CONTENTS
1. Message from the Chairman
2. Supplementary response to Special Interest Group questionnaire
3. Annual report 2004-2005
4. Committee meetings 2005
5. Libraries in danger : report of a CILIP seminar held 26 April 2005
6. Former Library History Group committee member honoured
7. The first W.A. Munford Memorial Lecture, delivered at the CILIP Umbrella Conference, 1 July 2005
8. Notes on professional demography
9. A response to an item in the Spring 2005 newsletter
10. Bibliographical details sought
11. Libraries and Innovation : Fourth Anglo-German Seminar on Library History
1 MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN
I am sure you are all aware that you have not received a newsletter for some time. Chris Baggs resigned as newsletter editor earlier this year and we have been quite unable to find a replacement. Kathryn McKee, our treasurer has kindly agreed to edit an issue to keep you informed and much of what is included consists of recent documents and minutes of committee activities. If anyone reading this is interested in becoming the new newsletter editor or knows someone who does please get in touch.
The annual report gives the usual picture of varied fortunes. Over the past 18 months we have successfully replaced our secretary, treasurer and journal editor and we plan to be more visible to members by holding meetings around the country which local LIHG members can attend. We will be at the Linenhall Library in Belfast in the autumn and we hope to be in Bristol next Spring.
Our main concern, however, is the ongoing review of Groups. The committee have grave concerns about the implications of the review which, we fear, threatens the future of LIHG. We also have considerable concerns about the way the data collection exercise has been organised and we do not feel that it is a sufficiently open process. Our concerns are expressed in the committee’s supplementary response to the questionnaire (see below) sent in late May. We have been assured that this will be replied to but no response has been received at the time of writing (5/8/05).
Currently the Review Group’s timetable is as follows: • Recommendations from the Working Group will go to CILIP Executive Board in November and then to CILIP Council on Dec 6th. CILIP will make final decision.
The chair of the Working Group, Pat Beech, plans to have a meeting of all group chairs in October if possible but no date has yet been decided. The next Working Group meeting is in early September so a date will be decided then.
We, as a committee, are at a loss to understand why a meeting with group chairs was not held at an earlier stage in the data collection exercise.
2 SUPPLEMENTARY RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE
John Crawford Chair LIHG 25/6/05
Library and Information History Group: supplementary response to Special Interest Group questionnaire
This is addressed to whoever is collating and analysing data at a policy level. It should be noted that responses are required where indicated. The points raised are the outcome of a discussion of the LIHG committee meeting of 30th March 2005, held at the Maughan Library, King’s College, London (supplemented by email discussions) and represent the unanimous view of the whole committee.
In the interests of openness and the promotion of discussion this document will be posted on lis - cilip
Procedural/methodological issues The committee decided to respond collectively only to questions 14-22 and individual committee members would respond to questions 1-13 separately as a collective response to 1-13 was deemed inappropriate. We do not understand how individual responses to 1-13 are to be collated with Group responses. Are they to be analysed separately? We consider the questionnaire to be poorly designed e.g. – under Q18 Regular reporting of agreed objectives - to whom? Qu 17 is not clearly and simply designed. We regret that the questionnaire is the only research method chosen and wish to know why no direct contact has been made with the Group to collect its views from its own point of view and thus give a qualitative perspective. A questionnaire necessarily only collects answers to the questions asked and therefore produces conclusions which reflect the questions. It is necessary also to use qualitative methods to deal with the questions which questionnaires do not ask and perhaps should have done. CILIP in Scotland held a meeting of SIGs representative to discuss the questionnaire and it is incomprehensible that the Review Group did not use similar methods. Given the poor grasp of research methodologies it would have been better if the task had been contracted out to an independent organisation.
Questions 1. How are individual responses to 1-13 to be collated with Group responses? Are they to be analysed separately? 2. Why has no contact been made with the Group to collect its views directly? 3. Why was the work not contracted out?
3 Policy issues raised by the questionnaire • LIHG regrets the implication of bureaucratisation/imposition of performance indicators in Question 18. SIGs should set their own objectives and be accountable for them but not in any detail. LIHG committee members do not have time to participate in a PI culture. Spending undue time on reporting reduces the amount of time available to achieve objectives. SIG committee members give their valuable time freely and this should be spent on worthwhile activities. An improved Branch and Group annual report should be the evaluation/monitoring mechanism. • There is a fundamental question underlying the questionnaire design. Is there a hidden agenda of forced mergers and additional charges for SIG membership? • What is the real agenda - the reduction in the number of groups or a new, supplemental funding model or both? LIHG takes the view that charging for Groups would discriminate against poorer members - would income based concessions be made? • The questionnaire implies that its designers do not appreciate the value of the time freely given by SIG members. • The considerable amount of free time which SIG committee members give the work of their SIG must have direct, measurable value to CILIP which has to be balanced against the cost of financing individual SIGs. LIHG is unaware of any evidence that the Review Group is investigating this and considers this a matter of regret. • The SIG is often viewed by CILIP members as the most valuable, relevant and important part of their membership. The questionnaire implies that this is not recognised. • What is the agenda behind the future of OILS? LIHG recognises that an affiliation with CILIP brings status to the OIL and improves communication with related groups but their status and value is different to SIGs. Is the agenda to convert some SIGs into OILS? • SIGs are not just about CPD. They are a means by which CILIP members with special interests can network with each other. This is particularly important to retired members.
Questions 1. Is a performance indicator culture planned? 2. What is the real agenda behind the questionnaire? 3. What are the objective criteria on which the existence of SIGs should be based?
