« PreviousContinue »
of the plastered ceiling. All the mouldings are of the commonest kind, easily produced by machinery and without a particle of carved work. The costly new fittings are far inferior to some of the work in the old catalogue room. The wire gates of the new lock-up cases may also be contrasted with the carved doors of the old compartments. The sum paid for these fittings alone ought to have provided both building and fittings for a frontage of 9,244 square feet for books. The introduction of slate shelves would add slightly to the expense, and the real advantage in case of a fire would be very small, there being a complete sheeting of wood behind all the books, with wooden uprights, tops, and plinths to the cases. With strange inconsistency, in the two rooms of the Librarian and Library Keeper, containing the only two open fireplaces, all the shelves are of wood. The Library cases stand on boards but the floor of the central aisle is of stone.
30. The following is an estimate of the money devoted to the service of the Library since 1825. The Worts estate produced about £500 a year in 1830 (Obs. p. 57), and £684 on an average of seven years ending 1851. The Rustat estate produced about £200 a year in 1830, and in 1851 an average of £186. The Manistre Fund has produced uniformly £150 a year. If these produced £950 a year, on the average, during the 27 years, 1826-1852, in that time they would have contributed to the Library £25,650 for the purchase and binding of books.
31. The Library Subscription Fund was established in Dec. 1825, when it was calculated that it would produce £1200 a year. In 1830 it produced £1450. 10s. (Obs. p. 57), and in 1838, £1600. By the help of these statements and those for the years 1843-1849 (Ev. p. 55), taking into account the number of names on the boards in each year, the produce of this Subscription Fund in the 27 years, 1826-1852, may be fairly estimated at £45,100, making with the above £25,650, a sum of £70,750 applicable to buying and binding books. But of the Subscription Fund about £10,450 has been applied to pay for the building, leaving a debt of above £5000 charged on this Fund for interest and payment of existing bonds.
32. The University chest contributed £650 in 1825, (Obs. p. 57) and (on an average of seven years ending 1851) £811 a year for salaries of officers, repairs, insurance, &c. We may therefore suppose that the Library has received from the chest a sum of £19,700 in the interval, 1826-1852, in addition to the £12,000 paid out of the chest for King's "Old Court," making together £31,700.
33. Of the £23,410 raised by subscriptions for building the Library, Museums, &c. one-half, or £11,700, may be fairly assigned to the Library.
34. Thus we find that during the 27 years, 1826-1852, there has been raised for the service of the Library about £25,650 from endowments, £45,100 from subscriptions for buying books, £31,700 from the chest for building site and management, and £11,700 from a building subscription; in all about £114,150, (leaving a debt of about £3,700). There were also about 57,000 volumes and 70,000 parts received under the Copyright Law. Or, reckoning ten parts to a volume, we get a total of 64,000 volumes.
35. The probable total income from the Manistre, Worts, Rustat, and Subscription Funds during the 27 years 1826-1852, was £70,750 of which about £10,400 has been paid for the new Library, including bonds and interest, probably £1,200 for junior Library Assistants, and £13,000 for binding, which would leave £46,150 to be applied to buy books. From a Parliamentary return, April, 1846, it appears that, from 1812-1837, the total sum voted to buy printed books for the British Museum was only £23,881, increased by two special grants to £30,057, in addition to Major Edwards' Fund which produced £6409 in the years 1801-1815.
36. The average price per volume paid by the British Museum for 110,437 volumes, bought in 1841-1848, was 8s. 5d., and that paid by the Bodleian for 37,063 volumes, in 1826-1842, was 13s. 2d. As the wants of the Cambridge Public Library must be somewhat of the same nature, it is probable that in the years 1826-1852 there may have been procured by purchase 50,000 volumes, which added to those received under the Copyright Law, give about 114,000 volumes as the probable additions during the last 27 years.
37. In order to estimate the present annual income we may suppose that the Manistre, Worts and Rustat Funds amount to £1020, and in 1851 the Library Subscription Fund produced £2050, which was increasing at the rate of £40 a year. The average annual grant from the chest has been of late £811. And thus there is obtained £3,881 for the present annual income of the Library. Out of this sum there is to be paid, Income Tax on subscriptions, about £60; salaries of six officers and pension of one, £662; Insurance, Repairs, &c, £290; and a Bond of £300 each year, with interest on that remaining unpaid, (at present £124, which is diminishing at the rate of £12 a year). Thus the total annual expenditure in salaries, building, &c. is £1436, leaving £2445 to be applied to buying and binding books, which is considerably more than the incomes for like purposes of the great Libraries of Berlin, Munich, Gottingen, and Brussels.
