not important, for the issue at hand was whether the Museum had made the alterations in order to get the money. The Speaker, Charles Abbot, interceded and put the matter to rest. By virtue of his office, he was a trustee, and as far back as two years, the Board had been attentive to the question of better access and agreed that more employees should be hired and greater facility given to the public. The new statutes were

50Parliamentary 51Ibid.,

Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time 2 (3 July 1804):

2 (9 July 1804):

933-34.

965.

52D. Nichol Smith, "The Newspaper," in Johnson's England: An Account of the Life & Manners of his Age, ed. A.S. Turberville, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933), p. 353.

161

not measures suddenly adopted but ones that had been exceedingly deliberated.53 The Museum survived the criticism unscathed, because it had proved that it was changing for the public’s benefit. The following year Rose submitted another petition from the trustees praying for more aid to complete the extension of the building for the Egyptian antiquities. Henry Bankes, M.P. for Corfe Castle, stated that because the topic had been introduced, he would make some necessary comments. He thought the Museum should "be made more what it was originally intended it should be. . . ." He provided an interpretation of how the Museum should function when he added that it was "purely for national purposes, and for the benefit and instruction of the public at large, by ready and uninterrupted access to the valuable matter it contained."54 Wilkes had looked at the state of the Museum and projected ideas where it should move. Bankes’ speech was the first that offered an M.P.’s opinion on where the Museum should already be. It was a subtle but important difference. Bankes’ suggestions were measures he believed were in line with the original Act and intentions. With Wilkes the idea was to move the Museum into a new direction; with Bankes the British Museum had gone off course, and it needed to be guided back to the proper direction for ‘the public at large’. The trustees regarded the British Museum as an institution for scholars to conduct research. Bankes said the Museum was for national purposes. He did not elaborate on the meaning of ‘national’, but from the context he meant anything that would have benefited the country as a whole. The Royal Society catered for science and philosophy, and the Royal Academy encouraged and fostered art, but the British Museum was not intended for one discipline.

53Parliamentary 54Ibid.,

Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time 2 (9 July 1804):

3 (12 February 1805):

409-10.

965.

162

To this point Bankes and the Museum officials were in general agreement, but they diverged when the M.P. said the Museum was for the benefit and instruction of the public at large. It was an important change in attitude towards the purposes of a national museum. Although some trustees, such as Ward and Banks, held sentiments against the public, and the Board had devised statutes that restricted access, there was an acknowledgment, however condescending, that the public paid for and supported the Museum.

They placed greater

emphasis on meeting the needs of the scholar in the library and with the collections. Bankes did not deny such a purpose but advocated that the institution was not for a clique but for everyone with uninterrupted access. The Times reported the debate, and although it editorialized the speeches, the newspaper came directly to the point and the spirit of Bankes' feelings.

Bankes "hoped, that when

Parliament was voting away the money of the public, for the support of an institution of this kind, they would require that some arrangements should be made for facilitating the access of that public to it."55 The sarcastic tone of the quote left no doubt that a public museum was an institution that people supported and should have a right to visit, and that the public who should be allowed to visit were the tax payers. During the debate the M.P.s Rose and Fuller defended the Museum policies. In view of Bankes’ request for a museum for ‘the public at large’, Rose emphasized the liberal aspects, and said that "persons of every description" could visit it, and that applications were fulfilled by the next day. John Fuller, M.P. for Sussex, maintained a cautious attitude. The collection was rare and valuable and "that without proper precautions, it would be very dangerous to suffer all sorts of persons to have promiscuous access."56 William Smith,57 M.P. for Norwich, remarked that

55The

Times (13 February 1805), p. 1a.

56Parliamentary

Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time 3 (12 February 1805):

410.

163

he had never heard of troubles in foreign museums with valuable collections of pictures and coins, and nothing was damaged nor had disappeared. If the trustees adopted similar regulations, greater facilities might be given to the public. It was the cue for Fuller to make a brilliant reply, and he countered "that happy it was for this country it did differ from others," for if a man stole a print from a French museum, he would be imprisoned for life.58 Fuller had extinguished for the time being any thought of using European museums as guidelines. The Museum’s advocates in Parliament satisfied the opposition with statistics, the recent improvements, and witticisms, and Fuller’s call for prudence calmed the rally for an easier uninterrupted access. It was not a question of whether the British Museum was for the public, but a question of determining the public that should have access. Fuller maintained the British Museum’s Wardbased 1759 principle that the public was not everyone in society, and that the people who could qualify as the public should be narrowed, so that if not everyone who entered was personally known, that the Principal Librarian should at least try to bar people whose character or reputations indicated a dishonest or destructive behavior, and the officers should closely watch the people on tour. Smith based his concept of the public on the lack of intimacy that was prevalent between the visitors and the officers and attendants at the Louvre and other French museums. On some days there were as many as five thousand visitors, including poorly dressed people, such as "common market women and persons . . . not above the rank of cobblers."59 The Louvre had an open day whereby anyone could attend without the necessity of applying for a ticket, and people were permitted to stay all day and wander as they pleased. Smith's museum public included known and unknown people from all levels of society, and many visitors wanted 57Smith was a dissenter who spoke often on religious questions and parliamentary reform and voted with the Whigs in debates connected with the revolution in France. 58Parliamentary Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time 3 (12 February 1805): (13 February 1805), p. 1a. 59Alexander,

410; The Times

Museum Masters, p. 94; Edgeworth, Maria Edgeworth in France and Switzerland, p. 51.

164

this type of public too, because there was insufficient time to view everything at the Museum, and ticket application was inconvenient. In its early years people had personal conversations in letters and diaries about the British Museum, but critics like Acastus and Inquilinus had converted these private conversations into forums of discussion in newspapers and magazines. This transformation is what Habermas believed made established institutions such as the British Museum a sphere of criticism of public authority.60

Acastus and Inquilinus had assumed the function of publicly criticizing in

unflattering terms a sphere of state and authority (the British Museum and the trustees) that to this point had been untouched by people outside the government. They wanted the trustees to make public what had been practiced in secret.

60Habermas,

The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, p. 51.

165

Chapter IX Access to the Museum: Public and Government Opinion, 1810-1836

After the trustees removed the restrictions and ‘opened’ the Museum to the public in 1810 some of the preoccupations with access changed. Restrictions and inconveniences that had always been around gained prominence. Before, the emphasis lay on how people gained access to the collections - for free, by ticket, in a tour, and other ways. By the time of the Regency two topics predominated: when the Museum should be open, and access to the Reading Room. It was a basic prerequisite that in order to see any of the collections, one had to have access to the Museum. Before 1810 comments were private or personal, and people rarely questioned the trustees or demanded a full account. There were few articles in the press, and Parliament debated little about access. After 1810 the expressions towards access were more numerous, refined, and more public.

Habermas defined this behavior as that of private

individuals who had come together to form a public to debate the general rules governing relations and the state authority itself. These private individuals were those "who were excluded from public authority because they held no office."1

At the British Museum the trustees

established the statutes and thereby determined who would gain access. As a result of this demarcation there were individuals who could not gain access but came together to challenge publicly the rules governing access and the trustees. According to Chartier in his work on the public sphere and public opinion, "the exercise of public reason by private individuals was to be

1Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, p. 27; Jürgen Habermas, "The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article," New German Critique, trans. Sara Lennox and Frank Lennox, no. 3 (Fall 1974): 51-52. (Originally appeared in Fischer Lexicon, Staat und Politik, new ed. (Frankfurt am Main, 1964), p. 220226)

166

subjected to no limit, and no domain was to be forbidden." He attributed this lack of reservation to a large number of outlets for publicity, especially periodicals.2 In this British case the ‘public’ used The Times and other newspapers and magazines to debate, challenge, and attack access at the British Museum and the trustees. Members of Parliament were interested in access to the British Museum, and The Times recorded many debates when M.P.s questioned the Museum’s representative in Parliament about access. There was a growing realization that the British Museum was a public institution, because the people paid for and supported it, and that the trustees and officers should account for the policies and statutes. So when the ‘public’ debated the relation between taxes and the British Museum as a public institution, it is important to determine whether they were seeking access for the educated property owner or for everyone. When Henry Ellis penned that there was a spirit of hostility against the Museum, it was in reference to three letters to the editor of The Times. While one was about issues concerning the Reading Room, the other two dealt with the hours of the Museum. In the first letter ‘Z’ asked, ". . . Why are we subjected to the reproach of those foreigners, who, on applying at this period [September] to view the British Museum, are told they may see it if they come in October, when it will be open. Surely, sir, a public and national Museum ought to be open throughout the year."3 The British Museum was closed for the summer holiday in August and September, and while European museums were not open to the public for as many days in the year, they were not closed for a solid two month period. In the second letter (on the next day) ‘Viator’ expressed similar sentiments but pushed the point further. Numerous foreigners were prevented from visiting the British Museum, and Viator was ashamed that no Englishman who went to Paris

2Chartier, 3The

The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution, p. 21-22.

Times (8 September 1814), p. 2e.

167

would find the Louvre closed for two months. "We read in every session of the Parliamentary grants which are made to it [British Museum]. . . . Why, then, is this system of exclusion [permitted] to operate?"4 The British Museum was a ‘public and national’ museum, and both writers assumed that the Museum’s position included the responsibility of a summer service. Viator backed the supposition with the historical fact that the nation supported the Museum. Ellis’ reference to a ‘spirit of hostility’ was in regards to a ‘public’ that had begun to make its sentiments known ten years earlier in publications and were expressed in Parliament. Because the ‘public’ had reemerged and appeared three times in 5 weeks in The Times indicated that it was not a fleeting body. As ‘Z’ and Viator claimed that the British Museum was a public and national museum, the two critics were claiming a part of state related activities as one they could criticize and demand an accounting of. Another person took issue over the summer closing but stood up for the rights of the British instead. ‘Z’ began the letter with the House of Commons budget (1831) whereby "the annual expense to the country of the British Museum" was £17,000, and £9,880 was for salaries. `Z' argued that as the British Museum was closed during August and September, "a period of greater leisure than any other in the year, and therefore affording increased opportunity of inspecting that interesting institution, the public should in future not be excluded during that period."5 The writer did not lambast the parliamentary grant or the salaries, but by way of introducing finances first, ‘Z’ took advantage of a period of political and economic instabilities and made the implication that the country was not getting its money’s worth. The concept was very well designed to strike at many people whose taxes supported the institution, but who could not visit the Museum. Because the weather was warmer, sunnier, and drier, the summer months

4Ibid.,

(9 September 1814), p. 2b.

5Ibid.,

(8 April 1831), p. 3b.

168

were a popular, and possibly the only time for leisure. The Museum's statistics indicated that June, July, and October had the highest number of visitors. As it was more convenient and popular for the public to visit during the summer, ‘Z’ argued that the Museum should be open during that period. The museum public that ‘Z’ (1814) and Viator were defending were foreigners, most of whom would have been wealthy tourists. The museum public that ‘Z’ (1831) was defending was the British citizen whose holiday might have been in August or September. ‘Z’ (1814) and Viator could refer to the British Museum as a public museum in reference to supported financially, but they were defending a museum public who did not pay British taxes. Because ‘Z’ (1831) referred to the amount of the grant as taxes people paid, he made the relationship between his museum public and a public museum more direct, and therefore, even more justified for all the British to have access. In light of the criticism for being closed to the public in August and September, a part of the Museum’s problems with public relations was the failure to communicate information to people. In 1814 when the trustees wrote a rebuttal to the criticisms in the press, they did not publish it. Critics had heard about museums in Europe, read about the British Museum’s budget, and knew that they could not enter in August and September. There was a reason, however, for keeping the British Museum closed. There was a rota for vacations throughout the summer, and the holiday gave the officers more time to catalog, label, and arrange the collections. The trustees did not announce these reasons, and very rarely did the public get a peep through the door to explain what the employees did during the summer. It was a struggle between the secrecy of the trustees and the Museum and the public's curiosity, and the demand to know what was going on. In August 1828 the Literary Gazette published a short paragraph about the acquisition of George III’s library and Sir Joseph Banks’ collection. In one sentence the editor explained the

169

employees' work. "The vacation of this institution [British Museum] commenced this week; but during the holiday there is an immense deal to be done in arranging the library, and other important matters."6 The editor did not show disapproval of the Museum's policies, and because he understood the work they were doing and the size of the recent acquisitions, he approached the holiday closing from a different perspective. The article, though, told the reader nothing more than that the employees would work on the library during the summer. There had been publicity for a few years about the new collections; nonetheless, the great majority of the public did not know the organization of the British Museum. It did not help matters that the Literary Gazette was a weekly high brow journal whose intended readers were the highly educated. Had the trustees been more forthcoming with information, there still would have been a desire to enter during the summer, but by keeping silent on matters, mystery about the institution permitted damaging rumors to circulate. Private and government offices were normally open five days a week, while the British Museum was open Monday, Wednesday, and Friday (the Reading Room was opened six days a week in 1831). The popularity of the Museum had spread to the country, and many had gone to the Museum without a full knowledge of when it was open but with an assumption that it would be accessible. Although ignorance about the Museum was a handicap, its inconvenient schedule and frequent closure led the ‘public’ to push the boundaries of the museum public to people who lived outside London. A potential visitor, ‘J.M.’ lived about 120 miles from London, and his work brought him two or three times a year to the city. He had "an ardent attachment to national establishments, and an unbounded gratification in seeing them properly and beneficially conducted," but in a two year period he had made seven unsuccessful attempts to visit the

6London 491.

Literary Gazette; and Journal of Belles Lettres, Arts, Science, etc., no. 602 (2 August 1828):

170

Museum, and other acquaintances had suffered similar disappointments. He wrote that if the editor of The Times could be effective in having the Museum "opened to the public at all times, you would be entitled to the thanks of a great part of the community."7 In a rare show of acknowledgment the newspaper printed the Museum schedule beneath the letter.

Without

knowing the time of day ‘J.M.’ visited the Museum, it is hard to know where to place blame. The schedule had not changed in the two years he came to London, and although there were no signs, if he came between 10:00 and 4:00 he could have asked the porter for a schedule. On this occasion he had come to the Museum on a Saturday. Another man, ‘A Reformer’, wrote an editorial that echoed ‘J.M.’s’ thoughts and experience. A Reformer had tried to see the Museum during the Easter week but was told it was closed. He claimed that it did not matter to him, but there were other people applying at the same time who had come from the country purposely to see the Museum, "and they were very much annoyed and very indignant."8 A Reformer thought the Museum should be open every day of the year, because the money from Parliament was sufficient to pay the officers for the work. Another man, `Reformator' had been disgusted, when, going with a friend from the country, they were told at the gate that the Museum was not open. In the letter he asked why it was not open every day when [the sergeants] guards were paid for the whole week and blamed the "abominable spirit of public exclusion which has long characterized the aristocracy of this country. . . ."9 Unless tourists knew when the Museum was open, there was the possibility of missing a visit to the Museum if they had a short stay in London. Even with such knowledge, the letters

7The

Times (17 April 1832), p. 7a.

8Ibid.,

(9 April 1833), p. 1f.

9Ibid.,

(18 January 1832), p. 3d.

171

indicated that people in the country thought of the British Museum as a national institution and should be conveniently open for everyone and not simply for those people who resided in London. The people in the country supported the Museum, so `J.M.' and A Reformer believed that everyone in the nation deserved to be included in the museum public. During the 1830s when visitors or publishers remarked on the free access to the British Museum it was by way of comparison to institutions that charged. The National Magazine said they were like the temples in Jerusalem that were occupied with money changers. The British Museum was different "where persons of all ranks in society are admitted free," and with 2,000 visitors a day no injury had been done to the collections.10 Reformator, who was introduced earlier, compared Paris where works of nature and art were open without charge, while in London, one paid to see the Tower of London. It was his understanding that the British Museum and the Angerstein [National] Gallery were the only collections open free of charge.11 In both cases the writers were finding fault with the English for charging at institutions. They used the British Museum because its policy was a suitable contrast to the point they were criticizing, and the example helped further the argument for a free access to other places. The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge had similar information in The Penny Magazine. In a fictionalized discourse between the author and a visitor the article sought to inform the reader about the Museum and how to see it, and it dispelled any fears that the public might have about gaining access. The commentator told the visitor that there was "too much of paying in England by the people for admission to what they ought to see for nothing. But here there is nothing to pay." The commentator told the visitor that he had come to see his own property because he paid for the purchase and maintenance; therefore, he should not be afraid of

10The

National Magazine, Devoted Principally to Subjects of Domestic Interest, no. 19 [1832?]:

11The

Times (18 January 1832), p. 3d.

145.

172

"surly looks or impertinent glances", because he had as much right to be there as anyone. He even assured him that although his "garb is homely", he and his wife were clean, if not smart.12 The publisher had assumed that the British Museum had a reputation for difficulty of access, because the magazine thought that the public feared that it could not gain access. Ordinary folk were not as highly regarded as scholars at the Museum, and the article indicated that it was a lingering feeling when the public was warned not to be afraid of ‘surly looks or impertinent glances’. It was by no coincidence that editors and visitors let it be known that the British Museum was free. There were very few cultural institutions in London that did not charge, so there was a necessity to inform people. London was a city full of attractions, and the newspapers had many advertisements for amusements and exhibitions, so when the public commented on the British Museum, it was regarded as a haven for the rich and the poor. As a ‘public’ the author in The Penny Magazine addressed the artisan, tradesman, and family man in a paternalistic manner and sprinkled the article with messages of life in a highly classed society. Ward was afraid of people touching or damaging things, and Banks was irritated with people who asked annoying questions. The author’s museum public was the very same public that Ward and Banks had tried to keep out. The author assumed that they knew nothing about museum behavior, so he felt a compunction to educate the audience not to touch anything, not to talk too loud, and not to trouble visitors or the artists with questions. The dialog anticipated the reader's next question with an appropriate answer, and it painted the visitor as someone who was unsure and ignorant of his rights. "Will they let me in?" "Is there nothing to pay?" "The officers of the Museum, who are obliging to all strangers, will be glad to see you." With a high wall surrounding the Museum and no public notice of the hours and days the

12"The British Museum," The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, no. 2 (7 April 1832): 14.

173

Museum was open, the porter at the gate, a sergeants guard in the courtyard, warders, and rules about conduct posted throughout the building, it was not apparent that the officers were glad to see anyone. The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge meant well when it encouraged the artisan and tradesman and told him to have no fear, but the Society erred when it assumed that the museum public included persons who wore homely but clean garb. A month before the article was published, an editorial appeared in The Times that damaged the credibility of the story. A man had written to say that he had been denied access because he was a livery servant and was obliged to wait outside while friends toured the Museum. He witnessed soldiers and sailors entering and considered it unjust that because he was a servant dressed in livery he should be excluded.13 The porter had control of the gate and assessed every visitor who wanted to enter. Parents experienced his authority when, according to the rules, he refused the admittance of children. Potential trouble makers, such as the intoxicated, could not enter, and anyone who did not heed the warnings of the officers or attendants would be asked to leave. The writer did not explain why livery servants could not enter, probably because the porter gave no explanation other than the way he was dressed. This case indicated that the Museum continued to define the public based upon dress and appearance, and simply being clean, as The Penny Magazine stated, was not enough.

The editor of The Times commented on the livery servant’s letter and

suspected that the denial of access was not an aristocratic notion on the part of the directors, but a ‘fastidious feeling’ which prevailed in Britain more than any other country. The porters, though, received direction from the Principal Librarian, and in this case it was Henry Ellis, and the testimony at the hearings clearly indicted his prejudices.

13The

Times (1 March 1832), p. 5b.

174

Up to the time of the first Parliamentary inquiry in 1835 people were frustrated with the access policies and how they defined who entered. A ‘public’ had formed, and it challenged the British Museum’s practices. The ‘public’ that criticized the British Museum used The Times and other publications as a medium for debating access, and there was an assumption among the critics that having something in print, especially in The Times, could bring change. In one letter ‘R.H.I.’ wrote, "Sir, you will render a service . . . by drawing public attention" and concluded with, "Perhaps a hint from you might mitigate the lethargy which has fallen on some learned persons in the neighborhood of Great Russell-street."14 A ‘Constant Reader’ concluded a letter with, "I take the liberty of calling your attention to these facts, assured of your general advocacy of the cause of science."15 By the 1830s, though, the ‘public’ began to recognize, that as a body, effective change would not come as a result of the challenge they posed to the British Museum, but that their efforts should be addressed to the state, i.e. Parliament. Because the trustees hardly discussed the affairs at the Museum openly, the institution and its management were a mystery to most people. As a result, it was not difficult for someone to take advantage of the public’s ignorance and unhappiness over the situation. The writer, ‘X’, published a cynical and contemptuous account of activities at the Museum during Easter week. He was astonished that the public allowed itself to be "excluded from the enjoyments and advantages arising from their own property" and accused the staff of treating the Museum as if it were their own property. They ‘ear wigged’ the trustees whenever the Board made inquiries into the management. ‘X’ claimed that while the public was shut out, the staff worked and received extra pay above the regular salaries. It was a game the officers played in order to make more money dishonestly, and he

14Ibid.,

(31 August 1832), p. 3d.

