So far everything was satisfactory. We cannot, however, conclude this chapter without referring, briefly, to the proceedings in the House of Commons, on the 21st of April, 1856, when Lord John Russell, in Committee of Supply, moved the vote for the British Museum; confining ourselves to those parts of the proceedings which related to the appointment. Mr. Monckton Milnes (now Lord Houghton) appeared to object on the old ground of foreign birth; yet, this very objector had signed, with others, the Report of 1850, wherein it was stated that Panizzi’s appointment as Keeper of the Printed Books did credit to the Principal Trustees of that day; that he had answered all accusations brought against him with a success that they (the Commissioners) could hardly have anticipated; that it was owing to his Report of 1845 that the extensive grants for the purchase of books were procured from Parliament; and that he had managed the affairs of the Library, for a long period, with great ability and with universal approbation.
Those who defended the appointment were there: first of all, the Speaker (the Right Hon. C. Shaw Lefevre, afterwards Lord Eversley), who stated:—
“For my own part, I am quite prepared, and so, I am sure, are all my colleagues, to accept the responsibility of selecting Mr. Panizzi, because I do not believe a better choice could have been made. The hon. gentleman has alluded to the fact of Mr. Panizzi being a foreigner, but that has been no unusual case in the British Museum.”
Mr. (now Sir Austen H.) Layard, “... he was very much astonished to hear his honourable friend object to Mr. Panizzi on the ground of his being a foreigner, because that was an objection which ought not to come from that, the Liberal, side of the House.”
Mr. Disraeli (now Lord Beaconsfield), “... had no hesitation in saying that, if the Trustees had not appointed Mr. Panizzi to the vacancy when it occurred, as the reward for his long and meritorious services, and of the intelligent qualities which he had displayed, they would have acted with great injustice, they would have inflicted a discouragement on the public service, and they would have been no longer entitled to the commendation and confidence of that House.”
Lord John Russell, “... he really thought that we had become more liberal than that.... He thought that the appointment of Mr. Panizzi had been fully vindicated by the Speaker, and he trusted that there would be no further opposition to the vote.”
Mr. Monckton Milnes said, in conclusion, “he should be glad to hear that the appointment was confirmed by public opinion, and justified by the conduct of Mr. Panizzi himself.”
The documents already quoted, are, we trust, sufficient to fulfil the conditions required; but we surely ought to be more enlightened than to coincide with the opinions of the early Romans, who, as Cicero informs us, regarded the words peregrinus and inimicus as synonymous: (off. 1 xii. 38). Hostis enim apud maiores nostros is dicebatur quem nunc ‘peregrinum’ dicimus.
Be this as it may, it is pleasing to record that those who knew Panizzi best did not regard or treat him as inimicus.
This chapter may be fitly concluded with the subjoined copy of a testimonial as satisfactory and as well-merited as any man ever received. It is in the handwriting and signed by Mr. W. R. Hamilton, a Trustee of the British Museum.