The actual appointment, under Her Majesty’s sign manual, bears the date of the next day, viz., the 6th of March, 1856. Panizzi had been privately informed of the intended resignation of Sir Henry Ellis at least a month before, for, on the 2nd of January, he wrote to Sir George Grey, recommending himself to H.R.H. the Prince Consort, under whose instructions the Hon. C. Grey wrote the following letter:— “Buckingham Palace, January 3rd, 1856. “My dear Mr. Panizzi, Pray let me know what Act of Parliament it is that regulates your appointment. The Prince will not lose sight of this matter till a decision is come to, but he would wish to be thoroughly acquainted with all the circumstances of the case. Yours very faithfully, C. GREY.” However, notwithstanding the tone of this letter, and whilst many others kept pouring in, there were not a few persons who tried their utmost to oppose the promotion which had been so well earned, and which, it may honestly be said, proved afterwards to have been so wise a step in the National interest. The earliest protest is one which, though insignificant at first sight, is here placed before the reader, because it was sent to Panizzi by Lord Palmerston, who wrote on the 13th of March (1856):— “My dear Panizzi, The enclosed, which has been sent to me, will interest you. Yours very sincerely, PALMERSTON.” “THE BRITISH MUSEUM. I protest against the advancement of Mr. Antonio Panizzi to the office of Principal Librarian of the British Museum, vacant by the retirement of Sir Henry Ellis, K.H. 1. Because the appointment, the said Antonio Panizzi being a foreigner, is an act of injustice towards English candidates; a satire on the character of the Nation; and a discouragement to the pursuit of its antiquities and literature. 2. Because as the office involves the chief “care and custody” of a National repository of objects of inestimable value, the appointment is a manifest incongruity, and a most inauspicious precedent. 3. Because the office confers the power of granting admission to the Reading-Room of the Museum, or of refusing it; and it is not fit that National favours, or the refusal thereof, should be received at foreign hands. 4. Because the said Antonio Panizzi has had the audacity to propose the dismemberment of the Museum, in opposition to the express provision of the Act of the twenty-sixth year of George II.—a provision which received the approval of more than fifty members of various scientific societies in 1847.