the music 'pirates,' driven from their original sphere of activity, have recently turned their attention to literature. Finally, the Bill introduces far-reaching changes in the conditions which entitle to copyright-conditions, that is, of nationality, residence and first publication. The conditions required by the existing law are frequently obscure, and vary for no apparent reason in the case of different classes of works. To mention only the two chief cases-for books the nationality of the author is of no importance, nor probably is his place of residence, but it is essential that the book should not be published elsewhere before it is published within the British Empire; for paintings, drawings and photographs, what is necessary is that the author should be either a British subject or resident within His Majesty's dominions.

A frank recognition of the author's inherent right of property in his work would lead logically to the conclusion that no such conditions of nationality, residence or first publication should be required; but it has generally been thought expedient to impose them in order to retain a weapon for the negotiation of reciprocal treatment from foreign countries. The Copyright Bill is no exception to this rule; it provides that, in order to be entitled to copyright, an author must, at the time of the making of the work, be a British subject, or resident within the parts of the Empire to which the Act extends; moreover, the copyright thus acquired will be forfeited if the work is first published, i.e. if copies are issued to the public, elsewhere than in those parts of the Empire. By the issue of Orders in Council, subject to reciprocal treatment, any foreign country may be assimilated to the British Empire for the purposes of nationality, residence or first publication.

It may be expected that Orders in Council would be issued as a matter of course in regard to all the countries of the Berne Copyright Union. But there is another country, of very great importance to British authors, with respect to which the position is not so clear. We refer, of course, to the United States. At present, authors who are American citizens obtain copyright in this country by virtue of the general provisions of the British law; while American citizens, though their Government holds aloof from the Berne Convention, can now obtain

the full privileges of that agreement by publishing in this country. In return for these concessions, British authors are admitted to the benefits of the United States law by Presidential proclamation. After the coming into force of the new Act it would be impossible for a nonresident American citizen to obtain copyright in this country, unless an Order in Council were issued to cover his case; on the other hand, the Presidential proclamation would doubtless be withdrawn unless reciprocal privileges were granted to American citizens. Now it is notorious that the manufacturing requirements of the American law, already very unfair, have been rendered more stringent by the Act of 1909; so that now not only the type-setting and printing of books, but also the binding, have to be done in the United States, in order to secure copyright. Moreover, this requirement applies only to books in the English language, and not to those in other languages, and therefore amounts to a direct discrimination against this country. The position will be a delicate one, owing to the importance of the American market to British authors; but it is difficult to see how a continuance of the present state of affairs could be regarded as amounting to reciprocity, and it is to be hoped that the authorities will take advantage of the new Act to secure some relaxation of the onerous requirements of the American law before extending the benefits of British copyright to American citizens.

Such are the more important provisions in the Copyright Bill. Those who are familiar with the past vicissitudes of the question will find it almost too much to hope that a substantial amendment of the law will at last be effected. But the moment is an exceptional one. The omens are all favourable. A spirit of loyal co-operation among those who are most intimately concerned will go far towards securing a successful issue; and authors, for their part, will be well advised not to put their charter in jeopardy by captious criticism.

Art. 9.-CONSERVATISM.

THE two-party system in this country has achieved a large measure of success because it corresponds to certain real facts of human nature. Broadly speaking, political Man is moved by two opposite tendencies. He both fears and desires change. To one individual the dangers of the unknown future, to another the evils of the too wellknown present, are the governing consideration; and so it happens that one set of men form a party of progress, while the others become a party of stability. Two such parties have always existed in England. It is quite true that, until the end of the eighteenth century, partydivisions were neither so rigid nor so logical as they afterwards became. Sometimes it was the Whigs and sometimes it was the Tories who stood for change, since the dominant political considerations were still religious and dynastic. Even so the ideas of order and revolution, of stability and progress, were each represented in the governing forces of the country. Later, as representative institutions developed, and the political issues became more and more industrial and social, the Whigs permanently allied themselves with those sections of the people who wanted Reform, first of Parliament and then of other parts of our institutions; while the Tories became identified with those who believed that the evils of the proposed changes would be greater than any good that they might accomplish. It was to mark this new departure that the present party names were invented. The Whigs became first Liberals and then Radicals. The Tories became Conservatives.