38. It is desirable to examine still more minutely the reasons for the adoption of this plan for the New Library, which we have seen to be quite insufficient to satisfy the wants of the University. We are in some measure supplied with the means of doing this by the writings of the Member of the First Syndicate, who was ever advocating some noble and magnificent building scheme. His own great activity is manifest from a mere list of some of the Syndicates on which he acted, as the Observatory Syndicate, 1820-1824; the Syndicate appointed to consider the propriety of building an Examination Hall, 1825; the King's "Old Court" Syndicates of 1825, 1826 and 1828; the first and third New Library Syndicates, 1829 and 1835; the two "conformity" Syndicates, 1836.
39. Mr. Cockerell's design had been recommended by the first, and Mr. Rickman's by the second New Library Syndicate, and the claims of the former were chiefly advocated in the "Observations" and "Remarks" by urging the asserted defects of the latter. It would be a wearisome and useless task to follow the minute details and measurements, which are merely applicable to a comparison of the two rival designs. Thus the area of the windows of Mr. Rickman's design having been stated to be 42 square feet in the "Reply," it was afterwards thought necessary to give
the correct area of 414 in the "Remarks." Mr. Wilkins informs us that "in Grecian and Roman Architecture, if we attend rigidly to the characteristics, we can have no windows; or if expediency demands their introduction they must be made sparingly." (Appeal, p. 17) Thus we find that the instructions of the Syndicate respecting the Grecian style, to which Mr. Rickman carefully attended, were the fruitful sources of the attacks of the member of the first Syndicate respecting the "very inconvenient darkness" of one room, and concerning the much " more deplorable situation with respect to light" of another. (Obs. p. 29) We are assured that "though the capital defect of this Library" (Mr. Rickman's) "is its "deficient lighting, yet it possesses many others which are almost equally discreditable to the taste and skill of the Architect," (Obs. p. 30), yet the recommendation of this plan, in preference to Mr. Cockerell's, was signed by Professor Whewell and Professor Willis. But further, the Member of the First Syndicate when speaking of the rooms of Mr. Rickman's design, says, “I think I have very
sufficiently shewn, that there is not one of them which has not been more or less sacrificed to the exterior character of its Architecture. "I have likewise shewn that there is a total want both of simplicity "and symmetry in the internal arrangements, a most extravagant waste of space, and a consequent failure in providing the quantity of accom“modation which the extent of the building admits of, and which the "University requires." (Obs. p. 31). Beyond all doubt this part of the charge was quite true, whether applied to the plans of Mr. Rickman or to those of Mr. Cockerell, and even in a slightly modified degree, to the requirements of the instructions of the Syndicate. I trust that I have also satisfactorily shewn that, with great justice, these objections may be brought against the existing North side of the proposed quadrangle.
40. It is easily seen how greatly the opinion of the Member of the First Syndicate depends on circumstances thus "the present schools are dark, damp, crowded with pillars, and therefore not convertible "into Lecture Rooms and hardly to any useful purposes," (Obs. p. 6), but as respects Mr. Cockerell's plan, we are told that, "In order to "diminish the disproportion existing between the height and width of "these Schools, and to stiffen and strengthen the floor of the Library "above, there are pillars between each pair of windows, advanced 3 feet from the wall, and which therefore reduce the perspective "width to 27 feet, which in these short rooms, is sufficiently well adjusted to their common length of 19 feet." (Obs. p. 37). It is considered to be an additional advantage that the spaces behind the pillars being slightly raised, "would offer a singularly convenient promenade to the examiners when inspecting the examinations which "are going on immediately beneath them." It is also stated that, when the folding doors were thrown open, these Schools would form one room 165 feet long, "admirably calculated for processions on "occasions of ceremony." They would also form spacious and cheerful Lecture Rooms. (Obs. p. 38).
41. The Member of the First Syndicate charges the second Syndicate with having prescribed "a fixed arrangement, which, if followed, must compel Mr. Cockerell to abandon altogether a plan, which had received the approbation of persons both qualified and authorized to
form an opinion of its merits." (Obs. p. 22). On the other hand, it is shewn that this plan, above alluded to, was not the one unanimously recommended, but a subsequent production, which was only exhibited to a select few, and did not arrive in Cambridge till after the expiration of the first Syndicate, (Reply, p. 15): consequently however well qualified the members of that late Syndicate might be to form an opinion, they were not, under any pretence, the authorized advisers of the University. Of the three designs sent in, that of Mr. Cockerell, as was allowed on all hands, completely rejected both the principle and details of the instructions (Reply, p. 16). It is quite plain that justice demanded the rejection of this design, but the member of the first Syndicate draws a distinction between the letter and the spirit of the Instructions, and then disputes the asserted want of conformity in Mr. Cockerell's plans, adding it is probable that many persons will attach more importance "to the mere letter of those instructions than I should think either "wise or reasonable." (Remarks, p. 16). Again, it is insinuated that Mr. Rickman owed the recommendation of his design chiefly, if not solely, to its being in exact conformity with the instructions, (Obs. p. 49), but the Second Syndicate gave their recommendation of Mr. Rickman's design on "other grounds." (Reply, p. 18).
