Search results

THE activity of librarianship during September was almost breathless. Visitors to Chaucer House in the third week of the month had possibly the most cosmopolitan experience of their lives. It was, as our readers know, the assembly time of the International Federation of Librarians, which divided its London meetings between Chaucer House and the equally hospitable University College. The members, coming from a score or more of countries east and west, had, many of them, been present at the successful and crowded conference of Aslib at Ashorne, and were now conferring further, and being entertained by the Library Association, together with members of the Unesco Library School. That school spent its first week in Manchester, with a tour of Derby County libraries; its second week was in London. Amongst the guests at the reception given by the British Council at Portland Place, and at the L.A's own reception at Chaucer House three days later, many distinguished librarians were met, including Dr. Munthe, Dr. Sevensma, Dr. Ranganathan, the state librarian of Ankara, the University Librarians of Istanbul, Copenhagen, Trondhjem, of Alexandria; and many others, including those of England and Scotland, the Chief Keeper of the Printed Books, Bodley's Librarian, and the Librarian of the National Central Library. Moreover, as these gatherings coincided with the meeting of the Library Association Council, the official leaders of the profession were present, including the President (Mr. Nowell).

ROYAL Alderman T. A. Abbott of Manchester, dealt with somewhat severely by Dr. Savage in his A Librarian's Memories, had at least enthusiasm for libraries. He was mightily honoured when he became President at our Manchester Conference in 1921. “We are the Royal Library Association”, he declared and should call ourselves that; haven't we a Royal Charter? Our recognition comes direct from the Sovereign”. No doubt a vain wish, although the Library Association seemed to come near it in 1950 when George VI graciously became its Patron and the Duke of Edinburgh its President. Since that date the engineers have become “royal”, but we have slipped back. When Her Majesty came to the Throne, the patronage her father had bestowed was refused, no doubt on the direct counsel of her advisers who would not want so young a Sovereign to assume too many offices. On that view librarians could not murmur. There is a future, however, and in it there will be a new Library Association House next to, almost conjoined with, a new National Central Library. King George V with Queen Mary opened the second, as is well remembered especially by the King's speech, one of the best, most useful, in library history, in which he described the N.C.L. as “a university that all might join and none need ever leave”—words that we hope may somewhere be displayed in, or on, the new N.C.L. building. Royalty and its interest in libraries has been again manifested in the opening last month (July 13th to be precise) by Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, of the new Central Public Library at Kensington. The Royal Family has close relations with Kensington of course. It is recalled, too, that the Manchester Central and that at Birkenhead were opened also by King George V and Queen Mary; and Queen Elizabeth II quite recently opened the Central Library of the re‐created city of Plymouth, the largest new town library since the Second World War. Kensington has now opened the first major London library since 1939. It is not modern in spirit externally and, as is known, is the work of the architect of the Manchester Reference Library, Mr. Vincent Harris, and there is no doubt about its dignity. Its interior methods are, however, quite modern; a few of them were broadcast to us for a few moments by the B.B.C. announcer, to the effect that there were 100,000 books, that returned books in the lending library were not discharged at the counter but slid down a chute to a room below where that was done, etc., with the remark that books not available in the public apartment could be requisitioned from other libraries but, with the large stocks on show and in the building, that did not seem to be very necessary. We sometimes wish that broadcasters, however well intentioned that may have been, knew something about libraries. Happening at about the same time was the removal of the Holborn Central Library stock to its new home in Theobald's Road, a complex process which Mr. Swift and his staff carried out in July without interrupting the public service. We hope that Mr. Swift will be able soon to tell us how he carried out this scheme. Thus has begun what we hope will be a process of replacing many other London libraries with modern buildings more worthy of the excellent work now being done in them.

THE Newcastle school, like most others, was established after the second world war to provide full‐time education in librarianship as an alternative to the part‐time system which until 1946 was the only one available to the majority of librarians. At first most of the students were returning servicemen whose library careers had been interrupted by the war and they were followed by students direct from libraries, universities and schools. From a handful of students and one full‐time member of staff in the first year the school has grown steadily until there were 53 students and five staff during the session 1962–3 which was the last course held for the Registration Examination.

THERE are now so many meetings of the Library Association and its branches and sections that the good custom of recording meetings and the discussions at them has fallen into desuetude. In a way it is a gain, for when the discussion was commonplace the account of a meeting became a mere list of those who attended and spoke, bones without flesh; but in the days when The Library Association Record really was a record, its reports were a part of the educational and informational material of every librarian. Something should be done about this, because 1938 opened with a series of meetings which all deserved the fullest report. The principal one was the investiture meeting of the President of the Library Association on January 17th. The attendance was greater than that at any meeting of librarians in recent years, of course other than the Annual Conference. Chaucer House was beautifully arranged, decorated and lighted for the occasion, an atmosphere of cheerfulness and camaraderie pervaded the affair. The speeches were limited to a few preliminary words by the retiring President, the Archbishop of York, before placing the badge on his successor's neck; a brief, but deserved panegyric of Dr. Temple's services by Mr. Berwick Sayers; and then a delightful acknowledgment from His Grace. The serious point the Archbishop made was his surprise at learning the wide extent of the library movement and his conviction that it must be of great value to the community. His lighter touch was exquisite; especially his story of the ceremonial key, which broke in the lock and jammed it when he was opening a library in state, and of his pause to settle mentally the ethical point as to whether he could conscientiously declare he had “opened” a place when he had made it impossible for anyone to get in until a carpenter had been fetched. Altogether a memorable evening, which proved, too, as a guest rightly said, that one cannot easily entertain librarians, but, if you get them together in comfortable conditions, they entertain themselves right well.

