Search results

ALTHOUGH the first Public Libraries (Scotland) Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1853, it was not until 1899 that the Corporation of the City of Glasgow was empowered to establish and maintain public libraries throughout the city. Between 1876 and 1897 four attempts were made to secure public approval for the adoption of the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, but when all these efforts proved unsuccessful, the Corporation decided in June, 1888 to include in a Local Bill for submission to Parliament, certain clauses conferring upon themselves the power to become a library authority. Promoted in 1899, the Bill became known as the Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, Libraries, etc.) Act 1899, and the library clauses passed through Parliament without opposition and received Royal Assent on 1st August, 1899. The powers conferred by this Local Act empowered the Corporation:

This chapter considers the political controversy in Britain over the lifting of restrictions of freedom of movement on European Union (EU) citizens from Bulgaria and Romania in January 2014. The response of the then Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government centred on altering the rules on the payment of welfare benefits to potential new EU immigrants such that they would not be entitled to claim these benefits for 3 months after entry to the United Kingdom. This policy led to a split in the coalition, with the Liberal Democrat leadership claiming that it was a panicked move by the majority Conservative coalition partner, and moreover that it was a blatant attempt to appeal the electorate in an effort to be seen to be doing something to stop the welfare benefit system from being abused by ‘foreigners’. The backdrop to this political fracas centred on the economic contribution of East European immigrants to Britain and the claim and counterclaim over the issues jobs, welfare benefits and services such as English language support in schools. These contentious issues are examined in terms of an analysis of online comments to posted in reaction to a political interview with Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat business secretary, who claimed that the Conservatives were attempting to placate public disquiet over immigration as a response to the rising popularity of the United Kingdom Independence Party.

This article examines a range of issues associated with gangs in incarcerated settings. We begin by examining the similarities and differences between street and prison gangs, and differentiating them from other types of criminal groups. Next, we focus on the emergence and growth of gangs in prison, including patterns and theoretical explanations. Importantly, we draw theoretical linkages between differing perspectives on gang emergence and gang violence. We also present administrative and official responses to gangs in prison. Finally, we discuss the movement from prison to the street, examining the difficulties that former prisoners face when re‐entering communities.

