July 26. 1851,] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



69 



EOTAIi LIBKARY. 



(Vol. iii., p. 427.) 



In the following passage (extracted from the 

 Quarterly Review, No. CLXXV., Dec. 1850, 

 p. 143.) it is declared that the nation did "pay" 

 for this "munificent present." The writer is 

 understood to be Mr. R. Ford ; and if his state- 

 ment is not refuted, the business will henceforth 

 take its place as a sale which the nation was 

 duped into regarding as a gift : — 



" The secret history," says the reviewer, " was this : 

 King George IV., having some pressing call for money, 

 did not decline a proposition for selling the library to 

 the Emperor of Russia. Mr. Heber, having ascertained 

 that the books were actually booked for the Baltic, 

 went to Lord Sidmouth, then Home Secretary, and 

 stated the case ; observing what a shame it would be 

 that such a collection should go out of the country : 

 to which Lord Sidmouth replied : ' Mr. Heber, it 

 shall not!' — and it did not. On the remonstrance of 

 Lord Sidmouth, of whose manly and straightforward 

 character George IV. was very properly in awe, the 

 last of the grands monarques presented the books to the 

 British INIuseum, on the condition that the value of the 

 rubles they were to have fetched should be somehow 

 or other made good to him by ministers in pounds 

 sterling. This was done out of the surplus of certain 

 funds furnished by France for the compensation of 

 losses by the Revolution. But his ministers, on a hint 

 from the House of Commons that it was necessary to 

 refund those monies, had recourse, we are told, to the 

 droits of the Admiralty." 



So that the books were not given, but paid for, 

 out of public monies : which ministers could not 

 have made the object of a bargain, had they been 

 the king's, and not the nation's. And the inscrip- 

 tion in the Museum— like many others — "lifts 

 its head and lies," i. e. unless the Quarterly Beview 

 has been inventing a story, instead of telling a 

 true bit of secret history, decidedly worth noting 

 if true. V. 



[We believe the Quarterly Reviewer has been mis- 

 informed as to the facts connected with the transfer of 

 the Royal Library to the British Museum. We have 

 reason to know that George IV., being unwilling to 

 continue the exp^'nse of maintaining the Library, which 

 he claimed to treat, not as a heirloom of the crown, 

 but as his own private inheritance, entertained a pro- 

 posal for its purchase from the Russian Government. 

 This having come to the knowledge of Lord I^iverpool 

 (through Dibdin, from I^ady Spencer, to whom it had 

 been mentioned by the Princess Lieveii), the projected 

 sale was, on the remonstrance of the Minister, aban- 

 doned, and the Library presented to the nation. The 

 King thus got rid of the annual expenses; and although 

 we do not believe that any bargain was made upon the 

 subject, it is not unlikely that the Ministry felt that 

 this surrender of the Library tD the country gave tlie 

 King some claim to assisli^nce towards the li(niidation 

 of his debts, and that such assistance was accordingly 

 furnished. Even if this were so, though the result 



might be the same, the transaction is a very different 

 one from the direct bargain and sale described in the 

 Quarterly Review. ] 



In justice to King George IV., the letter which 

 he addressed to the late Earl of Liverpool, on 

 pi-esenting the books to his own subjects, should 

 be printed in your columns. I saw the autograph 

 letter soon after it was written, and a coj^y of it 

 would be very easily met with. 



Would it not have been both desirable and very 

 advantageous, to have converted the banqueting 

 room at Whitehall into a receptacle for this mag- 

 nificent collection, which would doubtless have 

 been augmented from time to time ? 



Instead of concentrating such vast literary 

 treasures at the Museum, might it not have been 

 expedient to diffuse them partially over this im- 

 mense metropolis ? 



To Peers and ]M. P.'s, especially, a fine library 

 at Whitehall would be a great boon. The present 

 chapel was never consecrated, and its beautiful 

 ceiling is little suited to a house of prayer. 



J. H. M. 



THE CAXTON MEMORIAL. 



(Vol. iv., p. 33.) 



For the information of your correspondent 

 Mr. Bolton Corney, I beg to inform him that 

 there was an intermediate meeting of the sub- 

 scribers to the Caxton IMemorial at the house of 

 the Society of Arts between the first meeting to 

 which he alludes, and the last, held at the same 

 place the other day. Over that meeting I had 

 the honour of presiding, and it was determined to 

 persevere in the object of erecting a statue in 

 Westminster to the memory of the first English 

 printer ; but the report of the last meeting shows 

 that the funds have not been so largely contri- 

 buted as might have been expected, and are now 

 far short of the sum, 500?., required for the erec- 

 tion of an iron statue of the illustrious typo- 

 grapher. True it is that no authentic portrait of 

 Caxton is known, but the truthfid picture by 

 Maclise might very well supply the deficiency ; 

 and I see the engraving to be made from that 

 painting rather ostentatiously advertised as "the 

 Caxton Memorial." The original design of the 

 Dean of St. Paul's, for " a fountain by day, and a 

 light by night," was abandoned as more poetical 

 than practical ; my chief apprehension being either 

 that the gas would spoil the water, or that the 

 water would put out the light. The statue was 

 therefore resolved upon as less costly and more 

 aj)propriate than the fountain. 



The statue of Gutenberc; at Mcntz is a good 

 c.\am[)le of whatmiglit be erected in Westminster; 

 yet I very much doubt whether any likeness of the 