4 Defending the independence of LIHG • We suspect there is an agenda to roll up together SIGs with superficial similarities e.g. Rare Books, Local Studies, and LIHG because they are about ‘old things’. We reject this superficial view for the following reasons: • Although one of the smaller CILIP groups LIHG is one of the world’s largest and most influential groups specialising in library and information history and enjoys international respect. We are the biggest grouping in the specialist area in Europe. This success is, at least, partly due to the fact that we are a SIG and enjoy all the advantages of the support of CILIP, which is greatly to CILIP’s credit. If we were to cease to exist as a CILIP group we would probably survive in some form but our volume of activity would be greatly reduced. • One of our committee members edits Library History (which has recently gone electronic) which is one of the two world class journals in the subject area. Although LIHG no longer owns this journal we retain intellectual property rights which represent a useful source of income for the Group. • We are active internationally – we regularly hold international conferences and we have two representatives on the IFLA Library History section, one of whom is currently chairman; 52 of our members live overseas. We have had links with the main library history group in Germany since its foundation in 1980 and with the Round Table of the American Library Association for an even longer period. Members have also been involved with international conferences in France, Scandinavia, Russia and the United States. (This is in addition to IFLA participation.) • We are a focus for achievement, activity and networking which would not otherwise exist. The organisation and production of the forthcoming multi-volume Cambridge History of Libraries in Britain and Ireland took a large part of its inspiration from the LIHG which has been represented in the planning and editing of this major work for the past twelve years. The link with CILIP has been welcomed by Cambridge University Press as a positive aspect not shared by the few other works of a similar nature, worldwide. • We have a unique mission which is to research and indeed celebrate the history of our profession in the UK and also to promote research into information and book history. We are a not vocationally based group like Local Studies or Rare Books. We see considerable value in temporary alliances with other SIGs where common concerns exist. For example, we are increasingly concerned about the future of libraries under threat. The York Minster issue was a good example and we will seek to work with other Groups which share a similar concern. This does not mean permanent amalgamations. Members of other Groups could not adequately represent our agenda in key fora e.g. CILIP Council and we
5 certainly could not adequately represent theirs. For example, the history of information management and information systems, like the history of library automation and electronic information provision, (see below) has nothing whatsoever to do with rare books or local studies, yet will form an increasing part of the LIHG's (and hopefully CILIP's) interest in the future. In the same way the history of the profession(s) represented in CILIP will not be addressed systematically by any other group. The overlap with RBG relates to only one part of the discipline of library history, and local studies overlaps only in relation to the study of specific libraries, which is not an overwhelming part of LIHG's work - and much of the Local Studies Group's work is completely irrelevant to library and information history. • The addition of the word Information to our title was no cosmetic exercise. We are keen to support work on the development on information work (the history of information management and information systems, the history of library automation and electronic information provision) as well as the history of library management. Given the current shift in emphasis to information this is a beneficial development for the whole profession • In short, LIHG, like some other numerically small groups, such as Prisons and LIRG punches well above its weight, both nationally and internationally. It has been greatly to the credit of both the former LA and the present CILIP which has provided the modest financial support which has made this possible.
Revised draft 25/4/05 Dr. John Crawford, Chair, Library and Information History Group, Glasgow Caledonian University, Room 302, (3rd floor) 6 Rose Street, Glasgow, G3 6RB Tel: 0141-273-1248 Email jcr@gcal. ac.uk
6 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION HISTORY GROUP ANNUAL REPORT 2004-2005
Aims of Group 1. to act as the historical conscience of the profession in Britain 2. to raise awareness of the importance of library and information history both in the UK and abroad 3. to promote activities – conferences, regional meetings etc. in support of objectives 1 and 2 4. To communicate research and publication in library and information history
Overview Alistair Black has now taken over as editor of Library History and the journal is now available online. Chris Baggs has resigned as newsletter editor and we have not, as yet, found a replacement. Caroline Cooke has agreed to act as group archives officer.
Looking to the future and new initiatives there are several apparent areas of interest
1. Libraries under threat
2. Continuing to develop access to resources
3. The need to be more active regionally
• Lis-libhist, the Groups’ email discussion list has 248 subscribers, up a little from 246 last year
• Membership - Membership at 17th May 2005 was 792 an increase of 71 from early May 2004 (721). There are also three non CILIP members who pay a subscription direct to the group: 52 members live overseas. (grand total 795)
• Library History essay – The Library History Award for 2004 has been won by Michelle Johansen. Her essay ‘A fault-line in library history: Charles Goss, the Society of Public Librarians, and “The Battle of the Books” in the late nineteenth century’, appeared in Library History, 19:2 (2003), 75-92. The essay’s main aims are: first, to show that the outcome of the 1890s ‘Battle of the Books’ (arguments for open- or closed- access libraries) was heavily influenced by the stranglehold which the Library Association had over the publication of library-related debate; secondly, to note that the L.A.’s dominance has continued to the present day and is
7 an obstacle to the objective assessment of library history; and thirdly, to rehabilitate the reputation of Charles Goss, one of the leading supporters of the closed-access argument.
• Promoting access to resources – Edzell. An agreement has been reached with Angus Libraries to give library historians access to the historic library at Edzell and the resources associated with it. Edzell library is a perfect example of a late 19th century public library and represents the nearest we are ever likely to get to a museum of library history.
• Conferences – On the 16th and 17th June the School of Information Management, Leeds Metropolitan University played host to over 30 participants in a British Academy funded international conference on the ‘History of Libraries and the Working Classes since the Eighteenth Century’. The event was arranged in association with the Library and Information History Group of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals and the Library History Section of the International Federation of Library Associations. The keynote speaker was Jonathan Rose, Professor of History at Drew University, New Jersey. Speakers ranged across library types – not just public libraries, but miners, community and works libraries also – in a variety of geographical contexts: Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Britain and the United States.