15Ibid.,

(27 May 1833), p. 3c.

175

called for a parliamentary inquiry to straighten things. "The public are so much excluded, and there is so much ambiguity about the Museum altogether, that something ought immediately to be done."16 Ellis testified at the hearings that a large section of the binding was done during the Easter holiday. Because everyone did not have to be there, the employees who worked during the holiday were paid extra. ‘X’ represented a far more serious adversary than previous critics. Others had been angry with the statutes or the administrators, but ‘X’ libeled the staff. Furthermore, most of the previous critics had addressed their editorials or articles to the trustees in a rhetorical fashion but expected a reply in the form of a modification to the Museum’s statutes. ‘X’ realized that in order to make the trustees more open in their affairs, that Parliament would have to investigate things. When H.S. Peacock published Remarks on the Present State of the British Museum (1835) his only criticism of the access policies pertained to the Museum’s restricting the public to three days a week.17

The Athenaeum critic who reviewed the book told Peacock and

everyone else who had written on the Museum to petition Parliament. "It sounds well and plausible to talk . . . of admitting the public every day instead of every other day, of abolishing all holidays, . . . but such changes would require a double or treble set of officers and servants." Adequate funding was the preliminary condition, and until the Museum received it, the changes were impossible.18 Like Wilkes in the 1770s, he saw through the Museum's problems and diagnosed the condition from a lack of funding. It was a simplistic answer, and one that

16The

True Sun (19 March 1834), p. [1a].

17H.S. Peacock, Remarks on the Present State of the British Museum, With Outlines For a General Classification of Scientific Objects (London: James Ridgway & Sons, 1835), p. 6. 18The

Athenaeum Journal of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts, no. 422 (28 November 1835):

888.

176

probably received lukewarm support if not hostility from the Museum's critics. All those who had clamored for easier access had valid points, but the book reviewer recognized that all that time and energy was getting them nowhere. Like the writer to The True Sun, he wanted a full account from the Trustees to the people and recognized that it would never come directly. Both men believed that it would take Parliament to make the secrets at the British Museum open to the public. Peacock’s book served as a springboard for the critic to advise people to channel hostility, recommendations, and demands to Parliament. Both ‘X’ in The True Sun and Peacock alluded to Parliament as arbiter between the public and the British Museum. Habermas offered a critique of public opinion in Great Britain and France in the eighteenth century that accurately reflects the situation and relationship between a ‘public’, the British Museum, and Parliament. In the discourse Habermas evaluated the entomology of ‘opinion’ and its use in speech and writing by Hobbes, Locke, and Edmund Burke. Just before the French Revolution the opinion of the public in Great Britain arose "from private reflection upon public affairs and from their public discussion." This "general opinion," as Burke called it, received the name "public opinion" in 1781. In France where a similar meaning was ascribed to the word, Habermas said that the physiocrats asserted "that civil society followed laws of its own versus intervention of the state." Physiocrats and scholars studied this ‘natural order’ to determine public opinion, and it was the monarch’s job to watch over this ‘natural order’. "Public opinion did not rule, but the enlightened ruler would have to follow it’s insight." At this point Habermas said that with this doctrine of the dual authority of public opinion and of the ruler, "the physiocrats, remaining within the confines of the existing regime, interpreted the place of a public that critically scrutinized political matters."19

19Habermas,

The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, p. 94-96.

177

A ‘public’ had clearly reflected upon the access policies at the British Museum and made it an open discussion. The trustees noticed the ‘public’s’ comments but hardly conceded to their wishes. Parliament was interested in the British Museum and in the opportunities to visit it, and in the nineteenth century there was always an advocate for the museum public in Parliament who fought for their access to the British Museum. In fact, the debates in Parliament reflected in timing and content, a large measure of the ‘public’s’ discontent. Just like the physiocrats who interpreted the place of a public, the M.P.s were critical commentators who interpreted the place of a public and the validity of its criticisms about access and which public could visit the British Museum. In the debate over the British Museum budget for 1815 General William Thornton, M.P. for New Woodstock, could not understand why the public was not admitted every day, instead of three days a week.20 Ten years later when M.P.s were considering whether to purchase the Rich collection of manuscripts and antiquities, questioning had steered off course to the cost of museum catalogs, and Joseph Hume, the M.P. for Montrose who was devoted to financial matters, asked if there was any objection to adding one or two days in the week to the three on which the Museum was open to the public.21 In the following year, Hume complained that the regulations were inconvenient to the public and could be remedied if the Museum were open four days a week.22 Present in the House when both Thornton and Hume spoke was Henry Bankes, the M.P. for Corfe Castle. In the following year he was elected a trustee of the British Museum and acted as its spokesman in the House. Bankes staved off a definitive answer to Thornton, because the

20Parliamentary

Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time 31 (9 May 1815):

21Parliamentary

Debates new series 12 (5 February 1825):

22The

Times (21 March 1826), p. 2d.

666.

226.

178

General had encapsulated the question within a larger one concerning the Reading Room. Bankes merely replied "that the system upon which the Museum was at present conducted scarcely admitted of any improvement" and proceeded with answering the rest of the inquiry. By the time of Thornton's query in 1815, the ticket system had not been in use for five years, and visitors had the `ready and uninterrupted access' that Bankes had advocated ten years earlier. Bankes was not contradicting himself by supporting the Museum's policy, because M.P.s were articulating access based on `when' a person entered, and not `how' as Bankes had done in 1805. However, ‘when’ dictated the public that got in. To Hume he said that the two private days were "made to accommodate foreigners and other curious persons, and whose object would be frustrated by the admission of a crowd." Hume did not think that it was fair that two days were reserved for special purposes, while the public received but three, but John Wilson Croker, the Secretary for the Admiralty,23 reassured him that it was obvious to everyone who visited the Museum on a public day that it was necessary for students to have undisturbed access. Thinking that he still had the trump card, Hume then asked about the one unoccupied day, Saturday. That day, according to Croker, was used for cleaning the building.24 Bankes provided Hume with the same answers when he complained the following year.25 Although no one was denied entrance on a Tuesday or Thursday if he could prove acquaintanceship with an officer or trustee, the ‘foreigners’ were people of rank and affluence; otherwise, they were not encouraged or made aware of special access on the closed days as the letter to The Times26 from `Z' (seen earlier) indicated. 23Croker took considerable interest in the arts and sciences. During a period of agitation for retrenchment he supported the purchase of the Elgin Marbles. He was one of the founders of the Quarterly Review and The Athenaeum. 24The

Times (26 February 1825), p. 2a.

25Ibid.,

(21 March 1826), p. 2d.

26Ibid.,

(8 September 1814), p. 2e.

179

By the 1830s the mood in the House had become more somber towards the British Museum. Construction of new galleries had been going on since 1823 when the Museum acquired George III's library,27 and the number of visitors had dramatically dropped since 1827, because many of the collections were covered and moved to the unopened new wings. In 1830 Bankes moved for the approval of the Museum's budget, and in a repeat of episodes, Hume matched wits with his adversary. This time the questions were machine gunned to the Museum's spokesman, and they were more pointed and laced with barbs. They bore the marks of a person who agreed with the critics and wanted to enlarge the museum public. Why were greater facilities not afforded to the public? Why was the Museum open but three days a week, "and even then but for a few hours?" He saw no reason the Museum should not be open five days a week instead of three, "for the salaries paid to the officers were sufficiently liberal to command a greater portion of their time and services." Even when the Museum was open, it was not made sufficiently public, and he suggested a sign with the days and hours it was open be placed on the gate. "The public paid for the Museum, and therefore had a right to insist on every facility of ingress."28 He further contended that if the problem were money, the public could pay to enter on the additional days. A free-for-all erupted with debate on the Reading Room, but with the exception of William Trant who remarked on the exclusion of children, Hume was the sole M.P. to concentrate on the `museum' side of access to the institution.29 Bankes made no attempt to give his adversary an answer that was any different from previous ones. The officers were engaged six days a week. He elaborately explained what occurred on the closed days, and that those days were reserved for those who sought a private visit.

27Crook, 28The

The British Museum, p. 109-110, 114.

Times (9 March 1830), p. 1f, 2a.

29Parliamentary

Debates new series 22 (8 March 1830):

1352-54.

180

When Hume asked about access, he spoke like a person who was in tune with the feelings of the ‘public’. In 1792 Fox gave a speech in the House of Commons that recognized public opinion and the public’s involvement in the debate of political issues so "that in the role of a permanent critical commentator it [public] had definitely broken the exclusiveness of Parliament and evolved into the officially designated discussion partner of the delegate." In Fox's speeches the public was not treated as if it could be excluded from the deliberations.30 Hume asked the same questions and made the same criticisms that the ‘public’ had in The Times and in other periodicals, which indicates that he read the criticisms and articles and considered the ‘public’ a valid commentator on the proceedings at the Museum. Hume had ‘interpreted the place of a public’ in matters concerning the British Museum and thought their criticisms should be addressed in the House, and by virtue, he had become the advocate of the ‘public’. He took their criticisms and linked them with the argument that the British Museum was a tax supported institution, so that access concerned everyone, because the populace, as well as the ‘public’, paid taxes. Each time Hume sought greater access, he came prepared with logic and reasoning. He had heard Bankes' answers before, and considering the validity behind them, on every occasion he had to present a case that could shatter or bypass them. He had seen defeat in his cause before, so in order to assure success, this time he hedged the questions with alternative solutions. If one option failed, another might be taken up. To the routine question, `Why was the Museum open three days a week?', he added, `and even then but for a few hours?' It gave the opportunity of making the visiting hours longer in the day should the five-day proposal fail, which it had in the past. Other members of the House had interjected with remarks on the library, so Bankes tailored an answer to suit them and in the course answered Hume. He "was sure the trustees

30Habermas,

The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, p. 66.

181

would endeavour to prolong the time, during which it was deemed expedient to keep the reading room open. This, however, must depend on the period of year, for under no circumstances should the introduction of fire or candles into so large and valuable a library be permitted."31 At this time the library and museum maintained the same hours, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. As a result of this debate, the trustees attempted to shift the hours to 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. but met with resistance from the readers, so they resorted to the old schedule. The trustees did not permit artificial lighting, so there was little hope for increasing or altering the hours. This debate demonstrated that it was data, and in this case, the dwindling number of visitors, and not public opinion that prompted an examination and alteration in the British Museum’s access policies. At the beginning of the century Parliament was interested in easier access to the Museum for a larger number of visitors. By the end of the decade (1810) Parliament requested that when the British Museum submitted its annual budget for a grant, that the request come with visitation statistics for the previous seven years. The Times was very good to publish them as filler or snippets to impress the readers with how well the numbers were increasing. Members of Parliament boasted about how well the Museum looked and were assured they were getting value for the tax payer’s money. In 1818 when Bankes submitted the petition to purchase the late Dr. Burney’s library for the Museum, he greased the wheel for making a purchase more likely by alluding to the statistics. "The improvements that had been adopted in the arrangements of the British Museum were well known, and satisfactory and beneficial to the public; since now all could have an easy opportunity of visiting this great depository of literature, arts, and curiosities."32 They measured success by the number of people who came to the Museum.

31The

Times (9 March 1830), p. 2a.

32Ibid.,

(24 February 1818), p. 2d.

182

The growing number of visitors offset the impact any articles might have and made criticism appear isolated or the work of a disgruntled critic and not worthy of support in Parliament. In 1823 the very influential journal, The Edinburgh Review, contained an article about the British Museum and accused the zoological collections of being in a state of decay and ruin, lacking labels and references, and using improper scientific names, and that the library in natural history was in a wretched state.33 The following year when the budget for the Museum was submitted to Parliament, Mr. Bennett, M.P. for Shrewsbury, led other members in an uproar over the article. Sir Charles Long and Mr. Bankes defended the Museum by picking at the errors in the article line by line and by offering proof from the Museum's officers.34 In light of this incident it was evident that M.P.s were aware of articles about the British Museum, and that they chose to believe the articles (The Edinburgh Review) until the evidence proved otherwise. The increasing statistics at the British Museum did not support critics' claims that access was difficult, so M.P.s believed that there was no need to adjust the days or hours the Museum was open. At best Hume could support the ‘public’ that had challenged the British Museum in The Times and other publications, but until the evidence fell in his favor, as it did by 1830, he could never muster support or enthusiasm in the House. Because Bankes always had an answer to suit the Museum’s purposes, Hume was playing what appeared to be a losing game. In this case, the debate aroused Parliament to make a more determined intervention in the affairs of the Museum and to reconsider alterations to access, so that in the following year other members helped Hume carry the charge. For the budget debate in 1831 M.P.s devoted more attention to opening the Museum on Saturday with only a few

33The Edinburgh Review 38 (May 1823): 383-398. For the extent and influence of The Review see James A. Greig, Francis Jeffrey of the Edinburgh Review (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1948), p. 1-13. 34Parliamentary

Debates new series 10 (29 March 1824):

1466-1476.

183

questions about the library. Charles Jephson, M.P. for Mallow, began the questioning by asking "whether, with reference to what occurred last session, any alteration would be made in the attendance of the officers of the Museum? and why the Museum could not be open on Saturdays?" Bankes avoided the first question by saying that upon inquiry he had found that attendance at the British Museum was greater than at similar institutions in France. He answered the second question with the statement, "that there was an inconvenience attending the keeping the Museum open on a Saturday, independent of its detaining the officers from necessary relaxation, as the rooms required cleaning."35 It was to Bankes' credit but also because of expediency that he investigated the possibility. With a slight variation on the number of days the officers were in attendance, the answer was the same as the one from the previous year. Bankes had not defended the Museum's position dishonestly, so that when The Times reported that he had inquired, the answer he gave sounded more authoritative and reaffirmed the Museum's stand. This session of Parliament did not accept Bankes' explanation without expressing irritation with the status quo. Sir John Wrottesley, M.P. for Staffordshire, told a personal anecdote on how he had never been able to see the Museum after repeated attempts. "Saturday was almost the only day that members of that house could devote to that object;" and the remark indicated that people who could not get time from their jobs were not part of the museum public. Wrottesley thought the Museum could be cleaned on a Monday as well as a Saturday and suggested a six pence or a shilling admittance charge which he was sure would provide easier access to the public. Hume did not accept the argument of a Saturday cleaning either, and thought the work could be done before the hour of admission.36

35The Times (15 March 1831), p. 2c. Three years later another excuse was given when Lord Althorp "said that the reason of the Museum being closed on Saturday was, that the trustees meet on that day, and that officers were obliged to be in attendance upon them." The Times (23 May 1834), p. 3d. Lord Althorp failed to tell M.P.s that the trustees met once a month. 36Ibid.,

p. 2c-d.

184

Wrottesley’s and Hume’s questions were a classic example of the government’s demands for an accounting of the Museum. No longer were M.P.s willing to accept as truth the Museum’s spokesman’s statements in the House. The Museum’s operations appeared mysterious, and the trustees in the House remained quiet while their critics made demands for information to be made public. The M.P.s did not know that the Museum was cleaned every day before admission with an intense and thorough cleaning on Saturday. Without artificial lighting in the collections or the library the number of hours available for the task, especially during the winter, was limited on weekdays. Had Bankes or any other trustee given this information, M.P.s might have come to a solution instead of assuming there was mismanagement. Hume adhered to a utilitarian philosophy and thought the problem was a financial one. The crux of the problem was the dwindling number of visitors. It baffled Hume. Beginning with the earliest accounts to Parliament the number of persons admitted had steadily increased until the late 1820s.37 Years

No. of Persons

Years

1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815

11,981 11,824 13,046 15,390 15,197 29,152 31,402 31,309 29,595 33,074 35,581

1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826

No. of Persons 40,500 50,172 63,253 53,614 62,543 91,151 98,801 89,825 112,804 127,643 123,302

Years

No. of Persons

1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836

79,131 81,228 68,101 68,802 75,164 147,896 210,495 237,666 289,104 383,157

37Original Letters and Papers, "Account of the Number of Persons Admitted to a Sight of the British Museum in each Month from the 1st January 1805 inclusive to the 27th of June 1807," 2: fol. 860*-860**; "Number of Persons Admitted to a view of the British Museum from the 10th day of May 1807 to the 9th day of May 1812," 3: fols. 1047, 1066, 1076; John Pye, Patronage of British Art: an Historical Sketch (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1845; a facsimile reprint, London: Cornmarket Press, 1970), p. 277.

185

Hume did not believe the public’s satiation could account for a drop from 120,000 in former years to 68,000 in 1829 and 1830; therefore, based on the context of his other statements, Hume thought the cause lay with the Museum’s inefficiency. In both sessions he put forth the idea that the annual grant was sufficient to complete the purpose of exhibiting the Museum. To him the Museum could afford to be open five days a week, but as it was not, it led him to speculate publicly whether the grant could not be used more efficiently, and the Museum made more useful to the public. If the institution were open five days a week, the number of visitors would increase to the old levels. As the reporter for The Times paraphrased Hume, "He thought that more time ought to be devoted to the public."38 Hume’s attitude symbolized the growing conflict that lay before the Museum. "Whom was it to serve?" For more than seventy years the trustees and officers had catered to the reader first. Hume never suggested that any services be taken away from the scholar, but he clearly meant to enlarge the museum public to include those people who paid taxes or who could not visit on one of the open days but could visit on a Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday, which meant practically everyone. The questioning came to a dramatic end when Wrottesley asked Bankes ‘whether he would open the Museum on Saturdays’, for if he did not, he would oppose the vote. Bankes said he could pledge nothing without consulting the other trustees and assured him that they would do all they could to make it more convenient for the public. It was the first time a threat had been used against the Museum, but it indicated the level of strength that M.P.s had to challenge the trustees over the procedures. As long as the Museum had valid reasons for being closed on certain days or to a certain public, the M.P.s had been willing to accept excuses from the Museum’s representative in Parliament, but now too many members thought that the rooms could be cleaned some other time besides Saturdays and that the Museum had enough money to

38The

Times (15 March 1831), p. 2c-d.

186

stay open more frequently. When M.P.s realized that the Museum's reasons had no validity, it appeared that the policies were designed in order to keep people out, and it was the intention of M.P.s who fought for the ‘public’ to expand the museum public as far as they could. Bankes gave the impression he was willing to concede to the requests. His response and defense were beginning to wither in front of such an onslaught. If something did not happen soon, support in the government would be harder to obtain, and the reasons that had worked so well in the past would be useless.

In a matter of days the trustees had Ellis study the

arrangements for opening the Reading Room on Saturdays, and by the end of April the library was opened at the same hours on Saturdays as the other weekdays. The next debate over access erupted quite by accident, but it demonstrated that it was a simmering issue. In 1833 the government had been considering whether Sir John Soane’s collection should be housed in the property at Lincoln's Inn Fields or at the British Museum. Sir Samuel Whalley, M.P. for Marylebone, thought the British Museum was a better choice but complained that it was not continually open.

On two or three occasions he had been

disappointed in attempts to see it, because he had gone on days when it was closed. He suggested that the Museum occasionally advertise when it was open in the daily papers.39 James Morrison, M.P. for Ipswich, had a more unfortunate record, for he claimed to have made at least a dozen attempts within the last two years but had always called on the wrong day.40 Parliament’s deliberations on access had the appearance of public deliberations of the public in general.41 Although M.P.s were a part of the state and not part of the ‘public’ as Habermas

39Hansard's

Parliamentary Debates third series 16 (1 April 1833):

1340.

40Although James Morrison's initials were identical with those of the `J.M.' of The Times (17 April 1832) and the stories bore a striking resemblance, the J.M. in The Times said he lived 120 miles from London and came to the city 2 or 3 times a year. The M.P. lived at Basildon Park and would have been in London almost daily after having been elected in 1830. Therefore, the writer and the M.P. were not the same person. 41Habermas,

The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, p. 100.

187

defined it, from the recorded testimonies in the House, M.P.s felt as helpless as the ‘public’ that had challenged the British Museum, so that by the 1830s members in the House had united like a ‘public’, and the chambers were their salon or cafe. Sir Robert Peel believed that immense benefits would occur "if the most public notice possible was given of the hours and days on which the Museum was open."42 He knew that many people from the country happened to go to the Museum on a day it was closed. The members’ comments were an appalling testimony, mirroring the public’s criticisms on the Museum’s failure to be more receptive to people’s anticipations. On other issues relating to access, the trustees or officers claimed financial, security, or other reasons for not making alterations. In this case consistent advertising in the form of a sign would have been an easy task, so the trustees had no excuse for not dealing with the problem, and it indicated a less than welcome attitude towards visitors.

