Although, however, the partial and unequal development of public libraries which the Adult Education Committee by a slip in their logic put down to the rate limit, is due, as the report conclusively shows, to their having had to struggle along in isolation, it would be disastrous to take the control of the local libraries entirely out of the hands of the local authorities. This would stultify all efforts to inspire public opinion and evoke local pride. No institution in a civilized society is more sure to be an expression of corporate life and local individuality than a communal library, in the building up of which the actual users have had a hand. A system, however complete and efficient, bestowed by a Government department, however benevolent, would be sure eventually to stifle all such aspirations. The local communities in both town and country must have a decisive voice in the management of their libraries. They must have a larger voice, not a smaller, than they have had hitherto. Local initiative has never had free play. Why is it that public libraries rarely excite that interest and enthusiasm in which the promoters hopefully confided? The answer is obvious. Libraries have suffered from official repression, and have not had even the doubtful advantage of official tutelage. If a town wished to spend liberally on its library, it was pulled up by the rate limit. If it wanted lectures, the Government auditor put in his veto: he does so still. And so with any of the excursions from the programme prescribed from above that would have helped to realize a higher ideal. Library authorities have been confined to the unimaginative duty of exercising circumscribed and inadequate powers, and the library committee has enjoyed the least prestige of all the council’s departments. More local control, more powers of initiative, and more representation of the actual users of the library are needed, if a vigorous and useful life is to be maintained.