• The proceedings of the Third Annual Seminar on Library History, jointly convened in 2001 by the LIHG and the Wolfenbütteler Arbeitskreis für Bibliotheks-, Buch- und Mediengeschichte, were published as: Peter Vodosek, Alistair Black, and Peter Hoare, (eds), Mäzenatentum für Bibliotheken / Philanthropy for Libraries (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004), 304pp, ISBN 3447051590. Two members of the LIHG committee were co-editors of the volume, and five committee members also contributed revised papers as essays for the volume. Preparation is currently underway for the Fourth Annual Seminar on Library History, Libraries and Innovation, organised by two LIHG committee members and due to take place at the British Library in September.
• A History of Libraries in Britain and Ireland, with which the LIHG has been involved since its inception more than ten years ago, has now received the accolade of being styled a "Cambridge History" and is planned to be published by CUP in three volumes as The Cambridge History of Libraries in Britain and Ireland in 2006. The third volume, covering 1850-2000 and edited by Alistair Black and Peter Hoare, is now well advanced in production, while vols. 1 (to 1640) and 2 (1640-1850) are expected to follow very soon. The three volumes will be marketed as a set and will offer a unique panorama of library history across a 8 millennium and a half. The third volume makes a special feature of the development of the library and information profession and the impact of modern technology, while surveying in detail the development of increasingly varied patterns of libraries. LIHG members are also contributing to the forthcoming History of the Book in Scotland.
• Progress report: AHRB Historic Library Buildings Project This is a three-year research project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Board. December 2004 saw the completion of the first phase of the project which was based at Leeds Metropolitan University School of Information Management. The project has now moved to Liverpool for phases two and three and is based at Liverpool University School of Architecture. The project is running under the joint direction of Professor Simon Pepper (Liverpool University) and Professor Alistair Black (Leeds Metropolitan University). The research officer for the first phase of the project is Kaye Bagshaw (Liverpool University). During the past year in-depth research has been carried out at the RIBA and CILIP libraries. Material has also been consulted at the British Library, the Thomas Parry Library in Aberystwyth and the Courtauld Institute Library. Visits are planned to selected libraries throughout the coming year. The research findings have been recorded on an Access database which will be used as a research tool throughout the project. By the end of April 2005 information on almost 1000 existing library buildings and over 60 demolished buildings had been recorded in the database.
• Preservation and conservation – LIHG is now represented (by Peter Hoare) on the CILIP Preservation and Conservation Panel, a lively and active group covering a number of special interests. This allows us to develop our role as the "historical conscience" of CILIP and also to give practical advice matters concerning on historic libraries, though our link with the Historic Libraries Forum
• Meetings – Three committee meetings were held: Committee meeting and AGM held at School of Information Management, Leeds Metropolitan University during the conference on the ‘History of Libraries and the Working Classes since the Eighteenth Century’ both on 17th June 2004; Committee meeting and tour of the library, Chetham’s Library, Manchester, 8th November 2004; Committee meeting and tour of the library, Maughan Library, King’s College, London, 30th March 2005.
• Website usage – March 04-March 05 Average daily unique visitors: 8 Average weekly unique visitors: 59 Average monthly unique visitors: 260 9 LIHG COMMITTEE MEETINGS 2005
30 March ~ Maughan Library, King’s College London 1 July ~ University of Manchester (Umbrella 2005) 10 November ~ Linen Hall Library, Belfast Full minutes of all committee meetings are posted on the LIHG website. Members are very welcome to observe at all committee meetings. Where possible, talks or tours are arranged in conjunction with meetings to encourage wider participation from the membership. Such events are advertised on the LIHG mailing list (see http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/lis-libhist.html) and in Gazette.
There follows a summary of the business conducted at the March committee meeting:
Discussion of the Church Commissioners’ Report. The draft report on the Church of England’s documentary heritage has now been published (see http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers/docheritage.doc). In summary, the report concluded that there was a lack of national leadership on the issue of documentary heritage, and that a more holistic approach was needed. The most significant aspects were the recognition of the good work done at Lambeth Palace and the decision to appoint a Director of Libraries and Archives. [Post meeting note: this post has now been advertised.]
Libraries under threat. Updates were given on various libraries. The situation at York has improved, and a report would be given at the seminar ‘Libraries in danger’ scheduled for 26 April, jointly organised by the Preservation and Conservation Panel and the Rare Books Group [see detailed report below]. The dispersal of collections and staff of the Science Museum was an area of particular concern at the moment. The recent dispute between the Burlington House libraries and the government over rent had now been resolved, but the recent sale of books from Llandaff Cathedral Library highlighted the need to identify potential threats to libraries in future.
Library history The transfer of editorship from Keith Manley to Alistair Black had gone smoothly and there was plenty of material for the forthcoming issue. Maneys have now made the journal available online to subscribers. The position of book reviews editor was now vacant, following Chris Baggs’ resignation. [Post meeting note: this position has now been filled by Ed Potten, LIHG Secretary.]
10 LIHG website 16 branches and groups had participated in the initial phase of the CILIP website development project. Ultimately the LIHG was likely to adopt the CILIP model, but would wait for any initial teething problems to be sorted out. A summary of web usage for the previous 12 months was circulated.
CILIP matters including the Review of Groups The Committee discussed at length the recent questionnaire on the on the Review of Special Interest Groups issued to members by CILIP and the Group’s response to this. It was agreed that the individual section of the questionnaire should be filled out and returned by individuals, but that a Group response was appropriate to the section intended for serving committee members, with an accompanying letter outlining and stressing certain points. This letter would outline some specific areas of concern: whether a performance indicator culture is planned; what the real agenda behind the questionnaire is (the reduction in the number of groups or a new, supplemental funding model or both?); and the objective criteria on which the existence of SIGs should be based.
Umbrella 2005 Two talks were scheduled for Umbrella 2005 under the banner of the Munford Memorial Lecture. Peter Chapman would speak on the Register of Members’ Interests followed by Peter Hoare speaking on Munford’s Who was who? and the need to update it. Two further sessions of interest to the Group were also scheduled: Alistair Black and Kaye Bagshaw were speaking on the Early British Public Library Buildings - Origins, Condition and Future Roles project, and Dave Muddiman was also speaking on “The Early Information Society”.
