As time progressed, it became necessary to encounter and settle the question of internal decoration—a question, in all countries, of extreme delicacy and taste, and, in our own climate, especially in the atmosphere of London, most difficult of solution. The New Reading-Room had no exterior, and those who have seen the interior in its present finished state may readily imagine how bald and unsatisfactory an appearance it would have presented had even a less lavish use been made of paint and gilding in its ornamentation. From a letter of Mr. Smirke’s to Panizzi it would appear that it required some effort to obtain for the building the least amount of gilding necessary. Here, moreover, the equally delicate question of money arose, for Panizzi’s modest estimate of £50,000 had already been greatly exceeded in the mere construction of the room, without any of its numerous and much needed accessories. That this was so, may be seen from Mr. Smirke’s. letter:— “Leicester, October 29, 1856. “My dear Sir, ... I shall not let the subject of gilding the dome drop without an effort, and propose to submit it formally to the Trustees at their next meeting. If four or five thousand pounds were spent in gilding some of the mouldings of the dome an effect would be produced that could hardly be imagined; it would _illuminate_, as it were, the whole building, and beautify it without detracting from its simplicity and grandeur. The £100,000 which the building costs will have been entirely spent in objects of utility; surely four or five thousand pounds will be a small percentage on that sum for _ornament_. In what public building in London has the ratio of ornament to utility been as four-and-a-half to a hundred? Yours, &c., &c., SYDNEY SMIRKE.” Most happily the authorities entertained no parsimonious ideas in the matter; and a letter from the Secretary to the Treasury (the Right Honourable James Wilson) displays a liberal and enlightened view of the necessity of combining in the new room beauty with utility, although his opinions as regards the British Museum in general, may reasonably be questioned. This letter will also be read with interest; therefore, although lengthy, no apology is needed for its insertion:— “Treasury Chambers, June 3, 1856. “My dear Panizzi,