Search results

In its passage through the Grand Committee the Food Bill is being amended in a number of important particulars, and it is in the highest degree satisfactory that so much interest has been taken in the measure by members on both sides of the House as to lead to full and free discussion. Sir Charles Cameron, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Strachey, and other members have rendered excellent service by the introduction of various amendments; and Sir Charles Cameron is especially to be congratulated upon the success which has attended his efforts to induce the Committee to accept a number of alterations the wisdom of which cannot be doubted. The provision whereby local authorities will be compelled to appoint Public Analysts, and compelled to put the Acts in force in a proper manner, and the requirement that analysts shall furnish proofs of competence of a satisfactory character to the Local Government Board, will, it cannot be doubted, be productive of good results. The fact that the Local Government Board is to be given joint authority with the Board of Agriculture in insuring that the Acts are enforced is also an amendment of considerable importance, while other amendments upon what may perhaps be regarded as secondary points unquestionably trend in the right direction. It is, however, a matter for regret that the Government have not seen their way to introduce a decisive provision with regard to the use of preservatives, or to accept an effective amendment on this point. Under existing circumstances it should be plain that the right course to follow in regard to preservatives is to insist on full and adequate disclosure of their presence and of the amounts in which they are present. It is also a matter for regret that the Government have declined to give effect to the recommendation of the Food Products Committee as to the formation of an independent and representative Court of Reference. It is true that the Board of Agriculture are to make regulations in reference to standards, after consultation with experts or such inquiry as they think fit, and that such inquiries as the Board may make will be in the nature of consultations of some kind with a committee to be appointed by the Board. There is little doubt, however, that such a committee would probably be controlled by the Somerset House Department; and as we have already pointed out, however conscientious the personnel of this Department may be—and its conscientiousness cannot be doubted—it is not desirable in the public interest that any single purely analytical institution should exercise a controlling influence in the administration of the Acts. What is required is a Court of Reference which shall be so constituted as to command the confidence of the traders who are affected by the law as well as of all those who are concerned in its application. Further comment upon the proposed legislation must be reserved until the amended Bill is laid before the House.

Our article in last month's Library World has elicited some expressions of opinion from various sources, which we print as a contribution towards a general discussion of this important question. It, will be observed that several writers have not quite grasped the exact scope of our proposal, which was not an argument in favour of an increase of the Library Rate by Act of Parliament, but a plea for leaving the amount of the Rate entirely in the hands of the local authorities. This is a very different thing from asking Parliament to raise the amount of Rate all round from one penny to two pence or more per £. If local authorities can be trusted to levy the huge sums required under the various Sanitary, Police and Poor Laws, surely they can be trusted to ascertain the comparatively small needs of a Public Library, and make a Rate in accordance with local requirements. It is impossible to imagine that in any case this power would be abused. As a rule, rating bodies are extremely scrupulous and fearful about raising rates, and this fear and public spirit could be trusted to keep in cheek any tendency towards extravagance. Besides, it must be obvious to every observer that the needs of Public Libraries are not such as to call for lavish expenditure. At the same time, why should a town desirous of extending and improving its library system be debarred from doing so, because of an Act passed nearly fifty years ago, when educational legislation was only in an experimental stage? The more discussion and argument we can have on this subject, the quicker are we likely to arrive at a definite basis of agreement, and we therefore print the following opinions as an introduction to a general discussion.

