THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 81, 7 April 1910, Page 3

THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY.

AUCKLAND PAPER REPLIES. [BX TU.tO.KAPH — SPECUL TO THE POST*.] AUCKLAND, This Day. The Star, in replying to the criticism of Mr. Wilson and The Post <n regard to itb previous article respecting the recess privileges at the Parliamentary Library, nays : — "We are pleaoed to learn that the annual outlay on fiction in fo small, but we may be permitted to point out that the amount of fiction already stored on the library shelves is *o large that any further addition is superfluous. The Chief Librarian tells us that the holders of ordinary recess privileges are not allowed to take out works of fiction with the exception of books by certain authors (enumerated). The only comments we feel inclined to make on this portentous list are that it should provide enough novel-reading for the average person's natural life, and that it must have cost a good deal of public money to build up such a magnificent collection of fiction. But this does not represent by any means the full dimensions of tho Parliamentary Library's fiction department. . . . We venture to think thai on the evidence supplied by Mr. Wilson himself we have fully substantiated our charge that an unnecessarily large and expensive quantity of fiction is stored up in the Parliamentary Library, and that a great deal of it ! is being circulated among the Wellington public. "But, apart from the quertion of including fiction in a Parliamentary Library, continue* the Star, "we further claim that this library, being intended for purposes of reference, should not be treated as a circulating libiary, and that whatever benefits it affords, being provided from the public funds, should not be confined to a small and specially favoured section of the community. . . ' Referring to The Post's editorial comment, the Star says : — "Apparently our contemporary has failed to grasp thn point of our" objection. . . . Surely there is a clear distinction between circulating ! libraries and reference libraries, and surely The Post is not prepared to argue "that they are established for the same purpose and murt be used in tho same way. We agree that it is theoretically the aim of libraries of the circulating type to give facilities to the general public for the free study of literary masterpieces in tbeir own homes, and i so long ns the rhararter of the Jiteratuee supplied is kept up to a high standard we consider that such libraries are performing a very important public- function, but Jhe library wo have been discursing was intended to be a library of reference for our legisiatore. . . . The most important national libraries in the world, from the British Museum downwards, are strictly reference, and not circulating libraries. We take it that the Parliamentary Library was originally intended to be iuM such » national institution, and we fail to see how this object can be attained if the valuable books that arc supposed to be permanently lodged the>-e are being constantly worn out by circulation. In Sydney and in Melbourne great national collections are being steadily built up, at a heavy annual expense, strictly as reference libraries, and we uee nothing 'retrograde* in this policy. . . . The privileges extended to the general public of Wellington in regard to the circulation of this library*; hook? are, we believe, absolutely unparalleled elsewhere. Far from advocating the 'dog in the- manger' policy which The Post imputes to v.«, we would infinitely prefer to see the Parliamentary Library thrown open during the recess to the general public for purpose of reference only, but as matters now stand we think that the people of New Zealand have good cause to object to a system which is tending rapidly to destroy the value of this expensive and important public institution nnd, we repeat, converting what should be an unrestricted public right into a mo-t objectionable form of social patronage." I