Newsletter editor It was confirmed that Chris Baggs was unable to continue as newsletter editor, and despite pursuing various avenues to locate a replacement, there had been no interest as yet. The model currently adopted by the Historic Libraries Forum whereby each committee member took a turning at editing and producing a newsletter would be adopted as an interim measure, while a permanent editor was actively sought.
Treasurer’s report A second independent examiner for the accounts was still being sought; Group members in Cambridge would be approached. [Post meeting note: the Group is grateful to Patricia Aske and Anna Jones, librarians of Pembroke and Wolfson Colleges respectively, for examining the accounts.] Summary accounts were circulated. Interest paying accounts had been investigated, but the Group’s primary concern was to ensure that funds were deployed effectively to further the Group’s work, rather than accumulating interest.
11 LIHG/Wolfenbüttel library history seminar 10 speakers had been confirmed so far. An advert would be placed in Gazette. Attendance would be free for CILIP members, with a nominal charge of £25 for non-members.
Future meetings Possible venues were discussed, including Bristol for spring 2006, where Bill Bell might be invited to speak on shipboard libraries.
Other matters The Edzell access policy has been passed to CILIP Scotland, from whom no response has yet been received. Two entries have been received for the Library History Essay Award. A number of papers of interest to library historians would be included in the programme for IFLA. Concern was expressed as to the fate of ASLIB’s archives, to be investigated further.
LIBRARIES IN DANGER: REPORT BY PETER HOARE ON THE CILIP SEMINAR ON 26 APRIL 2005
The seminar was organised by the Rare Books Group and by the CILIP Advisory Panel on Preservation and Conservation (which I sit on, and where I can bring the Historic Libraries Forum matters into the CILIP orbit), following concern in recent months over the number of libraries threatened with dispersal or closure – several of these cases have been reported in Forum’s Bulletin. A lively attendance meant that discussion and questions following each paper added to the day’s success and enjoyment.
Robin Price, chair of the Pres & Con Panel, opened the seminar, with reference to cases such as the Royal Commonwealth Society, York Minster, special collections at Keele University and the Science Museum Library, and the possible threats to Government department libraries and special collections in metropolitan public libraries. He said there was a need to persuade the Government to provide funds for emergencies of this kind, and cited a recent AMARC meeting on collections in danger, referring to the Mappa Mundi at Hereford and more recently the Macclesfield Psalter.
Philip Plumb was indisposed but his key-note paper was read in his absence. He referred to a note in the 2nd edition of the Directory of Rare Book and Special Collections, as long ago as 1997, on the great losses that had taken place since the first edition, and regretted that the dangers had not disappeared. In 1947, after India independence, the India Office Library and Records faced demands for “repatriation” of its collections to India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – and he feared such demands would not be resisted today, though they would mean the
12 break-up of an integral whole. He recommended that arising from the seminar CILIP and other bodies needed to develop defence mechanisms and procedures – ensuring prior notice of threats, with a network of informants, and seeking ways to fight such threats. These could affect not only small and vulnerable libraries but also collections within large libraries – such collections were still being formed and needed protection into the future.
Brian Jenkins spoke controversially about the successful bid by Cambridge University Library for the Royal Commonwealth Society’s collections, 250,000 items which came to Cambridge in 1993 – in the context of 30 other major collections of printed books taken in within a few years. The University Library faced serious problems in dealing with such acquisitions (some deposited, not even the property of the University, but still demanding costly conservation and management). The RCS collections are now better recorded and preserved than ever before, and form an important part of the library’s research collections; but they have lost the intimacy of open-access approach possible in their original home with specialist and experienced staff of their own. He felt that a similar opportunity ten years later could not, in practical terms, have been seized by the university, and questioned whether even the consultation figures of 3000 items a year could really justify the on-going investment. In response to questions, he said that storage of large collections was a major problem, especially for legal-deposit libraries, and that outside funding was getting ever harder to find. In a sense the University Library was “doing it for the nation” and would not consider discarding – but there were implications for Government support for such national needs.
John Powell gave a partly reassuring picture of the present arrangements for York Minster Library following the debacle two years ago, with the new Dean speaking of “walking on firm ground” and an advisory committee set up – though meeting only infrequently and without much staff consultation! The library now contributed to the “York Libraries Forum”, intended to publicise holdings of all types, and was now better integrated into the Minster administration. Nonetheless it was clear that the library had only limited links with its parent body and was not at all heavily used, or much appreciated, by members of the Chapter, who formed the governing body – and this was a worry for the future, one shared by many similar libraries within the Church of England. Suggestions from the floor included the use of the media, from local and national television to Private Eye, to publicise the value of such libraries and attract public support.
Geoff Allen spoke on public libraries and their special collections. A 1998 survey by LASER had assessed the importance of these collections, with many being rated as of “national” importance. They included, for example, local collections which might contain material on local characters of national importance, and collections of regional importance whose importance was
13 sometimes not acknowledged even by their custodians, and which were less well known as a result of the decline in regional bureaux and inter-lending generally. Much of the old subject-specialisation coverage for non-fiction had been abandoned. Special collections no longer had priority, either for librarians who were no longer “bookmen” or in the face of new funding initiatives which stressed “modern” technology and media. He hoped that the MLA’s designation scheme for libraries might improve matters, though he had doubts about its appropriateness for public libraries (as against local museums), and also referred to a working party on collections in the south-east under the Association of London Chief Librarians. Sarah Dodgson, on behalf of the Rare Books Group, said that in looking at producing a new edition of the Directory of Rare Book and Special Collections the RBG had found opposition to the whole idea of reporting losses, especially among public librarians, who feared “upsetting the apple cart”.