The endeavour that is being made at the present time to rouse public interest in the extremely important question of the purity of the national milk supply is one that deserves unqualified praise. It is in no spirit of carping criticism that it is here pointed out that the partial and unofficial remedy by which it is proposed to diminish the risk to the consumer may in itself be indirectly a means of continuing what has become a grave public danger. No reasonable doubt can exist that pasteurization as a method of dealing with large quantities of milk in bulk and from all sources will be of considerable use. It will certainly tend, if carried into effect to the extent and in the way suggested, to greatly lessen the risk that consumers run at the present time. It will prevent a large amount of disease that arises from the consumption of impure milk. But such a method, however admirable and philanthropic in conception and sound in theory, is one that by no means answers all, or even a part of, the large number of important questions connected with the subject. The general public and honest milk dealers will, it is to be hoped, benefit by the new milk legislation that is proposed by the Local Government Board and by the London County Council. The public, however, is very apt to be caught by a phrase, and may, therefore, think that “milk pasteurization” is the beginning and the end of all that need or can be said on the subject. It is likely that the foundation of depots for the preparation and supply of pasteurized milk will blind its eyes to the fact that the evils which have rendered the establishment of such places necessary remain untouched. Indeed, the very fact that milk depots of this kind are at work may be used by interested persons as evidence that all hygienic requirements have been complied with, that for this reason veterinary considerations may be ruled “out of court,” and that the necessity for further legislation of a more fundamental and drastic kind no longer exists. The agitation that is taking place at the present moment is no new thing. For many years past the matter has engaged the most serious attention of those experts whose business it is to investigate and, as far as they are permitted, to control the quality of the milk supplies of both our town and country districts. For example, a perusal of the annual reports of the Local Government Board that have been issued since that Board was instituted in the early seventies, will satisfy any one, who takes the time and trouble to read them, that Public Analysts have from time to time animadverted in terms more or less strong on the poor quality of the milk supplied, and that even if the field of inquiry be limited to what may be called purely analytical standards the difficulties of the case are enormous, even if they be looked at from the best and the most hopeful point of view. At the present moment we are more concerned with the equally important hygienic aspect of the question. Local self‐government, while conferring a large amount of autonomy on administrative units, has naturally resulted in an almost entire absence of any definite national system that can deal with the important subject of food supply generally and milk supply in particular. At the present time it is left to the local authority to decide whether it will or will not apply for powers from the central authority—the Local Government Board—to put into force regulations under the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order, though in cases where this has been done the benefit to all concerned has been marked, and the necessity for such action demonstrated. The subject of the milk supply divides itself, roughly speaking, into three branches, which may be referred to under the headings of Production, Carriage, and Sale, though it is evident that no sharp line of demarcation can be drawn. With regard to all of these the law is either defective or nonexistent. Under the present “system” prosecutions are mostly instituted against persons of whom it is alleged that they have knowingly sold milk from which fat has been abstracted or to which water has been added, but even here “the difficulties connected with the administration of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts in the case of milk have been a constant subject of discussion between the officers of local authorities and the Board's Inspectors.” What these difficulties are are well known to all who are brought into contact with the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts, but any one can satisfy himself as to them by reference to, say, the last annual report of the Board of Agriculture in this respect, keeping in mind, at the same time, the fact that only one aspect of the case is there dealt with. Under the heading of Production brief reference may be made to the subject of the cow and her surroundings. Much evidence exists which shows the urgent need for expert and unbiassed hygienic and veterinary inspection of all dairy farms, cowsheds, and cows. In much that has been recently written on the subject of pure milk in the daily press, it is somewhat remarkable to note that while the dangers that arise from drinking raw milk derived from tuberculous cows has been rightly insisted on, comparatively little reference has been made to the importance of cow and cowshed inspection. It is unfortunately the case in too many instances that the owners of cows are content to house the animals in sheds under conditions that are usually, though wrongly, thought to be fit only for pigs. This, of course, leaves entirely out of the question the fact that the animals themselves may be tuberculous or otherwise diseased, and therefore a source of most serious danger to the public health. With regard to carriage of milk it may be pointed out that the modern city draws its supply of milk from all over the country, and that this means a rail journey of frequently some hours' duration. Our modes of transporting and handling milk have not, however, kept pace with modern requirements. The frequently Arcadian simplicity of the methods in vogue would appeal the more strongly to lovers of the picturesque if they did not lead so often to the introduction of filth of all kinds into the milk cans. Lastly, regarding the sale of milk from retailer to consumer, the public itself is largely to blame for the objectionable practice of adding colouring matter to the milk. A general impression is abroad among the poorer, and therefore it may be presumed the more ignorant, consumers, that milk is not genuine unless it be what is called “cream coloured.” Hence the introduction of annatto or some less innocent substance. For the frequent presence of such substances as formaldehyde, boracic acid, and other “preservatives” no excuse of any kind exists. Such practices are simply means but too often resorted to of masking incipient putrefaction induced by tardy and uncleanly methods. At the same time, these dangerous chemical preservatives make the “food” more difficult of digestion, with results to young children and persons in weak health that are too obvious to need comment. In addition to all this the milk may be subjected, of course, to adulteration of the usual kind. Hence the present position is that against defective methods of production and sale, out‐of‐date methods of transport, absence of any national and compulsory system of inspection and control, and a law that is either deficient or hopelessly tangled, a semi‐philanthropic method is proposed which, though probably sound and admirable in itself, is almost certain to be used by the unserupulous as a means of preventing the important problem of our milk supply being attacked in the only way in which there is reasonable hope of success—that is, by an appeal to the cow and its surroundings. Unless the method of pasteurization be recognised as a useful but still a subordinate means of dealing with an already contaminated substance, it is more than likely that tinkering and generally unsatisfactory legislation will be resorted to, and that as a result of this the state of the milk supply will remain very much as it is at present.

