The Perry Years, 1954 – 1961
7.2. Finances
The decision to duplicate full-time Arts and Science classes in Durban in 1946 and 1947 respectively were to result in “unforeseen”625 financial hardships. Brookes notes that
“Bews and Denison left the University solvent but set it on a path which was to involve
622 University of Natal, Faculty of Medicine, Library Committee, Report of the1st meeting held on 3rd April 1959, unpublished.
623 University of Natal, Faculty of Medicine, Library Committee, Report of the 4th meeting held on 9th September 1959, unpublished. .
624 G.H. Haffajee, Personal communication, 15th November 2007.
625 E.H. Brookes, A history of the University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1966, p. 57.
great expenditure.”626 The Library, in particular, struggled to maintain its scattered collections. Great store had been set by the anticipated relief that the Holloway Commission would provide but this hope proved to be in vain. Unaccountably, the Commission did not consider that the demands of a multi-centred Library merited special funding. The report stated that:
In the case of the University of Natal, some of whose faculties are housed in both Pietermaritzburg and Durban, 54 miles apart, a certain amount of duplication is inevitable, and library costs must be higher in comparison with those of the more centralized institutions. Your Commission considers, however, that no
justification exists for recommending a higher State grant to the Natal University for library purposes than that recommended in the standard formula outlined in this report.627
A brief summary of the Holloway Commission’s recommendations insofar as they affected the Library finances would be useful here. As mentioned in the previous
chapter, the Holloway Commission was appointed in 1951 by the government to consider the question of subsidies to universities. Its recommendations were presented to the Government on 4th May, 1953. The subsidy formula recommended by the Commission was divided into three parts which were:
• A basic subsidy;
• A standard provision; and,
• A standard fee income.628
Library needs, together with teaching needs (in relation to student numbers),
administration, laboratories and maintenance (of buildings and grounds) were catered for under the heading “standard provision.” Brookes notes that a university “was not bound to spend its standard provision on these specific items” with one exception – the provision for library needs.629 Universities were thus not supposed to take from the library’s subsidy to finance other things, thereby curtailing the expansion of the library service. The University of Natal, however, was inclined to ignore this recommendation.
The grant per student in 1955 was £3 (exclusive of salaries for library staff) which was increased in 1956 to £4 and again in 1957 to £5 but disappointingly it remained at £5 for 1958 and 1959 although the government allocation for library purposes was £7 and £11 respectively. As Perry explained:
626 Brookes, A history of the University of Natal, p. 57.
627 J.E. Holloway (Chair), Report of the Commission of Enquiry into University Finances and Salaries, [Pretoria: Government Printer, 1951], p. 93.
628 Brookes, A history of the University of Natal, p. 124.
629 Ibid., p. 126.
The Library did not receive any proportional benefit from this increase however, since it was decided to use it to relieve the University of part of its share in the burden of financing the Library, a burden which it had borne to a
disproportionate extent over the last few years.630
While one might be inclined to condemn the University for its miserliness, Malherbe’s comment in the University gazette of November 1955 is enlightening. With barely concealed irritation he pointed out that in the United Kingdom, “it is not a case of the universities going on their knees to the Government for money in the way that we have to in this country.”631 The University was, through circumstances beyond its control, forced to keep a very tight hold on the purse strings.
In 1955 the Joint Library Committee decided, as an experiment, to “place the Non- European Library on an equal footing to the Pietermaritzburg and Durban Libraries insofar as allocations for book purchases were concerned.”632 Although this section had fewer graduate students than the Howard College and Pietermaritzburg campuses, the Committee was keen to extend the book collection. The University Librarian pointed out that:
The Committee also agreed that the present allocation of funds for the non- European Library was inadequate, evidence for which can be seen in the statistics for accessions to this Library, which has not shared proportionately in the general increase in the overall size of the University Libraries.633
The decision elicited strong criticism from some academic departments in Durban which would have preferred to have their book allocations increased for the Howard College and City Building Libraries. In particular, the head of the Law Department argued eloquently that “a division of my grant into two equal parts was not completely fair or reasonable.”634 Given the financial constraints, their concern is understandable, but both the Joint and Durban Library Committees stood firm, maintaining that “whatever the future of the Non-European Library might be, all funds for book purchase should be fully used, and that Heads of Departments should be encouraged to spend their allocations for
630 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1959, p. 1.