The threat to the Science Museum Library was the subject of a presentation by Jon Tucker, head of the Science Museum, and Nick Wyatt from the library. The increase in rents imposed by Imperial College, despite the integration of the SML with the College Library, and the balance of use between college and museum staff, meant that the Museum, with its funding already under review, could no longer afford to operate the library in its present form. Options under consideration were dispersal of the collections (e.g. to the BL / College / Museum), or keeping them together but on other London sites or perhaps a remote store in Wiltshire. One problem for the library was that it was seen, internally, as in competition with the Museum itself, which found it easier to attract sponsorship. As a national institution, the Museum needed to establish what Government really wanted for such museums and libraries – this might be a good test case.
The last paper, by Gordon Graham, was more positive. He described his formula for creating special collections: Fashion + Purpose + Money. After noting Aaron Lansky’s Outwitting History on rescuing the books of Yiddish civilisation, his own example was the Burma Campaign Memorial Library, one of a number he had founded, and established specifically as a “war memorial” to include all published material on the campaign. He had developed a strategy for fund-raising, involving precepts such as “Demonstrate you’ve already done something” and “Don’t ask for small sums”.
An open discussion section produced a number of ideas (and other disaster stories such as the disposal of material by the BBC). The importance of special collections as an “accumulating asset” needed to be made clear to parent bodies bent on raising a quick profit; exhibitions demonstrating the breadth of many collections, beyond their obvious subject content, were another way of opening eyes to their value. The role of whistleblowers and the early symptoms of decline were discussed at some length, with pleas for CILIP to recognise the
14 difficulties and encourage appropriate action. However, not all situations call for a major public outcry (as at York Minster) – the learned societies in Burlington House preferred to negotiate (successfully) with Government without outside pressure being applied.
Finally, Robin Price wound up the seminar (noting that the scale of concern could be judged by its having been twice over-subscribed) with an undertaking to make CILIP much more fully aware of the fact that libraries are in danger, and that the right approach to dealing with individual cases and with the problem at large should be a high priority. It had been a stimulating if often depressing day – but at least I was able to tell those present about the Historic Libraries Forum and its concerns in this field, and attracted many people to sign up for our mailing list!
FORMER LIBRARY HISTORY GROUP COMMITTEE MEMBER HONOURED.
Ian Roy Willison, CBE
Ian Willison's many friends in the library history world will be pleased to learn that his name appears on the Queen's Birthday Honours list for 2005. In a June 11th announcement by the Prime Minister's office, Willison was named a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) for services to the history of the book.
Willison is co-general editor (with John Barnard and David McKitterick) of the multi-volume Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, published by the Cambridge University Press. Two volumes in this series have thus far appeared: volume III (co-edited by Lotte Hellinga and J. B. Trapp) covering the period 1400-1557, published in 1999; and volume IV (co-edited by John Barnard, the late D. F. McKenzie, and Maureen Bell) covering the period 1557-1695, published in 2002.
Willison spent most of his professional career at the Library of the British Museum, later the British Library (BL), where from 1974 he was head successively of the Rare Books Branch and the English Language Branch; he retired from the BL in 1987. He was the General Editor of volume IV (1900- 1950) of the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, published in 1972. He has given many lectures throughout the English-speaking world and on the Continent. Currently, he is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of English Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London.
British Honours are awarded twice a year, in June and at the New Year. They are given to people for all types of service, including teachers, nurses, actors,
15 scientists, diplomats and broadcasters. The largest number of awards goes to those providing services to their local communities - mainly volunteers. A spokesperson for the Prime Minister's office said about this year's list: "A key aim has been to reward those who work and serve at the sharp end - people who have really changed things, or who have given outstanding service to others in difficult situations."
A REVISION OF MUNFORD’S “WHO WAS WHO IN BRITISH LIBRARIANSHIP”
By Peter Hoare
This is a slimmed-down version of the paper given as the first W.A. Munford Memorial Lecture at the CILIP Umbrella Conference, Manchester, 1 July 2005. It complemented a presentation by Peter Chapman on the Professional Achievements Register. The occasion was made more noteworthy by the presence of Munford’s daughter Alison Sproston (Deputy Librarian, The London Library) and her husband Geoffrey Sproston (formerly Cambridgeshire Libraries), who had also supplied me with a file of Munford’s notes and his typescript autobiography.
W.A. Munford’s “Who Was Who in British Librarianship 1800-1985” was published by the Library Association in 1987 and now alas out of print in this form, though K.G. Saur have negotiated with CILIP to include it in their microfiche collection “British Bibliographical Archive to 2002”. It sits on my desk with other essential reference books and was particularly valuable when I was indexing the third volume of the “Cambridge History of Libraries in Britain and Ireland” earlier this year.
The information in “Who Was Who” covers a wide range of senior librarians who worked after 1800 and who died before 1985. It is not restricted to members of the Library Association (which in any case was only founded in 1877) so includes many significant people who did not belong to our professional association. It’s in quite a compressed form, with abbreviations such as “ 1CL “ for “first chief librarian”, “DL” for “Deputy Librarian” and so on. Public libraries are given in capitals with the names they had at the time, with the 1985 equivalent local authority in brackets where different, so you find “BRISTOL (AVON)” or “SHOREDITCH (HACKNEY)”. Most other libraries are given in fuller forms, but it is a little puzzling to see for Robert Harrison “CL Leeds 1854; CL London 1857-1893” (not in capitals) – this was in fact the Leeds Library and the London Library, both important subscription libraries. Some entries have narrative notes, very often deriving from Munford’s own long and wide acquaintanceship in the profession; others include only bare facts.