Peel's speech was a sad commentary on the trustees'

management. The Secretary of State for the Home Department was an ex officio trustee of the British Museum, and Peel was a more active member when he held the position from 1822 to 1827 and 1828 to 1830. It was ironic to suggest more advertising when signs were put up and taken down when he was a member of the Board. Bankes had retired from politics, so Alexander Baring, M.P. for North Essex and a trustee for the British Museum and the National Gallery, spoke for the Museum. He was quite amenable to the members’ suggestions and complaints and agreed that public notice should be made of the open hours and days. He stated that on open days more than 2,000 people visited the place, but if they were admitted every day, it would be impossible for the officers to perform other duties. He assured Whalley and the other members that if a visitor made an application to a librarian in connection with science or art, he could see the collection on a closed day. Also, Whalley and

42Hansard's

Parliamentary Debates third series 16 (1 April 1833):

1342.

188

Morrison may not have known a librarian, but had they known the procedure, they could have secured a recommendation from a trustee who a member of Parliament to visit on a closed day. With the chronic reluctance to post information about access, and the Museum’s spokesman forced to repeat information year after year in the House, more and more the evidence points to an institution that was very difficult to use and one that did not encourage people to try to use it. Whereas Bankes was afraid to commit to anything without conferring with the trustees, Baring took the M.P.s’ comments a step further and proposed a step that was clearly out of line with past policy. He thought the public notice should state that any person from the country who "was obliged to leave town the next day would find ready access given."43 He had redefined the museum public, for the Museum was now expected to encourage people who did not reside in London to ask for access. The issues did not end with publicity and the closed days. Other members raised the principle of access and the museum public. William Cobbett, who had been elected that year (1833) for Oldham, took another opportunity to snipe at the Museum.44 According to Baring, during the holidays "no foreigner or any person decently attired in pursuit of particular information was ever refused admittance." Cobbett made an issue out of the remark. He said that Baring "had not defined what he meant by a decent dress", but whatever he meant, Cobbett thought that those who did not have decent clothing should not be required to support the Museum. He turned the Museum into a battleground for class warfare. If the "chopstick in the country, as well as the poor man who mended the pavement in town . . . derived no benefit from it" then they should not be forced to pay for it. The hours were inconvenient for laborers and

43Ibid. 44see Hansard's Parliamentary Debates third series 16 (25 March 1833): Political Register 79 (30 March 1833): 785-87.

1003-04; and Cobbett's Weekly

189

tradesmen and were intended for idlers and loungers. It was closed for two months in the summer "when all the lawyers and parsons, and lords and loungers, were out in the country enjoying shooting." If it was to be useful, then the Museum should be open during the summer from six in the morning to ten at night.45 Although the interpretations were pedantic, the facts themselves were accurate. Cobbett made some valid points on access, and others like John Roebuck, M.P. for Bath and George Pryme, M.P. for Cambridge, agreed. Roebuck advocated opening the Museum during the holidays when the working classes were able to attend, such as Christmas, Good Friday, and Sundays, but was met with cries of "No, No." Pryme thought that if the Museum were kept open to a later hour so the mechanic could attend, there would not be a necessity of keeping it open on a Sunday.46 Baring had already confessed that the trustees were in the process of reducing the two months summer holiday to one month, and he agreed with Pryme and the other House members and would be sorry to keep the Museum open on Sundays and other religious days. Within three weeks of the debate the Board of Trustees voted to reduce the summer holiday to one month in September. Before, people who had written or given speeches about greater access had done it for the benefit of foreigners or a general public. Although Planta had worked to make access greater, he did not specifically fight for the lower classes. With the exception of The Penny Magazine Cobbett was the one person who fought specifically for the poor or working man, and he held nothing back when he addressed those policies that had hindered their access. In this debate the poor were not addressed in the same manner as the public had on previous occasions. Many times the public were Sennett's or Williams's public of known and unknown people, but Cobbett

45Hansard's 46Ibid.,

Parliamentary Debates third series 16 (1 April 1833):

p. 1342.

1341-42.

190

and Pryme identified the poor or those who could not gain access in sociological terms, such as laborers, tradesmen, and mechanics. Based on the letter from the livery servant and Baring’s remark, there had not been a historical change in the dress code at the Museum. In a period when appearance indicated one’s class, rich and middle class people would not dress shabbily, so the rule was addressed to the poor and working classes. Critics in Parliament and in publications had advocated making the Museum more accessible for the public, but Cobbett, more than anyone before him, forced Parliament to consider which public. On the face of it, Cobbett’s speech had the appearance of concern for the working classes, but his greatest anxiety was financial matters. His speeches and writings were laden with references to the costs of things. If a tax were too expensive or frivolous, he would compare the monetary value in relation to how it could be spent on the poor, or how a lower tax on goods bettered the poor man's buying power. The harangues about access problems were merely a way of conveying the impression that it was a rich man's institution supported by poor men who could not visit it and should not be forced to support it. While Cobbett had been asking about the British Museum's use for the working man, other members of Parliament were beginning to put forward the notion that greater access benefited manufacturing. People had recognized for a long while the value of art in relation to manufacturing and an improved taste for the fine arts. Wedgwood acknowledged the debt to Hamilton's collection of Etruscan vases when he said that he made far more money in profits than the £8,400 spent to purchase them for the Museum. One of the arguments for the purchase of the Elgin Marbles was that manufacturing would benefit from improved taste. Sir Robert Peel, Lord Ashley, and Joseph Hume argued for the construction of a suitable building for the National Gallery, because it would help improve and benefit the artistic aspects of

191

manufacturing.47 William Ewart was an M.P. who advocated the opening of public museums and galleries as free from every restriction as possible, and in a debate on the Royal Academy he noted the benefits to manufacturing and the fine arts by alluding to the relationship between Wedgwood and Hamilton.48 Mr. Morrison (the M.P. who had failed to see the Museum in a dozen attempts), said that in the spring "a vast number of persons interested in manufactures of the country came to the metropolis for the purpose of obtaining information," and if it were possible, the British Museum should be open every day from April through June. Morrison was a wealthy M.P. who had been a trader and landowner before being elected to Parliament in 1830 and was the head of a large commercial house, James Morrison & Company. He was self educated and had formed a large library and collection of old Dutch and Italian masters. From his personal and professional background and experience he thought that the country was deficient in institutions that taught the higher branches of art and science.49 Two years later John Bowring, M.P. for Clyde burghs, defended the Museum in opposition to another of Cobbett's criticisms. Bowring was a friend of Jeremy Bentham and was a businessman who was very interested in commercial interests and free trade.50 He believed that the works of art in the British Museum had done much to help art and industry in the country, and he regretted that the hours the Museum was open were those in which workmen could not attend, but he hoped a means could be found to solve the problem,

47Ibid.,

third series 12 (13 April 1832):

48Ibid.,

third series 29 (14 July 1835):

554.

49Ibid.,

third series 16 (1 April 1833):

1340-41.

50Jeremy radicals.

467-69.

Bentham founded The Westminster Review in 1824 to publish the views of philosophical John Bowring was editor of the political department and eventually editor of the magazine.

192

because "he was convinced great improvement would follow to the manufacturers of the country."51 By 1836 Parliament had managed to secure a shorter summer holiday at the Museum from two months to one, and it benefited the foreign and British tourist who came to London during the summer. Also, persons from the country who had to leave town the next day were to be advised that they would be given access that day.

Otherwise, if the library is treated

separately, the policies remained as they had since 1810. At the hearings in 1835, M.P.s had heard the Museum officers explain their interpretation of the Museum. It was foremost an institution for scholarly research, and many M.P.s recognized that fact. They had forced the Museum to become more open or public about its purposes and operations. Things that were unclear or secret were questioned and explained.

In the following year the Committee

summoned outside witnesses who were scientists, authors, artists, and other professional people who used the Museum, or would like to, on a serious basis. The Committee did not call people to testify on the basis of visiting the Museum for sheer pleasure or would like to visit it once or twice like so many of those who did. As the Committee called witnesses who used or would use the Museum for practical purposes, the hearings were set up to suit the needs of research and scholarly purposes. Members of Parliament and the public had expressed many of the same dissatisfactions with access, but when the Committee on the Management of the British Museum met and questioned the witnesses, they provided different interpretations of a museum public. A majority of the witnesses thought it would be useful and convenient to extend the hours of exhibition. Generally, they thought it would benefit the public, and a few men like Thomas Bell, a surgeon and fellow of the Royal Society, and Edward Lear, an author of a monograph on parrots, had professions that precluded coming to the Museum between 10:00 to 4:00, or stated

51Hansard's

Parliamentary Debates third series 27 (18 May 1835):

1186-87.

193

that longer hours would enable them to complete research sooner.52 While the Committee was willing to accept testimonies from James De Carle Sowerby, a mineralogist, and John Gage, director of the Society of Antiquaries, who were satisfied with the hours as they were, the Committee was not above pressing a witness to their point of view. William Yarrell owned a business and was able to visit the Museum whenever he pleased. When Benjamin Hawes, M.P. for Lambeth, could not get Yarrell to admit to the inconvenience of the hours in his own life, he attempted to have him do it by getting Yarrell to empathize with other professional men. This ploy did not work, because Yarrell thought that no one who worked during the day would go to the Museum at night. Undaunted, Hawes revived the testimony of Thomas Bell who said he could not attend during the day because of his work, but would if it were open at night. Yarrell knew Bell very well and finally came round and agreed that it would be beneficial to the public to open the Museum to later hours.53 The M.P.s were just as anxious to elicit as favorable a response for opening the Museum during the holidays, and a majority of the witnesses satisfied the expectations. There was a consensus that many people could attend the Museum only when they had a holiday from work, and those occasions were during the religious holiday weeks. George Rennie, a sculptor, went so far as to say that he had no objections to having the Museum open on a Sunday.54 Thomas Bell had not formed an opinion, but expressed mild trepidation that damage might occur to the exhibition cases if too many people entered the rooms.55 Mr. Hawes asked Bell whether the

52"Report from the Select Committee appointed in the following Season to consider the same subject," par. 459, 465, 3207. 53Ibid.,

par. 2068-81.

54Ibid.,

par. 1237.

55Ibid.,

par. 472-73.

194

problem could be prevented by the addition of more attendants, and he replied that it could be decided by experiment. Subsequently, the Committee asked witnesses whether damage would occur if the public were admitted during the holidays, and there was agreement that there probably would not be. The possibility of opening the Museum to the public on the student days, Tuesdays and Thursdays, received scant attention at the hearings. Thomas Bell disapproved of having the Museum open to the public on the student days, because scientists had the opportunity of consulting the collections with the officers, and he thought it was of great value.56 George Rennie disagreed when he said that no inconvenience or interruptions would come to artists who studied the sculpture in the presence of the public. He had intentionally gone on the open days and had never been bothered.57 Without necessarily intending it, the hearing was a condescending forum whereby the government asked those who already had access whether they should let anyone else in. The questions about opening during holiday weeks were veiled references as to whether the lower classes should be admitted and whether such people could behave themselves. The M.P.s were relying on witnesses who were ‘experts’ on how the public performed, and the prize for the public's good conduct was opening the Museum during holiday weeks. The witnesses were not in total agreement over which public should have access, or when the Museum should be open, but the second Committee was impressed with the favorable answers towards the public. As a result, the Committee recommended that the Museum be open on public days from 10:00 until 7:00 from May through August, and that the Museum be opened during the Easter, Whitsun, and Christmas weeks, except Sundays and Christmas Day.

56Ibid.,

par. 462.

57Ibid.,

par. 1224-27.

The Committee justified the

195

recommendations based on "the increasing interest taken in it [British Museum] by all classes of the People. . . ."58 As the evidence indicates, a ‘public’ had developed, according to Habermas’ definition, because people became concerned about access to the British Museum and thought that the topic was no longer confined to the trustees but was one that was properly theirs to discuss. In the press the ‘public’ challenged the trustees to justify the British Museum’s policies, and it shows that they were critically thinking when they offered judgment on access. From their own experiences, they understood what the statutes were and how they determined who visited the Museum. In spite of the ‘public’s’ opinion and the power of the press, they alone did not bring change. As ‘X’ in The True Sun and the Athenaeum book reviewer stated, people needed to take complaints to Parliament. The ‘public’s’ discussions were available for everyone to read, though, and M.P.s, such as Mr. Hume, brought the issues before the House and demanded an account from the Museum. After the Museum’s attendance dropped in the late 1820s the M.P.s who spoke for the ‘public’ got support from fellow M.P.s and succeeded in having the Museum opened to the public in August and for notice to be given to visitors who arrived on Tuesday or Thursday and who could not come back on the following day that they could have access. When the ‘public’ and M.P.s challenged the trustees, they redefined the museum public. They spoke as, and for, a segment of the population that was either under-represented among visitors (The Penny Magazine’s tradesmen and artisans, Cobbett’s working and poor man, and Morrison’s manufacturer) or had too much difficulty gaining access (foreigners and people who lived outside London).

When the ‘public’ and Mr. Hume stated that the institution was

supported by taxes and should be open everyday of the week, they indicated that it was a public

58Ibid., p. v. On 11 February 1837 a meeting was held in which the Treasury sanctioned extra money, and the British Museum began opening on Easter Monday 1837. Other changes according to the Committee's recommendations followed.

196

museum and had pushed the definition of a museum public to its broadest limits to include everyone.

197

Chapter X Access to the British Museum Library: Public and Government Opinion, 1810-1836

In 1811 Joseph Planta noted in a report to the trustees that the British Museum was the only public library in the United Kingdom. All others were the property of select bodies or corporations. The British Museum had about 70,000 volumes,1 and many of the monographs, periodicals, manuscripts, and reference works could not be found anywhere else. As a result, the procurement of a Reading Room ticket became essential to many lawyers, clerics, scientists, historians, and other scholars and students. Access to the British Museum galleries had been radically simplified by 1810, but entrance to the library remained highly exclusive. The trustees justified the precaution on the grounds of security. It was not until 1822 that a prospective reader could obtain a ticket by a recommendation from someone other than a trustee or officer. The administrators valued the idea of research and kept the library open five days a week and during the summer. Despite this schedule, the days and hours the library was accessible was a contentious topic and ranked with the application procedure as the most serious item for debate. Opinions were sent directly to the trustees or aired in the press and in Parliament. In this context it is important to analyze attitudes towards who should use the library and how it related to a museum public. In the following section we will study first the public’s opinion, then the government’s, and finally the testimony at the Committee hearings of 1836. On 14 October 1814 The Times printed a lengthy letter to the editor that prompted Henry Ellis to note that there was a spirit of hostility towards the Museum. The writer, ‘A Citizen’,

1Original Letters and Papers 3 (14 December 1811): fol. 1014-16. In A History of the British Museum Library 1753-1973 P.R. Harris stated that the volumes contained “perhaps 140,000 items, since a large proportion of the stock consisted of pamphlets, tracts and academic dissertations which were often bound several to a volume.” (p. 34) See also p. 26 where Harris discussed library statistics and how it was difficult to know for sure whether figures represented volumes or items.

198

asked if the editor had attempted to find his way into the library. "The present conception of the Managers appears to be, that of closing up the library to all but a privileged class." Although a letter from a person of known respectability would suffice on the continent, `A Citizen' was irate that `by a late regulation' no one could be admitted to the Reading Room without the recommendation of a trustee [or officer]. When, in December 1812, a Harleian manuscript was discovered to be missing, the trustees abolished the acceptance of recommendations from third parties. The decision inspired the letter from `A Citizen'. He said the policy was difficult and disheartening for the country curate or the foreigner and argued for a dramatic change to make the library as public as possible for "every man who has a literary enquiry to make." He suggested that people in the learned professions should have access by producing testimonials, and other people ‘of respectable appearance’ should produce a letter of a professional man residing in London.

The librarians should be allowed to admit people based on

recommendations from housekeepers in London. Rare and valuable volumes could be restricted to viewing in the presence of a librarian, and a five pound security deposit could be levied on all readers to guard against theft and damage. He concluded by asking, "Is the library of the National Museum to be for the use of those who keep the keys, or of those who pay for the books?"2 The reference to the financial support indicated that ‘A Citizen’ thought that the library was public, because people paid for it. The description of who should be allowed to use the library is similar to Habermas’ educated and propertied ‘public’; therefore, when he asked if the books were for those who paid for them, he was indicating that a ‘public’ was the basis for the financial support. ‘A Citizen’ identified the heart of the problem. There were many people who, by profession and good character, could justify using the library, but did not know a trustee or an

2The

Times (14 October 1814), p. 2d.

199

officer. In The Times ‘A Member of the University of Cambridge’ discussed the difficulties of obtaining access to the Reading Room in 1817 and said that a member of Parliament had informed him of at least a dozen other people who had complained of similar difficulties. Although Parliament had made an effort to give the public a freer admission, nothing had really changed.3 Francis Hopkins, an assistant surgeon in the Second Life Guards, wrote to the Museum and said that he could not supply the necessary recommendation but asked to be reconsidered because his position and profession were sufficient guarantee that the privilege would not be abused.4 Two years later Lionel Berguer was in a similar predicament and had been advised that a recommendation was necessary. He had no recommendation but asked Planta to submit the application to the trustees anyway.5 Both men hoped that exceptions would be made, so the letters were couched in civil terms, but it was clear that they did not approve of the system. Another applicant, Mr. Bellenden, was combative and blatant in criticizing the procedure. On 26 January 1820 he wrote to Planta demanding to know why he had to submit a written recommendation. "I am a member of Lincolns Inn of several years standing at the bar and a fellow of the Royal Society", and he thought that Planta was bound to admit him unless he could show rules to the contrary.6 In spite of the game with Planta, Bellenden's justification for a ticket was the same as Hopkins's and Berguer's. A person's profession or position in life should qualify or disqualify him. None of the men advocated an abandonment of any form of statute. They simply wanted a system whereby a student could enter the library without exceeding hindrance. Mr. A. Herbert

3Ibid.,

(10 October 1823), p. 2c.

4Original

Letters and Papers 4 (10 July 1818):

fol. 1471-72.

5Ibid.,

4 (13 January 1820):

fol. 1574.

6Ibid.,

4 (24 January 1820):

fol. 1575-76, 4 (26 January 1820):

fol. 1577-78.

200

thought the "instructions are such as cannot be conjectured before hand, so that a poor student may walk from Hammersmith or Tower Hill to learn which day he may call again, if he has aristocratic connections to recommend him to the trustees."7 Like `A Citizen' he thought that the library had assumed upper class bias and was not open to the people who really could use it or needed it. As the press and magazines had printed public discontent with the application procedure, M.P.s had been concerned with access to the library. On the face of it members of Parliament concentrated on the application procedures, the amount of time the library was open, and the security of the collections. In reality they were debating the functions of the library and whom it should serve. At the same time a transformation took place whereby Parliament demonstrated the extent of its authority over the British Museum. After the Committee of Supply submitted the report on funding the British Museum in 1815, General Thornton said that improvements were necessary at the Museum. Specifically, he thought greater access to the Reading Room should be given. "At present . . . those country gentlemen and others who had no acquaintance with those trustees or officers, were, however respectable, excluded from any access to this valuable library."

Henry Bankes, though,

disapproved of greater access. He said "that through improper facilities, many public libraries had been stripped of the most valuable books." He cited the public library of Paris, and reminded the members that several valuable prints had been stolen from the British Museum (in 1806). It was a stinging blow, and all that Thornton could do to avert the damage was to claim that it was a friend of an officer (Beloe) and not an ordinary visitor who stole them.8

7Ibid.,

5 (1 June 1825):

8Parliamentary

fol. 2041-42.

Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time 31 (9 May 1815):

226.

201

Critics that worked to abolish the ticket system and secure an easier means to see the collections had used the French museums as the model the British Museum should copy. At the French national library where a recommendation was not necessary, anyone could use the library. `A Citizen' adapted the procedures at the French national library for the British Museum when he rhetorically asked whether books were stolen from the Paris library. In the case of the library, French examples backfired, and Bankes used them to defend the Museum's policies and to show the dangers of expanding access to readers who were not known by an officer or trustee. Three years later both sides were more entrenched on the issue when the House debated purchasing Dr. Burney's library. General Thornton said he could have agreed with the vote with more pleasure if admission had been greater. Admission procedures to the library were a difficulty for "strangers, to whom it was allowed as a matter of favour rather than of right."9 While Thornton made an issue of having the rules liberalized for a larger public, Charles Long, M.P. for Haslemere and a trustee since 1812, was adamantly opposed to the idea. He said the library was "sufficiently open to those who wished to visit it, and he should not wish to see it more so." He cited the Paris library which "was open to all classes without distinction or check" and had great thefts, and Long "hoped no such system would be adopted here."10 An increase in theft would be disastrous, but Long failed to say that at the Paris library books could be taken home, which accounted for part of the thefts.11 Three weeks later Thornton again remarked on access, but it was Bankes' turn to answer. "If any arrangement could be devised, and carried into effect for the advantage of the public, consistent with the necessary means of safety and security with respect to the valuable deposits in the Museum, it would be desirable to afford them. The

9The

Times (5 May 1818), p. 2d.

