“I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 30th of November with enclosure.

“I have, however, no power over the Bodleian Library, and, therefore, I am unable to assist you.

Yours, very truly,
(Signed) Salisbury.”

“Sir Richard F. Burton, K.C.M.G.”

On January 29, 1887, there was another “Bodleian Meeting,” all the Curators save one being present and showing evident symptoms of business.  The last application on the list of loans entered on the Agenda paper ran thus:—­

V Ms. Bodl.  Vols. 550-556 to the British Museum (the 7 vols. successively) for the use of Mr. F. F. Arbuthnot’s Agent.

[The Ms. lately refused to Sir R. Burton.  Mr. Arbuthnot wishes to have it copied.]

It was at once removed by the Regius Professor of Divinity (Dr. Ince) and carried nem. con. that, until the whole question of lending Bodleian books and MSS. then before Council, be definitely settled, no applications be entertained; and thus Professor Van Helton, Bernard Kolbach and Mr. Arbuthnot were doomed, like myself, to be disappointed.

On January 31, 1887, a hebdomadal Council was called to deliberate about a new lending statute for submission to Convocation; and an amendment was printed in the “Oxford University Gazette.”  It proposed that the Curators by a vote of two-thirds of their body, and at least six forming a quorum, might lend books or MSS. to students, whether graduates or not; subject, when the loans were of special value, to the consent of Convocation.  Presently the matter was discussed in “The Times” (January 25th; April 28th; and May 31st), which simply re-echoed the contention of Mr. Chandler’s vigorous pamphlets.[FN#424] Despite the letters of its correspondent “F.  M. M.” (May 6th, 1887), a “host in himself,” who ought to have added the authority of his name to the sensible measures which he propounded, the leading journal took a sentimental view of “Bodley’s incomparable library” and strongly advocated its being relegated to comparative inutility.

On May 31, 1887, an amendment practically forbidding all loans came before the House.  In vain Professor Freeman declared that a book is not an idol but a tool which must wear out sooner or later.  To no purpose Bodley’s Librarian proved that of 460,000 printed volumes in the collection only 460 had been lent out, and of these only one had been lost.  The amendment forbidding the practice of lending was carried by 106 votes to 60.

Personally I am not dissatisfied with this proceeding.  It is retrograde legislation befitting the days when books were chained to the desks.  It suffers from a fatal symptom—­the weakness of extreme measures.  And the inevitable result in the near future will be a strong reaction:  Convocation will presently be compelled to adopt some palliation for the evil created by its own folly.