IN last month's Library World attention is drawn to the subject of literary history and its teaching by Mr. Sayers, who points out some weak points in the syllabus and examination scheme of the Library Association. His remarks recall the fact that this subject has always been a difficult and rather inflammable one to tackle, because wrapped up in it is that other exciting question of Language, which must be taken in connection with Literature when considered as a teaching subject. We understand that the Literary History syllabus of the L.A. is merely a compromise, which arose out of a tangle caused by the language difficulty. The draft scheme for the teaching of Literary History which was first submitted, provided for a very strict limitation of the subject to the great authors of all nations, according to a list which had been prepared. This scheme proposed to get over the language difficulty by allowing for all purposes the use of text‐books and translations in English, because it was felt to be utterly ridiculous to expect students to be equipped with first‐hand knowledge of Homer, Dante, Hafiz, Confucius, the Vedas, Moliére, Cervantes, Schiller, Virgil, Tolstoy, and other great authors. This proposal, which would have limited the requirements of the examination to a biographical and critical knowledge of about 300 or 400 of the greatest authors of all times, was rejected, and in its place was adopted the compromise to which Mr. Sayers and many others object. This compromise on the face of it, limits the examination to English Literature only, but, when more closely scanned, it will be found also to demand a most extraordinary knowledge of all kinds of foreign authors, in a form which has not yet been systematically recorded. Apart from this, the dimensions of an unlimited survey of English Literature are enormous, because there is no attempt at definition. All that can be gathered from the actual Examination Papers is that the examiners have largely confined themselves to the purely critical side of the subject. But students are not told that modern technical and scientific literature is excluded, nor is any indication given which will show that it is the “literature of power,” and not of “knowledge,” in which candidates are expected to be proficient. Now, it is perfectly well known to every reader that not 1 per cent. of the books published is literature at all. The output of printed matter all over the world consists mostly of Lamb's “books which are not books”—text‐books, ephemera, rubbish in general, and other nondescript essays in typographical art—which have no real place in a Literary History Syllabus. It was to get over this anomaly, and equip students with the knowledge mostly required in libraries—an acquaintance with “books which are not books”—that the original draft scheme for the Literary History syllabus imposed a limitation which should prove effective in confining the examination to pure literature, and relegating the literature of knowledge to the sections devoted to Bibliography and Book Selection. In the present Syllabus, as revised, this distribution actually takes place, but with an extraordinary degree of overlapping which makes it necessary for a candidate to pass thrice in Literary History! He must first pass in Section I. Literary History, which demands among many other things a “knowledge of the editions and forms in which the works of the authors have been published.” Good. No limitation here, and any examiner would, accordingly, be perfectly fair and within his rights in asking for bibliographical details of Cocker's Arithmetic or Buchan's Domestic Medicine. Again, in Section II., Elements of Practical Bibliography, we have a demand for knowledge of book selection, the best books and periodicals, and courses of reading. Here, once more, no limitation, and again an examiner could ask when the first edition in English of the “Arabian Nights” was published,or what is the best edition of Cædmon or the Koran. Finally, in Section V., Library History and Organization, the same requirements are set forth, without any limitation, and candidates are evidently expected to possess a full knowledge of all literature before they can obtain a certificate. All this is very confusing and absurd, and gives point to every complaint which has been uttered against this part of the scheme of examinations. After all, a dilletante, gossipy, pseudo‐critical acquaintance with literary history is of very‐little practical value, compared with exact bibliographical knowledge concerning great authors and their works. For this reason we think the Association should carefully revise its Syllabus, and adopt a better‐proportioned and more equitable distribution of the subject. Section I. certainly requires strict limitation within reasonable bounds, and it ought to be confined to a working knowledge of the chief authors of the world according to a carefully prepared list of names. This should demand knowledge of biographical and critical facts, plus enough of bibliographical detail regarding titles to satisfy an examiner. Failing this, a list of authors, periods, or subjects selected for study and examination should be issued every year before the examination; but a fixed limitation to begin with would, we think, be better.

THE attention which has lately been given to the subject of registration may well be taken as indicative of a growing desire for it, and no one who has closely followed the growing importance of libraries in the educational life of the country, and the consequent impetus given to the craft of librarianship, can have doubted that ere many years had passed it would be necessary to establish a professional register as other professional and trade bodies have done.

A WEEK or two ago The Municipal Journal, in chronicling the opening of new libraries at Barrow and Bethnal Green, expressed the opinion that libraries “were having a new lease of life.” The phrase is a curious one, as we were not aware that libraries were in a state of senility, although we were vividly aware of their imperfections. It is, nevertheless, true that there has been unwonted library activity of late, and library matters now receive some real attention in the public press. The latter may be due in some measure to the recent publicity campaign of the Library Association. Still, that does not account for the fact that many places, hitherto not quite awake to the value of libraries, are now asking about them, as Sutton, Weymouth, Marylebone, Coulsoon and Purley, while others are pressing for development, especially in the direction of Children's Libraries.

ONE of the chief elements of success in Public Library work is suitable accommodation for books and readers, and it is interesting to note that Mr. Andrew Carnegie has recognised this by granting his money, in most cases, for buildings only. This means that many new libraries will commence with the best conditions as regards accommodation, and so escape the disabilities attaching to some of the older libraries through being housed in adapted buildings. Adapted buildings are rarely a success from an administrative point of view, as I can testify from personal experience.

