ii2 The Library. been important contributions to modern libraries, and had helped to make possible the present library development the world over. And in making this claim there is no wish to depreciate, as Mr. Brown evidently believes, either European libraries or librarians. What is claimed is that America, practically without libraries 50 years ago, has, from that very poverty been compelled to cope with difficulties unknown in Europe, and has done this so successfully that to-day it has not merely developed a great library system and constituency, but has helped to waken European libraries from their sleep of many years, and given them an impetus that is among our proudest achievements. If they are now sur- passing us, so much the better. We shall as thankfully accept develop- ments and improvements from them as they have from us. We are not competing in enmity. We are all the same brotherhood, eager only to make libraries as great a need and aid to the public as may be. Every European improvement on American ideas will be welcomed. We will revolutionize our methods, if we are but shown how. Give us something better, in kindliness or in criticism, and we will adopt it." MR. BROWN'S REPLY. I have no captious desire to say the last word on the comparative merits of British and American libraries and methods, but should like a small space in which to make a few friendly remarks on the courteous article above quoted. I share the writer's views as to the ease with which figures can mislead, and must congratulate him on the brilliant illustration he has given us of how they can be made to do so. The Manchester "circulation" of books in 1891 is stated at 702,000 per annum, as against my figure of 1,654,568 [1890-91 was 1,509,124]. This smaller total is evidently arrived at by taking the "home use" totals alone for 1890-91, and it does not, therefore, represent all the books actually issued for home-reading and those read on the premises. On the other hand, the Boston total of 1,715,860 includes 347,936 "numbers of periodicals passed . . . over the delivery desks of the Central Library," making the actual book issues of Boston, both for "home" and "hall" use, 1,367,924, as I have previously stated. Now, I want to know why the books read in the reference libraries of Manchester should be considered unworthy to rank in a comparison with those of Boston, whatever " difference of custom" may exist. It seems a very extraordi nary thing to take the whole of the work done in one year at Boston, and contrast it with the work of only one department at Manchester. The actual home-reading of Manchester in 1891-92 was 761,500 vols. [1890-91 702,000], and in 1892-93 it reached 872,655 vols. In Boston the total "home" use in 1892 was 719,464, and the "hall" use, in the Bates central and branch libraries, 648,460 vols. Adding the 347,936 " perio- dicals passed over the delivery desks," we get the total of 1,715,860 on which the American writer bases his conclusions. When I state that the "hall" use at Manchester, excluding parts of current periodicals and newspapers, amounted to 893,068 in the year I first quoted ; that the home use was 761,500, making the actual book issues 1,654,568 ; and that on top of all this 3,000,000 visits were made for the purpose of reading magazines and newspapers, it will be seen that the Library journal statistician has given his case away by sheer inaccuracy. But, why, on the other hand, should the work of our newsrooms be discounted ? Surely, if only because of their enormous clientele, they must be doing good work, and reaching a class of reader left untouched by both lending library, reference library and magazine or reading room? Again, my contention was, and is, that the volume of work accomplished by British libraries is much in excess of that of American libraries, while the comparative cost is very much
