“Hatchford, Cobham, Surrey, March 7th, 1856. “Dear Mr. Panizzi, I am much relieved to find that your position is secured, though I had not much ground for apprehension as to the result. I shall not be in London, except casually, till after Easter. I had intended to be there to-day for Lord Stanhope’s Motion, but am too lame. Perhaps before Easter is over you may find a holiday or holinight to run down here, in which case I should be glad to congratulate you in person, but I am not _sure_ that I could do so before the end of next week. Ever yours, faithfully, EGERTON ELLESMERE.” “March 10th, 1856; 58, Lincoln’s Inn Fields. “My dear Panizzi, I hope that this which I hear is true; and that you have obtained that which you have the best claim to, and are the worthiest to hold. If this be so—as I trust heartily it is—I beg to wish you long and happy years to enjoy what you have so well earned. Ever truly yours, JOHN FOSTER.” To the foregoing, other distinguished personages added their congratulatory expressions. Testimonials signed by attendants—even the bookbinder might be adduced—poured in, and might be put forward, did space permit, to prove incontestably that the appointment was thoroughly stamped with public approval. Our documentary evidence has been copious, in order to establish, beyond doubt, the fact that Panizzi’s succession to the high trust to which he was appointed met with general approval, and once for all to extinguish the croaking of his few detractors and calumniators. So far everything was satisfactory. We cannot, however, conclude this chapter without referring, briefly, to the proceedings in the House of Commons, on the 21st of April, 1856, when Lord John Russell, in Committee of Supply, moved the vote for the British Museum; confining ourselves to those parts of the proceedings which related to the appointment. Mr. Monckton Milnes (now Lord Houghton) appeared to object on the old ground of foreign birth; yet, this very objector had signed, with others, the Report of 1850, wherein it was stated that Panizzi’s appointment as Keeper of the Printed Books did _credit to the Principal Trustees of that day_; that he had answered all accusations brought against him _with a success that they_ (the Commissioners) _could hardly have anticipated_; that it was owing to his Report of 1845 that the extensive grants for the purchase of books were procured from Parliament; and that he had managed the affairs of the Library, for a long period, with _great ability and with universal approbation_. Those who defended the appointment were there: first of all, the Speaker (the Right Hon. C. Shaw Lefevre, afterwards Lord Eversley), who stated:—