631 E G Malherbe, Meeting of the Executive Council of the Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth (Australia : 1955), University of Natal gazette, vol. 2, no. 3, November 1955, p.
34.
632 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1955, p. 1.
633 Ibid.
634 G.M.J. Sweeney, Letter to the Librarian, 20th February 1957, unpublished.
this Library.”635 Perhaps their stance resulted from Professor of Sociology L. Kuper’s request to the Durban Library Committee at their meeting of 23rd May, 1955, to allow
... senior non-European full-time students of Sociology to enjoy the general facilities for browsing in the Howard College Library where book stock was so much more extensive than at the Non-European Library itself.”636
Kuper has been described by one of his ex-students as “one of the most intellectually demanding, principled, politically uncompromising, and committed sociologists ... one of the few who insisted on teaching only to racially integrated classes ...”637 Predictably, however, the Durban Library Committee had denied his request, resolving that “no change be made in present practice concerning the attendance of Non-European students at the Howard College Library.”638 It is also possible that Perry’s mission to extend and improve the library collections as a whole had also played a part in this decision. It is unfortunate that they had waited so long before making this effort as, within three years, the “Non-European” Library was closed down.639
In 1956, at the request of the University’s Finance and General Purposes Committee, Perry drew up comparison of expenditure at ten South African and British university libraries. Although he was unfortunately unable to obtain up-to-date figures for the British university libraries, the comparisons with other South African university libraries make interesting reading as may be seen in Table 7.1 below:
635 University of Natal, Joint Library Committee, Minutes of a meeting held on 21st May, 1957.
636 University of Natal, Durban Library Committee, Minutes of a meeting held on 23rd May 1955.
637 H. Adam & K. Moodley, South Africa without apartheid, Cape Town: Maskew Miller, 1986, p. x.
638 University of Natal, Durban Library Committee, Minutes of a meeting held on 23rd May 1955.
639 The “Non-European” Library was summarily closed in June 1960. See section 7.5 below.
University (year
in brackets) Number of
students Percentage library budget spent on salaries
Proportion of total
instructional expenditure spent on library
Expenditure per student –
books &
journals only
Birmingham
(1951/52) 3349 53.5% 4% £3 10s 0d Bristol (1951/52) 2834 45% 2.8% £7 0s 0d Leeds (1951/52) 3607 55% 3.5% £8 0s 0d Nottingham
(1951/52) 2193 58% 5% £7 10s 0d Cape Town (1955) 4265 76% 10% £2 7s 6d
Natal (1955) 1984 69% 8% £3 0s 0d
Potchefstroom
(1955) 1296 51% 14.5% £7 0s 0d Pretoria (1954) 4286 49% 8% £3 0s 0d Rhodes (1954) 785 55% 7% £5s 0s 0d Wits (1954) 4277 58% 7% £4 0s 0d
Table 7.1. Comparison of expenditure on library services between university libraries in Britain and South Africa.640
Of particular interest are the comparisons with the Universities of Cape Town, Pretoria and the Witwatersrand. Perry considered these university libraries to be similar to that of the University of Natal, since each possessed a main library, a medical library and a law or commerce library.641 The figures indicate that, to all appearances, the University of Natal compared quite favourably with other South African universities yet the figures do not show the drain on Natal’s resources through its having to maintain two main libraries as well as the “Non-European” Library. The higher cost of duplication of library services is also evident in the higher percentage of the Library budget which had to be spent on staff salaries.