42. We are told that the principal building is extended by Mr. Cockerell "everywhere to the extremity of the disposable ground." (Obs. p. 36). We also read of a double colonnade that "would be "unrivalled for depth and richness, &c." (p. 35), and of " a noble "elevation to the Library," (p. 36). The Museums are said to afford "an extent of accommodation of which no similar example exists in "England," (p. 40). Again, "Mr. Cockerell has given a perspective view of the interior of this Library, which has excited, and in my "opinion most justly, almost universal admiration; every part of it is "full of light; all its dimensions are noble, and in magnitude and "spaciousness it would have no rival in Europe," (p. 44). The external character of its architecture moreover "is accommodated to "that of the adjoining Senate-House," (p. 45). In Mr. Cockerell's plan we have a noble vestibule, a spacious entrance to the court, simple and convenient staircases, &c," (p. 46). It is calculated that Mr. Cockerell's completed design would accommodate 258,000 volumes, and Mr. Rickman's about 200,000, (Remarks, p. 15). As we now possess at least 180,000 volumes with a rapidly increasing income, at present 5,000 volumes a year, it is very manifest that the above promised accommodation was quite insufficient. It seems that it could require no great sagacity, even in 1830, to arrive at the above conclusion, for at that time there were 100,000 volumes in the Library and the yearly increase was 3,000, so that Mr. Cockerell's complete Library might have been expected to be filled in 1883, at the then rate of increase, and Mr. Rickman's in 1864. When it is recollected that the yearly increase is now 5,000 volumes instead of 3,000, it appears that the above statement of the Member of the First Syndicate agrees sufficiently well with my own results (§. 24), respecting the accommodation of the New Library, which the Commissioners describe as "a portion only of a very magnificent and comprehensive scheme," containing "Museums below, and a noble fire proof Library above," the funds for which were partly raised by a public subscription
amongst the members of the University which was "nobly responded to." The indignation aroused by the proceedings of the First Syndicate prevented the adoption of Mr. Cockerell's design for a time, but an interval of five or six years allayed this irritation, and many members of the Senate would doubtless consider, with the author of the "Observations," that the original recommendation compromised the University.
43. The Member of the First Syndicate could not help admitting that he laid himself open to the charge of being a mere partisan of Mr. Cockerell, (Obs. 48) but in his second pamphlet (or "Remarks") he is more precise. "In the first place, I am alone responsible "for every statement and for every opinion, and, I may likewise add, "for every mistake which is contained in my first Pamphlet. I "received no kind of assistance from any person either residing in "the University or elsewhere..... .I think it necessary to make this very unusual declaration, in order to remove altogether from "Mr. Cockerell the responsibility of any mistakes which I may have "made in my criticisms upon his own Design, and still more with a view to exculpate him from a charge which has been insinuated, "that he had furnished the materials for my Observations upon "the Design of his competitors," and after stating that Mr. Cockerell had not seen Mr. Rickman's plan, at least under its then form, he proceeds "and I think I may venture to say from my own knowledge of his character, though derived from an acquaintance of 14 months only, that he possesses too high a sense of honour and too refined a "feeling of professional delicacy, to entertain for one instant the "idea of forwarding his own interests by clandestine attacks upon "his competitors," (Remarks, p. 19, 20), and after this we are told how carefully all direct communication with Mr. Cockerell was shunned during the composition of the first Pamphlet. A candid reader would naturally infer that Mr. Cockerell had had no hand whatever in the composition of either the first or second Pamphlet. It, however, becomes necessary to suppose that the Member of the First Syndicate confined to his first Pamphlet the disclaimer made in the second, or that although Mr. Cockerell did not make clandestine attacks on the plans of others, he assisted the Member of the First Syndicate in pointing out the merits of his own: for Mr. Wilkins says, when speaking of this second Pamphlet, "In this production "the writer has been assisted by the author of the designs, he supports, as the latter Gentleman readily admitted when I stated to him my "knowledge of his participation." (Appeal, p. 1). Whatever might be the meaning that the Member of the First Syndicate intended to convey to his readers, it is evident from Mr. Wilkins' statement, that Mr. Cockerell participated in the authorship of the second Pamphlet, and that this participation was not publicly avowed.
44. Mr. Cockerell's estimate in 1830, for the cost of the North and West sides of the proposed quadrangle, measuring 276 feet long upon a central line," (p. 55), was £25,700. The Member of the First Syndicate states that he fully believes it to have been made "most cautiously," yet, in order to cover the various incidental charges, he supposes that the outlay required may be £30,000 for the building, and £7,000 for the fittings, of 276 feet of Museums and Library. Thus