BEGINNING with our July issue, which is the first Number of Volume XXXV, we have decided to change the format of The Library World and enlarge the size of the page. It is hoped by this means to give increased reading matter and to be of greater service to the Profession. We are proud of the fact that The Library World has been published continuously since 1898, and that during this long record our policy has been one of continued progress.

THIS is the month when librarians and library workers everywhere, their holidays over, turn to their winter plans. There are, however, some interesting events to take place before the darker and more active months come. The first is the meeting at Oxford on September 21st and subsequent days of the Federation International de Documentation. This will be followed by and merge into the ASLIB Conference, and there is in prospect an attendance of over three hundred. Our readers know that this organization produces and advocates the International Decimal Classification. It is not primarily a “library” society but rather one of abstractors and indexers of material, but it is closely akin, and we hope that English librarianship will be well represented. Then there is a quite important joint‐conference at Lincoln of the Northern Branches of the Library Association on September 30th— October 3rd, which we see is to be opened by the President of the Library Association. Finally the London and Home Counties Branch are to confer at Folkestone from October 14th to 16th, and here, the programme includes Messrs. Jast, Savage, McColvin, Wilks, Carter, and the President will also attend. There are other meetings, and if the question is asked: do not librarians have too many meetings ? we suppose the answer to be that the Association is now so large that local conferences become desirable. One suggestion, that has frequently been made, we repeat. The Library Association should delegate a certain definite problem to each of its branches, asking for a report. These reports should form the basis of the Annual Conference. It is worthy of more consideration.

Numbers of worthy people are no doubt nursing themselves in the fond and foolish belief that when the Food Bill has received the Royal assent, and becomes law, the manufacture and sale of adulterated and sophisticated products will, to all intents and purposes, be suppressed, and that the Public Analyst and the Inspector will be able to report the existence of almost universal purity and virtue. This optimistic feeling will not be shared by the traders and manufacturers who have suffered from the effects of unfair and dishonest competition, nor by those whose knowledge and experience of the existing law enables them to gauge the probable value of the new one with some approach to accuracy. The measure has satisfied nobody, and can satisfy nobody but those whose nefarious practices it is intended to check, and who can fully appreciate the value, to them, of patchwork and superficial legislation. We have repeatedly pointed out that repressive legislation, however stringent and however well applied, can never give the public that which the public, in theory, should receive—namely, complete protection and adequate guarantee,—nor to the honest trader the full support and encouragement to which he is entitled. But, in spite of the defects and ineffectualities necessarily attaching to legislation of this nature, a strong Government could without much difficulty have produced a far more effective, and therefore more valuable law than that which, after so long an incubation, is to be added to the statute‐book.

