museums in all municipal towns. An Act called the Museums Act was passed four years previously, enabling town councils, in towns having a population of 10,000 inhabitants and upwards, to levy a small rate to establish museums of science and art for the benefit of the public; and all that the present Bill proposed was to extend the principle of the Museums Act to the establishment of Public Libraries also. In asking the House to adopt such a measure, he was backed by the feeling of many of the towns of the country; and since he had introduced it, he had received communications from several large towns in Scotland and Ireland, who were desirous of having the Bill extended to both of those countries. Afterwards'

Colonel Sibthorp said he would be happy to contribute his mite towards providing libraries and museums and proper recreation for the humbler class in large towns; but he thought that, however excellent food for the mind might be, food for the body was what was now most wanted for the people. He did not like reading at all, and he hated it when at Oxford; but he could not see how one halfpenny in the pound would be enough to enable town councils to carry into effect the immense powers they were to have by this Bill. He felt that this Bill would increase the taxation of the people in times when it was not at all necessary, and, therefore, he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six

months.

Mr. Brotherton was surprised at the opposition to the Bill. In the first place, the measure was entirely permissive; and secondly, the rate was limited to one halfpenny in the pound.

The money could, he pointed out, only be applied to the erection of, or paying rent for a building for holding a Public Library or Museum. No power was given to lay out the funds in the purchase of books, specimens, or pictures; all these were left to depend on the voluntary contributions of the inhabitants. In the populous boroughs of the country this was a very proper measure. In Salford the town council, acting as the representative of all the ratepayers, had come forward with alacrity to provide a building for a Public Library and museum. The private gifts of the inhabitants had already stocked the museum to a considerable extent, and there had been voluntary contributions made of between 5,000 and 6,000 volumes to the library (which was attended by hundreds every night) in less than six months. He contended that this Bill would provide the cheapest police that could possibly be established, and what was the use of education for the people unless they were enabled to consult valuable works which they themselves could not purchase? It was the duty of the House to promote all that had a tendency to bring the higher and the humbler class together; but this could not be done unless the people had the assistance of those above them.

Mr. Bernal (afterwards Mr. Bernal Osborne) said his objection to the Bill rested on a very narrow and limited ground. Then he continued:

If it had proposed to give power to town councils on an application to the Treasury from two-thirds or three-fourths of the inhabitants of a town, to be allowed to tax the general body of the ratepayers for the

establishment of libraries and museums, he would not have had so much objection to the measure. But he found fault with it because it would enable any town council, desirous of carrying out the views of any small section of the inhabitants to tax the general body of ratepayers for an institution that might soon degenerate into a mere political club, for which only a few of those who were compelled to contribute for its support had any sympathy. Had the Bill been really permissive, as it was alleged, he would not have opposed it; but it proposed to clothe town councils with imperative powers, and, therefore, he would support the Amendment.

Lord John Manners (now the Duke of Rutland) said, as far as the great principle of the Bill was concerned, no one was more anxious to support it than himself, for his experience of towns led him to wish that in every town, not only museums but Public Libraries were established; at the same time the public did view with great suspicion any measure that tended to increase the amount of local taxation. He admitted that the Bill would not tell upon the landed gentry, but it would impose an additional tax upon the agricultural labourers.

Mr. Labouchere (father of the present member for Northampton) said he was induced to take the same view as the member for Montrose. It would be most useful if in every good-sized town a well-composed library was established, to which all the inhabitants had free access. He was of opinion that it was of much greater importance that there should be a good library than a good museum. Nothing, he believed, could be more visionary than the fear that these libraries would be filled with novels and the worst description of literature, or that they would be mere receptacles of newspapers. Why should such distrust be entertained of the discretion of the town councils, who, he conceived, could be as safely trusted with the management of this as of other matters placed under their control. The question was of considerable importance, and one in which all classes were interested; and he confessed he did not think these libraries could lead to those consequences which some hon. gentlemen, who opposed the measure, appeared to apprehend.

Mr. W. Miles said his objection to the Bill was, that it gave the town council the power of taxation without consent. Moreover, there was something like a false pretence in the Bill, for although the maximum rate was said to be only a halfpenny in the pound, he observed, by the third clause, it was enacted, that, for the purchase of land, it shall be lawful for the town council, from time to time, with the approval of the Treasury, to borrow money at interest.

Mr. John Bright, who all through his life was an advocate of these institutions, said there was evidently great accordance on both sides of the House with regard to the object of the Bill, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would not, on account of certain objections, which might be removed, refuse to read it a second time. He then continued:

The member for the University of Cambridge seemed to take an entirely erroneous view of the halfpenny rate, which was only intended to apply to the building and furnishing of the library, the books being supplied by voluntary contributions. There must be a large concurrence of opinion before any step could be taken. The town councils would not borrow

£5,000 to build a library unless they felt satisfied that the wealthier inhabitants would furnish books. He would be ashamed of himself and the House if he supposed that it would be necessary to say a word in favour of the object of the Bill. He (Mr. Bright) was quite sure that nothing would tend more to the preservation of order than the diffusion of the greatest amount of intelligence, and the prevalence of the most complete and open discussion amongst all classes. He would give his support to the second reading.

