“May 2, 1857.
“Dear Sir,
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday. I recollect seeing your plans, or rather I had a glance over them at a meeting of the Trustees, shortly after you sent them.
When, long subsequently, Mr. Panizzi showed me his sketch for a plan of a New Reading-Room, I confess it did not remind me of yours, the purposes of the two plans and the treatment and construction altogether were so different.
The idea of building over the quadrangle is of very early date, it was certainly mooted in the Museum fifteen years ago.
Yours, &c., &c.,
Sydney Smirke.
It may as well be mentioned in this place, that as Panizzi in his letter already quoted, disclaims originality in choosing the position of his New Room, so Mr. Hosking, in a subsequent letter, dated 4th of May, 1857, to Mr. Smirke, admits that “It is quite 15 years since Mr. Hawkins proposed to build corridors across it (the quadrangle) to facilitate intercommunication.” Neither of the opposing parties, however, takes note of the fact that, as early as 1836-7, Mr. Thomas Watts, the late Keeper of the Department of Printed Books in the British Museum, had actually suggested the construction of a Reading-Room in the very spot of Panizzi’s selection.
He had written in the Mechanics Magazine for March 11th, 1837, commenting upon the waste of space occasioned by the empty quadrangle, “A Reading-Room, of ample dimensions, might have stood in the centre, and been surrounded on all four sides by galleries for the books, communicating with each other and lighted from the top.” A little further on, however, he half retracts his own suggestion, remarking, “So much has been expended on the great quadrangle, that it might seem barbarous to propose filling up the square, as ought to have been originally done.” The grand conception of the cupola, by which architectural effect was to be taken away only to be restored with interest, had not dawned upon him; and, in fact, the reverence expressed by so many for the architecture of the inner court would have been more intelligible, if the court had been more accessible.
As regards originality, therefore, in this portion of the respective designs there can be no possible ground of discussion.