Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.


Vol. 39 No. 1 · 5 January 2017

Search by issue:

The Death of Municipal England

Tom Crewe is right in much of what he says about the assault by successive UK governments on the role of local government but he presents an unjustifiably rosy picture of the past (LRB, 15 December 2016). The idea that there was a golden age, ushered into being by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, should be tempered by the recognition that the freedom of local councils to innovate and develop services for their communities was matched by the freedom not to do so. First, the 1835 Act was concerned with reforming local government only where there was already a municipal corporation in existence, which excluded places such as Manchester. Second, although it’s true that some local authorities in the late 19th century, ‘acting on their own initiative … cleared slums, built houses, parks, hospitals, museums and libraries, swimming pools and playing fields’, most did not, and where they did it was often as a result of prodding from Westminster. Crewe understandably cites Birmingham as the model of progressive municipal government, but many more councils were like Bristol, where the default position was to do nothing until pressure was exerted from the centre.

In Bristol the outcome of the 1835 Act was a gerrymandered council in which the richest wards returned three times as many councillors as the poorer areas. What’s more, the Tories used their dominance of the unelected aldermanic bench to ensure that they had a permanent majority in the council chamber. The scandalous conditions in cities finally prompted the government to give powers to local councils in the Public Health Act, 1848, but Bristol opted not to exercise the powers available until it was shamed into it in 1851, and even then the council held out for another 14 years against the appointment of a medical officer of health. They appointed a man whose approach perfectly reflected the stance of his employers, and over the next twenty years he resisted all demands to take action on overcrowding and unhealthy housing. He was succeeded by his son, who stuck to the same line, so that slum clearance powers remained almost entirely unused in Bristol; by 1902, precisely 66 council houses had been built there. Like most other local councils, Bristol only started to build houses on a large scale in the 1920s, and only after the introduction of government subsidies in 1919.

What we have seen in recent decades, as Crewe correctly says, is Westminster bearing down on local service provision, so it looks as if contraction is being forced on councils who, left to themselves, would continue to provide a wider range of public services. But history tells us that the story worked the other way round: it was only when the centre insisted on these services, and undertook to support them financially, that local authorities as a whole responded. If there was ever a golden age of municipal England it was when there was a balance between local freedom and responsibility, when the centre and the localities shared a commitment to the welfare state, and when the centre made sure that there was no backsliding by recalcitrant councillors.

Peter Malpass

As well as the municipal councils discussed by Tom Crewe, there are nine thousand parish and town councils in England, which serve more than 16 million people, 25 per cent of the population. Below municipal councils, these are the lowest nationwide units of local democracy. I am a member of Queen’s Park Community Council, the first and only parish council in London, serving 12,000 residents. Our immediate superiors are Westminster City Councillors. They call the shots.

The QPCC was established in June 2012. ‘For Westminster to have the first parish council in London for fifty years would be a fitting endorsement of the government’s ambitions for localism and neighbourhood engagement,’ the deputy leader of WCC, Robert Davis, said at the time. In collaboration with the property developers Wilmott Dixon, Davis promptly signed off the demolition of Queen’s Park’s only community asset, the Jubilee Sports Centre, to be replaced by seventy luxury flats at a starting price (for a one-bedroom flat) of £525,000, and 21 ‘town houses’. A 350 square-metre enclosed private garden for the new residents will replace a 50 square-metre public space used daily by local children. A mini-sports hall is tagged on. Westminster City Council was unmoved by a petition against the demolition signed by nearly half of our 12,000 residents.

Queen’s Park is a deprived area, with pockets of child poverty as bad as anywhere in the UK. There are fewer than average green spaces compared to the rest of London. In accordance with all the other anti-social municipal measures listed by Crewe, Westminster has just cut the annual grant to our one remaining youth club and youth services organisation from £100,000 to zero. A group of local residents, together with a local architect specialising in the rehabilitation of existing buildings and a sports manager of thirty years’ experience, drew up a proposal for a redesigned Community Jubilee Centre, to be cost-effective within five years. Westminster Council refused any serious consideration of the plan.

Julius Hogben
London W10

A Little Talk in Downing Street

I read with great interest Bee Wilson’s piece about Herbert Asquith and Venetia Stanley (LRB, 17 November 2016). Ten years ago I wrote a book, Politics, Religion and Love, on the life of Edwin Montagu, a close political confidant of Asquith and the man whom Venetia Stanley eventually married. Wilson writes that Venetia told Violet, Asquith’s daughter, that ‘she didn’t mind converting to Judaism because she couldn’t bear to marry Edwin in a way that would separate him from his family.’ In fact Venetia married Edwin to ‘have fun’ with his money, and since his father’s will made it clear that Edwin wouldn’t be able to inherit any of the family money if he married outside the Jewish faith, she was prepared to undergo a simple conversion.