William Blackwood, the founder of the firm of the name, saw service in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and London before opening in 1804 as a bookseller at 64 South Bridge, Edinburgh. Blackwood continued in his bookselling capacity for a number of years, and his shop became a haunt of the literati, rivalling Constable's in reputation and in popularity. His first success as a publisher was in 1811, when he brought out Kerr's Voyages, an ambitious item, and followed shortly after by The Life of Knox by McCrie. About this time he became agent in Edinburgh for John Murray, and the two firms did some useful collaborating. Blackwood was responsible for suggesting alterations in The Black Dwarf, which drew from Scott that vigorous letter addressed to James Ballantyne which reads: “Dear James,—I have received Blackwood's impudent letter. G ‐ d ‐ his soul, tell him and his coadjutor that I belong to the Black Hussars of Literature, who neither give nor receive criticism. I'll be cursed but this is the most impudent proposal that was ever made”. Regarding this story Messrs. Blackwood say: “This gives a slightly wrong impression. Scott was still incognito. William Blackwood was within his rights. He was always most loyal to Scott.” There has been some controversy as to the exact style of this letter, and it has been alleged that Lockhart did not print it in the same terms as Sir Walter wrote it. Blackwood came into the limelight as a publisher when he started the Edinburgh Monthly Magazine in 1817, which was to be a sort of Tory counterblast to the Whiggish Edinburgh Review. He appointed as editors James Cleghorn and Thomas Pringle, who later said that they realised very soon that Blackwood was much too overbearing a man to serve in harness, and after a time they retired to edit Constable's Scots Magazine, which came out under the new name of The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany. [Messrs. Blackwood report as follows: “No. They were sacked—for incompetence and general dulness. (See the Chaldee Manuscript.) They were in office for six months only.”] Blackwood changed the name of The Edinburgh Magazine to Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, and became his own editor, with able henchmen in John Wilson, Christopher North, John Gibson Lockhart, and James Hogg as contributors. It was a swashbuckling magazine, sometimes foul in attack, as when it told John Keats to get “back to the shop, back to plaster, pills, and ointment boxes”. Lockhart had a vigour of invective such as was quite in keeping with the age of Leigh Hunt, an age of hard‐hitting. The history of Blackwood in those days is largely the history of the magazine, though Blackwood was at the same time doing useful publishing work. He lost the Murray connexion, however, owing to the scandalous nature of some of the contributions published in Maga; these but expressed the spirit of the times. John Murray was scared of Blackwood's Scottish independence! Among the book publications of Blackwood at the period we find Schlegel's History of Literature, and his firm, as we know, became publisher for John Galt, George Eliot, D. M. Moir, Lockhart, Aytoun, Christopher North, Pollok, Hogg, De Quincey, Michael Scott, Alison, Bulwer Lytton, Andrew Lang, Charles Lever, Saintsbury, Charles Whibley, John Buchan, Joseph Conrad, Neil Munro—a distinguished gallery. In 1942 the firm presented to the National Library of Scotland all the letters that had been addressed to the firm from its foundation from 1804 to the end of 1900, and these have now been indexed and arranged, and have been on display at the National Library where they have served to indicate the considerable service the firm has given to authorship. The collection is valuable and wide‐ranging.

