Search results

OUR various accounts of the Portsmouth Conference, and the official record of it which is now in the hands of readers shows that it may be regarded as a successful one. It was specially notable for the absence of those bickerings and differences which must inevitably come to the surface at times. There may be something in the suggestion of one of our writers that the weather was a main factor. However that may be, there was uniform good temper, and we came away with the belief that a good week's work for librarianship had been done.

THE year 1954 opened more brightly, in some respects, than most previous years. Salaries are better than they used to be, staffs are larger, and hours are shorter. But there is even less room for complacency or even bare satisfaction than there was forty years ago. Then, however poor was the pay and however long the hours, there was every indication that librarianship was gradually becoming recognized as a profession which in time would rank with the great professions. Principles and objectives were clear and were never lost sight of, but librarians and assistants of that day realized that the great professions were dependant, not only on principles but upon absolute mastery of technique; that no lawyer could survive who merely talked grandiloquently about the principles and objectives of his calling; that the medical man endured—and in many instances enjoyed—a severe and lengthy training in technique and practice, and that even when he became a specialist his prime need and principal qualification was absolute mastery and up to date knowledge of technique and practice in his field of specialisation. In the light of that fad a detailed study of library technique became accepted as essential, and a mass of practical and technical literature was studied and mastered by more than one generation. For examination purposes, perhaps more than for any other reason, the present generation of assistants continues that study, but there has been a change of weight. Today we hear frequently that technique is relatively unimportant and that principles and objectives are the vital essentials.

Men make war; women make peace. Men make war; women make children. Men make war because women make children. Because men make war, women make children. Women make peace because they make children.

The liability of a master for the acts of his servant or agent is a well‐established principle of many branches of English Law. It is in fact as old as the Common Law itself and is considered to have originated in the responsibility of a master for hired menials who had no legal capacity and were part of the household for which the master had to answer in every way. In the law of tort, especially the tort of negligence, it is still firmly entrenched and the rule is that a master is liable for any tort which the servant commits in the course of his employment (Winfield). The servant is also liable and a servant, for the purpose of vicarious liability, is one whose work is under the control of another and “in the course of employment” includes any act committed as an incident to something the servant is employed to do. Apart from statutory modifications, the rule has been perceptibly changing in its applications through the years, even in both directions. Originally, hospital authorities held no responsibility for acts committed by their medical staff; the responsibility was entirely the doctor's, a legal relationship, however, which was always regarded as something of an anachronism as between employer and employed. Perhaps this conception was an error stemming from an early High Court decision, but gradually the position has changed, quite apart from the National Health Service Act, 1946, towards the hospital authority's responsibility to the injured patient just as much as that borne by the officer whose failure caused the injury.

In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

ON the face of it the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London might seem to be of no concern to authorities outside the area, but it is certain that all concerned with local government have their eyes firmly glued on the eventual fate of the Report. For what happens in Greater London could well be a pointer for local government reform in the rest of the country. Librarians are among the many people who have an intense interest in this, despite the fact that only one of the Report's 1,011 paragraphs dealt with libraries.

ALL who have visited Liverpool for any length of time have affection for her. She lies alongside a noble river, watched over by the lofty Liver building and the perhaps more architecturally perfect offices of the Mersey Dock authorities. Even in these days, when the very largest ships have been diverted to Southampton, splendid vessels come from and go to the ends of the earth almost daily. The river is the essential fact about Liverpool; she was born of the river and her waterfront is one of the world's rendezvous. As a city she compares favourably with any English town, and perhaps excels most in her few splendid buildings, amongst which the new and rapidly growing Cathedral takes first rank.

WE publish this issue on the eve of the Brighton Conference and our hope is that this number of The Library World will assist the objects of that meeting. Everything connected with the Conference appears to have been well thought out. It is an excellent thing that an attempt has been made to get readers of papers to write them early in order that they might be printed beforehand. Their authors will speak to the subject of these papers and not read them. Only a highly‐trained speaker can “get over” a written paper—witness some of the fiascos we hear from the microphone, for which all papers that are broadcast have to be written. But an indifferent reader, when he is really master of his subject, can make likeable and intelligible remarks extemporarily about it. As we write somewhat before the Conference papers are out we do not know if the plan to preprint the papers has succeeded. We are sure that it ought to have done so. It is the only way in which adequate time for discussion can be secured.