Mr. WATTS began by criticising, somewhat incisively, the architectural skill which had constructed a vast quadrangle without providing it even with the means of a free circulation of air. He pinned Sir Robert SMIRKE on the horns of a dilemma. If, he argued, the architect looked to a sanitary result, he had, in fact, provided a well of malaria. If he contemplated a display of art, he had, by consenting to the abolition of his northern portico, spoiled and destroyed all architectural effect. ‘The space,’ he proceeded to say, which has thus been wasted, ‘would have afforded accommodation _for the whole Library_, much superior to what is now proposed to afford it. A Reading-Room of ample dimensions might have stood in the centre, and been surrounded, on all four sides, with galleries for the books.’ Afterwards, when adverting to the great expense which had been incurred upon the façades of the quadrangle, he went on to say: ‘It might now seem barbarous to propose the filling up of the square—as ought originally to have been done. [Sidenote: _Mechanics’ Magazine_ (1837); vol. xxvi, pp. 295, seqq.] Perhaps the best plan would be to design another range of building entirely [new?], enclosing the present building on the eastern and northern sides as the Elgin and other galleries do on the western. To do this, it would be necessary to purchase and pull down one side of two streets,—Montagu Street and Montagu Place.’ [Sidenote: _Ibid._] [Sidenote: See Chap. ii of Book III, p. 566, and the accompanying fac-simile.] As I have intimated already, this alternative project was unconsciously reproduced, by the present writer, ten years later, without any idea that it had been anticipated. But neither to the mind of the writer of 1837, nor to that of the writer of 1847, did the grand feature of construction which, within another decade, has given to London a splendid building as well as a most admirable Reading-Room, present itself. The substantial merit, both of originally suggesting, and of (in the main) eventually realising the actual building of 1857, belongs to Antonio PANIZZI. As to the claims on that score advanced by Mr. HOSKING, formerly Professor of Architecture at King’s College, they apply to a plan wholly different from the plan which was carried into execution. Mr. HOSKING’S scheme was drawn up, for private circulation, in February, 1848 (thirteen months after the writing of my own pamphlet entitled _Public Libraries in London and in Paris_, and more than six months after its circulation in print), when it was first submitted to Lord ELLESMERE’S Commission of Inquiry. It was first published (in _The Builder_) in June, 1850. His object was to provide a grand central hall for the Department of Antiquities.