The subject of cataloguing received the most serious attention in the year 1850, and, roundly, we may date its history from then. "The Rules for the Compilation of the Catalogue of Printed Books in the Library of the British Museum" had been adopted in 1839, and were printed in 1841. In a great measure they may be regarded as the basis of all cataloguing rules since that time, at any rate for author-entry or its equivalent. In 1850 a Royal Commission on the management of the British Museum had sat and issued its report, and rate-supported public libraries were coming into existence. There had been much discussion on the need for an adequate and promptly-produced catalogue of the books in the Museum, and many views upon the subject were set forth, especially by literary experts. Their criticism was in the main directed against the existing rules known as Panizzi's. Anthony Panizzi, then Principal Librarian, with others of the Museum staff, including Thomas Watts, Winter Jones, and Edward Edwards, had each separately prepared a set of rules according to his own ideas for the compilation of the projected catalogue, and these were afterwards discussed by the compilers collectively, and differences of opinion decided by vote.
The Secretary of this Royal Commission was J. Payne Collier, and he was one of the opposers of Panizzi's rules, especially taking exception to the fulness of entry because of the delay it entailed. To show practically how he would catalogue he tried his hand on twenty-five books in his own library and submitted the results. Mr. Winter Jones reported upon it, and said it contained almost every possible error which can be committed in cataloguing books. Payne Collier's attempt and his justification of it appear in the first part of the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for 1850, where it will be seen that a German edition of Shakespeare is entered under the editor alone, and a play of Aristophanes is also so treated, besides other mistakes of a very amateurish nature.
In this same year (1850) attention was being directed in America to library cataloguing. The Smithsonian Institution sent out a circular to the effect that, being desirous of facilitating research in literature and science, and of thus aiding in the increase and diffusion of knowledge, it had resolved to form a general catalogue of the various libraries in the United States. The librarian of the institution, Prof. Charles C. Jewett, had prepared plans for the accomplishment of this object. The first part related to the stereotyping of catalogues by separate titles in a uniform style. This stereotyping was proposed to save time, labour, and expense in the preparation of new editions of such a general catalogue. Only as many copies as were needed for present use were to be struck off, and then new editions were to be printed from time to time with later additions also in stereotype. This idea, though it crops up from time to time, has now no novelty about it, though recent inventions in type-setting machines have certainly given cause for its reconsideration. No plan of this kind, particularly if it were to be co-operative among the libraries, could be of the least value unless there were uniformity of compilation according to fixed rules, and so the second part consists of a set of general rules to be recommended for adoption by the different libraries of the United States in the preparation of their catalogues. Jewett's code was based upon Panizzi's "Rules for the British Museum," with modifications and additions to suit them to general use, and more especially in connection with his proposed co-operative catalogue. Upon this point he says, "The rules for cataloguing must be stringent, and should meet as far as possible all difficulties of detail. Nothing, so far as can be avoided, should be left to the individual taste or judgment of the cataloguer. He should be a man of sufficient learning, accuracy, and fidelity, to apply the rules." In order to emphasise further the need for uniformity, he proceeds to say that "if the one adopted were that of the worst of our catalogues, if it were strictly followed in all alike, their uniformity would render catalogues thus made far more useful than the present chaos of irregularities." From his point of view of a national catalogue, he was perfectly right, though for general cataloguing the argument is not convincing. Probably there is room for a greater degree of uniformity in the catalogues of public libraries than exists at present, and a better understanding upon this point might be of some advantage to readers and workers generally. The fact that catalogue rules of a standard kind exist does not seem to have exercised any great influence in this respect.