So far as the London activities of librarianship are concerned, the Winter opened propitiously when Mr. J. D. Stewart and Mr. J. Wilks addressed a goodly audience at Chaucer House, Mr. Stewart on American, and Mr. Wilks on German libraries. There was a live air about the meeting which augured well for the session. The chief librarians of London were well represented, and we hope that they will continue the good work. It was the last meeting over which Mr. George R. Bolton presided as Chairman of the London and Home Counties Branch, and he is succeeded by Mr. Wilks. Mr. Bolton has carried his office with thorough and forceful competence, and London library workers have every reason to be grateful. The election to chairmanship of the librarian of University College, London, gives the Branch for the first time a non‐municipal librarian to preside. The change has not been premature, and, apart from that question, Mr. Wilks is cultured, modest and eloquent and will do honour to his position.

OUR readers will, we trust, appreciate our double souvenir number issued in connection with the Library Association Conference at Glasgow. Special features are the articles on the Mitchell Library, Glasgow, 1874–1924, by a member of the staff, Mr. J. Dunlop, and one on the Burns Country, by Mr. J. M. Leighton, of Greenock Public Library. We printed the provisional programme in our July issue and as we go to press have little to add to the particulars there given, except to compliment the Library Association and the Local Reception Committee on the excellent programme arranged for the occasion, from both the professional and social point of view.

AT Oxford, on October 8th and 9th, was celebrated the tercentenary of the founding of the Bodleian Library by Sir Thomas Bodley, an Exeter man, who early realised the value of books in the work of education. The occasion was made one of great importance, and there were gathered together distinguished representatives of literature and librarianship from all parts of the world. The list of delegates given below will show how extensive this representation was, although it will occur to some, as a somewhat remarkable circumstance, that not a single municipal library in London was represented, while many of the more important English towns were also ignored. Considering that such libraries are doing so much in the cause of popular education, compared to which the work of many of the colleges and institutions represented is microscopical, it does strike the outsider that the gathering would have been much more impressive and representative had there been more “Town” and less “Gown” in the celebration. The following is a full list of all but the Oxford representatives, who included practically every head of a college, professor, or college librarian, together with various local celebrities:—

AN older librarian, we think, looking at the Annual Report of the Library Association, which is the principal publication of June, must almost rub his eyes in bewilderment at the recent progress made. In the outer world of libraries, that part which the public sees, there are symptoms, and actual signs, of development; new branch libraries, such as those at Sheffield, at Croydon, and at Dartford, are portents of a sort—pleasant substitutes, and most effective ones, for the larger, orthodox (in size at least) branches such as Yardley Wood, Crossgates, Firth Park and Leith. Greater development must be a problem for a few years to come, as every librarian must acknowledge. It is in the development of librarianship and bibliology that this record of the L.A. is so significant. The bare fact that the Centenary Year sees the L.A. with a membership rapidly approaching ten thousand and an income of £36,000 seems almost incredible. Even more so is the fact, not quite so pleasing, that by £347 this income proved insufficient; but, on reflection, that, too, is a sign of activity. The Association has almost ceased what was once thought to be its main pre‐occupation; its own organization, or, as one of our writers called it, “the moving about of its domestic furniture.” It is now deeply concerned with international librarianship, an attitude which in no small measure it owes to Mr. H. M. Cashmore and to Mr. Welsford's flair as host at Chaucer House; its gradual adjustment of its benefits, including the education ones, so that they appeal to other than public librarians, as they formerly did, and to such an extent that over one thousand special and university librarians are grouped in it; the immense, for it is that, educational and examination scheme, which from the accounts appears to cost: the administration about £1,900 more than the candidates' fees provide; its extending publishing business, now costing in all £12,150 a year, but bringing in returns more valuable than the substantial sales would suggest, and the quite remarkable library, information, and research work. The Association has become a large business, influencing the life of every librarian and energizing most of the work now done in libraries. The Report has a general acknowledgment paragraph recording the debt owed to the chairmen of committees. It is a modest tribute to a group of men who give great labours to our interests. To be the chairman of a Library Association Committee today is to be a leader and hard‐driven worker. We owe them much. And this does not reduce our admiration for the manner in which the official staff of the Association do their work.