HC Deb 16 May 1870 vol 201 cc737-9
MR. C. DALRYMPLE

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, Whether, since by the Copyright Act all publishers in the United Kingdom are bound to furnish to the British Museum a copy of every book, and of every new edition of a book published by them, and since as long ago as 1848 Mr. Panizzi reckoned the duplicates alone in the Museum at 50,000 volumes, it might not be possible, in the opinion of the Trustees, that such duplicates should be distributed, under proper regulations, so as to form the nucleus of public free libraries, or to supplement deficient libraries; and, whether by this means the British Museum might not be judiciously relieved of its superabundant books, without impairing the efficiency of the collection?

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

said, that before replying to the hon. Member, he must correct two inaccuracies which occurred in his Question. It was not necessary, under the Copyright Act, to send to the British Museum a copy of every new edition, but only of such editions as contained alterations. The evidence of Mr. Panizzi was that the number of duplicates was 10,000, and not 50,000, as I stated. Supposing that the duplicates could be parted with, he admitted that it would be very useful to apply them to the purpose suggested by the hon. Member; but it was necessary to explain that there were three classes of duplicates in the Museum. In the first place, there were books which were supposed to be duplicates, but which were variations of and additions to the original work. In a national institution like the British Museum it was of great importance that such editions should be preserved, partly for the purpose of showing what changes took place in the author's thoughts, or mode of dealing with his subject, and partly to illustrate literary, historical, and scientific questions with reference to the opinions formerly entertained by the author. These editions were not in fact duplicates, and the House would see that it was not desirable to part with them. The second class comprised real duplicates of works which were also to be found in the King's and the Grenville Libraries. But the copies in these libraries were of a much finer character, some being printed on vellum, and others having manuscript notes and annotations, so that the duplicates were required for the use of ordinary readers, in order to preserve the more valuable copies from unnecessary risk of injury. The books in the third class were also duplicates; but it was difficult to say what limit ought to be put to them, inasmuch as they were dictionaries, encyclopædias, modern histories, and works of great interest, in daily use by the students—from 200 to 300—in the Library. He thought the House would see from these facts that the question could not be easily dealt with. There had been occasions in the history of the Museum when some of these duplicates had been sold for small sums; but it was evident that the utmost care should be exercised in the matter, because of the works so disposed of within the last 20 years it had been necessary to re-purchase two at an immense price. One of these books was a work with Henry the Eighth's comments upon an ecclesiastical treatise of his time, which had escaped the keeper's notice; and it was bought back for 30 guineas. The other was a copy of Bacon's Advancement of Learning with the Apothegms; there being some additions thereto in the handwriting of Charles the First. This work the Trustees were obliged to re-purchase for even a larger sum than the one he had mentioned. These were negligences of bygone days. He did not say that there were not some duplicates which, under proper regulations, might be parted with; but the Trustees would require to have absolute power given to them by Parliament to enable them to do so; and if such power was given, he hoped the House would take care that it should only be exercised under the strictest regulations. Under these circumstances, he could not give the hon. Member a more favourable answer; and he thought that more consideration should be given to the subject before anything was done in the matter.