10Parliamentary 11Phillips,

Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time 38 (4 May 1818):

Modern London, p. 420.

504.

202

admissions must be regulated with a proper view to the security of what were to be seen or read."12 Based on the speeches it is difficult to know precisely how large a library public Thornton meant, but he obviously did not advocate that anyone be granted access in the manner that Long implied in the reference to Paris. In the debate with Bankes, Thornton referred to a library public as ‘country gentlemen and others’ and ‘respectable’, and with Long he referred to them as ‘scholars’. Presumably, he was thinking of men who came from the propertied classes who wanted to use the library for research purposes. Another important aspect was that these people were ‘unknown’.

It was a characteristic that hearkens to Williams’ and Sennett’s

definitions of the public as individuals who were acquaintances and strangers, and it was a definition that was in direct contradiction to the trustees’ definition of the Reading Room public. The General had come to fight the rule on behalf of the readers, while Long and Bankes sidestepped the issue and defended the rule on behalf of the collections. Prospective readers needed the endorsement of a trustee or an officer, and Thornton thought the rule made the Museum an exclusive institution for friends of employees and trustees. Like Francis Hopkins, Mr. Bellenden, and ‘A Citizen’, General Thornton thought that a person’s profession should be enough security to obtain a ticket when the applicant did not know a trustee or officer, and like these gentlemen, Thornton limited the occupations to people of middle class backgrounds, ‘country gentlemen’, and scholars. Based on Long’s reply that the Paris library was open ‘to all classes’, it is obvious that he, at least, did not carefully listen to Thornton, but jumped to the assumption that Thornton wanted to open the library to anyone, which might include people who were thieves. Bankes, though, spoke more clearly on the relationship and position of access and security. Greater

12The

Times (28 May 1818), p. 2d.

203

access could arise only when the library's safety could be assured. Any alterations to the student's right to use the books was second to the maintenance of the collection. It was a fine point of interpretation, and Long and Bankes had to contend with the question, "How much security is enough?" In light of Bankes' statement, his position on security began to assume obsessive proportions when, two years later, he said that the library could not allow a greater degree of access with safety. It had "many manuscripts and prints, which curious individuals might damage in the course of their examination."13 It was clear that the issue was no longer people who might be thieves but people who might want to use the material, and Bankes was against any plan that would accommodate more applicants. In the debate with Thornton he said if a plan could be devised that could secure a reader's honesty and acceptability, he was for it. Now he was stating that the smaller the number of people who had access, the smaller the quantity of manuscripts and prints that would be examined, and the greater the chances that nothing would be damaged or stolen. Bankes wanted to keep the collection in pristine condition, even to the point of not relaxing the statutes. For the rest of the debate between Thornton and Long, time was taken up by discussion on the Burney Library until Sir James Mackintosh, M.P. for Nairn, ended the session with a summation on access. He believed the rules and regulations "were framed and applied in such a manner as to afford every facility to studious men, with as free an access to the public in general as was practically consistent with the objects of the institution. [Loud cries of Hear, hear!]"14 Mackintosh’s judicial temper struck a chord with the other members, and the cheers did as much to endorse the Museum as the speeches did.

13Parliamentary

Debates new series 1 (26 May 1820):

14Parliamentary

Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time 38 (4 May 1818):

627.

507.

204

Another endorsement came from William Smith, M.P. for Norwich, who in 1820 "thought there never was an instance in which the trustees of any institution had more completely seconded the views of parliament than the trustees of the British Museum had done. The improvements introduced by them, in the last 10 or 15 years, must strike every man who had visited the Museum before and since that time."15 Smith had an idyllic impression of the relationship between the British Museum and Parliament as that of subject and master, and the speech was indicative of the Museum's obedience to Parliament's views. The Museum was subject to the trustees, who in turn had to heed the mood of the government as the institution became increasingly dependent on treasury support. On two occasions Thornton had been defeated because opponents of reform had three persuasive arguments on their side. The first was a fear of theft. The British Museum had valuable prints, and the Paris library had had books stolen. Implicit in the argument was the purpose of the British Museum.

The trustees had the responsibility of maintaining the

collections for future use. The manuscripts and many of the books were irreplaceable and expensive. The trustees were not guarding the library for themselves but for the nation. So without having to go into any detail, M.P.s simply referred to the procedure in Paris and the results, and it convinced other members that the Museum's policies were justified. The second argument rested on the assumption that there was nothing more the trustees could do to improve the procedure. No other change was necessary, for the rules were fair, generous, and were tailored to the library's purposes. Because the rules had these qualities, anyone who was suited to use the Reading Room could meet the criteria. M.P.s who favored the statutes as they were found no argument with that logic. Finally, reform failed, because Parliament did not want to change the definition of a library public. Throughout the period newspapers, magazines, and

15Parliamentary

Debates new series 1 (26 May 1820):

627.

205

individuals had criticized the trustees for not making the Museum or the library more accessible and allowing more respectable, professional, or studious people to enter. In reality they were blaming the wrong group of people. When Mackentosh concluded his speech, he received cries of `Hear, Hear'. Smith said that the British Museum seconded the views of Parliament, or in other words, the Museum did what Parliament told it to do. Long, Bankes, Mackintosh, Smith, and M.P.s who supported their views wanted access limited to friends and acquaintances of the trustees and officers. It did not matter that prospective readers were qualified in terms of character and in their purposes for using the library. Many citizens were kept from the debates on access in Parliament because they did not meet the voting requirements, nor could they stand for office. The debates were conducted by propertied men who defended an exclusive policy that made it extremely difficult for people not in that group to enter. As long as advocates of reform used the same rhetoric, members of Parliament, who were trustees, and others had the winning answers to defeat them. Thomas Lennard had been elected an M.P. for Ipswich in 1820 and was presumably aware of the previous debates, so in an effort to achieve greater access to the library, he approached the issue with a twist. He complained it was difficult to use the library, but by acknowledging and using the previous arguments Lennard shifted the problem from `France' and `theft' and laid it at the feet of the officers. He based his mandate on the thesis that the British Museum "supported as it was at the public expense, the utmost possible facility should be afforded to the access of the public, but especially to those individuals who were devoted to literary and scientific pursuits." If it were said that it would be imprudent to expose the British Museum’s collections to strangers, then additional officers should be appointed to take care of them. Throughout the speech he stuck closely to issues of finance and access, which were in line with the concept of a ‘public’ museum, one the people supported. The arguments were similar to Thornton’s -- the people had a right to use the library, and that it should not be treated like a favor.

206

In anticipation of preventive measures from other members, he shrewdly added that additional officers would be unnecessary if it appeared that there were "already several officers receiving salaries without any corresponding duty to perform."16 To prove the point he moved that the Museum provide an account, first, of the number of applicants to the library, and the collections not generally shown, [coins and medals, prints and drawings] and the number of admissions in consequence of the applications for the past five years; and, second, of the annual salaries of employees. Sir Charles Long did not object to the motion but wanted to clarify the Museum's operations. He emphasized the difference between the library and the Museum when he said that there were "two classes of persons who required admission." The first consisted of people who came for a general inspection of the Museum. The other class "was the much more important one; it consisted of literary men and artists. . . ." He recited the same reasons heard many times before for having some restriction on admission, the fear of theft and occurrences in France. Realizing the reasons were trite, he said the question was then "whether the restraint adopted at the Museum was too great?" Long let the numbers speak for themselves when he added that there were forty-three trustees and several principal officers to whom any application could be made.17 Any attempt to interpret Long takes us back to the question: `Who were the men responsible for recommendations?' `A Citizen' and `A Member of the University of Cambridge' complained that they did not know any of the trustees, who were men of high rank in society. Half the trustees were M.P.s, all of whom held important positions of state. All but two of the fifteen elected trustees were lords, noblemen, or bishops. These men would hardly come into

16Ibid.,

new series 4 (16 February 1821):

17Ibid.,

p. 724-25.

723.

207

contact with the vast number of `studious' people who were otherwise qualified to use the library. William Grenville refused to recommend William Hone because he did not know him, and the Rev. Stonestreet resided on Gower Street but did not know an officer or trustee to recommend him. The Museum had eleven officers, all of whom came into contact with qualified visitors. Whether they were willing to recommend someone they came to know through a visit to the Museum depended on the officer. Planta admitted that he recommended people on their appearance and a brief conversation, while Ellis turned down Mr. Denniss, even though he thought he was respectable. The officers worked in London, so the person outside the metropolis had little chance of gaining their acquaintance and a recommendation. The Museum submitted the information, but it did not satisfy Lennard. The Museum claimed that it never refused admission to anyone unknown or unrecommended but postponed the application until the person could supply a reference.18

Lennard charged that if the

postponement was continued until the person could get a recommendation, it must amount to a refusal.19

He thought that all that was necessary was to determine if the applicant was

respectable, which was the same qualification that the trustees and their supporters in Parliament were looking for. The difference lay in how the Museum determined respectability, honesty, or character. Lennard wanted an easier or broader means that would permit an unknown public, while the trustees insisted on measures that would guarantee a known public. Lennard then moved that an account of the number of postponed applications to the Reading Room be submitted. The House had grown tired of his raving, and different members (Bankes, Long, Dickinson, and Gurney) testified that the best applications had been devised to let proper people in, and Long challenged Lennard to produce any cases of grievance for getting

18The

Times (31 March 1821), p. 2c.

19Parliamentary

Debates new series 5 (11 April 1821):

155.

208

a ticket. It was a move that helped bring about the change to access to the Reading Room, for Lennard cited two cases. One involved a Mr. Jones, a lawyer and contributor to the Museum, who for the past three months could not obtain the necessary recommendation. The other case concerned the son of an eminent professor at Geneva who wanted to see the manuscripts of Rousseau's works but could not obtain the necessary recommendation. The examples disproved the smug statements of Long and other M.P.s who boasted that the library was sufficiently open to those who wished to use it. Lennard's motion to have an account of the number of postponed applications to the Reading Room failed; however, in the following year (1822) circumstances over a reader's request for a ticket forced the trustees to modify the application procedures to the Reading Room. In 1822 Walter Wilson had been denied a ticket because he could not produce a recommendation. Wilson was an author who lived in Bath and had written an installment of The History and Antiquities of Dissenting Churches and Meeting Houses in London, Westminster, and Southwark: Including the Lives of Their Ministers, 2 vols. (1808). A third volume appeared in 1810, and a fourth in 1814. He composed a very cerebral letter to the Museum "wishing to record my opinion as to the obstructed mode of admission to the British Museum. . . ." He wrote that he knew few public men, but "this accidental circumstance ought to form no barrier to my admission to an institution supported by public money, & avowedly open to every British subject." He added humorously that if a friend recommended him, the friend would be in as much need of a recommendation as himself. "If the British Museum is open only to the friends of the librarians, & their friends’ friends, it ceases to be a public institution, & a printed list of those privileged persons should be posted in some public place, in order that those who wish to gain admission may know where to apply." He said he lived in retirement in the West but "my name is not wholly unknown to the public." Having traveled 130 miles to conduct research in

209

public libraries in the metropolis he would return as wise as he came.20 ‘A Citizen’ hoped to affect change by expressing his views to the public, and while Wilson’s avenue of expression was limited to a few, the point came across, and it had an immense and an immediate effect. On 11 May 1822 the trustees held a Committee meeting and a General Meeting. It occasionally happened that both meetings fell on the same day. An entry for the General Meeting stated, "That the closing Words in the Statute respecting admission to the Reading Room . . . be altered to ‘Recommendation satisfactory to a Trustee or an Officer of the House.’"21 At the Committee meeting Walter Wilson’s letter was read, and it was ordered, "That a Letter be written to Mr. Wilson acquainting him that a recommendation from any respectable person satisfactory to a Trustee or an Officer of the Museum will immediately gain for him the Admission to the Reading Room which he desires."22 Although Wilson’s name was not mentioned in the first entry, the trustees must have talked about the letter and the situation he was in. There was no indication in the trustee's minutes that they planned a revision of the statutes; therefore, Wilson's letter was the immediate, but not the only cause for the amendment. In lieu of the fact that Parliament had for so long been satisfied with access procedures to the library and refused to consider changing them, Lennard's evidence opened many eyes and would explain why the trustees suddenly changed the rules in the following year. People had written to the Museum, there had been published articles, and Thomas Lennard in 1821 had cited two individuals who were qualified but could not gain access, and although the trustees were not oblivious to criticism, the evidence has shown that the Board intended to stick by the rules. To say it was a coincidence that the trustees changed the statute at

20Original 21General

Letters and Papers 5 (29 April 1822):

Meeting, Minutes 5 (11 May 1822):

22Committee

Minutes 10 (11 May 1822):

2814.

1197.

fol. 1725-26.

210

the same time they received Wilson's letter runs counter to their past behavior. The trustees, though, may have been talking about the statutes at the time Wilson applied, because in the letter he mentioned that if a friend recommended him, the friend would need a recommendation, and that the library ceased to be a public institution if it were for the officers’ friends and their friends’ friends. It was very likely that when the officers realized who he was, they offered to procure a ticket on the basis of a respectable referee, and when the letter arrived, the trustees realized that something had to be done. Wilson’s letter was a catalyst that set in motion a reversal of a decision made ten years earlier and satisfied the longings of men like Francis Hopkins and Lionel Berguer. People could have third parties recommend the use of the library. Access had been a difficult procedure for many people, and the Museum suffered from criticism. The amendment reaped good and valuable public relations in newspapers and periodicals. On 24 October 1823 The Times printed a letter from ‘S.C.G.’ who wrote, "Without any personal acquaintance with either of the librarians, I wrote a note, containing my name and address, and a wish for a reading ticket. . . ." ‘S.C.G.’ did not say, but because he did not know a librarian, presumably he submitted a recommendation from someone who knew a librarian or trustee. He needed material on antiquity for a publication and was immediately shown to Mr. Baber, "and that gentleman, with the utmost urbanity and good humour, has given me the information I was in need of, referred me to other sources of information, assisted me to examine the catalogues, and has several times spent half an hour in such assistance." ‘S.C.G.’ stated that he came from a humble walk of life and was not very well known in the literary world, and his letter helped dispel the notion that the Reading Room was for friends of the trustees and

211

officers.23 The account gained support from the editor, because he wrote that the statement had been authenticated. Two years later on 18 November 1825 there appeared a letter to the editor in The Times from `Syntax'. In two and a half columns he covered a host of complaints and criticized the British Museum’s access policies. He thanked those who had suggested and promoted the creation of the British Museum, and the members of Parliament and others who supported it through time, attention, and donation. But, he said, the best intentions had gone awry, because the employees abused their positions "by excluding others, as much as they can, from participating of [sic] what is committed to their charge. . . ." According to Syntax, if a person was in a hurry and applied to Mr. Planta for admission, and had met the criteria, the Principal Librarian would claim that he had transferred the power of admission to Mr. Ellis and would speak with him. "He may perhaps do so - in a week, or a month, but more probably never, for a thousand to one you never hear any more about it." If you returned and spoke with Planta, and he referred you to a librarian other than Ellis, the other librarian might not feel obliged to assist you with a temporary pass.

Syntax acknowledged that caution should be observed when

admitting people, but he was indignant about the necessity of a recommendation from trustees or officers, who were usually out of London in August and September, "or have some respectable introduction" from someone else. Residents of London, some of whom were housekeepers, and who paid taxes, "persons of literary pursuits and literary character" who were respectable should not need a ticket to use the library.24 The editorial brought two responses from the public. The following day there was a letter from ‘C.M.’, who wrote, "On showing a recommendation from a literary friend, Mr. Ellis

23The

Times (24 October 1823), p. 3e.

24Ibid.,

(18 November 1825), p. 4a-c.

212

immediately gave me a ticket for the reading-room. . . . My friends have been admitted with the same ease." He went on to defend the staff's conduct and said, "I have always found Mr. Keats, the attendant in the reading-room, could tell me the titles of rare books on subjects I was studying."25 A letter from `Demarchus' appeared on 21 November, and in it he virtually called Syntax a liar. "Had he only displayed as strict an adherence to truth and candour, as he has shown himself destitute of their indispensable qualities. . . ." (Based on Planta's efforts to reform access to the Museum and his confession that he recommended applicants whom he thought were entitled to the privilege but were not acquainted with an officer or trustee, Syntax's accusations against Planta sound false.) Demarchus agreed that admission should be made as easy as possible, but he thought it was ludicrous to suggest an abolition of a reference, and thought the present arrangement was convenient enough. Because of the possibility of theft, the library could not adopt indiscriminate admission.26 Like art or theatre critics, the writers who criticized or defended the British Museum saw themselves as educators for the public, as well as their spokesmen.27 One of the results of printing books and periodicals was that it was said at the time to be impossible to prevent fallacies from being openly discussed, attacked, and rejected.28 Most of the previous criticisms in publications had been from a ‘public’ to the trustees and to the reading public. This time there was an additional addressee, for when ‘C.M.’ and Demarchus used the newspaper to attack Syntax for his fallacies, a ‘public’ was communicating with a ‘public’. The ‘public’ which had

25Ibid.,

(19 November 1825), p. 3f.

26Ibid.,

(21 November 1825), p. 3e.

27Habermas,

The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, p. 41.

28Antoine-Nicolas de Caritat, marquis de Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, trans. June Barraclough, with an introduction by Stuart Hampshire (New York: Noonday Press, 1955 (First published 1795)), p. 100.

213

been unified in demanding easier access to the Museum and the Reading Room, had broken into groups with tension and conflict between members. As the trustees never spoke openly about what they did or about the affairs of the Museum, the writers could take advantage of the public’s ignorance, and hope that by the strength of their argument and from personal experience with the British Museum, they could persuade people that their opinion was the correct one. All three men listed the Museum officers by name to give credence to their testimony, and the intimacy with the proceedings in the Reading Room made them look like authorities on how the library should serve the readers. By bringing into the open details that would have remained unknown to all but a few hundred people (readers with passes) and publicly embarrassing or praising the officers by name, the ‘public’ had turned the newspaper readers into voyeurs. There were others who followed Demarchus’ suit and applauded the library’s statutes. In a letter to The Times ‘R.A.’ said that he enjoyed and valued access to the Reading Room and "obtained it through the introduction of a respectable householder, and know it to be equally accessible to every person on the same condition, having myself since obtained an admission for a friend of my own. . . ."29 In The Quarterly Review for June 1826 there was an article on scientific institutions in England. The author rejoiced "that a more accommodating spirit has of late years been shown in affording admission to the reading-room of the British Museum," and the public had taken advantage of the liberality.30 Three years later The Westminster Review published an article on the proceedings of the Record Commission. It was a highly inflammatory attack on the difficulty of obtaining free access at the Tower, the Rolls Chapel, and other public record offices. Amid the author’s outrage over the practices, he wrote, ". . . but there can be no objection to some certificate or proof of character being necessary before admission is granted,

29The

Times (21 April 1832), p. 3c.

30The

Quarterly Review 34 (June 1826):

158.

214

in the same manner as at the British Museum; whilst, to guard against caprice, the proof of moral respectability alone should be the sine qua non."31 Nicholas Harris Nicolas virtually repeated the Review's article in his book on the state of historical literature. ". . . There can be no objection to some certificate or proof of character being necessary before admission is granted, in the same manner as at the British Museum."32 He furthered the admiration of the library's accessibility when he criticized the policies for the Patent Rolls, because they tended "to prove the impossibility of prosecuting historical inquiries without the same free and unembarrassed access to all the public muniments as is permitted to the manuscripts in the British Museum."33 During the ten year period (1812-1822) when recommendations had to come from a trustee or an officer and a few years thereafter, there emerges a description of the kind of person who used the library and the kind of person that critics thought the British Museum library should serve. Hopkins was a surgeon, Bellenden was a lawyer, and Wilson was a church historian. The writers to The Times did not state a profession, but from the context of the letters assumptions can be made. `A Citizen' wanted access for people in the learned professions and people "of respectable appearance", `A Member of the University of Cambridge' was a student or faculty member who knew an M.P., `S.C.G.' came from a humble walk of life and was not known in the literary world, `C.M.' had a literary friend, and `R.A.' had a ticket and was able to recommend friends for tickets. The M.P., Thomas Lennard, cited Mr. Jones, who was a lawyer, and the son of an eminent professor at Geneva. As we may recall, Kenneth Hudson stated that the lowest level of a potential museum public could have included the lower middle class, shopkeepers, clerks, minor civil servants, and aspiring and respectable artisans. Except for

31The

Westminster Review 10 (April 1829):

32Nicolas, 33Ibid.,

402.