Mr. Roundell Palmer, now Lord Selborne, expressed a doubt that they were all agreed as to the principle of this Bill. He admitted

That it would be desirable to have good Public Libraries in all towns; but that was not the principle of this Bill. The principle of this Bill was taxation without the consent of the persons to be taxed. According to the principle of the hon. member for Manchester, this Bill would be totally inefficient for all the purposes for which it was to be introduced; for the hon. gentleman said, that by passing it they did no more than enable town councils to erect the buildings and to purchase furniture. Why, unless they were possessed of libraries and museums, what town council would be justified in erecting buildings in anticipation that charitable persons would afterwards present them with books and curiosities? It was evident that the Bill was intended for ulterior objects, by which powers would be given for the purchase of books, and perhaps, also for the fitting-up of lecture rooms. He hoped the House would consider well before they applied to institutions of this nature the principles of public management, and compulsory rating instead of the voluntary and self-supporting principle, which he considered to be the life and essence and the cause of the utility of such institutions. On these grounds he should certainly divide against it.

Mr. Palmer expressed what was evidently the feeling of a considerable number of members, that the time had not then been reached when the principle of popular control could be introduced into matters of this kind. How far this mistrust was ungrounded has been shown by results.

Sir R. H. Inglis and other members opposed the second reading.

Mr. Ewart, in reply, said that the latter hon. gentleman seemed to forget that this was merely a permissive Bill. He would not now at that late hour go into all the objections which had been urged against it, but would only say that existing libraries had been formed on the Museums Act, on the principles of which he had framed the present Bill. He would give his careful consideration to all those objections, and endeavour, if possible, to meet them, and render the Bill more popular.

After Mr. Muntz, Sir G. Grey, and Mr. Law had addressed the House, a division was taken, the result being-for the second reading, ayes, 118; noes, 101; majority, 17.

On April 10th the Bill passed through Committee, with certain modifications, by a majority of 35.

It must be confessed that the House looked bored with the subject. The immediate proposal before them was limited to

1

་

the procuring of sites and the erecting or adapting of buildings for Public Libraries, and the provision from time to time of the expenses of maintenance by means of a library rate; and it was entirely a permissive measure, leaving every town to decide for itself. The provision of books was to be a matter for future legislation. Looking at the question as it rested before the House, one naturally wonders that so simple a measure should have met with any opposition. In later stages the small measure of practicability which the Bill contained was, by the persistent struggle of its opponents, lessened in Committee. When it was returned from the Committee it had yet another trial to pass, and altogether it went through a dozen discussions and six formal divisions before the opposition ceased. Ultimately, when it reached the Lords, to the credit of that hereditary chamber, be it said, it was carried without any opposition whatever, and, in fact, what was said in the gilded chamber was rather on the side of furthering than of hindering the measure. It must be admitted, however, that as landed proprietors they would not have to pay the tax.

When it received the Royal assent on August 14th, 1850, its chief provisions stood as follow:

1. Town councils were permitted, if they thought it well to do so, to put to their burgesses the question-"Will you have a library rate levied for providing a Public Library," and to poll them on that question. The proposal was, however, limited to a population of not less than 10,000 within the municipal limits.

2. In the event of the ratepayers deciding that question in the affirmative, the rate so levied was limited to a halfpenny in the pound on the ratable property.

3. The product of any rate so levied was to be applied (1) to the erection or adaptation of buildings, together with contingent expenses, if any, for the site; (2) to current charges of management and maintenance.

4. Town councils were then empowered to borrow money or the security of the rates of any city or borough which shall have adopted the Act.

Other legislation followed, as will be seen on reference to the Appendix.

It is interesting to note that the late Lord Hatherley (Lord Chancellor), then Mr. W. P. Wood, took the liveliest interest in and gave great assistance to Mr. Ewart, in the passing of the Amendment Libraries Act of 1855. Lord Hatherley was a Commissioner of the Westminster Public Libraries, from the adoption of the Act, in 1856, by those parishes, until his death in 1881.

The late William Ewart lived to see some very happy results as the outcome of his work. He died in 1869. Many a man has been immortalized in marble, who did far less for the public weal than has been accomplished by the Public Libraries Acts, which will for ever be associated with his name. He was the second son of the late Mr. Ewart, merchant, of Liverpool, near which city

he was born in 1798. The Ewarts are an old Kirkcudbright family, dating back there to 1576.

His early education was obtained at Eton, where he had among

his schoolfellows Dr. Pusey, Mr. Denison, a past Speaker of the House of Commons, the late Dr. Trower, Bishop of Gibraltar, the late Marquis of Londonderry, and others. From Eton he went to Christ Church, Oxford, and took his B.A. degree in 1821,