The new Tory name would have been meaningless unless it denoted a definite attitude towards political affairs. Conservatism does not indeed mean satisfaction with the present condition of society or the present distribution of wealth. Still less does it mean indifference to the sufferings of the poor so long as the rich are secured in possession of their property. It does not even mean stagnation. But it does mean great distrust of the beneficial powers of legislation, and a profound conviction that legislative change always does some harm and often does little or no good. To the

conservative-minded man, to whatever party he belongs, it is not enough to justify legislation to prove that a particular social or economic condition is evil, nor even that it could be cured by an alteration of the law. He must further be satisfied that the alteration of the law will not cause more evils than it will cure. He might take as his motto: 'Tis better to endure the ills we have, Than fly to others that we know not of,' just as the Radical might accept as his 'Let right be done though the skies fall.'

If, then, this division of opinion as to the desirability of legislative change is fundamental in human nature, it is surely a disquieting feature of the present political situation that no party advocates Conservatism as one of its political principles. It would be unreasonable to complain that no section of the Ministerial coalition is conservative, though in times past some of the best Conservatives, in the true sense of the word, were to be found in the Liberal ranks. But with the Unionist party the case is different. It is supposed to consist of two wings, Conservative and Liberal Unionist, of which the first is the predominant partner. The leader of the party is called a Conservative; the Conservative Central Office is the chief party organisation for electioneering; Conservative Associations are scattered throughout the country, and a National Union of them claims annually to define Conservative policy in a series of rather incoherent resolutions. But the recent official utterances of the party leaders and the party organisations will be searched in vain for any acknowledgment of Conservatism as a party principle.

No doubt the Unionists have vigorously opposed many of the modern Radical proposals. A very creditable resistance was offered to their policy on education, on licensing, and on land. But it is doubtful how far this resistance can be attributed to zeal for Conservatism. It may have been a mere coincidence that the Church, the brewers and the landlords command forces which it would be suicidal for the Unionist party to offend. If so, it is curious that the opposition to measures like the Trades Disputes Act, the Feeding of School-Children Act, and the Old-Age Pensions Act, all highly objectionable (in the form in which they were passed) from a conservative point of view, was left to a small section of

the party assisted by a few independent Liberals. Even the Miners' Eight Hours Act was not strongly opposed until it had been made clear that it was not as popular as had been supposed.

Nor can the party attitude on the House of Lords question be regarded as free from ambiguity. Last year the House of Lords was persuaded to strain its constitutional rights by throwing out the Budget. Some of those who urged that course were genuinely convinced that, if the land-clauses were passed, their acceptance would constitute so dangerous a precedent that the whole position of the House of Lords would be undermined. Conservatives might well dissent from such an opinion, but they could have no quarrel with it on principle. But others, who represented very influential elements in the party, were actuated by no such fears. These men clamoured for rejection partly because they had persuaded themselves by some mysterious reasoning that acceptance of the Budget would be fatal to Tariff Reform, and partly because they were impatient to return to power and carry their Tariff Reform policy into effect. Politicians of this stamp did doubtless object to the Budget because it introduced into our fiscal system novel and unjust principles of taxation, and also because the machinery for collecting the new taxes was costly for the Government and burdensome for the taxpayer. But such objections to the Budget were not the causa causans of the campaign for its rejection set on foot by the Observer' and its friends. The underlying motive of their action was the belief that the rejection of the Budget would pave the way for far-reaching fiscal proposals of their own. If there was any doubt as to the truth of this diagnosis, it has been removed by the more recent proceedings of the same clique. Faced by a constitutional crisis greater than any which has occurred since the Reform Bill of 1832, some of them have urged resistance because they believed that another general election would bring them nearer to Tariff Reform. Others have been only anxious to huddle the constitutional question out of the way somehow, even if, in order to do so, they should have to abandon those very powers of the House of Lords of which they were the most vehement upholders a few months ago. It is no exaggeration to say that such an