1. _A Catalogue of books relating principally to America, arranged under the years in which they were printed_ (1500-1700), London, 1832. This included four hundred and eighty-six numbers, those designated by a star without price being understood to be in Colonel Aspinwall’s collection. Two small supplements were added to this. 2. _Bibliotheca Americana Nova, printed since 1700 (to 1800)_, London, 1835. Two hundred and fifty copies were printed. A supplement appeared in 1841, and this became again a part of his. 3. _Bibliotheca Americana Nova_, vol. i. (1701-1800); vol. ii. (1801-1844), which was printed (250 copies) in London in 1846.[26] It was in 1833 that Colonel Thomas Aspinwall, of Boston, who was for thirty-eight years the American consul at London, printed at Paris a catalogue of his collection of Americana, where seven hundred and seventy-one lots included, beside much that was ordinarily useful, a great number of the rarest of books on American history. Harrisse has called Colonel Aspinwall, not without justice, “a bibliophile of great tact and activity.” All but the rarest part of his collection was subsequently burned in 1863, when it had passed into the hands of Mr. Samuel L. M. Barlow,[27] of New York. M. Ternaux-Compans, who had collected—as Mr. Brevoort thinks[28]—the most extensive library of books on America ever brought together, printed his _Bibliothèque Américaine_[29] in 1837 at Paris. It embraced 1,154 works, arranged chronologically, and all of them of a date before 1700. The titles were abridged, and accompanied by French translations. His annotations were scant; and other students besides Rich have regretted that so learned a man had not more benefited his fellow-students by ampler notes.[30] Also in 1837 appeared the _Catalogue d’ouvrages sur l’histoire de l’Amérique_, of G. B. Faribault, which was published at Quebec, and was more specially devoted to books on New France.[31] With the works of Rich and Ternaux the bibliography of Americana may be considered to have acquired a distinct recognition; and the succeeding survey of this field may be more conveniently made if we group the contributors by some broad discriminations of the motives influencing them, though such distinctions sometimes become confluent.