Observations on the State of Historical Literature, p. 175.

p. 179.

215

`S.C.G.' the letters point to a middle class background, but those people who wanted to make access easier requested it for people in literary, professional, or similar backgrounds, which more closely resembles Habermas’ public of jurists, doctors, pastors, officers, and professors. Gender was not an issue in the debates. General Thornton mentioned that it was "country gentlemen" who had difficulty obtaining a Reading Room pass; otherwise, there were no other allusions toward a gender bias among M.P.s. The number of women who used the library was small, and of those people who wrote to the trustees, M.P.s, or to The Times who can be identified by sex, it was men who had written. There were no letters in The Times or periodicals in this period advocating access for poorer or less learned members of society, and throughout the mid and later 1820s favorable correspondence appeared in publications resolutely commending existing access policies and the people who administered them. It was the property owners and professionals who sought the use of the library and saw the library designed for their purposes. Adversity in the record offices prompted Nicholas Harris Nicolas to make a comparison with access to the Reading Room. The contrast flattered the Museum's policies. With the easier procedures, there was the possibility of a wider variety of applicants and readers. As the number of readers grew, the traditional scholar or researcher might find himself sitting next to a businessman or novel reader. As the following section shows, by the mid-1820s these new kinds of readers were dissatisfied with the thirty hours the library was open, because the service did not meet their needs. On 9 October 1823 The Times published an unsigned article, written by the editor, and he commented on the remarks of a `literary correspondent' who complained to the newspaper "of the short portion of each day during which the library" was open. The arrangement left six hours for "the most industrious scholars and authors" to consult "those authorities which are no where to be found but in the Museum." The editor suggested that if candlelight could not be introduced

216

because of the risk of fire, then admission should begin at 9:00 a.m., and between Lady Day and Michaelmas the rooms should remain open until sunset. "Any addition to the number or salaries of attendants would be, it is presumed, but a secondary consideration, compared with the more extensive facilities thus afforded to antiquarian and historical research."34 On account of the editor's disinterested view, he was able to advocate an extension to the hours in an objective manner.35 The Times had published critical items about the British Museum when a practice needed reform, and it published favorable ones when reform had occurred or when the Museum had performed its responsibilities.

In this case the editor did not wait for the `literary

correspondent' to do anything, but printed the newspaper's position on the issue. Over the years critics had given the impression that the Museum was well-funded, and the reason access was difficult was that the employees squandered the money. The British Museum did not have spare resources. Asking for more money risked more criticism from parliamentarians and the public, and M.P.s were sensitive to criticism. Years after the purchase of the Elgin Marbles Frederick John Robinson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated in the House, "Even upon the occasion of a vote for the purchase of that magnificent collection of the remains of ancient art . . . great opposition was manifested. It was said, that the burthens of the people should be relieved, before the public money should be applied to any such purposes."36 The newspaper had printed many stories on the government budget and the British Museum, so while the editor was aware that the reform he wanted was costly, it was ridiculous to assume that the number or salaries of attendants was a secondary consideration.

34The

Times (9 October 1823), p. 2b.

35The Times had published a letter from the editor before about making the library more accessible. See 28 April 1815, p. 3. 36Parliamentary

Debates new series 10 (23 March 1824):

1382.

217

The editor of The Times addressed the argument of extending the hours at the library for `scholars and authors' engaged in critical examination of the manuscripts. Presumably, he meant people, such as clerics, historians, and others, whose work permitted a daytime use of the library but could use more than six hours a day for their tasks. The London Magazine and The Westminster Review proposed similar plans for increasing the hours, but with the idea of helping persons whose occupations prevented a convenient daytime use of the library. The writer in The London Magazine said the hours of ten to four were the hours of business, "which none but professed authors or loungers can give to reading", so it was of no benefit to individuals who were "engaged in the middle of the day."37 The contributor to The Westminster Review wrote, "The British Museum is of great utility to the republic of Letters"; however, he claimed that the persons who read the most were professional men, and they were engaged in other pursuits during the hours the Reading Room was open.38 The two articles indicated a different concept of the library’s function, for by the 1820s a sufficient number of people in business and other occupations needed to use the library. While the potential readers were of a middle-class background, the diversity in occupations demanded an expansion in library services. A growing number of people wanted to use the library part time. Whereas the cleric, professional writer, and antiquarian could rearrange their timetables so that they could spend days or weeks at the library regularly, those professional men and others engaged for set hours during the day were very restricted when they could attend. These new demands could not have been much more than a generation old, because in 1803 Planta abolished the later hours, and there was no evidence of a public outcry. The writers to The

37The

London Magazine new series 3 (December 1825):

38The

Westminster Review 3 (July 1827):

107.

534.

218

London Magazine and to The Westminster Review thought the Museum was serving one section of the public well enough, but it needed to remain open in the evenings to assist others. There was no unanimity among the public for extending the hours. Syntax, introduced earlier, thought the idea was wrong. He admitted that it would be preferable for those people who liked to take two hour lunches to have the library remain open until 6:00 p.m., "but I am persuaded, that whoever employs the time well, from ten in the forenoon till four in the afternoon, would think six hours' hard work at a stretch abundantly sufficient for the present. . . ."39 Syntax thought in terms that would suit the student or researcher. Although it was an assumption that everyone should be able to work during the day as he did, in reality Syntax was no different to the spokesmen in The London Magazine and The Westminster Review. Both sides spoke for what would best serve them. Professional and businessmen wanted evening hour service because they worked during the day. The difference lay in the extent to which the public should be served. Syntax thought of the daytime researcher only and was against adding more hours. The Times, The London Magazine, and The Westminster Review did not suggest that daytime hours should be taken from the student. Instead, the journals suggested an addition of hours in the evening or a Saturday service. On one occasion the allocation of hours of service became a heated topic and demonstrated the desire of the library readers. In March 1830 the trustees had intended to shift the library hours to eleven to five. Ninety-two readers signed a petition against the change. The petition has already been discussed, but it is worth examining again to see the public’s reaction, because it demonstrates how the readers converged to create public opinion to protect the existing order of the library for their own use. The petitioners said there were two kinds of readers, constant and occasional attendants, and it was a sacrifice of the interests of the majority

39The

Times (18 November 1825), p. 4b.

219

to the convenience of a few. The former came early, were engaged in laborious investigations which could not be prosecuted elsewhere, and the work was important to themselves and sometimes to the public. The occasional readers came late and seldom. Because there was no daylight in the library after four during the winter, the hours would differ in the summer and winter. By opening at 11:00 a.m. and considering the time it took to receive the books and settle in, half the morning would be gone before work began.40 The Morning Herald announced the proposed change and thought it was "extraordinary that the very moment when so large a grant from the national purse has just been made for the annual charge of the British Museum" that the trustees should plan to alter the hours and circumscribe "the convenience of those who may wish to resort to its public library." The plan was "totally opposed to the convenience of real students and such as wish to resort there for useful and profitable literary purposes. We do not ourselves see why the hours might not be greatly extended. . . ."41 The petitioners had only themselves to consider, but the Herald could examine the issue from more than one perspective because the paper had no vested interest in the outcome. The clerks and petitioners forced the trustees and officers to consider the kind of library the British Museum was and the museum public. Was it to be a purely research library only with readers whose preoccupation was long term research and scholarly purposes? Based on the purposes of the Museum the petitioners had a persuasive case. The newspaper and petitioners painted the clerks and those who would use the library at a later hour as a totally different kind of reader, and one whose use of the library was not nearly as important as their own, thereby diminishing the merits of the institution. The petitioners used the Museum for research because the work could not be done elsewhere, and their work was important to them and sometimes to

40Original 41The

Letters and Papers 7 (26 March 1830).

Morning Herald (27 March 1830), p. [2].

220

the public. An accustomed block of time had best suited their needs, and they did not want an upset in the routine. By implication, the constant readers appeared as the most appropriate people to use the library; therefore, the time frame should suit them. So, while The Morning Herald thought ‘real students’ should have top priority at the Museum, the newspaper also stood up for other kinds of readers when it asked why the hours could not be extended. For the time being, the library remained an institution primarily for people who could afford to spend the work day there, because the petitioners successfully had the times returned to 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and the hours were not extended. The revision to the former schedule was a defeat for office-clerks, but the Reading Room was open daily, and in 1831 the library began a Saturday service. In spite of the increased access the time schedule remained inconvenient to some who asked that the library remain open during the Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun holiday weeks. Items had been published concerning the holiday weeks and the Museum, but there had been nothing specifically on the library until The Times published a letter from `Parvus'. He drew attention to the library's being closed for a holiday of ten days, but said it would be no holiday for him because he earned a living by `literary labour'. The other readers were inconvenienced by this unnecessary action, and Parvus asked the editor `to notice the subject.'42 The editor supported Parvus' complaint and admitted that the employees were entitled to the holiday but suggested that they take it another day. Another idea came from a Mr. Barry. He wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an ex officio trustee, because "the management of the Reading Rooms . . . is often alluded to in Parliament, and is in fact a great grievance to the literary public. . . ." Barry thought the public would be willing to pay to use the library during the holiday week. If selected books and manuscripts were set aside in a room under the surveillance of a single officer, readers could pay 2s. 6d. for the

42The

Times (20 May 1834), p. 3a.

221

week or 1s. for a single day.43 The Museum adopted neither suggestion, and up to the time of the Committee hearings, the library remained closed during the holiday weeks. Since the mid-1820s the ‘public’ had debated who could use the library on the basis of when it was open. By 1830 with the reported drop in statistics to the Museum Parliament again took up the issue of access and the Reading Room public. After Bankes submitted the British Museum grant application for the year, a very heated debate ensued. Mr. Jephson stated that there were respectable gentlemen and many clerks in public offices engaged all day at business who could not use the library but would be grateful if an arrangement could be made, and he suggested that it be kept open till 6:00 p.m. Should the issue not be taken up by the trustees, "he would, on a future occasion, bring the matter before the House."44 Charles Poulett Thomson, M.P. for Dover, recommended a separate chamber from the main building so that candles and fire could be used for night reading. At this time the Reading Room was an oblong and cold apartment,45 lighted by a range of windows along each side in the upper gallery and at the end. Every morning the staff unlocked the cases housing the reference books that lined the walls of the lower gallery, and readers could deposit books they may require for the following day on one of the few empty shelves. The Reading Room had two rows of tables covered with green baize, with an isle between the rows and isles between the tables and the bookcases. There were fourteen tables with eight chairs each, and with an additional two or three small tables the seating capacity was brought to 120.46 43Original

Letters and Papers 10 (20 June 1833).

44Parliamentary

Debates new series 22 (8 March 1830):

1353.

45Friedrich Ludwig Georg von Raumer, England in 1835: Being a Series of Letters Written to Friends in Germany, During a Residence in London and Excursions into the Provinces, trans. Sarah Austin, 3 vols. (London: John Murray, 1836), 1: 38, 175. Shortly after the Museum opened, the officers complained how cold the Reading Room was. Despite the renovations over the years, the problem was not solved. 46"The Reading Room, British Museum," The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge 4, no. 237 (12 December 1835): 487-88.

222

Bankes answered that he was sure the trustees would endeavor to prolong the time the library was open, but it would depend on the time of year, "for under no circumstances should the introduction of fire or candles into so large and valuable a library be permitted." Jephson pressed his point and asked why the Reading Room could not be open on Saturdays and in the summer until 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. when no fires or candles would be necessary. There were several objections at this point. Michael Sadler, the Tory M.P. for Newark, did not think the time should be extended because the library should be a place of reference and not a reading room. Henry Bright, M.P. for Bristol, and Davies Gilbert, M.P. for Bodmin and a trustee of the Museum,47 were against opening the library on Saturday because the employees would have to replace the books and clean the rooms on Sunday.48 The trustees attempted to placate the House by opening and closing an hour later, but the plan failed. Jephson was determined to make the library more accessible to clerks in public offices, businessmen, and others who could not normally use it, and as he said he would if no change was made, in the following year, he again asked why the library could not be open on Saturdays.49 Bankes said it would be inconvenient to keep the library open on Saturdays, because it was cleaned on that day; however, other members thought it was an implausible reason, and this time they came together as a group. Henry Warburton, M.P. for Bridgeport in Dorset, was surprised that one room, the Reading Room, should be closed on a Saturday. Warburton, Sir John Wrottesley, and Joseph Hume believed that another time could be found to clean the room, and John Wilks backed the opinion by misinterpreting the statistics and mentioning that 1,890 persons visited the Reading Room in a year, averaging fifty persons a

47As

president of the Royal Society, Gilbert was an ex officio trustee.

48Parliamentary 49Hansard's

Debates new series 22 (8 March 1830):

1354-55.

Parliamentary Debates third series 3 (14 March 1831):

432.

223

week. The trustees had calculated the number of admission tickets for 1830,50 and Mr. Wilks erroneously thought it meant the number of visits versus the number of people who had passes. The mistake worked to the advantage Jephson, because it implied that the room was not so busy that a Saturday service would be disruptive to cleaning.

Wrottesley called for Bankes to

guarantee that the Museum would be open on Saturdays; otherwise, he would oppose the vote for the budget and divide the House.51 No one other than Bankes had spoken in favor of the Museum; therefore, against a preponderance of opinion, he had little choice but to take the issue to the trustees. The Board acted quickly and on 25 April announced that the Reading Room would be open on Saturdays. In the following session of Parliament Alexander Baring paid tribute to the Museum which "in accordance with the suggestions which had been thrown out last year, the library was now open to the public every day in the week, except Sundays."52 By the time of the second Committee hearings (1836) the British Museum library was open six days a week throughout most of the year, and procedures for a ticket had been simplified to include recommendations from people other than trustees and officers. There were fewer matters on access to the Reading Room that the Committee had the opportunity to consider. With the issue of an evening library service as the predominant topic, it produced anticlimactic results. John Flint South, a surgeon at St. Thomas’ Hospital, thought the Reading Room was open at a time convenient to himself and most literary men, but he had "great doubt

50It is not clear where Wilks obtained the figures, for the number of tickets for 1830 was 1,755 besides 199 temporary admissions. Great Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Papers (Commons), 1850, v. 1, "Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Constitution and Government of the British Museum," p. 270. 51Hansard's 52Ibid.,

Parliamentary Debates third series 3 (14 March 1831):

third series 10 (29 February 1832):

976.

433.

224

whether it would be used in the evening for little more than novel reading."53 Henry Petrie, Keeper of the Records in the Tower, was frightened of the thought of artificial lighting in the library and said, ". . . If I were one of the persons in charge of the Museum, I should never go to bed without trembling."54 A majority of the witnesses, however, testified with approval to extending the hours in the evening, and for those who gave a reason, it was basically the same thought, that it would be of advantage to people whose occupations precluded the time to go during the day.55 It was a train of thought that represented numerous readers and M.P.s who, during the 1830s, advocated an evening service. When the ‘public’ challenged the trustees over the issue of access to the library, they were arguing about the definition of the Reading Room public to include themselves. A Citizen, Francis Hopkins, Mr. Bellenden, and Mr. Lennard spoke for students, scholars, and people in professions. They were not seeking to expand the public to include the non-educated or the nonpropertied; furthermore, they agreed with the trustees that a recommendation was necessary. The contention was over the process for determining who was respectable. Bankes, Long, and Mackintosh said that the procedure to obtain a Reading Room ticket was sufficiently easy for students and scholars to gain access. They wanted a ‘known’ respectable public. When Lennard proved that it was not easy for students and scholars to get a recommendation, it paved the way for a revision to the Museum’s procedures. Readers could have third parties recommend them, and the Reading Room public became a ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ respectable public.

53"Report from the Select Committee appointed in the following Season to consider the same subject," par. 1172-73. 54Ibid.,

par. 4979.

55Ibid.,

par. 973, 3402, 3533, 3723, 3904, 4752, 5072.

225

The debate concerning the hours of service was an issue that matched the ‘public’ against the Reading Room public. The London Magazine, The Westminster Magazine, and Mr. Jephson wanted a later service. They wanted the Reading Room public to include clerks, businessmen, and others whose occupations prevented their coming during the day to use the library. Syntax, John Flint South, Mr. Sadler, the ninety-two petitioners, and The Morning Herald objected to such a plan. To them the Reading Room public should be composed of real scholars, and the library should be used for research and not for novel reading. Although the British Museum maintained its position as a research institution, it compromised on the issue and created a Saturday service. As a result, the Reading Room public was enlarged to include clerks and others who could not conveniently use the library on a work day.

226

226

Chapter XI Conclusions

The primary aim in this work was to examine access to the British Museum from 1759 to 1836. There was more to access than simply assigning the hours and days of operation. The creation and amendments to the statutes were a complex and intricate procedure based on the functions of the Museum, the definition of the public, and the perceptions of a public museum. The trustees’ original perceptions of the Museum were reflected in the carefully constructed rules and subsequent amendments. Sloane had amassed a large collection which was designed to glorify God and to advance learning. Upon Sloane’s demise, Parliament assumed ownership of the collection and combined it with the Cotton and Edwards Libraries and the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts to form the British Museum.

In order to examine life and truth, man had begun to practice careful

observation, analysis and experimentation instead of looking to God or Authority. We see that the British Museum Act omitted references to the Deity and emphasized man, his thought and development, and the benefits that Sloane’s collection would bring to mankind by furthering sciences and inventions. The trustees came to a definition of the Museum by taking its direction from the British Museum Act and by borrowing from antiquity and other institutions. The trustees proceeded to turn the British Museum into an institution of knowledge and arts and sciences with the principal intentions of encouraging learning and knowledge and facilitating the studies and researches of learned and curious men. From these goals came the trustees' and officers' notions of access and the institution's purpose which was to serve the scholar in his pursuit of knowledge. The British Museum's status as a research library and collection was the main consideration when debating access, and the trustees proceeded to define a Reading Room public

227

accordingly. They divided people into the ‘learned and curious’ and the ‘rude and ill behaved’. To determine who were the ‘learned and curious’ it was assumed that legitimate researchers would be acquainted with an officer or a trustee and would have no difficulty procuring a recommendation.

The trustees had created a ‘known’ Reading Room public based on

acquaintanceship with an officer or trustee. It was a narrow and strictly enforced interpretation. William Hone, Rev. G.G. Stonestreet, Francis Hopkins, and others have shown that one could be educated and have good character but could still be denied access to the library. Based on the analysis of the readers, the application procedure created a Reading Room public that was ‘learned and curious’ for natives and foreigners. In 1759 one half of the readers were clerics, lawyers, or physicians, and in the period 1770-1810, the proportion had only slightly dropped to one third. Many of the readers had attended a university and were members of the Royal Society or the Society of Antiquaries. There were foreigners among the Reading Room public, and in 1800 one in seven readers was French.

With only one artisan (a

watchmaker) and three women the Reading Room public in the period 1759-1810 was a male educated and propertied group of readers. The trustees altered the statutes in 1822 to allow recommendations from people who knew a trustee or officer. By 1830 one fourth of the readers were recommended by someone other than an officer or trustee, and the officers had to rely on someone else’s word that the reader had good character. Readers who were in professions (clerics, physicians, lawyers) constituted more than one in five of the total Reading Room public in 1836, while there were a few office employees and clerks among the identified readers. Even so, Ellis thought that the readers had diminished in respectability, and he did all he could to counter the situation by enforcing a strict interpretation of the recommendation procedures and by making an example of anyone who was caught stealing.