16 My copy is full of slips of paper with additions, and pencil notes of corrections, amendments or possible additions litter the pages. Munford would not have been surprised at this: he made many references to the possibility of a second edition, and of extensions to the period covered, and was well aware that he had not compiled THE biographical dictionary for all time. (That wasn’t his style anyway.) And the file of notes that his family discovered after his death again contains both some of his original working papers, and many suggestions for extending the coverage and adding names – as well as some intriguing pieces of correspondence I shall be referring to. Some of these notes for additions are in his own handwriting (getting I’m afraid less legible as the years went on), others from different people and from various sources.
Munford’s intentions started early. When the Library History Group began in 1962 – largely on his initiative – one of the plans was for better biographical information about past librarians. Munford pushed for the LA Record (as it then was) to set up a “morgue” of obituary notices for significant members of the profession who were still alive – this is a practice used by many national newspapers. I don’t think this ever happened, and I know that now the initiative for getting an obituary into “Update” rests largely with individual members who have known the deceased and want to commemorate her or him. There is not now – and really never was – any guidance on what ought to be included (even the basics of date of birth and death, principal posts held etc.), so that some are excellent, others less useful for the historian wishing to check on someone’s professional career.
Munford’s work on the enterprise which ended as “Who Was Who” started several years before he decided that he had better stop collecting material and get it into print before he himself became a candidate for his own book. It was originally called a “Biographical Dictionary of British Librarians” and was compiled using a form sent to libraries asking for information about individuals who were thought to have worked there. The reasonable assumption was that employing authorities kept records of their employees and could provide reliable data – but this often proved to be not the case! Some provided legendary information “We do not know anything of his life after Wimbledon. Tradition has it that he left under a cloud “ (that was Thomas Henry Rabbit, chief librarian at Wimbledon 1886-96 – nothing to do with anyone else’s departure from Wimbledon this week!)
After publication in 1987, the work was quite widely reviewed, with general commendation and applause, though some misguided souls couldn’t really think who would ever use it. Munford also received a number of suggestions for correction or improvement, some of which are to be found in the papers he left at his death. There is a remarkable amount of anecdotal history! One letter interested me particularly, because it illustrates how ready Munford was to accept criticism and disarm the critic. John Simpson, then librarian of the Open
17 University but formerly on the staff of Nottingham Public Library, wrote to complain of the “gratuitous insult” to John Potter Briscoe:
You dismiss him as a county historian and father of the best forgotten W.A. Briscoe, whose mess Duncan Gray had to clear up. Consider what John Potter did, e.g. He built up a reference library better than most … 1882 First library building entirely dedicated to work with children. 1885 First LA examinations in a provincial town … 1890 Pioneering extension work … Taken together, these suggest that rare combination – a practical, progressive bookman.
Munford replied
I can only repeat Dr Johnson’s explanation when accused of an inaccurate definition – “Pure ignorance!” I can perhaps add, in partial defence, that I virtually copied , for the W.A.B. entry, the report made on him by Notts in response to my specific enquiry. … I knew Duncan Gray reasonably well … I do not remember him expressing a word of criticism anent W.A.B. Perhaps this in itself ought to have been revealing to me. But, as I was then myself clearing up in Cambridge after W.A. Fenton I probably thought that nobody else was likely to be facing a more exacting task!
Fenton was Munford’s predecessor at Cambridge Public Library – for whom he gives no details whatsoever in “Who Was Who” apart from the posts held! His letter to John Simpson continued:
Any pioneer compiler of a book such as my Who Was Who inevitably leads himself open to criticism … helpful comments such as yours I greatly appreciate as they can be of great help in preparing a later edition. But at the age of 76 plus I shall almost certainly have to leave this task to somebody younger.
It’s worth noting, in fact that Alistair Black, our chairman today, wrote an excellent entry on John Potter Briscoe for the new Oxford Dictionary of National Biography – so things have come right in the end!
Well now, there is Munford’s explicit invitation to the younger generation to pick up the challenge of a new edition. What is needed, and who will take it on? I do think it’s a worth-while task and will contribute considerably to the historical record if it can be expanded and brought up to date – preferably without losing too much of the characteristic Munford style, with his off-the- cuff comments and acute perceptions of other librarians. Let’s look at what would be needed.
18 First of all, the existing work is not in electronic form, which would make a lot of things easier to handle – especially correction of errors and insertion of new data, obviously, but also to create one of the tools that Munford simply could not face compiling. Several reviewers of WWW commented on the lack of an index of libraries, cross-referenced to the main list of names; this could be relatively easily done from a digitised file (it’s not quite straightforward because of the changes in parent bodies and local authorities since 1985, so that e.g. Bristol is now Bristol again and not Avon, which has gone down the river altogether). That would help to show how certain libraries (and librarians) were breeding- grounds for chiefs elsewhere, like Joe Lamb at Sheffield Public Libraries and B.S. Page at Leeds University Library. And it might cut out one or two duplicates, like Edith J. Hutt, chief at Waterloo with Seaforth public library 1897-1902, who also appears under her maiden name Taylor (without her date of death or middle name, but with a link to her father, librarian at Douglas IOM).
Then there are additions – ones missed by Munford for one reason or another. I have “trawled” a number of books, histories of libraries, old directories etc., and added many names in that way; and much more could be done; in any case library histories are still being written and providing new data! The new Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, already referred to, is another obvious source – Liz Chapman, writing about it in the March “Update”, gave a figure of 127 librarians - and on-line files of Who’s Who etc. should also fill out information
Just as important is the updating. 1985 seems like only yesterday to some of us, but many librarians have died in the past twenty years and deserve inclusion in a new edition. There are names just from the past year like Lorna Paulin, Michael Smethurst, Ogilvie MacKenna – not forgetting William Arthur Munford himself in 2002 – and many others who have been featured in obituaries in the professional press (and some who have missed that honour, no doubt). K.W. Humphreys; Donald Urquhart; A.W. McClellan; the list goes ever on and on. Checking through these – in the “LA Record” and in “Update”, in “Aslib Proceedings” and IIS publications, in publications of many specialist groups and even in newspapers – will be a chore but one enlivened with the personal insights that so often illuminate an obituary. Then there are the lists of members who have died in the previous year prepared by the LA for the annual report, and now I think by CILIP and no doubt by other bodies too. And the broadening of the profession will offer new names, of those working in the information world which intersects with traditional librarianship and who must certainly be included along with pioneers like S.C. Bradford (who is already in, I’m glad to say).
