FURTHER REMARKS
ON THE
POLICY OF LENDING
BODLEIAN
PRINTED BOOKS AND MANUSCRIPTS.
BY
FELLOW OF PEMBROKE COLLEGE, OXFORD;
WAYNFLETE PROFESSOR OF MORAL AND METAPHYSICAL PHILOSOPHY,
AND A CURATOR OF THE BODLEIAN LIBRARY.
Oxford:
50 and 51, BROAD STREET.
1887.
Price Sixpence.
Further Remarks on the Policy of LendingBodleian printed Books and Manuscripts.
There are several reasons why it is in the highestdegree improbable that I should take any part in thedebate on the Bodleian Statute, but I reserve the rightto handle in my own fashion any arguments that maybe used, and to supplement, if need be, any facts orsupposed facts that may be brought forward during thediscussion.
Those who are in favour of changing the whole characterof the Bodleian, and who wish to convert it from a libraryof reference into a library of circulation, do not seemto feel much confidence in the strength of their case;at all events, they have made no serious attempt to meetthe facts and arguments with which they are confronted,but show a disposition to wander off into side issues oflittle or no importance. Before examining the lettersof Mr. Sanday, Mr. Ellis, and Dr. Rost (as far as I knowthe only advocates of lending that have yet venturedinto print), it may be well to add some further evidenceon the lending system, which was omitted from the‘Remarks’ by inadvertence. The Advocates’ Libraryis, as we all know, a lending library, and in 1852, orthereabouts, the librarian informed Dr. Bandinel thatthey had already lost nearly seven thousand works. In1849 Mr. Maitland told a Committee of the House ofCommons that ‘all the ordinary readable books, for whichthere is a great demand, are now reduced into a stateand condition so bad that it is perfectly disgraceful’; andhe was of opinion that ‘the only satisfactory and practicalreform in the Advocates’ Library would be to put anend to the circulation of the books.’ Mr. Panizzi—asplendid librarian and a man with a head on his shoulders—addresseda string of queries to thirty-six large continental[4]libraries, and asked, inter alia, whether they lenttheir books, whether those books were in consequencelost or damaged, whether the practice was complainedof, and whether readers were inconvenienced by it.Six libraries out of the thirty-six never lent under anycircumstances whatever; thirteen returned either no answeror no clear answer as to the consequences of the practice;three (the Public Library at Basle, the University Libraryat Turin, and St. Mark’s, Venice) reported ‘no inconvenienceas resulting’; but the remaining fourteen tolda very different tale—from the Royal Library, Berlin,‘few books were lost,’ but books were damaged; atthe City Library, Berne, ‘books do certainly suffer,’ and