“WE come now to another aspect of the question, and it must be admitted that the resource and ingenuity of the opposition have left nothing unnoticed. This is the common and constantly repeated assertion that novels are so cheap that every working man in the country can buy all he needs for less than the annual library rate. This statement was first made some years ago when publishers commenced to issue cheap reprints of non‐copyright novels at 1s. and 6d. each. Previous to this the halfpenny evening paper had been relied upon as affording sufficient literary entertainment for the working man, but when it was found to work out at 13s. per annum, as against a library rate of 1od. or 1s. 4d., the cheap newspaper argument was dropped like a hot cinder. We doubt if the cheap paper‐covered novel is any better. Suppose a workman pays £20 per annum for his house, and is rated at £16, he will pay 1s. 4d. as library rate, or not much more than 1¼d. per month for an unlimited choice of books, newspapers and magazines. But suppose he has to depend on cheap literature. The lowest price at which he can purchase a complete novel of high quality by any author of repute is 3d., but more likely 4½d. or 6d. However, we will take 3d. as an average rate, and assume that our man has leisure to read one book every fortnight. Well, at the end of one year he will have paid 6s. 6d. for a small library by a restricted number of authors, and it will cost him an additional 4s. or 5s. if he contemplates binding his tattered array of books for future preservation. Besides this, he will be practically shut off from all the current literature on topics of the day, as his 3d. a fortnight will hardly enable him to get copyright books by the best living authors. With a Public Library at his command he can get all these, and still afford to buy an occasional poet or essayist, or novel, or technical book, well bound and printed on good paper, such as his friend who would protect him against an iniquitous library rate would not blush to see on his own shelves. It seems hard that the working men of the country should be condemned to the mental entertainment afforded by an accumulation of pamphlets. Literature clothed in such a dress as gaudy paper covers is not very inspiring or elevating, and even the most contented mind would revolt against the possession of mere reading matter in its cheapest and least durable form. The amount of variety and interest existing among cheap reprints of novels is not enough, even if the form of such books were better. It is well known to readers of wide scope that something more than mere pastime can be had out of novels. Take, for example, the splendid array of historical novels which have been written during the present century. No one can read a few of these books without consciously or unconsciously acquiring historical and political knowledge of much value. The amount of pains taken by the authors in the preparation of historical novels is enormous, and their researches extend not only to the political movements of the period, but to the geography, social state, costume, language and contemporary biography of the time. Thus it is utterly impossible for even a careless reader to escape noticing facts when presented in an environment which fixes them in the memory. For example, the average school history gives a digest of the Peninsular War, but in such brief and matter of fact terms as to scarcely leave any impression. On the other hand, certain novels by Lever and Grant, slipshod and inaccurate as they may be in many respects, give the dates and sequence of events and battles in the Peninsula in such a picturesque and detailed manner, that a better general idea is given of the history of the period than could possibly be acquired without hard study of a heavy work like Napier's History. It is hardly necessary to do more than name Scott, James, Cooper, Kingsley, Hugo, Lytton, Dumas, Ainsworth, Reade, G. Eliot, Short‐house, Blackmore, Doyle, Crockett and Weyman in support of this claim. Again, no stranger can gain an inkling of the many‐sided characteristics of the Scot, without reading the works of Scott, Ferrier, Galt, Moir, Macdonald, Black, Oliphant, Stevenson, Barrie, Crockett, Annie Swan and Ian Maclaren. And how many works by these authors can be had for 3d. each? The only way in which a stay‐at‐home Briton can hope to acquire a knowledge of the people and scenery of India is by reading the works of Kipling, Mrs. Steel, Cunningham, Meadows Taylor, and others. Probably a more vivid and memory‐haunting picture of Indian life and Indian scenery can be obtained by reading these authors than by reading laboriously through Hunter's huge gazetteer. In short, novels are to the teaching of general knowledge what illustrations are to books, or diagrams to engineers, they show things as they are and give information about all things which are beyond the reach of ordinary experience or means. It is just the same with juvenile literature, which is usually classed with fiction, and gives to that much‐maligned class a very large percentage of its turnover. The adventure stories of Ballantyne, Fenn, Mayne Reid, Henty, Kingston, Verne and others of the same class are positive mines of topographical and scientific information. Such works represent more than paste and scissors industry in connection with gazetteers, books of travel and historical works; they represent actual observation on the part of the authors. A better idea of Northern Canada can be derived from some of Ballantyne's works than from formal topographical works; while the same may be said of Mexico and South America as portrayed by Captain Mayne Reid, and the West Indies by Michael Scott. The volume of Personal Reminiscences written by R. M. Ballantyne before he died will give some idea of the labour spent in the preparation of books for the young. The life of the navy at various periods can only be learned from the books of Smollett, Marryat and James Hannay, as that of the modern army is only to be got in the works of Lever, Grant, Kipling, Jephson, “John Strange Winter” and Robert Blatchford.