American and British Libraries. 113 less. On such a basis, is it to be imagined that the newsroom work at Manchester, which absorbs a considerable amount of the working expenses, ought to be ignored because not represented at Boston, when the question is entirely one of the amount of work actually done for a certain expendi- ture ? This is simply lugging in the matter of comparative quality, which forms no part of the question at issue. If the Manchester libraries are used on an aggregate 5,073,825 times in 1892-93, and organise lectures besides, for a total expenditure of ,15,941, it is perfectly fair to claim that they are doing much more work for much less money than Boston with (in 1892) an aggregate use of 1,715,860 and an expenditure of over ,33,426. It is begging the question to regard it from any other stand- point. As a minor matter, it may be noted that Manchester, in 1891, employed 86 of a staff (excluding cleaners), while in Boston the staff numbers over 150. I shall waste no more time on comparative statistics, as it is quite evident that something in the rate of exchange exists which leads to extraordinary differences in the valuation of work. Personally, I am only too grateful for the stimulus which has come from the United States in many matters pertaining to library work, to haggle over the appraisement of the services which American librarians have rendered by their energetic methods. We followed them in the good example of forming a Library Association, which has done wonders in the development of the "public library" side of our work; we adopted with enthusiasm the labours of the late Ur. Poole and the present Mr. Fletcher ; and we have even considered, without occidental suggestion, huge projects like universal catalogues of literature. But we did not follow as regards card and dictionary catalogues, branch libraries, access to shelves, library architecture, and book deliveries. On the contrary, if we did not lead, we pointed the way, and the American knack of turning everything to the best commercial purpose, and the advantage they had of profiting from the lessons of old-world experience, did the rest. The card-catalogue has been more generally used in the United States than elsewhere, but what is it after all but an "adaptation from the French " ? It may interest American Librarians to know that card catalogues were used in the Bibliotheque Nationale more than 130 years ago ; in Trinity College, Dublin, over 60 years ago, and even in the Bank of England 42 years ago, for indexing purposes. Where, then, the novelty ? As a matter of opinion, I consider the card and sheaf systems of Bonnange (France), and Staderini and Sacconi (Italy), superior to any of the elaborate cabinet outfits yet devised by American ingenuity. That is, of course, on the score principally of public utility and ease in manipulation. Was the dictionary catalogue an original contribution to the machinery of librarianship, or only a mere development of older European plans ? I believe it was the latter, and have no hesitation in saying that it was evolved from the dictionary indexes which used of old (80 years ago and more) to accompany most British classed library catalogues. The Americans come in more as the users and developers of the amended plan, and as those who were quick to apply the system to free public library catalogues, than as originators. Private munificience has done nearly everything in America for the employment of architects, and the erection of many decidedly pretty and picturesque library build- ings ; but neither private nor public intervention have established a single principle in the planning and fitting of libraries which has not been pondered over and over again by European librarians and architects. And what is more to the point, American librarians have learned nothing from their superior experience which is of general application. I make a present to the United States of the "Library School" idea with all my heart. May its operations not in course of time flood the universal globe and librarianship with a " monstrous regiment of women," which neithe