Tracing all these won’t be very easy, but should not be impossible; and collecting data on their lives and careers will also be a challenge, since libraries and other employers seem less willing either to collect and retain personal data -
19 or to release it, on grounds of confidentiality! (There is nothing new in this. In 1983 Jock Murison wrote to Munford about tracing librarians in the West Riding: “So many good books and so many files were destroyed during the war by waste-paper enthusiasm or the damp of the County Hall basement … The destructive enthusiasm was repeated in 1974” [with local government re- organisation].) But enterprises like the Professional Achievements Register that Peter Chapman has spoken about, the memories of the Retired Members Guild, the resources of the Internet (even “Friends Reunited” perhaps), should all ease the path of whoever takes on this important work.
Should Munford’s principles be changed? He restricted his list to chiefs, deputies and those others with significant achievements – that may be a harder distinction to make today, when titles of library posts have changed beyond recognition; but it is probably impossible to include everyone who has ever worked in a library, so maybe some sort of distinction is a necessary criterion. He aimed for conciseness in his entries, with a minimum of extraneous information and little in the way of bibliographical references; we tend to demand such information nowadays – but in an electronic version maybe hyperlinks could serve in its place. His personal comments must not be lost, though it would be hard to find anyone with his range of acquaintance and so good a way with words; but it would be a pity if the essential characteristics of say Douglas Foskett or R.L. Collison – or Munford himself - were not recorded succinctly. There is probably no need to widen the range of libraries he covered, since he was omnivorous, though as I have said there are now new professional areas which need to be brought in. And what should be the closing date? Twenty-five years on from 1985 would bring us to 2010, perhaps a conceivable target, only five years away now – any further into the future would threaten the project with running into the sand. Or might it become an organic update, perhaps even a Wiki-Who-Was-Who with continuous updating from anyone with data to add?
All in all there is a splendid project waiting for the right person. Who will answer my challenge? I know the Library & Information History Group will offer all possible support, and we have a good start with Munford’s own files and all the notes collected over the years. The history of our profession depends to a great extent on accurate information about our colleagues and predecessors. Here is a way to make a major contribution!
Anyone interested in pursuing this challenge, whether personally or as part of a team (for which a research grant might be sought), is asked to contact Peter Hoare [email protected] on behalf of the LIHG.
20 NOTES ON PROFESSIONAL DEMOGRAPHY
In an obituary notice of Lorna Paulin published in Update (April 2005, 47), I noted that salaries of County Librarians appointed in the implementation of the Public Libraries Act of 1919 were low by comparison with those of well established services in urban areas, the heads of which were often non-graduate men. Further, women were often required to resign on marriage and that ‘These factors explain in part the number of influential women county librarians from the 1920s until late in the century’ – I hesitated to call them ‘blue stockings’.
Thomas Kelly in his History of Public Libraries in Great Britain, 1845-1975, 2nd ed 1977 records aspects of the inadequate financing of County Libraries. Quoting from the Board of Education Report on public libraries in England and Wales, 1927 [Kenyon Report] he notes that ‘Scarcely less distinguished [than City Librarians], though much less well rewarded, were some of the new County Librarians such as Miss A S Cooke in Gloucestershire and Kent, J D Cowley in Lancashire… . ‘In Pembrokeshire the work was undertaken on a half time basis by the Deputy Director of Education’. He adds a note from an unpublished MA thesis by John Roe that ‘A full time librarian was not appointed until 1951’.
In compiling the Paulin obituary, I had also in the back of my mind a very general question – the comparative absence of study and publication of aspects of what may be termed our professional demography, of the ways in which the labour force changes and the causes of such changes. Studies of individual librarians such as those by William Munford of William Ewart (1960) and Edward Edwards (1963) and an example hot off the press - ‘Maurice Line: a celebration of a lifetime in librarianship’ in Interlending & Document Supply, 33 (2) 2005 - are all examples of individuals as change agents who, in quasi- Marxist terms, brought about changes in the modes of production and distribution of library materials. What we lack are accounts of identifiable groups, cohorts even, of librarians who constitute such groups or cohorts. Early and latter day women County Librarians such as Lorna Paulin and Miss A S Cooke, Miss F E Cook of Lancashire, Miss M F Austin of Nottinghamshire and Hertfordshire, Miss N McCririck of Somerset, Miss G Jones of Buckinghamshire and Miss O S Newman of Shropshire are members of one such identifiable group. Another group may be detected in the succession of librarians, including Maurice Line, from the British Museum Library/British Library who have significantly influenced library development generally.
A third group may be seen in the number of influential librarians from the Midlands and the North of England and particularly from the big cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds and some county libraries, who migrated southwards, often to London, in the 30’s and the immediate post war years; many became public Chief Librarians. Possible reasons for these movements include higher salaries in the south and the internal promotion
21 policies (‘waiting to fill dead men’s shoes’) of many provincial library systems. Among the migrants who became Chief Librarians were Frank Gardner (Luton), Sidney Horrocks (Reading), Eric Clough (Southampton), Ken Harrison (Westminster),W S Haugh (Bristol), three of whom became President of the Library Association. From Lancashire County Library came two directors of the UCL School of Librarianship – J D Cowley, killed on active service in WW2, and Raymond Irwin. Appointed to the British Library of Political and Economic Science, LSE, was Graham Woledge from Liverpool. Government Departments became acutely aware of the need for information during WW2 which led to the rapid development of government libraries in the immediate post-war period. A major part was played in these developments by librarians appointed from big provincial city reference libraries, for example Ken Mallaber (Board of Trade) and Wilfred Pearson (Ministry of Town and Country Planning), both from Birmingham Reference Library.