From 1955 the number of scholarly journals642 to which the Library subscribed had steadily increased. In four years, from 1954 to 1958, the number of new subscriptions acquired totalled 113, split almost equally between the two centres (54 new titles were for Pietermaritzburg and 59 new titles were for Durban). Unfortunately, unexpected
640 Collated from: J.W. Perry, [Report on library expenditure], 11th June 1956, unpublished.
641 Perry, [Report on library expenditure], 11th June 1956.
642 The Library Committees used the terms “journals” and “periodicals” interchangeably. An attempt has been made in this study to standardise on the term “journals” wherever possible.
increases in the prices of subscriptions resulted in the journals budget being overspent in 1958.643 It had been expected that the Library’s grant would be increased by a small amount every year due to the fact that the vote was based on student numbers, but, as pointed out above, no increase at all was received for the years 1958 and 1959. Thus in 1959, the Joint Library Committee “asked the Librarian to circularise all the teaching staff in order to try to assess the use of the large number of journals to which the Library now subscribes.”644 The Library’s financial report for 1960 revealed a deficit large
enough to create some anxiety at the Joint Library Committee meeting of 22nd May, 1961.
The University Council had increased the Library’s grant by ten shillings per student to
£5 10s 0d645 but the extra allocation was intended specifically “for the purpose of
enlarging the Library’s holdings of back numbers of journals”646 it could not therefore be used to pay for current subscriptions. At the same meeting the Committee requested that the Librarian encourage academic departments “especially those relying largely on periodicals, to cut down on book orders … so that essential periodical needs were not endangered.”647 Unfortunately these measures were insufficient and the latter part of 1961 saw the Library financially embarrassed to such an extent that book ordering had to be stopped completely “in an effort to pull the finances straight.”648 Thus began a period of financial austerity which will be discussed in the following chapter.
Donations from individuals and bodies outside the University helped to mitigate some of the effects of inadequate library grants and Perry himself tirelessly sought out donations.
Although the monies donated by the Carnegie Corporation of New York in 1948649 were finally expended by the end of 1955, numerous donations were received from both individuals and corporate bodies. Notable donors included Mrs Florence Powell who donated £2,000 to enable the Medical Library to form a special collection, the “Florence Powell Cancer collection”650 and a further £1,350 “to be used for the establishment of a special collection of works illustrative of the history of engineering and science.”651 Mr
643 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1958, p.1.
644 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1959, p. 1.
645 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1960, p. 1.
646 Ibid.
647 University of Natal, Joint Library Committee, Minutes of a meeting held on 22nd May 1961.
648 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1961, p. 1.
649In 1948 Carnegie Corporation of New York granted $15,000 to the Library for the purchase of books. It was decided at the Joint Library Committee meeting of 4th May 1948 that the monies were to be expended over a period of several years.
650 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1954, p. 5.
651 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1956, p. 1.
M. Webb, past president of the South African Institute of Race Relations, presented the Library with a collection of over 400 books written by Africans and African-Americans along with a sum of £200 to be invested in order to purchase book additions to the collection. This collection was to be a memorial to the achievements of African people and would be known as the “Maurice Webb Collection of African and Negro books.”652 It was a noble idea but sadly the collection, since it was housed in the Main Library in the Memorial Tower building, would have been unavailable to some of the very people it was meant to inspire as black Africans were not, at this time, allowed to make use of the collections in either the Main or Commerce Libraries.653
Perry, together with the Dean of the Medical School, attended a meeting in Cape Town with representatives of the South African Medical Association. Arising from this meeting, the Medical Library became the recipient of an annual donation of £100 per annum from the South African Medical Association, in return for the “availability of the full facilities of the Medical Library to its members.”654
Donations were also received from the Ford Foundation as part of its $27,500 grant towards the Programme of Advanced Training in Social Science. The Foundation donated £1,350 in 1954 and the same amount again in 1955 to the Library for the
purchase of books to support the Programme. Monies from this grant were added to the library grants of the academic departments associated with the work of the Institute for Social Research. The 12 departments which benefited from the additional grant were:
Architecture, Bantu Studies, Commerce, Economics, Education, Educational Psychology, Geography, History, Law, Mathematics, Psychology and Sociology.655