The trustees’ Reading Room public resembled Richard

228

Sennett’s public of friends, acquaintances, and strangers and Raymond Williams’ public, which he defined as the ‘crowd’. The trustees acknowledged, that because the public paid for the Museum, they were entitled to see the collections. The museum public did not mean the populace, however. The trustees had visitors complete application forms, which excluded all those except the literate. Hugh Cunningham stated that the wealthy tried to keep public spaces for their own use. Habermas said that the public was the educated, and, like Hudson, listed bourgeois occupations for the public; however, the public at the British Museum was much broader, for in 1784 the trustees determined that the majority of the recent visitors were ‘Mechanics and persons of the lower Class’. By having people return on another day to claim a ticket, and, by closing the Museum during the religious holiday weeks and for two months in the summer, there were many whose schedules would not permit a visit the Museum. Finally, like Mr. Lever, who screened visitors to his museum, the Principal Librarian checked all applications and denied access to anyone of known bad character. In spite of the precautions the tours were limited to fifteen people. The trustees were afraid of theft or damage to the collection, and they did not have enough librarians to supervise tours of a larger size. The museum public was one that lay somewhere between the unknown publics in Williams’ and Sennett’s definitions and the public who visited Lever’s museum. Originally, the public saw the Museum by applying for a guided tour. Except for minor alterations in 1761, the procedure remained intact for more than forty years. In spite of surviving so long without alterations, the evidence indicates that the application procedure and the tours were not efficient and were unsatisfactory. In 1759 Gray said that it took a fortnight to get a ticket. By the 1770s Curwen said it took from two to three weeks, and by 1799 Desenfans said it took a month. In 1774 Sir George Lyttleton recorded that people who applied in April were told to come back in August. The tours confined the public to a two hour visit that left many people

229

unsatisfied, because they went too fast to see everything properly. People did not return to collect tickets. The officers did not like the tours because they kept them from working with the collections. Most important, the tours limited the number of people who could see the British Museum. Throughout the first decade of the nineteenth century, the top priority was to simplify things to let the maximum number of people enter. British tourists had seen how easy it was to visit the Louvre. A large number of visitors, M.P.s and the ‘public’ commented on the disparity between the Louvre and the British Museum. Planta told the trustees that the public would not be satisfied until it had the same ease of access that was in practice at the Louvre. Planta simplified procedures so that the illiterate could apply. Instead of waiting a month, people could get tickets within a day. More tours were added, and attendants were hired to assist the officers with the tours. By 1810 the Museum had become so saturated with tours, and the procedures for obtaining tickets had become so simplified that Planta abolished both procedures and opened the Museum to the public on a more efficient basis. Visitors did not have to apply for tickets, and they could come and leave the Museum and visit the galleries as they pleased.

As the

information about the other European museums confirms, the British Museum had the most liberal access policies among national museums. As Planta made alterations to access policy, he redefined the museum public to include the illiterate and youths. After tickets were abolished, visitors did not need to submit their names for the Principal Librarian’s approval, and far more people could attend. Ellis was afraid of the large crowds, because they were an unidentifiable mass, and as there were no tours, there could be little intimacy between the officers and the visitors. The museum public were unknown people who were watched by warders but were trusted to behave in a large group setting. In order to dismantle the ticket system, the Museum had to adopt another means for defining the public. Good behavior was kept, but literacy was replaced with appearance. There

230

was a statement in the printed statutes and the synopsis that warned the public to be appropriately attired. The article in The Penny Magazine implied that many people thought they could not enter because of their appearance.

A porter, who received instruction from the Principal

Librarian, denied access to a livery servant because of his dress. In the House of Commons Cobbett argued with Baring that `decent attire' kept the poorest people out of the Museum. During the overhaul from 1803 to 1810, the evidence indicates that the patterns of access bore a strong commitment to scholarship and learning. In 1801 Banks hoped to turn the Museum into an absolute domain for the educated by excluding the unlearned whom he thought were unfit for the collections. Although Planta dismantled the tour and ticket systems, there was at least one closed day reserved for students and readers. After 1810 Tuesdays and Thursdays were reserved for students in spite of intense criticism to open them to non-students. The officers and other witnesses testified that artists and students needed the attention of the officers and the freedom and quiet of an empty museum to do their work. Students and readers always had access to the library and the collections during the summer, but the Museum was closed to the public. When the Museum came under pressure to open on Saturdays, the trustees opened the library but not the museum section. In each case, the reader’s pursuit of knowledge and the Museum’s scholarly reputation remained the basis for access and dictated how change occurred. As the evidence indicates, a ‘public’ had developed, according to Habermas’ definition, because people became concerned about access to the British Museum and thought that the topic was no longer confined to the trustees but was one that was properly theirs to discuss. The ‘public’ wanted the Museum to be open more than three days a week, during the summer, and during the religious holiday weeks, and they wanted an easier recommendation procedure to use the library. In view of the fact that taxes supported the Museum and access to French institutions was easier, the ‘public’ could not understand why access to the British Museum was so difficult.

231

The trustees offered no explanation, so the ‘public’ challenged them in The Times and other periodicals to justify the Museum’s policies. When the trustees printed Statutes and Rules in 1757 they stated that the public should be allowed to see the Museum, because it had been founded at their expense. The government had never spent more than £3,500 biannually to support the institution, but by the turn of the century, the substantially larger grants that went to the Museum made M.P.s and the public realize that they were supporting a museum that many people could not enter, and it gave the ‘public’ a foundation on which they could criticize access policies. In 1804 Sheridan complained about the £8,000 grant, and suggested that there should be, in return, greater access to the curiosities. Critics and M.P.s defended the right of access on the basis that the British Museum was a public museum based on ownership. In 1805 Bankes said that if Parliament was voting away the public’s money, that they should require some arrangements for greater access to the Museum. Inquilinus said that the defects of access needed to be fixed, because the British Museum was ‘a public institution, supported by the nation.’ ‘X’ was surprised that people would permit themselves to be denied access to their own property. The Reformer and Reformator said that money from Parliament paid the staff who were there five days a week, but why was it closed so often? The Penny Magazine said that the visitor paid for the Museum; therefore, he had every right to be there. Hume spoke for many M.P.s when he said that the public paid for the Museum; therefore, it should be open five days a week. The British Museum Act guaranteed the right of access for the public, but when the ‘public’ and M.P.s stressed the right, it was not the Act they cited, but the nature of ownership. The ‘public’ assumed that its opinion would render change to the access policies at the Museum. In one case in 1808 when Planta submitted a plan to enlarge access to the Museum, he said that "the public will be satisfied with nothing short of immediate free admission such as they are told is allowed at Paris"; otherwise, we see from the evidence that public opinion alone did

232

not bring change to the Museum, and that the ‘public’ needed Parliament's intervention. William Smith stated in the House that no “trustees of any institution had more completely seconded the view of parliament than the trustees of the British Museum had done.”

The speech was

indicative of the trustees’ obedience to Parliament's views. By the 1830s ‘X’ in The True Sun and the Athenaeum book reviewer recognized this fact when they advised people to address their complaints to Parliament. Habermas stated that public opinion did not rule, although the enlightened ruler would have to follow its insight. The article in The Edinburgh Review has shown that M.P.s were aware of public opinion, but unless it was supported by facts, then M.P.s did not believe that access at the British Museum needed to be altered. One of the reasons Long had been able to persuade members that it was unnecessary to change access to the library was that the library was ‘sufficiently open to those who wished to visit it’ and that the restraints at the Museum were not too great. Lennard successfully refuted Long’s claims by citing two men who had not been able to get recommendations. By the following year the trustees amended the statutes. It was difficult justifying to fellow M.P.s that alterations to access policies were necessary when the annual number of visitors rose. In 1830 the statistics that had been submitted annually to Parliament for more than twenty years showed a decrease in the number of visitors for the third year in a row. Bankes, who through the years had been able to persuade M.P.s that more open days were not necessary, had failed to prove that the Museum was making progress on service. Hume, who had been advocating additional access, took advantage of the dwindling numbers and mustered support for change in the House. Many M.P.s did not know how the Museum operated or when it was open. By asking Bankes for information or explanations, they had united like a ‘public’. In 1830 the Museum initiated a plan to stay open an hour later, but the readers petitioned against it, and the plan was dropped.

In the following year Wilks

misinterpreted the number of readers at the library, but because the error worked in favor of

233

M.P.s who wanted greater access, they were able to force the trustees to open the library on Saturdays. One of the intentions of printing the ‘public’s’ criticisms in periodicals was that everyone could read and debate them. Members of Parliament brought the criticisms before the House, and M.P.s determined the place for a ‘public’. Hume obviously read the criticisms that the ‘public’ wrote, because he asked the same questions they did and considered the ‘public’ a valid commentator on the procedures at the Museum. He had ‘interpreted a place of a public’ and thought their criticisms should be addressed in the House.

Although Thornton, Lennard,

Cobbett, and other M.P.s argued for greater access, no one spoke as often on the subject in the House as Hume did. He had become the ‘public’s’ advocate. When the ‘public’ and M.P.s challenged the trustees, they offered alternative definitions to the Museum and Reading Room publics. They were not advocating a change that would have benefited the ‘public’ only, but a change that would have enlarged the museum public. ‘Z’ (1814) and Viator were British citizens who complained that having the Museum closed in August and September did not benefit foreigners. A Reformer witnessed visitors from the country who came on a closed day, and he thought that having the Museum open daily would prevent disappointments for people who lived outside London and could not conveniently visit the following day. The Penny Magazine spoke for the artisan and tradesman, and Cobbett spoke for laborers, tradesmen, and the poor. Hume spoke for the largest museum public when he argued that, because the British Museum was tax supported, and the populace paid taxes, access was for everyone. When the ‘public’ sought to redefine the Reading Room public by making the recommendation procedure an easier process, they sought it for the ‘public’ only. The letters point to people in literary, professional, or similar backgrounds. ‘A Citizen’ sought access for people in the learned professions. Francis Hopkins, a surgeon in the military, and Mr. Bellenden,

234

a lawyer, both thought that they should be granted access on the basis of their professions. The M.P., Thomas Lennard, said that there was a lawyer and the son of a professor who could not get recommendations. According to the analysis of the readers for 1820 and 1830, many of the readers were clerics, physicians, lawyers, or in other similar professions. When the ‘public’ requested access, it made the request for people whose occupations or backgrounds were similar to the readers who already had access to the library. With the exception of Syntax, none of the critics advocated abandoning a means of measuring a prospective reader’s character. They wanted an easier procedure for students, scholars, and people in professions to obtain access. They wanted the known Reading Room public of clerics, lawyers, physicians, and other educated people to include an unknown public of scholarly and professional people. When the ‘public’ sought to redefine the Reading Room public by extending the times of service, there was no unanimity among the ‘public’. Writers to The London Magazine and The Westminster Review complained that the hours benefited authors and the ‘republic of Letters’ and was of no benefit to people who were engaged in business during the day. When the Museum attempted to change the hours and close at 5:00 p.m., the petitioners and The Morning Herald fought for scholars and students to have the hours remain at 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Even the House was divided.

In the House Mr. Jephson argued for service that would benefit

gentlemen and clerks in public offices who were engaged in business all day, while Mr. Sadler was against the idea, because the library was a place of reference and not a reading room. In the end, when the British Museum library closed at 4:00 p.m. but opened on Saturdays, it was a concession to two competing ‘publics’ and an acknowledgment of two different Reading Room publics. Habermas stated that the ‘public’ wanted to debate issues and to have the authorities justify their actions. The ‘public’ questioned access, but when they received no response, they asked the trustees to account for their policies and decisions. The British Museum and the

235

trustees were a secret institution, and they did not answer critics in the press. The Museum rarely advertised in publications, nor did they have printed instructions on the walls outside the Museum to advise visitors when they were open. The ‘public’ and many M.P.s hardly knew what was going on, and because the trustees did not justify themselves before the ‘public’, M.P.s demanded an explanation from the Museum’s spokesman in Parliament in order to make the Museum be more open or public in its affairs. Ultimately, the British Museum had to account for its rules and statutes at the Committee hearings in 1835 and 1835, and access was being judged by Parliament. As the title of this work includes the phrase, ‘museum culture’, it is possible from the evidence to create a definition of the phrase that is applicable to the British Museum from 1753 to 1836. The British Museum Act (1753) and the trustees defined the Museum by its collection, building, and purpose. From the combination of these three components and from the comments on the Museum we can add another dimension and say that museum culture was a creative or appreciative experience which involved the clientele, behavior, time, and a learning experience. To enjoy the Museum the trustees and officers assumed that one had to be surrounded by one's peers, and usually it meant any group that did not include the uneducated. Ward and Maty wrote that persons of different classes should not be mixed in the tours, and Moritz stated that he was not pleased with the company in his group. Obviously, there was class consciousness, but further evidence indicates that people were seeking a sense of camaraderie in which to share mutual experiences. Banks wrote that the tours were composed of people who had read and prepared for the tour and those who had not. Those who were not prepared cheated the pursuits of the others by asking idle and senseless questions. For someone like Banks or Moritz, they were people who disturbed the uniformity of the group. The livery servant was angry because he was denied access, but he was also angry because he was denied the experience of attending with his friends. The trustees restricted the library and the Gallery of Antiquities (on the closed days)

236

to scholars, researchers, and artists for educational reasons, because they had similar ambitions to research and search for knowledge. Ellis said that the library was for research and reference and not for idle reading. According to Ellis it was the novel readers who stole. When the ninetytwo petitioners reacted against the time change in 1830, their reactions were a group mentality with accusations of `we' versus `they'. Museum culture involved a shared identity based on similar interests and experiences. The second dimension of museum culture was appropriate behavior. Ward was afraid of letting the populace enter the Museum, so the trustees had the Principal Librarian review the lists of people who wanted a ticket and deny access to anyone of bad character. The visitors were kept under control, because they saw the collection while on a tour. The librarians closely watched the visitors and could remove anyone who was disorderly. When the tours became more numerous, Planta hired warders to keep order. After Planta abolished the tours no one knew for sure how the public would act, so the librarians had to go through the galleries regularly to be sure that all was well. At the Committee hearings Mr. Samouelle testified that mechanics, soldiers, sailors, and police officers visited the Museum and were in awe by what they saw. They were well behaved and nothing was damaged. Michael Shapiro stated that museum directors adopted behavioral codes in the nineteenth century to have visitors avoid "modes of speech and conduct that intruded upon another's experience." Numerous testimonies have shown that the visitors asked questions. According to Wittlin they were looking for meaning in what they saw. Banks resented the idle questions that the uneducated visitors asked the officers. To him it prevented the officers from answering serious questions from visitors who were prepared for the visit. Some of the officers would not answer questions and expected the visitors to be quiet. The Penny Magazine advised the tradesman and artisan not to talk too loud and not to trouble other visitors or artists with questions. Although Banks, other officers, and The Penny Magazine hoped to condition visitors

237

to restrain their modes of speech and conduct while at the Museum, they were never wholly successful, for Gray testified at the Committee hearings that there were too many visitors who occupied the officers with frivolous questions. The third dimension of museum culture was a sense of time. Moritz said that there was no time to look at anything. Many of the visitors' complaints involved the speed with which they were hurried through the rooms. Curwen wrote that because there were so many curiosities, and the tour moved so quickly, that it confounded his memory as they went from room to room. With so many strange and different items on display, it was too difficult to comprehend in a short visit. Powlett wrote that because the time was short, and the rooms so numerous, it was impossible without a directory `to form a proper Idea of the Particulars.' On the other hand, Inquilinus, who had disregarded everything in the Museum because he wanted to look at the mineral collection, was denied the time to examine it properly because the tour had to go to the next room. When the atmosphere was not rushed, visitors like Sophie von La Roche had no time to visit all the rooms. Alma Wittlin claimed that the uneducated museum visitors ran from object to object searching for meaning. Some were doing this at the British Museum because they knew their time was limited. After Planta opened the Museum apartments to everyone and eliminated the tours, the confines of time disappeared, and visitors stopped complaining that they were rushed. The one thing that many people had assumed they would be granted at the Museum was now available. The final aspect of museum culture was the arrangement of the collections and educational tools that led to an increase in knowledge. People wanted and expected their curiosity to be satisfied. The visitors not only wanted to see the exhibits, but they wanted to understand what they were looking at. Hutton gave the most damning account when he said that he left the Museum as ignorant as when he came. Other people alluded to a sense of intellectual loss, because they learned little or nothing at all. In spite of some of the remarks from the

238

officers and attendants on the tours, the objects themselves were not sufficient to convey meaning to the people. From Wendeborn's and Hutton's accounts not all the specimens were labeled, and Wendeborn thought that appropriate labels would answer the visitor's questions and satisfy his curiosity without bothering the officer. The public’s failure to comprehend fully what they were looking at explains the outcry for a synopsis. Service was very important to the visitors and students, and assistance from the officers was expected and necessary in order to use fully the Museum. Many of the readers and students were experts in their fields, but with so many specimens and books the Museum could be a daunting place. The officers worked with the collection and books, and their expertise was a key that could expedite a student's research. Authors noted in their works the debts they owed the librarians. In The Times ‘S.C.G.’ wrote about the great service that Baber gave him, and ‘C.M.’ said that Mr. Keats could tell him the titles of rare books that he needed. Bad service not only hindered or destroyed learning, it ruined the experience of visiting the Museum. Hutton and Louis Simond despised their tour guides because of their rude and condescending manners. Sometimes, the attendants made learning and attempts at acquiring culture a painful experience. The relationship between the officers and the public was more than one of extracting information, it was a rapport, and in some cases, a camaraderie as the officers and students became very close friends. If students and visitors learned something or visited the Museum because the officers and attendants were helpful and supportive, then the British Museum clearly earned praise as an institution of knowledge.

239

Bibliography A. Primary Sources Ackermann, Rudolph. The Microcosm of London. 3 vols. London: T. Bentley, 1808-1811. Ambulator: or, a Pocket Companion in a Tour Round London. 10th ed. London: Scatcherd and Letterman, 1807. Archenholz, Johann Wilhelm von. A Picture of England: Containing a Description of the Laws, Customs, and Manners of England. Translated from the French. Dublin: P. Byrne, 1791. Bailey, Nathan. Dictionarium Britannicum: or a more Compleat Universal Etymological English Dictionary Than any Extant. 2nd ed. S.v. "Museum," "Repository." Beale, Catherine Hutton, ed. Catherine Hutton and Her Friends. Birmingham: Cornish Bothers, 1895. [Bentley, Richard]. A Proposal for Building a Royal Library, and Establishing it by Act of Parliament. [London: 1697]. Bicknell, W.I. Illustrated London, or a Series of Views in the British Metropolis and its Vicinity. Engraved by Albert Henry Payne. London: E.T. Brain & Co., 1847. Boswell, James. Boswell's London Journal: 1762-1763. With Introduction and Notes by Frederick A. Pottle. London: Heinemann, 1973. British Library. Department of Manuscripts. British Museum Diaries. Add. MS 45867-70. ________. Sir Joseph Banks. Papers Relating to Official Business in the British Museum, 17551796. Add MS 31,299. ________. Thomas Birch. A Collection of Papers Relating to the Establishment and Government of the British Museum. Add. MS 4,449. ________. Correspondence. Add MS 4,318. ________. Letters. Add MS 4,313. ________. Minutes of the General Meetings of the Trustees of the British Museum, from Dec. 17, 1753, to July 31, 1756, with the Reports of the Committees. Add. MS 4,450.

240

________. Minutes of the Trustees of the British Museum, May 1755-Aug. 1756. Add MS 4,451. ________. Robert Brown. Correspondence and papers. Add. MS 43,440-41. ________. Captain James Cook. "Secret Instructions for Captain James Cook, Commander of His Majesty's Sloop the Resolution." Eg. 2177B. ________. Cotton MS Faustina E.V. ________. Cotton MS Vitellius C. VII. ________. Rev. Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode. Notebook. Add. MS 47,611. ________. Francis Douce. Douce Papers. Add MS 42,574. ________. Sir Henry Ellis. Correspondence. Add. MS 38,626. ________. Diaries and memoranda. No. 1-4. Add. MS 36,653. ________. Foreign Correspondence. Add. MS 37,938. ________. Papers. Add. MS 41,312, 41,315. ________. Rev. Samuel Harper. Diary. (British Museum Diaries and Registers. Vol. VII). Add. MS 45,873. ________. William Hone. Correspondence. Add MS 40,120. ________. Rev. Sir Richard Kaye. Note-Books. Add. MS 18,555. ________. Sir George Lyttelton. Correspondence. St. 754. ________. Sir Frederic Madden. Material for a history of the British Museum. Add. MS 38,791. ________. Selected Correspondence. Eg. 2837-38. ________. Charles Morton. Diary. (British Museum Diaries and Registers. Vol. V, VI). Add. MS 45,871-72. ________. Sir Anthony Panizzi. Correspondence and Papers. Add. MS 36,714. ________. Daniel Solander. Diary. (British Museum Diaries and Registers. Vol. VIII-IX). Add. MS 45,874-75.

