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.

    9/74 page 7
    letter addressed to us a short time since) what answer the literary protectionists received when they presented him with the circular above referred to ‘ I have made it known to more than one prominent publisher of my acquaintance, in writing very recently, that only feelings of personal regard have restrained me, up to this time, from ta iing nioi< public steps in the matter.’ Mr. Gladstone has furnished a practical comment on his own words by supplying certain non-conforming booksellers with his pamphlets on Italy, which his publisher, being a member of the combination, could not sell to those persons. I have good reasons for believing, Sir, that your correspondents Would have stated the case more correctly had they said, “ We have usee oiu utmost efforts to maintain the protective principles of the Booksellers Association notwithstanding the expressed convictions of several eminent authors, but if, in addition to our finding ourselves opposed to public opinion, their remonstrances should assume a threatening form, we must yield to ‘ the judgment of those ’ whom it is our interest to conciliate. It seems to me, Sir, that your correspondents are desirous of wi 1- drawing from the responsible position they have assumed by ascribing the origin of the association to the retail booksellers. A glance at the list of the members of the committee of the association, as given in ie number of the Westminster Review above referred to, will suffice to convince you that it consists, with, probably, two exceptions, only of publishers, and the wholesale book-merchants of Paternoster-row, w m nio interested in the maintenance of monopoly. Moreover, I can speak from my own knowledge that, though Mr. Murray does Hot encourage a retail business, there are many publishers who dp—Messrs. Longman and Co., J. H. Parker, Mr. Seeley, and Mr. Hatchard, for instance—and who are, therefore, “ actuated by a desire to obtain the double profit to which 5 on Let me add, in conclusion, that if, as is alleged, the association vas formed for the benefit of the retail booksellers, it seems scarcely fair that the chairman, Mr. William Longman, and his publishing colleagues oi the committee should, in deference to authors, desert'the post ol protecting them so soon as any hostile demonstrations are made. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, March 31. ' RICHARD BENTLEY, (From The Times of April 2, 1852.) TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. cqr)—Having been specially named by Mr. Bentley in his letter printed in The Times this day, I am called upon, without any hostility to lum, to contradict his surmise that the publishers, following his example, are desirous of withdrawing from the association of the bookselling trade. If I were conscious of wrong or injustice in that association, or if I had attached myself to it for selfish ends, I might be anxious to sneak away from it. But it is not so. I feel convinced that .it is a salutary, nay, an essential compact—formed among the members of the trade to save the retail portion of it from ruin—such as has befallen other trades, which
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3