Search results

For quite a number of years Librarians and Library Authorities have been urging the establishment of a magazine which will reflect accurately and systematically the various phases of modern Library work and progress. A demand has also arisen for a magazine of a more independent nature than anything hitherto issued, or, at least, one which is not hampered in any way by official connection with a society or other public body.

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 desire to obtain authentic guidance as to the real nature, quality and value of food‐products and of other articles of necessity has grown rapidly during recent years, while the demand for amending and additional legislation, and for increased governmental and official activity, plainly indicates that general public attention to this most important of national questions is at length aroused.

Since our last observations on this topic, several articles have appeared in different newspapers commenting upon our arguments and proposals. Several writers seem to hold unnecessarily strong views, and are assiduous in bringing forward the old argument that local option in the matter of rating will defeat the movement in favour of the adoption of the Acts by the ratepayers in many districts, but especially in London. It is well known to every student of the public library movement, that nothing has retarded its progress so much as the compulsory public plébiscite of citizens. Whether this was accomplished by means of public meetings or voting papers, the result was invariably the same, only a very small proportion of voters took the trouble to vote. We cannot see, therefore, that any particular consideration is due to their views on the subject, and especially in London, with such lamentable examples of utter lack of public spirit as have been presented, time after time, by places like Paddington, Marylebone, Islington, and St. Pancras. The most of this argument as regards London, the sole remaining stronghold of the plebiscite where large and populous areas are concerned, is very much nullified by the fact that a Bill has been prepared by the Library Association, and will probably be introduced by Lord Windsor, in which the power of adopting the Acts is transferred to the Local Authority. We cannot regard seriously the argument that local option in rating will hinder further progress, since it is perfectly notorious to everyone that it is nothing but the Parliamentary limitation on the amount of the Library Rate which stifles every movement designed to strengthen, extend, and popularize our Public Libraries. In our next issue we hope to be able to print a tabular view of the progress of the Library movement, which will prove pretty conclusively the increased rate of growth since the power of adoption was given to the Local Authorities. Meanwhile we publish another contribution on the general question by a well‐known and capable librarian of much experience.

The following report was brought up by Dr. P. Brouardel, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, President of the Commission, and was submitted for the approval of the Congress:

The Table which is printed along with this article gives a view of the progress of our Public Libraries as shown by the adoptions of the Acts, year by year, since 1848. In heavier type are set out the various Acts of Parliament or other influences which have had a determining effect in popularizing and spreading the Public Library. We have also added as an item of additional interest, the name of the first librarian of each town, so far as we have been able to ascertain it. But this is not guaranteed to be absolutely correct, and we shall be pleased to have notifications of errors and omissions.

That the introduction of the Control system should have given rise to a considerable amount of criticism, both appreciative and adverse, was naturally to be expected. The appreciative remarks which have appeared in the press, and those also which have been privately communicated to the directors, indicate that the subject has been intelligently considered, and in some cases carefully investigated and studied. The opinions given are worth having on account of the position and influence of hose who have given them, and on account of the obvious freedom from bias which has characterised them. This is so far satisfactory, and goes to show that the success which has attended the working of the Control system abroad may well be expected to attend it in this country as soon as it is sufficiently well known to be appreciated by the manufacturers and vendors of good and genuine products, and by the general public, whose best interests it cannot but serve.

The method of dealing with the proposed additions varies in different libraries. In the Battersea Library, the librarian makes an author‐entry on a cataloguing slip for each book he proposes, with name of publisher, price, and, if necessary, a note as to the review of the work, and its suitability for addition to the library. Before each committee meeting these are arranged in alphabetical order, and at the committee the librarian calls them over and marks on each the decision arrived at. Afterwards the slips can be sorted into “rejected,” “postponed,” and “ordered,” and dealt with accordingly. The “ordered” slips can again be sorted into two lots, one for books to be purchased new, and the other for those whose purchase is deferred until they can be met with second‐hand. When the books are received from the vendors, the number of copies, and the branch libraries to which they are allocated, are marked upon the slips. By this means a rough record is kept of the additions to the library, which is of great use to the librarian.

The Food and Drugs Bill introduced by the Government affords an excellent illustration of the fact that repressive legislative enactments in regard to adulteration must always be of such a nature that, while they give a certain degree and a certain kind of protection to the public, they can never be expected to supply a sufficiently real and effective insurance against adulteration and against the palming off of inferior goods, nor an adequate and satisfactory protection to the producer and vendor of superior articles. In this country, at any rate, legislation on the adulteration question has always been, and probably will always be of a somewhat weak and patchy character, with the defects inevitably resulting from more or less futile attempts to conciliate a variety of conflicting interests. The Bill as it stands, for instance, fails to deal in any way satisfactorily with the subject of preservatives, and, if passed in its present form, will give the force of law to the standards of Somerset House—standards which must of necessity be low and the general acceptance of which must tend to reduce the quality of foods and drugs to the same dead‐level of extreme inferiority. The ludicrous laissez faire report of the Beer Materials Committee—whose authors see no reason to interfere with the unrestricted sale of the products of the “ free mash tun,” or, more properly speaking, of the free adulteration tun—affords a further instance of what is to be expected at present and for many years to come as the result of governmental travail and official meditations. Public feeling is developing in reference to these matters. There is a growing demand for some system of effective insurance, official or non‐official, based on common‐sense and common honesty ; and it is on account of the plain necessity that the quibbles and futilities attaching to repressive legislation shall by some means be brushed aside that we have come to believe in the power and the value of the system of Control, and that we advocate its general acceptance. The attitude and the policy of the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ADULTERATION, of the BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, and of the BRITISH ANALYTICAL CONTROL, are in all respects identical with regard to adulteration questions; and in answer to the observations and suggestions which have been put forward since the introduction of the Control System in England, it may be well once more to state that nothing will meet with the approbation or support of the Control which is not pure, genuine, and good in the strictest sense of these terms. Those applicants and critics whom it may concern may with advantage take notice of the fact that under no circumstances will approval be given to such articles as substitute beers, separated milks, coppered vegetables, dyed sugars, foods treated with chemical preservatives, or, in fact, to any food or drug which cannot be regarded as in every respect free from any adulterant, and free from any suspicion of sophistication or inferiority. The supply of such articles as those referred to, which is left more or less unfettered by the cumbrous machinery of the law, as well as the sale of those adulterated goods with which the law can more easily deal, can only be adequately held in check by the application of a strong system of Control to justify approbation, providing, as this does, the only effective form of insurance which up to the present has been devised.

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.