241

________. Dr John Ward. British Museum Statutes and Rules, 1756. Add. MS 42,852. ________. Papers Relating to the British Museum. Add. MS 6,179. ________. Philip Yorke. 1st Earl of Hardwicke. Hardwicke Papers. Add. MS 35,606, 35,612, 35,619, 36,269. British Museum. Abstract of the Statutes and Rules Relating to the Inspection and Use of the British Museum. London: 1758. ________. Acts and Votes of Parliament Relating to the British Museum, with the Statutes and Rules Thereof. London: G. Woodfall, 1828. ________. Acts and Votes of Parliament Relating to the British Museum; with the Statutes and Rules Thereof, and the Succession of Trustees and Officers. London: G. Woodfall, 1824. ________. Acts and Votes of Parliament, Statutes and Rules, and Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum. London: Cox, Son, and Baylis, 1808. ________. Directions to Such as Apply for Tickets to see the British Museum. 1784. ________. Statutes and Rules for the British Museum. London: G. Woodfall, 1833. ________. Statutes and Rules, Relating to the Inspection and Use of the British Museum. London: R. and J. Dodsley, 1759. ________. Statutes and Rules, Relating to the Inspection and Use of the British Museum. London: R. and J. Dodsley, 1768. ________. Synopsis. [1st]-31st eds. London: 1808-1836. British Museum. Board of Trustees. Admissions to Reading Room. 1795-1836. ________. Benefactions Book. 1756-1836. ________. Committee Minutes. January 1754-1836. ________. General Meetings. Minutes. December 1753-1836. ________. Returns to Two Orders of the Honourable House of Commons, dated 16th February 1821; - for, (1.) - AN ACCOUNT of the Number of APPLICATIONS Made to the Trustees of the British Museum . . . for the Purpose of Being Admitted to Inspect that Part of the Collection of Minerals not Generally Shown, . . . of Medals and Coins, . . . Prints and Drawings, . . . Reading Room. . . .

242

________. Sub-Committee Minutes. March 1828-1836. ________. Visitation Papers. 1824-1829. British Museum. Central Archives. British Museum Cuttings & Extracts to c. 1862. ________. Letter Books. 1829-1836. ________. Miscellaneous Papers. ________. Officers' Reports. 1805-1836. ________. Original Letters and Papers. 1743-1836. Britton, John. Illustrations of the Public Buildings of London. 2 vols. London: J. Taylor, 1825. Burney, Frances. The Early Diary of Frances Burney, 1768-1778. Edited by Annie Raine Ellis. 2 vols. London: George Bell and Sons, 1889. Campbell, Thomas. Dr. Campbell's Diary of a Visit to England in 1775. Edited by James L. Clifford. Introduction by S.C. Roberts. Cambridge: University Press, 1947. Carr, Sir John. The Stranger in France; or, a Tour From Devonshire to Paris. 2nd ed. London: J. Johnson, 1807. Chamberlain, Henry, ed. A New and Compleat History and Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, the Borough of Southwark, and Parts Adjacent. London: J. Cooke, [1770]. Chambers, Ephraim. Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. 6th ed. S.v. "Museum," "Repository." Combe, Taylor. A Description of the Collection of Ancient Terra Cottas in the British Museum. London: 1810. A Companion to the Museum, (Late Sir Ashton Lever's) Removed to Albion Street, the Surry End of Black Friars Bridge. London: 1790. Condorcet, Jean-Antoine-Nicolas de Caritat, marquis de. Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind. Translated by June Barraclough. Introduction by Stuart Hampshire. New York: Noonday Press, 1955. (First published 1795) Curwen, Samuel. The Journal of Samuel Curwen, Loyalist. Edited by Andrew Oliver. 2 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1972.

243

Darwin, Charles. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Including an Autobiographical Chapter. Edited by his son, Francis Darwin. 3 vols. Third edition. London: John Murray, 1887. Davy, John. Memoirs of the Life of Humphry Davy, Bart. 2 vols. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, & Longman, 1836. Desenfans, Noel. A Plan, Preceded by a Short Review of the Fine Arts, to Preserve Among Us, and Transmit to Posterity, the Portraits of the most Distinguished Characters of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Since his Majesty's Accession to the Thone. London: Sampson Low, 1799. Dibdin, Thomas Frognall. A Bibliographical Antiquarian and Picturesque Tour in France and Germany. 3 vols. London: Shakspeare Press, 1821. D'Israeli, Isaac. The Illustrator Illustrated. London: Edward Moxon, 1838. Edgeworth, Maria. Maria Edgeworth in France and Switzerland; Selections From the Edgeworth Family Letters. Edited by Christina Colvin. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Edwards, Edward. A Letter to Benjamin Hawes, Esq. M.P. Being Strictures on the "Minutes of Evidence" Taken Before the Select Committee on the British Museum. London: Effingham Wilson, 1836. [Ellis, Sir Henry]. The British Museum. Elgin and Phigaleian Marbles. 2 vols. London: Charles Knight, 1833. ________. The British Museum. The Townley Gallery. 2 vols. London: Charles Knight & Co., 1836. Entick, John. A New and Accurate History and Survey of London, Westminster, Southwark, and Places Adjacent. 4 vols. London: Edward and Charles Dilly, 1766. Eustace, John Chetwode. A Letter From Paris, to George Petre, Esq. London: J. Mawman, 1814. Evelyn, John. The Diary of John Evelyn. Edited by E. S. de Beer. London: Oxford University Press, 1959. Farington, Joseph. The Diary of Joseph Farington. Edited by Kenneth Garlick and Angus Macintyre. Vol. V, August 1801-March 1803. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979. Faujas de Saint-Fond, Barthélemy. Travels in England, Scotland, and the Hebrides. 2 vols. London: James Ridgway, 1799.

244

Fellowes, W.D. Paris; During the Interesting Month of July, 1815. London: Gale and Fenner, 1815. Feltham, John. The Picture of London, for 1802. London: Lewis and Co., 1802. Fielding, Henry. The Works of Henry Fielding, Esq. Vol. 10: An Enquiry into the Causes of the Late Increase of Robbers, &c. with some Proposals for Remedying this Growing Evil. Edited by James P. Browne. A new edition. London: Bickers and Son, 1871. Galignani's Picture of Paris; Being a Complete Guide to all the Public Buildings, Places of Amusement, and Curiosities in that Metropolis. 6th ed. Paris: 1818. Gibbon, Edward. The Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon, Esq. With Memoirs of His Life and Writings, Composed by Himself. Vol. 4: Classical and Critical. With occasional notes and narrative by the Right Honourable John, Lord Sheffield. A new edition, with considerable additions. London: John Murray, 1814. Gough, Richard. British Topography. 2 vols. London: T. Payne and Son, and J. Nichols, 1780. Gray, Thomas. Correspondence of Thomas Gray. Edited by Paget Toynbee and Leonard Whibley. 3 vols. Oxford: University Press, 1935; Reprinted ed. With corrections and additions by H.W. Starr. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Great Britain. Laws, Statutes, etc. An Act for exempting certain specifick Legacies which shall be given to Bodies Corporate, or other Publick Bodies, from the Payment of Duty; and also the Legacy of Books and other Articles given by the Will of the late Reverend Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode to the Trustees of the British Museum, 1799. 39 Geo. 3, ch. 78. ________. An Act for the Purchase of the Museum, or Collection of Sir Hans Sloane, and of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts; and for providing One General Repository for the better Reception and more convenient Use of the said Collections; and of the Cottonian Library, and of the Additions thereto, 1753. 26 Geo. 2, ch. 22. ________. An Act to amend the several Acts for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies and Copyright of printed Books, to the Authors of such Books, or their Assigns, 1814. 54 Geo. 3, ch. 156. ________. An Act to carry into Effect the Will of Richard Payne Knight Esquire, so far as the same relates to a Bequest by the said Richard Payne Knight, of a Collection of Coins, Medals, and other valuable Articles, to the British Museum; and to vest the said Collection in the Trustees of the said British Museum, for the Use of the Public, 1824. 5 Geo. 4, ch. 60.

245

________. An Act to enable the Trustees of the British Museum to exchange, sell, or dispose of, any Duplicates of printed Books, Medals, Coins, or other Curiosities; and for laying out the Money arising by such Sale in the Purchase of other Things that may be wanting in, or proper for, the said Museum, 1767. 7 Geo. 3, ch. 18. ________. An Act to enable the Trustees of the British Museum to exchange, sell, or dispose of such Parts of the Collections, and under such Restriction as are therein specified, 1807. 47 Geo. 3, sess. 2, ch. 36. Great Britain. Parliament. Parliamentary Papers (Commons), 1805, vol. 3, p. 343, "Papers Respecting the Admission to the British Museum, &c." ________. 1807, vol. 2, p. 31, "Regulations of the British Museum: With an Account of the Number of Persons Admitted to View the Museum in the Years 1805, 1806, 1807." ________. 1808, vol. 6, p. 41, "Regulations Concerning the British Museum, Since the 29th of June 1807." ________. 1805, vol. 3, p. 319, "Report from the Select Committee respecting the late Townley's Collection of Marbles." ________. 1807, vol. 2, p. 19, "Report from the Select Committee . . . relative to the Lansdowne MS." ________. 1810, vol. 2, p. 239, "Report from the Select Committee . . . respecting the purchase of Mr Greville's Collection of Minerals." ________. 1813-14, vol. 3, p. 109, "Report from the Select Committee . . . respecting the Towneley Collection of Medals and Coins, etc." ________. 1816, vol. 3, p. 49, "Report from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the expediency of purchasing the Collection mentioned in the Earl of Elgin's Petition to the House, etc." ________. 1818, vol. 3, p. 355, "Report from the Select Committee on the . . . Propriety of purchasing the Collection of the late Dr Burney." ________. 1825, vol. 5, p. 107, "Report from the Select Committee . . . relative to Mr. Rich's collection of MSS., Antiquities and Coins." ________. 1835, vol. 5, p. 375, "Report from the Select Committee on Arts and Manufactures." ________. 1835, vol. 7, p. 1, "Report from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Condition, Management and Affairs of the British Museum."

246

________. 1836, vol. 10, p. 1, "Report from the Select Committee appointed in the following Season to consider the same subject." ________. 1836, vol. 16, p. 1, "Report from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Management and Affairs of the Record Commission, and present State of the Records of the United Kingdom." ________. 1841, vol. 6, p. 437, "Report from [the] Select Committee on National Monuments and Works of Art." ________. 1850, vol. 34, p. 1, "Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Constitution and Government of the British Museum." Grosley, Pierre Jean. A Tour to London: or, New Observations on England, and Its Inhabitants. Translated by Thomas Nugent. 3 vols. Dublin: J. Exshaw, E. Lynch, J. Williams, R. Moncrieffe, T. Walker, and C. Jenkin, 1772. Guide de Berlin, de Potsdam et des Environs ou Description Abrégée des Choses Remarquables qui s'y Trouvent. Troisième ed. Berlin: Chez Frédéric Nicolai, 1813. A Guide to the Beauties of the British Museum. Being a Critical and Descriptive Account of the Principal Works of Art Contained in the Gallery of Antiquities of the Above National Collection. London: Thomas and George Underwood, [1830?]. Halley, Edmond. Correspondence and Papers of Edmond Halley. Edited by Eugene Fairfield MacPike. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932. Harrison, Walter. A New and Universal History, Description and Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, the Borough of Southwark and Their Adjacent Parts. London: J. Cooke, 1776. Hawkins, Edward. Description of the Anglo-Gallic Coins in the British Museum. London: 1826. Hearne, Thomas. Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne. Vol. 7: May 9, 1719-Sept. 22, 1722. Edited under the Superintendence of the Committee of the Oxford Historical Society. Publications of the Oxford Historical Society, v. 48. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906. Hoare, Prince. Epochs of the Arts: Including Hints on the Use and Progress of Painting and Sculpture in Great Britain. London: John Murray, 1813. Holcroft, Thomas. Thomas Holcroft's A Plain and Succinct Narrative of the Gordon Riots London, 1780. Edited by Garland Garvey Smith. Atlanta: Emory University Press, 1944.

247

Hughson, David. A History and Description of London, Westminster and Southwark. 4 vols. London: James Robins and Co., [1824?]. ________. Walks Through London, Including Westminster and the Borough of Southwark, with the Surrounding Suburbs. 2 vols. London: Sherwood, Neely, & Jones, 1817. Hutton, William. A Journey from Birmingham to London. Birmingham: Pearson and Rollason, 1785. Irving, Washington. The Sketch of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent. London: John Miller, 1820. Jerdan, William. Men I Have Known. London: George Routledge and Sons, 1866. Kalm, Pehr. Kalm's Account of His Visit to England on his Way to America in 1748. Translated by Joseph Lucas. London: Macmillan and Co., 1892. Kant, Immanuel. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals and What is Enlightenment? Translated, with an Introduction, by Lewis White Beck. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1959. Karamzin, Nikolai Mikhailovich. Letters of a Russian Traveler, 1789-1790. Translated and abridged by Florence Jonas. Introduction by Leon Stilman. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Kielmansegge, Count Frederick. Diary of a Journey to England in the Years 1761-1762. Translated by Countess Kielmansegg. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1902. La Roche, Marie Sophie von. Sophie in London, 1786: Being the Diary of Sophie v. la Roche. Translated with an introductory essay by Clare Williams. Foreword by G.M. Trevelyan. London: Jonathan Cape, 1933. La Rochefoucauld, Francois, duc de. A Frenchman in England, 1784. Edited with an introduction by Jean Marchand. Translated with notes by S.C. Roberts. Cambridge: University Press, 1933. Lambert, Bernard. The History and Survey of London and Its Environs. 4 vols. London: T. Hughes, 1806. Letters From Albion to a Friend on the Continent, Written in the Years 1810, 1811, 1812, & 1813. 2 vols. London: Gale, Curtis, and Fenner, 1814. Lévis, Pierre Marc Gaston, duc de. England at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century. New edition. London: Sherwood, Neely, and Jones, 1816. London and Its Environs Described. 6 vols. London: R. and J. Dodsley, 1761.

248

Lysons, Daniel. Collectanea: or, a Collection of Advertisements and Paragraphs from the Newspapers, Relating to Various Subjects. 5 vols. (British Library shelfmark: 1881.b.6) Madden, Sir Frederic. [A Collection of Newspaper Cuttings, Views, etc. Relating to the British Museum, 1755-1870.] 4 vols. (British Library shelfmark, c.55.i.1) Malcolm, James Peller. Londinium Redivivum; or, an Ancient History and Modern Description of London. 4 vols. London: John Nichols & Son, 1802-07. [Martyn, Thomas.] The English Connoisseur. 2 vols. Dublin: T. and J. Whitehouse, 1767; reprint ed., Farnborough, England: Gregg International Publishers Limited, 1968. Millard, John. A Letter to the Rt. Hon. Thomas Spring Rice, M.P. Chancellor of His Majesty's Exchequer, etc. etc. Containing a Plan for the Better Management of the British Museum. 2nd ed. Privately Printed: 1836. Millingen, James. Some Remarks on the State of Learning and the Fine-Arts in Great Britain, on the Deficiency of Public Institutions, and the Necessity of a Better System for the Improvement of Knowledge and Taste. London: J. Rodwell, 1831. Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley. The Complete Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. Edited by Robert Halsband. Vol. III, 1752-1762. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Moritz, Carl Philip. Journeys of a German in England in 1782. Translated and edited by Reginald Nettel. London: Jonathan Cape, 1965. Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle. Description de ce qu'il y a de Remarquable a la Ménagerie et au Cabinet d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris: Chez L.P. Sétier, 1814. Neville, Sylas. The Diary of Sylas Neville, 1767-1788. London: Oxford University Press, 1950.

Edited by Basil Cozens-Hardy.

Nichols, John, ed. Illustrations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century. 8 vols. London: 1817-58. Nicolas, Sir Nicholas Harris. Observations on the State of Historical Literature, and on the Society of Antiquaries, and Other Institutions for its Advancement in England. London: William Pickering, 1830. Noorthouck, John. A New History of London, Including Westminster and Southwark. London: R. Baldwin, 1773. Original Picture of London, Enlarged and Improved. 24th ed. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, 1826.

249

Partington, Charles Frederick, ed. National History and Views of London and Its Environs. 2 vols. London: Allan Bell and Co., 1834. Passavant, Johann David. Tour of a German Artist in England. 2 vols. London: Saunders and Otley, 1836. Peacock, H.S. Remarks on the Present State of the British Museum, With Outlines for a General Classification of Scientific Objects. London: James Ridgway & Sons, 1835. Peale, Charles W. Discourse Introductory to a Course of Lectures on the Science of Nature. Delivered in the Hall of the University of Pennsylvania, Nov. 8, 1800. Philadelphia: 1800. Pennant, Thomas. Synopsis of Quadrupeds. Chester: J. Monk, 1771. Pennington, Thomas. Continental Excursions; or, Tours into France, Switzerland and Germany, in 1782, 1787, and 1789. 2 vols. London: F.C. & J. Rivington, 1809. Phillips, Edward. The New World of Words: or, Universal English Dictionary. 6th ed. S.v. "Museum," "Repository." Phillips, Richard. Modern London: Being the History and Present State of the British Metropolis. London: C. Mercier and Co., 1804. Pinkerton, J. Recollections of Paris, in the Years 1802-3-4-5. 2 vols. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees & Orme, 1806. Planta, Edward. A New Picture of Paris; or, the Stranger's Guide to the French Metropolis. 16th ed. London: Samuel Leigh, 1831. Planta, Joseph. A Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library, Deposited in the British Museum. London: Hansard, 1802. [Powlett, Edmund]. The General Contents of the British Museum: With Remarks. [1st]-2nd ed. London: R. and J. Dodsley, 1761-62. Pueckler-Muskau, Hermann Ludwig Heinrich von. Tour of a German Prince. Vol. 3: Tour in Germany, Holland and England, in the Years 1826, 1827, & 1828. Translated by Sarah Austin. London: Effingham Wilson, 1832. Raumer, Friedrich Ludwig Georg von. England in 1835: Being a Series of Letters Written to Friends in Germany, During a Residence in London and Excursions into the Provinces. Translated by Sarah Austin. 3 vols. London: John Murray, 1836. Richardson, John. Fauna Boreali-Americana. 3 vols. London: John Murray, 1829-1836.

250

Riesbeck, Johann Kaspar. Travels Through Germany, in a Series of Letters. Translated by the Rev. Mr. Maty. 3 vols. London: T. Cadell, 1787. Roberts, George. The History and Antiquities of the Borough of Lyme Regis and Charmouth. London: Samuel Bagster, 1834. Roland, Jeanne-Marie Phlipon. The Works of Jeanne-Marie Phlipon Roland, Wife of the ExMinister of the Interior. Edited by L.A. Champagneux. Translated from the French. London: J. Johnson, 1800. Royal Academy of Arts. Abstract of the Constitution and Laws of the Royal Academy of Arts in London. London: 1815. ________. Abstract of the Instrument and Laws of the Royal Academy of Arts in London. London: 1797. ________. The Exhibition of the Royal Academy, MDCCLXIX. The First. ________. Laws and Regulations for the Students, Rules and Orders of the Schools and Library, and for the Exhibition. London: [1797]. ________. Council. Minutes. 1808-09. Scott, John. A Visit to Paris in 1814. 2nd ed. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1815. Shebbeare, John. Letters on the English Nation. Translated from the Italian. 2nd ed. with corrections. 2 vols. London: 1756. Shepherd, William. Paris, In Eighteen Hundred and Two, and Eighteen Hundred and Fourteen. 3rd ed. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1814. Silliman, Benjamin. A Journal of Travels in England, Holland, and Scotland, and of Two Passages Over the Atlantic, in the Years 1805 and 1806. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Boston: T.B. Wait and Co., 1812. Simond, Louis. An American in Regency England: The Journal of a Tour in 1810-1811. Edited with an introduction and notes by Christopher Hibbert. London: Robert Maxwell, 1968. Sloane, Sir Hans. A Voyage to the Islands Madera, Barbados, Nieves, S. Christophers and Jamaica, with the Natural History of the Herbs and Trees, Four-footed Beasts, Fishes, Birds, Insects, Reptiles, &c. of the Last of Those Islands. 2 vols. London: 1707, 1725. ________. The Will of Sir Hans Sloane, Bart. Deceased. London: John Virtuoso, 1753.

251

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edited with an introduction, notes, marginal summary and an enlarged index by Edwin Cannan. 6th ed. 2 vols. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1950. Smollett, Tobias. The Expedition of Humphry Clinker. Edited with an Introduction by Lewis M. Knapp. London: Oxford University Press, 1966. Society of Artists of Great Britain. A Catalogue of the Pictures, Sculptures, Models, Drawings, Prints, etc. Exhibited by the Society of Artists of Great Britain. May 17, 1762, 3rd year of exhibition. Sopwith, Thomas. Thomas Sopwith, M.A., C.E., F.R.S.: With Excerpts from his Diary of FiftySeven Years. Edited by Benjamin Ward Richardson. London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1891. Starke, Mariana. Travels in Europe, for the Use of Travellers on the Continent, and Likewise in the Island of Sicily. 9th ed. Paris: A. and W. Galignani and Co., 1839. Taylor, Jefferys. A Month in London; or, Some of its Modern Wonders Described. London: Harvey and Darton, 1832. Thomson, Alexander. Letters on the British Museum. London: J. Dodsley, 1767. Thoresby, Ralph. The Diary of Ralph Thoresby, F.R.S. Edited by Rev. Joseph Hunter. 2 vols. London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, 1830. Thornton, William. The New, Complete, and Universal History, Description, and Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, the Borough of Southwark, and the Parts Adjacent. London: Alex. Hogg, 1784. Tronchet, Louis. Picture of Paris; Being a Complete Guide to all the Public Buildings and Curiosities in that Metropolis. 6th ed. London: Sherwood, Neely, and Jones, [1820?]. Uffenbach, Zacharias Conrad von. London in 1710 From the Travels of Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach. Translated and edited by W.H. Quarrell and Margaret Mare. London: Faber & Faber Limited, 1934. Van Rymsdyck, John, and Van Rymsdyck, Andrew. Museum Britannicum, Being an Exhibition of a Great Variety of Antiquities and Natural Curiosities, Belonging to that Noble and Magnificent Cabinet, the British Museum. London: I. Moore, 1778. A View of the British Museum: or, a Regular Account Relating What is Most Remarkable and Curious to be Seen There. 1760.