Asquith was totally demoralised when he learned of Venetia’s intention to marry Edwin in May 1915. He was being asked to form a wartime coalition at the time. Lloyd George made the case, with Arthur Balfour and George Curzon pitching in on behalf of the Conservatives. Asquith would normally have signalled his need to consult the cabinet, but he was so depressed that he agreed on the spot. Harold Baker, financial secretary to the War Office, told Asquith’s daughter-in-law, Cynthia, in confidence that ‘the poor PM is absolutely broken-hearted, that it is stymying all public troubles. Perhaps if truth were known, it is really the cause of the coalition.’

The coalition government was formed and Asquith was eventually forced to resign, splitting the Liberals in the process. The Liberal Party has never come back with any strength. It was the conclusion of my book that a love affair had changed the nature of British politics.

Naomi Levine
New York University

This stamp won’t stick

Bernard Becker’s piece about being arrested in Weimar for mutilating a postage stamp reminded me of the time I spent in Berlin in the 1960s (LRB, 15 December 2016). I lived in the West but most Saturdays would cross over at Checkpoint Charlie or Friedrichstrasse and spend the weekend in the GDR. I had met an East Berlin family who put me up on their sofa and in return I smuggled in Deutschmarks and other things unavailable in the East.

To get into the GDR you had to walk through a maze of barbed wire, tank traps and other obstacles, floodlights and watchtowers to a reception centre. There you were herded into a large room with aggressive guards in jackboots shouting at you. Around the walls were numbered letter boxes with a small curtained window above each one. You posted your passport in a letter box then waited in front of the window. The curtain would eventually open, you would be shouted at to look up, the curtain would close, you were marched to another slot in the wall and the passport was pushed out. Then you were made to change five Deutschmarks into five Ostmarks. A large sign greeted you: welcome to the german democratic socialist republic, a city of dusty streets where people waited at pedestrian crossings though there wasn’t a car in sight and nobody met your eye.

I once stopped at a coffee shop and sat at the counter. I waited. And waited. The person next to me was served. And another. And another. A waiter – eyes averted – walked past: ‘Can I have a coffee?’


‘Warum nicht?’

‘The waiter serving your position is absent today.’

‘If I move to the next seat will I get a coffee?’

‘Of course.’

Given that one in 17 citizens was known to work for the Stasi, and now it seems the number was higher, it wasn’t surprising that the locals in the bar I went to on a Saturday night at first viewed me with some suspicion. But they soon came to the conclusion that even the Stasi wouldn’t go to the lengths of recruiting someone with an Irish passport to root out deviants in a dive in Prenzlauer Berg. One of the older locals once asked me to go outside with him. ‘I want to tell you a joke,’ he said.

‘No problem.’

‘This granny writes a letter to her daughter in Dresden and goes to the post office for a stamp. Gets the stamp, but it won’t stick to the letter.’ (Walter Ulbricht’s face was on all the stamps.) ‘Back she goes to the desk. “This stamp won’t stick!" she says. “Don’t be stupid of course it does," says the post office official. “You must be spitting on the wrong side."’

Jim Smyth

Donne was first

I wonder whether the ‘explicit instructions’ John Donne gave that Biathanatos (1608) not be published were actually in his will (Letters, 15 December 2016). If they weren’t it would probably have been lawful for his son to take into account other factors – for instance, that Donne appears to have sent ‘my book Biathanatos’ to Sir Robert Carre when he (Donne) went to Germany in 1619.

In his covering letter to Carre there is the following ambiguous phrase about the book: ‘I only forbid it the Presse, and the Fire: publish it not, but yet burn it not; and between those, do what you will with it.’ This suggests that Donne didn’t want the book widely disseminated but was not averse to confidants reading it. This probably led his son to conclude that he had a remit to publish the book after Donne’s death. Of course if the ‘explicit instructions’ not to publish were actually in Donne’s will the publication would have been unlawful.

Chris Purnell

Days of Enjoyment

Both Hal Foster and Philip Clark refer to John Cage’s ‘silent piece’, 4’33" (LRB, 1 December 2016, LRB, 15 December 2016). May I offer this image of an Excel worksheet?* It has a million rows, each with about 16,000 columns. The cells are filled with data and some wonderful mathematical formulae. These are hidden from view by the simple expediency of using a font colour the same as the cells’ background colour. In addition there are a number of exquisite charts but these too are hidden. The viewer should start in cell A1 and progress down the worksheet to A1048576, return to B1 and go down again, and so on until arriving at cell XFD1048576. It is estimated that this would take 100 hours and 100001 minutes (the values being in binary, of course). Following that, he or she may recalculate the worksheet by pressing F9, and then conduct a second review. In this way several days of enjoyment may be had.

* Image not included.

Bernard Liengme
Antigonish, Canada

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.