Mr. NICOLAS has, as we expected, replied to Mr. PALGRAVE'S
Answer to his "Observations on the State of Historical Litera- ture" in this country. Mr. PALGRAVE'S defence turned almost wholly on an endeavour to convict Mr. NICOLAS of inconsistency : by quoting Mr. NICOLAS'S private letters, and contrasting them with the opinions expressed in his pamphlet, Mr. PALGRAYE hoped to diminish the force of his remarks on the proceedings of the Record Commission, and more especially on the highly-paid ser- vices Of Mr. PALGRAYE.
It is no doubt but a poor and unsatisfactory way of replying to a grave charge, to say that the accuser was not always of this opi- nion: it is moreover a somewhat unfair mode of making out this answer, to publish extracts taken here and there, without the con- text, from private letters written at considerable intervals of time. And, granting that the proceeding has the very utmost success of which it is capable, the results amount to nothing more than that the writer has changed his opinion, or that he views or pretends to view the matter differently at one time from what he does at an- other. Thus, in the case of complete triumph on the part of the answerer, the result is simply personal, and leaves the matter in debate just where he took it up. The public have little to do either with Mr. NICOLAS'S motives, supposing them for an instant bad, or with his inconsistency, supposing it proved. Are his charges founded ? has an immense sum of public money been lavished unnecessarily ? has it been ill-employed ? has the publication of the historical documents of the country been made a JOB of? are the reeords of the nation . shamefully kept? are indi- viduals highly paid for neglecting them ? are they inaccessible, from the extravagance of the fees demanded for a sight of them ? is the public paying largely for keeping them out of view, and pay- ing over again to the clerks of the keepers for an imperfect vision of them ? are, • in short, those papers, which are the property of all, made an excuse for maintaining numerous dependants, and for spending great sums on favoured individuals? These are the questions asked—but not answered. Mr. NICOLAS, in his "Refutation," has, as indeed he was bound to do, laboured to set himself straight with the public. He has endeavoured to show—and with some success—that the inconsis- tency between his letters to Mr. PALGRAVE and the opinions maintained in the " Observations,". is only apparent. • It is Mr. PALGRAYE'S fault that an affair purely personal is thus forced on the world, and mixed up with the discussion of matters of interest and moment to the state. We think with Mr. PROTHEROE, in his letter printed in the Appendix, that the Mr. Nicoens of 1827 is reconcilable with the Mr. Nicoeas of 1831.
It is true that Mr. NICOLAS has at various times set a high value on Mr. PALGRAVE'S labour and talents, and written in praise of the utility of his works. But suppose that he subsequently discovers that these labours have been enormously overpaid, along with the similar labour of similar persons ; and that a sum of money has been lavished on these works, for a part only of which, works of a far superior utility might have been given to the world,—Mr. NicoLAS is surely then entitled to turn round and say, " The works I praised when viewed in the light I had, as- sume quite a different character when taken in conjunction with the Parliamentary returns." Such is the complexion of Mr. Nicoeas's inconsistency. As a brother antiquary, he used, and praised to a certain extent, the publications edited by Ma PALGRAVE, and expressed in periodical works a favourable, but at the same time a qualified opinion of them: when, however, he comes to look upon them and others as the productions of the labours of the Record Commission for thirty years, and the result of the expenditure of upwards of three hun- dred and fifty thousand pounds, he is doubtless entitled to estimate them with reference to a wholly different standard. Mr. NICOLAS is by nature a reformer, and he must expect more hard words than thanks. The duties of the reformer and the informer impose the most invidious of tasks on the individuals hardy enough to devote themselves to the public good. The money voted to the Record Commission, we do not hesitate to say, has been grievously misspent. We are not particularly in- clined to quarrel with the very high salaries and munificent pay- ment received by the literary men employed by the Record Com- mission: it is seldom literary men are so fortunate, it is true—and ten thousand lawyers and colonial officers receive a vast deal more every year without being thought extravagantly paid. No one denies that very considerable labour has been bestowed upon these publications, and some talent. But there appear to have wanted a head—a director—and a plan worthy of the enterprise. For the sum of half a million of money, which Mr. Nicolas cal- culates has been expended on keeping the records and publishing and republishing a part of them, a far more useful and important series of historical works might have been put forth. The idea of the great work that might have been completed by the judicious expenditure of such a sum, dazzles the imagination. It has, how- ever, been jobbed away, like so many other vast sums, among a small party of paper and print contractors, and a few favoured index-makers, whom it has kept in a luxurious state of silk- stockinged ease for the last thirty years. • Mr. NICOLAS has done a national service in exposing this enor- mous job, at a time when exposure is likely to be attended by a correction of the abuse ; and if, in any new distribution of labour, he meets with profitable employment, the public will get an inde- fatigable servant, and he some reward for the money and labour he has already spent on investigations of an antiquarian and his- torical character, without the hope—nay, in the utter despair of any return.
Previous page