The comparative absence of study of these important library developments of the mid 20th century is, perhaps, an aspect of a lack of attention to one of the determinants of the effectiveness of library and information services - the character of the librarians working in them, their insights and their application of experience to new situations. Current discussion of the qualities of staff are perhaps over-concerned with ‘skills and competencies’ and ‘continuous professional development’, but recent emphasis on ‘leadership’ and difficulties of defining it in an LIS context, may lead those with historical bent to look at our professional demography in the middle years of the 20th century.
There is material enough here for lecturers in departments of library and information studies to display to students and to suggest divers dissertations: powers of suggestion I regret I have long ceased to have.
Edward Dudley City of London [email protected]
A RESPONSE TO AN ITEM IN THE SPRING 2005 NEWSLETTER:
The Public Library Commissioners of the United Parishes of St Margaret and St John the Evangelist, Westminster were informed of the correspondence which had taken place between Millicent Margaret Fawcett and their Secretary at their meeting on 25th June 1873. Normally such matters would have been referred directly to the Commissioners but in this case the Secretary was a former Commissioner who must have felt able to deal with the matter. The correspondence was as follows:
22 On 25th June the following letter was read to the Commissioners: 42 Bessborough Gardens, SW
May 13th
Sir,
Having occasion this afternoon to refer to a large number of the daily and weekly newspapers I visited the Free Public Reading Room in Great Smith Street. When I had been seated about three minutes I was informed by one of the Attendants that I must leave the Room as women were excluded from the Reading Room. I immediately left the room, but before quitting the building I read through the rules, and I do not find in them a single word which justifies the exclusion of women. This I pointed out to the Attendants but they insisted on their right to turn me out. The objection urged by one of the attendants that it would be impossible to maintain order in the Reading Room if women were in it is obviously fallacious for the rules provide for the expulsion of all persons who are guilty of disorderly behaviour &
Millicent Garrett Fawcett
The Secretary Mr Pratten’s reply was: Madam,
I have to acknowledge your letter of yesterday and am exceedingly sorry that any discourtesy was shewn you by the attendants.
I will lay your letter before the Commissioners at their next meeting in June and in the mean time have given directions that every facility shall be offered for any reference you may wish to make.
I am, etc
W.S. Pratten
The reply came: 42 Bessborough Gardens
May 17
My dear Sir,
I am much obliged by the receipt of your letter I have since visited the Reading Room, and the Attendants showed me no discourtesy &
M G. Fawcett
I hope to complete an account of this the first rate-supported public library in London to coincide with the 150th anniversary of the adoption of the Act in 1856 and to post it on my website.
Derek Jones OBE MA Hon FLA FCLIP www.derekjones.org
23 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS SOUGHT
It is now 15 years since the last edition of "British Library and Information Work", which included a five-year survey of work in library history by Paul Sturges. The publishers Ashgate have now commissioned a catch-up volume to cover 1991 to 2000, with a further one to come for 2001-2005. The editor Dr John Bowman of UCL has asked me to compile the chapter on library history. While I have quite a number of notes of publications in this period, it would be very helpful if members of the LIHG could send me an e-mail with bibliographical details of the more significant publications - not only books they have written or contributed to, or that they know about (e.g. local histories with significant library content), but also articles especially in journals other than "Library History", "Libraries & Culture" and "The Library". This will go a long way to compensate for the fact that the series of "British Library History: bibliography" has not been published since the volume going up to 1988, and I hope the resulting article will be useful in the same way. All contributions very gratefully received!
Peter Hoare [email protected]
24 Libraries and Innovation Fourth Anglo-German Seminar on Library History CILIP Library and Information History Group
CILIP: Registered Charity no. 313014 VAT no. GB 233 1573 87
In association with The British Library, the CILIP Library and Information History Group and the Wolfenbütteler Arbeitskreis für Bibliotheks-, Buch- und Mediengeschichte present the fourth in a series of Anglo-German seminars on library history:
Libraries and Innovation: Fourth Anglo-German Seminar on Library History Monday, 26th and Tuesday, 27th September 2005
The British Library Conference Centre 96 Euston Road London NW1 2DB
Librarians have been pioneers and entrepreneurs since the establishment of the very earliest libraries. Innovation in libraries has taken numerous forms, in such areas as acquisitions and collection building, administration and management, cataloguing and collection description, information dissemination, marketing and promotion, physical building and library planning, purpose and ideology, relationships with publishers and booksellers, services to users, and technology and invention. Professional and not so professional practice has blazed new and often unexpected trails which have benefited library users and the world at large.
The seminar will be conducted primarily in English and will explore aspects of the history of libraries and innovation. In particular, speakers will examine the library history of the British Isles and Germany from the middle ages to the recent past across a variety of types of library, including cathedral, commercial, country house, national, private, public, and university libraries. Speakers include Werner Arnold (Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel) Alistair Black (Leeds Metropolitan University), Stephen Colclough (University of Reading), Clara Cullen (University College Dublin), Graham Jefcoate (Radboud University Nijmegen Library), Michael Powell (Chetham’s Library), Mark Purcell (National Trust), Nikolaj Serikoff (Wellcome Library), Günter Tiggesbäumker (University of Paderborn), Peter Vodosek (University of Stuttgart), and Joan Williams (Durham Cathedral Library).
The seminar is free of charge to CILIP members, but restricted numbers mean that we need you to book your place. Non-members of CILIP will be charged £25 (including VAT) to cover costs. Tea and coffee refreshments are included. The closing date for bookings is Friday, 26th August 2005.
Further enquiries:
Dorothea Miehe Christopher Skelton-Foord [email protected] [email protected]
25