On the 2nd of February, 1853, appeared in _The Times_ a letter from Panizzi, to which our readers are referred, but which is too lengthy to give _verbatim_ here. In this letter he says:—“I knew that the Act had been extensively evaded, and I felt that I ought to endeavour to enforce it better,” and again, “I determined to proceed with as much forbearance as I should find consistent with a due performance of my duty.” He then refers to the fact that “publishers are bound to send their publications to the Museum without receiving previous notice of their omissions of so doing,” and addresses the warning in the shape of a circular prepared by the Solicitors of the Trustees as a proof of their courtesy to those who considered themselves hardly dealt with. If publishers refused to comply with the law, what alternative had Panizzi but to enforce compliance? Was he to purchase the books, or how was he to procure them? He states, and states justly too, “I have no right to spend public money in encouraging non-compliance with the law.... All I get is blame. If the books are not in the Library, I am found fault with, and I am found fault with if I use the only means I now have of procuring them.” Then he cites the increase in the delivery of books, &c., 13,934,[M] in 1852, against 9,871 in 1851, which certainly shows that his labours were not only necessary, but by no means bare of practical results. ----- Footnote M: These would not be _books_ proper; in fact, no more than a fifth; the rest being parts of works, _music, maps, &c._ The number of _books_ for 1879 being only about 8,000, not including music, maps, &c. ----- In _The Times_ of the same date (February 2, 1853,) appeared a leading article extolling the way in which Panizzi did his duty as a public servant; it notes the peculiarity of the absence of Mr. Bohn’s name in this long letter, although Panizzi must have had him in his mind at the time he was writing; it deplores the “ill-considered expressions” by which these gentlemen appear to irritate one another, and winds up with these words:—“It is a lamentable thing to see two such men engaged in so petty and so discreditable a warfare, the simple result of which will be to damage both combatants in the opinion of all sober and moderate men.” With this remark many will, doubtless, agree, yet Panizzi’s exceptional position as a champion, it may be said almost of the whole world (for the whole world has access to this store of knowledge), must not be forgotten. He himself appears to have considered Mr. Jardine as biassed in his views, for he stigmatized the Act as _strong, and its enactments harsh_; but in whatever light we view the controversy, it would seem to have been carried on with much acerbity, and this is certainly to be regretted in the case of two such antagonists.