Publishers and the public : reprinted from The Times of 1852.

  • The Times.
Date:
1906
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Publishers and the public : reprinted from The Times of 1852. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    8/74 page 6
    G (From The Times of March 31, 1832.) TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. Sir, Observing an article in yoiu* paper of this day on the subject of the bookselling business, we beg to inform you that the question which j ou discuss has been for some time under the consideration of Lord Campbell and several other eminent literary men, and we wait to be informed of their conclusions. In candour to yourself your informant should have acquainted you with this fact, before precipitating a discussion which must shortly be settled by the judgment of those to whom the question has been referred. Permit us to add the following facts :— I lie association is not a publishers’ association, but an association of the book trade generally, and originated with the retail booksellers. As publishers we are no further interested in it than so far as it has been supposed to promote the solvency of the trade and the prosperity of literary speculations. The sale of books by retail is so insignificant a part of a publisher’s business that in supporting the association he cannot be actuated by a desire to obtain the double profit to which you allude. We are, Sir, your obedient servants, LONGMAN, BROWN, & CO. March 30. JOHN MURRAY. (From The Times of April 1, 1852.) TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. Sir,—In reference to the assertions made by Messrs. Longman and Co. and Mr. Murray, in their letter published in this day’s Times, permit me to remark that I believe your informant (whoever he may be) was not wanting “in candour to yourself” in not stating “ that the question which you discuss has been for some time under the consideration of Lord Campbell, and several other literary men,” whose “ conclusions ” you1’ correspondents describe themselves as waiting to be informed of. From letters which I have seen I am fully justified in believing that Lord Campbell is in favour of free trade in books, and in affirming such to be the case with respect to Mr. Hallarn and Mr. Carlyle. I know from reliable authority that Mr. Macaulay strongly disapproves the booksellers' combination, and I find in an article on the Commerce of Literature, in the April number of the Westminster Review, just issued, the following unmistakable evidence of Mr. Gladstone’s opinions on the same subject :— “ Six months ago Mr. Gladstone designated the association of monopolists as ‘ a combination alike in principle unjust, and in practice injurious, both to the public and those engaged in trade.’ He generously added, ‘ I would advise exhausting all the means of friendly persuasion before placing them in a position before the world which, whatever view they may now take, they would soon, I think, find to be damaging and disagreeable.’ The reader will infer from the following extract (from a
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3