WE offer our readers good wishes for 1939. We hope that every kind of library may be allowed in peace to pursue its development for the spreading of good reading, to the end that enlightenment and with it wisdom may prevail amongst our millions of readers. We hope too that it will be another year of progress in service, in good and deftly‐employed technique, in the development of the will to make libraries interesting, attractive, useful and indeed inevitable and essential to all men. For librarians we hope it may be a further stage in the promotion of their profession, of growth of their own faith in it, and of increase in the willingness of those who employ librarians in municipalities, counties, colleges and other places to recognize training and service with better pay, prospects and status. We know that appreciation will not give greater willingness to serve; we do know it will give greater happiness.

THIS issue forms the conclusion of Volume LX of THE LIBRARY WORLD, and from the editorial point of view we regard the last issue as the final stage in the completion of an entirely separate undertaking—in much the same way that we regard December 31st as completing an independent calendar episode—for in one moment a whole present period of time suddenly becomes a part of the past; and we incline to review this (no longer current) volume of THE LIBRARY WORLD in brief fashion, and to mention the considerable changes which it has witnessed, not only in its own make‐up, but also in the make‐up of the library world.

THE programme of the Bournemouth Conference shows variety enough concentrated into its three days of business to satisfy even that Mr. Smith, of Leicester, who made Cheltenham memorable for the cheap press. The main subject appears to be book selection of two kinds, adult and junior. Mr. Callender has been given a difficult task, and it does not appear conceivable that any very practical issue can come of the debate even with Mr. Jast as opener. Book‐selection must be the application of a series of definite answers to such questions as “What is a good book?” “What is a bad book?” “When may an inferior book prove to be the best for the end in view?” and so on; and that is a matter first for a committee, which may give well‐led and lengthy deliberation to the subject; it certainly won't come to much in open conference. Much the same must be the case with “An Analysis of Child Reading,” even if Mr. Osborne leads and Mr. Berwick Sayers follows him. On what enquiry will the analysis be based? Who has analysed children's reading in England on any scale that would justify public debate?

THE New Year will be momentous, whatever its course. The old one prepared us for that. Our space restrictions preclude more than the briefest glance over 1941. It was in some ways a year of destruction, as it was a year of holding on, and few thought it would end quite as favourably as it has done. Fine libraries have been destroyed, more have suffered damage, staffs have been depleted, and still more workers deflected to jobs thought to be more immediate. On the other hand, there has been at least verbal recognition by Government departments of the usefulness of libraries, even if it was accompanied by concessions that were of small value, as for example the postponement of the call up of an essential librarian for three months in order, forsooth, that his successor might be trained—an impossibility. There has been an enormous public use of libraries, which assures us that in the after‐war social structure our place is as certain as things human can be.

TO some, Annual Estimates this year may have a nightmarish quality. Not perhaps so much in the safe areas to which many who had the means to do so have gone with those means and no doubt are contributing part of them to the local exchequers; but in the so‐called “dangerous” areas which have lost them and their means and have, because of their liability to air raids, huge expenditure on A.R.P., the librarian may have a severe battle to get what he needs to maintain his work. Our own policy would be to concentrate, so far as is possible, upon the book fund and on salaries. If these can be retained at a fair amount much good will ensue.

Our occasional plea for more candidates, representing all sides of librarianship, for the Library Association Council, seems to have been over‐adequately satisfied this year. The rotation system of election provides only five vacancies each year; for these there were seventeen candidates. The voters were as indifferent as usual. The entire number of votes for all candidates was 10,396, and this from a membership of well over 8,000, each with five votes to cast. Possibly this shows the proportion of members who are really active in their interest. The results, however, cannot be called unsatisfactory, although the loss of Mr. Seymour Smith is to be regretted on the London representation. His successor, Mr. F. C. Francis, is a welcome addition, as he increases our connexion with the British Museum, and thus recalls the early years of the Association. From the Country representation we have lost the chief librarians of Glasgow and Newcastle‐upon‐Tyne, and the County Librarian of Denbighshire. The three successful candidates, Miss F. E. Cook (Lancashire), Mr. Duncan Gray and Mr. E. A. Clough, merely return to the Council. This presents a sort of election puzzle, as those who were displaced were also on the Council last year. Possibly some of them formerly represented branches or sections; there is certainly a solution to the puzzle. We say with confidence that any one of the candidates, successful or unsuccessful, would be an excellent councillor. For examples, many would like to see Cambridge University Library represented by Mr. E. Ansell, and it seems impossible that Glasgow is not represented or that the work Mr. Paterson has done should not have kept his seat safe; while few men of recent years have done more for the education of librarians than Mr. Austin Hinton. But the difficulty is that much the same sort of eulogy might be made of those who have been elected.