I have the honour to be, &c., A. PANIZZI.” The letters to the Lord Chancellor and Speaker were in the same terms. It was a common opinion that Mr. Cary had been ill-treated and passed over in favour of Panizzi. However, Samuel Rogers, the poet, a friend of Cary’s, after having strongly recommended the latter, thought that, considering his ill-health it would scarcely be acting fairly to the Principal Trustees, or to the public to press his claims. Mr. Cary saw the Speaker, who, in the course of conversation, said: “I heard of a Mr. Panizzi, who is next: What do you know of him?” What Cary’s answer was is not known; but it is certain that, when the post was declared vacant, the gentleman went to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the 24th of June, 1837, and again solicited the appointment, which, as might have been expected, was withheld. Panizzi, having heard of it directly from Gary, asked, in the presence of Mr. Baber, whether he would object to his applying for it, when he answered, “_Not at all_.” There and then Panizzi sat down and wrote this letter to the Archbishop:— “My Lord Archbishop, Since I had the honour of addressing your Grace, Mr. Baber has resigned the Keepership of the Printed Books in this establishment. I hope your Grace will not deem it presumptuous in me, to beg respectfully of your Grace and the other Principal Trustees to take my case into consideration, should they think it requisite to depart from the usual system of regular promotion, on appointing his successor. I venture to say this much, having been informed by Mr. Cary of the conversation he has had the honour to have the morning before last with your Grace, and beg to subscribe myself with the greatest respect, &c., &c. A. PANIZZI.” No sooner was the promotion made known than the controversy began. _It was a piece of favouritism, to a Foreigner, and an injustice to Mr. Cary._ As to the first point, Panizzi was at the time personally unknown to the Principal Trustees. Of this there was sufficient evidence. There was ample precedent for the appointment of a _Foreigner_, and, if so, objections could not be made, especially to a _naturalized_ Foreigner, and there was plenty of time for a better qualified person to come forward, as quite four months elapsed between Mr. Baber’s announced resignation and the appointment of a successor. If there was a semblance of injustice, it was because the claims of an individual had been postponed to the necessities of the Institution. Mr. Cary then thought fit to write the following letter to the Lord Chancellor Cottenham, which was published in the “Times” of July 18th, 1837.