Letter to R.K. Greville, LL.D. in reply to Professor Balfour / by John Joseph Griffin.

Date:
1851
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Letter to R.K. Greville, LL.D. in reply to Professor Balfour / by John Joseph Griffin. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    12/14 (page 14)
    “ 2, That we pay fifty pounds for sucli corrections, in addition to tlie two hundred pounds already agi'eed to be paid for the copyright of the work as first ^VTitten. “ 3. That we shall have the right to print a Tliird Edition, the author to correct it, and we to pay him a shilling per copy on the whole impression of that edition. “ 4. That at the end of three years, after the publication of the Third Edition, the entire copyright shall revert to the author. “ 5. That we shall be entitled to publish the Second and Third Editions as part of the new edition of the Encyclopaedia Jletropolitana. “ This last stipulation is made, because we must have a work of the same kind in the Encyclopaetlia, and we do not want to be forced to get up a rival work- This proposal is quite as much for the author’s advantage as for ours. You will perceive, that with a view to promote a peaceable settlement of our dispute, I have now made very large concessions.” This letter proves that the condition which was so grievously to tram- mel Dr. Balfour—the proposal to print “ a Second Edition of such unlimited extent, as to destroy all likelihood of a third edition being ever called for’ ’—is a whimsy of his own contriving. I never made any sucli absurd proposal. Moreover, this statement about an infinite Second Edition, is made in a letter to you, dated 20th August, 1851, and he has not the candour to admit that he has a letter fi-om Mr. Charles Gritfin, dated 13th Nov. 1850, in which the number of copies to constitute the second and third editions together, is expressly limited to 5000. When this last proposal was made to him, it was with the condition that the entire copyright should be given to him, as soon as the 6000 books were sold. But he refused to accept the ofier, except on the condition that he should be free to do as he pleased, with regard to a fourth edition, at the end of five years, whether our hooks loere sold or not! notwithstanding that, besides the gift of the copyright, he was to be paid £l25 for revising the two editions. These particulais will, I liope, convince you that Dr. Balfour has no reason whatever to censure me for the ill results that have followed his absurd pro- ceedings respecting the Manual of Botany. I paid him handsomely for the original copyright; I speedily sold the first edition, and offered him a handsome sum to revise the second edition; I offered to guarantee to him the enthe literar}^ and scientific control of all future editions of his Manual, that he might always be able to make it what he wished it to be; and I engaged never to print it without permitting him to revise it, and paying him liberally for doing so. What more could any reasonable author expect from his publisher? But, dissatisfied with every thing that was proposed to him, Professor Balfour resolved to repu- diate his Manual—a resolution which, as I forewarned him, (June 27th, 1850, Pamphlet, p. 19,) he cannot cany out conscientiously and creditably. Professor Balfour labours to justify the scurrilous libel that appeared in the North British Aciriculturist^ respecting our Second Edition of the ]\Ianual. He ascribes it (p. 24) to a “ friendly reviewer,” and echoes his publisher’s state- ment, that he is not responsible for it. He does not answer my question, did he authorize it? It is perhaps inexpedient for him to say yes^ and impossible to say no. I recommend you, as his appointed judge in this matter, to ask him— Did he direct it to be written ? Did he direct the circulation of the hand-bills ? Dr. Balfour appears to be unable to point out a single error in the Second Edition of the Manual, save that debateablc error, the transposition of the Kiz- anths. He admits that our editor has corrected a v.ast number of (1 reckoned