252

A Visit to the British Museum: Containing a Familiar Description of Every Object of Interest in the Various Departments of that Establishment. London: Chapman and Hall, 1838. Walpole, Horace. The Letters of Horace Walpole, Earl of Orford: Including Numerous Letters Now First Published From the Original Manuscripts. 6 vols. London: Richard Bentley, 1840. Wendeborn, Gebhardt Friedrich August. A View of England Towards the Close of the Eighteenth Century. Translated by the author. 2 vols. Dublin: William Sleater, 1791. Yorke, Henry Redhead. France in Eighteen Hundred and Two; Described in a Series of Contemporary Letters. Edited and revised with a biographical appendix by J.A.C. Sykes and an introduction by Richard Davey. London: William Heinemann, 1906. Young, Arthur. Travels, During the Years 1787, 1788, and 1789. Bury St Edmunds: J. Rackman, 1792. B. Secondary Sources

Alexander, Edward P. Museum Masters, Their Museums and Their Influence. Nashville, Tenn.: American Association for State and Local History, 1983. ________. Museums in Motion, An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums. Foreword by William T. Alderson. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1979. Altick, Richard D. The Shows of London. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978. Barwick, G.F. The Reading Room of the British Museum. London: Ernest Benn Limited, 1929. Baumgarten, Paul Maria. "The Vatican Library." In The Vatican, Its History--Its Treasures, pp. 431-472. Edited by Ernesto Begni. New York: Letters and Arts Publishing Co., 1914. Bayne-Powell, Rosamond. Travellers in Eighteenth-Century England. London: John Murray, 1951. Bazin, Germain. The Louvre. New revised ed. Translated from the French by M.I. Martin. London: Thames and Hudson, 1979. ________. The Museum Age. Translated by Jane van Nuis Cahill. Brussels: Desoer, 1967.

253

Bebbington, D.W. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. London: Unwen Hyman, 1989. Best, Ernest E. Religion and Society in Transition: The Church and Social Change in England, 1560-1850. Text and Studies in Religion, vol. 15. New York: Edwin Millin Press, 1982. Brightfield, Myron F. John Wilson Croker. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1940. Brooks, Eric St. John. Sir Hans Sloane, The Great Collector and his Circle. Batchworth Press, 1954.

London:

Brown, Lucy. Victorian News and Newspapers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Buzás, Ladislaus. German Library History, 800-1945. Translated by William D. Boyd with the assistance of Irmgard H. Wolfe. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1985. Calhoun, Craig, ed. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1992. Capraro, Rocco Lawrence. "Typographic Politics: The Impact of Printing on the Political Life of Eighteenth-Century, 1714-1772." Ph.D. dissertation, Washington University, 1984. Carter, Harold B. Sir Joseph Banks: 1743-1820. London: British Museum (Natural History), 1988. Chartier, Roger. The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution. Translated by Lydia G. Cochrane. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1991. ________. The Cultural Uses of Print in Early Modern France. Cochrane. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.

Translated by Lydia G.

________, ed. A History of Private Life. III, Passions of the Renaissance. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Introduction by Philippè Ariès. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Clark, J.C.D. English Society 1688-1832: Ideology, Social Structure and Political Practice During the Ancien Regime. Cambridge Studies in the History and Theory of Politics. Cambridge: University Press, 1985. Climenson, Emily J. Elizabeth Montagu, the Queen of the Blue-Stockings. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1906. Cole, George Douglas Howard, and Postgate, Raymond. The Common People, 1746-1946. 4th ed. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1949.

254

Cowtan, Robert. Memories of the British Museum. London: Richard Bentley and Son, 1872. Cressy, David. "Literacy in Context: Meaning and Measurement in Early Modern England." In Consumption and the World of Goods, pp. 305-319. Edited by John Brewer and Roy Porter. London: Routledge, 1993. Crook, J. Mordaunt. The British Museum. London: Allen Lane, 1972. Cunningham, Hugh. Leisure in the Industrial Revolution, c. 1780-c. 1880. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980. De Beer, Sir Gavin. Sir Hans Sloane and the British Museum. London: Oxford University Press, 1953. Dictionary of National Biography, 1890 ed. Edwards, Edward. Lives of the Founders of the British Museum. 2 vols. London: Trübner and Co., 1870. ________. Memoirs of Libraries: Including a Handbook of Library Economy. 2 vols. London: Trübner and Co., 1859. Ehrman, John. The Younger Pitt: The Years of Acclaim. London: Constable, 1969. Ellis, Edward F. The British Museum in Fiction: A Check-List. Buffalo: Privately printed, 1981. Esdaile, Arundell. The British Museum Library: A Short History and Survey. With an Introduction by Sir Frederic G. Kenyon. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1946. ________. National Libraries of the World: Their History, Administration and Public Services. 2nd ed. Revised by F.J. Hill. London: The Library Association, 1957. Gatty, Richard. Portrait of a Merchant Prince: James Morrison, 1789-1857. Northallerton, Yorkshire: Pepper Arden, 1977. George, M. Dorothy. London Life in the XVIIIth Century. 3rd ed. Series of Reprints of Scarce Works on Political Economy, no. 12. London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 1951. Goffman, Erving. Behavior in Public Places, Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press, 1963. ________. Relations in Public, Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1971.

255

Gould, Cecil. Trophy of Conquest; the Musée Napoléon and the Creation of the Louvre. London: Faber and Faber, 1985. Greig, James A. Francis Jeffrey of the Edinburgh Review. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1948. Gunther, Albert E. A Century of Zoology at the British Museum Through the Lives of Two Keepers, 1815-1914. London: Dawsons, 1975. Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Thomas Burger with the Assistance of Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1989. (Originally printed in 1962) Harris, John S. Government Patronage of the Arts in Great Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Harris, Michael H. History of Libraries in the Western World. Revised ed. Metuchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1984. Harris, P.R. A History of the British Museum Library 1753-1973. London: The British Library Board, 1998. Hazard, Paul. European Thought in the Eighteenth Century. Translated by J. Lewis May. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books Ltd, 1965. Hemmings, F.W.J. Culture and Society in France, 1789-1848. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1987. Hibbert, Christopher. London: The Biography of a City. London: Longmans, 1969. Hobson, Anthony. Great Libraries. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1970. Holst, Niels von. Creators Collectors and Connoisseurs. Translated by Brian Battershaw. Introduction by Herbert Read. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1967. Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. London: Routledge, 1992. Hudson, Derek, and Luckhurst, Kenneth W. The Royal Society of Arts, 1754-1954. Foreword by H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh, K.G. Introduction by the Earl of Radnor, K.C.V.O. London: John Murray, 1954. Hudson, James William. The History of Adult Education. The Social History of Education. First series, no. 5. London: Longman, Green & Longmans, 1851; New Impression, London: Woburn Press, 1969.

256

Hudson, Kenneth. A Social History of Museums: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1975.

What the Visitors Thought.

London:

Hunt, Lynn, ed. The New Cultural History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Hunter, Michael. "The Cabinet Institutionalized: The Royal Society's `Repository' and its Background." In The Origins of Museums, The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe, pp. 159-168. Edited by Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGregor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Hutchison, Sidney C. The History of the Royal Academy: 1768-1968. Foreword by Sir Thomas Monnington. London: Chapman & Hall, 1968. Irwin, Raymond. The Heritage of the English Library. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1964. ________. The Origins of the English Library. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1958. Jones, Stephen. The Eighteenth Century. Cambridge Introduction to the History of Art. Vol. 5. Cambridge: University Press, 1985. Kelly, Thomas. Books for the People: An Illustrated History of the British Public Library. London: Andre Deutsch, 1977. ________. Early Public Libraries: A History of Public Libraries in Great Britain before 1850. London: Library Association, 1966. Kemp, Betty. King and Commons: 1660-1832. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1957. Kenyon, Sir Frederic George. Museums & National Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927. Klessmann, Rüdiger. The Berlin Gallery. Translated from the German by D.J.S. Thomson. London: Thames and Hudson, 1971. Koch, Theodore Wesley. "The Vatican Library, An Historical Sketch." In The Vatican Library, pp. 15-40. Jersey City, New Jersey: Snead and Company, 1929. Koehler, Wallace. Class notes. Foundations of Information Studies. U. of Oklahoma. Tulsa, Okla., fall 1999. Machin, G.I.T. Politics and the Churches in Great Britain: 1832-1868. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

257

Malcolmson, Robert W. Popular Recreations in English Society, 1700-1850. University Press, 1973.

Cambridge:

McKitterick, David. Cambridge University Library: A History, the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Cambridge: University Press, 1986. Miller, Edward. That Noble Cabinet, A History of the British Museum. Foreword by Sir John Wolfenden. London: Andre Deutsch, 1973. Murray, David. Museums: Their History and Their Use. 3 vols. Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, 1904. Musgrave, P.W. Society and Education in England Since 1800. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd, 1968. Nicholas, John. Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century. 6 vols. London: Nichols, Son, and Bentley, 1812; reprint ed., New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1966. O'Brian, Patrick. Joseph Banks, A Life. London: Collins Harvill, 1987. Ogle, John J. The Free Library: Its History and Present Conditions. The Library Series, no. 1. London: George Allen, 1897. Oldman, C.B.; Munford, W.A.; and Nowell-Smith, Simon. London: H.K. Lewis & Co. Ltd., 1958.

English Libraries, 1800-1850.

O'Leary, Patrick. Sir James Mackintosh, The Whig Cicero. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1989. Ollé, James. Library History: An Examination Guidebook. London: Clive Bingley, 1967. Ovenell, R.F. The Ashmolean Museum, 1683-1894. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. S.v. "Clerk." Pearson, Nicholas M. The State and the Visual Arts: A Discussion of State Intervention in the Visual Arts in Britain, 1760-1981. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1982. Pevsner, Nikolaus. A History of Building Types. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976. Plumb, J.H. Georgian Delights. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980. ________., gen. ed. The Pelican History of Britain. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1982. English Society in the Eighteenth Century, by Roy Porter.

258

Pye, John. Patronage of British Art: An Historical Sketch. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1845; a facsimile reprint, London: Cornmarket Press, 1970. Richardson, Edgar Preston. Charles Willson Peale and His World. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1983. Ripley, Dillon. The Sacred Grove: Essays on Museums. London: Victor Gollancz, Ltd., 1970. Rudé, George. Hanoverian London: 1714-1808. London: Secker & Warburg, 1971. ________. Paris and London in the 18th Century. London: Wm. Collins Sons & Co., 1970. Rye, W.B. A List of the Books of Reference in the Reading Room of the British Museum. Preface by John Winter Jones. London: Museum Press, 1859. Sambrook, James. The Eighteenth Century; The Intellectual and Cultural Context of English Literature, 1700-1789. Longman Literature in English Series. London: Longman, 1986. Savage, Ernest A. The Story of Libraries and Book-Collecting. London: George Routledge & Sons Limited, 1910. Schofield, Roger S. "Dimensions of Illiteracy in England, 1750-1850." In Literacy and Social Development in the West: A Reader, pp. 201-213. Edited by Harvey J. Graff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Schweizer, Karl W., and Osborne, John W. University Press, 1990.

Cobbett in His Times.

Leicester: Leicester

Sennett, Richard. The Fall of Public Man. New York: Vintage Books, 1978. Shapiro, Michael Steven. "The Public and the Museum." In The Museum, A Reference Guide, pp. 231-262. Edited by Michael Steven Shapiro with the assistance of Louis Ward Kemp. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990. Sherman, William H. John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1994. Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door: A Guide to World Views. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977. Smith, D. Nichol. "The Newspaper." In Johnson's England: An Account of the Life & Manners of his Age, vol. 2, pp. 331-367. Edited by A.S. Turberville. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933.

259

Spater, George. William Cobbett, The Poor Man's Friend. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Stevenson, John. Popular Disturbances in England: 1700-1870. London: Longman, 1979. Stone, George Winchester, Jr. The London Stage, 1747-1776, A Critical Introduction. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968. Stuart, Mary. Aristocrat-Librarian in Service to the Tsar; Aleksei Nikolaevich Olenin and the Imperial Public Library. East European Monographs, no. CCXI. Boulder, Colorado: East European Monographs, 1986. Taylor, Henry Francis. The Taste of Angels: A History of Art Collecting From Rameses to Napoleon. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1948. Todd, A.C. Beyond the Blaze, A Biography of Davies Gilbert. Truro, Cornwall: D. Bradford Barton Ltd., 1967. Turner, Ralph E. James Silk Buckingham, 1786-1855, A Social Biography. London: Williams & Norgate, Ltd., 1934. Vincent, David. Literacy and Popular Culture: England 1750-1914. Cambridge Studies in Oral and Literate Culture. No. 19. Cambridge: University Press, 1989. Vatican Museums, Rome. Preface by Deoclécio Redig de Campos. New York: Newsweek, 1968. Williams, Raymond. Culture and Society, 1780-1950. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. ________. "The Press and Popular Culture; An Historical Perspective." In Newspaper History from the Seventheenth Century to the Present Day, pp. 41-50. Edited by George Boyce, James Curran, and Pauline Wingate. London: Constable, 1978. Wilson, David M. The British Museum, Purpose and Politics. London: British Museum Publications, 1989. Wittlin, Alma S. The Museum: Its History and Its Tasks in Education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited, 1949. ________. Museums: In Search of a Usable Future. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1970. Woods, Oliver, and James Bishop. The Story of The Times. London: Michael Joseph, 1983.

260

Wright, C.E. "The Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries and the Formation of the Cottonian Library." In The English Library Before 1700, pp. 176-212. Edited by Francis Wormald and C.E. Wright. London: Althone Press, 1958. Zegger, Robert E. John Cam Hobhouse, A Political Life, 1819-1852. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1973. Periodicals A. Primary Sources

"Admission of the Lower Orders to Public Exhibitions." London Literary Gazette; and Journal of Belles Lettres, Arts, Sciences etc. no. 115 (April 3, 1819): 220. The Athenaeum Journal of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts no. 201 (3 September 1831): 571, no. 214 (3 December 1831): 787, no. 336 (5 April 1834): 360, no. 387 (28 March 1835): 252, no. 422 (28 November 1835): 888. Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine 15, no. 85 (February 1824): 196. "The British Museum." The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge no. 2 (7 April 1832): 13-15. Cobbett, William. "Education." Cobbett's Weekly Political Register 87 (28 Feburary 1835): 530-32. Cobbett's Weekly Political Register 79 (30 March 1833): 785-87. Craftsman; or SAY's Weekly Journal no. 810 (12 February 1774): 3, no. 823 (14 May 1774): 2. "Deficiencies of the Library of the British Museum." The Athenaeum Journal of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts no. 40 (30 July 1828): 631-32. Edinburgh Review, or Critical Journal 38 (May 1823): 379-98. Examiner no. 539 (26 April 1818): 269-70, no. 545 (7 June 1818): 366. "Foreign Museums, Libraries, and Literary Institutions." The Quarterly Journal of Education 10 (1835): 284-306. Gentleman's Magazine, and Historical Chronicle, 1757-1834. Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Journal 34 (1772-74), 54 (1798-99).

261

Hansard's Parliamentary Debates third series 3-35 (1831-1836). "Library of the British Museum." London Magazine new series 3 (December 1825): 533-36. London Chronicle: or, Universal Evening Post vol. 9, no. 663 (24-26 March 1761): 292. London Literary Gazette; and Journal of Belles Lettres, Arts, Sciences, etc. no. 217 (17 March 1821): 172, no. 301 (26 October 1822): 682, no. 376 (3 April 1824): 216, no. 602 (2 August 1828): 491, no. 658 (August 29, 1829): 570, no. 660 (12 September 1829): 60203, no. 731 (22 January 1831): 57. London Magazine (October 1776): 548-49. Monthly Magazine, 1803-1824. The Morning Herald, 27 March 1830. National Magazine, Devoted Principally to Subjects of Domestic Interest no. 19 [1832?]. In Sir Frederic Madden, [A Collection of Newspaper Cuttings, Views, etc. Relating to the British Museum, 1755-1870], "General History," fol. 45. Parliamentary Debates new series 1-22 (1820-1830). Parliamentary Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time 2-38 (1804-1818). Parliamentary History of England, From the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 19 (29 January 1777-4 December 1778): 188-93. The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge 5 (1836): 449-55. Public Advertiser, 23 March 1761. Quarterly Review 21 (January 1819): 196-213, 34 (June 1826): 153-79, 55 (February 1836): 433-45, 56 (June 1836): 309-32. "The Reading Room, British Museum." The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge 4, no. 237 (December 12, 1835): 487-88. Times, 1785-1836. The True Sun, 19 March 1834, 25 July 1834. Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure. Supplement 23 (1758): 369-71. Westminster Review 8 (July 1827): 105-27, 10 (April 1829): 393-414.

262

B. Secondary Sources

Archaeologia: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity 1 (1770): iii-iv. De B. Codrington, K. "The Making of Museums." The Nineteenth Century and After 119 (April 1936): 464-75. Findlen, Paula. "The Museum: Its Classical Etymology and Renaissance Genealogy." Journal of the History of Collections 1 (1989): 59-78. Flavell, M. Kay. "The Enlightened Reader and the New Industrial Towns: A Study of the Liverpool Library, 1758-1790." The British Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies. 8 (1985): 17-35. Goodman, Dena. "Public Sphere and Private Life: Toward a Synthesis of Current Historiographical Approaches to the Old Regime." History and Theory 31, no. 1 (1992): 1-20. Habermas, Jürgen. "The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article." New German Critique. Translated by Sara Lennox and Frank Lennox. no. 3 (Fall 1974): 49-55. (Originally appeared in Fischer Lexicon, Staat und Politik, new ed. (Frankfurt am Main, 1964), p. 220-226) Hagen, H.A. "The History of the Origin and Development of Museums." The American Naturalist, an Illustrated Magazine of Natural History 10 (Feb. 1876): 80-89; (Mar. 1876): 135-148. Holdengraeber, Paul. "`A Visible History of Art': The Forms and Preoccupations of the Early Museum." Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture 17 (1987): 107-17. Hopley, Ann. "How They Built the BM." The British Museum Society Bulletin no. 28 (July 1978): 17-23. Kamber, Peter. "Enlightenment, Revolution, and the Libraries in Lucerne, 1787-1812." Libraries and Culture 26, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 199-217. Koch, Theodore W. "The Bibliotheque Nationale. Second Paper: Administration." Library Journal 39 (1914): 419-430. ________. "The Imperial Public Library, St. Petersburg, First Paper. The Foundation." Library Journal 40 (1915): 5-23.

263

________. "The Imperial Public Library, St. Petersburg, Second Paper. The Story of a Hundred Years." Library Journal 40 (1915): 93-108. Lemoine, Paul. "National Museum of Natural History (Le Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle) Paris." Natural History Magazine, translated from the original French, 5 (Jan. 1935): 4-19. Melton, Arthur W. "Visitor Behavior in Museums: Some Early Research in Environmental Design." Human Factors 14 (1972): 393-403. (Reprinted from American Association of Museums, Problems of Installation in Museums of Art, new series, no. 14, 1935) Mullens, W.H. "Some Museums of Old London. I. The Leverian Museum." The Museums Journal 15 (1915): 123-29. ________. "Some Museums of Old London. II. William Bullock's London Museum." The Museums Journal 17 (1917-18): 51-56, 132-37, 180-87. Rowell, Henry T. "A Home for the Muses." Archaeology 19 (April 1966): 76-83. Seling, Helmut. "The Genesis of the Museum." The Architectural Review 141 (February 1967): 103-14. Sherbo, Arthur. "Some Early Readers in the British Museum." Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 6 (1972): 56-64. Sturges, Paul. "The Place of Libraries in the English Urban Renaissance of the Eighteenth Century." Libraries and Culture 24, no. 1 (Winter 1989): 57-68. Taylor, Charles. "Modes of Civil Society." Public Culture 3, no. 1 (Fall 1990): 95-118.

264